1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. UK.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • Binding Future Parliament

    From Jeff Gaines@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 27 09:07:39 2025
    There is a principle that no parliament can bind a future parliament.

    If a parliament enters into a 12 year agreement with another bloc where
    would the UK stand if a future parliament decided it wasn't in the UK's
    best interest and rescinded it.

    A supplementary question - would that bloc be deemed to know the principle
    and (therefore) be bound by it?

    --
    Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
    This joke was so funny when I heard it for the first time I fell of my dinosaur.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Todal@21:1/5 to Jeff Gaines on Tue May 27 10:18:14 2025
    On 27/05/2025 10:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:

    There is a principle that no parliament can bind a future parliament.

    If a parliament enters into a 12 year agreement with another bloc where
    would the UK stand if a future parliament decided it wasn't in the UK's
    best interest and rescinded it.

    A supplementary question - would that bloc be deemed to know the
    principle and (therefore) be bound by it?


    A future parliament can always abandon policies or rules or commitments
    that a previous parliament has entered into.

    The only drawbacks are: would there be a breach of contract with the
    other party to the 12 year agreement? Would that other party no longer
    trust the British government to be a reliable partner? Various expenses
    might have been incurred in the expectation that the arrangement would
    last 12 years.

    And, of course, the electorate isn't very impressed if our politicians
    keep flip-flopping on matters of importance. Which they tend to do
    anyway, but each time it tends to undermine support.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Jeff Gaines on Tue May 27 09:21:29 2025
    On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:07:39 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

    There is a principle that no parliament can bind a future parliament.

    If a parliament enters into a 12 year agreement with another bloc where
    would the UK stand if a future parliament decided it wasn't in the UK's
    best interest and rescinded it.

    A supplementary question - would that bloc be deemed to know the
    principle and (therefore) be bound by it?

    Welcome to the exciting world of international negotiations !

    You initial statement is spot on. To rephrase it, no parliament is bound
    by it's successors.

    In practice this means that the UKs acquiescence to international
    treaties is entirely voluntary, and that parliament is totally at liberty
    to create new laws that either abrogate or terminate the treaty
    unilaterally.

    Of course if the treaty contains clauses that cover that eventuality, the
    UK - if it considers itself still bound by the treaty - would have to
    also comply with them.

    However, if parliament wanted to say "Up yours" and just refuse to comply
    with the treaty, there is nothing that can be done from within the UK.

    Of course the other party or parties can act as they see fit. If that
    means sanctions or other measures intended to punish the UK, then so be
    it.

    It's probably the least contentious or mysterious part of the UKs opaque
    and muddied constitution. You can't really over complicate it.

    I expect someone will be alone to contradict me :)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From billy bookcase@21:1/5 to Jeff Gaines on Tue May 27 11:37:17 2025
    "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p6akmphufijz00x@news.individual.net...

    There is a principle that no parliament can bind a future parliament.

    If a parliament enters into a 12 year agreement with another bloc where would the UK
    stand if a future parliament decided it wasn't in the UK's best interest and rescinded
    it.

    All economies in tne modern world exist in a state of mutual
    inter-dependence, to some extent at least.

    If the UK decided it wasn't in their interest to honour any particular agreement, then all the other parties with whom the UK held (to her)
    other beneficial agreements, and there must be some, might want to consider their position as well.

    Given the UK is clearly no longer trustworthy.


    A supplementary question - would that bloc be deemed to know the principle and
    (therefore) be bound by it?

    Either there is mutual trust or there isn't.

    With a large power imbalance stronger parties can simply dictate
    their own terms for agreements and then break them at will. As did all
    the Colonial powers and successive US Governments did with the Native Americans.

    While without a large power imbalance if sanctions and isolation don't
    work (see above) then the only other alternative is War.

    Many of which concern the breaking of agreements as to which country
    owns which particular piece of land. And its associated natural
    resources.


    bb

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to billy bookcase on Tue May 27 12:45:20 2025
    On Tue, 27 May 2025 11:37:17 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:


    "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p6akmphufijz00x@news.individual.net...
    [quoted text muted]

    All economies in tne modern world exist in a state of mutual inter-dependence, to some extent at least.

    That is an interesting theory. However, for balance, we have to state the counter theory that the UK economy is unique and not subject to that restriction.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam Funk@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 28 18:27:02 2025
    On 2025-05-27, Jethro_uk wrote:

    On Tue, 27 May 2025 11:37:17 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:


    "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
    news:xn0p6akmphufijz00x@news.individual.net...
    [quoted text muted]

    All economies in tne modern world exist in a state of mutual
    inter-dependence, to some extent at least.

    That is an interesting theory. However, for balance, we have to state the counter theory that the UK economy is unique and not subject to that restriction.

    Of course, and when they have globers on TV news, they should have a flat-earther for balance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Adam Funk on Thu May 29 08:24:54 2025
    On Wed, 28 May 2025 18:27:02 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:

    On 2025-05-27, Jethro_uk wrote:

    On Tue, 27 May 2025 11:37:17 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:


    "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
    news:xn0p6akmphufijz00x@news.individual.net...
    [quoted text muted]

    All economies in tne modern world exist in a state of mutual
    inter-dependence, to some extent at least.

    That is an interesting theory. However, for balance, we have to state
    the counter theory that the UK economy is unique and not subject to
    that restriction.

    Of course, and when they have globers on TV news, they should have a flat-earther for balance.

    Pleased you agree.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)