Talk:Abrogation in public law

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Doctrine of Abrogation in UK Public Law[edit]

I have taken the bold step of creating this page as I believe there is a need for a Wikipage on the more obscure use of the word abrogation in UK Public Law. Other instances of this concept seem to relate to different doctrines or the law of a different country (such as the USA) and already have Wikipedia pages, but they do not cover the specific meaning of "proposing away"; as in delegating power away from the body in question, whether it is Parliament or other public body, to a foreign body or other sovereign state. I have come across this concept in a number of places, and have witnessed it in person in court—used by both the Claimant's side and the Defendant's side in differing arguments with conflicting objectives. I very much welcome any help by expanding the page and firming up the references. Abrogation transects many other branches of law, such as Constitutional, Administrative, and International. New sections could be added for these aspects, and perhaps for how this has been discussed and recorded in Hansard. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OR and primary source tags[edit]

As written, the article appears to primarily cite primary source documents to draw conclusions about abrogation in public law. This is a form of original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, as are some of the speculations that appear to be entirely original, such as A possible scenario may arise where Parliament may choose to implement prospective legislation that may not be fully in accordance with existing statute. The article can be improved with citations to texts that directly define or discuss abrogation, rather than texts that establish legal precedents that require further interpretation. I've removed the {{COI}} tag, however, as it isn't really possible for someone to have a conflict of interest with this subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]