egafd.com

Read it.

Much of Sweden and Finland is powered by nuclear power and you don't hear about safety problems, do you? Maybe the Scandinavians got it right, who knows.

If done properly, nuclear might be a good alternative.

It does not HAVE to be Chernobyl, you know.

- Brickboy240

Don't quote Finland considering what won the Eurovision Song Contest.
[IMG]http://img417.imageshack.us/img417/2291/11592cu.jpg[/IMG]

Mart

Brickboy - I for one enjoy reading your comments, and do hope your enlightened insights are rubbing off on your fellow Americans (and, indeed, us Brits!).

Just a few things I'd add to the following (to add to, and in no way try to discredit or dismiss your comments):

Brickboy wrote:

> Much of Sweden and Finland is powered by nuclear power and you don't > hear about safety problems, do you? Maybe the Scandinavians got it > right, who knows.

> If done properly, nuclear might be a good alternative.

> It does not HAVE to be Chernobyl, you know.


Sweden are not looking to new generation nuclear power stations as the way forward, once the current plants come to the end of their lifespan. Indeed, hydropower is actually a more dominant electricity production technique compared to nuclear in Sweden, although admittedly not by too great a margin. There has been considerable debate in Sweden re the safety and decommissioning issues etc of nuclear (and also by Denmark, who are c. 15 miles away from one of the Swedish plants: NIMBY syndrome!).

Sweden voted in a referendum in 1980 - before some of us were even born (!) - to replace nuclear with renewables, with 2010 a proposed date. Although timescales are slipping somewhat (not helped by the fact that Sweden has one of the highest energy consumption rates, per capita), the Swedish government have gone on record to state that Sweden will obtain all it's energy from renewable sources, and this is reflected in the most-recent government policy statements.

So, as you suggest, maybe the Scandinavians do have it right....they (or, more accurately, the Swedes at least) would seem to suggest that nuclear is not the way forward!

alicia_fan_uk/Swedish Energy Minister

I will Jacques BUT as I previously said there will not be anything that will bring about the rise of a dictator in the UK.

You must be living in lala land if you think another Hitler would be acceptable, especially one actually running the UK.

It's nonsense and an insult.

Any Bill that gives the power to create new law, including new criminal offences, to the Law Commissions and any Bill that allows Blair to ?amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act might? and gives him unlimited power to ignore a democratic Parliament and legislate by decree, makes him in my book a Dictator, it's fascism.

Like I said please read the Bill.

Done and in my view the preconditions in sections 2 prevent it.

In return can you visit the Imperial War Museum look at the exhibitions especially the ones regarding the Blitz & the Holocaust?

It will show you why the British people will NEVER allow a dictator or fascism to be the mainstream political view running the country and why making such a comment is an insult.

If that's not good enough could I also suggest you write your exact concerns including your belief that it will create a fascist state to your MP, opposition MP, the Lord Chief Justice and Leader of the House of Commons and read their response.

Section 2 preconditions in your view prevent it? And that is good enough for you eh? Perhaps you should read the Clauses:

Clause 5 of the Bill stipulates that Ministers cannot make an order which imposes or raises taxation unless the order is merely restating previous legislation.

Clause 6 prohibits a Minister from creating a new offence that is punishable with more than two years in prison. Even here there are caveats, since Clause 6 (6a) states that this restriction does not apply if the provision ?implements recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions.?

Clause 7 prohibits any order that allows search and seizure, forcible entry or compelling someone to give evidence unless, once again, the provision implements the recommendations of the Law Commissions.

Clause 3 That there are ?no non-legislative solutions which will satisfactorily remedy the difficulty which the order is intended to address.?

?That the effect of the provision made by the order is proportionate to its policy objective. This means that the Minister must consider that there is an appropriate relationship between the policy aim of the proposals and the means chosen to achieve them.?

?That the provision made by the order, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons adversely affected by the order.?

?That the provision made by the order does not remove any necessary protection? No order can be made unless the Minister is of the opinion that it would maintain any protections that the Minster considers to be necessary.?

?That the provision made by the order will not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.?

These are the rigorous, precisely-worded rules which govern the Minister?s judgement. Before enacting any legislation, the Minister must ask himself some very serious and probing questions: am I being reasonable? Do I need to do this? Do I really have to legislate? Am I being careful not infringe anyone?s freedoms? These stringent and robust tests met, the Minister can then apply his rubber stamp.

But's it's OK there will be a ?new super select committee? that will ?have the power to block the lawmaking efforts of all Whitehall departments.? This Select Committee will, of course, have a Labour Chair (Andrew Miller) and will presumably be as robust and fearsome as all the others?

And don't forget the Bill is also subject to its own provisions, once passed by Parliament, Ministers will be able to amend it, which includes removing the already pitiful limitations about two-year sentences and taxation.

Even though it effectively allows government ministers to amend, repeal or replace any legislation without consulting Parliament, and even to create new offences with penalties of up to two years in prison, without any democratic scrutiny whatsoever, you think that this does not enable Tyranny? You are sadly mistaken.

Write to my MP you say? Eight times on this very issue and the result? Nothing more than a set of assurances. Assurances! Not good enough.

Could you now please explain why you find it such an insult? I am genuinely interested as to why this upsets you so much. This is happening, this is in the process of becoming law, this is enabling an authoritarian state. The Imperial War Museum isn't going to stop it, it's here, it's in Parliament, it's at committee stage. If anyone should be insulted it's me, you are allowing this to happen! Even if you trust Blair, as an Act it will sit there waiting to be exploited. Once this happens it's too late. What happens if Nick Griffin get's into power and he has this? Fucked mate absolutely fucked. So don't get on your high horse and say my remark is an insult, it is what it is - an enabling act in all but name.

The poll tax became law......didn't last long. Though your fears are well justified, I doubt the bill will be passed without tinkering & editing.

I think 'randyandy' means it's an insult to the British public if you think anyone will stand for a real authoritarian state, and live under a real dictatorship.

I've no fears whatsoever of the UK becoming a fully authoritarian state, or living by a dictators rule. It's 2006 & we're living in western europe. We're slap bang in the middle of a democratic region. We have the USA to the west & western europe to the south & east. It's where it all started, right here. Everyone has lived under a democracy for what?.......5, 6 generations? The people of the UK don't know any different. It's not going to change in my lifetime and I'll put anything on it.

You're right to question the bill, and every other bill they think up. You're also free to do so because our free & democratic laws let you. Since 9/11 a lot of freedoms seem to be squeezed. New times mean everythings being reviewed to cope with a changing world. We're adapting and evolving. If you don't adapt to new circumstance, you're left for the vultures.

Feel free to question and be critical. Thats what living in a free society is all about, but be realistic. We might have to live under a few laws which may seem like infringing a few rights, but we're still free -compared to any time within human history-.

I wouldn't worry. If the public hate something enough, -like the poll tax- the government will know about it sharpish! I'm more worried about global warming, or the tensions brewing between India & Pakistan. Dictatorships spreading across the free world seems so far from current reality that -apart from this very post- I've not even concidered it, or even gave it a passing thought.

It's essential to keep reminding governments of their role and responsibilities though, and I'm glad people like you are keeping them on their toes. Unfortunately I can't see how Hitler & Blair can be compared, regardless of how much you may despise our current governing party/leader!

A reasoned and well though out reply - even if I don't entirely agree.

You wrote:

> Unfortunately I can't see how
> Hitler & Blair can be compared, regardless of how much you may
> despise our current governing party/leader!


You just have to look at how the Enabling Act of 1933 was introduced and used and the subsequent 'extensions' beyong 1937 to see what I am getting at. Put with the manner in which he chairs cabinet debates and you have a serious problem.

I'll say nothing more - I've set out my stall, it's up to you to decide whether I'm right or wrong and I stand by my decission to call Blair 'The Great Dictator'.