As Expected Digital Economy Bill To Be Rushed Through With No Debate

from the corporatocracy-in-action dept

As was predicted by recording industry lobbyists a few weeks back, once the Digital Economy Bill made it through the House of Lords, the House of Commons would not debate it. Instead, it looks like it will get pushed through via the “wash-up” process. Of course, this has resulted in many people asking a rather simple question. Considering the massive controversy surrounding this bill, why won’t Parliament at least debate it? The real answer is pretty obvious, of course. This entire bill was pushed through by corporate entertainment industry lobbyists, and they know full well that with the upcoming election in the UK, a debate on this bill would likely kill it. So, screw democracy when you have a business model to prop up. Screw basic civil, human and privacy rights, if it helps the bottom line of a few companies too stubborn to adapt.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “As Expected Digital Economy Bill To Be Rushed Through With No Debate”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
21 Comments
Anshar (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well, here in Canada our system (which pretty much matches the UK’s on which it’s based) requires that once a bill is passed by both houses, it requires royal assent. This is given by the Governor General (the Queen’s proxy) and as a matter of tradition, it is a rubber stamp. But technicaly I suppose she *could* withhold royal assent and therefore I assume the Queen could too. Probably one-in-a-million (or worse) odds that it happens, but other that about the only option is to elect new MPs who run on the promise to repeal the law after the fact.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Australia actually had that happen once… major crisis

NZ’s governer has never done so. (though almost actually did something in their capacity as Comander in chief of the NZ armed forces during ww1 to avoid the PM taking the flack for something that needed doing. almost. the PM decided he didn’t need the help.)

has canada’s GG ever actually Done anything in thier own right?

on paper, the governers’ and monarch’s powers are few, but Very powerful in NZ… in practice they’re non existent because they always do whatever the heck the PM wants, choose the PM based on the stupid tradition of ‘whoever is the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties in parliment’, and Refuse to withold consent when they should because it might cause a constitutional crisis. like the constitution of this country is worth a damn thing when they DON”T act in accordance with it

Danboy says:

Royal Assent

The monarchy is essentially a bit of fluff for tourists and old people – this unelected position would end if decisions were ever made (the Royal Family are more aware of this than anyone).

Far better to have elected officials (or ‘cabs for hire’) lobbied, and unelected Business Secretary’s create our legislation!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »