The descent to facism is complete...

The vote is on Tuesday and Sunak has decided it's not a confidence vote so Tory MPs will not be whipped to vote for it or punished if they vote against it. Labour and the other opposition parties will vote against it obviously as will the Right of the Conservative Party but for very different reasons.

Either way, a shiite show for Sunak.
 
The far-right and neo-libs have their foot on the throat of the country.

As I said on the other thread re Suella, giving the ruling class powers to ignore law has never ended well. Same organisations dismantling US democracy have ties to the current shower here in the UK. Workers rights, human right, social infrastructure ... they are dismantling all of it ands yet cretins think its for the "greater good" because they are convinced all our problems can be solved by stopping a small percentage of the immigration to the UK.

Boils my p**s
 
ThePrisoner said:
It will be Trade Unionist and Socialists targeted next.

Prisons are full though, so they'll have to build some sort of camp for them.
Click to expand...
Thats already happening, they have been attacking unions and socialists non-stop, the likes or Suella and her "wokerati" "lefty lawyers" rhetoric is a direct attack on socialism.
 
sherlock1969 said:
Sunak now being completely open about a bill that allows the government to ignore the law.

How on earth have we got to this rancid point in our history?

Click to expand...
You misunderstand the position. It isn't about ignoring the law (I presume you refer to international law) it's about sovereignty.

Let us leave aside the immigration issue for a moment and consider the primacy of our law.

Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can legislate contrary to the UK's obligations under international law with clear, express and unambiguous words - source House of Lords and case law.
 
Millbrook said:
You misunderstand the position. It isn't about ignoring the law (I presume you refer to international law) it's about sovereignty.

Let us leave aside the immigration issue for a moment and consider the primacy of our law.

Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can legislate contrary to the UK's obligations under international law with clear, express and unambiguous words - source House of Lords and case law.
Click to expand...
No, I mean UK law. The Supreme Court said the scheme wasn't lawful. Sunak is legislating (or trying to) to say that domestic courts can't block the will of the government.
 
sherlock1969 said:
No, I mean UK law. The Supreme Court said the scheme wasn't lawful. Sunak is legislating (or trying to) to say that domestic courts can't block the will of the government.
Click to expand...
Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I'm not sure about your second point though. I think the same argument will apply - the law will have to be clear and unambiguous and it is Parliament not the government that passes legislation. The will of Parliament expressed through legislation is greater than the will of the government.

The Supreme Court made it's decision based on current law and in the past the following point has been made;

“even if clear words had been used, binding effect could not be given to a clause which purports wholly to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court”.

so I'm not sure the government is going to have its own way on this.
 
This is extremely disturbing.

"The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution that "clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism" and also calls on elected officials to "condemn and fight all forms of domestic and global antisemitism""

www.middleeasteye.net

US Congress rules that anti-Zionism is antisemitism

In a 311-14 vote, House passes a Republican-led measure equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism
www.middleeasteye.net www.middleeasteye.net
 
Millbrook said:
Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I'm not sure about your second point though. I think the same argument will apply - the law will have to be clear and unambiguous and it is Parliament not the government that passes legislation. The will of Parliament expressed through legislation is greater than the will of the government.

The Supreme Court made it's decision based on current law and in the past the following point has been made;

“even if clear words had been used, binding effect could not be given to a clause which purports wholly to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court”.

so I'm not sure the government is going to have its own way on this.
Click to expand...
BY effectively legislating to block peoples right to have their case seen by the courts they are putting MP's will ahead of the law of the land.

This sets a bad precedent if it comes off, it essentially would neuter (in part) an important branch of UK law by making themselves above judicial oversight.

This law is a terrible thing for the UK and will do literally nothing to stop small boat crossings.

Its fascism plain and simple.
 
JonnyHistory said:
BY effectively legislating to block peoples right to have their case seen by the courts they are putting MP's will ahead of the law of the land.

This sets a bad precedent if it comes off, it essentially would neuter (in part) an important branch of UK law by making themselves above judicial oversight.

This law is a terrible thing for the UK and will do literally nothing to stop small boat crossings.

Its fascism plain and simple.
Click to expand...
I haven't been able to find the proposals for this new legislation but it would be difficult to block the courts having a role.
 
Millbrook said:
Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I'm not sure about your second point though. I think the same argument will apply - the law will have to be clear and unambiguous and it is Parliament not the government that passes legislation. The will of Parliament expressed through legislation is greater than the will of the government.

The Supreme Court made it's decision based on current law and in the past the following point has been made;

“even if clear words had been used, binding effect could not be given to a clause which purports wholly to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court”.

so I'm not sure the government is going to have its own way on this.
Click to expand...
yup, it's always handy when the government can jsut pass laws that undermine the courts.

Worked well for these guys

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

The Enabling Act

The Enabling Act of March 1933 allowed the Reich government to issue laws without the consent of Germany’s parliament. It laid the foundation for the Nazification of German society.
encyclopedia.ushmm.org encyclopedia.ushmm.org
 
SmallTown said:
yup, it's always handy when the government can jsut pass laws that undermine the courts.

Worked well for these guys

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

The Enabling Act

The Enabling Act of March 1933 allowed the Reich government to issue laws without the consent of Germany’s parliament. It laid the foundation for the Nazification of German society.
encyclopedia.ushmm.org encyclopedia.ushmm.org
Click to expand...
An extreme example which could not happen here. Too many checks and balances. Just scaremongering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top