Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[Elysium]

jamei303 said:

markyb_lcy said:

Good questions. If the answer to the latter one is "yes", then it is open to infinite abuse ... as soon as a given JR looks like getting anywhere, they could switch the regs ... rinse and repeat.

I find it hard to believe they could avoid parliamentary and judicial oversight indefinitely in this way. There must be a democratic way to stop this otherwise we are indeed in dictatorship territory.

If a majority of MPs don't want something, they can stop it from happening. For example they could refuse to pass budgetary measures to raise taxes unless the government revises the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, or any number of parliamentary other wheezes.

Which would require the Conservatives to turn agains their own Govt. Unlikely at this point.

[Graveworm]

Elysium said:

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

Good questions. If the answer to the latter one is "yes", then it is open to infinite abuse ... as soon as a given JR looks like getting anywhere, they could switch the regs ... rinse and repeat.

I find it hard to believe they could avoid parliamentary and judicial oversight indefinitely in this way. There must be a democratic way to stop this otherwise we are indeed in dictatorship territory.

In your words

markyb_lcy said:

Get a fking grip! Jeez.

So where is the democratic solution?

The Govt has made new laws granting itself sweeping new powers by using a mechanism that deliberately excludes Parliament. They appear to have used a 'bait and switch tactic to quash a legal challenge, which argued that the legislation in question was ultra vires because the mechanism that excluded parliament was not applicable to this situation and there was a more appropriate route which would require Parliamentary scrutiny.

The Coronavirus Act also postponed local elections by a year

The Regs are based on powers given to the government by Parliament 25 years ago. The previous regulations were laid before Parliament and were approved on the 4th May, so they were accountable. I am pretty sure these ones will be as well.

[Elysium]

Graveworm said:

Elysium said:

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

Good questions. If the answer to the latter one is "yes", then it is open to infinite abuse ... as soon as a given JR looks like getting anywhere, they could switch the regs ... rinse and repeat.

I find it hard to believe they could avoid parliamentary and judicial oversight indefinitely in this way. There must be a democratic way to stop this otherwise we are indeed in dictatorship territory.

In your words

markyb_lcy said:

Get a fking grip! Jeez.

So where is the democratic solution?

The Govt has made new laws granting itself sweeping new powers by using a mechanism that deliberately excludes Parliament. They appear to have used a 'bait and switch tactic to quash a legal challenge, which argued that the legislation in question was ultra vires because the mechanism that excluded parliament was not applicable to this situation and there was a more appropriate route which would require Parliamentary scrutiny.

The Coronavirus Act also postponed local elections by a year

The Regs are based on powers given to the government by Parliament 25 years ago. The previous regulations were laid before Parliament and were approved on the 4th May, so they were accountable. I am pretty sure these ones will be as well.

That is spin. It does not counter what i have written, you are simply describing events in a pro Govt way.

[Graveworm]

You claimed they excluded parliament, they didn't parliament were included and approved the regulations.
You claimed they gave themselves powers, they didn't. They used powers that parliament gave them.

[markyb_lcy]

Graveworm said:

You claimed they excluded parliament, they didn't parliament were included and approved the regulations.
You claimed they gave themselves powers, they didn't. They used powers that parliament gave them.

Were the current set of regulations as per the statutory instrument debated and approved by parliament or not?

Any right thinking person knows this answer to this is “no”.

[Jasandjules]

Graveworm said:

You claimed they excluded parliament, they didn't parliament were included and approved the regulations.
You claimed they gave themselves powers, they didn't. They used powers that parliament gave them.

Actually it would appear they sought to use an Act to give themselves powers when that Act did not allow those powers. Hence the Ultra Vires challenge to the Regulations.

[Graveworm]

markyb_lcy said:

Graveworm said:

You claimed they excluded parliament, they didn't parliament were included and approved the regulations.
You claimed they gave themselves powers, they didn't. They used powers that parliament gave them.

Were the current set of regulations as per the statutory instrument debated and approved by parliament or not?

Any right thinking person knows this answer to this is “no”.

They will be as the previous ones were.
Literally it's the first thing in the regulations. If parliament doesn't revoke them, amend them or puts them through on a nod it doesn't mean parliament is being bypassed.

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 4th July 19:05

[Graveworm]

Jasandjules said:

Graveworm said:

You claimed they excluded parliament, they didn't parliament were included and approved the regulations.
You claimed they gave themselves powers, they didn't. They used powers that parliament gave them.

Actually it would appear they sought to use an Act to give themselves powers when that Act did not allow those powers. Hence the Ultra Vires challenge to the Regulations.

Which is still ongoing. The ultra vires is trying to argue the act means something different to what it says. The act places no limit on the powers. For what it's worth, I think it has merit but its not nailed on.

[jamei303]

Elysium said:

jamei303 said:

markyb_lcy said:

Good questions. If the answer to the latter one is "yes", then it is open to infinite abuse ... as soon as a given JR looks like getting anywhere, they could switch the regs ... rinse and repeat.

I find it hard to believe they could avoid parliamentary and judicial oversight indefinitely in this way. There must be a democratic way to stop this otherwise we are indeed in dictatorship territory.

If a majority of MPs don't want something, they can stop it from happening. For example they could refuse to pass budgetary measures to raise taxes unless the government revises the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, or any number of parliamentary other wheezes.

Which would require the Conservatives to turn agains their own Govt. Unlikely at this point.

OMG - dictatorship by an elected parliament, what an outrage.

[unident]

Looks like the dictatorships in Spain and Australia are at it again by applying local lockdowns. Must just be a thing that dictatorships do though, as no other country has locked down at all.

[Elysium]

Graveworm said:

You claimed they excluded parliament, they didn't parliament were included and approved the regulations.
You claimed they gave themselves powers, they didn't. They used powers that parliament gave them.

As I said, you are spinning this in a pro Govt way. I presume because you are in favour of the actions they are taking and so willing to turn a blind eye to any awkward aspects of the process.

Thats fine, but its not an argument with any purpose.

This is a good summary of the issues:

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/04/21/a-disprop...

[Graveworm]

Elysium said:

Graveworm said:

You claimed they excluded parliament, they didn't parliament were included and approved the regulations.
You claimed they gave themselves powers, they didn't. They used powers that parliament gave them.

As I said, you are spinning this in a pro Govt way. I presume because you are in favour of the actions they are taking and so willing to turn a blind eye to any awkward aspects of the process.

Thats fine, but its not an argument with any purpose.

This is a good summary of the issues:

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/04/21/a-disprop...

No I am not expressing an opinion or spinning I was correcting your specific incorrect assertions, neither of which are supported by the article (From April) you link.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 5th July 00:14

[Elysium]

Graveworm said:

Elysium said:

Graveworm said:

You claimed they excluded parliament, they didn't parliament were included and approved the regulations.
You claimed they gave themselves powers, they didn't. They used powers that parliament gave them.

As I said, you are spinning this in a pro Govt way. I presume because you are in favour of the actions they are taking and so willing to turn a blind eye to any awkward aspects of the process.

Thats fine, but its not an argument with any purpose.

This is a good summary of the issues:

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/04/21/a-disprop...

No I am not expressing an opinion or spinning I was correcting your specific incorrect assertions, neither of which are supported by the article (From April) you link.

I didn't make any incorrect assertions. The Govt chose to create these regulations in a way that excluded parliament from the process. I realise that Parliament debated them, but this did not happen until they had been in place for several weeks and the process allowed no amendments or votes.

We both know this, which is why I categorised your response as spin.

It is playing with words to try to present reality differently. There is no purpose to this as we both know what was done.

The interesting thing is that you are obviously comfortable with it and have no real concerns. I think this is because you support the action the Govt is taking. You believe that the end justifies the means. I disagree.

[Graveworm]

Elysium said:

I didn't make any incorrect assertions. The Govt chose to create these regulations in a way that excluded parliament from the process. I realise that Parliament debated them, but this did not happen until they had been in place for several weeks and the process allowed no amendments or votes.

We both know this, which is why I categorised your response as spin.

It is playing with words to try to present reality differently. There is no purpose to this as we both know what was done.

The interesting thing is that you are obviously comfortable with it and have no real concerns. I think this is because you support the action the Govt is taking. You believe that the end justifies the means. I disagree.

The process required approval by both houses, which it obtained. It allowed votes they chose not to vote.
I didn't say I was comfortable with it, I said you were wrong when you said it bypassed parliament. It's the same process as all SIs that require any affirmative procedure. I am reasonably content that what was done was probably justified,. Its the same as most of Europe that is subject to the same constraints on their governments and was in accordance with the scientific consensus.

I fear long term the cure is worse than the problem but I recognise that is not the prevailing view.


I am also uncomfortable with the wording of the act, It requires no objective test or justification. If the Minister considered it necessary it is, as written lawful.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 5th July 01:45

[Pegscratch]

Elysium said:

As I said, you are spinning this in a pro Govt way.

You are confusing yourself. He has posted fact; you are posting anti-government spin. These were open to both houses (granted, after the fact - but that’s not especially been challenged by politicians as this is a “crisis”).

You have absolutely convinced yourself both of your moral and legal standing and tackle anything that discredits your arguments as “pro-government”.

For one, I am “pro-government” because “government” was elected through a democratic process and “what Elysium wants” is not; but I am also not unwaveringly pro-this-government. Where they are wrong I will enjoy seeing them corrected; but there are many instances now where people have convinced themselves of their moral justness and that that makes what the government are doing wrong; completely ignoring that they sit from a position that gives their opinion bias as does argument from any position other than fact. Which there are a lot of people ignoring in favour of their take on “the truth”.

[Elysium]

Graveworm said:

Elysium said:

I didn't make any incorrect assertions. The Govt chose to create these regulations in a way that excluded parliament from the process. I realise that Parliament debated them, but this did not happen until they had been in place for several weeks and the process allowed no amendments or votes.

We both know this, which is why I categorised your response as spin.

It is playing with words to try to present reality differently. There is no purpose to this as we both know what was done.

The interesting thing is that you are obviously comfortable with it and have no real concerns. I think this is because you support the action the Govt is taking. You believe that the end justifies the means. I disagree.

The process required approval by both houses, which it obtained. It allowed votes they chose not to vote.
I didn't say I was comfortable with it, I said you were wrong when you said it bypassed parliament. It's the same process as all SIs that require any affirmative procedure. I am reasonably content that what was done was probably justified,. Its the same as most of Europe that is subject to the same constraints on their governments and was in accordance with the scientific consensus.

I fear long term the cure is worse than the problem but I recognise that is not the prevailing view.


I am also uncomfortable with the wording of the act, It requires no objective test or justification. If the Minister considered it necessary it is, as written lawful.

I didn’t say that parliament had been bypassed. The approval process you are describing took place some weeks after the regulations had been implemented, which is why I think it is reasonable to say that Govt excluded Parliament when they were made.

I fully accept that Parliament did nothing to resist the continuation of these regulations when they had the opportunity. I had correspondence with my MP on this point whose response was effectively to say ‘don’t worry, we will relax the regs soon anyway’.

I do believe the process had an impact here as the regulations were introduced hastily, without scrutiny. Public feeling was running strong at the time they were eventually debated and it was very unlikely that Parliament would refuse them. However, if MP’s had been involved in their creation, they could have been improved and in particular I think we might have ended up with a more rational and effective review mechanism.

I share your concern about the lack of objectivity and the level of authority granted to the minister. My belief is that the individuals holding key roles in Govt at this point lack the moral and intellectual capacity to use these powers responsibly. I accept that they have a democratic mandate to be in their positions, but I feel our democracy should be able to prevent excessive distillation of power, which is why I would like to see the Judicial Review proceed.

I do not believe anything substantially different would have happened in the early stages of the outbreak if the Civil Contingencies Act had been used and Parliament had been more involved. However, a more objective review mechanism could have driven a more factual and open debate about lifting restrictions, which would have helped in recent weeks.

I suppose in some twisted way it is better that these restrictions have a slightly less robust legal foundation, because that reduces the possibility that they might unnecessarily persist.

Edited by Elysium on Sunday 5th July 10:00

[Elysium]

Pegscratch said:

Elysium said:

As I said, you are spinning this in a pro Govt way.

You are confusing yourself. He has posted fact; you are posting anti-government spin. These were open to both houses (granted, after the fact - but that’s not especially been challenged by politicians as this is a “crisis”).

You have absolutely convinced yourself both of your moral and legal standing and tackle anything that discredits your arguments as “pro-government”.

For one, I am “pro-government” because “government” was elected through a democratic process and “what Elysium wants” is not; but I am also not unwaveringly pro-this-government. Where they are wrong I will enjoy seeing them corrected; but there are many instances now where people have convinced themselves of their moral justness and that that makes what the government are doing wrong; completely ignoring that they sit from a position that gives their opinion bias as does argument from any position other than fact. Which there are a lot of people ignoring in favour of their take on “the truth”.

I have also posted fact. The situation here is not black and white, it is quite nuanced as I have attempted to explain above.

My position is that we should not have as much authority invested in individual ministers as we do now. The argument is that this is justified and proportionate in an emergency and for as short a period as possible. I think it is important to keep that argument under pressure.

I am not arguing that the Govt lacks a democratic mandate to act. This is not about political leanings or bias, beyond the fact that I am broadly in favour of personal freedom and broadly opposed to authoritarianism.

[Elysium]

For those who are interested, Simon Dolan has been refused permission to proceed with a JR challenge:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/dolan-v-secreta...

I think this is a political 'solution', which is not unexpected. The regulations had been relaxed considerably prior to the hearing to remove the original very significant limitations on free movement. Leaving only the restriction on staying away overnight.

By the time the challenge arrived the regulations were not disproportionate. That might not have been the case at the beginning, but there is no point in fussing ourselves over the proportionality of regs that no longer exist

The fact that entirely new regulations were introduced over the weekend is entirely coincidental.

'Yes Minister' maneuvering in action.

[markyb_lcy]

Elysium said:

For those who are interested, Simon Dolan has been refused permission to proceed with a JR challenge:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/dolan-v-secreta...

I think this is a political 'solution', which is not unexpected. The regulations had been relaxed considerably prior to the hearing to remove the original very significant limitations on free movement. Leaving only the restriction on staying away overnight.

By the time the challenge arrived the regulations were not disproportionate. That might not have been the case at the beginning, but there is no point in fussing ourselves over the proportionality of regs that no longer exist

The fact that entirely new regulations were introduced over the weekend is entirely coincidental.

'Yes Minister' maneuvering in action.

That is unfortunate. I don't necessarily want him to "win" but I believe the process itself could have been a positive one.

[Graveworm]

Elysium said:

For those who are interested, Simon Dolan has been refused permission to proceed with a JR challenge:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/dolan-v-secreta...

I think this is a political 'solution', which is not unexpected. The regulations had been relaxed considerably prior to the hearing to remove the original very significant limitations on free movement. Leaving only the restriction on staying away overnight.

By the time the challenge arrived the regulations were not disproportionate. That might not have been the case at the beginning, but there is no point in fussing ourselves over the proportionality of regs that no longer exist

The fact that entirely new regulations were introduced over the weekend is entirely coincidental.

'Yes Minister' maneuvering in action.

The Judge did take time to rule that what has been done was Vires.