By Anthony Webber:
Your petition is on live: Referendum in the United Kingdom to abolish the Coronavirus Act. – Petitions (parliament.uk)
On March 25th 2020, the Coronavirus Act received the Royal Assent after having been rushed through the UK Parliament in under 4 days.
This gave the government major additional powers, especially by means of statutes ( effectively decrees) by Ministers which brought in laws which did not require any democratic debate, vote or indeed any form of scrutiny.
The government decided whether to put important issues to debate and vote, and as is well known, in numerous instances did not do this but used the authoritarian powers given to them by the Act.
The Act has been a major setback to democracy and freedoms.
Indeed a wide variety of organisations has campaigned against it, including many Civil Liberties and Human Rights ones.
At no time have the British public been asked for their consent to this Act.
At the General Election in 2019, not one of the political parties mentioned in their manifestos that they would seek to curtail freedoms and liberties. It might be reasonable to say that there was not the Coronavirus crisis at the time of the Election, but there were other Acts in existence at then to deal with such situations, such as the Public Health Act 1984 and the Civil Contingencies Act. The Coronavirus Act was not actually needed.
Some background information is worth noting:
The 23rd March 2020 came and went with the Prime Minister’s dishonest claim that he was locking down the country when he had no power to do so. This was superseded by a raft of Regulations brought under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 after Parliament had been brow-beated into passing the Coronavirus Act 2020 on the basis that it was an emergency (although at nearly 370 pages it is obvious that it had been months in the preparation) but without declaring a “State of Emergency”.
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was also side-lined, as that would have meant that Parliament had some supervisory role over what Ministers were up to.
Instead the wholly undemocratic and, on all traditional principles, unlawful approach has been of using a 1984 Act which was primarily about controlling diseased goods and individuals coming in through the docks, instead to Lockdown the whole of England (N.B. the British Government does not have direct authority in certain areas over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and thus avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
In a democratic society it would be reasonable for any government in such circumstances to seek democratic consent before imposing draconian powers on their citizens.
In fact, other countries in the world went ahead with elections during the pandemic, notably South Korea.
Neither a General Election, nor a referendum was called, and nineteen months on from the imposition of the Coronavirus Act powers, this appalling Act remains in place, although there have been some changes.
Such changes have generally been brought about because the government has decided to do so, rather than by democratic processes.
The most appropriate means of seeking democratic consent on this issue is by means of a national UK wide Referendum. This is because it is a fundamental political issue of democracy, freedom, liberties and the exercise of powers. All the Parliamentary political parties have generally been supportive of the Coronavirus Act, so a General Election would not resolve the issue and would be pointless. There are political issues which should be resolved by means of a Referendum and this is an obvious one in that category.
Indeed, international example has already been set because Switzerland had a nationwide Referendum in June of this year on their Covid restrictions, after sufficient numbers of their citizens petitioned for one.
It is similarly the right of British citizens to Petition their Parliament for a national Referendum on the issue.
Parliamentary Petitions do give citizens the right to have important issues considered and debated by the UK Parliament. It is a means of having democratic accountability which cannot be ignored at a time when many are not happy with their own individual MP’s and thus feel they have no one to represent them.
Parliamentary Petitions are a means for the citizens of this country to bring important matters to the attention of MP’s. They also enable the opportunity for such matters to receive a response from the government, as well as the possibility of a Parliamentary debate and vote.
A Petition receiving 10,000 signatures is entitled to an official government response.
A Petition receiving 100,000 signatures is considered for a Parliamentary debate.
It is essential that this Petition receives is in the latter category as it is Parliamentary debate and decision that is very much needed.
The issue of Petitions to Parliament is one where a number have been perceived by the petitioners to have been dealt with in a condescending and dismissive way. This is easier for the authorities if the Petition concerned receives under 100,000 votes. Quite often a vague and general response is issued by the government, which even if it says something that indicates it has listened to the Petition, it then finds a way of getting around the issue, sometimes by even going back on its indicated word or intentions.
A Petition calling for a Referendum is more difficult for the government to brush aside.
If they do so, they will be openly flouting democracy, and all mainstream political parties profess to support that laudable principle.
The Petition is simply calling for the people to have their say in a national UK Referendum on an issue which has profoundly affected their lives for nearly two years. It is an entirely reasonable request and even those supporting the imposition of the Coronavirus Act will struggle to reject the people being given their say on this most important and fundamental of issues.
After all, with Referendum rules, both sides are supposed to be given equal and fair platforms and media time.
How can they object to democratic debate and seeking consent without confirming that they actually support authoritarian government?
One of the key reasons for seeking this Referendum is to have a national UK debate on the Coronavirus issues.
As it well known, such debate has been denied since the start of the crisis. The authorities have used emergency powers and other influences to curtail and muzzle what used to be a free and impartial media.
A Referendum will at least open the debate and give the public a semblance of the truth, which they have been denied for so long. This is crucial in the fight to regain our freedoms and liberties, and to make sure they are never taken away again.
In Switzerland, the government there very cleverly put on five Referendums at the same time. This was designed to confuse the electorate and to distract them from the importance of their covid laws. Even with the government and other powerful influences at work, those rejecting the covid laws managed to achieve about 40% of the vote, a considerable achievement. In the UK we do not run Referendums en masse so it is highly unlikely that the government would try to use such tactics. However, they may use other ones and there needs to be a preparedness to face underhand methods, should a Referendum come about.
It is important to not be afraid of a fight, and a fight to win. It is entirely conceivable that such a Referendum would be won. The arguments are there to win easily, which is why the authorities have done all in their power to stifle debate and facts so far.
This calling for a Referendum is part of a wide strategy to end the government’s covid-19 policies and is very necessary.
It helps put the pressure on the government to capitulate on the powers they have taken.
It is quite likely that the threat of this Referendum coming about is too big a risk for the government to take and they will simply give in. After all, there will be more and more MP’s jumping ship in all mainstream parties and demanding that the Coronavirus Act is abolished.
If this comes about there will also be an understanding that such actions can never be taken without democratic consent.
There would also be likely to be a re-examination of the Public Health Act 1984 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, both of which need their emergency powers reviewed. At least with those, there is Parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, which is not the case with the Coronavirus Act.
There are powers which the three other Home countries of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have, but none of these would have come about without the UK Parliament passing the Coronavirus Act.
The same with the similar Acts in the three British Crown Dependencies and fourteen Overseas Territories.
They have all fallen in line, basically because they have to.
Once the Coronavirus Act is abolished, it is like a domino theory, all the others will automatically fall.
This Petition is definitely a UK wide matter because all in the UK are affected by it.
The UK Parliament is supreme in all matters anyway. It can intervene if it wants to, but does not generally become involved with devolved matters.
The statutes issued by UK government Ministers cover not just England but often the whole of the UK.
The emergency powers the government has are explained in the attached links:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/emergency-powers
It is better to keep the arguments on this Petition simple in order to be effective in achieving the objectives.
However, it is important to be aware of all the detailed background facts too, should they be needed.
Please support and share widely this Petition.
Anthony Webber
Independent Political Commentator
Joint founder, National Alliance for Freedom from Lockdowns
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
