The principle I think is well recognised and flows from the unelected nature of the Lords. I’m not saying that precludes the Lords from amending such Bills, but from rejecting them entirely. How much they can legitimately insist on amendments is in a grey area.

I don’t think that was the view of either the Govt or many members of the Lords.

I disagree with Mark to this extent: I don’t see it being a PMB makes any difference to the broad constitutional case for primacy, which flows from the Lords’ unelected status. It does complicate the application of the PA procedure as he says.

It was a mixture of both. But out of interest, are you arguing it would have been perfectly legitimate for the Lords to reject Rwanda at Second Reading since it wasn’t a manifesto Bill?

The HL has a general duty to respect the primacy of the Commons. Hence the fact that the Parliament Act has had to be used only a handul of time since 1911. The Lords know this see e.g. the speeches in the Lords re the Rwanda Bill(which was not a manifesto Bill).

It being a PMB makes no difference to the core reason the Lords defers to the Commons - its unelected status (the relevance of manifestos doubtful these days). Curious to see opponents of judicial power arguing it's fine for an unelected House to thwarting the democratic will.
x.com/yuanyi_z/sta...

Very much looking forward to reviewing both these exciting new books, by Profs Paul Wragg and ⁦@proftomkins.bsky.social‬
respectively!

Great thread, illustrating you can't accurately delineate the protective scope of CDA 230 shielding platforms from potential liability for the content they host without knowing the First Amendment caselaw that determines when such content can and can't generate liability in the first place.

It's very hard to say whether it's the Chagos Islands or the 'Brexit reset' that has produced more frothing hysteria from the rightwing commentariat. Either way it's been both amusing and slightly surreal to witness.

Unfortunately being grossly offensive online *is* a crime: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/2... The last Govt should have asked Parliament to repeal this offence when the Online Safety Act was passed. It didn't & police enthusiastically enforce it. thetimes.com/uk/crime/art...
x.com/Jacob_Rees_M...

Expert curatorship I'd say...

This promises to be a great collection.

thank you!

Thank you! Interesting to look around here...

I recent read this forthcoming book by @nataliealkiviadou.bsky.social taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/1... It's a really forensic and detailed critique of the often unprincipled and illiberal caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights on hate speech. Essential reading if you're writing in the area.

I was Robert's supervisor for the thesis, but he's done a huge amount of work on it since. So v much forward to reading what will be a key work on the royal prerogative. (Which will of course set the cat amongst the common law pigeons). Book launch Bristol 3 July www.bloomsbury.com/uk/royal-law...

many thanks Steve. Had heard of the starter packs, just figuring them out!

@stevepeers.bsky.social @paolosandro.bsky.social hi both - recommends for others to follow here? Just arrived!