UK Parliament to be Made Redundant?

caluml writes "The Guardian is reporting that the current UK government is trying to sneak a new law though in an innocuously named bill called 'The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill,' which would get rid of that pesky, interfering need to put laws to the Houses of Commons and Lords to approve. There is already the Parliament Act that can be used to force laws through, which was used recently for the hunting bill. " The original coverage is a bit old but the bill is still being tossed around in parliament. The text of the bill is also available via the UK Parliament website.

Comments

The Parliament Act.

[Blapto]

This wasn't snuck in, it's been around for quite some time now. It actually serves a valid purpose as well. Basically, the part that this article refers to allows a government to bypass the House of Lords (an unelected body) after a certain number of tries in a certain time period when trying to pass a bill.
Anything that goes through the parliament act will generate enough publicity for the public to kick up a fuss about it if they don't like it anyway.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Blapto]

Probably poor form to reply to my own post, but in reference to the Parliament Act, it's worth having a look at the Salisbury Convention to see why it isn't as powerful as it sounds.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Philip K Dickhead]

This is because the Lords have been traditional conservatives, in regards to the administration of government in Britain. That is, they have been a barrier to the kind of radical moves by "New Labour" that characterize the revolutionary and unrepresentative executives of Bush in the US, Howard in Australia and Harper in Canada.

They wish to preserve the legacy of representation and rule of law that are initiated with the Magna Carta, and succeeding 800 years of parliamentary rule. In fact, many of the Lords see this as a part of their personal heritage. It is a definition of "conservative" that has been sadly neglected in much of the English-speaking world over the last half-century. As an old Whig of the Fox/Hobhouse school, I applaud the credibility and veracity of Ancien Regieme Tories in this principled position.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Jason Earl]

Wait a second. I thought that you guys had a Queen or something.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[jb.hl.com]

Anything that goes through the parliament act will generate enough publicity for the public to kick up a fuss about it if they don't like it anyway.

The public kicks up a fuss about LOTS of things, but they never get listened to. For example: Iraq, ID cards, school reforms...

The ID cards bill has been rejected by the Lords again and again, because frankly they're sane. But my understanding is this act could well be used to force it through, to the detriment of everyone.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Excuse me while I stop pissing myself with laughter.

1. Iraq war. People said no and protested, yet I see troops still there and even helping start it.

2. More people voted in Big brother than in the general election.. maybe it's just me.. but I don't think many people care about politics.

Shall we go on? Labour is taking the piss and trying to cut out everyone who's going "oi retards, you're fucking up the country!" and this is just another step on that ladder. Remember Hitler was a really nice bloke on TV, he was the apple of most young girls eyes.. Even pure evil can put on a charismatic alter ego and play nice to the public.

Don't put money on "the public" turning this over, get writing to everyone you can and do it NOW. This is one small step up a ladder which leads to the Ministry of Peace, other wise known as Camp X-ray or a Cuban jail everyone knows is full of tortured "terrorists" (even though no one can define a terrorist..)

Re:The Parliament Act.

[caluml]

Indeed. TB seems to think he knows better, and when the houses rightly reject his bills, he wants to have some method for forcing them through.
Has he forgotten that England has suffered terrorism before, and survived without removing everyone's civil liberties? Yes, there have been terrorists in the past. *

* Subject to your point of view.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Sarisar]

It's true, our second chamber is unelected. Lords become members by a complex mixture of appointment, religion, appelation, hereditary entitlement and self-election, which frankly I can't work out.

It's simple. Donate^H^H^H^H^H^H Loan money to labour, get a peerage.

Shame I don't have a spare million or two lying around. Could do with a peerage...

Re:The Parliament Act.

[user24]

You see, the thing is, the Lords (at the moment) have a birth right to be there. They can say whatever they want without fear of parliamentary whips putting pressure on them to to stop conflicting with the current party's views, without fear of being kicked out, and without fear of losing their next election. That's why they're a good thing, because they have the chance to oppose laws even when the majority of parliament is for them. Apart from the Queen (who needless to say only perform a cursory duty), they are the only impartial group in the government. I agree that they are definately more conservative, and generally represent only the upper class white citizens (as seen in their rejection of the anti-hunting legislation), but that's better than their not being there at all. imho. ianal.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[user24]

well, yeah, they're not impartial in that sense but they're free from enforced political affiliation, or at the very least less partial than the rest of the government.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Liam Slider]

Indeed, technically, it is the Queen that rules Britain...the government that has been granted it's position continues to exist only because it promotes order within her realm and she is thus satisfied with it's function of keeping the country from falling into utter chaos. Technically. If that government were to grossly step out of line it is entirely within her authority to remove it, or at least bring it back in line.

Ultimately though, it comes down to the People. If they won't support the Queen in her actions then very quickly you'd either find her removed (given past examples in Britain, this would likely involve plenty of bloodshed and one dead monarch) or a slap on the wrist given and an illusion of a limitation of the Monarchy's powers (which would merely be the creation of a new government with expanded authority, that again merely exists because it keeps the Monarchy satisfied the nation is running properly...technically).

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Theatetus]

In a practical sense, I expect that this is quite similar to one of the roles the Supreme Court has in American politics.

The US Senate wasn't elected for about 150 years. In theory it allowed Senators to be immune from political pressures and the public passions of the moment. In practice, as political parties in the US got more powerful the Senators became pawns of the state parties.

Still, I have to say the Lords have been doing Good Things for the most part lately, and maybe there's nothing inherently wrong with having a brake in place against the public mood of the day. God knows we could have used one in the US over the past 5 years or so...

Re:The Parliament Act.

[(negative video)]

I realise it's a legacy of centuries past, and I realise that it's 'historically important', but create a 'house of lords' museum and get yourselves a proper senate for the love of democracy.

Democracy consists of you and your neighbors deciding most of what government does to you. An elected senate dictating tiny details of everyday life to people hundreds of miles away is not democratic. Every matter being a national winner-takes-all battle is not democratic.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[techno-vampire]

Impartial? Nonsense. They're only accountable to their own interests.

Well, yes, of course. However, as they don't have to worry about being re-elected, they can say what they think and vote for what they really think is in the nation's best interest instead of pandering to lobbyists and campaign contributors. In that sense, at least, they're more likely to be impartial than an elected official.

It's the same idea as the Romans used in having members of their Senate (Their "conscript fathers" as they were sometimes called.) serve for life. By taking away the need to curry favor for re-election, they were expected to be able to put themselves above the special interest groups and work only for the good of the state. To some extent, it worked, because the senators took their responsibilities seriously.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[techno-vampire]

You're telling me that the Lords infallibly divine what is in the best interest of the Kingdom, and do that, instead of serving their own interests, which may or may not be in the best interest of the Kingdom?

No, I'm not saying that, and you're not crazy. What I was saying is that because the Lords don't have to worry about re-election, they can vote for what they think is in the country's best interest. Naturally, being human, they also take their own interests into consideration, but they don't have to worry about pleasing either the voters or the campaign contributors.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[masdog]

Hmm...interesting. This is how the US Senate should operate. Damn 17th Amendment!!

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Pete]

Planesdragon:

Britain is a Parlimentary System, and as such Tony Blair is elected, in truth, only by the members of his particular party.

Tony Blair is the legitimately elected MP representing Sedgefield. And he's also the legitimately elected leader of the Labour Party, as voted for by the MPs of that party. And you could quite reasonably argue that, as the leader and the "face" of Labour, his party's overall victory in the last three general elections is an additional (indirect) endorsement by British voters.

None of this changes the fact that he's a contemptible manipulative lying prat with little or no respect for civil liberties or international law - but apparently that is what the majority of the British voters want as their political leader. So be it.

He doesn't even need to have been a Member of Parliment.

The British Prime Minister doesn't even need to be an MP? Okay, I know the Brits don't have an official constitution and so the rules on this may not be carved in stone, but that still seems kind of unlikely. Have you got a source for this?

Re:The Parliament Act.

[geminidomino]

Impartial? Nonsense. They're only accountable to their own interests.

Granted. Now the real question: How does that separate them from the elected types?

Note: Getting re-elected is still their own interest, so anyone saying "elected officials are accountable to the voters" automatically fails.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[lysergic.acid]

I agree. What you describe ultimately ends up being a tyranny of the majority, especially with the bipartisan system. In a true participatory democracy, most aspects of government would be delegated to local government, which would act through frequent broad-based referendums.

The problem is that there are more than two sides to most issues. And with the current political system, both the Democrats and Republicans are simply different factions of the American business party--since their campaign funding, and thus their election, comes from the extremely wealthy, whom are mostly corporate entities, or large stockholders.

It doesn't take nearly as much money to run for offices at the local government level, and thus the bipartisan sytem has a much weaker hold there, and independents have a much better chance of getting elected. Also, because power isn't as consolidated, the majority rule isn't as likely to always be composed of the same majority (ie. one party or another).

The U.S. government is actually quite far from a true participatory democracy. Referendums are rarely held, most issues being decided by representatives without consulting the public, and so the most anyone can do is choose one party or the other during election time.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[TheRaven64]

Having an elected upper house somewhat defeats the point of having one at all. There is a huge benefit to having an unelected one. They can not enact bills without the agreement of the lower house (which is elected), so they are unable to simply further their own interests. Conversely, they provide a check on the tyranny of the majority that representative democracy so often leads to by not being subject to the whims of the majority.

You may have seen in recent years how easy it is to cower the electorate with the thread of 'terrorists.' The majority is willing to give up personal freedoms in order for the government to protect them from a spectre. If the majority feels this way, and the upper house is elected by any means then it becomes easy to pass such laws.

Oh, and don't say that a codified constitution would protect the people from such things. As we can see in the USA, the constitution must be interpreted by individuals, and these individuals are susceptible to the influences of their time.

I have had the opportunity to observe the debate in both houses during my time in London, and met with members of both houses. At the end of the experience, I am usually left wondering why we put up with the house of commons. Individually, I know a few members who are rational and reasonable individuals, but when you put them together you get a room full of idiots. I believe Gilbert and Sullivan said it best when they said each MP 'has got to leave his brain outside.'

Re:The Parliament Act.

[DavidTC]

No. England is the opposite of a theocracy, which happens to look identical to one if you aren't paying attention.

In a theocracy, the church runs the government. In England, the government runs the church. As these both have the same entity running both the church and the government, it is easy to confuse them.

With England, however, the government runs the church because the church that used to claim authority (The Catholic Church) was asserting too much authority, so they got rid of it. And then, because it was expected at the time, they made their own church, which they have then continued to basically ignore.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[TheRaven64]

Okay, I know the Brits don't have an official constitution and so the rules on this may not be carved in stone, but that still seems kind of unlikely

Actually, we do have a written constitution. What we don't have is a codified constitution (our constitution is drawn from many sources). The grandparent poster is half right. The prime minister does have to be an MP, however they do not have to be a member of the House of Commons. The procedure for selecting a PM is roughly as follows:

1. The Queen selects someone and invites them to form a government.
2. This person must gain the support of half of the house of commons.
3. If so, they become prime minister. If not, then the Queen goes back to step 1.

Since the creation of Lords is one of the Monarch's Prerogative Powers, it is quite possible for her to select someone completely random, create them a peer, and then ask them to form a government. For the last couple of centuries or so it has been traditional for the monarch to invite the leader of the party with the most seats to form a government, since they are usually guaranteed support of the majority of the house.

If, at any point, the PM ceases to have the support of half of the house then a vote of no confidence can be passed. If this happens, a general election must be called and a new government elected. This can happen, for example, if they have a narrow majority and one of their members resigns or dies. At this point a by-election will be called, and their seat contested again. If someone from the opposition takes it then the government can lose its majority.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[1u3hr]

why would a modern nation have an unelected governing body in the 21st century, let alone the 20th?

Have you looked at how the US Electoral College system works? They can appoint anyone they like as president.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Kadin2048]

Oh yes, because OUR system works so well, with those Senators getting down on their knees and puckering up to any large corporation with a few million bucks every six years. (Granted, they don't seem to be as blindly bad as some members of the House, but that's a pretty low bar these days.)

The UK system of government undoubtedly has its share of problems, but the House of Lords isn't it.

Except for the fact that it's not a sort of thing that you can just create (it's more something that you can only have, if it's been in existence since before the rest of the government formed) I'd say that it wouldn't be such a bad idea to do something like that here, in my more exasperated moments. In theory, it's a pretty good idea -- a bunch of people who aren't subject to the whims of fat-walleted corporate/PAC pimps and who have no other function in the government aside from taking the longest possible view. (Arguably this is the function of the USSC here, I suppose.)

The purpose that our Senate was originally supposed to serve, namely to be a brake on the other half of the Legislature, it seems to regularly fail to do; each party's House and Senate contingents seem to be in lock-step on all but the smallest details (you generally have to get down to the wording of particular bills to find differences between Senate and House versions, the intent is rarely very different on major issues). So I'm not sure that I would be dismissing the concept of a House of Lords so quickly. If I were a UK citizen (subject?) I'd be awfully reticent to throw away anything that might act as a brake on the rest of government, however anachronistic it might seem. If they were trying to drag the entire country back to the 17th century I might feel less cautious, but it doesn't seem like there's any evidence of that.

However bad you think your government is now, with enough meddling it could always get spectacularly worse in a hurry.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[techno-vampire]

The only reason I have to think that they put the national interest first is that they've opposed a number of very bad bills in the last few years. They've been more interested in preserving civil rights than Tony Blair has, and he's elected.

I agree with you in general, however, that their own interests are going to come first. I don't consider this the best of all ways to run a government, but it does seem to work OK. I don't consider it to be broke, and see no reason to tinker with it.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[MartinB]

This wasn't snuck in, it's been around for quite some time now. It actually serves a valid purpose as well. Basically, the part that this article refers to allows a government to bypass the House of Lords (an unelected body) after a certain number of tries in a certain time period when trying to pass a bill.

To separate out the two issues you're conflating:

The Parliament Act is there to prevent the unelected Lords from blocking legislation which the elected Commons has a mandate to implement. By convention this means the content of the goverment's election manifesto.

Now the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill means that not only will the Lords not be able to oppose Government policy (in the manifesto or not), this will be extended to the Commons.

Or, to put it in constitutional speak: the Executive usurps the power of the Legislature, and neuters the capacity of the Judiciary.

Yes, our freedom-loving government is plainly tired of all that mucking around attending Parliament, and persuading MPs to support its bright ideas. In future (so goes the vision), our beloved, trusted ministers will be able to amend, replace and repeal legislation by fiat. The only restrictions are that ministers can't impose new taxes (but can introduce new fees. Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to), or introduce prison sentences longer than 2 years.

So could HMG decide to make ID Cards entirely compulsory? Could they require all public services to be disposed of to PFI? Could they abolish the Scottish Parliament? Yes, Yes and Yes (they couldn't impose laws in devolved matters, but they could abolish the whole thing).

And the checks and balances on ministerial absolutism? Erm... none. The minister merely has to consider a vaguely written checklist and be personally satisfied that's it's a Good Idea overall. Because ministers are of course entirely impartial judges of their own proposals. It's already being called The Abolition of Parliament Act as Parliament simply won't be able to scrutinise legislation in advance or block it. But it's also an Abolition of The Judiciary Act as the courts can't challenge Ministerial Orders after the fact on the basis of being disproportionate or removing freedoms and protections from the citizenry as long as the Minister can show that he/she has thought long and hard about it. Presumably the fact that Ministers are genetically incapable of thinking like this won't help...

Separation of Powers? We've Heard of It

Anything that goes through the parliament act will generate enough publicity for the public to kick up a fuss about it if they don't like it anyway.

Which, as the Executive can impose what the hell it likes without the checks and balances of an adversarial Parliament, can be entirely ignored except for the 3 months before an election.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[MartinB]

You see, the thing is, the Lords (at the moment) have a birth right to be there. They can say whatever they want without fear of parliamentary whips putting pressure on them to to stop conflicting with the current party's views, without fear of being kicked out, and without fear of losing their next election. That's why they're a good thing, because they have the chance to oppose laws even when the majority of parliament is for them.

*blink* What the.... fuck

*stares at user24 like the museum piece he/she apparently is*

If you want a proper house of review (and you should) then you bloody well elect one.

Arguably so, but at the moment, only a small proportion of the Lords are hereditaries (parent is forgetting the Lords reform over the last few parliaments). The rest are appointed, and not a few after having given large sums of cash to the Labour Party - but that's another discussion.

The balance of power, however, is held by approx 160 independent Lords - no party alignment. And by and large, they do a very good job, and refuse to be treated as lobby fodder by the Government with its powers of appointment to powerful ministries.

It's some comment on the current state of affairs that an unelected body with a proportion there by heriditary right is doing a better, more transparent, more thoughtful job than the elected one...

Re:The Parliament Act.

[jandersen]

You may say so, but in practise it is different: democracy simply means that you get to elect your leaders, who then governs in whichever way they like. It's not practical to have too finegrained a democracy, where every decision has to be voted on; even if the difficulties involved in arranging elections were overcome, there's still the matter of getting everybody (or indeed anybody) to take an interest in things.

In many ways I think a more pragmatic view of democracy is warranted: democracy is simply a tool for selecting leaders, the purpose of which is to counteract the tendency towards the corruption that seems to develop when leaders are not held accountable for their beahviour. But of course, democracy isn't enough to secure a fair society - all the powers in society should be kept from exercising undue influence on each other: the famous 'separation of powers', but I think we need to add newsmedia and big business as two new 'powers' in addition to the legislative, executive and judiciary powers.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[jeremyp]

Okay let me see if I got this straight here. You have a bunch of unelected rich kids who decide what becomes law or not in your country.

Not exactly. The House of Lords cannot make new primary legislation, it can only amend legislation brought up by the (elected) House of Commons. Even then, the House of Commons can effectively overrule the amendments.

And thats okay with you. To quote Michael Collins, how did you people ever get an empire? People with very little in common with the common man (and I know a couple of these space cadets personally, so trust me on this) who can't be sacked, whose vested interests are, well, incredibly vested, who leant a new respectability to the concept of inbreeding, these are the yahoos you want with a veto over your laws. Their qualifications? Right surname. Now, I'm not saying this proves English people like to take it up the arse or anything, but it does lend a significant mass to the theorem, taking us one step closer to critical.

Most of that is no longer true. The House of Lords is now largely an appointed chamber (appointed by the government and opposition of the day). Bizarrely, even in the recent past when it was packed with hereditary peers, it generally served to correct the more extreme ideas of the government of the day. Even now it seems to be the only thing standing in the way of our sorry government turning this country into a police state.

Re:The Parliament Act.

[professionalfurryele]

You are missing the point. THe point is that the first house provides the fear of the electorate, and second house provides the defence against special interest groups. Look at the disaster the American system is becoming because senators are terrified of elections. All the calls to pass legislation to protect children from violent video games crap and the like.

Pesky bureaucracy

[Beuno]

Yes, let's get rid of that pesky bureaucracy.
And while you're at it, why waste time voting?
Let's get rid of that time-consuming thing...

In COBN3T Britain

[Philip K Dickhead]

In SOVIET BRITAIN, Britannia waives the rules!

Re:In COBN3T Britain

[Tackhead]

> In SOVIET BRITAIN, Britannia waives the rules!

You forgot the even-more-ironic second line to the chorus.

In Sov'yet Britain, Britannia waives the rules! Britons, ever ever shall be slaves to fools.

Errr...

[brian0918]

I hate to be the grammar nazi, but the submitter misspelled "US" and "Congress"...

Re:Errr...

[Matthias Wiesmann]

I must say I love slashdot, where an article about UK politics displays with a US flag on top.

Hey, I live in the UK!

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the UK! How come nobody told me about this?

Remember, remember...

[babbling]

I want everyone to remember that we stand on the edge of oblivion! I want everyone to remember why they need us!

Check out saveparliament.org.uk too

[caluml]

There's also a website that explains in slightly less dry terms than the official parliament website some of the things it would allow MPs to do. It appears to be unavailable at the moment, but check it out when it's back up.
From memory, it's basically: add or change any laws they feel like, as long as they don't raise taxes, or have jail sentances over 2 years.
And as for why the opposition parties and UK media aren't mentioning it, I have no idea.

Re:Check out saveparliament.org.uk too

[Yer Mum]

See also...

http://www.libertycentral.org.uk/content/view/395/ index.php

Which shows an amendment the opposition proposed to protect the British constitution and civil liberties (nothing to do with business reform) from this bill and was rejected in its entirety by the government.

Which begs the question is why would the government want the ability to change the constitution without parliamentary approval?

Re:Check out saveparliament.org.uk too

[Shimbo]

And as for why the opposition parties and UK media aren't mentioning it, I have no idea.

They have. Here's some links:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.stor y.page&obj_id=128487

http://www.libdems.org.uk/government/story.html?id =9824

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmhansrd/cm060321/debtext/60321-05.htm#60321-05_sb hd3

To those who don't know what is redundancy...

[fijal]

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Redundancy

Re:To those who don't know what is redundancy...

[Spy der Mann]

To those who don't know what is redundancy...

You must be new here :)

take that america

[Anonymous Coward]

we can make make laws that are more stupid than you. hahahaha hahaha .. ha..
oh shit, I'm in the uk :/

ok, now I'm confused, do I make a USA immigration application or start learning chinese?

"It's gonna get blown up anyway"

[flyingace]

Didn't you guys see "V for Vendetta" over the weekend ?

RTFA - this is not about the parliament act

[FhnuZoag]

Yes, but the parliament act isn't what is in question.

What is in question is this new proposed act, that allows any cabinet member to alter any piece of legislation by conducting a single vote with the minimum of debate or discussion. The parliament act is usually only used after ages of battling, so at least we are certain that MPs have looked at and understood what is being passed. With this new act, it would be very easy to sandwich scary ideas into an innoculous looking package, and sneak that through the vote. The worst case scenario is that one such scary bill would be a motion to alter this bill itself - and remove parliament from the process altogether.

Even if we trust the government not to abuse it, this is still a terrifyingly huge loophole. And in fact, the bill is currently *very* close to being passed. It only has a 1-hour final hearing in the commons, and then it's onto the Lords. And if the Lords don't cooperate, a truly malicious government can use the Parliament act to force it through....

Re:RTFA - this is not about the parliament act

[illtud]

What is in question is this new proposed act, that allows any cabinet member to alter any piece of legislation by conducting a single vote with the minimum of debate or discussion.

*No*, that's the *status quo* (almost). The new Act will allow a cabinet member to alter any piece of legistlation *without recourse to parliament*. Ie, without a vote! Read it. Listen to the screams of those who have been attending the backwater committee stages that have been cooking this up. This is an unprecedented move to bypass parliament altogether to punish it for standing in the way of the government's 'reforms', hidden under the cloak of 'deregulation'. Only 'controversial' changes would have to be voted on in parliament, with the ministers themselves deciding what is 'controversial'! If this passes, Jim Murphy's name may well go down in history as the man who killed democracy in the UK.

If you think this sounds like hyperbole, just check it out yourself.

Bloody MC

[Anonymous Coward]

It's that damn Magna Carta, you know.

Once you take the power from the one true Sovereign, who has been selected by God to know what is right for this country, all of this havoc follows in due course.

I say: absolve the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and revert all power to HRH Elizabeth Regina.

We'll then all get along splendidly. (Or at least untill Charles takes the thrown.)

Re:Bloody MC

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I say: absolve the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and revert all power to HRH Elizabeth Regina. We'll then all get along splendidly. (Or at least untill Charles takes the thrown.)

You laugh, but even at his most old-fashioned and controversial, Charles's opinions usually make more sense to me than a lot of what the current lot have been doing. Frankly, we'd do better with the old-fashioned approach for the next few years...

Re:Bloody MC

[ScriptedReplay]

thrown, n
              [S. Ballmer] metaphor for a chair ('get the thrown back here')

This bill is truly dangerous

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I don't think I need to write to my MP on this one: he's already strongly and publicly criticised the bill for the insult to democracy it is, and indeed a group of professors of law from our local university (which, for the benefit of US readers, means a lot of very highly placed academics in the UK) wrote to a national newspaper to express their support for his opposition. I do believe in contacting my representatives, but in this case his view seems pretty solidly on the right side of sane.

As for who would write the laws, it would basically be ministers, i.e., senior politicians appointed by the current administration and generally drawn from the ranks of both houses of parliament. This is basically carte blanche for the administration, once elected, to pass its laws without scrutiny or opposition from the other political parties. Technically, IIRC, the bill does allow for a couple of hours of debate, which is just about long enough for everyone to sit down... :-(

When you consider that this bill could be used to pass several pieces of legislation that have recently proved highly controversial within the house (ID cards and draconian "anti-terrorism" measures among them) you can see how dangerous it could be.

Then consider that under our first-past-the-post electoral system, the current administration was empowered based on only 22% of the population's support. They didn't actually win the popular vote in England at all, and they have relied repeatedly on Scottish MPs to force through controversial legislation that won't affect those MPs' own constituents because it only applies in England.

In other words, this bill would essentially hand executive authority to a group of people who are not directly elected to such responsibility, but rather appointed by another group who can have as little as 1/5 of the population supporting them, and with that they can impose their will over the other 4/5 and their duly elected representatives challenge. Why would this disturb anyone?

(Then again, we live in the land of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act, the Serious Organised Crime Act, The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act and most recently the Civil Contingencies Act, which collectively have stripped away pretty much almost every freedom and right that UK citizens enjoyed prior to the current administration being elected. What more damage can they do?)

The Queen?

[dadragon]

Well, this is (theoretically) why the monarchy still exists, unfortunatly, too many people have no respect for what power the sovereign has. She can refuse to sign this bill into law, even if Parliament passes it. Too bad she probably won't as that will trigger a constitutional crisis and put the Queen into a political position which they tend to try to avoid.

How Emperor Blair will rule without bureaucracy...

[Too many errors, bai]

"The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battlestation."

Constitution?

[krlynch]

A question for our British friends: the Guardian article, at least three times, refers to the "constitutional implications" of this proposed legislation. But the UK has no written constitution (I realize there are charters and precedent and common law heritage and all that, but there is no constitution in the sense that most nations have "A Constitution" that sets out the structure of the government). As I understand it, the "constitution" (little c) of British government is (more or less) whatever Parliament decides it is; there are essentially no fundamental "restrictions" on what Parliament can decide to do. Is the article trying to imply anything more than "constitutional implications" in the sense of modifying centuries of precedent, or is it something deeper that I am not seeing? Thanks!

Re:Constitution?

[paulkman]

The "constitution" of the UK is basically just that, centuries of precedent. Some stuff is written down (like the Magna Carta), but for the most part, it's all tradition. In this sense, parliament itself has placed restrictions on itself by acting the way it has for several centuries.

Re:Constitution?

[anaesthetica]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_U nited_Kingdom

And We Aren't?

[Dankling]

Anybody with a high school degree education in US Government knows that our government was purposefully made to be redundant.

It's called Checks and Balances and it's why our government is still in operation (though many will argue its effectiveness). We separate the powers of law making between the senate and the house and give the president a veto. Wow, Redundant! We even have these crazy people that can even interpret these laws in crazy ways so as to fit the current times.

Recap: Bill goes through house and senate, gets signed by president then gets interpreted by judges. And who's complaining about only a second body of redundancy in England?

Nobody Even Likes Them!

The same indeed

[Rick Zeman]

Watching, I reflected that this was truly how democracy is extinguished. Not with guns and bombs, but from the inside by officials and politicians who deceive with guile and who no longer pretend to countenance the higher interests of the constitution

Hello, George W. Bush.

Hm.

[mattpointblank]

If GCSE History serves me correctly, didn't Hitler [1] do something like this? Some bill that granted him "emergency powers" over the Reichstag that meant he could pass laws on his own? One step closer to dictatorship we step..

[1]Note that I'm not equating Tony Blair to Hitler or Labour to the Nazis or anything, just an interesting co-incidence..

Re:Hm.

[JohnFluxx]

Funny you should mention this. They were talking on the radio about how we shouldn't teach about Hitler in schools anymore (UK) because it leads to tensions between us and Germany.

Not that I'm so paranoid or anything to think that they don't want us to draw parallels here..

More accurate and equally applicable

[HunterZ]

In Soviet Britain, the rules waive Britannia!

Re:Maybe In Canada Too

[CaptainCarrot]

Because the Governor-General is no more a political office than the Crown is. The appointment is made with the "advice" of your Parliament anyway, which basically means the Crown appoints whomever its told to appoint. It's as democratic as your Prime Minister.

Besides, some people see an advantage of separating the Head of State from the Head of Government. In the US it would be refreshing to be able to have the Head of State present to solemnize some event, without having to invite the current idiot in the White House who will use the occasion to push whatever's presently on his political agenda.

Re:From an American view

[whoniverse]

The short answer is: history. Here's a slightly longer answer: Unlike the US, the UK political system is a result of historical changes over centuries, and is not a coherently thought-through system. Until devolution a few years ago, the UK Parliament was the only legislative body in the entire country. The Devolution process gave away some of parliament's powers to new parliaments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However the three don't have equal powers to each other - the reasons being a combination of history (Scotland has always had different laws to the rest of the UK as it joined when the two nations shared the same King, whereas Wales and Ireland joined by means of English conquest), popular feeling (the Scots were more in favour of devolution than the Welsh), and the needs of the peace process in Northern Ireland. There have been plans for various powers to be devolved not to a new English Parliament, but to the nine English regions (which are comparable in both size and population to Scotland, Wales and Nothern Ireland, whereas England itself is massive compared to the other parts of the UK). However, this devolution hasn't got a large amount of popular support compared to the pressure for devolution from the other nations of the UK, the North East had a referendum on a regional assembly, but that gave a no vote. The only part of England with any devolved power at the moment is London. There are some arguing for an English Parliament, but there aren't very many of them - most people in England would think of it as a waste of money, because England makes up the vast majority of both the land and the people.

Re:Maybe In Canada Too

[hunterx11]

Republicanism is a divisive issue in Canada, splitting people into two opposing sides: those who just don't care, and those who don't really give a damn.

Why is this dangerous?

[jafac]

Because, by allowing the charade of Congress/Parliment to continue, we still have the illusion of Republican systems of government, when in fact, we have dictatorships.

When my kid is in school learning about how great the US is, and how we're great because we're free, will they teach him that we're not actually free any longer because of a tacit approval of abdication of our rights? No. Because we have a "congress".

I wrote to my MP this morning

[jregel]

I heard about this over the weekend and wrote to my MP this morning. Use FaxYourMP to get your message through. Text below:

Dear David Drew,

I am hoping you can reassure me concerning the proposed Legislative and
Regulatory Reform (LRR) Bill which I saw reference to on TV over the
weekend and was featured on Radio 4 this week.

My understanding is that the Bill will enable Ministers to reform
legislation without referring directly to Parliament and that MPs and
Peers will not have the ability to modify problematic proposals in the
way they do at present.

Parliamentary scrutiny is at the heart of the democratic process and
any action that weakens the powers of influence of MPs is of great
concern to me.

Please can you help clarify what the Bill will allow and whether you
will be supporting or opposing it.

Yours sincerely...

Re:I wrote to my MP this morning

[MooUK]

Since I'm technically registered in two locations (though naturally I can only vote once in a given election) I've written to both the MP for where I live at uni and the MP from back home, with similar text to yours. One of the two is a long-standing Member and a well-respected Deputy Speaker, who's known for listening to his constituents, so I'll hopefully get a response.

I suggest everyone reading this writes to their own MP, though I recommend NOT using identical text.

Re:Please...

[syzler]

..don't give the U.S. government any ideas. Not that they seem to feel like they need congressional approval now, for that matter.
 
I am slightly confused, did I misunderstand my government and econmics class in high school or did you? I could have sworn that Congress was a part of the U.S. government. You basically said that the government does not need governement oversight.
 
Maybe you really meant this:
 
...don't give the Executive branch of the U.S. government any ideas. Not that they seem to feel like they need congressional approval now, for that matter.
 
Just to be clear, the U.S. Government is made up of three branches. They are the Executive, the Legislative (Congress), and the Judicial branches. Each branch is a part of the government. No single branch IS the government (regardless of what a certain administration thinks).

Re:American Dictator

[TubeSteak]

The Judiciary is supposed to (as part of the job) interpret the will of Congress when they (the court) review laws.

Bush's signing statements are his attempt to influence that interpretation.

The U.S. and England are both going down the tubes thanks to the 'global' war on terror.

Re:American Dictator

[Arandir]

I see you flunked civics in high school. Congress makes the laws, the president signs them or not, and the supreme court rules on it if there's a disagreement regarding the prior two. In your example case, the president has not made a new law, he has merely stated how he intends to enforce it. If this is out of line with the intent of the law, a case can be brought before the supreme court. In the meantime, congress retains the power to impeach the president.

You act like no president has ever nominated supreme court judges before.

Re:American Dictator

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Believe it or not, there are those of us who, regardless of party affiliation, think the principle of checks and balances is more important than the politics and personalities of the moment.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As for protesting against it - not sure what they can officially get away with, don't think I'd want to find out first-hand either...

Well, if you protest outside the Houses of Parliament, you're now breaking the law and subject to arrest, for a start.

Already in Canada

[spaceyhackerlady]

The Powers That Be in Canada, both Federal and Provincial, can already pass a law without running it by Parliament. It's called an Order in Council. Theoretically an OIC is used for little things like political appointments, but it can be used for big things too.

If anybody objects, there is always the Notwithstanding Clause (it's Section 33). It was used for Bills 101 and 178 in Quebec, and Alberta keeps threatening to use it against same-sex marriage. It's been used a number of other times too.

...laura

Re:Already in Canada

[MagnaDoodle666]

If anybody objects, there is always the Notwithstanding Clause (it's Section 33). It was used for Bills 101 and 178 in Quebec, and Alberta keeps threatening to use it against same-sex marriage. It's been used a number of other times too.

The Notwithstanding Clause is used to exempt a law from being examined under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties. This Charter is part of our Constitution and guarantees personal rights such as the right to free speech. Meaning it can allow Parliament to vote a law which is unconstitutional.

In the US, it would be the same as if congress could be allowed to vote a law which goes against the Constitution, and the judges couldn't do anything about it. To keep things fair, this provision has to be reexamined by Parliament every 5 years.

So this has nothing to do with giving the executive power (prime minister and ministers) the power to change laws without consulting Parliament. The law still has to be voted by Parliament. So this has no relation whatsoever with the bill proposed in the UK and couldn't be used to circumvent Parliament.

Actually

[Andy Gardner]

2) There is less homocide per capita in the US, then in Brittian. So while homocide by firearm is higher, out overal numbers are lower, a lot lower.

Not according to nationmaster. Which, 'compiles statistics from such sources as the CIA World Factbook, United Nations, World Health Organization, World Bank, World Resources Institute, UNESCO, UNICEF and OECD.'

Murders (per capita).
US #24 with 0.042802 per 1,000 people
UK #46 with 0.0140633 per 1,000 people.

Murders with firearms (per capita).
US #8 with 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
UK #32 with 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

I'm not drawing any conclusions. Those are the statistics though.

Re:American Dictator

[Captain_Biggles]

You act like this president, Supreme Court and Congress are like the ones that came before them: that they respect government. They don't.

Ah yes, the good old days of respect for government. Like when FDR decided that if the Supreme Court rejected his policies, he'd just make it bigger (using his own appointments) until the required number of justices could reach an agreement. Or when pretty much every administration since the creation of the FBI has used that agency to spy on political enemies. Or endless porkbarrel projects created amidst bribery and backroom dealings.

That respect for government? Or did you mean some other time when politicians haven't been hopelessly corrupt?

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Bush. But putting the "other guy" in office has never solved these problems. Something much more drastic is required at this point.

Article 48?

[Firehed]

Doesn't this seem eerily similar to Article 48 and the Enabling Act, which is (in not so many words) what Hitler used to create the Holocaust?

To a large extent.....

[mormop]

The UK parliament has been redundant for a long time.

Back in the days of Margaret Thatcher, huge parliamentary majorities were won on minority votes thanks to the first past the post, 3 party system. If I remember rightly, Mrs. T held a majority in excess of 300 MPs with only 40% of the electorate voting for her. Tony Blair commanded about 35% of the vote when less than 50% of the electorate turned out.

With a three figure majority and the back-benches filled with career minded sheep, the government can get pretty much anything they want through so the new law is just icing on the cake. What worries me more is the sort of people they hang with. According to the treasury web site, the following are being flown in by Gordon Brown, the next Prime Minister, to give advice on business in New Britain:

Bernard Arnault, Chairman and CEO, LVMH
  Lord Browne, Group Chief Executive, BP
  Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO, GlaxoSmithKline
  Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect, Microsoft Corporation
  Sir Ka-shing Li, Chairman of the Board, Hutchison Whampoa Ltd
  Sir Terry Leahy, CEO, Tesco
  Sir John Rose, CEO, Rolls Royce
  Robert Rubin, Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Citigroup Inc
  Lee Scott, President and CEO, Wal-Mart
  Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Group
  Meg Whitman, President and CEO, eBay
  James Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for Disengagement and Former President of the World Bank

Yep, that's right. In order to improve the business environment for entrepreneurs and encourage opportunity among the lower classes, Brown is freighting in a convicted monopolist and a horde of bankers and fat-cats some of which are heads of corporations that have been criticised for predatory and/or unfair practises. Hmmmm.. Can't wait 'til the advice starts flowing. "Well everyone, what's the best thing to encourage competition in business"? Patents for everything and tax cuts for the exceptionally rich? Sure thing, no problem now that I can push it through Parliament without a proper debate. Seat in the House of Lords? Two million to you guv but make it untraceable, know what I mean?

Sick country man, a really sick country.

There's no money in the House of Lords these days

[lebski]

Now Blair can't sell peerages to it; he's going to close it. Well I guess that will sort out the corruption but I don't think that's what we had in mind.

There is no noble mob

[FhnuZoag]

Rubbish.

History has shown that whenever a rag tag army gets together during a militaristic dictatorship, it would be *behind* the dictator, and in fact often culpable of the worst of his crimes. When the at least disciplined professional troops or policemen would decline to be involved in an atrocity, a crazed volunteer bunch would be willing to lend their imaginative efforts.

The first thing such governments do is to turn people against each other. Letting people have guns is meaningless, because the gun owners are the ones who form the militias, and who gets rewarded by the government with the powers to keep the rest of the population in check. Armed mobs of civilians swept the Nazis into power, and then they organised clubs to train the youth in military tactics. Armed and anarchic mobs of students conducted the cultural revolution. Ordinary people, equipped with weapons the state handed out, conducted the Rawandan massacre. When was the last time there was a totalitarian state where the people would rebel - if only they had the guns to do so?

Until people stop being idiots who will buy into any and all propaganda they find, guns in the hands of the majority are just as likely to be tools of oppression as they are liberation.

Re:There is no noble mob

[ductonius]

"Rubbish.

History has shown that whenever a rag tag army gets together during a militaristic dictatorship, it would be *behind* the dictator, and in fact often culpable of the worst of his crimes. When the at least disciplined professional troops or policemen would decline to be involved in an atrocity, a crazed volunteer bunch would be willing to lend their imaginative efforts."

Like the Warsaw uprising I suppose?

History has shown that most of those 'rag tag' armies were the only ones allowed to keep their guns expressly *because* they were behind the dictator. Dictators do not allow their opposition to walk around with the means to defend themselves while they are perfectly fine in letting their supporters do whatever they want.

In many dictatorships guns are banned from private ownership - often ironically - as a public safety measure while the local enforcers get to carry whatever they want. If the local thugs don't have their own the militias are armed by the dictators themselves, and when guns aren't available the local dictator will simply bring in a load of machetes.

The fact that you assume the causation goes "own gun --> support dictator" and not "support dictator --> own gun" simply shows that you are supposing your conclusion and then concluding it.

"The first thing such governments do is to turn people against each other."

No, the first thing such governments do is turn their supporters against their enemies. Of course, the government can afford to arm its supporters so when their enemies have no access to arms, well, you know what happens next.

"Letting people have guns is meaningless, because the gun owners are the ones who form the militias, and who gets rewarded by the government with the powers to keep the rest of the population in check."

What was I saying about supposing your conclusion? Here, you said it yourself: "Gun owners are the ones who support dictators."

As you also said: "Rubbish".

How many times does it have to be repeated that dictators are fond of arming only their supporters? Dictators ban private gun ownership so that no one can put up any kind of resistance to the militias the dictator themselves formed.

"Armed mobs of civilians swept the Nazis into power, and then they organized clubs to train the youth in military tactics."

Actually an act of the Reichstag called "The Enabling Act" swept the Nazis into power.

Because his grasp on power was assumed peacefully there was no initial sign Hitler was going to act so dictatorially... oh, wait, there was one: He use the existing registration laws to confiscate all privately owned firearms. Except those of his supporters of course.

"Armed and anarchic mobs of students conducted the cultural revolution. Ordinary people, equipped with weapons the state handed out, conducted the Rawandan massacre."

Right, exactly what I was saying about "Dictators handing out weapons to control those who don't like them/ letting their supporters do what they want"

How freaking hard is this thing to understand?

"When was the last time there was a totalitarian state where the people would rebel - if only they had the guns to do so?"

Germany, 1953.
Hungary, 1956.
Czechoslovakia, 1968.
Germany, 1989. The soveits wanted to bring in the army but it refused and disobeyed orders.

I'm sure there's more.

"Until people stop being idiots who will buy into any and all propaganda they find, guns in the hands of the majority are just as likely to be tools of oppression as they are liberation."

What a piece of property does not determined by the property. Inanimate objects have no will of their own. A gun is a hunk of metal, plastic and wood. What it does, be it liberation or oppression is determined by the person holding it.

Canada doesn't have armed militias roving the street because the millions of people who own guns in Canada have no interest in using their arms for oppression.

Re:Hopefully not offtopic...

[dark_requiem]

Guns are a tool, few would claim they offer liberation in and of themselves. A gun can be used to liberate, or oppress. Also, few people actually advocate a direct violent assault on the agents of the state. Simply begin refusing its orders, stop paying taxes, seek private services to replace public "entitlements", and wait for the government to come for you. Then you use your guns.

Executive Orders...

[shaneh0]

This may have been covered in a comment already, but I didn't see it.

People are discussing the mechanisms in the UK and Canada to pass a law w/o running it thru parliment, and my understanding of these mechanisms is that they work much like "Executive Orders" do in the US.

The president can sign an executive order and it becomes the law of the land. It can be circumvented by Congress and the Supreme Court, but not easily.

Re:Please explain...

[mabhatter654]

They provide stability and reason to the system. That's why there's two houses in a system. They can decide if a law is really good or bad, not just fashionable. That tends to be Conservitive in the correct useage of the word.. getting changes by them means they have to be Real changes, it makes the system more resistant to changes.

as an aside, that's the problem with the US govt right now. We NEED the senate to be appointed by state governments and not elected. Having senators elected sounds more democratic, but makes the federal govt unaccountable to the states that make it up. Hence, the feds make laws completely out-of-touch with the real wishes of the country.

Re:American Dictator

[Moridineas]

I don't see the world groaning, I think it's doing pretty well actually.

Let me say I'm SHOCKED that when you google "gore won recount" you get sites that say that. Why, according to google you get 667,000 of them! But when you type "bush won recount" you get 2,230,000 hits.

What's that tell us? Absolutely nothing. That's the stupidest metric in the world. Read the articles, read the standards, and read the recounts. The data is out there, and analyzed by multiple organization. Hell, check Wikipedia even, if you don't believe it.

I'm not a huge fan of Bush for what it's worth--but imho he's better than the alternatives.

I guess I'll go back to the fascist media that's controlling what we read and write even now..EVEN NOW!!! Good thing I'm happy, or all these lies you think I'm swallowing (but the data doesn't support) would give me indigestion.

--

Oh, just as a sidebar--buzzword parrot? let's check your post
Fascist? check
conspiracy? check
elite? check
lies? check
propaganda? check

Yep, that's about the litany of left-wing attacks, I wonder who truly IS a buzzword parrot here? Any thoughts?

Re:How Emperor Blair will rule without bureaucracy

[Wes Janson]

"It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!"

Oh, and mod parent up.

Re:From an American view

[cruachan]

But Scotland has it's own quite distinct legal system, separate education and health systems, and a lot of other domestic peculiarities. True we're the same country as far as foreign policy is concerned, but in practical everyday terms Holyrood now has more impact than Westminster.

Put in this way, in the last election the only campaign issues that were of any relevance to Scotland were the EC and Iraq. Everything else that Blair and Howard chuntered on about has been devolved to Holyrood.

Also I think, and I'm not alone in seeing this, the amount of anti-English whinging that goes on has markedly decreased since 1999. We now whinge about the boy Jack and his cronies instead, although Holyrood as an institution has been widely succesful and polls reliably return vast and increasing majorities against it's abolition. As a consequence support for full independance has dropped through the floor.

Re:Please explain...

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I already posted this, but its worth reposting IMHO...

They can decide if a law is really good or bad, not just fashionable.

Okay let me see if I got this straight here. You have a bunch of unelected rich kids who decide what becomes law or not in your country. And thats okay with you. To quote Michael Collins, how did you people ever get an empire? People with very little in common with the common man (and I know a couple of these space cadets personally, so trust me on this) who can't be sacked, whose vested interests are, well, incredibly vested, who leant a new respectability to the concept of inbreeding, these are the yahoos you want with a veto over your laws. Their qualifications? Right surname. Now, I'm not saying this proves English people like to take it up the arse or anything, but it does lend a significant mass to the theorem, taking us one step closer to critical...

aka Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act

[maubp]

Note that I'm not equating Tony Blair to Hitler or Labour to the Nazis or anything, just an interesting co-incidence..

I am: I've just written to my local MP (who happens to be a conservative):

Dear ...,

The "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill" recently came to my attention, thanks to a piece on The Guardian's website.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html

Having looked at the proposed text of the bill, it bears chilling comparison to Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act, which allowed him and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Germany's parliament.

Please can you help clarify what the Bill will allow, as by my reading it is disturbingly broad with very few limitation, and whether you will be supporting or opposing it.

Yours sincerely, ...

Fellow Brits - write to your MPs www.writetothem.com

Re:Hopefully not offtopic...

[KeensMustard]

The ability to fight against abusues when no other choice has been given to you.

There's other choices, they just take more courage.

It also make a very big global statement about the government whose people must fight with violence to be heard.

What we will hear is "there's a bunch of barbaric terrorists who are addicted to violence and are being legitimately suppressed by the government". Your ideology is inseperable from the ideology of ETA, or the IRA, or the Mujaheddin. If you want world support, protest using peaceful means, a commitment to peace demonstrates you are the good guys. Nobdoy cares if yet another violent insurgent group goes under.

Whose to say the people sriving those tank dn't feel the same way as the people who ahve to lash out towards there leader?

They (the army) are far more likely to be sympathetic to your cause if you aren't shooting at them. Or shooting at others, for that matter.

You get 100,000 armed people storming key places where the government is ran, and kills all the leaders, you now have a ew form of government that can arise.

Yes - it's called a dictatorship. often with the adjective 'brutal'. Happens all the time.

If you get a million people armed and angry at the government, the effectiveness of thos 'tank' will be negligable.

Tanks shmanks. Cluster bombs. The US accidently killed 14000 people in Afghanistan recently, mainly through cluster bombing. Imagine then, a deliberate attack. A deliberate cluster bomb attack by a moderately sized airforce on a crowd of one million would kill enough that the rest would slink away in fear.

If your not armed, what options do you have that you don't have when you are armed?

Your integrity. The ability to win sympathy. The ability to win the day and at the same time, uphold the principles of democracy. If you must win your way through violence, you've most likely lost already.

Re:From an American view

[JonathanBoyd]

Technically he did say "British State"
N. Ireland isn't part of Great Britain, it's only part of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

We're not part of Great Britain, but we are a part of the British State. We're British citizens and have MPs and Lords at Westminster.

Unfortunately, due to our small number of MPs, we basically have one guy, Peter Hain the Northern Irish Secretary, dictating everything that happens here. e.g. 90% of the population are against the school reforms he's planning, but he's going to go ahead with them anyway, because there's nothing our MPs can do to stop him.

Bring back devolution.

US Senate as an unelected body

[JimBobJoe]

If you want a proper house of review (and you should) then you bloody well elect one.

Actually, the whole house of review concept was always meant to be a non-elected body.

One of the major checks and balances built into the US constitution was that the Senate was unelected. They founders thought it would be a huge error to have both houses elected--the point of the Senate was an unelected body that was separated from politics. (Which is why certain types of decisions pass through the Senate--such as the approval of judge appointments.)

All that became horribly messed up by the direct election of Senators. Since they are now directly elected, but still have powers that were granted to them based on the idea that they weren't directly elected, they've completely disbalanced the system. (The only thing that makes the Senate work as a house of review is the fact that the constituency borders, since they're states, cannot be artificially gerrymandered. It'd be cool if they were elected in a different system, a change I'm open to.)

US examples of head of state not head of gov.

[JimBobJoe]

Besides, some people see an advantage of separating the Head of State from the Head of Government.

As I recall, the Texas Constitution cleverly made the Lieutenant Governor more powerful than the Governor (on the day to the day basis.) I suspect they wanted a head of state to be different from the head of government, but also to distract people from where power really lies.

Enabling Act

[pjc50]

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

(Parliament has been slowly losing legislative control for years due to the increasing volume of European legislation which it may not override)