Human Rights Act Replacement Still Delayed By UK Parliament Due To The Brexit

UK Prime Minister Theresa May said she plans to go with the “lift and shift” of EU human rights laws and enshrine them into UK laws but only after the Brexit. According to Mrs May, she intends to go further with the enshrinement of the UK’s own human rights laws than her predecessor David Cameron originally planned. To pull out the UK from the European Commission on Human Rights is at the heart of her campaign.

#

However, the processing of the UK’s exit from the EU could take until 2019. According to UK Attorney General Jeremy Wright, no plans or even negotiations for the UK’s position in the EU’s single market could happen until the UK finally makes its exit from the EU.

But for tories, the delay is only acceptable if no further delays in the Brexit’s processing will happen. Shipley Tory MP Philip Davis said the delay is only forgivable as long as Mrs May does not do a “con job” of the entire Brexit process -- either she turns her back on her promises or cites further delays.

PM Theresa May had her own frustrations with the EHCR in the past when she intended to extradite hate preacher Abu Qatada. Under the decision of the ECHR, Qatada and other suspected terrorists in Britain and the EU cannot be rendered stateless by the government.

The DWP, Food Standards Agency and The HMRC Can Pop Into Your Private Life

Three government agencies including the DWP and the HMRC could now access your internet history as ISPs in the United Kingdom will be forced to keep a full record of websites Britons have visited for one year. Upon request of one of these three agencies (or all of them) they will scrutinise your information and probably perform a complete information "scrub" to analyse your behaviour.

The passing of the Investigatory Powers Bill -- heavily backed by UK Prime Minister Theresa May then during her Home Secretary heydays and now-PM days -- will allow not just these three organisations but eventually law enforcement organisations including the police, military and the secret service. The Independent listsall the government agencies that can access your personal information.  

Technology firms heavily opposed to the passing of the bill mention the use of VPNs or Virtual Private Networks. The government can shut down local VPNs but due to the nature of internet services being multi-national, offshore VPN companies providing the same IP masking and history deletion the government is powerless.

VPN history deletion would allow ISPs to report the absence of internet activity from a specific household. While the UK government can use contingencies against such individuals or organisations, the government mentioned as of yet.

Attorney General: Article 50 Legal Challenge Is Attempt To Reverse Brexit

Attorney-General Jeremy Wright QC said the case filed by multiple parties against the invocation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to reverse the results of the British referendum last June.

The Brexit's results showed majority favouring the exit of Britain from the European Union.

Mr Wright said the making and unmaking of international treaties was a "recognised use of the royal prerogative".

Article 50 states that any member state may leave “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”, an undefined term that has allowed both sides to pursue rival interpretations.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Justice Sales and another senior judge are hearing the challenges against the Brexit vote.

Mr Wright said:

“Making and unmaking treaties are an established use of royal prerogative powers. The use of prerogative powers [to trigger Brexit] was wholly within the expectation of parliament.

“The question is, has parliament acted to limit the availability of the royal prerogative powers? The answer, we say, is no.

“There’s nothing expressed in legislation that [shows] parliament has attempted to circumscribe the powers to make treaties. Parliament has conspicuously refused to legislate on withdrawing from the EU despite many opportunities if it had so wanted.”

Netherlands Takes Step To Become UPC Signatory

The Netherlands is eyeing the UK's former role as one of the main signatories to the unitary patent and Unitary Patent Court agreement once it moves out of the United Kingdom.

According to the Dutch Senate's First Chamber, by September 5, the government of Netherlands support the introduction of a unitary patent and concurrent UPC.

The Netherlands will then have to deposit its instrument of ratification with the European Council. This will then allow 13 other countries to ratify the agreement.

While UK, France and Germany had shared the highest number of European patents in 2012, the UK has been minimally involved in the scheme as it proceeded with its referendum. Now, Netherlands and Italy have the potentially to become the UK's potential successor.

Alan Johnson, partner at law firm Bristows in London, added that Italy has also signalled its willingness to host a central division of the court in Milan.

"Since 23 June, first Italy and now the Netherlands have progressed their national ratification processes," Johnson said.

He added: "In order for the UPC to start without the UK, a re-negotiation of the UPC Agreement would be required to re-allocate the London share of the central division, and this is not a straightforward matter, with claims likely from at least Munich, Paris and Milan

.

"In all probability what we are seeing at present is those close to the process realising that if momentum toward this project is lost, it may be delayed for a very long time."

A Law For The Rich and A Law For The Poor

After reading this little letter from a certain Geoff Naylor in the Belfast Telegraph today, I couldn't help but think that there is no silly thing otherwise about this issue.

There is indeed a law for the poor, which is quite common and a law for the rich, which is commonly used to block certain criminal entities of having to answer to their crimes.

In most countries, Mr Naylor writes, there is "the law the vast majority has to abide by and a law that permits the powerful to transcend this law." If you still remember the Mossac Fonseca "Panama 

Papers" trouble the world's 1% found themselves almost in hell for the issue.

You might say it's ambitious but in a perfect world, the law protects the rights of every individual as it is found in the principle that man is equal in the eyes of God.

But what God allows an imbalance in society that allows one man to trample against his fellowmen? Indeed, this is reality; I have accepted such reality but I will never accept the fact that there is just one set of laws governing the world.

Charges Against Parents of "Holidayed" Kids Dropped by County Court

The West Sussex County Council had dropped the case filed against a dozen parents who had taken their children on vacation.

About 18 cases that would see a fine against 18 couples who had taken their children a week away from schoolwork to go on vacation had been dropped after a High Court case in the Isle of Wright ruled in favour of the parent who refused to pay the fine.

According to a County Spokesperson:

"Our policy hasn't changed but we have withdrawn a small number of cases where one week's holiday was the only reason for non-school attendance."

In West Sussex, teachers are advised not to authorise any students' absence unless it was an "exceptional" circumstance, including but not limited to severe sickness.

Parents of children they wish to take out of school for longer periods must consult with the school headmaster. These includes holidays during term time. The headmaster would decide how many days a child could miss if the holiday leave is given.

In East Grinstead, the Sackville School Headmaster Julian Grant said "Here at Sackville, and in line with other local schools, we believe that attendance is an essential ingredient to a child's successful educational progress.

"Regular attendance with lessons missed kept to a minimum makes a key difference.

"Working with parents and families on this in a positive way is of the utmost importance. If there are exceptional reasons for absence, then we always consider these carefully on an individual basis within a culture of unashamedly high expectation."

Sharia Law Would Focus on Fairness And Equality for Women

Home Secretary Theresa May said Sharia Law and Courts would be refocused to achieve fairness and equality for all women.

The Home Office will conduct an independent review that would establish if Sharia law and courts in England and Wales have discriminated against women and if it is being "misused.

The review would re-focus Sharia law to integrate with its compatibility with UK laws.

Sharia councils had pushed to legitimise forced marriage and issue unfair divorces, an issue that the 

Home Office is deeply investigating.

Islamic and inter-religious studies from the University of Edinburgh Professor Mona Siddiqui would lead the review.

The regulation of Sharia law and courts is part of the UK's anti-extremism strategy, allowing the government to regulate the courts. The prevention of rogue Sharia courts would ensure women who may be abused by the courts are protected by the UK government. The councils have no legal powers in the United Kingdom and can only deal in civil and theological matters.

Upon receiving reports and evidence that some courts had mis-used the laws and had worked them into a discriminatory and unacceptable manner, the Home Office proceeded to create a fully independent review putting forward the rights and security for all UK citizens.

UK Will Ban 10-Pack Cigarettes and New Law Introduced To "Drab" Packaging

To curb cigarette smoking levels in the United Kingdom, the government will ban 10-pack cigarettes. Also, cigarette box packaging will be banned from having 'attractive' packaging. The boxes would have a uniform appearance covered with health warnings.

The 'standardisation' will ensure the packaging will have the same colour, opening mechanism and font. About 60 per cent of the casing will be covered by text and images with warnings and images of how smoking can affect your health.

By May 20, all cigarette manufacturers would have sold old stock of cigarettes.

May 15 the previous year, the EU Tobacco Products Directive had agreed to implement the new laws and policies on tobacco. The law would also ban flavoured and menthol tobacco.

The new laws were made in response to a review conducted by paediatrician Sir Cyril Chandler which guarantees that a change in packaging could create a "small dent" in the number of young people taking up smoking.

His research shows that young people smoke about 600 cigarettes per day.

Tobacco companies had heavily opposed the decision. However, the ECJ ruled the TPD was lawful and implemented the changes.

The 10-pack ban would also reduce the number of youth smokers by increasing the prices of tobacco.

Brexit Economic Impact Could Cost Families About £4300 Per Year

The economic challenge of the Brexit, following plummeting exports, rising prices and a possible recession, could mean funding for the NHS, schools and defence would be reduced. To compensate for such, the Government would be forced to take about £4300 families per year as the entire country adjusts.

This Monday, BoE Chancellor George Osborne would publish a landmark Treasury report that would warn Britain about the economic perils of a Brexit.

Voting to leave, the report would say, would mean "permanent" economic damages leaving Britain in a poorer economic state "for decades to come."

Speculations include a 6 per cent shrunk economy by 2030.

Meanwhile, Vote Leave and Eurosceptic Minister Chris Grayling said the document is only spurring "doom and gloom" from the treasury.

However, Osborne said Vote Leave campaigners are "economically-illiterate" and "not being honest".

The chancellor pointed out that the poorest people in Britain would have trouble with the economic shock of the exit.

He said the UK's negotiating hand outside the EU is far different from its reach when backed by the European Union. About 44 per cent of UK exports head to EU countries. About 8 per cent of EU's imports head to the United Kingdom.

Hundreds Of UK Lawyers Says IPB 'Not Fit For Purpose'

Hundreds of UK lawyers have signed an open letter addressed to the UK government that declares the Investigatory Powers Bill as "not fit for purpose".

The 200 lawyers who signed the cases have a fraction of high-profile QCs involved in cases where evidence of the new powers' inefficiency has been present.

According to the letter "a law that gives public authorities generalised access to electronic communication compromises the essence of the fundamental right to privacy and may be illegal."

According to the letter, it fails to include verification of "reasonable suspicion" for an instance of data interception and does not need a demonstration or evidence of criminal involvement or a threat to national security for the use of powers.

Meanwhile, the Conservative government has pushed the IP Bill as having passed their expectations. They said it has an 'adequate balance between privacy and security."

The Labour party said it will abstain from the second reading. The party also threatened to vote against the bill if significant changes are not made. The Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party are heavily opposed to the bill.

Tech companies have warned that the IP bill could compromise existing communication technologies because of the use of a backdoor. The new bill also threatened tech companies of arrest or suspension if they will not comply with a hack-on-demand.

UK Government Dropped Passage On Obligation To Uphold International Law

The Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) is to launch a legal case against the UK government for abandoning 13 words that could alter its decisions regarding the use of military force abroad. The Ministerial Code had been missing the section that indicated all ministers have an "overarching duty" to fulfil Britain's international agreements.

Lawyers from the GCHR said key issues involved decisions about involvement in international conflict , the UK's adherence to human rights legislation and the impact of International court rulings on British Law.

According to GCHR's Melanie Gingell:

“We cannot call these governments to account if at the same time western governments are diminishing their commitments to international law and the separation of powers.

“Removing international law from the code weakens ministers’ accountability to parliament and clearly signals a watering down of the UK’s respect for human rights law. I hope the court will recognise the profound consequences of removing just 13 words from ministers’ duties.”

Former Government Legal Service Head Paul Jenkins said:

“It is disingenuous of the Cabinet Office to dismiss the changes to the ministerial code as mere tidying up. As the government’s most senior legal official I saw at close hand from 2010 onwards the intense irritation these words caused the PM as he sought to avoid complying with our international legal obligations, for example in relation to prisoner voting.”

It Seems Scotland Played Into Britain's Hands

You've probably followed everything that transpired during the Scottish Independence Referendum. The SNP and Tories went head-on explaining their platforms and the consequences of both outcomes, positive or negative. Eventually, the Tories won over majority of Scots by offering them devolved, state-only powers and the exclusion of Britons from Scottish lawmaking.

It sounds like a great deal. Without having to leave the pound sterling, Scotland is soon set to prosper.

Or at least so it thought.

Scottish MPs are complaining that Scotland is now unable to vote for English-only laws. They could not criticise laws that only concern the Brits.

I mean, that's common sense for devolved powers, right?

SNP Spokesman Pete Wishart, I think was having a force-of-habit moment when he said the English have been ignoring Scotland.

But sometimes, there's that looming feeling that the tories knew what was going to happen. 

In fact, I think the tories intended Scotland to be flushed out of Westminster's issues and they agreed Holyrood's issues should be its own problems.

It's just as well because the English just submitted their first English-only law. This would mean less opposition, which usually comes from Scotland's MPs.

But that also means more English Nationalism, and also more Scottish Nationalism. Which brings us once again, to a probable new Independence Referendum in the next few years.