End of Democracy in the UK?

Lucid Lounge
1

I don’t particularly like the government we have here in the UK at the moment. They have done some good things, such as the minimum wage and banning smoking in workplaces, but lately their main intent has seemed to be to rob us of our freedoms.

In the last year or so the government has tried to put through a bill where people could be locked up for 90 days without charge or trial (thankfully it was defeated, though a motion for 28 days got through, so not an amazing result). You can now also be arrested for protesting within a mile of parliament. There was someone convicted for standing on the senotaugh (sp? A big war memorial) and reading the names of all the soldiers killed in Iraq. They tried to get through a bill where insulting religion would be a crime, and have got through one where you can be put in prison for 7 years for glorifying terroism (which is defined as whatever the Home Secretary says is terroism). And we will soon be forced to carry ID cards with biometric data on, all of which will be kept in a big government database.

So in short, things have been getting a bit dodgy. And recently I found out about a new bill which the government is trying to get through, one which could threaten democracy.

Before I tell you about it, I’ll give you a brief description of how the British parliament works for the benefit of those of you who don’t know. There are two houses, the house of commons and the house of lords. The country is divided into constituencies. At a general election a member of parliament (mp) is elected for each constituency. These sit in the house of commons. The members of the house of lords are appointed (with the odd hereditary lord thrown in). The party with the highest number of mp’s forms a government, which is led by the prime minister. The government proposes bills (also sometimes mp’s do, but I wont get into that here), and the house of commons votes on them. If the bill is approved, it moves onto the house of lords, who also vote on it. If they approve it it becomes law, if not it’s sent back to the house of commons, who might change a little bit of the bill and then vote on it again. If the lords persist in sending it back, there are some circumstances when the commons can push it through.

If the government wants to change an existing bill they have to go through the same process.

Right, here’s a link to the new bill. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html#j001

It’s quite long and complicated, so I’ll just quote the important parts.

To put it simply any minister, including the prime minister (all ministers are appointed by the prime minister btw) will be able to create any new bill which is recommended by the law commision, and change any previous bill which has already gone through parliament without having to have a vote in parliament.

So lets think about this for a sec. This would mean that the prime minister would be able to add anything to any bill which has already gone through, and it will become law, without the need for a vote in parliament. Boiled down to the very esscence, the prime minister will be able to make any law that he wants, without any vote. It is giving the prime minister absolute power. He could quite legally dissolve parliament, get rid of elections, do anything he wants. And the way this prime minister is going, it wouldn’t surprise me.

It’s very similar to a bill which was made in Germany before the second world war. I don’t think that Hitler put it through, but when Hitler came into power it allowed him to become a dictator.

Now, there are some “safeguards” built into the bill. But to me they just don’t add up. I’ll quote you one of them.

Now some of these may seem to get rid of the danger. But I’m not convinced. Firstly it says that the minister has to be satisfied that these conditions are met. No one else, only the minister. Call me cynical but in my opinion what a minister says and what he thinks aren’t always one and the same.
So basically there’s no independant group of people who can say that any new law doesn’t meet these conditions and so it can’t be put through, it’s up to the minister whos trying to put the law through whether he thinks that these conditions are met.

Secondly, if this bill goes through, ministers will have the power to change any bill, including this one. So they can get rid of these conditions.

There are various other safeguards but I’m not convinced by them, especially as the ministers could change this bill and get rid of the safeguards.

So there you have it, could this be the end of democracy in Britain, might we soon have a dictator? What do you think?

2

That is unbelievable! I thought things here in the US was bad enough with the patriot act, wire tapping etc. I just wish our leaders would understand that by infringing on our rights like this they are letting the bad guys win.

Oh, for the NSA people listening right now, Bush is great and um… praise Jesus. Yea that’s it. :scared:

3

Wow… :sad:

I like to think that totalitarianism doesn’t have a future, but every day I keep getting proven more and more wrong. I thought things were bad enough over here in the U.S., what with all the massive domestic spying operations and easy-to-rig elections, but we haven’t gone quite as far as to create a bill like that.

And, what with China on the rise and all, it looks like free society may be doomed. I’ll hold on to my optimistic viewpoint that totalitarianist governments will inevitably fall and cannot be sustained in the face of democractic nations for now, but I can’t help but worry that I’ll look back in twenty years and consider myself naïve. What bleak times… :bored:

4

it certainly doesnt sound like your government is going the right way.

it could be worse though, you could be in america. then youd have 100x more things about the government to complain about.

5

Hi Dreamer! I don’t know the situation in England, but I’m wondering the same about France and Europe in general. In France, there are tons of very worrying laws which are voted weekly by the Parliament. It looks more and more like Big Brother land. And when you consider what happens for some years everywhere, it sounds like your topic could be renamed : end of democracy in the world? :sad:

6

Hm, that is a bad shift in things to hear. Hopefully it will not go any farther but just reverse… But the first step to ending freedom is denouncing free speech… And the prime minister thing sounds like a slow move towards Monarchy again, or oligarchy. We shall have to watch this closely, we all shall… thanks for the info and do keep us updated please. Even people who may live in other countries than the UK like I, what happens with the UK will impact the rest of the world.

7

:cry:

I’ve already made two attempted posts here. I felt the first was overly negative (“we’re doomed!!”) and the second overly optimistic (“they’ll never get away with it!!”).

Right now I’m not sure what to think. Well, except obviously that the bill is a horrific violation of the fundamental rights of individuals to be free from the tyranny of others.

I’m still hoping the US can lead the way by removing the administration over 9/11 because then we’ll be able to remove the Blair regime (which would then be lacking its biggest ally).

8

milod - yeah, I was a bit shocked when I first read about it. Unfortunately this seems to be the way that lots of democratic countries are going. If it could defeat terroism then it would be slightly more acceptable, definately still unacceptable, but not quite as bad. But history has shown us that laws that restrict freedoms play into terrorist’s hands. When there was a lot of trouble in Northern Island then something called internment was brought in. Basically people could be locked up for ever on suspicion of terrorism. And, surprise surprise, it was used by the terrorist organisations to recruit more people.

Shift - I think that things are getting more and more totalitarian. I hope no other governments try to bring a bill through like this.

LucidGanjaClown - Most of the governments policies at the moment have just been to get tabloid headlines. Definately going the wrong way. One of the tabloids published all the names of the mps who voted against 90 days detention without trial or charge. It’s awful how much power the tabloids have.

Basilus - I don’t know much about the laws in Europe, but I think you’re right, democracy is a very fragile thing, and everywhere does seem to be getting worse in regard to personal freedoms.

zero - things have steadily been getting less and less free and democratic here. When we went to war in Iraq, a million people marched against it. But were they listened to? Not a chance. Parliament has been having less and less say, the prime minister has been forcing through bills with no regard to what people think. Some labour mp’s who voted against his proposals have been threatened with deslection (meaning they won’t be able to stand as labour mp’s next election).

leb - The scary thing is that the government has already tried to introduce these powers before calling it an emergency powers bill. (It’s so like star wars ep. 2 and 3 it’s scary). Thankfully that was stopped, but this bill has already got through it’s second reading. they’re being very clever in introducing lots of safeguards that look great but actually wouldn’t do anything. I think that 120 or so mp’s have signed something saying Blair should be thrown out of office for Iraq, unfortunately it lost momentum.

I think that lots of people (including me) don’t realise how fragile democracy really is. In Britain we’ve only had full democracy (i.e. men and women no matter they’re class being able to vote) since 1928 (I think 1928, definately around that time). Thats only 22 years before my mum was born. There were only 5 democratically elected governments before my mum was born. That’s a scary thought. And we just have to look at Germany before world war two to see how easily democracy can be thrown out of the window.

When I think of all the people throughout the world who have fought and lost their lives to protect democracy it really disgusts me how governments can abuse it.

9

What an unsettling turn of events! :eek:
I’m not really sure what to say, only that I believe those ID cards are just son sense and are obviously the government’s way of control.
I think leb is onto something with the removal of the Bush administration, however I’ve got a funny feeling about this. Bush was never actually voted in the first time…and call me crazy, but I don’t believe it was democracy which put him there the second time either. What happens when his term is up? Does he amend the constitution so he can stay a third term? I’m probably just speculating and I hope I’m wrong, but I can help the bad feeling I’ve got about this…

On another note, Canada just elected a new prime minister, Stephen Harper. He is a conservative who supports the Iraq war and just about everything else Bush has to offer, and his biggest campaign sponsors were from the United States, and he refuses to name them. I doubt it’ll happen but I fear that we may start loosing some of our ‘Canadian-ness’ to the US Government thanks to Mr. Harper.

I hope all this is just me being paranoid :yes:

10

Well, with the European Union campaigning more than ever about this so called “terrorism”, it looks like more or less all of Europe will fall into this trap sooner or later. Here in Sweden, the Secret Police says they want to “investigate the causes to terrorism”, starting with school, by keeping certain kids under close watch for absolutely no reasons at all. In the long run, who knows what such a thing might lead to? Luckily, it seems they won’t get through with it this time, but it’s scary to see that this propaganda is starting to spread throughout the whole Western society. On a footnote, this proposal was apparently inspired by some similar action in the UK.

Is terrorism really that much of a problem at all? Of course, terrorism is a horrible thing, but if you listen to certain politicians, it sounds like every problem in the world somehow relates to terrorism. Like the downfall of our society will be generated by terrorists. It’s ridiculous.

11

Josh - Yeah, I’ve long thought that about the ID cards. Origionally we were told that the reason we are going to have them is to combat terrorism. When everyone started poking holes in this argument then they moved onto saying that it’s to stop identity theft.

But there’s a group of computer scientists in Cambridge university, who are paid to try to forge bank cards and identification and stuff, to see how secure they are. And I’m pretty sure that I heard that they’d managed to forge an ID card in a couple of days. But the governments still ploughing ahead with them.

According to the news, before Bush was elected for his second term then the head of the company which was supplying all the electronic voting systems allegedly said that he’d do anything to help Bush win.

I hope that Canada doesn’t change, I’m planning to emigrate there when Blair takes over as grand emperor.

Larry - That watching people in schools thing is scary. It seems that the whole of the ideals of freedom and innocent until proven guilty are slowly being eroded away.

BTW, I don’t know how famous George Orwell is outside of the UK, but in one of his books he predicted many things like this would happen. But George Orwell wasn’t his real name. Nope, it was Blair.

12

You beat me to it. As soon as I heard about the ID card thing my first thought was I bet people in the black market will be able to forge these cards in a month.

The problem we have here is that the US politicians are more insidious about restricting freedom. They start with the media. Lets use DWI as an example. We can all (or most of us anyway) will agree that drunk driving bad and has to be stopped. It used to be that a police officer would have to have probable cause to pull you over. (I.e., swerving, tail light out, speeding, what ever). Then the issue of driving while intoxicated made its way to the press and a group called MADD lobbied for strong laws against drunk drivers. Buy it’s self this seems like a good thing and something the people can accept. However, now in many states, a police officer can pull you over for no reason and require you to take a Breathalyzer test. If you refuse the test you drivers licence will be suspended. Now they can not search your car but they can search your body and you have no right to consult with or talk to a lawyer first and you are required to provide evidence against yourself. We The People all allowed this to happen in the name of public safety. I use this as an example to show just how insidious all of this is.

Another example, In my state our legislators are considering a bill that will allow the state to confine people who commit certain types of (very serious)offences to psychiatric hospitals after they have already served their prison sentence. To fight against this law is hard because these offences are considered to be particularly heinous to the public. Other states have similar laws and so far 80% of the people they have confined are still incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals. So, now what is to stop the state from applying the law to other offences. You can follow this slippery slope down to the elimination of due process, or even the right to a trial. Someone commits a crime and you can’t prove it. Just get 2 state doctors to lock them up in a psychiatric hospital. When we infringe on the rights of even the most hated among us, we as a society are weakened.

“In times of war the law falls silent”- Cicero

It seems that is where we are headed.

13

Which will make identity theft worse. If you have a supposedly unforgeable card that says you are John Smith then nobody is going to doubt that you are John Smith.

The drink driving laws that you describe are very similar to some of the anti-terror laws that have already been passed here. In Brighton during the labour party conference this year then 600 people were stopped by the police and I think taken to the police station. Most of these for wearing anti Blair and Bush t-shirts. I find this shocking, but hardly anyone knows about it. If anyone complains about the anti-terror laws then the tabloids accuse them of being soft on terrorists.

During the labour party conference then a 78 year old(not sure exact age) man who’d escaped the holocaust was bodily thrown out of the conference for shouting “nonsense” during a speech.

That physciatric thing is awful. It’s just another excuse to lock people up you don’t like, even after they’ve paid their debt to society.

14

I do have one question. I thought the hole point behind the political system in most European countries was that your prime minister is subject to recall elections. If your elected officials go too far then the people can oust those in power. At least that is the way I thought it worked over there.

In the US, we have to wait until the election to remove a politician. That is why here in the US the 2006 (mid term)elections are so important. Every representative is up for reelection this year as are many senators. Also, here in the US the presidential system gives the executive branch too much power. Yes, the president can be impeached but only if he/she commits a crime. Also, only the house can bring articles of impeachment against a sitting president then the Senate has to vote to remove the president. So, as you can see it is very difficult to impeach a president. We the people have no role in this process.

15

It’s true, in a Parliament, the house of commons can have a vote of non confidence if they feel the leader is not doing a good enough job. If the vote is a majority, an election must be called. The original party could still get in again depending on how the election goes, but the election itself is mandatory.
However, this will only happen if the opposition calls for it. In fact, this is why we just had an election. The Conservative party called a vote of non confidence in the Liberal party (who were in charge) because of a sponsorship scandal involving a former prime minister.
I’m not sure what the situation in the UK is like now, would a vote like this ever be called because of this situation?

16

That is another big difference here in the US. Here (in practice) only the party in power can call for an impeachment of a sitting president. Right now the republicans control both legislative bodies by a small majority. While constitutionally the president could be impeached it will never happen. Republican representatives and senators will never impeach a republican president. However, that may change in 2006 if the Democrats take control. But, the Democrats would have to take 2/3 of the house (that is what is needed to bring an article of impeachment to the senate for a trial/vote)and control of the Senate to impeach the current administration.

17

If that DOEs happen, and i end up losing all my rights before i even get them, i will be sure to start a rivalry. Anyone who wants to help, can. If they think we will give up our rights without a fight, they have it all wrong. If the prime minister can make ANY law he wants, we could end up losing EVERY freedom we ever had! Just look at the mince pie! One man, who made the laws, hated them and made them illegal! Then again, i can’t complain, as i don’t like them either… but if he will do things like that, what he doesn’t like becomes illegal, he can kiss my shiny metal butt! I wont give up my rights without a good fight. WHOS WITH ME?

18

This just in… :grrr:

I just read a post on an AOL forum about the passage of the new patriot act.

Apparently, it is now illegal to protest at any event where either the president or vice-president is in attendance.

Also in another law that slipped through-

  1. It is now illegal to save seeds from plants. (I would like to see how they are going to enforce that one)

  2. All farms regardless of size now must be registered with the federal government.

  3. All animals will now have to have a computer chip in them. You have to keep track of when they leave your premises, when they bread, how often, and how many offspring. You also have to record when any animal dies and what it died from. THIS INCLUDES PETS!!!

Perhaps the previous poster is right and we should change the name of this post to the end of democracy in the world!

I still have to look into this more to see if these laws are true! If they are it is disastrous to booth our democracy and our economy! The farm bill alone will cause our food prices to skyrocket!

19

Even if the threat from terrorism was 100% authentic all of this stuff would still be inexcusable. “Any nation that sacrifices liberty in the name of security deserves neither” or something. We should not sit back and allow Big Bro to look after us.

… but the worst part about all of this, the absolute sickener, is that there is a lot of evidence that a whole lot of the “terrorism” going on is black ops work.

All I know is we’re in need of something pretty bloody spectacular on this planet to sort out the mess (and yes it IS global, these people think in terms of global control). Either that something has to come from the people (us?!), or it has to come from God via an act of divine intervention.

And the way things are I find it hard to see how it can come from us. Maybe if there were people with power able to make a difference… but where are they? Maybe there are factions in the US military unhappy with what the administration is doing, maybe they’ll go for some kind of coup. But short of something like that we definately need a miracle.

Slightly off topic but do you guys think different gun control laws could have changed all of this? I mean think about it: the police have guns, and guns are illegal. So… the law enforcers are themselves using something that is against the law. Something’s wrong there. I used to be pro-gun control but honestly, you think they’d be pushing us around like they are if we were all armed and organised!!!

20

I know that in Canada we had a huge mess made about our gun control. Guns are not illegal here but according to law, they must be registered with the government so that if one is used in a crime, they can find the owner of the gun. It’s a great idea, in theory, but no one wanted to register their guns, because a smart criminal wouldn’t register a gun anyway, so if the criminals didn’t, why should a law abiding citizen? Add to that the government blew 2 billion dollars on administering the registry! That’s more than our military’s annual budget.
I doubt it has many implications here, but I don’t know about other country’s gun control laws so I’m not sure how this issue has effected other countries.