Saturday’s Mail reported that the EU Commission has threatened member states with legal action if they impose GM-free growing zones in their countries, saying they would violate trade rules by making the cultivation of GM crops “practically impossible”. The EU has also postponed legislation on GM/ conventional crop co-existence until 2008.
This from Anne Palmer 11.3.2006.
A Traitor’s Bill. Known also as the Abolition of Parliament Bill. Officially called The Legislative Regulatory Reform Bill.
I would like to draw attention to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill presently going through Parliament one way or another. This has been known by the title, “The Abolition of Parliament Bill”, but I will forever call it, “The Traitor’s Bill”, for I believe that is exactly what it is, for who is to know what kind of person might be Prime Minister of this Country in the future? Under this legislation it could be President Chirac or the President of the European Union. (AS one MP has already suggested)
Each and every Member of Parliament and those that sit in the House of Lords all pledge their Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Engraved forever in hearts and minds is or should be, the knowledge that “the essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the sovereign”.
There are two sides put in the debates, and if you trust what this present Government are saying, then there is a tendency to sway towards them. If, on the other hand there is a tendency to believe the opposition’s interpretation of the Bill, then of course one would believe them. I, on the other hand believe very strongly, that anything that can either mean all things to all men or puts our system of government at risk, and more importantly places the Crown at risk, our Common Law Constitution, the sovereignty of government, parliament and the people, then the legislation proposed should not, not even one tiny little bit of it, be accepted. If there is any doubt what so ever of the effect this legislation would have to our Constitution, our country or the governing of it, the proposed legislation should be aborted. We must at all times err on the side of caution. Friends can quickly change into enemies. Nothing should place the Crown or this Country in jeopardy. We have gone to war for less.
This Bill appears to be being rushed through our Parliament. I obviously must miss many points made and it is clear that some debates are NOT RECORDED for the likes of me to read. I cannot read everything, in any case time does not permit although I do read into the early hours of the morning, until three this morning. Such is the way these “Debates” are set up, there is absolutely no way can amendments that are put forward by the Opposition, get through. The government will have its way apparently. The needs of the people,(or what they want) does not enter into the Government’s scheme of things.
Should you decide to read this debate, then I would suggest you also get hold of the actual Bill and have that by you, read this particular debate in which you will also need to look at the amendments put forward at the front of the debate, to complete understanding of the debate in question.
For those that do not have access to internet, or have no spare time to read all, I place here what I consider to be of great concern to all of us. For those that believe we have no Common Law Constitution left, most of it is listed in this debate.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/a/st060302/pm/60302s01.htm
Brief excerpts only
Column Number: 111, Mr Chope. Statutes have been struck down in the High Court in the past and the Government have tried to put the matter right in primary legislation, which is their privilege. But surely they should not be able to correct every error in the law by fiat, using an accelerated procedure that denies the power of Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account, to amend the proposals and to discuss them in full.
Amendment No. 35 would omit subsection (5), which is about binding the Crown. Why do the Government want to bind the Crown under this Bill? I hope that the Minister will answer that question. He will be aware of the articles suggesting that the monarchy could be abolished under these provisions and it might not be so easy to do so if the amendment removing subsection (5) were accepted.
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also be helpful to have some information about what consultation has taken place with the Palace about this provision?
Mr. Chope: I do indeed agree that that would be very useful. The Minister may say that the proposal has been greeted with tremendous enthusiasm, but it may be otherwise. I would be very surprised if it had been greeted with enthusiasm by the Crown, but it is for the Minister to justify his position.
David Howarth. At Col 112. Let me start with amendment No. 45. In a way, it is consequential or additional to the amendment that seeks to remove part of clause 2. It seeks to remove clause 2(2)(a), which allows legislative functions to be conferred on other persons, and to replace it with its opposite: that no order under the Bill shall confer on any person the power to legislate. Why do the Government want a power to transfer legislative authority to any person? It is bad enough that they want a power to change primary legislation by statutory instrument. How much worse is it that legislative power might be transferred to another person who, as far as I can tell, will be able to make further legislative change without a statutory instrument or any parliamentary scrutiny at all? In many ways, that is the most dangerous part of the Bill.
We are considering the transfer of legislative power to people who are not even Ministers, so would not be capable of being questioned by the House about any use of the power granted to them under the clause. Who are those people? If the Minister will tell us, perhaps we can attempt to write something into the Bill that will accord with his wishes.
Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): While the hon. Gentleman was so ably explaining his concerns, it occurred to me that there is no provision concerning the nationality of such people. It is entirely possible that under this clause the Minister could transfer legislative powers to a foreign Government or Head of State, effectively transferring to some extent the sovereignty of our country. That is allowable within the provisions of the Bill. It might sound outlandish, but that is what it gives Ministers the power to do.
David Howarth: That is absolutely right. I was coming to precisely that point. Depending on the kind of nightmares that hon. Members might have, this provision would allow, presumably by changes to the Parliament Acts, the transfer of the sovereignty of Parliament to President Bush—
Mr. Harper: President Chirac.
David Howarth: Or President Chirac or, perhaps even worse from the point of view of the Conservative party, to the President of the European Commission. There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent that from happening. Because there is nothing in the Bill about what sort of legislative function is being referred to—
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): We often loosely talk about Henry VIII powers. That is precisely what this is. It is the power that Henry VIII took upon himself to issue any edict and for it to be termed a law passed by Parliament. It seems to me that we have regressed several centuries.
At Col 115. David Howarth: Yes, that is absolutely right. The danger is that we transfer the authority of Parliament to the Minister, and allow that latter, in effect, to transfer that authority to subordinate bodies, which ought to be subject to the courts. I am not talking about Parliament being subject to the courts, but subordinate bodies.
At Col 118. Mr Harper. “When we were discussing clause 1, I thought that it was the most worrying part of the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge that it is subsection (2), which would be removed by amendment No. 33. That provision effectively allows Ministers to confer powers on others to make legislation. At least transferring powers to Ministers and the Executive means that they are still accountable to the House of Commons. I would like the Minister to explain exactly what type of individuals or organisations he has in mind to delegate legislating powers to and the scope of such delegation”. “My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has sensibly set out our concerns about Ministers wanting to make substantial replacement of the common law with statute. Common law has served this country well. I see no great reason for codifying great swathes of it.
My final point is on amendment No. 35. The proposal to bind the Crown is of great concern. We know that in Parliament and in public discussions have started about the proper use of the royal prerogative. Those prerogative powers to make international treaties and to commit Her Majesty’s forces to war are incredibly important. Any changes to those powers should be decided by proper discussion in Parliament on the Floor of the House. They should not be changes that Ministers can make by order”.
At 119 Mr Heald. Why is it that the Government want to confer functions–including legislative functions—on other people? If one reads the explanatory notes, the answer is supposed to be in annex A. The notes say, in relation to clause 2, that annex A
“sets out a few examples of some of the ways in which it is anticipated that the order-making power may be used.”
Yet when one looks at annex A, on page 18 of the explanatory notes, there is nothing that talks about giving powers to people to legislate in the way that clause 2(2) mentions. Annex A refers to the Department for Trade and Industry having proposals to simplify legislation on employment, the construction industry, weights and measures, consumer rights and the energy industry. The annex says that the proposals will be implemented under Part 1 of the Bill. What power is it that the Minister is proposing to confer on another person about legislation relating to employment? Many of us would be worried if important issues on governance of trade unions or on employment rights were dealt with by anybody other than a Minister.
At 121. Mr. Heald: An important part of our liberty is being affected. The confiscation of property is also important. All of that is taking place against a background of the introduction of other measures that also limit our liberties. The new clauses refer to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which is an important Act that takes liberty away from the individual.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, in his shadow Home Office guise, has dealt with numerous Bills that curtail liberty. The Identity Cards Bill is on track and other proposals concerning terrorism have been put before the House. Now we are asking whether all that remains of habeas corpus can be thrown away—removed and abolished—by an order that may not be debated by the House of Commons. That is being done in the name of business, which is being told, “This is for you. We will take burdens off your back, and we’re going to do it with this Bill.” What business wants to abolish habeas corpus by order? None that I have come across has ever said that. I do not think that businesses would want property to be confiscated. Do they want an end to jury trial? I do not think so. Extradition? They may have concerns after the recent NatWest case, because bankers will be worried that their extradition position can be changed by order.
The Bill in either Pdf or HTM
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/2006141.htm The Explanatory notes http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/en/06111x–.htm The Standing Committee notes http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmscleg.htm
Technorati Tags: british-democracy, constitution, dictators, due-process, english-laws
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill completed its committee stages in the Commons last Thursday and, despite a spirited counter-offensive by Opposition MPs, remains largely intact as one of the most pernicious measures to have come before a British parliament.
The Bill would empower any minister by order to make provisions amending, repealing or replacing any legislation, primary or secondary, for any purpose, and to reform the common law to implement Law Commission recommendations.
Why is such a measure needed? The Government says a “fast-track” method of repealing laws is essential for its war on red tape. Armed with such a weapon, it can scythe through the forests of regulations, many of them planted by the very same government, and relieve the £50 billion annual burden on hundreds of thousands of hard-pressed small businesses.
The essence of the Government’s position is this. “Trust us. We may be taking extraordinary powers that could, in the wrong hands, be misused. But we wouldn’t dream of doing any such thing. This is Britain, for goodness sake.”
Indeed, the continued promulgation of Bills such as these will irrevocably change the sort of country we are because we have been defined over the centuries by the possession of parliaments that would never have countenanced such a grotesque proposal.
Technorati Tags: english-legislation, labour-party, undemocratic
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||
| By N2H | ||||||||||||||||||||||
eurealist.co.uk
Bad Behavior has blocked 239 access attempts in the last 7 days.
