If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
even if you dont enjoy politics
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
finally found one small article in the times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1361980,00.html
Emergency powers endorsed by Lords
By Helen Rumbelow
THE Government is to be given sweeping powers in the case of national emergency, the Lords voted last night.
The Conservatives failed in a last-ditch attempt to introduce more safeguards to the Civil Contingencies Bill, and it is expected to pass through the Commons today.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal, a Home Office minister, promised that the Government would not “run amok” with the new powers, which will allow it to suspend or repeal any Act of Parliament after a state of emergency has been declared.
The Conservatives proposed an amendment to ensure that the Government could not override “core rights” such as the Habeas Corpus Act of 1816, and the Parliament Act of 1911, which limits the duration of a Parliament to five years. Baroness Buscombe said: “We are attempting to safeguard our civil rights, the foundations of our democracy and to ensure that the supremacy and independence of Parliament is guaranteed.” The amendment was defeated by 169 to 146.
so parliamentry elections now can be suspended under the guise of security, whose security? the PMs or any future leader?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1361980,00.html
Emergency powers endorsed by Lords
By Helen Rumbelow
THE Government is to be given sweeping powers in the case of national emergency, the Lords voted last night.
The Conservatives failed in a last-ditch attempt to introduce more safeguards to the Civil Contingencies Bill, and it is expected to pass through the Commons today.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal, a Home Office minister, promised that the Government would not “run amok” with the new powers, which will allow it to suspend or repeal any Act of Parliament after a state of emergency has been declared.
The Conservatives proposed an amendment to ensure that the Government could not override “core rights” such as the Habeas Corpus Act of 1816, and the Parliament Act of 1911, which limits the duration of a Parliament to five years. Baroness Buscombe said: “We are attempting to safeguard our civil rights, the foundations of our democracy and to ensure that the supremacy and independence of Parliament is guaranteed.” The amendment was defeated by 169 to 146.
so parliamentry elections now can be suspended under the guise of security, whose security? the PMs or any future leader?
0
Comments
leading to an imperial empire
even if darth vadar was crippled, at least, he could see, unlike what our empire would have
scary stuff! is there any way of stopping it
a proposed amendment that would force parliament to review the emergency every 3 yrs if it was invoked was voted down as well, so only the PM has the final word, parliament doesnt
I really dont have enough time to write all the "I am writing to express my concern about...." letters I want to.
More pertinently, isn't it exactly what Hitler did just after he came into power?! Lol, I'm not taking it seriously. There's so much scaremongering flying about at the moment that I refuse to get caught up in it.
the reason i used the star wars example is because galactic domination sounds much more scary than ruling the world
edit: plus a lot more people who dont venture into the politics and debate thread would be able to see that even such things as star wars, which regular forum users know about, might be an attractive feature to getting new blood
Scaremongering? The bill was given royal assent on 17th November 2004 and is hereafter known as the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. It is law. Tomorrow, Tony Blair could declare a state of emergency for no apparent reason and then reintroduce the death penalty, instruct the police to beat people up on the street, confiscate money from the public with no good reason (I know the last two happen anyway though - except the police beat people up of their own accord) what else.... he could theoretically ban the assembly of people in the street, he would have no obligation to dissolve parliament and call a GE in 2006.... and it would ALL be legal.
With laws like this in place, the people who advocate proportional representation have no leg to stand on.
all the freedoms that have been hard won and seem so normal ...are on the way out.
i'll put money on it ...military conscription will come back. homosexuality will be outlawed.
the social insecurity system will slowly dissapear.
more jails will be built.
a handicapped child in the womb will not be allowed to be born.
all kinds of stuff is going to change for the worse over the next few years.
our technology is demanding it of us.
This is the scariest piece of law I have ever seen, it goes WAY beyond the Patriot Act.
What an amazing coincidence! :eek:
They will all be in Belmash soon.
Exactly, this law is scary, it can be v.easily abused, BUT, I think believe in the public, we may be a little silly, but we are not totally dumb, and there are enough people who will fight it if it is used unfairly...
Would it? If everything continued as before, just the elections were "delayed" a bit, perhaps a couple of freedoms withdrawn...
I'd say after a bomb people wouldnt object quite as much as they should.
Oh Fiend, your box is full.
Only because you enjoy filling it.
Dealt with.
OK, a bomb is something different, of course fear can make people do or accept crazy things, but i just think enough people aren't stupid for the stuff rolly was talking about to happen, I mean look at this forum, people are aware of things, maybe we just need to act..
Even all the people who went marching before the war only really represent about 2% of the population MAX.
But if it was done gradually, little errosions of liberties, the delaying and delaying of elections.
I honestly think he could do it.
It does seem quite disturbing, 'emergency powers' always led to dictatorships in the past.
I couldnt even find a story on the BBC website and they post all manor of crappy stories on there.
Though to be honest, most of the hassle is because the Lords wouldnt make any concessions at all.
We could well have had the system like in Scotland or licences or whatever but they pushed it and lost.