In English law, who or what body starts the process of creating a new statute? Statutes are legislation from the UK Parliament and devolved parliaments. I believe they all start in the form of "bills" which are proposed statutes. But who or what body is permitted to start the process of creating a new statute? Is it only the government of the day? If so, is it only cabinet ministers? If, on the other hand, it is anyone in Parliament; then is the principal advantage of winning a general election not the ability to make law, but to have the maximum chance of getting it through parliament by virtue of number of MPs?
Any member of parliament can move a bill. A member of the public can't, for example, mail a bill in to the Speaker's office and say 'here you go, get them to vote on that.' A member of one of the houses of parliament has to put it on the notice paper. Normally it is the Government of the day that introduces bills. Ordinarily it would be a Minister who would do this after receiving approval from Cabinet. When someone other than a Minister introduces a bill, it is called a 'private member's bill'. A Minister would not introduce a bill without Cabinet approval (that would make the Government look bad). A non-Minister Government MP (backbencher) may introduce a private member's bill and this could be a genuinely independent effort or it could be a way for the Government to distance itself from something controversial. The Government may control the business of the chamber in question (particularly if that is the House of Commons), and may be able to defer consideration of a private member's bill indefinitely if they really want to. See also Wikipedia. In terms of drafting, there are public servants who draft Government bills. It is up to the Government to decide whether to allow other members of parliament to have access to these resources. A private member's bill may be drafted by the member personally, by a lobbyist or by anyone with a word processor.
Judicial appointments in England and Wales (plus courts that cover the whole of the UK) are made by the Judicial Appointments Commission. This was set up in 2006 to improve the separation of powers in the UK, removing the ability of a government to select sympathetic judges. The committee comprises ...the judiciary, the legal profession, non-legally qualified judicial office holders and the public. So it could be said that judges in the UK are to some extent self-selecting, but the commission responsible also has members who are not judges.
These clauses are called recitals. Taken together, they are a form of preamble. The tradition of preambles is quite ancient. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, has a preamble. This preamble serves to establish the authority of the one enacting the laws, however, rather than his motivation. United Nations instruments typically use a series of participial phrases as preambular paragraphs (pdf) rather than subordinate clauses, but they have the same function of establishing context and motivation. I have not been able to locate the origin of this particular form of preamble, however. It seems to have evolved gradually from freely constructed preambles. I could not identify when this form became fixed.
It depends on the particular law in the particular jurisdiction in which you are charged. Most statute laws enumerate the defences that are available. In common law countries there is a general defence that (except in strict liability offences) the perpetrator must well ... perpetrate the criminal act; what you describe does not appear to meet that requirement. Other jurisdictions would not be so forgiving.
The differences are subtle in practice today as a result of technologies like the Internet. Enact means (according to Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition (1979), hard copy): To establish by law; to perform or effect; to decree. The common introductory formula in making statutory laws is, "Be it enacted." Promulgate means (according to the same source): To publish; to announce officially; to make public as important or obligatory. The formal act of announcing a statute or rule of court. In the context of the U.S. legislative process, a law is enacted at the moment when it is signed by the President or Governor after being duly passed by the legislative branch (or when it is adopted by the legislative branch in a veto override). It is promulgated when the public act is published either in physical book form, or electronically, for example, in an online official government website containing the laws that were enacted. These days the time gap between enacting a law and promulgating it is a matter of minutes or hours. Historically, the gap would have been a matter of days or weeks. For example, in Colorado, the legislative session ends in the first few days of the month of May, with all laws passed during the session signed or vetoed by mid-May, but (subject to certain exceptions) laws passed in that session are generally effective on July 1 of the same year. This reflected the assumption of the people who drafted that part of the state constitution that it could typically take up to about four to six weeks to promulgate the laws enacted in the legislative session.
There is a firm difference between giving advice on "what the best decision is likely to be" and "what decision to make". The former is what lawyers must do, which comes from: Conduct and Client Care Rules: Whatever legal services your lawyer is providing, he or she must— discuss with you your objectives and how they should best be achieved: give you clear information and advice: Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006: legal work includes— advice in relation to any legal or equitable rights or obligations: So, there is nothing in the law that requires lawyers to advise you on "what decision to make". Instead, they explain to you the range of possible decisions and what ramifications / implications / consequences they have. They won't make the choice for you — it's always yours. Is it legally correct that a lawyer is not permitted to provide advice on what decision to make It is not strictly true that a lawyer "is not permitted". Rather, they are not obliged to do so. And they have a damn good reason not to: there is a huge difference between being responsible for legal facts based on which you make decisions, and being responsible for decisions themselves.
Do the Prime Minister's current statements mean that his previous actions in signing the Withdrawal Agreement were threatening to &quot;deprive&quot; the monarch of her territory, and that by pushing it through Parliament at speed and in the manner in which he did, that he &quot;intimidated or overawed&quot; at least one of those Houses in this regard? No. The Queen will not be &quot;deprived&quot; of any of her territory. She is still Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has not reunified with Ireland, nor has Scotland declared independence and also removed her as Head of State. He also did not &quot;intimidate or overawe&quot; at least one of the Houses. This is for two reasons: The prime minister has political and legal legitimacy through the holding of a (sometimes substantial) majority in the Commons. If the Act passes the Commons, it will be because the prime minister enjoys the support of the MPs on their side (or at least a majority of MPs in the House, e.g. the Tory-DUP agreement of recent years). Under the Salisbury Convention, the House of Lords will not block any legislation that was promised in a Government's election manifesto. While the prime minister did not enter office on the back of a General Election when he agreed the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, the subsequent amending and implementing Act of 2020 was mentioned in the Government's election manifesto in December 2019 and therefore the Lords will not block such legislation. Given these two facts, it is almost impossible to declare that either House were &quot;intimidated or overawed&quot;. For example, the prime minister did not hold a gun to the heads of his MPs, he did not surround the House of Lords with an army until they voted the way he wanted them to. The fact that the Commons willingly supported his legislative programme, and by convention the Lords didn't block it, is evidence that the prime minister and his government enjoys political, and subsequently legal, legitimacy. In any event, the Queen cannot commit treason against herself. Anything done on the advice of her ministers cannot, on the face of it, constitute treason. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has not, on the facts, done anything that constitutes treason. Even if he were to technically commit treason by the letter of the Act somehow, the matter would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and it is highly likely that all but the most obvious and egregious examples would not meet the threshold for prosecution. For example, it would almost certainly not be in the public interest to prosecute a prime minister for delivering on their legitimate policy aims in line with the legal (correct) functioning of our legislative system. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any court agreeing that such activities are treason when the relevant Acts passed both Houses, and the Government of the day had legitimacy in the Commons with a substantial majority after a General Election in which the legislation formed a key manifesto commitment, and the Salisbury Convention means that the Lords didn't oppose it; they would likely hold that such activities are the intended outcome of our current democratic system. I cannot think of any examples (barring something like murdering the monarch) where a sitting prime minister could conceivably be charged with treason. Even advising the Queen to abdicate would not constitute treason, provided that the necessary Act had passed in both Houses. Perhaps it might be treason if the prime minister advised so without any legislation in place, but that would seem more of a political matter for Parliament to deal with in reality. I suppose it is possible that if a prime minister advised the Queen to abdicate without the legitimate consent of Parliament (as expressed through the passing of legislation), it is possible that they would be removed from office if a no-confidence motion was passed by the Commons and then they might be prosecuted, but it seems most unlikely.
Absent newly enacted law in response to the end of the separate sovereigns doctrine, the first case to which jeopardy attaches (generally speaking when a jury is sworn and the first item of evidence is presented to it) would bar subsequent prosecutions, without regard to whether it arose in state or federal court. It would be a race to the court house rule. This is how it works if there are multiple prosecutions within a state, for example, one commenced in a municipal court that is not part of a state court system, and another commenced in a state court of general jurisdiction.