B1530 – Foregin Funding Restrictions (Amendment) Bill 2019. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
Foreign Funding Restrictions (Amendment) Bill 2019, 04MR17 MP


A bill to close the loopholes provided in the original act by using third party definitions.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Amendment to the Foreign Funding Restrictions Act 2019

(1) Section 1 entitled "Definitions" is amended from:

(x)(x)1. Definitions
(x)(x)(a). The classification of a jurisdiction with the labels "full democracy", "flawed democracy", "hybrid regime", and "authoritarian regime" is based on the Democracy Index issued by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
(x)(x)(b). The classification of a jurisdiction with the label "perceived as less corrupt" and "perceived as more corrupt" is based on the Corruption Perceptions Index issued by Transparency International, with the former group being jurisdictions with 50 points or more, and the latter 49 or fewer.
(x)(x)(c). "Government funding" refers to any money in any currency that comes from a budget of the government.

To:

(x)(x)1. Definitions
(x)(x)(a). Full democracies are defined as: Nations where civil liberties and basic political freedoms are respected and reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media.

(x)(x)(b) Flawed democracies are defined as: Nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have problems. These nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.

(x)(x)(c) Hybrid regimes are defined as: Nations with regular electoral frauds, governments that apply pressure on political opponents, non-independent judiciaries, widespread corruption, harassment and pressure placed on the media, anemic rule of law, and more pronounced faults than flawed democracies in the realms of underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.

(x)(x)(d) Authoritarian regimes are defined as: Nations with extremely limited political pluralism, often absolute monarchies or dictatorships, infringements and abuses of civil liberties are commonplace, any elections are not fair and free, media is often state-owned or controlled , the judiciary is not independent, and there is omnipresent censorship and suppression of governmental criticism.

(x)(x)(e). The classification of a jurisdiction with the label "perceived as less corrupt" and "perceived as more corrupt" is based on the Corruption Perceptions Index issued by Transparency International, with the former group being jurisdictions with 50 points or more, and the latter 49 or fewer.

(x)(x)(f). "Government funding" refers to any money in any currency that comes from a budget of the government.

(2) The following section is inserted:

(x)(x)5. Changing definitions
(x)(x)(1) In the event that the organisation in clause 1(e) discontinues the Secretary of State shall
(x)(x)(a) Find alternative measures with which to determine national corruption
(x)(x)(b) Seek approval of the house for using such measurements
(x)(x)(2) Once approved by the house, these measurements will be used in lieu of those in clause 1(e)

(3) Section 5 is thus re-numbered section 6


2. Short title, commencement, and extent
(1) This act may be cited as the Foreign Funding Restrictions (Amendment) Act 2019.
(2) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(3) This Act comes into force upon royal assent.


Notes
This bill fixes the errors in the original bill whereby third parties were cited within legislation for the use of their definitions. If those 3rd parties were to cease to operate, or indeed change their name, then the bill as it stands would be rendered entirely invalid. Despite being raised on multiple occasions before the bill passed this was not addressed, meaning this amendment is now required.

This bill does not change anything to do with the implementation of the original act, it simply allows the act to remain a law permanently, rather than simply for as long as the Economist Intelligence Unit exists.

The definitions listed here are copied from this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Which itself is based on this page:
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

The measurements referred to in (e) can be read about here:
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrup...ceptions_Index
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
For anyone who may be wondering what this does, it better codifies the meaning of the original bill. Its intentions are not being changed, it is not being watered down. It is simply being written better. Nobody who supported the original bill should have cause to oppose this

Regardless, given the original bill went through 3 readings and I raised this point at the very beginning, it shouldn't really have needed to come to this, in my opinion.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
I have to say my views on the former prime minister has changed quite a lot since his resignation. I think it's good that he's putting in an amendment to show that he's willing to do the work with his criticism, and also it's more authentic this way.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
I have to say my views on the former prime minister has changed quite a lot since his resignation. I think it's good that he's putting in an amendment to show that he's willing to do the work with his criticism, and also it's more authentic this way.
Frankly the only good this is doing is allowing MPs who've missed votes to claw back their percentages. This isn't the first time I've (partially) rewritten other people's bills and it's easily avoided by the original author if they respond to the highlighted flaws in the first place.
Last edited by 04MR17; 4 months ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
I have to say my views on the former prime minister has changed quite a lot since his resignation. I think it's good that he's putting in an amendment to show that he's willing to do the work with his criticism, and also it's more authentic this way.
Would have been even better had the Tories chosen to do it themselves rather than return to their ignore criticism and try to brute Force their harmful legislation

better still had the government bothered with discipline and not had 5 of their number vote against government policy
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 4 months ago
1
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
Even I can't see any issues here - Aye.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
Obviously I completely agree with this bill.

Thanks for the reminder that we actually passed the original pile of crap
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
Seems reasonable.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 months ago
#9
Aye as well or Oui
1
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 months ago
#10
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Even I can't see any issues here - Aye.
Seconded.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 months ago
#11
(Original post by 04MR17)
Frankly the only good this is doing is allowing MPs who've missed votes to claw back their percentages. This isn't the first time I've (partially) rewritten other people's bills and it's easily avoided by the original author if they respond to the highlighted flaws in the first place.
It's because I don't believe the legislation will last longer than those organizations.
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Would have been even better had the Tories chosen to do it themselves rather than return to their ignore criticism and try to brute Force their harmful legislation

better still had the government bothered with discipline and not had 5 of their number vote against government policy
Just because you ignored my responses doesn't mean I ignored yours. There's really isn't any point addressing your concerns in the future if all you ever going to do is to say "read my earlier post in an earlier reading" while offering no reaction whatsoever to my responses to your earlier post.

I still don't get how you get say "brute force" with a straight face when we're not the government, not in a coalition, and not even the largest party.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 months ago
#12
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Obviously I completely agree with this bill.

Thanks for the reminder that we actually passed the original pile of crap
Very unparliamentary language! Should be punished by the Speaker!
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 months ago
#13
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
It's because I don't believe the legislation will last longer than those organizations.
Why introduce a (permanent) bill when you believe its requirement to be temporary?
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 months ago
#14
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Very unparliamentary language! Should be punished by the Speaker!
My mum has deemed the B word to be such, as like me she views the 2016 referendum had the wrong result.

I think the Speaker should forgive the said word. It was formatted correctly after all.

Aye to the Bill by the way.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 months ago
#15
(Original post by 04MR17)
Why introduce a (permanent) bill when you believe its requirement to be temporary?
To be fair foreign aid is something that is messed with a lot.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 months ago
#16
(Original post by barnetlad)
My mum has deemed the B word to be such, as like me she views the 2016 referendum had the wrong result.

I think the Speaker should forgive the said word. It was formatted correctly after all.

Aye to the Bill by the way.
B****t?
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#17
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Obviously I completely agree with this bill.

Thanks for the reminder that we actually passed the original pile of crap
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Very unparliamentary language! Should be punished by the Speaker!
Naughty language Madame Deputy Speaker, don’t make me give you a spanking or worse still. Ban white mice from the chamber...
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 months ago
#18
(Original post by Andrew97)
Naughty language Madame Deputy Speaker, don’t make me give you a spanking or worse still. Ban white mice from the chamber...
I didn't think eating was tolerated in the chamber anyway
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#19
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I didn't think eating was tolerated in the chamber anyway
The Speakership team is allowed. 😉
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 months ago
#20
(Original post by Andrew97)
The Speakership team is allowed. 😉
Only the Speakership team?
*hides tray of delicious eggy rice pasties from Karelia*
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (498)
59.71%
Yes- I don't like it (43)
5.16%
No- I want it (237)
28.42%
No- I don't want it (56)
6.71%

Watched Threads

View All