andrewducker | Interesting Links for 19-10-2021

1) What? I cannot see what the problem is here. What the article reports Raab as proposing is that the mechanism "allow the Government to introduce ad hoc legislation." Where does legislation get introduced? Parliament! Exactly the entity the article is complaining is being evaded. The article can act all shocked that the Government is making the proposals, but the Government introducing legislation into Parliament is the normal way laws are made in the UK. Parliament still has to approve, and it is a rubber stamp to an extent but no more in this case than in any other legislation that the Government proposes, and it does so all the time. Object to the specific content of the legislation, but if you dislike the process that's not a feature of this particular legislation or of anything Raab said.
As for overturning court decisions you don't like, I don't know about the UK but in the US that is also a normal function of legislation. Look at the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court had declared an income tax unconstitutional. So we passed an amendment saying "It is constitutional now."

The government already has a mechanism for introducing legislation through parliament. It uses it all the time.

This is Raab saying there will be a new mechanism he is devising. Which indicates that it's not going to be the current "Introduce a bill to parliament" mechanism. And that's what's worrying.

Either a bill is introduced into Parliament or it isn't, so given what Raab is reported as having said, any concern on that lines seems imaginary. Maybe he means without going through all the normal stages of reading and committee, but that already is bypassed for a lot of legislation. Maybe he means a change in the process by which the Government decides what legislation it introduces, but that has nothing to do with Parliamentary passage.

Exactly. None of that sounds new. The fact that he is talking about a whole new process is the worrying bit!

It's not impossible to devise a new way of doing these things. It wouldn't be any more alarming than the old ways.

Or maybe he's just ignorant of what has been done in the past. That wouldn't be surprising in a Tory, even one who thinks he's the Lord Chancellor.

I think you underestimate the damage that can be done to the UK's constitution by people who don't care about Rule of Law and have an 80 seat majority.

Yeah, that reads as Absolutely Terrifying.

All in service to securing the Laundromat income.

As I've said from the beginning, I don't see anything in the statement implying that he's going to violate the Rule of Law. That's only a reasonable interpretation if you ignore the part where it's said he's looking to "allow the Government to introduce ad hoc legislation". Which the author of the article did ignore. This is a purely imaginary fuss, up and until something that actually would violate the Rule of Law is suggested.

That is terrifying for different reasons.

Interesting Links for 19-10-2021

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

As for the ADHD Issue