Projet Angscht oder Welt Dominatioun

[darmstadt]

It also seems that Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiters said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. In some ways you could say that allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017...erate-turn-yet

[northernladyuk]

It also seems that Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiters said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. In some ways you could say that allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017...erate-turn-yet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enablin...United_Kingdom

Act of 1919[edit]
The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 gave a considerable degree of self-government to the Church of England while retaining overall parliamentary supervision. Before its passing, almost all adjustments to the legal structure of the Church of England had involved getting a specific bill through Parliament.[6] It took nine sessions to approve the salary of the Archdeacon of Cornwall,[7] and of the 217 bills introduced into the House of Commons between 1880 and 1913, only 33 passed into law for lack of parliamentary time, among the casualties being the bills to establish new dioceses.[8]

The Act gave the newly established Church Assembly, predecessor of the General Synod, power to prepare and present to Parliament measures which could either be approved or rejected, but not modified by either House. Before being voted on, the proposals were examined by an Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses which reported on their effects and implications. Once approved in Parliament, the measure became law on receiving the royal assent.[9]
The Act continues to apply today to the General Synod of the Church of England which, as a result of the Synodical Government Measure of 1969, replaced the Church Assembly with the aim of achieving full integration of the laity and eliminating the complications caused by the dual control of the Convocations of Canterbury and of York, and the Assembly. All the Assembly's powers passed to the new synod along with many of those of the Convocations.[10]


Proposals[edit]
In the 1930s, both Sir Stafford Cripps and Clement Attlee advocated an enabling act to allow a future Labour government to pass socialist legislation which would not be amended by normal parliamentary procedures and the House of Lords. According to Cripps, his "Planning and Enabling Act" would not be able to be repealed, and the orders made by the government using the act would not be allowed discussion in Parliament. Cripps also suggested measures against the monarchy, but quickly dropped the idea.[11]

In 1966 Oswald Mosley advocated a government of national unity drawn from "the professions, from science, from the unions and the managers, from businessmen, the housewives, from the services, from the universities, and even from the best of the politicians". This coalition would be a "hard centre" oriented one which would also get Parliament to pass an Enabling Act in order to stop what Mosley described as "time-wasting obstructionism of present procedure". He also claimed that Parliament would always retain the power to dismiss his government by vote of censure if its policies failed or if it attempted to "override basic British freedoms".[12]


Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006[edit]
In early 2006 the highly controversial yet little-publicised Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill was introduced to Parliament. This Bill, if enacted as introduced, would have enabled Government ministers to amend or repeal any legislation (including the L&RR Bill itself), subject to vague and highly subjective restraints, by decree and without recourse to Parliament. The Bill was variously described as the Abolition of Parliament Bill[13] and "of first-class constitutional significance ... [and would] markedly alter the respective and long standing roles of minister and Parliament in the legislative process".[14] The Bill is, in essence, an Enabling Act in all but name. After some amendment by the government and Lords, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006.[15] Amendments included removing its ability to modify itself or the Human Rights Act 1998; most of the other modifications were much more subjectively defined.


Great Repeal Bill[edit]
The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill of 2017, also known as the Great Repeal Bill, has come under fire from critics because it envisions giving the UK Government unprecedented powers to rewrite any aspect of UK laws imported from EU law when Britain leaves the EU, without consulting Parliament. Such powers, effected by clauses called Henry VIII clauses, have been controversially used in the past, but usually only in respect of very limited areas of law.

[original PM]

Oooh fish are biting today.

[WTFH]

Oooh, I've been called out again for making stuff up, better change the subject or hope some of my religious friends turn up to deflect the truth from me

FTFY

[The_Equalizer]

Oooh fish are biting today.

They seem to be far too easy to wind up. It's as if they have backed the wrong pony or something.

[northernladyuk]

They seem to be far too easy to wind up. It's as if they have backed the wrong pony or something.

Whereas siding with originalPM really shows you're onto a dead cert.

[The_Equalizer]

Whereas siding with originalPM really shows you're onto a dead cert.

Have you read Scooterscot's posts?

[northernladyuk]

Have you read Scooterscot's posts?

I don't side with him He just occasionally blunders into a position where he sides with me.

[Mordac]

Unelected?

Let's start off with the UK...
Theresa May wasn't elected to be prime minister, she was leader of the Conservative party.
She wasn't elected by the public to be prime minister. She wasn't elected by all of the UK parliament to be prime minister. There was no vote in the House of Commons that made her Prime Minister. The UK public only get to vote for their individual local MP.

Junker is the leader of the EPP (a political party). He was elected my the European Parliament. There was a vote in the European Parliament in 2014 that made him president for 5 years. The European Parliament consists of MEPs who are voted for by the European public.

You, as an individual did not vote for Theresa May to be Prime Minister (even in her constituency that is not what is on the ballot) in the same way that you as an individual did not vote for J-C Junker to be President of the EU.

So if he is "unelected" as you've chosen to believe, then so is Theresa May.

Given how utterly crap he is at the job, I wonder how much he had to bribe the idiots who voted for him. Guess we'll probably never know, but it would explain their sudden need for £100bn...

[WTFH]

Given how utterly crap he is at the job, I wonder how much he had to bribe the idiots who voted for him. Guess we'll probably never know, but it would explain their sudden need for £100bn...

Well, the going rate in the UK is £1bn for 10 MPs (or is it £1.5bn?). That means to buy a majority in Westminster would cost £32bn.
UK Population is 70 million, Europe is about 5x that.
5x32 = £160bn, so getting it for £100bn is a bargain! :lol: