End of Parliament?

**Idaho** · 04-10-2006, 22:42

A former minister referred to the British system of government as an elected dictatorship. A judgement that stands well.

Deferred powers have always been a feature of our political system - and as I haven't heard much about this I really don't know how legit the website is. For all we know it could only affect the fisheries ministry or some such.

**scooter_the_shooter** · 04-10-2006, 22:48

Well if this anything like what rabbit is thinking. Get the heck outa' there while you can.

But chances are it probably won't change much IMO but what do I know?

And if rabbit's prediction does happen all the pro gun Americans will be able to say "I told you so"

J/k

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-10-2006, 23:03

Meh, weapons only count for as much as people are willing to use them. No offense, but I get the sense that there would be no British uprising where this to pass.

Crazed Rabbit

**Marcellus** · 04-10-2006, 23:44

I hope that one of the following happens:

1) The Government withdraws the bill (good)
2) The Government continues with the bill but suffers a massive defeat that leads to Tony Blair's resignation (even better).

**Kanamori** · 04-11-2006, 00:58

Your Executive and Legislature have always been difficult to tell apart, but this seems to be too broad. I would like to read an article that doesn't sound as excited as all of the ones I've read, so I would feel more comfortable trusting it. It seems like quite a complex bill, and that makes me even more wary of all the passionate comments that seem to deal only in generalities. Of course, after attempting to read the bill, I am left feeling that I would need many explanations in order to truly understand it. The fact that Parliament can be very productive, unlike our own system, seems problematic here, as the controversy surrounding this government should definitely have reduced it to a lame duck. Yet, Blair is stubbornly pushing on.

**lars573** · 04-11-2006, 03:29

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Your Executive and Legislature have always been difficult to tell apart,

That's because they are the same, effectively. The head of the executive and the legislature is the same man, Tony Blair.

**Kanamori** · 04-11-2006, 06:10

Yep, I took a 400 level course during my first semester on their government; in the next I met him, and interned with the Deputy Leader of the Commons. It was a bit of an understatement and a poor attempt at British humor.

**Rodion Romanovich** · 04-11-2006, 10:09

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Meh, weapons only count for as much as people are willing to use them. No offense, but I get the sense that there would be no British uprising where this to pass.

Crazed Rabbit

Well, you have got quite a few orgahs in England, haven't you? Plus reinforcements from Isle of Man, if you grant Isle of Man independence in return for their assistance

. How could anyone stop an army of orgahs well supplied with ammunition?

---

UK ARMY --- ORGAH ARMY

**Duke Malcolm** · 04-11-2006, 11:15

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Well, you have got quite a few orgahs in England, haven't you? Plus reinforcements from Isle of Man, if you grant Isle of Man independence in return for their assistance

. How could anyone stop an army of orgahs well supplied with ammunition?

---

UK ARMY --- ORGAH ARMY

Ahem, the Bill also proposes to affect Scotland...

Nevertheless, isn't there a convention of Parliament whereby no Parliament my limit the powers of any succeeding Parliaments, so this Bill could hypothetically be overturned by a court because it prevents succeeding Parliaments from voting on laws?

**Haudegen** · 04-11-2006, 12:00

I have some materials on English law. As far as I understand this, there is a rule called "continuing legislative supremacy". The rule says that parliament can enact anything but it can not bind itself for the future.

But I don´t think that English courts have the power to repeal a parliamentary statute just because it seems incompatible with the rule above. Only parliament itself can repeal it.

**drone** · 04-11-2006, 15:18

IIRC, doesn't the Queen have to sign off on bills that pass Parliament? My understanding was that this was just a formality these days, but the forms must be obeyed. Is this the case? Could she stop a bill such as this?

Or maybe I just had too much beer when I lived there and have it all wrong...

**Kralizec** · 04-11-2006, 10:43

Originally Posted by Idaho

Deferred powers have always been a feature of our political system - and as I haven't heard much about this I really don't know how legit the website is. For all we know it could only affect the fisheries ministry or some such.

Our parliament has also deferred quite a lot of -technicly- legislature power to the executive, but only of a lesser kind, and of course our parliament can take it back at any time. The benefit is off course that minstries are much better equiped to asses information and make precise (read: minor) regulation.

The problem with this bill seems to be that it has a theoreticly unlimited scope.