Financial Times coverage.
My mistrust of David Cameron leads me to believe this was done for all the wrong reasons, but still it's worthy of debate.
Has the British Constitution (an unwritten, fluid non-document) outlived its age and usefulness? Is it time for Britain to put things in writing? Is the Human Rights Act a danger to society?
I'd answer no to all three.
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
I'd answer Yes to all three.Originally Posted by St Disibod
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Why do you think it's time for a written Constitution if you also think the HRA is a threat to society?
I should rephrase: on what basis do you perceive the HRA to be a threat to society?
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
[quote=St Disibod]Why do you think it's time for a written Constitution if you also think the HRA is a threat to society?
I should rephrase: on what basis do you perceive the HRA to be a threat to society?[/quote:2x1r9ugo]
Having to give refuge to people who arrive in your midst by hijacking a plane and causing terror is an utter nonsense.
We need nation based human rights law for the 21st century, based on the wishes of the people of the individual nations and nobody else.
David Cameron is looking good.
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
The HRA was introduced in 1998 by the British Parliament.
Is 1998 to early to qualify as being legitimate for the 21st century, or do you deem Britain a non-nation?
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
The London Times has a good analysis of all this today.
The overall conclusion is that Cameron's plans are fairly harmless. They are largely a gimmick; Cameron is too smart to appeal to the bluer side of his party with something truly radical and destabilising to Britain's European relations.
The Independent had a typically more hysterical response to the ideas, ironically taking an approach to Cameron's ideas much like the Daily Mail does to things like the ECHR: misrepresent, insist that the author cannot be trusted, stir up fear.
I'd be more worried about Michael McDowell insisting we can all machinegun intruders :wink:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It's true that it's a gimmick, but if put into practice it would actually be a radical constitutional change for the UK: a statement of law that is not subject to the supremacy of Parliament, i.e. it can't just be ditched by an act of Parliament.
In other words, a partial written constitution for the UK. They could probably do with one, but I wouldn't trust David Cameron to write it.
Worth breaking my "no sig" rule for:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote