Tony,
me and the other pro-metric people, I sure, are eager to hear more about this new "consolidating" Metrication Bill.
What does it say ?
When will it be brought up ?

I did a quick search on the web and found something about it in the BNP rag.

Details about the consolidating Metrication Bill were given by a senior civil servant in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to a BWMA member whilst both were on holiday a few months ago in the West Country.

The same civil servant added that metrication, especially of traffic signs, was such a sensitive issue that the Department for Tranpsort is not allowed to make any public comment on it without sanction from a top civil servant in the media section of Prescott's departmemt.

The Metrication (Consolidation) Bill will cover, inter alia:

* Metrication of all road traffic signs - maybe leaving speed limits till later like in Ireland

* Metrication of speedometers

* Metrication of all descriptions - out will go quarterpounders, 7" x 5" enlargements, miles per gallon, 8 oz. fillet steaks, the lot

* New crimes for breaching the regulatios with maximum fines of up to £5,000 as for selling bananas by the pound.

He said the Metrication Bill was regarded as 'top secret' because it was so controversial. He is actually working on drafting the legislation and the government will proceed with it just as soon as they think the British people can be persuaded to accept it.

Given the obsession of most of the British these days with TV, football, celebrities, entertainment, bingo, pubs etc., I don't suppose they'll even notice.

The Metrication Bill, when published, will confirm all the predictions of BWMA, ARM etc. that the goal is the final obliteration of all use of Imperial weights and measures.

If and when that does happen, I expect that some regular visitors to this bulletin board will dance on their grave

Tony,

You have got to be kidding.

If you don't believe me then take a look at the final report (1980) of the Metrication Board by its then director Jim Humble.

www.dti.gov.uk/CACP/ca/policy/reports/metric4.htm

Modern Politicians don't give a fig about metrication.

pip,

One thing you need to understand is that some of the most powerful people in Britain are not politicians but certain senior civil servants. They are far more in control of things than you think.

Who was it who started authorising metric units on height and width signs?

Who insisted on banning architects from designing houses and extensions in feet and inches?

Who re-wrote the Highway Code with metres all through it?

Who keeps on inserting metres and kilos into government Statutory Instruments instead of Imperial weights and measures?

Who sent out several Circulars to local authorities telling them that every single official document must use meters and kilos and not Imperial weights and measures?

Who re-writes the national curriculum each year to insist on metric-only education and metric-only exam papers?

Who insists on and designs the metric-only height and weight charts for use in primary schools?

Who insisted on metres being used in applications for disability benefits, on child protection forms, on various other government documents?

Who routinely badgers inland waterways to obey the E.U. Directives on metrication of the canals?

Who arranges grant-aid to local authorities to help them put up lovely cast-iron pedestrian signs in metres (against the law)?

These things don't happen by accident, nor come from politicians (with notable exceptions like pro-metric zealot Sir Geoffrey Howe), still less the people they are supposed to, but increasingly no longer, represent. They come from civil servant *with an agenda*

<<
They come from civil servant *with an agenda*
>>

And what is the agenda (Apart from boosting the civil servant's own salary/status/ego etc)?

If one believes Clive Ponting, there are many different agendas and although the various Sir Humphreys wield a large amount of power, each has a different agenda and it is these conflicting agendas that prevents a total dictorship.

After reading Clive Pointing's book I realised why so many EU draft directives ignore British views. The reason is that the EU civil servant is not a career EU civil servant, but rather a career civil servant from one of the member states who is taking a five year (or whatever) sabatical from his home country. The result is that the UK is always under-represented within the EU civil service (Lack of a second language also plays a part). The result is that EU civil servants who are proposing draft regulations do not see the British view before publication as ther was no Brit on the committee that was drawing up the draft proposal.

In most EU member states, such civil servants slot back into the local structure quite easily after ther tour of duty in Brussels/Strasbourg/wherever. In this respect, the UK is different - it is very difficult for a British civil servant to slip back into the UK civil service after a five year break (regardless of whether (s)he was in Brussels, in industry, on maternity leave, or travelling around the world.

I very much want to believe that this is in the pipeline, but I am afraid the metriphiles will have to join with Tony in desperately hoping it is going to happen only to be disappointed.

The only agenda that I can discern from Tony's list is one that is in line with government policy and long term intention. Which is what civil servants are supposed to do.

The political decision that was made back in the sixties to change over to metric for trade and official purposes has never been revoked. It may have been slowed down or sat on in some areas by opt outs from EU directives but the long term aim is still to complete the changeover, although it could be a long time coming at the present rate.

>>> "The political decision that was made back in the sixties to change over to metric for trade and official purposes has never been revoked".

What decision was that? Could you name the Act of Parliament, please?

The Weights and Measures Act 1985 (incl. ammendments).

Ha, ha, ha !

The Weights and Measures Act 1985 was not passed in 1965. What is the "decision" in 1965, which we hear so much about, that says Britain was to go metric?

And since you raised the 1985 Act, no, it does not mandate metric conversion. It clearly says that traders may use the pound OR the kilo, the yard OR the metre. The Divisional Court upheld this in February 2002.

> It clearly says that traders may use the pound OR the kilo, the yard OR the metre.

As long as they weigh their stuff in officially clibrated scales.

Ralf

The political decision was the establishment of the Metrication Board. This represents the policy of all governments since that date. There has never been any legislative decision because those governments have not yet thought it necessary to introduce primary legislation, which has in my view been a big mistake.

As for the 1985 Act, did the court uphold that conclusion? I understood it to have found that the 1994 regulations were valid.

>>As for the 1985 Act, did the court uphold that conclusion? I understood it to have found that the 1994 regulations were valid.

ANS: The Divisional Court found that the 1994 Regulations were valid, but not by supporting the prosecution's contention that the 1985 Act did not give equal recognition to metric and imperial systems. The Court ruled that the 1985 Act preserved the imperial system alongside metric, but found the 1994 regulations valid on the grounds that the 1972 Act, under which they were passed, overruled the 1985 Act. The traders are appealing this verdict on a number of grounds.

Re: the Metrication Board. This had no statutory powers. No Act of Parliament was passed to make metric compulsory, or to outlaw imperial. The last Act was the 1985 Act which stated lb/oz were lawful.

I cannot see any way in which the 1985 Act could be claimed to have preferred one system over the other, and if that was the prosecution contention then they were wrong.

The amendments to the Act have been upheld at every court level in England and Wales, and the current 'appeal' is in fact an application to the ECHR.

As I understood it, we were talking about a 'political decision', which the establishment of the Metrication Board clearly was. As I have said, there has never been a legislative decision because no government has proposed one, much though there should have been to avoid this becoming a tug of war between the UK and the Community, an excuse used by the 'patriotic' tabloid press to whip up anti-EU feeling.

You *really* don't need the press to whip up anti-EU feeling, believe me!

>> "As I understood it, we were talking about a 'political decision', which the establishment of the Metrication Board clearly was".

The government is a private interest like any other collection of people. It's decisions only take effect when they are passed as legislation. Our complaint is that compulsory metric conversion has been implemented without an Act of Parliament. It is illegal.

Glenys Kinnoch wrote to me in 1994 saying that she had written to the E.U. Copmmission and was told that there were then "no proposals in the pipeline" for compulsory metrication. I only hope that the suggestion that there may be a plan to bring in wholescale metrication under some sort of metrication consolidation bill proves to be as wrong as she was when she wrote me that letter.

If not then it is enough to make some of us truly sickened by this further (possible) assault on this aspect of our language and culture. What do these people want? What do they get out of this. Why don't they just let us live in peace, free from this cultural destruction?. They make me, for one, feel sick at their mindless but insidious and seemingly unremitting vandalism of our ancient measurement system.

Given that the metrication program of Britain has not been enforced by acts of parliament in what way has it been compulsory?

It has been made compulsory by the 1994 regulations passed under the 1972 European Communities Act. Although it could be argued that the 1972 provided powers for compelling metric conversion, it was not until 1994 when the metric regulations were passed. By this time, the 1985 Act had been passed, superceding the 1972 Act in so far as it related to metric conversion. So, the 1994 regulations were null and void. The Divisional judge did not agree, and said secondary legislation passed under the 1972 could over-rule primary legilsation passed in 1985.

BWMA is going round and round in circles.

At 13:19 they said:
"No Act of Parliament was passed to make metric compulsory, or to outlaw imperial. The last Act was the 1985 Act which stated lb/oz were lawful"

At 19:30 they said:
"It (the metrication program of Britain) has been made compulsory by the 1994 regulations passed under the 1972 European Communities Act.

Make your mind up!

BTW. It's my understanding the lb/oz IS illegal for the purposes of trade and that they can only be used as additional "supplementary indicators" to indicate the price of goods. And that if the act isn't ammended further in the mean time, even this usage will disapear in 2010.
Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock !

The above messages are perfectly consistent. The 1972 European Communities Act is an enabling Act that enables the government to implement EC directives. If the EC passes a directive to paint the Moon pink, then the 1972 Act can be used to enact the necessary legislation.

To cut a long story short, in 1979, the EC passed a metric directive. This had nothing to do with UK legilsation until 1994 when the government passed the metric regulations. By that point, the 1972 had already been repealed is so far as it related to metric. This is because the 1985 Weights and Measures expressly permitted lb/oz as an alternative to metric.

As for the 2009 deadline on supplementary indications, this is also illegal as it conflicts with basic civil liberties and also the EU's own charter on human rights.

The BWMA argument above sounds convincing except that the High Court in London exxamined this whole issue in great depth. It took them 4 months to reach a conclusion which was that the claimed "implied repeal" by the 1985 act was invalid.

They did comment that the legislation was convoluted and unwieldy but even if one accepts that the detail is imperfect, the intention is clear and unlikely to be ammended to its own destruction.

To Mr Evil, who wrote:
"BTW. It's my understanding the lb/oz IS illegal for the purposes of trade and that they can only be used as additional "supplementary indicators" to indicate the price of goods. And that if the act isn't ammended further in the mean time, even this usage will disapear in 2010.
Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock ! "


You obviously haven't been to Tesco then!?
Maybe you haven't been out at all?

Oh, be it not for me to pry, but you appear to have a bomb in the bag by your desk.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

>>>"It took them 4 months to reach a conclusion..."

That they took 4 months can be interpreted both ways.

If the rumoured metrication bill is a pure consolidation bill, then it will repeal the 1985 Act and all secondary legislation derived from that Act and replace it with a single Act which consoldiates everything into one document. This will remove any ambiguity about the status of the secondary legislation that may hav ebeen derived from the 1985 Act or may have been derived from the 1972 Act (repealed).

If new features are added, then it will not be a pure consolidation Act.

A decision made by the Government could clearly be described as a 'political decision'. My point is that the policy of metrication has been around since 1965 and continues to be so.

The finding of the Court of Appeal was that the 1972 Act gives full powers to the Government to introduce regulations implementing directives. The 1985 Act did not repeal the 1972 Act to any extent, as it never mentions it by name.

The notion of 'implied repeal' does not apply as the 1972 Act provides that all enactments passed after it shall have effect subject to EC regulations and instruments implementing directives. This does not 'bind' the 1983 Parliament but merely requires that if it is to repeal the 1972 Act it should say so. If Parliament were not able to require its successors to explicitly amend the acts it passes then it would no longer be sovereign.

Whereas most people talk imperial and use imperial in everyday speech to describe almost all things, and we do it naturally - the only time you talk about imperial is when you like to talk about acts or laws that in some way try to repress it.

Interesting the different angles that are put on this!

Most people: Nature, freedom
You lot: coercion, suppression

Ross,
If Parliament says in 1985 that people can use lb/oz, why does it need to refer to the 1972 Act? Why is Parliament's stated intention not enough?

Steve, you are talking rubbish about suppression and coertion. Nothing can stop people talking in terms of imperial. For example, even I say phrases such as "miles away" as it is a figure of speech.

What we believe is that as the younger generations are being educated in metric (BTW, when I was educated in metric, imperial measurements never came into it, other than a few conversions), it only seems right that Britain eventually turns 100% metric.

I'm not someone who necessarilly wants rid of quarterpounder burgers, as again this is a figure of speech. Why are the children being forced to work in miles, yards, etc when they never come across these at school.

I can honestly say, when I was in about Year 4, I could recite my height in metres but NOT in feet and inches and I am being absolutely honest there.

>>Steve, you are talking rubbish about suppression and >>coertion. Nothing can stop people talking in terms >>of imperial. For example, even I say phrases such >>as "miles away" as it is a figure of speech.

What about those idiots (about 97% of us) who use imperial non-colloquially?

>What we believe is that as the younger generations >are being educated in metric (BTW, when I was >educated in metric, imperial measurements never came >into it, other than a few conversions)

Showing your age? Imperial has played a bigger part since the 90's - I never got any imperial education in the 80's!

>, it only seems >right that Britain eventually turns >100% metric.

Thanks for bringing a chuckle to my day with that little joke!



>>I'm not someone who necessarilly wants rid of >>quarterpounder burgers, as again this is a figure of >>speech.

So the butcher hands over a "figure of speech" to most of us does he- I laugh once again!

>> Why are the children being forced to work in miles, >>yards, etc when they never come across these at >>school.

Ooh forced eh? It must be akin to a kid living in pre-liberated Iraq
- Grow up!!

>I can honestly say, when I was in about Year 4, I
>could recite my height in metres but NOT in feet and
>inches and I am being absolutely honest there.

You need a peer group / friends to be able to use feet and inches as a way of self height measurement.
Thanks for the insight!

"Ooh forced eh? It must be akin to a kid living in pre-liberated Iraq
- Grow up!!

You need a peer group / friends to be able to use feet and inches as a way of self height measurement.
Thanks for the insight!"

You know someone's losing when they turn to personal insults!

On Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament has a stated intention that lb/oz are lawful, but it also has a stated intention that Ministers should be empowered to implement whatever directives emerge from the Community.

re: "Ministers decided to empower themselves to implement European Community Directives".

Er, no.

They didn't empower themselves.

Nor did they 'empower' the British people.

In fact, the only people they 'empowered' was the ruling political elite of E.U. bureaucrats and politicians.

They placed themselves - and thus the British people - under an absolute, binding and irrevocable obligation to pass into British law any E.U. Directives. A great deal of Parliamentary time is now taken up with passing Acts and Regulations to give effect to E.U. Directives.

The only way out of this Kafkaesque situation is for the British Parliament to vote to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 - an unlikely prospect though I heartily wish otherwise.

The European Constition, if adopted, will close even that slightly ajar door and put Fort Knox-style locks on it

re (Ross): "You know someone's losing the argument when they turn to personal insults".

This is very true.

An analysis of the BWMA boards on this website in terms of which 'side' has resorted most to personal abuse shows quite clearly who has won the argument.

In football terms, it's a victory for the defenders of 'Imperial choice' by 10 goals to one, in cricket terms by an innings and 199 runs, in tennis terms by 6-1, 6-0, 6-1, and in golf terms by 7 and 6.

And in measurements by a yard to a centimetre

>>> "On Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament has a stated intention that lb/oz are lawful, but it also has a stated intention that Ministers should be empowered to implement whatever directives emerge from the Community".

The latter took place 31 years ago. The declaring of lb/oz as legal postdates the ECA 1972 by 13 years.

> An analysis of the BWMA boards on this website in terms of which 'side' has resorted most to personal abuse shows quite clearly who has won the argument.

Interesting. What analysis is that and why do only you have it ? Did you actually read all threads on this board ? An amazing achievement...
Also, to get to your result I guess you have to count Paul Birch and SteveH to the pro-metric side.

Ralf

"The latter took place 31 years ago. The declaring of lb/oz as legal postdates the ECA 1972 by 13 years."

The amendment of the 1985 Act postdates the Act itself by nine years.

It doesn't matter when it happened, the fact remains that Parliament has a standing intention that regulations may amend Acts of Parliament in any way necessary to implement a directive.

If I may say so, in my opinion Paul Birch is one of the rudest people I have encountered on the Web.

Where do you get nine years from? 1972-1985 = 13 years.

>>>"It doesn't matter when it happened".

Yes, it does, because later Acts over-rule earlier Acts. In other words, whatever Parliament decides, a future Parliament can decide different. Parliament's sovreignty lives in the present. If earlier Acts and Parliaments are allowed to over-rule later Acts and Parliaments, then we become ruled by the dead and the retired. History is full of people who try to extend their rule beyond their own lifetime.

Lord Justice Laws had no constitutional authority to say that the 1972 Act can over-rule the 1985 Act.

>>> Where do you get nine years from? 1972-1985 = 13 years.

I see, you are referring to the 1994 amendments. However, these amendments were passed under the 1972 Act. For their authority, you must look back to 1972. Although it may sound odd, you must understand that the 1994 regulations were "passed" (ie authorised) 13 years before 1985.

BWMA: "I see, you are referring to the 1994 amendments. However, these amendments were passed under the 1972 Act. For their authority, you must look back to 1972. Although it may sound odd, you must understand that the 1994 regulations were "passed" (ie authorised) 13 years before 1985."

If the 1972 Act was overruled by the 1985 one, why then was the former amended in 1994 ?

The former (1972) wasn't amended in 1994 - it was the 1985 Act that was amended. However, the minister made the amendment using the 1972 Act, hence the conflict between the later and earlier Acts.

BWMA,

I am fascinated by this argument that the 1994 legislation is invalid.

Let me see if have the story straight.

In 1972 an act of parliament was passed that gave authority for W&M legislation to be implemented without any further acts of parliament (I believe its called a Statutary Instrument or SI) so long as it was in aid of meeting EEC obligations.

Up till 1985 grams and kg were illegal for trade in food, the offical units still being lbs and ozs. So the Government decided it was time to legalise grams and kg but wanted to continue to allow lbs and oz, perhaps assuming they would die a natural death. This may have entailed a temporary opt-out from EEC/EU obligations.

However to bring this about they couldn't use the 1972 act, because lbs and ozs were outside its scope. So the only way round it was to bring in a new act of parliament legalising both metric and imperial. Hence WMA 1985.

At this point they (arguably) may have dropped a clanger not realising they had stitched themselves up with lbs and ozs being legal for all time unless the 1985 WMA was repealed or ammended using the normal process, i.e. not using EU driven SIs off the back of the 1972 act.

So come 1994 the government decided to finally complete the process by outlawing lbs and oz. For some reason best known to themselves they decided to do this in two stages. Packaged goods immediately and loose goods in 5 years time. At any rate the 1972 act was used to authorise an SI to that effect ammending the 1985 WMA.

No one it seems challenged or questioned this until the year 2001 when the Sunderland case came to caught.

The defense argument if understand it was as follows:

The 1972 Act effectively said that thou shalt not use lbs and oz but you can use g, kg.
The 1985 Act said you can use either, partially contradicting the 1972 Act.
So the 1985 act over-rides (implied repeal I think the phrase was) the 1972 Act in so far as W&M are concerned.
Hence the 1972 Act no longer stands on these issues and cannot be used to authorise the 1994 ammendments.
So the 1994 legislation is up the creek without a paddle and the 1985 act still stands. Hence Messrs Thoburn et al were acting within existing law.

Personally I wouldn't like to say whether this arguement is valid or not but it seems strange that both the High Court and the House of Lords rejected it, the former after no less than 4 months deliberation.

>>> In 1972 an act of parliament was passed that gave authority for W&M legislation to be implemented without any further acts of parliament (I believe its called a Statutary Instrument or SI) so long as it was in aid of meeting EEC obligations.

ANS: Correct; the 1972 Act enables the government to enact EC directives.

>>> Up till 1985 grams and kg were illegal for trade in food, the offical units still being lbs and ozs.

ANS: Metric was lawful at this point, but the 1985 Act renewed or consolidated all the existing legislation.

>>> So the Government decided it was time to legalise grams and kg but wanted to continue to allow lbs and oz...This may have entailed a temporary opt-out from EEC/EU obligations.

ANS: The government had legalised metric previously and also wanted lb/oz also as legal. This would have required a permanent opt out from EC obigations.

>>> ...to bring this about they couldn't use the 1972 act, because lbs and ozs were outside its scope.

ANS: Imperial was already lawful under laws from the 1960s. However, there was a need for a consolidation act, hence the 1985 Act.

>>> At this point they (arguably) may have dropped a clanger not realising they had stitched themselves up with lbs and ozs being legal for all time unless the 1985 WMA was repealed or ammended using the normal process.

ANS: Correct, the 1985 Act came into conflict with whatever future metrication changes the 1972 would have authorised. However, this conflict did not exist in 1985, because the 1972 Act had not been used for this purpose at that point.

>>> So come 1994...the 1972 act was used to authorise an SI to that effect ammending the 1985 WMA.

ANS: Correct, hence prompting in the legal challenge, since the government was ignoring or trying to bypass the 1985 Act.

>>> No one it seems challenged or questioned this until the year 2001 when the Sunderland case came to caught.

ANS: The conflict had been identified at least as early as 1996. However, the court challenge was not possible until the first prosecution.

>>> The defense argument if understand it was as follows: the 1972 Act effectively said that thou shalt not use lbs and oz but you can use g, kg. The 1985 Act said you can use either, partially contradicting the 1972 Act. So the 1985 act over-rides (implied repeal I think the phrase was) the 1972 Act in so far as W&M are concerned. Hence the 1972 Act no longer stands on these issues and cannot be used to authorise the 1994 ammendments. So the 1994 legislation is up the creek without a paddle and the 1985 act still stands. Hence Messrs Thoburn et al were acting within existing law.

ANS: Correct. We believe that there was a conflict of interests between the DTI, that was responsible for the 1985 Act and wanted to maintain lb/oz due to domestic pressures, and the Foreign Office that wanted to keep in with the EC and signed the 1979 EC Directive.

>>> Personally I wouldn't like to say whether this arguement is valid or not but it seems strange that both the High Court and the House of Lords rejected it, the former after no less than 4 months deliberation.

ANS: There were certain irregularities that form the basis of the Appeal to Europe.

"later Acts over-rule earlier Acts. In other words, whatever Parliament decides, a future Parliament can decide different."

The Laws doctrine allows future Parliaments to decide differently, but simply requires that they say so on the face of legislation if they are to amend a constiutional provision.

"Parliament's sovreignty lives in the present. If earlier Acts and Parliaments are allowed to over-rule later Acts and Parliaments, then we become ruled by the dead and the retired."

Indeed, and that is why the constitutional safeguard that no Parliament can bind its successors is retained by Laws. The fact that sovereignty lies in the present is absolutely key. The safeguard does not operate to stop Parliament passing laws which purport to bind successors, but allows the present Parliament to amend anything which has gone before.

Laws LJ was faced with a trade off between the twin principles of absolute sovereignty and non-binding Parliaments. He decided that requiring a successor Parliament to explicitly amend constitutional enactments was not to "bind" it, as to be bound is to be unable to act. The second principle cannot constrain the soverignty of Parliament so as to stop it doing things which can ultimately be repealed. To allow successor Parliaments to impliedly repeal constitutional legislation is to constrain the Parliament making that legislation in a way which cannot be justified under the non-binding rule, as because that legislation can be removed it would be a limitation on Parliamentary sovereignty to stop it.

>>> "The Laws doctrine...simply requires that they [future Parliaments] say so on the face of legislation if they are to amend a constiutional provision.

But why should a future Parliament be so required? Let us assume that Parliament passes an Act that, like Laws says, refers to the 1972 Act. It might read something like this:

"The pound or the kilo shall be used. And, for the benefit of the 1972 Act, the pound or the kilo shall be used".

Why does Parliament need to repeat itself by specifying the 1972 Act (in effect, even if not quite so literally)? If Parliament says, "the pound or the kilo shall be used", this should be enough. There was no ambiguity in Parliament's words in 1985. Now that Laws has invented different "levels" of Acts, what to stop any judge from inventing new categories of acts simply in order to avoid applying Acts of Parliament?

What was to happen if Parliament decided to legalise lb/oz (again) and passed an Act that explicity referred to the 1972 Act, and a new judge says, "Ah, but constitutional acts break down between Ordinary Constitutional Acts and a new category that no-one's every heard of before called Monumental Acts. For a Monumental Act to be repealed, it must be referred to in the conflicting legislation".

All a judge needs to know to make a ruling is what was Parliament's last say on the matter, but LJL is saying Parliament's last piece of legislation no longer counts. His new constitution throws up the following questions:

i) How does Parliament know which is a constitional act? Can any judge decide which is a constitutional act?

ii) Is Parliament allowed to say which are constitutional acts. Can private citizens?

iii) Can the 1985 Act be a constitutional act? As an Act that defines weights and measures of the realm, it must be important enough. If not a constitutional act, it should at the very least be a Metrology Act, a new class of Acts that cannot be impliedly repealed, not even by a Constitutional Act. Unless the conflicting Act is defined as a Monumental Act.

iv) When drafting new laws, would Parliament have to refer to every previous act in history, just in case one of them turns out to be a constitutional act? Presumably, every piece of legislative parchment would have to have a footnote: "This act repeals all previous laws in the event of a conflict".

v) Would an Act of Parliament have no effect unless it includes the above footnote?

vi) Is not Magna Carta be a Constitutional Act? In that case, it must surely repeal the metric changes within the 1972 Act, on account that the 1972 Act did not refer to Magna Carta. Since the metric provisions in 1972 Act was never legally passed, does this not mean that the 1985 Act is legal, once again?

These sort of questions formed the basis of the Appeal to the House of Lords. We were AMAZED when the House of Lords Appeal Committee rejected permission after only 15 minutes and with no reason given.

Apparently I come back from holiday and I've "lost the argument"

How disappointing.

"i) How does Parliament know which is a constitional act? Can any judge decide which is a constitutional act?"

The notion of 'constitutional Acts' is perhaps slightly wide of the mark. The important idea is a constitutional provision. This is where Parliament simply uses a form of words which purports to restrict future Parliaments. Examples of such wording can be found in the Bill of Rights 1688/9, the 1972 Act and the Human Rights Act 1998. Whether or not an Act is 'constitutional' in this regard can be determined by any judge in the course of normal judicial interpretation.

"ii) Is Parliament allowed to say which are constitutional acts. Can private citizens?"

It does, as described above. A private citizen can of course claim a constitutional Act in the same way as anything else but a court would have to judge such contentions.

"iii) Can the 1985 Act be a constitutional act? As an Act that defines weights and measures of the realm, it must be important enough. If not a constitutional act, it should at the very least be a Metrology Act, a new class of Acts that cannot be impliedly repealed, not even by a Constitutional Act. Unless the conflicting Act is defined as a Monumental Act."

The 1985 Act contains no such wording and so is subject to implied repeal by later enactments.

"iv) When drafting new laws, would Parliament have to refer to every previous act in history, just in case one of them turns out to be a constitutional act? Presumably, every piece of legislative parchment would have to have a footnote: "This act repeals all previous laws in the event of a conflict"."

Yes, if it wanted it to have definitive effect. If it wanted it to be consistent with overarching legislation then it would simply leave it as it is. This is exactly the effect of Laws.

"v) Would an Act of Parliament have no effect unless it includes the above footnote?"

No, it would have effect subject to previous constitutional provisions which remain in force.

"vi) Is not Magna Carta be a Constitutional Act? In that case, it must surely repeal the metric changes within the 1972 Act, on account that the 1972 Act did not refer to Magna Carta. Since the metric provisions in 1972 Act was never legally passed, does this not mean that the 1985 Act is legal, once again?"

As far as I know there is nothing conflicting in Magna Carta, but in any event the 1972 Act did refer to it in respect of "every enactment passed", therefore EC Regulations have effect whatever there is to the contrary in Magna Carta. If two constitutional provisions come into conflict then the later still impliedly repeals the latter.

It may sound complicated but it can be summarised in one simple sentence:

The absolute sovereignty of Parliament must include power to establish a new constitional position, subject to the rule that it cannot stop its successors again changing that position.

The bottom line is that the Laws doctrine represents no real change to a modern legislature, which will always seek to do everything explicitly rather than rely on some lazy and hap-hazard system of implied repeal.

Ross,
Imagine you go into a shop, offer a £10 note for a book priced £5, and the shop assistant gives you the book - but not the £5 change. The next time you go in the shop, it happens again, and again.

Each time, therefore, you are forced to ASK for your change.

The problem here is that you should not NEED to ask for your change - because it is YOURS. The shop assistant has no right to hold onto it.

It is no defence for the shop assistant to say, "Well, he did not ask for it - but I gave it to him when he did", because it is not HIS.

What LJL is doing is making Parliament ask for its own laws to be applied - rather than applying them. By refusing to apply the 1985 Act, he is obstructing the authority of Parliament.

In fact he is giving effect to the will of the 1970 Parliament which decided that if the 1983 Parliament wished to put its laws above the will of the EC through Ministers it should say so, and if it was not content with that sovereign decision to deliberately reverse it.

If the 1983 Parliament had the power to change that decision without saying so then the sovereignty of the 1970 Parliament would have been constrained to a greater extent than that allowed by law.

>>>...he is giving effect to the will of the 1970 Parliament which decided that if the 1985 Parliament wished to put its laws above the will of the EC through Ministers it should say so..."

But it did say so. In 1985, Parliament decided that lb/oz were lawful and passed an Act that said this. If Acts are disallowed simply because they do not refer to previous Acts, the question arises: what is the purpose of any such Act? Why should Parliament pass an Act in order for it not to be implemented? Why do it?

On LJL's reasoning, no Act can be guaranteed unless it has a clause that says, "In the even of conflict, this Act repeals all others". Forgive me, but if Parliament does not intend that Act to repeal all others, WHY PASS IT? What possible purpose can such an Act have? Previously, if Parliament intended something, it passed an Act. It did not intend something, it did NOT pass an Act. That is how we knew Parliament's intention, by its passing, or not passing, Acts. That's it.

Under LJL's constitution, whether Parliament passes an Act is no longer the criteria. Instead, there is a new category of Act called "constitutional" that can project the powers of Parliaments Past into the future and repeal Acts yet to come. So, under LJL, we have the following two classes of Act:

"lb/oz are legal" - INVALID
"lb/oz are legal, and we really mean it" - VALID

I've searched our written record of the Divisional Court hearing (available in the "Legal Campaign" section of the website). Here is one of the most telling exchanges in the three days, as recorded in court, long-hand:

"Lord Justice Laws said that all acts are equal, although he added this was a "big debate". Mr Shrimpton said Britain does not have "constitutional acts", just acts. Lord Justice Laws remarked they were not in "year one of law school". Lord Justice Laws said issue of parliamentary supremacy was irrelevant, only the mode of operation by the minister was the issue".

Now, how does LJL go from that comment to a judgement that is based on a concept that he says, in court, he did not accept and which he declared was not even relevant to the case? The fact that it took four month's for LJL to deliver his verdict is a matter not for reassurance, but for suspicion.

"In 1985, Parliament decided that lb/oz were lawful and passed an Act that said this. If Acts are disallowed simply because they do not refer to previous Acts, the question arises: what is the purpose of any such Act? Why should Parliament pass an Act in order for it not to be implemented? Why do it?"

The purpose of such an Act is to amend the law, and it will have full effect except where a previous Act says that future Acts will be subject to its provisions. The 'extra wording' is not to be added to the second Act, although that would be the method used to exempt that Act. The extra wording is added to the first Act to project its effect over future Parliaments, and the norm would be not to include this wording and so not give the first Act prospective effect.

"On LJL's reasoning, no Act can be guaranteed unless it has a clause that says, "In the even of conflict, this Act repeals all others"."

That is not the reasoning as I understand it. The reasoning is that *if* a previous Act conflicts with the present Act then it will take precedence. In legislating, the later Parliament will be fully aware of all legislative provisions its predecessors have passed which contain the necessary restrictive wording, and will know whether it needs to add such a clause.

"Forgive me, but if Parliament does not intend that Act to repeal all others, WHY PASS IT?"

What we are talking about in terms of 'constitutional statutes' are overarching provisions which change the way in which the law operates, not about whether or not a particular thing is authorised or banned. The Acts in question say, inter alia, that Ministers may implement EC Directives in a way which contradicts Acts passed after 1972; that all legislation passed after 1998 shall be interpreted in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights; that England and Scotland shall form one sovereign State etc.

A law authorising lb/oz does not conflict with the Community power in the 1972 Act. There is no need to repeal that provision as it does not ban lb/oz. The 1985 Act is effective law until the 1972 power is used. The essential point is that in 1985 Parliament legislated in the full knowledge that it had given Ministers a power 13 years earlier which could be used to amend its Act should Community pass a Directive on the subject.

It also legislated in the knowledge that should the Community pass a Regulation on the subject, ss2(1) and (4) of the 1972 Act would override its Act. It was capable at the time of providing an exemption but chose not to.

""lb/oz are legal" - INVALID
"lb/oz are legal, and we really mean it" - VALID"

The first of these two is not 'invalid', but simply subject to an Act which still stands. It was valid for nine years until it was changed.

I must say that I do have a slight problem with Laws' unfortunate comments which were made before he realised that they might be damaging to his own case. My own view would be that all Acts are indeed equal in principle. This means that no Act can have a perpetual effect which cannot be changed. The 1972 Act is an ordinary Act which can be amended by passing, for example, the "European Communities (Repeal) Act". The effect of the judgment is that this must be done on the face of legislation which was not done in 1985.

I return to the simple conclusion. The rule is that Parliament can do anything at all it likes, but may not stop its successors changing what it does. I think this is most usefully described in a different way, namely that Parliament can do anything at all it likes including changing all that has gone before. In 1972, Parliament decided to make its successors subject to Community provisions. This it has the power to do and those successors are not stopped from changing this position.

Ross,

Imagine you're in a police interview room. You say, "I want a solicitor present". The police officer says, "Nah, don't worry about it, you don't need a solicitor for this case, he probably wouldn't come out at this time, anyway".

A judge will rule this as negligent or corrupt practice. If the interviewee is entitled to a solicitor, any delay, comment or remark that creates uncertainty in the mind of the interviewee that can lead to the non-attendance of the solicitor constitutes obstruction.

It's no good the police officer saying subsequently, "But I didn't FORCE him not to have a soliticor, he could have had one if he PERSISTED in asking for one".

The abuse is in being forced to ask TWICE.

LJL's refused to apply the 1985 Act, saying (effectively), "Oh, but they didn't REFER to the 1972 Act AT THE TIME". In other words, he says, Parliament has to legislate TWICE, once for ordinary acts, and then again for constitutional acts.

We say: why should Parliament need to do this? If Parliament says in 1985 that lb/oz are legal, what right does LJL have to disallow this because of what Parliament legislated for in 1972?

It does not matter whether or not the Parliament of 1972 sought to give itself mystical powers over future Parliaments. Parliaments have been trying to do that for centuries, but they have always been stopped by the courts. Binding the future power of Parliament is something that Parliament simply cannot do. The power and sovereignty of Parliament simply passes onwards, from one moment to the next.

On February 18th, 2002 Lord Justice Laws had a duty to rule the powers of the 1972 Act illegal. Instead, he allowed primary legislation to be repealed by an earlier act. He was negligent. As Shrimpton would put it, "There it is".

"It does not matter whether or not the Parliament of 1972 sought to give itself mystical powers over future Parliaments. Parliaments have been trying to do that for centuries, but they have always been stopped by the courts. Binding the future power of Parliament is something that Parliament simply cannot do. The power and sovereignty of Parliament simply passes onwards, from one moment to the next."

The supreme doctrine is that Parliamentary sovereignty is absolute, and Parliament can legislate on anything it may choose. The one condition is that it may not create law which is everlasting and cannot be changed.

Laws LJ has interpreted this as meaning that Parliament may create a power to amend the Acts of future Parliaments, because those future Parliaments can remove and change that power. They are not bound by the previous decision because to be bound is to be unable to act. Future Parliaments are not bound but can and may act to repeal the legislation. The fact that they would have to do so explicitly makes things more "difficult" in that they cannot simply over-legislate in some hap-hazard fashion, but that is because a constitutional issue is at stake.

The new departure by Laws is that because the future Parliament is not 'bound' by its predecessor but is instead fully empowered to change the law, it would be a constraint on absolute sovereignty if Parliament were not allowed to grant a power to amend future enactments.

The two points at issue are:

1. Was Parliament able to say in 1985 that traders should be able to trade in either metric or Imperial measures? - and,

2. Were they able to undo that Act by a Regulation passed under a much earlier Act (the 1972 European Communities Act)?

Michael Shrimpton answered 'Yes' to the first question on the basis of implied repeal, and 'No' to the second on the basis of 'King Henry VIII' clauses being illegal.

In support of his argument, he quoted the eighteenth century 'deer-killing' case.

I don't have the precise details to hand, but the gist of what happened is this.

Some time in the early seventeenth century, Parliament passed a law imposing the death penalty for killing all sorts of animals, including deer. Let's call it the 'Death Penalty for Killing Animals Act'.

Later on that century, a rather obscure Act was passed, which, inter alia, gave the maximum penalty for killing deer at £20. Let's call that the '£20 Max Fine for Killing a Deer Act'.

A Mr D killed a deer, I think in 1795. He was sentenced to death under the 'Death Penalty for Killing Animals Act'.

His barrister, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, unearthed the '£20 Max Fine for Killing a Deer Act'.
He was fined £20 and not executed. The seven Appeal Court Judges were unanimous in expressly applying the principle of 'implied repeal'.

Now, what the government did, by making it a crime to sell in pounds and ounces, by Regulation rather than Act of Parliament, was to say something like this:

"We want the death penalty for killing deers restored, so under the 'Death Penalty for Killing Animals Act', we're going to write out a dinky little Regulation with the stroke of a pen to re-establish that the penalty for killing deers shall now, once again, be hanging.

**But** you simply can't change the law *by Regulation*. There must be a proper debate on a Parliamentary Bill.

The wretched European Communities Act 1972 and the associated Treaty of Rome we signed have given powerful judges - who should know better - an excuse to tear up traditional principles of English law like 'implied repeal'. These principles have served us well.

How many people on these boards realise that this country's laws are now at the mercy of a tiny clique of bureaucrats and European politciians, who will re-write the law as they want, with a toothless 'talking shop' Parlaiment there only for show - it can't vote down a single proposal from the Commission or the Council of Ministers, let alone initiate legislation.

That way lies the loss of the liberties for which the English nation is famous the world over. Fining people for selling bananas by the pound was a warning shot across the bows, if only we would realise it. The assault on jury trial will eventually hole British justice, and the freedoms that accompany it - below the water-line

I understand that the deer killing case was at issue in your trial. I have to say that it is a convincing precedent as far as implied repeal is concerned.

The problem here is that it is not an analagous situation to the European Communities Act 1972. The whole premise of the Laws judgment is that whereas implied repeal can be applied to Acts such as the 'Deer Act', where 'constitutional Acts' are concerned it does not. Specifically, this is where the Act itself specifies that it may not be impliedly repealed. The 1972 Act does this in s2(4), where every enactment to be passed is to have effect subject to the power to make Regulations under s2(2).

"a toothless 'talking shop' Parlaiment there only for show - it can't vote down a single proposal from the Commission or the Council of Ministers, let alone initiate legislation."

As far as initiation of legislation is concerned I fully agree as the powers held by Ministers in this regard are not far short of totalitarian. But then that is the 'traditional' position.

For interest, here is the exchange between Michael Shrimpton and the Law Lords:

"One of the law lords said to Mr Shrimpton that the 1972 Act gave powers to the executive wide enough to allow the amendment of subsequent acts. Mr Shrimpton said that Henry VIII powers could not be projected into the future.

"One of the other law lords asked: could not Parliament refer to the 1972 Act when legislating for later acts, thus allowing them to overrule earlier acts? Mr Shrimpton said that no such formula was needed for Parliament to repeal earlier acts; implied or express repeal are the same thing in this respect.

"Mr Shrimpton was asked: did not the 1985 Act contain provision to remove units of measurement? Mr Shrimpton replied (slightly exasperatedly) that i