|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 36 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Politics: The Death of Democracy? |
Posted by
Psychopixi on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 03:13 PM PST
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
Read the bill here.
Most of you probably haven't heard of this bill, whether you live in the UK, America, or elsewhere, it's been kept very quiet.
So what is it?
Well, you can take a look at the bill itself using the link above, but the basic idea of it is that a cabinet minster would be able to alter any piece of UK legislation, or draft an entirely new piece, simply by issuing an "order".
What does that mean?
Ministers will be able to pass, or ammend laws as they see fit. Although there are restrictions on it, one very important fact is that the bill can be applied to itself. It could be amended so that the restrictions are removed.
What are the current restrictions?
The most important restriction is that an order has to be voted into effect by Parliament. Apart from that, a minister has to be satisfied that an order is in line with party policy. An order can't be used to remove a freedom which members of the public could reasonably expect to retain - although the definition of "reasonably expect" is left to the ministers' interpretation. If an order is used to create a new crime, the punishment for the crime can't be longer than two years jail time. It cannot be used to increase taxation.
That's okay then, isn't it?
Well, if people were aware of what was happening, then maybe. The thing is that while in theory Parliament would have to vote on any given order, in practise it would also be possible for orders to come through groups of MPs, specially selected by the minister. Therefore the idea of removing one or more of the restrictions mentioned above could be passed through this select committee as one recommendation in an otherwise bland and boring report, and an order implementing this report could be slipped through quietly one night while few MPs are about.
Surely you're assuming the worst?
I'm assuming the worst about politicians? Okay, maybe I am. Even so, the idea of simply having to vote on an order reduces government to a "take it or leave it" situation.
The Times newspaper says;
"Instead of a full day's debate on the principle of the proposal, detailed line-by-line examination in committee, a second chance at specific amendment in the Commons and a final debate and vote, ministers will have to face at most a short debate in a committee and a one-and-a-half hour debate on the floor. Frequently the Government will face less than that. No amendments will be allowed."
This bill will also allow ministers to change the very structure of the government - to quote from the Times again, as they put it a lot better than I could manage;
"Any body created by statute, including local authorities, the courts and even companies, might find themselves reorganised or even abolished. Since the powers of the House of Lords are defined in Acts of Parliament, even they are subject to the Bill."
The only comfort we have is that the ministers have promised it will not be used for anything controversial - just for streamlining existing laws relating to business. So that's all alright then...
|
|
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 4.0
Total ratings : 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Death of Democracy? | Login/Create an account | 9 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: The Death of Democracy?
by Monolycus on Mar 20, 2006 - 06:46 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Interesting, Pix. So Merrie Olde Englande is finally figuring out how Executive Privilege works, are they? We do things a wee bit differently across the pond; the President commits an egregious violation of existing laws and then the American Bar Association urges Congress to make his actions legal retroactively. The British way looks like it would streamline that process considerably. Seems we Yanks could learn a few things from you chappies about neofeudalism.
|
Re: The Death of Democracy? by callei on Mar 21, 2006 - 04:51 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | I thought it was neofascism. Just goes to show what happens when you fall asleep in political science class day after day. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Death of Democracy? by Monolycus on Mar 21, 2006 - 06:08 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Well, let's take a closer gander. Hyper patriotism...? Check. Xenophobia...? Check. Corporations functioning as logistic arms of the state...? Check. Incorporation by the state of theological justification...? Check. Glorification of the military and exponential increases in defense spending...? Check. A cult of personality including a leader figure whose desires become indistinguishable from those of the state...? Check and check.
Nope. Doesn't look like there's anything "neo" about this brand of fascism. Uncle Benito would have recognised it and been proud.
But the war on the poor...? Now that's become different in both scale and tactics. I'm going to stick with my original semantics. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Death of Democracy? by callei on Mar 23, 2006 - 01:21 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | does it still count as neofeudalism still when there are four classes rather than 3? like I said, i slept through a lot of poli sci.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Death of Democracy? by W0rmW00d (allchaka@hotmail.com) on Mar 24, 2006 - 07:12 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Feudalism only requires a landed class and an absolute monarch, or other state body that can grant the right of fife to the landowner. Although in practice it does really need villeins (people attached to the land) to be feudalistic they don't really need to be there. They could be vassals in potentia. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Death of Democracy? by Monolycus on Mar 25, 2006 - 04:32 AM (User info | Send a Message) | We can get really bogged down in a semantic discussion about arbitrary constructs like "classes"... although, with the rapid disappearance of the "middle class" in the "hockey stick wealth-distribution" of the U.S., I think that recognising anything more than Haves and Have-Nots is stretching the issue.
The de facto reality is that we in the US have a landed aristocracy (and an increasingly dynastic one at that!) and people who are "tied to the land" by calculated inequalities of the system such as the recent SCOTUS rulings regarding imminent domain and a host of Congressional bills such as Public Law 109-8 ("The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005... which I have written about extensively on another blog). And how much more "tied to the land" can we become than to end up on a "no-fly" list due to our dissenting opinions? At least with wage-slavery and credit-indenture, they only make it economically impossible for one to leave, but not illegal.
The ideal situation for the plutocrats would be to populate the land with serfs that protest to the death that they are not actually serfs. Maybe this is why I have seen so many "W '04" stickers in the windows of third rate hovels that sit in the shadow of McMansions. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Death of Democracy? by W0rmW00d (allchaka@hotmail.com) on Mar 24, 2006 - 07:27 AM (User info | Send a Message) | In fact, it is not just fascism that we are looking at here. It appears to me to be a particular brand of fascism.
What we have is a nationalistic socialist party, or national socialists...oh deary me.
We also have another couple of interesting parallels. The disproportionate reaction to a threat to a way of life,
compare the red menace with the brown menace, being used as justification to grant absolute executive power to the minister.
A populance who are happy to let it go on so long as they don't miss their three square meals.
A desire amongst the upper leadership of the country for liebensraum.
So there we have it. Britain is under the grip of a neo-Nazi regime. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Death of Democracy?
by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.net)
on Mar 22, 2006 - 04:02 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.saradevil.net
|
The only comfort you can find under this is rather scary. I'm so glad that the ministers are assuring everyone that they won't abuse this power and will only use it retroactively...far more dangerous when you can revive dead items that no one thinks about and make them even worse then you could have imagined.
At the same time I come from a country that has continued to renew the patriot act, which has to be the single biggest fuck you to a goverened people this decade...I'm all a-twitter to see what other countries, goverments, and instituations can come up with to further destroy any freedoms and push all of use over the edge into a nice orwellian distopia...
|
Re: The Death of Democracy? by Monolycus on Mar 22, 2006 - 06:57 PM (User info | Send a Message) | To be entirely fair, Great Britain and Canada have already lent legal support to the USAPATRIOT Act, and Australia came up with a sweeping set of laws in the past three years using the USAPATRIOT Act as the model. In order to keep surveillance "legal", these countries recently have allowed their ally's intelligence services to monitor their citizens for them ("Look, we don't spy on our own people! We were given your dossier by the Brits!")
The USA hasn't lost its mind in a vaccum. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
|
|