|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 5, 2023 10:33:27 GMT
In 1968 the Labour government rushed the Commonwealth Immigration Bill through Parliament, which removed the right of Ugandan Asians to settle in Britain, in three days.
I read today that the Illegal Immigrants Bill, which had its first reading on 7th March, will not now reach the statute book until September, at the very earliest if then.
Why so long?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 5, 2023 10:41:00 GMT
Because the political class doesn't actually want it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 5, 2023 10:51:44 GMT
I've suspected that might be the case.
It's a bit like 'stopping the boats', another 'agenda item' that doesn't seem to going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 5, 2023 12:43:34 GMT
I've suspected that might be the case.
It's a bit like 'stopping the boats', another 'agenda item' that doesn't seem to going anywhere.
I think the bill is a rather large part of the government's current strategy to 'stopping the boats' |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 12:45:26 GMT
Just look how quickly they were passing bills when we were leaving the EU, they were pushing bills through in hours not days or months.
To sabotage Brexit.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 5, 2023 13:02:07 GMT
I've suspected that might be the case.
It's a bit like 'stopping the boats', another 'agenda item' that doesn't seem to going anywhere.
I think the bill is a rather large part of the government's current strategy to 'stopping the boats' I used to work in construction. If I had a strategy for solving a problem that took three years to come about then the road would have been built and the problem, whatever it was, built with it. The idea of having a 'strategy' is to plan the details and the tactics before you get it underway in a sort of boy scout kind of way. It seems as though the boats will not be stopped this year, unlikely to be stopped next year and we will be overrun with legions of foreign young men most of whom seem to despise the West. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 5, 2023 13:51:53 GMT
Just look how quickly they were passing bills when we were leaving the EU, they were pushing bills through in hours not days or months.
To sabotage Brexit.
The bills that got pushed through had cross party support. If you try to push through a bill which almost certainly will break international law, then not only will it not get ctoss party support, but there will also be some resistance in your own party, and the Holy are going to make a lot of amendments. When Suella Braverman put that she couldn't guarantee it's legality, she knew it wasn't going to fly through. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 13:58:31 GMT
Just look how quickly they were passing bills when we were leaving the EU, they were pushing bills through in hours not days or months.
To sabotage Brexit.
The bills that got pushed through had cross party support. If you try to push through a bill which almost certainly will break international law, then not only will it not get ctoss party support, but there will also be some resistance in your own party, and the Holy are going to make a lot of amendments. When Suella Braverman put that she couldn't guarantee it's legality, she knew it wasn't going to fly through. The moral of the story is when it suits the government/cross party or otherwise, they can 'push' through bills without a second thought of its legality.
The Benn Act – or the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 – is an Act of Parliament that provided a statutory obligation for the government to prevent a no deal Brexit on 31 October 2019 by requiring in the Prime Minister to ask for an extension of Article 50
One of the many recent controversies about the Brexit process has been about the ‘Benn-Burt bill’, a new Act of Parliament that was fast-tracked through the legislative process earlier in September against the government’s wishes. It requires the Prime Minister to request a further extension of the UK’s EU membership; he has said that he will not do so. Some believe (wrongly) that the new law bans a ‘no deal’ exit from the EU.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 5, 2023 14:57:00 GMT
I'm not quite sure of your point, are you alleging that the Benn Act was illegal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 15:04:58 GMT
I'm not quite sure of your point, are you alleging that the Benn Act was illegal? Oh don't start all that lefty crap, I can't be arsed with the 'me no understandy' waffle, that turns into you repeating the same question over and over again, even though it's been explained, until it's like being in kindergarten trying to help kids understand.
If you don't know what I mean, tough, I'm sure others will get my drift.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 5, 2023 15:48:41 GMT
The bills that got pushed through had cross party support. If you try to push through a bill which almost certainly will break international law, then not only will it not get ctoss party support, but there will also be some resistance in your own party, and the Holy are going to make a lot of amendments. When Suella Braverman put that she couldn't guarantee it's legality, she knew it wasn't going to fly through. The moral of the story is when it suits the government/cross party or otherwise, they can 'push' through bills without a second thought of its legality.
The Benn Act – or the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 – is an Act of Parliament that provided a statutory obligation for the government to prevent a no deal Brexit on 31 October 2019 by requiring in the Prime Minister to ask for an extension of Article 50
One of the many recent controversies about the Brexit process has been about the ‘Benn-Burt bill’, a new Act of Parliament that was fast-tracked through the legislative process earlier in September against the government’s wishes. It requires the Prime Minister to request a further extension of the UK’s EU membership; he has said that he will not do so. Some believe (wrongly) that the new law bans a ‘no deal’ exit from the EU.
I think you've misunderstood something somewhere along the line here. Your example is a case whereby a bill was pushed through parliament that absolutely didn't suit the government of the day. The bit you've highlighted makes clear that it was against the governments wishes. It is perhaps a misunderstanding of the system. It is parliament that is supreme, not the government. The government can't push legislation through quickly without the support of parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 15:56:55 GMT
The moral of the story is when it suits the government/cross party or otherwise, they can 'push' through bills without a second thought of its legality.
The Benn Act – or the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 – is an Act of Parliament that provided a statutory obligation for the government to prevent a no deal Brexit on 31 October 2019 by requiring in the Prime Minister to ask for an extension of Article 50
One of the many recent controversies about the Brexit process has been about the ‘Benn-Burt bill’, a new Act of Parliament that was fast-tracked through the legislative process earlier in September against the government’s wishes. It requires the Prime Minister to request a further extension of the UK’s EU membership; he has said that he will not do so. Some believe (wrongly) that the new law bans a ‘no deal’ exit from the EU.
I think you've misunderstood something somewhere along the line here. Your example is a case whereby a bill was pushed through parliament that absolutely didn't suit the government of the day. The bit you've highlighted makes clear that it was against the governments wishes. It is perhaps a misunderstanding of the system. It is parliament that is supreme, not the government. The government can't push legislation through quickly without the support of parliament. The point I'm making when it 'suits' the establishment meaning serving government or cross party, they can work 'together' to achieve instant bills, whereas the illegal migrant is far more of a crisis than Brexit ever was, but we don't see any of these 'emergency bills' being passed.
They are talking about September and beyond, by September there will be at least another 50,000 illegal boat crossings, this is a 'national emergency' that needs emergency cross party support and backing, just like they all collude to push the Benn act through.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 16:01:17 GMT
Notice how quickly Starmer/Corbyn/Labour reacted over Brexit, making sure they fully backed any bill to thwart Brexit.
They have no intentions of using the same process to stop illegal migrants, because it suits their agenda to tens of thousands of illegals entering the UK, because they can use it as a political football against the Tories.
|
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 5, 2023 16:16:00 GMT
In 1968 the Labour government rushed the Commonwealth Immigration Bill through Parliament, which removed the right of Ugandan Asians to settle in Britain, in three days.
I read today that the Illegal Immigrants Bill, which had its first reading on 7th March, will not now reach the statute book until September, at the very earliest if then.
Why so long?
...how many Human Rights Lawyers were there in 1968? |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 5, 2023 16:22:36 GMT
I think you've misunderstood something somewhere along the line here. Your example is a case whereby a bill was pushed through parliament that absolutely didn't suit the government of the day. The bit you've highlighted makes clear that it was against the governments wishes. It is perhaps a misunderstanding of the system. It is parliament that is supreme, not the government. The government can't push legislation through quickly without the support of parliament. The point I'm making when it 'suits' the establishment meaning serving government or cross party, they can work 'together' to achieve instant bills, whereas the illegal migrant is far more of a crisis than Brexit ever was, but we don't see any of these 'emergency bills' being passed.
They are talking about September and beyond, by September there will be at least another 50,000 illegal boat crossings, this is a 'national emergency' that needs emergency cross party support and backing, just like they all collude to push the Benn act through.
This is what I'm highlighting, you still aren't getting it. The serving government cannot as you put it 'achieve instant bills' by which I believe you to mean get draft legislation enacted. The government cannot force parliament to work with them. You might think illegal immigration is a national emergency that needs to be depoliticised with all parties working together to come up with a solution however there is no consensus on how to do that. The government has put forward some very bold draft legislation, which is forcing the issue to a head, but unsurprisingly has triggered a lot of debate. |
|
