It's important to note that they already have what they want, so this is pure semantics. The global redefinition of a terrorist means that virtually anybody can be placed under full surveillance without a warrant at any time. Bush Jr set the ball in motion by creating an atmosphere where it was legal to do this during wartime, albeit on a temporary basis. When Obama took office he completed the process within a month by making it permanent law, whether peace or war. And the UK following suit was only natural. As has just about every nation on Earth at this time I believe. The difference being that many countries slid the practice through quietly. Why any nation would pull a screw up by trying to set up such a massive database is beyond me though. The sheer size, cost, and scope of the operation would make it public knowledge.

By the way, the NSA project has stalled as well due to mandatory budget cuts. Somebody outsmarted themselves.

As far as the terrorist definition is concerned, that legislation is too long to list, but here's an example. The Obama Administration redefined a terrorist in a combat zone as somebody of an age capable of militaristic activity when the drone program ran into legal problems. While this is indeed bad, they ran into unexpected opposition. While the military is obligated to obey the commander in chief, I'm sure everybody has noticed how fast they release (leak) the information about a strike to the press? Irregardless of who was hit? Not an accident. There is a definite atmosphere of contempt between our president and our military. That's fine for making drone strikes public, but the intelligence community has no such reservations, and that goes triple in the UK.

In short, they already had what they wanted, making these database ideas nothing more than PR nightmares. I can't address the UK, but over here the fact that it requires passing it by 535 legislators is but half the story. The president still holds the right of final veto. And measures are often pushed through as riders on other, hard fought legislation. Having the votes to defeat something often is not enough.