Why this would give a single minister too much power … what lawmakers should be doing instead …see bottom
By Mathew Carr*
June 20-30, 2026 — UK PM Keir Starmer appears to be retaliating against the British people for hating him.
USA appears to complete take over of UK with Trump announcing Starmer’s departure on the weekend and Starmer complying Monday June 22.
Meanwhile the Labour administration is rushing sinister law through parliament.
See my comments live on X and follow me and share:
Earlier:
Two related pieces of news last week (mid June 2026) are placing all Britons at risk….as a by-election result signalled voters want Starmer out. He now says he’s resigning.
Key Event 1: The Protest Ban
- Date: Monday, June 15
- What Happened: Court of Appeal Ruling
- The Core Objective: Upheld the government’s ban on the activist group Palestine Action under existing counter-terror laws.
- Why Critics Are Alarmed: Watchdogs like Liberty warn that treating a direct-action protest group (focused on property damage) as a terrorist entity sets a dangerous precedent that chills free speech.
Key Event 2: The National Security Bill
- Date: Wednesday, June 17
- What Happened: National Security Bill Passed Commons
- The Core Objective: The National Security (State Threats) Bill was fast-tracked through all its House of Commons stages in a single day.
- Why Critics Are Alarmed: It gives the Home Secretary broad powers to ban groups linked to hostile foreign states (like Russia, Iran, or China), but critics fear it concentrates too much power in the executive branch.
Weak democracy ….about a third of MPs are for the law, which is arguably racist
Vague, vague and vague/sinister
The man pushing it through.
The Broader Context
The National Security (State Threats) Bill is the primary driver of the “rushed legislation” narrative. The government fast-tracked it because they argue that hostile state actors have ramped up gray-zone tactics—like cyberattacks, espionage, and using proxy groups to intimidate dissidents on UK soil.
[In fact, this has been going on for years and the hated Labour appointee to US ambassador Peter Mandelson was adept at gray-zone tactics. Labour’s lack of self awareness is astounding.]
The bill essentially gives the Home Secretary a tool similar to terror-banning powers, making it a serious crime (carrying up to 14 years in prison) to support a designated hostile foreign proxy….or benefit from one of them.
While the government (wrongly?) insists the bill complies with domestic and international human rights law, critics are deeply uncomfortable with how fast it is being pushed through.
They argue that bypassing standard legislative scrutiny leaves the door wide open for future abuse, potentially sweeping up legitimate political dissent, journalists, or diaspora communities under vaguely defined “state threats.”
*With Gemini:
(Updates to soften headline as Labour administration softened its stance on amendments to the bill …to allow them; earlier added context)
——
Notes + what’s next
Combined with the court ruling upholding a ban on a high-profile protest group, civil liberties groups feel the legal boundary for what the state can restrict is shifting uncomfortably fast.
It isn’t a “sinister plot” to erase human rights wholesale, but it is a very real, high-stakes debate over where national security ends and personal freedom begins. (Gemini) [not sure how Gemini knows there is no sinister plot it’s happening during the World Cup ffs]
CarrZee: Gemini, can you hear me? This is bizarre. I mean, how do you determine who a proxy is … or what’s a hostile proxy?
Outrageous?
Gemini: I can hear you loud and clear, and your reaction is completely spot-on.
It does feel bizarre and opaque because, under this new legislation, the designation process doesn’t start with a public trial or a jury. Instead, it relies on an executive decision backed by secret intelligence.
The mechanism is modeled directly after how the UK bans terrorist organizations. To officially label an group a “hostile foreign proxy,” the Home Secretary has to satisfy a specific two-part legal test.
The Two-Part Test
- The “Proxy” Part (The Foreign Link)
The state must show that an organization or network is acting “for, on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit” a foreign government. A major reason for this law is that hostile states are increasingly outsourcing their operations to third parties—such as hiring local organized crime syndicates or petty criminals to carry out cyberattacks, surveillance, or arson. - The “Hostile” Part (The Threat Activity)
The group must be actively involved in what the law legally defines as “foreign power threat activity.” This covers specific actions designed to harm the UK’s safety or interests, including:
- Espionage and state-backed cyber operations
- Sabotage or physical property damage
- Covert interference in the political system or targeted disinformation
- Threatening, tracking, or attacking political dissidents living in the UK
How the Decision is Made
If the Home Secretary “reasonably believes” an organization meets both criteria—based on briefings from intelligence agencies like MI5—they can place that group on an official banned list.
Once a group is on that list, the penalties apply automatically: supporting them, taking money from them, or publicly glorifying them becomes a severe criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Why It’s Creating Backlash
This is exactly why civil liberties groups are so uneasy.
The threshold of “reasonably believes” is an executive judgment call, not a judicial conviction.
Because terms like “political interference” or “benefiting a foreign power” can be interpreted broadly, watchdogs worry that this or a future government could weaponize the law.
They fear a legitimate activist group, an investigative journalism outlet, or an international advocacy group could get swept up if their campaign happens to align with the interests of a foreign adversary.
While there is a legal process to appeal a designation, that fight can only happen after the ban has already been enacted and the damage to the group’s reputation and freedom has been done.
What is next?
The absolute fastest a bill can pass through the House of Lords is one single day—sometimes in just a few hours.
We have seen this happen before during major national emergencies, such as fast-tracking critical pandemic laws or overnight post-Brexit trade deals.
However, compressing the timeline like this requires breaking a strict, centuries-old parliamentary rule. (Gemini)
The 1715 Rule: Standing Order 44
By default, the House of Lords is intentionally designed to be a slow, methodical revising chamber. It operates under Standing Order 44 (which dates back to June 1715), a rule stating that the Lords cannot pass a bill through more than one legislative stage on the same day.
Normally, the Lords enforce mandatory buffer periods between stages:
- 14 days between the Second Reading and the start of the Committee stage.
- 14 days between the Committee stage and the Report stage.
- 3 sitting days before the Third Reading.
This buffer gives outside watchdogs, legal experts, and advocacy groups time to read the text, submit evidence, and help peers draft changes. - To bypass this and hit maximum speed, the government must table a motion to temporarily suspend Standing Order 44. If a majority of peers vote in favor, every remaining stage of the bill can be compressed into a single afternoon. [carrZee: wtf?]
The Friction Facing This Specific Bill
For the National Security (State Threats) Bill, the government has already explicitly stated it wants the new powers active “as soon as reasonably practicable.” It successfully rammed the bill through the entire House of Commons in a single day, and the bill is officially scheduled for its Second Reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday, June 23, 2026.
Whether the government can successfully trigger that “maximum speed” suspension immediately after Tuesday comes down to a major political battle:
- No Automatic Majority: Unlike in the Commons, the government does not hold an automatic voting majority in the House of Lords. Ministers cannot simply force a fast-track timeline; they have to win over independent and opposition peers.
- Heavy Lobbying from NGOs: Humanitarian and peacebuilding networks (such as Bond) are actively lobbying peers right now. They are raising flags that the bill’s broad definition of a “hostile foreign proxy” could accidentally criminalize standard international aid work, freeze bank transfers, and block essential services like water and medicine in complex foreign environments.
Because peers take their role as constitutional watchdogs very seriously, they may well reject a request to rush the bill through in a single day.- If they refuse to suspend Standing Order 44, they will drag the timeline out over weeks, forcing the government to defend the law line-by-line.
Negative procedure — too much power if the UK government becomes a vindictive regime
The National Security (State Threats) Bill introduces a counter-terrorism-style “proscription” regime to the UK’s national security landscape.
It allows the Home Secretary to formally designate (ban) hostile organizations or proxy groups acting on behalf of foreign states, making it a severe criminal offence to support them.
The negative procedure comes into play under Clause 3 of the bill, which governs how an organization can apply to have its hostile designation removed (de-designation).
Where the Negative Procedure Sits in the Bill
While the power to put a group on the hostile list uses a more stringent process, the power to decide how a group gets off the list relies on the negative procedure:
- The Rule-Making Power: Clause 3 gives the Home Secretary the power to make regulations outlining the exact administrative steps, forms, and timelines an organization must use to apply for de-designation.
- The Procedure Used: The government placed these procedural regulations under the negative statutory instrument procedure.
How the Negative Procedure Works
Under a standard negative procedure, parliament takes a “backseat” approach to lawmaking:
- The Home Secretary signs the regulations into law and lays them before Parliament.
- The rules automatically take effect on a specified date without requiring a vote or debate.
- Parliament has a 40-day window to object. If a Member of Parliament tables a motion to annul the rules and a majority votes against them, the law is struck down. If the 40 days pass with no successful objection, the rules remain law permanently.
The Contrast: Affirmative vs. Negative
To understand why this is a point of discussion in Parliament right now, it helps to contrast it with how a group gets designated in the first place under Clause 1: Action Power Location Parliamentary Procedure What it Means Designating a Hostile Body Clause 1 Draft Affirmative (or Urgent “Made” Affirmative) The Home Secretary cannot permanently ban a group without Parliament actively debating and voting to approve it. (If an emergency occurs, they can use a “made affirmative” power to ban them instantly, but it expires in 40 days if Parliament doesn’t vote to ratify it). Setting the Rules to Appeal/Remove a Designation Clause 3 Negative Procedure The Home Secretary writes the rules for the application process, and they become law automatically. Parliament only gets involved if an MP goes out of their way to trigger a vote to stop it.
Why This is Facing Scrutiny
Because the government is fast-tracking this bill through Parliament to address immediate state-backed threats, constitutional and legal scrutiny committees are looking very closely at the balance of power.
The government’s stance is that the negative procedure is perfectly appropriate here because the regulations are purely administrative and procedural—they just dictate the paperwork and mechanics of an appeal.
However, critics and legal organizations point out that because a hostile designation carries up to 14 years in prison for supporters, the mechanism to challenge that designation is incredibly high-stakes.
They argue that allowing a single minister to dictate the terms of the appeal process via a procedure that bypasses automatic parliamentary debate reduces critical checks and balances on executive power.
Gemini
CarrZee: this sinister law must be stopped and it is also a waste of valuable law-making time.
Lawmakers should be doing this instead:
[…] Fast-tracked human-rights-eroding law puts all Brits at risk of 14 years in jail as Starmer resigns … […]
[…] Fast-tracked human-rights-eroding law puts all Brits at risk of 14 years in jail as Starmer resigns … […]
[…] The government is rushing this law through parliament and it might hurt press freedom: See this: https://carrzee.org/2026/06/20/fast-tracked-human-rights-eroding-law-puts-all-brits-at-risk-of-14-ye… See this: […]