Profile for legaleagle
This user has not yet written a description
Latest comments from legaleagle (see all)
legaleagle has commented 3 times (0 in the last month).
Advertise
-
Books
-
A poem for the day – Launching the Whaler Juan Peron
A Belfast epic, and one of my oldest poems, the opener of my first collection, Grub. The gist of the story was found in Moss & Hume’s Shipbuilders to the World: 125 Years of Harland and Wolff, Belfast, 1861-1986, which tells how Eva Peron was due to launch a huge whaling vessel in Belfast, built [...] read our review » -
Do Words Matter?: Book Review of Political Discourse and Conflict Resolution – Debating Peace in Northern Ireland
I share many of the concerns of Andy Pollak, whose recent post ‘My Response to the Slugger Begrudgers’ zeroed in on the ‘relentless flow of negativity’ of some Slugger commentators. Pollak’s post was largely concerned with the medium of the blog. Indeed, I think the anonymity of the online world encourages extreme discourse and allows [...] read our review »
-
“You can see Newton’s mind at work…”
To add to the open access treasure trove at the Royal Society, Cambridge University Library is putting online some of its collection of books, maps, manuscripts and journals. We have called the first phase of our work on the Cambridge Digital Library the Foundations Project, which runs from mid-2010 to mid-2013 and has been made possible [...] read our review »
-
Comment on A Conservative British Bill of Rights could clash with the Assembly
on 10 February 2010 at 6:19 am
BTW these pathetic attacks on Atlantic Philanthropies are totally counter-productive. I’m not a fan of ‘envy politics’ so favoured by conservatives and neo-cons but please!
Atlantic enriches and enlivens political discourse in NI. ‘Some C&V groups are funded by Atlantic. Get used to it.’
Go to comment
Comment on A Conservative British Bill of Rights could clash with the Assembly
on 10 February 2010 at 6:11 am
As an NUFC supporter, I’ve been blogging to respect the prospects of Toon Army eventually triumphing (well, at least automatic promotion).
The difference with this sterile debate is that all naysmiths of a bedrock of basic human rights for all the people of NI have emerged from under their rocks to rubbish the idea of a Bill of Rights for NI.
Legally speaking, the GFA is ambiguous. At one point, it refers to ‘the Bill of Rights’ and at another, ‘any’ Bill of Rights. But it is clear that the NI Act, once again, a ‘constitutional act’, entrenches the HRA in NI law.
As usual, the Tories are ‘springing in the breeze’ over their unsustainable proposals, in this case, to repeal the HRA. We all know that Grieve now realises that this is a joke.
Did anyone hear the Lord Trimble on radio Ulster, ‘swinging in the breeze’ over elected police chiefs, applied to NI?
NI is a society still emerging out of conflict. The NIHRC (despite pathetic attacks on the Chief Commissioner) has sensibly balanced the ‘particular circumstances’ of our post-conflict society and the minimum requirements of international law.
Excuse me, but what is the’ ?’ on international law in one post in the face of extensive UN and Council of Europe standards?
I suspect that NUFC will be promoted to its rightful place in the Premiership long before we get an NI Bill of Rights. But it is a requirement of the GFA that we should have one – and one day the Westminster Parliament will appreciate this commitment to all the people of NI.
Go to comment
Comment on Peter Robinson: the folly of tactics over strategy; and space hoppers
on 2 February 2010 at 6:48 am
There have been various posts on the ‘folly’ of allowing the nominated person of the largest party to be FM.
Someone, in another post, even asked for a legal opinion, on the 2006 and 2007 Acts.
And so (at no expense) …
On the legal point, the 2007 Act is a ‘red herring’ as it only defers the dates set in the 2006 Act.
Sections 16A and C of the 2006 Act are as strange a concoction as I have come across in nearly 40 years of observing NI constitutional law. As stated in earlier posts, section 16A(4) & (5) state:- “(4) The nominating officer of the largest political party of the largest political designation shall nominate a member of the Assembly to be the First Minister.
(5) The nominating officer of the largest political party of the second largest political designation shall nominate a member of the Assembly to be the deputy First Minister.”
If that was to be varied, you would expect the variation to be found in the same collection of sub-sections but …
Section 16A(12) does state:- “(12) This section shall be construed in accordance with, and is subject to, section 16C.”
But section 16C is entitled ‘supplementary’. It nevertheless does state, in section (6):- “If at any time the party which is the largest political party of the largest political designation is not the largest political party– (a) any nomination to be made at that time under section 16A(4) or 16B(4) shall instead be made by the nominating officer of the largest political party; and (b) any nomination to be made at that time under section 16A(5) or 16B(5) shall instead be made by the nominating officer of the largest political party of the largest political designation.”
This is after somewhat mundane provisions on “nominating officers” etc.
The 1998 Act has been declared to be a ‘constitutional Act’ by what is now the Supreme Court. There is nothing more ‘constitutional’ than the election of a First Minister but a fundamental constitutional rule is effectively reversed by a supplementary provision in amongst otherwise mundane provisions.
No wonder our ‘political masters’ in the NIO haven’t made much of a go at composing a Bill of Rights …
Go to comment