The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. | First Page | Forum

Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Politics

Invictus_88

(?)Community Member

Offline

Post: 12618117_1 created on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:13:55 +0000
Posted: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:13:55 +0000

That is to say, the worst things always happen when you don't expect it. The most dangerous things don't generally look all that terrifying. Doubly so in politics.

This is about a Bill we have in the UK, it is very close to becoming law.

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

The British government is awarding itself the ability to change any law with punishment less than two years. That is to say, they can change it without consulting the public, or parliament. That's a lot of law, and not a lot of debate. That's centralisation of power gone mad. Worse, it is very dangerous. Added to that, is the particular wording that allows the powers of the bill to be used to give the bill extra powers and/or fewer limitations.

For any visitors to the ED-P subforum, that's the equivalent of a government being given three wishes allowed to wish for more wishes.

It worries me that this government is so convinced of our political apathy that it is trying something of such audacity. It worries me more that nobody seems to care about it.

So, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Is any government ever justified in passing this sort of legislation? If so, explain why.

And, does this current British government in this current context have justification in doing so?

Invictus_88

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_2 created on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:14:45 +0000
Posted: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:14:45 +0000

(The Bill itself.)

(BBC news page.)

(The Times)

(ePolitix article.)

Note: The articles calling for a rethink are past ones, the Bill is now rapidly progressing toward law and the flaws are still there.

MonkeyRonin

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_3 created on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:16:41 +0000
Posted: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:16:41 +0000

Whats up with the British government? I'm constantly hearing all sorts of insane laws and bill their attempting to pass... they seem almost as bad as the Republicans in the States neutral

SmurfsonAcid

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_4 created on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:26:20 +0000
Posted: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:26:20 +0000

s**t. When laws like these pass, it just reminds me that conspiracy theories just might be right.

Greenling

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_5 created on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:23:31 +0000
Posted: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:23:31 +0000

Eh, doesn't need to be a conspiracy already in place. Governments power-grab; it's in their nature.

No, it's not ******** justified. The reason we have laws rather than a dictatorship is so you can't just pull things out of your a** and decide they should be enforced. Just bring back absolute monarchy if you're going to do that, for goodness' sake.

Omnileech

(?)Community Member

Omnipresent Warlord

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_6 created on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:42:19 +0000
Posted: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:42:19 +0000

The British government was already too powerful before such a law even was thought of. The further loss of checks and balances bothers me.

Mr. Bono Vox

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_7 created on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:50:00 +0000
Posted: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:50:00 +0000

As you know once this is passed it gives ministers the power to change ANY bill. I'd like to point out that doesnt mean anything but this bill. It means that ministers can do away with all the restrictions in this bill once it is law.

Mr. Bono Vox

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_8 created on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:49:27 +0000
Posted: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:49:27 +0000

Mr. Bono Vox

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_9 created on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:53:54 +0000
Posted: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:53:54 +0000

Is any government ever justified in passing this sort of legislation? If so, explain why.

Never during peace time.

And, does this current British government in this current context have justification in doing so?

No justification whatsoever. Hidden under the viel of reducing red tape it is nothing more than a bill to destroy parliament.

Boxy

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_10 created on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:23:00 +0000
Posted: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:23:00 +0000

Invictus_88

Is any government ever justified in passing this sort of legislation? If so, explain why.

Whenever a society determines that its own security trumps its rights and privileges to liberty, the surrender to a supreme executive becomes right, just, and good. During World War II, for example, the teeming masses clutched to personalities and temporarily suspended personal liberties. President Roosevelt in the United States is an excellent example - during the entirety of the Depression era, FDR attempted to circumvent the rulings of the Supreme Court by flooding the court with judges sympathetic to his cause. Similarly, his Executive Order 9066 abridged the rights of Japanese-American citizens, forcing them into interment camps with little to no compensation, entirely for the perceived security of the people.

Whenever the danger in the environment surrounding a nation makes it necessary to put security above liberty, liberty will be abridged by victorious nations. The failure of nations that do not ensures that this is so.

Invictus_88

And, does this current British government in this current context have justification in doing so?

Given that the United Kingdom is engaged in an extended, open-ended conflict, it may be necessary to step on the toes of personal freedoms. The military philosopher Clausewitz theorized that a nation must engage entirely in the conflict at hand or else will be manhandled by an opposing enemy that mobilizes better; the investiture of a supreme executive may be seen as mobilization for a complete war against terrorism.

However, the war on terror is not a traditional war. Whereas Clausewitz advocated the complete stratification of society for complete victory, the given circumstances of our modern war indicates that we have the industrial, technological, and economic advantages over our foes; these need not be mobilized to the fullest of their potential. However, how can we fully engage an idealism rather than a military-industrial base? I believe that is the question which the Coalition faces.

Invictus_88

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 12618117_11 created on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:36 +0000
Posted: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:36 +0000

Boxy

Invictus_88

Is any government ever justified in passing this sort of legislation? If so, explain why.

Invictus_88

And, does this current British government in this current context have justification in doing so?

Not only is the war on terror not a normal war, but it accounts for barely any British deaths. As a risk to the nation, it features more lowly than driving, sea-travel or drinking alcohol.

No, for this 'war on terror' I see no need for legislation remotely like this. Let alone legislation such as this which potentially curtails -every- freedom.

And doubly so when it is said to be for 'cutting red tape for businesses'.

Report This Topic | unblock images

Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Politics

Welcome to Gaia! ::

Quick Reply

More Information