#(the Senedd is the devolved government of Wales)

[becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys]

So does Wales voting to ditch the Prince of Wales title automatically mean William ain't Prince of Wales anymore, or is there other BS they have to go through first to make England accept it?

Oh, god no, Wales has done no such thing. One of the councils of Wales, Gwynedd, has internally voted on it, basically to gauge opinion and also to make it official where they stand.

Okay, so, super quick and massively oversimplified political explanation: Wales is split into 22 counties, each of which has a council that does its day to day local governing, like when to put the recycling out and picking what colour to make the bins (recycling is a Big Deal in Wales and we are third in the world for doing it so this is a Very Important part of the job and we're Very Proud.) These councils are separate from electoral constituencies, though. Those are almost the same as the ones used for UK general elections, where we would vote for MPs to represent us in Westminster. However, there are more for Welsh elections, and in those we vote for MSs - Members of the Senedd.

The Senedd is the Welsh Parliament. That's where the laws are made in our devolved areas, aka the stuff Westminster is not allowed to decide for us, like education and cheese and recycling. That, if anywhere, is the place where we'd need politicians to demand an end to the Prince of Wales title if they were going to have a chance, because that's where the First Minister is, and he's like... the leader of Wales. Biggest Dog. The one who told the BBC right to their faces that Wales would base its pandemic response on science rather than creating a smokescreen to cover up our personal birthday party scandals. Mark Drakeford, an underwhelming but competent politician who is reportedly very good about packing his shopping away using the packing shelf in Aldi so he doesn't hold people up; which in Welsh people's books makes him Tidy.

Also, as councils go - as regions of Wales go - Gwynedd is the Most Welsh. The Welshest bit. Wales cubed. Uberwales. The land that England forgot. Come to Cymru. I Welsh, you Welsh, he/she/it Welsh. Very Welsh. Much Welsh. So Wales.

This did not require a vote, is what I'm saying.

So, what's actually happened here is that a local government of a single easily won council have agreed that William shouldn't be Prince of Wales in their opinion, and that's their official position. In terms of meaningful impact it's roughly equivalent to a custard pie dropped off a four foot ladder, except the pie was dragon shaped and sang 'O Gymru' as it fell.

HOWEVER.

It IS notable for being an official governmental body that has had the balls to OFFICIALLY tell the monarchy to do one, just as everyone is being very monarchial and shrieking 'Traitor!' at anyone not tearing their hair and beating their breast at the Queen's demise. And as long as it is an official, voted-on position, it opens up some possibilities both for other councils around the country and for the Senedd. If other councils start doing the same thing... it applies pressure. It's all about awareness. It helps grease the wheels of the actual petitions on the subject that are currently gathering signatures.

It helps establish a mandate, basically.

I suspect the next to vote will be either Anglesey, which copies Gwynedd a lot, or Monmouthshire, which will deliberately vote the other way, because their councillors are English. Alternatively nothing at all will happen. But we'll see!

[fox-of-glass]

I really don't like to start drama, but the comments on the map post I just reblogged are vile. Yeah, Sunak was PM, but he isn't black, he's Indian. Yes, Wales is a country. We have our own devolved parliament called the Senedd. UK politics is, admittedly, complicated when you aren't used to it but if people from the UK are telling you it's a country then accept it. Why wouldn't European countries was POC as leader? Go on, why should only white people be government leaders. Say it. And sure, do a map of countries in Africa who have had a white head of government since the (official) end of colonialism in the continent. But understand that that is very different politically, because white people weren't oppressed by POCs in the last 500 years.

Also, the Roman empire doesn't count because that map was only showing modern countries. Same reason the Moors don't count.

[onthegreatsea]

my only hope irt the cass review is that, since health related stuff are devolved, the senedd (and the scottish government) will completely ignore it. i've heard that the welsh gender clinic is already leagues ahead of the english one so i hope thats indicative of the dominant values in wales and not just coincidence.

as loud as the welsh conversatives will be its a left wing senedd at the end of the day .-.

[klavierpanda]

Liz Truss, who is likely to be the next prime minister through the vote of about 100,000 Tory membes, said it's best to ignore Nicola Sturgeon, who was elected through proportional representation by the people of Scotland to be first minister. The Tory part were elected in by a first past the post system in which everyone's votes don't count equally. Now try and tell me that Scotland is a respected part of the Union like Liz Truss said "we work better as one big family".

[queerwelsh]

Today, ‘Senedd Cymru’ or the ‘Welsh Parliament’ met for the first time under this new name. Wales’ devolved government was previously officially called the National Assembly for Wales (Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru), since its establishment on the 1st of July, 1999. The last time a ‘Welsh Parliament’ met was under Owain Glyndwr in 1402 in Machynlleth. Another change being made is that 16-17 year olds will be allowed to vote in Senedd Elections. (Read more)

The first openly gay and lesbian AM’s were elected in the last Senedd election on the 5th-6th of May in 2016. Hannah Blythyn of Labour was Wales’ first lesbian AM and Adam Price of Plaid Cymru (now leader of Plaid Cymru) and Jeremy Miles of Labour were Wales’ first openly gay AM’s.

[travelonlinetipsofficial]

Northern Ireland joins England in dropping pre-departure travel tests from October

New Post has been published on https://www.travelonlinetips.com/northern-ireland-joins-england-in-dropping-pre-departure-travel-tests-from-october/

Northern Ireland joins England in dropping pre-departure travel tests from October

Northern Ireland’s Executive has announced that the country will scrap the requirement for a pre-departure Covid test or “test to fly” from 4 October.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Executive said: “On international travel, we have decided to remove the requirement for pre-departure testing for fully vaccinated arrivals from non-red list countries. This will come into force at 4am on October 4.”

Scotland’s government also announced this afternoon that the country will follow suit with the UK government’s plans on scrapping “test to fly”.

“The new proposals make clear pre-departure tests will no longer be a requirement. We also intend to align with the UK post-arrival testing regime. The detail of that is still being developed with lateral flow tests being considered and we will engage further with the UK government on those plans. Details will be announced at the same time as the UK,” read a statement.

Now it just remains for Wales to commit to the change, which was announced for England on 17 September – their devolved governments are entitled to adopt or reject the measures.

In the wake of the UK government’s announcement about the change to rules, Welsh Health Minister Eluned Morgan said: “We will carefully consider the UK government’s proposed changes to the border health measures, which include the removal of pre-departure testing and introducing lateral flow tests instead of PCR tests on day two of people’s return to the UK.”

Morgan suggested that Wales may have to follow suit, given that they cannot enforce a different testing rule at their own border, saying: “As Wales shares an open border with England, and most travellers arriving in Wales enter through ports outside Wales, it is not effective to have separate border health policy arrangements for Wales.”

On Wednesday, Wales’s first minister Mark Drakeford expressed his concern about the UK government commitment to scrap PCR testing for incoming travellers at the end of October.

Speaking to the Welsh Senedd, Drakeford said that failure to retain PCR tests would be “a step away from the duty that the UK government owes to the health of people in this country.”

Source link

[edisonashley]

Nicholas Kilford: The UK Internal Market Act’s Interaction with Senedd Competences: The Welsh Government’s Challenge

On its passage through Parliament, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIMA) attracted a great deal of criticism, the majority of which was directed towards the – since withdrawn – provisions which purported to break international law (albeit apparently only in a limited and specific way). Another, perhaps initially overshadowed, criticism, now coming to a head in a forthcoming challenge being mounted by the Welsh Government, has been that the Act represents a ‘power grab’ by Westminster.

This post explores one of the issues raised in that challenge, namely whether provisions of the UKIMA ‘ostensibly – albeit implicitly – limit the scope of the devolved powers of the Senedd’. It considers two issues in turn: Firstly, the prima facie interaction between the UKIMA and Senedd competences and, secondly, the possible judicial treatment of this interaction.

1. How does the UKIMA appear to interact with devolved competences?

The competences of the Welsh Parliament (the Senedd) are limited in two ways relevant to present discussion. Firstly, there are areas of policy – ‘reserved matters’ – listed in Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GoWA), over which the Senedd has no jurisdiction. According to GoWA s 108A (2) (c), ‘[a] provision is outside… competence so far as… it relates to reserved matters’.  Secondly, there are ‘protected enactments’. Although the fields of these enactments are not necessarily beyond Senedd competence, Schedule 7B 5(1) stipulates that ‘[a] provision of an Act of the Senedd cannot make modifications of… any of’ the protected enactments.

The first way that the UKIMA interacts with Senedd competences is explicit: Section 54(2) inserts the UKIMA into this list of protected enactments, meaning that the UKIMA may not be ‘modified’ by the Senedd. The second way that the UKIMA interacts with devolved competences is more implicit: through the ‘market access principles’.

There are two market access principles in the UKIMA: mutual recognition and non-discrimination. Mutual recognition means – according to s 2(1) – that goods ‘should be able to be sold in any other part of the United Kingdom, free from any relevant requirements’ including Senedd legislation, ‘that would otherwise apply to the sale.’ In order to guarantee this, s 2(3) stipulates that ‘[w]here the principle applies in relation to a sale of goods in a part of the United Kingdom… any relevant requirements there do not apply in relation to the sale.’ Non-discrimination – according to s 5(1) – means that ‘the sale of goods in one part of the United Kingdom should not be affected by relevant requirements that directly or indirectly discriminate against goods that have a relevant connection with another part of the United Kingdom.’ In order to guarantee this, s 5(3) states that ‘[a] relevant requirement… is of no effect in the destination part if, and to the extent that, it directly or indirectly discriminates against the incoming goods’.

The Welsh Government claims that these limitations, coupled with the protection of the UKIMA from modification, amount to an effective expansion of the ‘reserved matters’ list ‘through the back door’. It claims that this equates to implied repeal of the GoWA, something which cannot be achieved because the GoWA is constitutional legislation. This hangs, however, on how the courts might make sense of the interaction between the UKIMA and devolved competences provided in the GoWA.

2. How are the courts likely to treat this interaction?

Although the market access principles mean that a piece of Senedd legislation will ‘not apply in relation to the sale’ or ‘is of no effect… to [a certain] extent’ this is, importantly, different to the system employed in the devolution legislation – as in s 94(2) GoWA – that purported legislation is ‘not law’ so far as it is outside legislative competence. The market access principles do not mean that a piece of legislation is ‘not law’. Neither does the UKIMA appear to place a burden on the courts to ‘disapply’ relevant requirements; these appear to be disapplied by the UKIMA itself. There are, therefore, a number of different ways the courts might treat the UKIMA’s interaction with devolved competences.

(a) Reliance on Constitutional Statutes(/Principles)

The first way the courts might resolve this question is to rely heavily on the notion of constitutional statutes. The Welsh Government is right that the GoWA is constitutional legislation, but this is not necessarily a straightforward, binary question. Although the courts have consistently given lists of constitutional ‘instruments’ that, as the Welsh Government suggests, are immune from implied repeal, the Supreme Court particularly has also noted that there might be a more nuanced hierarchy of constitutional principles in play. The possession, embodiment or creation of constitutional principles is, according to the Supreme Court in HS2 what gives constitutional statutes their ‘constitutionality’. If one constitutional statute interacts with another, priority might be accorded to the provisions that embody the more significant constitutional principles. The constitutional characteristics of the UKIMA cannot therefore be entirely side-lined, even if ultimately they are less significant than those contained in the GoWA. Of course, the court might instead be inclined to say that, although a protected enactment, and even though – to use Laws LJ’s broad definition in Thoburn (at paragraph 62) – it ‘conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner’ the UKIMA possesses no constitutional characteristics at all. Nonetheless, the court’s conclusion on this point is only important if it considers that the UKIMA actually purports to amend the GoWA at all, something that in turn depends on its conclusions to the issues below.

(b) A Narrow or Broad Reading of ‘Competence’

The court might be minded to adopt an interpretation of this interaction that depends on the very nature of ‘competence’. It could suggest that, because the UKIMA does not affect whether devolved legislation is ‘law’, it therefore does not affect competences. An analogy for this can be found in the Factortame (No.2) case: it is not the case that a law which is disapplied for reason of incompatibility is no longer law, it is just not given effect by the court. However, it should be noted that Lords Neuberger and Mance in HS2 did suggest, at paragraph 206, that Factortame meant that ‘European law requires them to treat domestic statutes… as invalid if and to the extent that they cannot be interpreted consistently with European law’. If this is the interpretation the court prefers, then invalidation may be the price for an interaction with the UKIMA.

A potential route for the court out of this conundrum might be to rely on s 154 of the GoWA. This provision means that, inter alia, ‘any provision of an Act of the Senedd… which could be read in such a way as to be outside the Senedd legislative competence… is to be read as narrowly as is required for it to be within competence or within the powers, if such a reading is possible…’ This provision might mean that the court, depending on its interpretation of the nature of a competence, could justify interpreting the extent of devolved competences narrowly in a way that means the UKIMA does not in fact reduce them.

Alternatively, the court might prefer a broader reading of competences. In the Continuity Reference case, the Scottish Continuity Bill included a provision – s 17(2) – that ‘subordinate legislation… is of no effect unless the consent of the Scottish Ministers was obtained’ beforehand. In that case, the Supreme Court held, at paragraph 52, that such a provision ‘would therefore limit the power of the UK Parliament to make laws for Scotland, since Parliament cannot meaningfully be said to “make laws” if the laws which it makes are of no effect’ (emphasis added). Competence, on this view, is broadly construed (although not unreasonably) to mean the power to make ‘effective law’, rather than just ‘law’. This would in turn mean that the UKIMA provisions which mean Senedd legislation would ‘not apply’ or be ‘of no effect… to [an] extent’ would equate to an impact on devolved competences themselves, lending itself to the Welsh Government’s position.

(c) Narrow Reading of Modification

A third route open for the court is to distinguish legislation in the field of the UKIMA, even if incompatible with the market access principles, from modification of the UKIMA itself.  This interpretation would mean that such Welsh legislation would still be within the competence of the Senedd and would be effective, but it is difficult to say with certainty that ‘modify’ can be read this narrowly. In the Continuity Reference case, although there concerned with very different issues, the Court held, at paragraph 51, that:

When the UK Parliament decides to reserve an entire area of the law to itself, it does so by listing the relevant subject-matter in Schedule 5. When it has not taken that step, but has protected a particular enactment from modification by including it in Schedule 4, it is not to be treated as if it had listed the subject-matter of the enactment in Schedule 5.

(emphasis added)

This is obviously analogous to the position regarding the UKIMA and Schedules 7A and 7B of the GoWA. It suggests that protecting an enactment is a far more confined limitation than reserving an entire field. However, the Court went on to say in the same paragraph that:

Without attempting an exhaustive definition, a protected enactment will be modified by a later enactment, even in the absence of express amendment or repeal, if it is implicitly amended, disapplied or repealed in whole or in part. That will be the position if the later enactment alters a rule laid down in the protected enactment, or is otherwise in conflict with its unqualified continuation in force as before, so that the protected enactment has to be understood as having been in substance amended, superseded, disapplied or repealed by the later one.

(emphasis added)

This, therefore, would seem to hinge on whether an Act of the Senedd, because of its incompatibility with the market access principles is ‘in conflict with [the UKIMA]’s unqualified continuation in force as before’. The point here is that, although it is unlikely that a court would seek to collapse modification and reservation, the precise location of that dividing line is not easily identified.

Conclusion

The Welsh Government’s challenge to the UKIMA depends on the claim that, in effectively extending the reservations listed in Schedule 7A of the GOWA, the UKIMA impliedly repeals a piece of constitutional legislation. The court will, it seems, have to answer other questions about the way the UKIMA actually interacts with devolved competences themselves before it can come to a conclusion on that question. The Welsh challenge is framed as a win-win: if the UKIMA’s effects on devolved competences amount to an amendment of the GoWA, the constitutional statutes formula would seem to suggest that the courts would ‘read down’ the UKIMA to that extent. Conversely, if the court suggests that devolved competences are not impacted by the UKIMA (at least to the extent that the GoWA is amended) then the Senedd’s competences remain intact. It is only the intermediate position that is troubling for the Welsh Government: if the court concludes that the UKIMA does affect the realities of devolved competence but not to the extent that this amounts to an implied amendment of Schedule 7A.

The courts have for a long time, and in appreciation of the constitutional significance of devolution, been happy to interpret competences in the devolved institutions’ favour; indeed, they have an obligation to do so. Yet, there is only so much protection the courts can provide. Neither the Senedd nor the Scottish Parliament consented to the UKIMA and yet it remains on the statute book nonetheless. Further, as the Continuity Reference demonstrated, Westminster remains able – provided the political will can be mustered – to wield its sovereignty to outmanoeuvre a review of this kind. Indeed, the Internal Market Act is arguably a proxy for debates about the very nature of the post-Brexit Union, whose future is arguably more uncertain than ever. It is against that backdrop that Westminster may wish to think carefully before clarifying what is really meant by ‘taking back control’.

My thanks to Professor Mark Elliott and Professor Alison Young for their helpful thoughts and comments on an earlier draft. Any errors or omissions remain my own.

Nicholas Kilford, PhD Candidate at the University of Cambridge

(Suggested citation: N. Kilford, ‘The UK Internal Market Act’s Interaction with Senedd Competences: The Welsh Government’s Challenge’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (23rd Feb. 2021) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/))

Nicholas Kilford: The UK Internal Market Act’s Interaction with Senedd Competences: The Welsh Government’s Challenge published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.weebly.com/

[mhsn033]

Brexit: Concern at Wales’ ‘high-risk’ approach to new trade law

Image copyright Getty Photos

Image caption The Commerce Bill offers a framework for the UK government’s post-Brexit trade protection

The Welsh Govt’s solution to agreeing post-Brexit rules with the UK government is “excessive-probability and wrong”, a file has acknowledged.

The Senedd’s structure committee is timid the Commerce Bill for the time being going thru Parliament in Westminster could well possibly well “override” devolution.

Its chairman, Mick Antoniw, acknowledged he used to be “alarmed” that a Welsh minister had no longer raised concerns with UK counterparts.

The Welsh Govt acknowledged it could possibly possibly possibly respond to the file “in due route”.

The UK government’s Commerce Bill offers a framework for the UK’s post-Brexit trade protection, but since it covers some devolved areas the Senedd could be asked to give its consent to the rules.

Mr Antoniw known as on the Welsh Govt “to face company” and search files from adjustments to the draft rules.

The rules, justice and structure committee acknowledged it used to be “no longer roar material” that the Welsh Govt has been ready to just procure non-binding assurances from UK ministers as an alternative of commitments in rules.

Its file acknowledged the invoice would private “predominant and potentially long-timeframe implications for key sectors in Wales, collectively with agriculture, fisheries, effectively being and manufacturing”.

“We acknowledge that the negotiation of UK-wide trade agreements remains an affect reserved to the UK government,” it acknowledged.

“Nonetheless, the Welsh Govt could be accountable for enforcing these trade agreements in devolved areas in Wales, and we plan no longer private that non-binding intergovernmental agreements are an effective formulation to safeguard Welsh interests.

“In our survey, here is a excessive-probability and wrong approach.”

Media playback is unsupported on your map

Media captionAt a loss for words by Brexit jargon? Reality Check unpacks the basics.

The committee wrote to the International Family Minister Eluned Morgan to put a query to her what representations she made in response to concerns beforehand raised about the scope of particular powers all the draw in which thru the invoice.

It used to be “alarmed” to listen to the minister had “no longer made any representations to the UK government”, collectively with it could possibly possibly possibly private expected her to private had “sturdy conversations”.

Ms Morgan acknowledged she had “obtained assurances” from her counterparts in Whitehall that the UK government would by no formulation legislate in devolved areas without consulting Welsh ministers, and these commitments would be repeated on the despatch field within the Commons.

Image caption Eluned Morgan acknowledged she had “obtained assurances” the UK government would no longer legislate in devolved areas

Nonetheless the committee’s file concluded: “Now we private time and once more emphasised that it’s predominant to private in thoughts what could be accomplished below a selected legislative provision, and no longer what a government of the time says this is in a position to possibly possibly well plan with an affect.

“The UK government’s capability to amend Wales’ key devolution rules by myself by process of subordinate rules is no longer any longer one thing that must always be negotiated the reveal of the non-binding note of despatch field commitments within the UK Parliament.”

A Welsh Govt spokesman acknowledged: “Whereas we agree that the vogue of an honest UK international trade protection poses accurate dangers for devolution, now we private worked stressful to gather concessions from the UK government on this invoice within the context of a UK government with a enormous majority in Parliament.

“We proceed to develop representations on issues of ache and must always attain forward with our remaining views on whether or no longer the Senedd must always give legislative consent once the invoice is in its remaining phases.”

from WordPress https://ift.tt/30c5HkB via IFTTT