Here we go again, returning to a subject on which the footpath of discussion is well trod.
It is however an important topic as it goes to the very heart of how things get done in our country.
It is often said that we British like to “muddle through” and that the so called “unwritten constitution” – the Big Lie of the Europhile Traitors as the written constitution is comprised of the Bill of Rights, the Coronation oath and the Privy Council Oath – is a hotchpotch. Well in that they are at least on the right track. It is however more than a hotchpotch – it is a complete dog’s breakfast. In effect the politicians have from 1911 have done so many bodged amendments that the constitution is broken.
A good analogy here would be to describe the present British constitution as a house whose plumbing, electrical wiring, plastering, loft extensions, replacement windows and conservatory have all been installed by a DIY fanatic – a DIY fanatic who is completely incompetent. At long last the enthusiast’s wife comes to the end of her tether and telephones a competent builder. The builder visits the housewife – a certain Mrs. Elizabeth Windsor near King’s Lynn in Norfolk – and surveys her property. He shakes his head and tells the lady that, yes, his firm can rectify the myriad problems with the property but that most, if not all the bodges of her friendly neighbour will have to be removed.
Before we move onto the precise remedies a further analogy would serve the discussion very well.
Imagine the United Kingdom as a theatre. On the stage there is the scenery, the props and so forth. Then you have the players, the actors and actresses. Then you have the audience.
The scenery, the props and so forth are the institutions of government: the monarchy, the House of Lords, The House of Commons and so forth. The players, the actors and actresses are the politicians – not only the elected politicians. The audience can be said to comprise the British people. They are not however a uniform bunch. You have the political activists. These people turn up very early – hours before the theatre opens its doors. Their objective? To get the front row or the second row of the stalls – the seats nearest these stage. The reason? Because these folks want to get involved. They want to shout and heckle. To boo, to jeer, to hiss and yes, cheer and clap too. Also in this special play, some of the audience in the front two rows get up onto the stage and become actors and actresses and some of the players on stage come off the stage and take the place in the front two rows of the stalls to become active members of the audience.
As you go further back in the stalls the audience are progressively less and less actively interested in the play. In the dress circle and the upper circle you have members of the audience who are interested in the play, but do not want to sit in the stalls with the “rif-raff.”
In the boxes with a commanding view, you have the theatre critics. These are members of the press and commentators.
The reason why we have gone to the length of portraying the UK this way is to make a very important point. In changing the constitution we risk mere changes to the scenery, the props and so forth. We are not changing the essential make-up of the governance of the country.
If politicians are guilty of one thing it is to become fixated with the detail of the constitution and a forgetting that what is important is the results the process delivers, not the process itself. Constitutional change that delivers the results must take this into account. In and of itself, introducing reforms such as changing the voting system or replacing the House of Lords with an elected chamber (unconstitutional by the way – unless done in the way suggested in our article, Constitutional reform in the UK) will not radically alter the way the country is governed. To do that requires a paradigm change in the politics of the country.
So. What does the British Gazette suggest?
Firstly, the most obvious and over-riding necessity is to restore proper sovereign government to the United Kingdom. This of course means the repeal of the European Communities Act of 1972 and all associated amended legislation. To even discuss constitutional change without addressing the priority of ending the government of this country by foreigners is a nonsense. It is also Treason.
So. Given that the UK is restored to the status as a fully independent sovereign state. What next?
To go back to the theatre analogy, what we should try and do is to ensure the involvement in the government of the country of those members of the audience other than the loud mouths occupying the first two rows of the stalls.
How? As follows:
Firstly, along with the repeal of the European Communities Act of 1972 (c.68) the following acts of parliament need to be repealed:
The Parliament Act, 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 13),
The Parliament Act, 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 103),
The House of Lords Act, 1999 (1999 c. 34)
The Constitutional Reform Act, 2005 (c.4)
NB: Repeal of the Constitutional Reform Act will require the United Kingdom to revoke and renounce the European Convention of Human Rights. Please note – membership of the convention is separate from the UK’s membership of the never to be sufficiently damned abomination that is the European Union. The reason? The historical admixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power of the House of Lords is not in conformance with the requirements of Article 6 (paragraph 1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, because a judicial officer, having legislative or executive power, is not considered sufficiently impartial to provide a fair trial. Of course, this anomalous situation has worked very well in the past, will do so in the future and a sovereign state such as the UK cannot brook any interference by foreign jurists who practise an alien system based on Roman and not English Common law.
Of course these repeals will land the country right back in the predicament the Asquith government had following the Lord’s rejection of the Finance Act in 1909. To have the will of an elected chamber frustrated by the will, not only of an unelected chamber but a chamber composed mostly members sitting by hereditary right was considered a democratic anathema in 1909! More than one hundred years later it would not only be considered an anathema and an outrage against democractic principals, but complete and utter lunacy.
So. How do we square this particular circle?
The answer is really rather simple!
Along with the repeal of the five acts of parliament: (European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68); Parliament Act, 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 13); Parliament Act, 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 103); House of Lords Act, 1999 (1999 c. 34) & Constitutional Reform Act, 2005 (c.4)) a new Parliament Act must be passed.
The new (and lawful) Parliament Act would give the House of Commons the power to put the proposals contained in any Bill rejected by the House of Lords to the British People for their approval in a referendum. Unlike the unlawful parliament acts it replaces there will be no significant delay.
This is how it would work:
A Bill is put forward in the Commons. It goes through its various stages in the house including the committee stage. It then goes to the Lords. They reject it. The Commons then – if it is so minded – represent the Bill to the Lords with or without amendments – as they are so minded. If the Lords rejects it again, the Speaker of the House of Commons then directs that a referendum is organised to ascertain the opinion of the British People under the provisions of the said act.
If the British People vote to approve the Bill it then goes to the Sovereign and receives the Royal Assent and becomes law. If the voters do not approve the bill then it falls.
This solution to an awkward problem has numerous merits:
– Whilst undemocratic and socially exclusive (although not now to anything like the degree in 1909) the hereditary makeup of the House of Lords was a tremendous asset. This was because it gave an input to the governance of the country by those others than of the political class. Ironically, the UK needs this reform now more than it did in 1909! Why? Because in 1909 the aristocracy and the upper class comprised a significant proportion of the political class. Today in 2011 we have a political class comprised of political activists that can be said to be of a distinct and separate character than most British People and comprise a political clique. The current holders of the hereditary peerages who would make up the majority of members of the reinvigorated House of Lords are not – for the most part – members of this political clique. Furthermore many, such as the actor Timothy Bentinck who plays the character David Archer in the BBC radio soap “The Archers,” are not members of a landed aristocracy. Mr Bentinck (who does not normally use his title) is the 12th Earl of Portland.
– It possesses a certain Constitutional Logic: The House of Commons represent the British People. The House of Lords represent themselves. This of course is what (justifiably) angered the Right Honourable David Lloyd George, OM, PC, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor and Viscount Gwynedd. If the unelected and largely hereditary House of Lords was to veto a bill sent to them from the representatives of the British People, then it is logical to put the decision before the British People themselves so they can resolve the issue democratically!
– It is relatively quick. There is no lengthy delay as with the present Parliament Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 103).
– It is certain. The British People will resolve the issue one way or the other.
– It is democratic. Referendums are the ultimate in democracy.
– It would introduce a measure of reassessment on the part of both houses. The Commons may not want to push it as far as a referendum. Ditto the Lords.
– It is a proper use of referenda.
Referenda have their dangers. Touted by their enthusiasts as the ultimate in participative democracy, referenda have some serious shortcomings. The Swiss have a system that appears to work for them. Legislation can in effect be introduced by referenda if sufficient numbers of Swiss people sign a petition. Whilst this may work in Switzerland the British Gazette would be extremely leery about introducing such a system in the British Isles. We would go so far as to suggest that such a development would introduce mob-rule: A mob, however large, is still a mob. Anyone who thinks that if something works well with the Swiss it will work well with the British should try living in Switzerland for a time. They will quickly become disabused of the notion. The Swiss are remarkably self disciplined. If you do not mind paying a VERY large fine, try this: Walk down a Swiss street and drop some litter. On the other hand don’t! It really isn’t worth the trouble you will land yourself in!
Such a form of participative democracy as practised in Switzerland can be said to be institutionalised irresponsibility. This is because you cannot hold the mass of a population responsible for the consequences of their actions. Legislation introduced as a result of this form of “mob rule” means that no one person or group of persons can be held accountable. Even the promoters and advocates of the legislation can hide behind the fact that it will be the mass of the populace who authorised such.
Let us put forward a possible scenario so far as the dangers of introducing such a system into the UK:
There is a particularly brutal set of murders – let us say a repeat of the infamous “Moors Murders.” The tabloids enraged by the life sentences passed on the culprits start up a campaign to restore the death penalty. Given the power and the influence of such as Mr Murdoch, it is not long before sufficient signatures are placed on the petition amend a referendum for the re-introduction of the death penalty – and moreover a measure to make such retrospective to apply to the aforesaid culprits – is passed into law. The culprits are then hanged. Worse – there could even be the spectacle of such a campaign demanding that not only capital punishment be introduced retrospectively but that public hangings are brought back.
Speaking the Truth unto the Nation
