Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?

[InsaneApache]

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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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."

[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.

[KukriKhan]

"...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.

[InsaneApache]

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

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.

[Marcellus]

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

[InsaneApache]

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...

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.

[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?

[BDC]

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.