UK Government Faces Lawsuit Over Emergency Surveillance Bill 44
judgecorp (778838) writes The British Government has had to produce an emergency surveillance Bill after the European Court of Justice ruled that European rules on retaining metadata were illegal. That Bill has now been passed by the House of Commons with almost no debate, and will become law if approved by the House of Lords. But the so-called DRIP (Data retention and Investigatory Powers) Bill could face a legal challenge: the Open Rights Group (ORG) is fundraising to bring a suit which would argue that blanket data retention is unlawful, so these emergency measures would be no more legal than the ones they replaced.
Support for this was not unanimous (Score:5, Informative)
Some lawmakers were not so keen [forasach.ie] on the fast-tracking of this legislation. Checks and balances are there for a reason, it's a shame that they can be sidetracked when politically expedient.
Re:Are they forgetting that this is the UK? (Score:5, Informative)
there is no constitution in the UK
False. It's just not a "written constitution" - IOW it is a body of tradition that everyone recognises, along with certain Acts which are regarded as more important than others (especially relevant when the law conflicts, as normally the later would just cancel out the earlier).
Consider: If there were no constitution, what would be the legal basis for Parliamentary supremacy?
Re:Are they forgetting that this is the UK? (Score:5, Informative)
there is no constitution in the UK
False. It's just not a "written constitution" - IOW it is a body of tradition that everyone recognises, along with certain Acts which are regarded as more important than others (especially relevant when the law conflicts, as normally the later would just cancel out the earlier).
Consider: If there were no constitution, what would be the legal basis for Parliamentary supremacy?
It's a system of threats and balances. The queen grants a constitutional basis to the parliament and the parliament grants continued existence to the queen. It's worked quite well since Cromwell. Much more stable than these new fangled republics.
Re:Are they forgetting that this is the UK? (Score:4, Informative)
Consider: If there were no constitution, what would be the legal basis for Parliamentary supremacy?
The legal basis being the monarch in a sovereign monarchy has absolute power; England is a sovereign monarchy, and the courts rely on this sovereignty to get to say anything.
The monarchy was then forced to cede many of their God-given powers after the Glorious revolution in 1689; at which time parliament passed the Bill of Rights asserting Parliament to be supreme, even over the monarch, and the "truce" between Monarchy and Parliament, effectively forever moved the supreme source of law to Parliament by agreement.
Re:Are they forgetting that this is the UK? (Score:5, Informative)
No. It isn't. UK law must be in accordance with EU treaty requirements.
I am beginning to suspect that they whole anti-EU campaign is not really an astroturfing (and use of the useful idiots) by the 1%ers to get rid of those pesky EU laws that are preventing unrestrained wealth acquisition by the rich at the expense of the poor.
Re:Are they forgetting that this is the UK? (Score:4, Informative)
Once again, No [wikipedia.org]
The EU has its problems. But for the UK, pulling out would be worse. In order to trade with EU members, the UK would still have to follow many EU requirements, but without any influence over the setting of those requirements. Those car factories in the UK? Likely closed, like so many other businesses as exporting to EU countries becomes difficult.
Re:Biased and wrong summary (flamebait) (Score:4, Informative)
EU court just told UK that the data retention law is illegal - so what did they do? make another law to do exactly the same thing, WTF?
Well, not quite. As far as I understand, the ECJ declared the snooping law unlawful because it was too broad, and outlined what restrictions would need to be placed on any replacement snooping law. So parliament is basically just passing a new law with those restrictions in it to satisfy the ECJ.
Of course, that doesn't make the law right, but then neither was the original law.
I've written a bit about it on my blog [nexusuk.org].