Slashdot Mirror


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.

10 of 607 comments (clear)

  1. In COBN3T Britain by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    In SOVIET BRITAIN, Britannia waives the rules!

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  2. To those who don't know what is redundancy... by fijal · · Score: 5, Funny
  3. "It's gonna get blown up anyway" by flyingace · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. RTFA - this is not about the parliament act by FhnuZoag · · Score: 5, Informative

    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....

  5. Bloody MC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.)

  6. The Queen? by dadragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  7. How Emperor Blair will rule without bureaucracy... by Too+many+errors,+bai · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  8. Re:Errr... by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Re:The Parliament Act. by user24 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:The Parliament Act. by MartinB · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    --

    The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's