The Constitution of the United Kingdom

Democracy takes many forms, from the oldest parliamentary system in the world, Switzerland, to the so called Mother of Parliaments, the UK.


Across the centuries both have been inspirational in the founding principles of other nations, being a beacon and guiding light for the constitutions that they have produced guaranteeing the freedoms and rights of their citizens, including the USA.


Today we find the democratic world under attack, not from the clearly defined enemies of the past, but from within, from the socialist, the communist, the communitarian who now stalks and controls the halls of power whilst pretending democracy.


We have seen very clearly that pretend in action, with the removal of democratically elected governments in both Greece and Italy, replaced by Eurocrats, who even today are reneging on the promises of new elections.


Today, in our own parliament, those in power try to convince us that we do not have a constitution of our own, yet ignore those constitutional documents that have for so long preserved your own rights and freedoms. They want to foist upon you a new Bill of Rights based upon communitarian values and ignore the Bill of Rights that we already have, knowing that most of you do not even know of its existence, with the teaching of our constitution and its attendant documents having been removed from our Schools and Legal colleges.


This must change if we are to survive as a free people. We must again bring our scattered constitutional documents to the fore and work towards producing a Codified Constitution based upon our ancient rights before a new communitarian world thrusts one upon us.


As our own government loses sight of its reason and purpose, perhaps it is now time for the British people to bring back some of those founding principles that we gave the free world, and re-invest them in our own future.

http://talkconstitution.net


As such I am proud to host a new pressure group called Talk Constitution has been put together by David Phipps (Witterings from Witney) and a few others, its clear aim is to produce 3 documents.

1. A Codified Constitution for the UK, based upon the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, and other documents that you can see listed at the bottom (from Wikipedia).


2. To clearly define the limitations of Government.


3. To set out an Operating Convention for Government, based upon the Swiss model, including referism and localism. A model of government where decisions are taken at the lowest possible level and fed up, rather than from the center and fed down. This will also encourage the rise of independent representatives as the party system looses both its power and influence, as that power is reclaimed by the people to whom it belongs, the public.

As you will see over the coming weeks and months this is a most emotive subject, but one that must be tackled head on. It is not the kind of subject that should be conducted by politicians, as the outcome will always be in the politicians interests, nor by the legal establishment who have maintained the legal fiction supporting the political for too long. That is why the decision has been taken that political organisations will be excluded from the discussion board, as the objective is to arrive at the best possible solutions, in favour of the public, decided by the public and approved by the public, or those who wish to participate at least. 


I am sure the discussion board would welcome the input from individual lawyers and politicians, but only in their capacity as single members of the public, as equal as everyone else.




(from Wikipedia)
Key statutes and conventions
Below are listed some of the statutes that may be considered "constitutional" in nature and some of the more important conventions.

Selected key English statutes

Magna Carta (1215)
Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 (repealed)
Petition of Right (1628)
Instrument of Government {1653} {replaced 1657–1st Constitution of England)
Humble Petition and Advice {1657} {2nd Constitution of England}
Habeas Corpus Act 1679
Bill of Rights 1689
Act of Settlement 1701 (agreed to by Parliament of Scotland as part of the Treaty of Union)
Union with Scotland Act 1706 

Selected key Scottish statutes

Claim of Right 1689
Act of Union 1707 

Selected key British statutes

Act of Union 1800 – union of Great Britain & Ireland to form the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Ireland
Reform Act 1832
Reform Act 1867
Reform Act 1884
Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949
Representation of the People Act 1918
Government of Ireland Act 1920
Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922, Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922, and

Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922
Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927
Representation of the People Act 1928
Statute of Westminster 1931
His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936
Representation of the People Act 1949
Life Peerages Act 1958
Representation of the People Act 1969
European Communities Act 1972
Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973
Human Rights Act 1998
Scotland Act 1998
Government of Wales Act 1998
Northern Ireland Act 1998
House of Lords Act 1999
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Government of Wales Act 2006 

Some important conventions

Main article: Constitutional convention (political custom)
Relating to monarchy
The Sovereign shall grant the Royal Assent to all Bills passed by Parliament (the Royal Assent was last refused by Queen Anne in 1708, for the Scottish Militia Bill 1708, on the advice of her ministers).[38]
The monarch will not dissolve Parliament without the advice of the Prime Minister.
The monarch will ask the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons to form a government, and if there is no majority party, the person who appears most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons to serve as Prime Minister and form a government. [39]

The monarch will ask a member of the House of Commons (rather than the House of Lords or someone outside Parliament) to form a government. It remains possible, however, for a caretaker Prime Minister to be drawn from the House of Lords.
All ministers are to be drawn from the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
The House of Lords will accept any legislation that was in the Government’s manifesto (the ‘Salisbury Convention‘) – in recent years this convention has been broken by the Lords, though the composition of the Lords (which was the justification for the convention) has radically changed since the convention was introduced.
Individual Ministerial Responsibility
Collective Ministerial Responsibility

Please give your support to this discussion by advertising on your blog or publication, and please feel free to take this sidebar logo from this post.

talkconstitution.net


Let the Debate begin




Note (1): This post also appears on IanPJonPolitics and Muffled Vociferation.
Note (2): Whilst the discussion board is open for registrations, said registrations will not be approved until Sunday 8th January.

Constitution

Regular readers will be aware that it had been my intention to publish a new website, talkconstitution.net, which had been planned for 1st January 2012.


Due to the temporary ill-health of one of the moderators, who also happens to be responsible for the 'graphics', it is necessary that the 'start date' be deferred.


Apologies to all who are interested in this subject and, in the meantime, I can but crave your patience. 

The 'cost' of our political system

No, not the 'direct' cost of salaries, buildings etc, etc; but the 'hidden' costs of the time spent by our politicians  'maneouvering' for position within the hierarchy of the Coalition, about the time spent ensuring that each party gains some element of 'public approval' among their respective supporters; and in so doing David Cameron is able to ensure that the Coalition does not 'collapse' before its expiry date thus maintaining his own individual position. Daniel Korski has a post on the Coffee House about the apparent 'rise' in the power wielded by Nick Clegg at the expense of William Hague, one that is a prime illustration of the foregoing.


Does it really matter, other than for 'presentational' reasons, who invited German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle to Britain on a 'we still love you' visit yesterday, when no doubt Westerwelle had been urged by van Rompuy and Barroso to accept on the basis it provided them with 'PR' that they could then use to show that the EU really wanted the UK to remain a full and active member? That is but one example of the 'smoke and mirrors' that affects our politics. Is William Hague going to kick up a fuss' when, no doubt, Cameron has informed him that some room must be given to Clegg to bolster his position as Leader of the Libdems in order to quell any 'rebellion' among LibDem MPs and party members, thus preserving the life of the Coalition? More 'smoke and mirrors'. Who is better qualified to 'talk' to those in Brussels than someone who has worked there and no doubt knows those that matter, while maintaining the Coalition 'line' that we intend to remain a member? More 'smoke and mirrors'.


That our MPs, in putting themselves forward - or 'having themselves put forward' - for election to Westminster to represent their constituents - and supposedly to serve those constituents - is a charade. They do so as it is the first rung on a career - one in which power and personal wealth can be the ultimate prize, not for any reasons of 'serving' the public. It is only necessary to witness their voting records to see MP after MP trooping through the lobbies in support of their 'party line' to see that this is true. Once elected they form a self-serving, self-preservation, clique - witness how they are now insisting that control of their expenses system should revert to them; witness how the recall of any MP is dependent on a committee of their peers being the deciding factor; witness how those in the expenses scandal are able to get re-elected, regardless of their perceived wrong-doings, because they are the only choice provided for the tribalist voter to support. More 'smoke and mirrors'.


Advancement for an MP is solely at the patronage of their party's leader who, when his party's image becomes stagnant, then performs a reshuffle of his 'appointees' with the aim of 'refreshing' the public perception of his/her government (or shadow government) - resulting in a re-arrangement of the occupants of the deckchairs on the Titanic; and for what purpose where any benefit to the country is concerned? What does, for example, the former occupant of one department, reassigned to another, bring to his/her new position, other than a desire to cement his/her progress up their career ladder?


Politicians make much of the need for 'transparency', or 'openness', from them, but are guilty of exactly the opposite. A recent example occurred in a speech Nick Clegg gave to Demos; and upon which Norman Tebbit comments. In his speech Clegg complains that the Lords, as currently constituted, is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy. That statement may well be true, but does not the same accusation also apply to those in the Commons? Can it not be said that the elected Commons with a veneer covering venality and self-interest can surely no longer serve as a chamber which legislates on behalf of the people? Clegg mentions 'dodgy' lobbyists corrupts politics - methinks that politics and our politicians need no help where corruption is concerned. If Clegg believes that individuals need the capabilities and opportunities to chart their own course through life, it has to be asked of Clegg - and his fellow politicians of all parties - why politicians spend so much of their time ensuring that we lead 'ordered' lives in accordance with the 'doctrines' that he and the other two parties impose on us?


For far too long our country has been pulled from 'pillar to post' due entirely to 'political doctrine' - illustrated by party A whilst in government creating a set of laws, then being thrown out of office, with party B entering office and promptly repealing said laws and introducing their own, based on a different 'doctrine'. Does the country benefit from this process? No! Who benefits from this process? The politicians! Suppose there was an alternative form of democracy, one in which no change to our constitution could be made without the approval of the electorate; no wars could begin without our approval; no agreements could be signed as a member of some shadowy world organisation without the approval of the electorate? Suppose there was an alternative form of democracy, both national and local, whereby political decisions could be halted by the electorate having the ability to say "No way, José"? (Sorry Barroso!) Suppose a system of democracy existed whereby politicians, because of the veto that the people have, were no more than 'managers' of the wishes of the people? Suppose an example could be shown whereby 'managers' of their country's destiny had been in office, on a part-time basis, for more than 20 years? Just suppose....


Between Christmas and the New Year I intend returning to the 'Constitution' question (having little else to do - sad is me, but I digress) and by way of an introduction to that post I thought a few general observations on the system of democracy under which we presently live might be in order, hence the above.


A new website has been set up (talkconstitution.net) with a view to allow people to discuss all aspects of this subject (moderation will be employed purely to negate trolls, bad language, etc) and it is not intended primarily for those in the United Kingdom. Presently a 'holding page' is visible, however it is hoped to have this new website 'working' by 2nd January 2012 and confirmation of that will appear on this blog.

Hang on a minute, its not that simple

Douglas Carswell posts that according to Twitter Gus O'Donnell (aka GOD), the most senior Whitehall mandarin, is to quit - and will be replaced by another Whitehall mandarin. Carswell maintains that it is people like Gus O'Donnell at the Cabinet Office, Kim Darroch on the national security council, Simon Fraser at the FCO and other semi-anonymous technocrats who really decide how this country is run; and who, in his view, who have helped run it into the ground. He also maintains that it is these permanent officials that really decide most public policy and that all too often, elected ministers end up as mere mouthpieces for the machine. Carswell ends his post thus:

"..... it is precisely because we have such a smug, insulated technocracy in charge that voters are left complaining that no matter who they vote for, things rarely seem to change. Before the next technocrat is installed to preside over us, we need to have a Parliamentary confirmation hearing.  No convincing answers, no job.Requiring senior officials to answer publicly for what they do in our name might mean that those who make public policy start to appreciate what the public actually wants."

There speaks a typical politician! He seems to have forgotten that:

• It is because we have smug insulated politicians that voters complain no matter who they vote for, nothing ever changes.
• If politicians maintain they are elected to 'govern', perhaps they should start by 'governing' their officials.
• The sooner politicians are 'interviewed' by means of open primaries, the overriding factor being no convincing answers, no job, the better.
• Whilst it is agreed that bureaucrats should be interviewed for their position, it would be beneficial if those doing the interviewing also started to appreciate what the public actually wants.

Whilst acknowledging that Carswell and Hannan's "Plan" is self-serving, in that it cements the control of the political elite over the people, simultaneously giving the opposite impression, what in fact this country needs is not their plan, but my "Constitution" plan with its inbuilt element of "Referism".