Abolition of Parliament Bill

[ciphergoth]

I thought word of this had already spread far and wide, but it seems not to have reached everyone, so here it is. Bizarrely, a bill nicknamed the "Abolition of Parliament Bill" that (indirectly) gives ministers the power to abolish Parliament and seize dictatorial powers in perpituity has not received much press attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_and_Regulatory_Reform_Bill

This is being rushed through Parliament with one hour for debate. I kid you not.

http://saveparliament.org.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

Comments

[lovingboth]

The bit I find ironic in the Wikipedia article is that one of the six Cambridge law professors mentioned writing to The Times is no stranger to changing the law without Parliamentary approval: the Court of Appeal acknowledged that without Prof Spencer's activism, it's highly likely that six people - so far - in England and Wales would not have been convicted for grevious bodily harm (plus one in Scotland for reckless endangerment) in relation to the reckless transmission of HIV.

This is despite a case dating back over a century which said it should not be, despite the failure of Parliament to vote for making it so - despite being given several oportunities over the years - and despite the published views of the government saying it should not be.

[zotz]

It's exactly the same process - and, coincidentally, exactly the same precedent overturned - as happened when intramarital rape became criminal.

[lovingboth]

Hmmm, Clarence was certainly referenced in that, but a) he wasn't charged with rape, and b) the theory that it wasn't criminal predates it by ooh ages (you can tell I'm away from my notes on this, can't you?)

The Law Commission were using Clarence approvingly in terms of the nature of consent as recently as 2000, eight years after RvR, and six years after the Act that confirmed that marital rape was rape.