Tony Blair’s “Enabling Act”
(On March 23 of 1933, Hitler got the Reichstag to pass an “Enabling Act” that enabled him thenceforth to legislate by decree):
An excerpt below from The Guardian, no less:
“Some have called it the Henry VIII bill; one MP thought Stalin would be a more appropriate dictator to put his name to it. A leading academic refers to it as the “abolition of parliament bill”. You get the point. The bill’s real title is bland and boring to the point of soporific, which may be why it hasn’t been much noticed; but underneath the benign facade of the legislative and regulatory reform bill lurks a machinery that would give the government the power to pass far-reaching laws without the bother of getting the approval of parliament. On the surface, the bill is aimed at removing regulatory burdens on business by using short-cut procedures which wouldn’t require parliamentary debate. The same process would also put into law uncontroversial recommendations by Britain’s law commissions, the government’s legal thinktanks. All that seems not only reasonable, but positively helpful to the efficiency of law-making. But look again, and Henry VIII comes into the picture. What the government has inserted into the bill is a way of allowing laws to be passed by a minister’s order, which bypasses parliament altogether.... It will become possible for the government, by ministerial order, without a debate in parliament, to create new criminal offences, punishable with less than two years imprisonment. It could also, according to Cambridge law professor John Spencer (who is not alone in his analysis), introduce house-arrest, give the police stronger powers of arrest and interrogation, set up new courts, and in effect re-write the rules on immigration, nationality, divorce, inheritance and the appointment of judges.”
Trackbacks (0) | Comments (6) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/trackback/2082/MslEA1N9/
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
Here is the bill in question. Here is a blogger posting on the bill, with links to others.
In its worst manifestation, this bill enables the government of the day to legislate administratively or simply to govern without reference to existing legislation. The only saving grave is that a dictator who so governed would face re-election every five years.
But ...
Don’t forget that other delight, the Civil Contingencies Act, which enables any Home Secretary of the day to suspend Parliament indefinitely and overule the constitution.
These truly excessive powers were never thought necessary in the past. Why they are necessary now we have not been told? What disorder so vast and so serious is there that such powers can be justified? What, exactly, does our wonderful Labour government foresee?
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 10:13 PM | #
“What, exactly, does our wonderful Labour government foresee?”
Well, the government may have realised that the enforcement of grossly offensive multi-culturalism engendered by an unwanted Third World immigrant presence requires draconian measures in order to address the growing discontents of the hitherto ovine host population. Britons will be kicked and beaten into accepting that the nation that was once their country will,over the next couple of generations, be delivered into the hands of their enemies, and the reality of this sadistic scenario is beginning to dawn.
Posted by Al Ross on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 11:15 PM | #
This kind of thing isn’t as unusual as it sounds. Civil servants give it the standard nickname of a ‘Henry VIII Clause’. For example, the Thatcher Government passed a deregulation Act which included powers to amend primary legislation by order, but IIRC the powers were seldom if ever used.
Posted by David B on Friday, February 24, 2006 at 11:33 AM | #
That’s true, David. But do you feel as confident in the continuing moderation of a left-liberal government facing the breakdown of their very own left-liberal paradise as you would in a Thatcher government attempting to breakdown the enemy within’s Marxist paradise? I wouldn’t.
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, February 24, 2006 at 01:25 PM | #
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: More on the art of being ruled
Previous entry: The Latest French Grovel
Posted by Søren Renner on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 04:03 PM | #