Assertion: prerogative's right | /r/HasProperty | contingent
Facets:
value: upon membership
type: TEMPORAL
value: on use of the prerogative
type: OTHER
value: upon arrangements
type: OTHER
value: to remove them
type: PURPOSE
value: upon a prior condition
type: OTHER
Source sentences:
text: The contention is thus that the statute gives effect to rights that are contingent upon a prior condition – the relevant EU law obligations – and that if that condition ceases to apply, the statutory purpose falls away.
text: Elliott thus seeks to avoid the evident circularity of Finnis’s argument, by contending that the rights are contingent not on use of the prerogative to remove them, but rather on the existence of the relevant Treaty obligations more generally.
text: Notice how swiftly Finnis segues above from the general notion that the rights in the 2002 Act are ‘contingent upon arrangements made on the international plane’ to the much more specific contention that they were intended to be contingent upon those arrangements being ‘terminable by prerogative actions.
text: The segue illustrates the problem: to say that the rights are contingent upon membership simply begs the question of who can validly terminate that membership, leaving Finnis to assert but not establish Parliament’s acquiescence to termination by prerogative power.
text: The rights are ‘contingent’