Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?

Many regulars here will be aware of my disdain for the current Prime Minister of the UK. I have always thought the man has no democratic principles. I also think that given the chance he would prefer to stay in power ad-infinitum. At last someone else has noticed.

Quote:

---

The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voilà, the law is changed.

---

source

Am I paranoid about this? No. This isn't the thin end of the wedge, this is the thick bit. A very troubling proposal from a very troubling PM and his government. :sweatdrop:

Hmm. Does sound like "big Brother". If it wasn't in the Time I'd've thought that it was a joke.

If that can go through, as the article says, what then? The only recource we have is that of the Monarch herself: she could refuse to pass the law, thus saving us from virtual dictatorship.

We might now see how good the whips truely are...

~:smoking:

If that Bill gets through I'm leaving, Australia sound nice.

On a more immidiate note, according to the article, the Bill covers all Bills except crimes with a gaol term of over two years and taxes. However, the Bill applies to itself, so that can be changed.

IIRC the Monarch's veto is enshrined in Law, so that could go.

This is not good people, I almost want to say, "Prepare for Civil War."

If true and accurate then this is a very worrying prospect. Although that article is written by a Lib-Dem MP so people should also seek alternative sources.

Quote:

---

"...Abolition of Parliament Bill

---

That bit of UK law has always fascinated me: technically, Parliament could one day get a wild hair, and vote itself out of existence.

On-topic: this sounds 'double un-good'. Parliament says: "Make 2 new divisions of Army". MoD says: "make that just 2 Platoons"; bake for 14 days at 350 degrees, and out of the oven pops 2 cupcakes, where 2 tiered wedding cakes were desired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

If true and accurate then this is a very worrying prospect. Although that article is written by a Lib-Dem MP so people should also seek alternative sources.

---

A little diiging came up with this....

Reform Bill

Quote:

---

Tony Wright, a labour MP, said
For me—and, I suspect, a good number of others—if the principle is to be followed that the advancement of ministerial powers must all the time be matched by advancement in safeguards on the use of those powers, the House should expect the three safeguards that I have outlined to be included in the Bill, in order to provide that security. While I welcome the thrust of the Government's aims, the danger is that ministerial powers could be extended in ways that Parliament did not want or intend, and perhaps was not even aware of.

---

As it should, all parties are perturbed at this.

If anyone wants to actually read the bill, it can be found here.

If anyone else is as alarmed at this as I am, then you should contact your MP and ask them some incisive questions.

Why does the Bill change the current procedures for the enactment into our law of EU legislation?

What guarantees are there that the Bill could not be used to bring in the EU Constitution by the back door?

If the Bill is just a simplifying measure for deregulation, why does it contain no requirement for any orders to actually reduce the amounts of red tape and regulation?

Why does the Bill give the power to create new law, including new criminal offences, to the Law Commissions, which are unelected quangos appointed by Ministers?

If the Law Commissions are supposed to be staffed by impartial technical experts, why are Ministers taking the power to amend the recommendations of the Law Commissions before they are fast-tracked into legislation?

Why do protections in the Bill against new laws to permit forcible entry, search, seizure or compelling people to give evidence not apply to reforms recommended by the unelected Law Commissions appointed by Ministers?

If the Bill allows Ministers to “amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act might”, does this not give them an unlimited power to ignore a democratic Parliament and legislate by decree?

If the Bill is so sensible, why has Parliament used a different way of making laws for 700 years?

If the Bill is meant to retain Parliament’s ability to scrutinise regulations and regulators, why does it not contain a provision for automatic sunset clauses in orders issued under the Bill?

If the Bill gives Ministers powers to charge fees by decree, is that not a charter to bring in unlimited stealth taxes?

As the Bill permits an order to be made by a Minister under the Bill provided its effect is “proportionate” to his “policy objective”, since when in our history as a democratic country has a Government Minister’s “policy objective” directly received the force of law?

What guarantees are there that the Bill could not be used to bring in ID Cards by the back door?

Why does the Bill give the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly a veto over Ministers’ power to change the law which it denies to English MPs?

linky

And so it begins...

Quote:

---

Council polls could be scrapped

The elections could make way for reform plans
Next year's local elections in England could be abandoned under plans being considered by the government, the BBC has learned.

---

bbc

I cannot believe that even Blair has the hubris to think he can get away with this. The conceit of the man is astounding.

Nope. You're just a paranoid Tory. Get a grip.

I believe Blair has already announced his retirement. Or maybe you secretly want him to stay on? :laugh4:

This was on the radio this morning. Very worrying.

I don't think Blair will be the one to try it on, but someone will, one day. And with this legistration it is just easier. Going to wake up one day to find parliament being stormed by the army after whoever is in power declares themselves president-for-life or something.

The parliament should write a bill that retroactively writes them out of existence and all the laws they passed after that retroactive date...heehee!

Seriously, this would be an amazingly stupid bill to pass. It seems like Britain is the testing ground for Big Brother.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Nope. You're just a paranoid Tory. Get a grip.

I believe Blair has already announced his retirement. Or maybe you secretly want him to stay on? :laugh4:

---

Paraniod? Perhaps. A Tory, ffs how many times? It is rather telling that objections about this bill are cross party. To my mind this bill does nothing for democracy and everything for the present government. Still it's nice to see some of the left leaning members here attempting to justify it.:oops:

InsaneApache, with you here, we don't need this Bill.

Red Peasant, yeah, retire my arse. He'll just keep going until he's dead.
:idea2: :rifle: :2thumbsup:

BDC, I'd bet more on King Charles storming into Parliament as soon as mum pops her clogs and kicking Blair out, there is a reason for monarchy!

Weird bill, I'll ask my MP about this...:book:

Quote:

---

BDC, I'd bet more on King Charles storming into Parliament as soon as mum pops her clogs and kicking Blair out, there is a reason for monarchy!

---

Indeed.

This bill is pretty useful, currently everything has to be voted on, including pointless minor updates that just fill time pointlessly. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Indeed.

This bill is pretty useful, currently everything has to be voted on, including pointless minor updates that just fill time pointlessly. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

---

Indeed. After all it cost money. Money better spent on things like.......well you tell me where all the bloody moneys gone?
BMW's in the local hospital carpark suddenley appeared a few years back!!!.....why waste money on elections, after all they know what's best, and they have the answers. Now shut up and behave, or the men in grey suits will want a chat...

:sweatdrop:

Aren't there safeguards in place to prevent this sort of thing? The Bill of Rights? The Acts of Union? The Royal Prerogative (A Stark contrast to the Glorious Revolution where such powers were removed from the Crown, which, since the Queen cannot pass legislation contravening the Bill and Declaration of Rights, shouldn't this Bill be prevented from gaining Royal Assent)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Why does the Bill give the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly a veto over Ministers’ power to change the law which it denies to English MPs?

---

If you read the section on devolution you will notice only the Welsh Assembly has any sort of veto, and only on its own running. Northern Ireland is exempt from this, which also begs the question of how long the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to keep the powers of the Northern Irish Assembly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Section 2, Subsection 4

An order under section 1 may make such consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision (including provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation or other provision) as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

---

This has to be fulfilled for the legislation to affect Scotland, as is specified under Section 8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Section 8

An order under section 1 may not, except by virtue of section 2(4), make provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament.

---

The Welsh Assembly, however, has to vote to pass anything which affects the Assembly itself. I believe the Bill has the power to legislate on Wales regardless of the Assembly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Section 8

An order under section 1 may not make any provision—
(a) conferring a function on the Assembly,
(b) modifying or removing a function of the Assembly, or
(c) restating any provision which confers a function on the Assembly,
except with the agreement of the Assembly.

---

And this much referred to Section 1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Section 1

(1)
A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes—
(a) reforming legislation;
(b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.

(2)
An order under this section must be made in accordance with this Part.

(3)
In this Part “legislation” means a provision of—
(a) any public general Act or local Act, or
(b) any Order in Council, order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other subordinate instrument made under a public general Act or local Act, but does not include any instrument which is, or is made under, Northern Ireland legislation.

---

Hey, don't worry DM, make no bones about it, you will be next. Mark my words.

Remember this, if they can make England disappear, (as in the last census) then we actually do have newspeak and doublespeak et al. All in the name of progress and modernity of course.

God forbid it might be for other reasons.

:juggle2:

Lol!
Blair will retire. But rather him to be PM than that smarmy ex-PR exec Cameron, he makes my skin crawl. Yeuch, I need a shower.

Don't worry, I voted for Chris Huhne as next Lib Dem leader...

He went out with the same girl as Blair so he must be good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Lol!
Blair will retire. But rather him to be PM than that smarmy ex-PR exec Cameron, he makes my skin crawl. Yeuch, I need a shower.

---

So he says. You have obviously not read the post. This thread is about Ministers having the ability to amend/discard/make up laws, without recourse to Parliament. How can that be a good thing whatever your political persuasion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Indeed.

This bill is pretty useful, currently everything has to be voted on, including pointless minor updates that just fill time pointlessly. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

---

I'm sorry but you obviously don't know much about law making. A Statutory Instrument will allow the passing of delegated legislation by a specialist body (read: quangos).

Ministers are also allowed to make minor changes to the law within their own sphere, I forget what thats called.

All this bill does is remove all the safeguards and since the bill applies to itself the two safeguards left can be removed once it has been passed as well.

As to the Royal Veto, its stamped by the speaker now and has been for several years. I suppose the Queen would have to make it known publically that the bill was not supported by her for that to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

All this bill does is remove all the safeguards and since the bill applies to itself the two safeguards left can be removed once it has been passed as well.

---

If the Bill is clumsily worded so that in a few year's time, a minister can use it to change some legislation which it was never intended to cover - if the Times is right and any Act can be altered in any way, then this is a pretty big "all". If the Bill is tightly worded and can only be used to reduce business regulations, then we have nothing to worry about.