Written constitution. Yes. Seems like a very good idea, overall.

What do you think about the fact that on its face, no existing Act is beyond the reach of the new bill? Some commentators are saying that “constitutional” laws like the Bill of Rights and of course the Human Rights Act should be explicitly named on this bill as being outwith its influence.

This is all, of course, part of the problem with not having a written constitution.

As for the second point, it could be argued (although remember that IANAL) that under 3 (2) (d) it would be prohibited as removing necessary protection, and under 3 (2) (e) as removing the right of legislators to determine the powers of ministers. In any case, such a move would be liable (under the law as it stood at the point of passage) to be rejected by Parliamentary motion.

These lawyers need a programming language.

Anyway, inasmuch as there is such thing as the UK blogosphere, it is alight with discussion of this; or, to put that another way, I have mainly been focussing my attention on discussion about it recently. And the general understanding of that clause seems to be as I described it. But IANAL, of course, and quite possibly, neither is anyone else whose posts I’ve read.

But above all (and this applies to your next comment, too): if the bill is enacted, it will be possible for ministers to modify that act (that legal programming language will have to support recursion, obviously). So any limitations and safeguards written into the bill have to be considered as irrelevant for our democratic safety.

the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise

any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to

continue to exercise.

The overall impact of the Bill would be more complex than you say. While I’m against it, it would not actually allow all of the abuses that it is said to permit.

The bill grants ministers the power to create, modify or strike down laws; and to introduce offenses carrying prison terms of up to two years.

. . . is accurate.

Provision under section 2(1) may not create a new offence that is punishable,

or increase the penalty for an existing offence so that it is punishable—

(a) on indictment, with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years; or[ blah]

could be read like that, but could equally mean that no new punishable offence can be created, and furthermore maximum sentences for existing offences can only be increased across those lines under some circumstances.

Someone who understands interpretation of laws could tell us which. I’m sure it’s completely clear if you understand these things.

What hasn’t been mentioned much is that the PM’s ability to nominate life peers has been greatly reduced in the last decade, and while at the moment public opinion’s ahead of the government on this one, most of the time they’ve been working slowly on something the general public don’t give a toss about.

Now, I agree that the situation over these people is grim, but the fact that the cleanup hasn’t been fast enough doesn’t alter the fact that after over a century of procrastination a cleanup has finally started.

I’m right with you on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, though.