Well Here It Is, The Inevitable Fate of Disarmed People

Well Here It Is, The Inevitable Fate of Disarmed People

This is a discussion on Well Here It Is, The Inevitable Fate of Disarmed People within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Source. Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill? David Howarth Hardly anyone has noticed, but British democracy is sleepwalking into a sinister world of ministerial ...

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Well Here It Is, The Inevitable Fate of Disarmed People

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213

    Well Here It Is, The Inevitable Fate of Disarmed People

    Source.

    Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?
    David Howarth
    Hardly anyone has noticed, but British democracy is sleepwalking into a sinister world of ministerial power
    LAST WEEK all eyes were on the House of Commons as it debated identity cards, smoking and terrorism. The media reported both what MPs said and how they voted. For one week at least, the Commons mattered.

    All the more peculiar then that the previous Thursday, in an almost deserted chamber, the Government proposed an extraordinary Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws, a Bill some constitutional experts are already calling “the Abolition of Parliament Bill”.

    A couple of journalists noticed, including Daniel Finkelstein of The Times, and a couple more pricked up their ears last week when I highlighted some biting academic criticism of the Bill on the letters page of this paper. But beyond those rarefied circles, that we are sleepwalking into a new and sinister world of ministerial power seems barely to have registered.

    The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voilà, the law is changed.

    For ministers the advantages are obvious: no more tedious debates in which they have to answer awkward questions. 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. The legislative process will be reduced to a game of take-it-or-leave-it.

    The Bill replaces an existing law that allows ministers to relieve regulatory burdens. Business was enthusiastic about that principle and the Government seems to have convinced the business lobby that the latest Bill is just a new, improved version. What makes the new law different, however, is not only that it allows the Government to create extra regulation, including new crimes, but also that it allows ministers to change the structure of government itself. There might be business people so attached to the notion of efficiency and so ignorant or scornful of the principles of democracy that they find such a proposition attractive. Ordinary citizens should find it alarming.

    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.

    Looking back at last week’s business in the Commons, the Bill makes a mockery of the decisions MPs took. Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one’s own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment. Nor will the Human Rights Act save us since the Bill makes no exception for it.

    The Bill, bizarrely, even applies to itself, so that ministers could propose orders to remove the limitations about two-year sentences and taxation. It also includes a few desultory questions (along the lines of “am I satisfied that I am doing the right thing?”) that ministers have to ask themselves before proceeding, all drafted subjectively so that court challenges will fail, no matter how preposterous the minister’s answer. Even these questions can be removed using the Bill’s own procedure. Indeed, at its most extreme, in a manoeuvre akin to a legislative Indian rope trick, ministers could use it to transfer all legislative power permanently to themselves.

    The Bill raises fundamental questions about the role of Parliament. Ministers, egged on, some suspect, by the Civil Service, treat Parliament as a voting machine. Its job, in their view, is merely to give legal cover to whatever ministers want to do. They treat debate and deliberation as mere chatter before the all-important vote. They see no great difference between full parliamentary procedure and a truncated procedure for statutory instruments because, for them, the result either way is the same, that ministers receive legal authority for their plans. Just as a perfect criminal statute for ministers appears to be one in which everything is illegal so that prosecutors have discretion to put anyone in front of a court, a perfect authorising statute is one that makes lawful any ministerial act or policy.

    Some of us have a different view. We think that deliberation and debate matter, that they are part of what makes parliamentary democracy work and make the new laws we pass legitimate. Deliberation improves legislation but more importantly, it forces governments to give reasons for their proposals that go beyond their narrow self-interest. In private meetings of the governing party, or in the Cabinet, or above all in telephone calls between ministers and special advisers, purely partisan reasons can hold sway. But in public, especially where there is real debate, ministers have to offer reasons that might persuade others. If they cannot think of any such reasons, their embarrassment constrains them. As the political scientist Jon Elster says, even hypocrisy can have a civilising effect.

    The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about. The powers in the Bill, it says, will not be used for “controversial” matters. But there is nothing in the Bill that restricts its use to “uncontroversial” issues. The minister is asking us to trust him, and, worse, to trust all his colleagues and all their successors. No one should be trusted with such power.

    As James Madison gave warning in The Federalist Papers, we should remember when handing out political power that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm”. This Bill should make one doubt whether they are at the helm now.

    David Howarth is Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge and Reader in Law at Cambridge University


  2. #2
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one?s own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment.
    Can we say - the onset of tyranny?

    Those sweeping draconian powers are unreal - maybe the way a dictator likes to operate. Seems incredible.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Colin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    1,862
    In Canada a Act of Parliament can only be altered by Parliament. However most Act contain a provision for the Minister to enact and revoke regulations, through a process called the “Governor in Council”. Normally these regulations pertain to the day today business of running and administering government. However the previous government in Canada used these regulations to bar grandfathered owners of prohibited firearms from taking them to the range, now they are complaining because the new government plans to rescind those regulations, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

    Before a regulation is changed it is supposed to go through a process that reviews the “public good” of changing the reg or not, and also is supposed to be given a public viewing and allow for input. How they were able to circumvent these procedures to increase the gun laws I am not sure.

    The lesson: The thin edge of the wedge is a good place to break the wedge.

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array Betty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nashville-ish
    Posts
    3,241
    Bend over and trust us. We won't hurt you. Really.

    Doubleplusungood.
    "Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,142
    Civil liberties, anyone? Where'd they go?


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  6. #6
    1952 - 2006
    Array acparmed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    1,371
    "We are from the Government and we are here to help."

    BOHICA folks.

    God save us all.
    Heroes are people who do what has to be done, when it has to be done, regardless of the consequences

    "I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the ******** are and can kill them."
    ~George Patton

    DE OPPRESSO LIBER

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array TonyW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    791
    Amazing. Sad, predictable but amazing. How can people continually let history repeat itself like this? The outlawing of private ownership of firearms is always a precursor to more draconian, dictorial laws. Never fails.
    <a target="_top" href="http://www.cybernations.net/default.asp?Referrer=TonyW"><img src="http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd188/18932471/imgad2-1.png" border="0"></a>

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array dpesec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    539
    Well if it works in the UK, it'll soon find its way here. Trust me.
    Dave

    “The highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms”. General George Patton—US Army

    Vis et Veneratio

    "So this is how democracy dies: to thunderous applause." Actress Natalie Portman as Padme in Star Wars Revenge of the Sith

  9. #9
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,924
    The British People Are Going To Become Marionettes Pretty Soon.

    It will be known as "The Land Of The Puppet People"
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  10. #10
    Member Array ibex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NRW, Germany
    Posts
    277
    That's awfully reminiscent of the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" passed in Germany on March 23, 1933.

    You can read the original text and english translation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

    Coincidentally, that also happened shortly after very restrictive gun laws were passed.
    "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
    - Senator Padmé Amidala, "Revenge of the Sith"

  11. #11
    Member Array rwmorrisonjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    90
    Sounds like the prequel to the storyline of "V for Vendetta".

    To quote Senator Amadala from Star Wars III,"So this is how democracy ends, to the sound of applause."

  12. #12
    Member Array Bryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    334
    Ironically 1984 was a british novel I believe. Can we really say we're not that far behind with the executive and judiciary doing massive power grabs. (patriot act). Allowing the CIA to be able to act with in our borders?.... and many other things.
    -Diplomacy: The art of saying nice dogie until you can find a rock.
    -The truth is a three edged sword.
    -Your brain is your primary weapon everything else is just a tool.
    -When the only tool you have is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail.

  13. #13
    Member Array buzzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grants Pass, OR
    Posts
    132
    Orwell was a British subject and "1984" was indeed prophetic if only a bit premature. Here in the USA we need look no further than John McCain to find our harbinger of tyranny. His efforts to squash the 1st Amendment are well publicized. If we lose the 2nd Amendment all the rest are moot.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Fate or concealed carry?
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: August 20th, 2010, 06:46 PM
  2. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed
    By tns0038 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2009, 09:43 AM
  3. Does anyone believe in gun fate? J-Frame Goodness
    By jwhite75 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 10th, 2009, 02:42 PM
  4. Fickle Finger o' Fate
    By Cthulhu in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 30th, 2008, 02:31 AM
  5. Fate or Coincidence - Probably not Planned
    By gunthorp in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 27th, 2006, 06:22 PM