So Coronation street
My proposal would be as follows
1. A restatement of our basic rights and freedom rights, noting that Basic and freedom rights are different and need differential defending. This might also be a partial stem to wokism because basic right demand to be grounded in who we physically are as humans.
2. A statement that the purpose of parliament and the law is primarily to enable those rights, so that the average man in the street can get on with making “their living” unmolested. (i.e. by criminals , by big business, by pressure groups, by an over reaching executive)
3. A statement to the effect that the sovereignty of parliament (and also therefore government) is only in effect what is borrowed from the man in the street. Therefore parliament and government can agree no law which “permanently” undermines basic and freedom rights. Such a change would at the very lest need to go back to the people.
4. There would be an independent law court triggered as soon as, in any emergency situation, it became “apparent” that basic freedom rights were being undermined. This would then sit continuously until the emergency is over, which the court would decide.
5. The duty of this court will be limited to make sure due process and proper debate occurs with the relevant urgency because basic and freedom rights are undermined. It will be armed with teeth. Being able to force parliamentary votes on an unwhipped basis (because it is about fundamental rights) at each stage new evidence pertinent to the emergency becomes available. It will also be able to force a general election if the government/parliament remain in contempt of due process and evidence around the restriction of these fundamental rights.
6. It might be possible to bring a variation of this idea in to make the law accessible to the man in the street again, where in particular his basic and freedom rights are being undermined - maybe by some unscrupulous employer happy to try it on with "well we will see you in court".
Anything that comes from Blair must be treated with great suspicion. He is not our friend and giving him any say or influence over us is extremely dangerous. In a just world he would already have been "dealt with".
My proposal would be as follows
1. A restatement of our basic rights and freedom rights, noting that Basic and freedom rights are different and need differential defending. This might also be a partial stem to wokism because basic right demand to be grounded in who we physically are as humans.
2. A statement that the purpose of parliament and the law is primarily to enable those rights, so that the average man in the street can get on with making “their living” unmolested. (i.e. by criminals , by big business, by pressure groups, by an over reaching executive)
3. A statement to the effect that the sovereignty of parliament (and also therefore government) is only in effect what is borrowed from the man in the street. Therefore parliament and government can agree no law which “permanently” undermines basic and freedom rights. Such a change would at the very lest need to go back to the people.
4. There would be an independent law court triggered as soon as, in any emergency situation, it became “apparent” that basic freedom rights were being undermined. This would then sit continuously until the emergency is over, which the court would decide.
5. The duty of this court will be limited to make sure due process and proper debate occurs with the relevant urgency because basic and freedom rights are undermined. It will be armed with teeth. Being able to force parliamentary votes on an unwhipped basis (because it is about fundamental ...
Individuals do have the ability to challenge laws, but it is too costly especially if they lose. The govt, alongside having acted as it has in the last year, also wants to curtail the right of citizens to pursue judicial review. Making bad law unchallengable apart from by parliament or political pressure.
Incidentally a number of the protections I mentioned above are actually reflected in the Civil Contingencies Act (enacted to deal withc civil emergencies) which the govt chose to bypass and enact amendments to the Public Health Act instead, alongside emergency powers in the Coronavirus Act(s). I can't recall the background to the 1984 Public Health Act but it may have been partly intended to deal with the consequences of nuclear or biological war rather than a viral epidemic. In which case it probably relied on there being no more than a very limited functioning parliament.
Blair is a liar and a self serving wanker.anything he has to say will be just that lies and self serving. A psychopath is all he is.
Excellent posts coronation street..the engineer and jdee..the chances of it happening is about as much chance of the grubbyment admitting they have blood on their hands sadly...
Anything that comes from Blair must be treated with great suspicion.
I think it's Blair that needs the treatment.
