The 'abolition of Parliament bill': New Labour's madness - the law-is-an-assylum

[fela fan]

yes it is, but it takes time. something like this requires a little more immediacy, non?

Oui. But long term we can only fix what i see as fundamental flaws in british politics by having a large proportion of the population change their ideas and attitudes and way of living.

As for immediacy, and what to do about this criminal wanker and his cronies, take a look at my thread in world about thailand and its leader. Every fortnight for the last five months or so 50-100,000 demonstrators gather at the biggest park in bangkok to demand the ouster of their leader. Momemtum is gathering fast, and is becoming unstoppable. This to me is true democracy in action, where the people rise up and create the far more powerful of powers: people power.

There was only a demo in britain over iraq. There should be demos every weekend in london and any other cities in britain by people demanding, peacefully, blair's ouster. The media (far less censored than over here in thailand) will have to report them, will have to discuss them, and i guarantee blair would have to go in far quicker time than in thailand.

People in britain say they have no influence over politicians any more. It's fucking bullshit man, they just have to get off their arses and away from their tellies and DEMAND what they want. Really simple in theory, the big question is why not in practice?

And that's where attitudes and apathy come into the equation...

 

[fela fan]

Surely changing the attitudes of the population is how you change things in a democracy.

Indeed mate, but with the key proviso that each person changes themselves. Nobody can change another person, they can only help the process along through example and the display of wisdom.

You can lead a horse to water, but the fucking horse really does have to do the drinking itself!

 

[fela fan]

I mean you can't force people to care about other people.

No, true. But the attitude change i'm talking about is where british people start to actually care for themselves. When they do that, they'll be better able to care for others. This may well sound strange to a lot of posters, especially in the light of the caring shown, especially, by british people when natural disasters occur. In fact, we do charity very well.

But as a people we're not meant to overtly care for ourselves, we're not meant to appear 'selfish' to others, and we succumb to quite large levels of peer pressure, and the need to gain recognition of ourselves by others.

We need to learn how to be satisfied by our own recognition of our own selves. This is where the apathy and belief we can't change anything is rooted. British people don't beat their own drum, society knocks this out of us.

We are so advanced in many ways, yet we just will not recognise the good things about us, and in the meantime we defend the bad things about us. It's bloody insane!

 

[jæd]

British people don't beat their own drum, society knocks this out of us.

We are so advanced in many ways, yet we just will not recognise the good things about us, and in the meantime we defend the bad things about us. It's bloody insane!

So you *are* still British. And I thought you were Thai

 

[MatthewCuffe]

In all honesty I know nothing about UKIP's policies. The one thing I like about some of the people I have met from them is the way that they talk. I can understand it, even if I don't agree with it.

What bothers me is Blairite doublespeak - "I protect your liberties" just as the very last one is taken away.

 

[goneforlunch]

UKIP definitely do have something to say. For me I'd rather ban nuclear weapons than worry too much about the right to sell bananas in pounds and ounces. Although I think they have a point on that one - if a trader wants to sell that way, and a granny wants to buy that way, it seems odd to criminalise the exchange

I do like the idea of us ruling ourselves, but more from a worker's soviet point of view than the perspective of UKIP.

Still, they are honest and they don't do doublespeak.

UKIP definitely has something to say, and the party clearly needs to adopt a more sophisticated approach if you believe the most important thing they worry about is the right to sell fruit and veg in imperial measures, and others believe they are "honestly xenophobic and racist."

Almost all policies are now controlled from Brussels in the interests of the EU by its unelected bureacrats. (Commissioners are not in Brussels to fight for their home country's interests; the oath they take upon appointment expressly forbids this.) We did not vote these Commissioners in, we cannot vote them out; therefore we don't have much, if any, hope of influencing them. The EU is not a democracy.

A look at the EU treaties that have been ratified by our politicians will tell you which policy was signed over and when. For example, our "European" trade policy went with the Single European Act in 1985, and our external trade and immigration policies went with the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997. A critical look at the EU Commission's plans for civil liberties, etc, which Labour is enthusiastically introducing, is also worth your time.

You can read the treaties through this link http://europa.eu.int/abc/treaties/index_en.htm. They are a tedious, often vaguely worded, but not difficult read. There are also various analyses available from several universities and other sources available to read online.

Mainstream political and media sources in the UK have been less than candid about the EU and our relationship with it.

Where's the virtue in being honest if they're honestly xenophobic and racist?

I hope I have made you a little more curious; at least enough to find out for yourself instead of believing the pro-EU propaganda, but if you still regard UKIP as xenophobic or racist, please explain your reasoning as there is nothing that could be described that way in UKIP's policies. I am neither of those things, and I have not met anyone else in the party who is. I like Europeans. If you cannot explain, may I ask that you consider what you say more carefully? The EU's Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna is alive and well, with "legal personality", and there are many in the EU who think that EU dissenters like me are racist or xenophobic, simply for speaking out against the EU. I think this is a frightening indicator for anyone who values free speech.

The UKIP 2005 manifesto is here http://www.ukip.org/index.php?menu=manifesto2005&page=manifesto2005top

You might not agree with all, or any, of its policies, but it is radically different from the other parties because leaving the EU means that our government (whichever party formed it) would be free to set policies for the majority, rather than as now trying to pass EU policies off as their own which no one seems to be happy with.

Thanks to you both for your replies. I always appreciate an opportunity to drag my soapbox out.

 

[laptop]

How we move ever closer to becoming a totalitarian state

The Prime Minister claims to be defending liberty but a barely noticed Bill will rip the heart out of parliamentary democracy

Henry Potter in today's Observer

 

[Kid_Eternity]

perfect.co.uk has some more on this and a call to action over this bill. The libdems shadow leader of the house has also spoken out against it...

 

[ZWord]

Oui. But long term we can only fix what i see as fundamental flaws in british politics by having a large proportion of the population change their ideas and attitudes and way of living.

As for immediacy, and what to do about this criminal wanker and his cronies, take a look at my thread in world about thailand and its leader. Every fortnight for the last five months or so 50-100,000 demonstrators gather at the biggest park in bangkok to demand the ouster of their leader. Momemtum is gathering fast, and is becoming unstoppable. This to me is true democracy in action, where the people rise up and create the far more powerful of powers: people power.

There was only a demo in britain over iraq. There should be demos every weekend in london and any other cities in britain by people demanding, peacefully, blair's ouster. The media (far less censored than over here in thailand) will have to report them, will have to discuss them, and i guarantee blair would have to go in far quicker time than in thailand.

People in britain say they have no influence over politicians any more. It's fucking bullshit man, they just have to get off their arses and away from their tellies and DEMAND what they want. Really simple in theory, the big question is why not in practice?

And that's where attitudes and apathy come into the equation...

That's just not true, it doesn't matter a bit how many people get on the street and shout Blair Out, He won't even come out until they've all gone home, (and after being surrounded by police and unable to find anywhere to piss, before long they'll be dying to get home) and after that, he'll just say he was democratically elected, and the views on the street obviously aren't the views of the majority.

 

[ZWord]

In all honesty I know nothing about UKIP's policies. The one thing I like about some of the people I have met from them is the way that they talk. I can understand it, even if I don't agree with it.

What bothers me is Blairite doublespeak - "I protect your liberties" just as the very last one is taken away.

Or the Freedom of Information Act which guarantees that the government must tell you what it's been up to, and publish documents etc. -except where the government decides that it would not be in the public interest to do so.

 

[fela fan]

That's just not true, it doesn't matter a bit how many people get on the street and shout Blair Out, He won't even come out until they've all gone home, (and after being surrounded by police and unable to find anywhere to piss, before long they'll be dying to get home) and after that, he'll just say he was democratically elected, and the views on the street obviously aren't the views of the majority.

Well i'm afraid you can't say it's not true, coz it's not been tried so you just don't know.

This is the sort of attitude that allows blair to continue in power. People just saying things won't work. Someone asked for a way forward, i suggested one, and you decided it couldn't work. C'mon man, don't be such a defeatist!

What you need to think about is momemtum. Once a ball starts rolling it can become very hard to stop it until it smashes into its target.

No-one in britain ever gets the ball underway. That's apathy really.

 

[Lock&Light]

What you need to think about is momemtum. Once a ball starts rolling it can become very hard to stop it until it smashes into its target.

Has it ever occured to you, fela, that such a ball could easily be diverted (by well-meaning or not so well-meaning agencies) while it rolls, and not hit the target at all?

What it then might hit should be considered before the ball is set rolling, IMO.

 

[fela fan]

How we move ever closer to becoming a totalitarian state

The Prime Minister claims to be defending liberty but a barely noticed Bill will rip the heart out of parliamentary democracy

Henry Potter in today's Observer

"This rush of laws presented to parliament in disguise, with their hidden sleeper clauses, are a disaster for our democracy. They are changing our country rapidly and profoundly. What I saw in Committee A was the triumph of Tony Blair's modernity over liberty."


Maybe the journalist has hit on a salient point here. Being modern is more important than being free to blair. And maybe all the modern all mod cons that the mass of the public have is enough to keep them happy and quiet. Hence the telly and fame and technological gadgets like the mobile and ipods and computers.

Free speech? No, that's passe, we don't need that, we've got all we need...

 

[fela fan]

Has it ever occured to you, fela, that such a ball could easily be diverted (by well-meaning or not so well-meaning agencies) while it rolls, and not hit the target at all?

What it then might hit should be considered before the ball is set rolling, IMO.

Ah, where's the adventurism in you lock?! Stop worrying about the future and get on with changing the present. Unleash the ball with an idea of where you want it to go, but if it diverts, then so be it. The fun begins.

But, fucking do something, this country is being turned on its head by those in power.

 

[Lock&Light]

Ah, where's the adventurism in you lock?!

I have something that I suspect you don't have. That is: children.

 

[fela fan]

I have something that I suspect you don't have. That is: children.

Well, what's the point?? Maybe you should return to some of your own childhood, children love adventure.

 

[Lock&Light]

children love adventure.

While that is certainly true, children do not like runaway balls bearing down on them before smashing into them, be they the targets or not. In that way they don't differ much from adults.

 

[fela fan]

While that is certainly true, children do not like runaway balls bearing down on them before smashing into them, be they the targets or not. In that way they don't differ much from adults.

Well nor the fuck do i! You've misunderstood me mate. That ball is to be headed in the direction of blair and his fellow criminals. Your children need be nowhere near it, even if it diverts. That ball is after the powerful who abuse their power.

Your kids can enjoy the adventure.

 

[nino_savatte]

I have something that I suspect you don't have. That is: children.

Ah, something else to make you feel superior to others.

I am a father and a grandfather. That makes me superior to you.

 

[Lock&Light]

Ah, something else to make you feel superior to others.

I am a father and a grandfather. That makes me superior to you.

Poor nino. It's all finally becoming too much for him.

 

[nino_savatte]

Poor nino. It's all finally becoming too much for him.

Does anyone except mears ever take you seriously?

How about you actually make a contribution for a change instead of popping up with your pointless comments?

 

[Fruitloop]

The only runaway balls on this thread is coming from L&L's keyboard.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I have something that I suspect you don't have. That is: children.

sorry this is relevant how?

so you have contributed to the surplus population of the world goodie for you...

that you think it makes you some kind of authority on anything is fucking amazing the only possible authority it makes you is that oyu are not firing blanks and you managed to find some one fertile enough and frankly mugged enough to bear your seed...

 

[nino_savatte]

The only runaway balls on this thread is coming from L&L's keyboard.

 

[TAE]

Almost all policies are now controlled from Brussels in the interests of the EU by its unelected bureacrats. (Commissioners are not in Brussels to fight for their home country's interests; the oath they take upon appointment expressly forbids this.) We did not vote these Commissioners in, we cannot vote them out; therefore we don't have much, if any, hope of influencing them. The EU is not a democracy.

I must say, the half-truths you mention seem very typical of UKIP's approach to europe.

For starters, who appoints the commitioners? The member states!
Who's interests are they supposed to represent? Those of the citizens of the whole EU!

Unlike the Council of the European Union, the Commission is intended to be a body independent of member states. Commissioners are therefore not permitted to take instructions from the government of the country that appointed them, but are supposed to represent the interests of the citizens of the EU as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

 

[TAE]

Back on topic, I recently noticed this little gem in our glorious human-rights-act:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--a.htm#1

1(4) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments to this Act as he considers appropriate to reflect the effect, in relation to the United Kingdom, of a protocol.

Does that mean what I think it means?

 

[goneforlunch]

I must say, the half-truths you speak seem very typical of UKIP's approach to europe. For starters, who appoints the commitioners? The member states!.

Our politicians appointed the British Commissioners Leon Brittan, Chris Patten, Neil Kinnock and Peter Mandelson, and the last 3 were rejected by their constituents. We, the people, did not vote them in. Some democracy.

Who's interests are they supposed to represent? Those of the citizens of the whole EU!

Er, you sort of agreeing with my point here. Although I would dispute that they are acting in the interests of the citizens of the whole of the EU. And no one asked the British electorate if they are happy to represented by officials from other EU countries. Some democracy. And could you be more specific on your claim that I speak half-truths please.

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on the Democratic Deficit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit

And from the Wikipedia article that you provided the link for ...

although the proposed European constitution has been abandoned following the French and Dutch "no" votes, there has been controversy over the Commission's decision to continue with several initiatives for which it is argued that only the Constitution would have provided a legal basis [2]. These allegedly include the proposed European Defence Agency, External Borders Agency, Human Rights Institute, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Public Prosecutor, politico-military structures, a collective security clause, a diplomatic service and even a space policy.

Wikipedia is wrong to say the the EU Constitution has been abandoned, it is still being voted on in some EU states, and only needs 20 countries of the 25 to vote in favour of it. The European Defence Agency and External Borders Agency are definitely being created now (you can do a Google search on them) so there is no allegedly about it.

Some democracy!

 

[aylee]

Back on topic, I recently noticed this little gem in our glorious human-rights-act:

1(4) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments to this Act as he considers appropriate to reflect the effect, in relation to the United Kingdom, of a protocol.

Does that mean what I think it means?

Probably not. An "Order" for this purpose does not mean a mere ministerial edict, but is a type of statutory instrument which is a formal piece of legislation.

A "Protocol" is a new part of the European Convention on Human Rights which has been added by subsequent agreement in the Council of Europe. Some of those Protocols have been agreed by the UK (for example, Articles 1 and 2 of the First Protocol which confer property rights and the right to education respectively) and others have not (for example, Article 4 of the Seventh Protocol which is a free-standing anti-discrimination provision).

So an Order could only be made under that provision if it was for the purpose of implementing a Protocol. The obvious way of doing so would be to add to "the Convention rights" in Schedule 1 to the Act. So it's probably good rather than bad, from a human rights point of view.

 

[laptop]

I concur with m'learned aylee.

If it came to it, any judge would have no difficulty intepreting that provision to mean:

1(4) The Secretary of State may by order make under this power only such amendments to this Act as he considers appropriate to reflect the effect, in relation to the United Kingdom, of a protocol (- that is, place before Parliament an Order to incorporate an amendment to the European Charter into UK law).

I don't have time to check whether it's negative or positive resolution procedure - that is, whether the Order takes effect unless Parliament votes otherwise, or takes effect only if Parliament votes for it.

Either way, orders rarely get much debate. But that's a whole other problem with Parliament - though one that is central to the Bill that this thread's about.

 

[aylee]

In reply to the original post, there are a number of points that I'd like to make about the Bill as currently before Parliament (link here). Apologies if any of them have been made already but I can't be bothered to wade through this thread.

"Previous to this bill the power to do this amending, repealing or replacing of any legislation was held by Parliament ALONE"

It is simply wrong to state that until now, only Parliament has had the power to change primary legislation. There are numerous examples in all sorts of fields of power being given to change primary legislation by secondary legislation. Section 10(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is one obvious example (link here).

The list of powers the minister recieves is found in the remainder of section 2 (follow the link). I've not included it in order to shorten the post.

However this list is extensive and covers pretty much every power that parliament has. The telling phrase is "may bind the Crown". This means ministers acting alone without the need for a debate or vote in Parliament may create laws by order.

Not so. There is a mechanism under clauses 10 to 16 of the Bill under which Parliament gets to decide whether it should have to approve a measure brought in under this Bill. "May bind the Crown" is a legislative term of art which confirms that provisions brought in by these pieces of legislation may bind the Crown as well as private individuals.

For examplethere is a provision in the terrorism act which states detention without charge can not last longer than 28 days. If this bill comes into force a minister may simply 'amend' that section to read 90 days, or 1000.

Not so, since Parliament could simply require such a provision to be the subject of the affirmative resolution procedure under clause 15 or the "super-affirmative" resolution procedure under clause 16.

Now Statutory Instruments are tabled in the House 'en masse'. Several thousand can be passed in a year, no parliamentary time is given to debate statutory instruments. They are administrative documents. They are not scrutinised. They are block voted on and hardly any MP's even bother to attend the voting.

The vast majority of SIs are subject to a negative resolution procedure that means that they are not debated at all unless there is a motion in Parliament to do so. Instruments passed under this Bill, by contrast, must be the subject of consultation under clause 11 (and would be vulnerable to judicial review if that was not done or not done properly) and Parliament has the opportunity to require a positive resolution under clause 13.

That is not to say that the breadth of this Bill is not concerning .... it is. There are many spheres in which I can see this procedure being very helpful. An example is in reforms proposed by the Law Commission, which are typically carefully reasoned and would result in huge improvements in a particular area of law. However, many of them are never passed because they aren't sexy enough to get Parliamentary time. I would agree that the use of the powers conferred by this Bill needs to be carefully monitored by anyone concerned about New Labour's increasing megalomania (especially now that Blair thinks that he's only answerable to something that doesn't exist). But the hysteria present in the initial postings on this thread needs to be avoided.