Subverting Democracy

Almost unnoticed by the Press and ignore by the electorate a bill before parliament will allow the Govenment to change the law without needing parliamentary agreement, votes etc etc.

This is exactly the same sort of order Hitler had passd to allow him, legitimately, to assume complete control.

The current atmosphere of fear is being used to subvert democracy in the cause of the WoT

The extraordinary Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before the House, gives ministers power to amend, repeal or replace any legislation simply by making an order and without having to bring a Bill before Parliament. The House of Lords Constitution Committee says the Bill is “of first-class constitutional significance” and fears that it could “markedly alter the respective and long standing roles of minister and Parliament in the legislative process”.

www.timesonline.co.uk...


For those interested in the wording of the bill:
www.publications.parliament.uk...

For comparison Hitler's 1933 act
en.wikipedia.org...

If this goes through it's the end of democracy as we know it


[edit on 18-2-2006 by Strangerous] - formatting

[edit on 18-2-2006 by Strangerous]

mod edit to replace bad link

[edit on 11-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Yikes, Strangerous, this is really scary news. Thumbs up for finding and posting this. What a wake up call!! We're getting to the very same place here in the U.S.; alot of legislation by presidential executive orders. It's very scary and I find it very sad that England and the U.S., bastions of democracy, have come to this. It seems that not only the Constitutions of Britain and U.S. ahve been shredded: the Magna Carta has been tossed out as well.
How are the Brits responding? Is this general news there?

-Forestlady

Great find, and terrible news. This needs to be brought to everyone's attention immediately and shot down before it can be approved. First the police chief in Texas wanting to put cameras in apartments and houses, now this.

Liberty is going away faster than I expected and people are accepting it.

Both the US and Great Britain are aristocracies controlled by wealth. The US has always been a wealth based aristocratic representative republic. Our forefathers made the US a representative republic because both Jefferson and Adams felt that the masses were incapable of participating in a true democracy...hence our elected representatives. The US was simply a group of wealthy land owning male aristocrats who were denied entry to the British aristocracy, so they started their own club called the USA. Our US government is controlled by money and always has been.

www.publications.parli....i-ii.html...


This link is bad

Please fix

Thank you

Sorry here's the link to the actual bill

www.publications.parliament.uk...

No it's been completely ignored by the public and hardly mentioned by the press I'm afraid to say. IMO that's the real reason Bliar's trying again with the glorifying terrorism act - it's just a smoke screen and he knows it's unworkable/deeply-flawed

Whaaaaat???

Thank you Strangerous. Bliar won't even have to lie any more, he and his ministers can just 'do stuff'. 'Reform an existing law'? How much more vague could this be? (The answer, for you Spinal Tap fans, being, "none more vague".)

And what happens to judicial review? This opens a whole can of Constitutional Law worms.

Britain is turning into a police state. The last Labour Party conference demonstrated that, with over 500 people 'detained' without cause or warrant.

Being in power means never having to say "I'm sorry".

You'll find we have already been discussing this here politics.abovetopsecret.com... (where it should be?).

There are links to newspaper reports and the BBC.

In fact to claim this has been ignored by the British press is simply not true and nor is it true that the British press has been weak or supportive of the what has been seen as the implications of the proposed measures -

Some have called it the Henry VIII bill; one MP thought Stalin would be a more appropriate dictator to put his name to it. A leading academic refers to it as the "abolition of parliament bill".

www.guardian.co.uk...

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill was introduced last month by Jim Murphy, Cabinet Office minister, with the aim of making it simpler and faster to cut the burden of regulation "and embed a light-touch, risk-based approach to regulation".

Clifford Chance, the world's largest law firm, points out that the Bill "usurps the power of Parliament". In a briefing to clients, it says the only red tape that the Bill would remove is "the red tape of Parliamentary scrutiny for primary legislation".

telegraph.co.uk/news

Some businesses have a "secret love" of regulation, using complex rules to deter potential competitors or as a lucrative source of consultancy fees, according to the government's top adviser on red tape.

Rick Haythornthwaite, the former chief executive of Invensys, who chairs the government-sponsored but independent Better Regulation Commission, makes the argument in today's Financial Times.

(The FT requires registration.)
link

I suggest people might like to consider the way legislation is made in the UK before leaping to such extreme conclusions about what this 'Bill' will mean; it is far from defined at the moment.

There are several 'readings' (debates) over the implications of what is proposed both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and there is also the committee stage where expert witnesses are brought in to discuss matters with MPs and inform the debate.

There are almost certainly going to be several major amendments made to this proposed 'Bill'.......because that is what has happened to almost every single 'Bill' that ever passed through the British Parliament.


[edit on 11-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I'm not sure that these amendments (if they happen) will do much to water down the most frightening part of this bill, namely that ministers will be able to create legislation without a parliamentary vote.

If there was an amendment that said parliament would have the final vote on changes proposed under this bill it would make the bill completely pointless. The whole reason for this bill seems to be that ministers will be able to bypass the troublesome burden of needing to secure a majority for whatever plans they come up with - or democracy as some prefer to call it.

If you change the bill to require these orders be approved by majority vote in the commons then you basically have the current system - minus the Lords. No matter what amendments they come up with, the lack of a vote in parliament is what makes this undemocratic and unacceptable in my eyes.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I'm not sure that these amendments (if they happen) will do much to water down the most frightening part of this bill, namely that ministers will be able to create legislation without a parliamentary vote.

- OK, your opinion and all that but this is purely your own imaginings and speculation.

Surely the type of legislation is of huge importance in this, no?

If the intent is to streamline and sweep away lots of old and outdated legislation (which it is, that is the whole point of this Bill) then that is hardly in the same category as the kind of brand new and repressive law some seem determined to imagine is about to be imposed once this Bill becomes law.

If there was an amendment that said parliament would have the final vote on changes proposed under this bill it would make the bill completely pointless. The whole reason for this bill seems to be that ministers will be able to bypass the troublesome burden of needing to secure a majority for whatever plans they come up with - or democracy as some prefer to call it.

- This is simply not true.

You know perfectly well that the intent behind this Bill is to try and finally tackle 'red tape' and clear out and sweep away redundant old law.

As my link in the PTS forum showed -

Ministers must not be allowed to abuse proposed laws aimed at cutting red tape, a Commons committee has said.
It wants extra safeguards drafted into the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, due to be debated on Thursday.

The bill aims to speed up the process by which redundant laws are changed and allows them to be amended on ministers' orders, without parliamentary scrutiny.......

The Commons Regulatory Reform Committee.....

.....is pressing for the power to monitor all laws amended by ministers, so it can veto any it decides need further parliamentary intervention.

The committee also wants certain laws protected from the changes.

Andrew Miller, Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, said: "This bill must be scrutinised with particular care.

"Our report recognises that there is widespread support for removing redundant regulation and costly red tape.

"But the problem many people will have with part one of this bill, as drafted, is that it provides ministers with a wide and general power that could be used to repeal amend or replace almost any primary legislation.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If you change the bill to require these orders be approved by majority vote in the commons then you basically have the current system - minus the Lords. No matter what amendments they come up with, the lack of a vote in parliament is what makes this undemocratic and unacceptable in my eyes.

- Like has been said the final form has yet to be seen (and itself may well be amended or changed later anyway with experience.....Parliament is fully entitled to revisit old law - which, ironically is really what this one is all about - and cannot be bound by previous Parliamentary Acts).

Simply pretending there is a monstrous intent just because at the very limit of some exaggerated and extreme possibility there might possibly be something unwanted that might happen one day if a sufficiently fascistic mood were evident is hardly an accurate portrayal of what is intended.

It's also worth bearing in mind that this legislation originated in a request by Gordon Brown -

In Budget 2004 the Chancellor asked Philip Hampton to lead a review into regulatory inspection and enforcement with a view to reducing the administrative cost of regulation to the minimum consistent with maintaining the UK’s excellent regulatory outcomes.

This interim report, Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement, outlines the issues relevant to the administrative cost of regulation, and suggests possible solutions

hm-treasury.gov.uk

- to Philip Hampton to investigate and report on reducing 'red tape' and was not the product of some horrible Labour party anti-democrat commie (which older people in the UK may well remember was once one of the more wild claims of the British rabid right-wing, namely that a Labour government would go deepest red and suspend elections blah blah blah).

Here's Philip Hampton, about as far removed from a loonie leftie anti-democrat as it gets -

Philip Hampton joined the auditors Coopers & Lybrand, London, in 1975 and worked in London and West Africa. In 1981 he joined Lazard Brothers, working on mergers and acquisitions, as well as business restructurings in London, New York and Paris. From 1990, Mr. Hampton worked for British Steel plc as Group Finance Director, he became Group Finance Director of British Gas in July 1996 and BT's Group Finance Director in October 2000. From June 2002 until March 2004 he worked as Finance Director for LloydsTSB. In July 2004 he was appointed Chairman of J Sainsbury plc

hm-treasury.gov.uk

There are also some accusation being made in this that IMO are based on ignorance of existing Parliamentary procedures.
It is already in a Ministers power to make statutory regulations in respect of an Act of Parliament without returning to Parliament for their approval.

Somehow that seems to have been missed in the rush to claim the new proposals are all about and fully intended to by-pass our Parliament and democracy or whatever other OTT nonsense can be dreamed up.



[edit on 11-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Ministers must not be allowed to abuse proposed laws aimed at cutting red tape, a Commons committee has said.
It wants extra safeguards drafted into the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, due to be debated on Thursday.

The bill aims to speed up the process by which redundant laws are changed and allows them to be amended on ministers' orders, without parliamentary scrutiny.......

The Commons Regulatory Reform Committee.....

.....is pressing for the power to monitor all laws amended by ministers, so it can veto any it decides need further parliamentary intervention.

The committee also wants certain laws protected from the changes.

Andrew Miller, Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, said: "This bill must be scrutinised with particular care.

"Our report recognises that there is widespread support for removing redundant regulation and costly red tape.

"But the problem many people will have with part one of this bill, as drafted, is that it provides ministers with a wide and general power that could be used to repeal amend or replace almost any primary legislation.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I slightly changed the bold emphasis there. Those are the parts of the bill which worry me. Even assuming their intentions are purely to sweep away red tape, do we seriously want a piece of legislation on the books which grants ministers this kind of power. We don't know who will be in power in 10 years time and I would not personally like to leave it to chance that these powers will not be misused.

Like has been said the final form has yet to be seen (and itself may well be amended or changed later anyway with experience.....Parliament is fully entitled to revisit old law - which, ironically is really what this one is all about - and cannot be bound by previous Parliamentary Acts).

No, the final form has not been seen yet, there I will agree. It will be interesting to see what happens to this bill. In its current form it is not something I feel comfortable with but I will wait and see what amendments are made before fully making my mind up about it.

Simply pretending there is a monstrous intent just because at the very limit of some exaggerated and extreme possibility there might possibly be something unwanted that might happen one day if a sufficiently fascistic mood were evident is hardly an accurate portrayal of what is intended.

Again, it is not the intent which is necessarily troubling, more the potential for abuse that this bill represents.

Oh blimey! Stalin, Hitler and PolPot would be proud of old Tony and His cronies...

This is a real danger to us here in the Uk, to our laws and our way of life. Whats to stop them from deciding that they will harmonise our laws with europes without our consent as the people? and bring in a dictatorship because they have a plan, and we will have no say over the matter?! I really really hope this is fought within the parlimentary system..

Dubya in the US started it...Blairs playing poodle... So how long till we get hammered under the jack boots of the masters??

Originally posted by MadGreebo
Oh blimey! Stalin, Hitler and PolPot would be proud of old Tony and His cronies...

- I've told you a million times MG, do not exaggerate!

But come on MG, multi-million mass-murders verses, what?
A guy you don't like too much?

This is a real danger to us here in the Uk, to our laws and our way of life. Whats to stop them from deciding that they will harmonise our laws with europes without our consent as the people?

- We are already harmonising many of our laws with those throughout Europe (in fact a degree of harmonisation is going on globally and has been since we all started travelling the world).

.....and so what?

It saves our people fortunes and maximises efficiency by having common standards and regulations in business and commerce (which is where so much of this harmonisation is going on).

Beyond that why shouldn't Europe have minimum common standards?

Why should a British person have less in the way of rights than his or her French or German or Greek or Irish etc etc counter-part?

and bring in a dictatorship because they have a plan, and we will have no say over the matter?!

- The day they cancel the elections and impose this dictatorship you be sure and let us know eh?

sminkeypinkey I found your posts very informative. They completely cleared up the fearmongering I saw in some of the other posts--thank you.

P.S. I cast a WATS vote for your efforts.


[edit on 11-3-2006 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
sminkeypinkey I found your posts very informative. They completely cleared up the fearmongering I saw in some of the other posts--thank you.

P.S. I cast a WATS vote for your efforts.


[edit on 11-3-2006 by Astronomer68]

I concur. With sminkeypinkey around, sanity's finally prevailed in this thread.

Originally posted by Lanton

Originally posted by Astronomer68
sminkeypinkey I found your posts very informative. They completely cleared up the fearmongering I saw in some of the other posts--thank you.

P.S. I cast a WATS vote for your efforts.


[edit on 11-3-2006 by Astronomer68]

I concur. With sminkeypinkey around, sanity's finally prevailed in this thread.

oh god now dont be fooled, he is spouting rubbish for some reason.
This is a very strage bill, amendments or not the basic premise of negotiating is to put forward something you know you'll never get and negotiate from there. Remains to be seen what theyw ill end up getting, but this is very dangerous.
Its not to 'cut red tape' unless you mean parliament is 'red tape.'

The Labour government is obsessed with red tape anyway so maybe a better way for us to cut red tape would be to get rid of that lot

I agree - for 'red tape' read 'all that boring democratic process'.

With an 'it'll be OK' attitude we're sleepwalking into totalitarianism

Blair backs down over regulatory reform bill
By Jean Eaglesham,Chief Political Correspondent
Published: April 13 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 13 2006 03:00

Sweeping ministerial powers in a proposed bill designed to cut red tape are to be curtailed following a row over their constitutionality, the minister responsible said yesterday.

Jim Murphy, the cabinet office minister, said the government would back down from the highly contentious plans to cut the bureaucracy burden on business and amend the proposed law.

registration.ft.com

- Well there you have it, just like I said, Parliament and the MPs would debate and scrutinise this Bill and where appropriate it would be amended and modified.

Contrary to the wild assertions and extremist claims of some, reports of the death of British democracy have been wildly exaggerated, hmmmm?

(and btw it may be that some people are far too young to remember this but the people 'obsessed' by 'red tape' are not the Labour party actually but business, they are always going on and on about it and trying to lobby the government of the day.

That is why 'red tape' has been a 'hot topic' for tory governments for decades too.
Go google 'tories fight red tape' and you'll find entries for them all Thatcher, Major, Hague, Smith, Howard and Cameron.)


[edit on 16-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 16-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

i have to laugh at you smikey.
The people who complain about Blair wanting to set up his dictatorship are extremists.

At least we are going to get some extra safeguards. Have to wait and see what.

Originally posted by AdamJ
i have to laugh at you smikey.
The people who complain about Blair wanting to set up his dictatorship are extremists.

- Naaa AdamJ, your comprehension is letting you down.
What I wrote about was silly and extreme claims, not 'extremists' as such.

The kind of silly-headed nonsense that practically everything from this Labour government has just got to be a move towards dictatorship.

Even when you are shown 'the system working' and those original claims to be exaggerated and wrong - as you were advised originally - you still keep it up - and utterly ignore the points about previous tory administrations .

......and it must have escaped your notice that far from wanting "his dictatorship" Blair (uniquely for a British PM) has given plenty of notice and announced he is stepping down shortly.
Wow, that's some weird idea of a tyrant-in-the-making.
One who announces his retirement long before the event itself (he made the announcement in oct 2004, giving 'the people' proper notice before the May 2005 general election here).

At least we are going to get some extra safeguards. Have to wait and see what.

- Yes indeed.
But you can be assured it won't be the dictatorship you seem determined to believe is on the way being imposed.

Be sure to let us all know when the government propose to remove your vote, ok?



[edit on 16-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]