• livus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds like good grounds to challenge it. This thing of having Lords put through a bill that Parliament rejected would set a terrible precedent.

    The change, through a statutory instrument in the Lords, came after the chamber rejected the same change, proposed months earlier in a heavily debated and scrutinised new public order act. Peers do not by convention normally vote down statutory instruments.

    • Big P@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’ll just keep pushing it through until it gets by. I don’t wanna be cynical but we’re running out of options for stopping them

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That sucks. We have had a similar problem here (NZ - parliamentary democracy with only one House) where they increasingly use “under urgency” to avoid debate and scrutiny.