4 ms·

I honestly hate my current government with all my heart. Let this series of badly-thought-out bills be destroyed in the courts once the courts find that reali

• tivert 3y ago
  > Let this series of badly-thought-out bills be destroyed in the courts once the courts find that reality bats last. How? I thought the UK courts can't override Acts of Parliament, because the courts are subordinate to it (unlike in the US).
  • LocutusOfBorges 3y ago
    There’s still the option of appeal to the ECHR, but that’s more or less it - and there’s a quite strong push from the right to leave that as well. This was absolutely an intended outcome for a lot of the figures responsible for the UK’s exit from the EU - European legislation/institutions were more or less the only real absolute check on the authoritarian tendencies of the British state, given the UK’s insane constitutional structures.
    • ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      One think I have never realised before moving here, is that UK has an authoritarian streak going back a long, long time. The desire to join such beacon of democracy as Russia in jeaving ECHR is heartwarming.
      • Silhouette 3y ago
        The thing about the "authoritarian streak" in the UK is that historically as a people we have mostly trusted the government and its police and security services to use the powers they give themselves by law appropriately. And although obviously there have been some serious failings in the past it's probably fair to say that overall they have earned that trust more than some of their counterparts in some other Western democracies so enough of our people continue to give them that trust that the same culture can continue. The danger for us is that it's always possible for the needle to move towards more frequent or routine abuses of power but once those measures make it into statute our trust-based system has few checks and balances to help us recover if it turns out someone went too far that time. That in turn is because our political/electoral system is itself fundamentally broken but also self-sustaining, which is a much bigger problem than just the risks of authoritarianism that we're discussing here.
        • account-5 3y ago
          And also the government does such a good act of gross incompetence I think most people think its fairly harmless to just ignore what it's doing.
          • switch007 3y ago
            Most people believe it’s incompetence
            • HeckFeck 3y ago
              Incompetence is easier to swallow than evil. Our leaders aren't stupid. They know what they are doing.
              • Silhouette 3y ago
                They might know what they are doing politically but in terms of modern technology and its implications I'm not convinced they know what they are doing technologically or socially. They are being driven by vocal advocacy from groups with an agenda and the media. Those advocates do make reasonable points about things we can all agree are good or bad in isolation and so the politicians often go along with it. But that doesn't mean they necessarily understand the full implications or have thought through the long-term consequences of the laws and regulations they propose.
        • worik 3y ago
          > as a people we have mostly trusted the government and its police and security services to use the powers they give themselves by law appropriately. And although obviously there have been some serious failings in the past it's probably fair to say that overall they have earned that trust more than some of their counterparts in some other Western democracies I am not so sure. The recent history of the elites in London, and the rampant corruption and incompetence in the Metropolitan police is, surely, wearing down the English people's trust? What does it take?
      • DropInIn 3y ago
        Direct line back to monarchy... Of course it has an authoritarian streak....
    • dfawcus 3y ago
      Given that the English constitution and the Scottish constitution are incompatible (insofar as where sovereignty lies), it is no real surprise that the UK has never got a single codified one. As it is the Scottish constitution is generally ignored, and folks more or less assume that the English one applies to the whole UK. If there was an attempt to properly codify the UK constitution, that incompatibility would have to be addressed, and that would open a can of worms.
  • vr46 3y ago
    IIRC Secondary legislation can be challenged in the courts and this is hopefully where the fight will take place between the well-heeled cat 1 service companies and Uk.gov Else companies will leave or simply ignore the legislation, e.g. Signal, and the law will quietly become impossible to enforce with a series of arbitrary decisions and fines taking place before the digital economy falls off a cliff.
  • zabzonk 3y ago
    the courts in the uk are in the business of interpreting the laws that parliament creates. as these laws are mostly very badly drafted, there is a lot of wiggle-room.
  • teh_klev 3y ago
    > I thought the UK courts can't override Acts of Parliament, because the courts are subordinate to it The UK Courts aren't subordinate to Parliament and can tell the UK government to "go back and think again". For example, the move to export immigrants to Rwanda. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rwanda-policy-unlawful-unpacking-the-court-of-appeals-decision/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rwanda-policy-unlawful-unpacking-the-c...
    • switch007 3y ago
      Your link doesn’t disprove that they are subordinate though let’s not dive in to semantics. The government are just playing nice and taking heed (or pretending to) of the declaration of incompatibility. The courts can not force them to change their policy. The courts can not overturn primary legislation, not even the Supreme Court. They are basically just law experts and publish statements on what is lawful and what is not. Their power is derived from how much - or how little - the Government decides to act based on their rulings. It’s important to remember the courts exist because of Acts of Parliament (some very recently, eg the Supreme Court was created in 2009). Moreover, they are governmental departments! I’m sure Boris Johnson considered legislating them out of existence during his tenure but decided it was a bridge too far.
      • arlort 3y ago
        > Their power is derived from how much - or how little - the Government decides to act based on their rulings That's ... exactly the same as any other country in which the judiciary and executive are separate
• InCityDreams 3y ago
  Your 'current' government has been in power for well over 10 years.
  • teh_klev 3y ago
    What do you mean by this non-sequitur?
    • switch007 3y ago
      I think they are reminding the OP that it’s been the same political party and highlighting the distinction between a government and a political party.
• jbjbjbjb 3y ago
  It’s not just the current government, the whole of Parliament including the various committees are eager to just go along with the intelligence and security agencies who tell them encryption is bad.
• odiroot 3y ago
  Aren't Labour also in favour of this? So we're screwed anyway.