Skip to main content

Finance (No 2) Bill - creates constitutional conflict

One of the problems with the British Constitutional system is that we don't have a clear constitutional system.

Although a written constitution would help, I do not think it is necessary to go that far. It would, however, help to have some clear understanding as to what are and what are not constitutional pieces of legislation.

The Magna Carta started the ball rolling in 1215.

Another early clear one of these is Revocatio Novarum Ordinationum which in 1322 made it clear that for statutes to have force they needed to go through both houses of parliament and be signed off by the monarch.

The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 obviously changed that.

The Act of Union, Scotland Act 1998 and Government of Wales Act are also material. The Reform Acts are also constitutional.

The Bill of Rights (1688/1689) established a number of important principles although more minor legislation such as the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 and Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 modified that.

The 1972 European Communities Act and the 1998 Human Rights Act are also constututional. What this means is that they cannot be repealed implicitly, but need to be repealed explicitly.

The Finance (No 2) Bill in essence (in clause 174) repeals all of them explicitly when it comes to statutory instruments that deal with international tax collection.

What the UK does need to do is to establish a political consensus as to what are constitutional statutes and the process whereby they might be changed. I don't think there is an intention to repeal them by mistake. However, the legislation looked at in committee today clearly creates the possibility that statutory instruments can repeal them where there is a conflict of laws.

Pepper v Hart will not protect people from that as the Paymaster General did not handle this issue properly and the face of the bill is quite clear and unambiguous.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…