tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post5825998004261238253..comments2023-12-02T00:59:10.380+01:00Comments on England Expects: No wriggle room say GovtGawain Towlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583658895528269901noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post-66546255378723920582011-01-11T20:13:37.008+01:002011-01-11T20:13:37.008+01:00I think we've had this discussion before. As a...I think we've had this discussion before. As a basic point of constitutional principle, Parliament cannot bind its successors and so any Act requiring a referendum on future power shifts could simply be nullified by a single line in a later Act saying along the lines that "This Act ratifies the X Treaty, notwithstanding the provisions of s3(a)(b)(c) of the Fictional Referedums (Transfer of Powers) Act 2014.<br /><br />Therefore, Liddington is right to say that any future changes would be subject to a full Act of Parliament. That future Act of Parliament should only go through if there is, first, a referendum supporting the change.<br /><br />The position at present is that Acts of Parliament are only necessary if the Treaty contains measures that will need to be enforced by British courts.Mike Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016813232626327117noreply@blogger.com