|
« What we are all up against
Main |
October 17, 2003
Goodbye, democracy
The more he protests, the more we should count the national spoons. Tony Blair maintains there won't be a referendum on the EU constitution. 'Take it from me', he says,'there is nothing we are going to agree to here that's going to put at risk any of these key red lines that we have set out'. Well no, we won't take it from him, since he has retreated on the vast majority of all his previous so called red lines including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to whose binding force he once said he would never agree. He did. Coyly, he described the authoritative reports that the Queen is deeply worried that the constitution will subvert the Crown as 'hares and scares'. The Queen is not prone to ill-informed scares. She is deeply worried because it is true that the EU constitution will abolish our powers of self government, turn us into a province of a unified European state and reduce the monarchy to a theme-park figurehead on Westminster regional council. Blair's insistence that the constitution does not represent a fundamental change is totally untrue. It explicitly makes English law subservient to EU law and turns us into a satellite of Brussels. Forget a referendum -- it is astonishing that this will be nodded through by a UK Parliament, determined to axe its own sovereign authority. The question is, what is the Queen going to do about it? This is unlike any past constitutional crisis between monarch and PM because this is about the irrevocable abolition of British self-government and the constitutional monarchy that ultimately guarantees its security. As the nation's protector of last resort, she is entitled to bang her sceptre and tell Blair she won't have any of it. That would mean he would have to resign and call a general election. If he subsequently won it, the Queen would be in an impossible position and might have to abdicate. But then again, if the throne is effectively being cast onto the scrapheap anyway, what's she got to lose? And anyway, the people will be cheering her on. Come on, Your Majesty -- this is the service to your country for which you were called. Posted by melanie at October 17, 2003
Comments
With the absence of many Patriotic English MP's either Tory, Labour or Lib/Dem. The Queen should dismiss this government immediately. In other, words, you'd prefer an autocratic coup d'etat than a democratic government. How anyone can complain of the EU being undemocratic and as a solution propose that an unelected monarch dismiss the democratically elected government of the UK, while still keeping a straight face is beyond me. If this idea came from the left, you and others like you would accuse the proposers of being (and not without some justification) traitors. The only autocratic coup d'etat being proposed here is the one that hands control of UK social, financial, defence and legal affairs to a foreign power without the authority of the British people. No parliament has the authority to bind it's successor - otherwise no bad legislation could ever be removed, and Berwick-upon-Tweed would still be at war with the Kaiser. The only decision that the British parliament cannot make is to abolish it's own position as the representative chamber of the British people, as such a decision could not be consider binding on it's successor parliament. It behoves the Queen to make this point to her Prime Minister. "If this idea came from the left, you and others like you would accuse the proposers of being (and not without some justification) traitors." To begin with, the EU is not a foreign power. The top decision-making body is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the member governments. Second, the British people have already been consulted and given their consent. The official statement by the YES campaign, distributed to every household during the 1975 referendum made it quite clear that we would be surrendering some degree of sovereignty "Our trade, our jobs, our food, our defence cannot be wholly within our own control. That is why so much of the argument about sovereignty is a false one. It's not a matter of dry legal theory. The real test is how we protect our own interests and exercise British influence in the world. The best way is to work with our friends and neighbours. If we came out, the Community would go on taking decisions which affect us vitally - but we would have no say in them. We would be clinging to the shadow of British sovereignty while its substance flies out the window." The result of the referendum was that 67.5 % of votes were in favour of staying in. The House of Commons had voted (9 April 1975) on staying in on the new terms: The EEC of 1975 bears very little relation to the EU of today. The expansion of Qualified Majority Voting, the advent of an embryonic EU defence policy, the idea of a shared foreign policy, the concept of the EU setting UK tax rates, the diminution of Common Law rights, the right of foreign police officers to arrest UK citizens, in the UK, for "offences" that are not crimes in the UK, the surender of immigration policy and border controls, the incorporation of a binding Constitution.... None of these were forshadowed in documents from 28 years ago which are now admitted to have been misleading by the very people who publicised them at the time. No member of the public in this country has ever been gioven the right to vote on any of these issues. Heath 1971 - Signed the treaty that took the UK into Europe without either a referendum or consulting Parliament. Thatcher 1981 - Sent UK troops to reclaim the Falklands without either a referendum or consulting Parliament. Major 1991 - Committed UK troops to the Gulf War without either a referendum or consulting Parliament. How can this be? How could the entire direction of our country's economic and diplomatic relations with Europe have been decided without debate? How can a politician send our troops into a war zone without the approval of the people or the consent of Parliament? Because of the existence of the monarchy - and it's position in our half-baked constitutional set up - that’s how. None of the above actions could have taken place in a western democracy with a sensible written constitution, one that defined the role and limits of power of those in office. Your 'protection' is the only reason our politicians can act in this high handed manner. If Blair (or any other Prime Minister) wished, he could at any time invoke Royal Prerogative and wave two fingers at Parliament and the people of this country and sign us up to *any* treaty he desires, without debate or explanation. So, if you want constitutional mechanisms that protect us against a dictatorship, I suggest that you campaign to dump the monarchy and it's role in our political process. A written constitution with our rights and responsibilities as citizens, and the limits to the power of our representatives, clearly stated and guaranteed by law, overseen by a non-executive President, would be a much better system. All current Prerogative powers - and residual powers held by the monarch - either abolished or devolved to Parliament Posted by: Anastasia at October 20, 2003 07:46 PMAnastasia, Parliament should be abolished before the Monarchy. What use are politicians? They cause far more problems than they ever solve. And the only justification is that "we elected them." Well actually you didn't elct the Government which only some 25% of the public voted for. Parliament is heartliy detested by most people. In contrast the monarchy has deep roots in the country. Like all great institutions it needs to be preserved and reformed not abolished at the whim of a few hotheads who seem to think that "Europe" is a concept that is worth more than a pinch of parrot poop. Let's face it, Europe is a one vast pit of failure, a bureacratic, kafkarian nightmare in whiich all power resides with a pathetic bunch of functionaries who you wouldn't trust to run a school fete. The problem with these people is that they won't trust the people. Hence, European economies are mostly schlerotic and the people tangled in so much red tape that they can't ever escape. And don't be too keen on written constitutions, as lefty Judges tend to take them as grants of rights to individuals by the State, rather than grants of power to the State by individuals. Such judical fiat can then be used to make laws instead of interpreting them. If you must have a written Constitution, let it be like the Australian one which limits the Government and says next to nothing of the rights of the citizen. Posted by: Peter at October 22, 2003 02:24 AMNothing illustrates better the utter moral vacuity, defeatism, and sheer insanity of the hard right than this last post. It also show why, with their usual good sense, the British public have relegated them to the gutter of political history Posted by: amg at October 22, 2003 09:59 AMWhy should Parliament should be abolished before the Monarchy? Labour gaimed 25% more than the votes gained by our un-elected head of state. Every four or five years we have the opportunity to elect/re-elect the same people for us to detest all over again. Why can we not do the same with our head of state? Where do Philip's ‘deep roots’ in this country begin? The only thing Phil the Greek is deeply into is the pocket of the British taxpayer! Tell me, what does he actually do (apart from insult the disabled and various ethnic groups) to justify an annual welfare handout greater than the salary of the President of the United States of America? If, as you say, the royal family have ‘deep roots’ in this country, then why the need for a hasty name change during WW1? Perhaps they thought Battenburg didn’t hint of ‘deep roots’ as much as Windsor does. How deep are the ‘roots’ go of people such as Willem van Oranje, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg, otherwise known as William 111? Or Georg von Braunschweig-Länberg, a.k.a. George 1? Sadly, this mans ‘deep roots’ in this country didn’t encompass the English language, so he conducted affairs of state in French so that his English speaking ministers could understand him. My family can trace an unbroken line in this country back to at least 1650 when one of my ancestors owned a farm on the Norfolk/Suffolk border. Do my ‘deep roots’ mean my family is more qualified to be head of state than the shower we have at the moment? Amazing isn’t it? All those people living in Europe under the heel of tyrannical elected heads of state with sclerotic systems of government and red tape everywhere, and they *still* fail to flock to Britain. Why is that? Maybe it’s because these people living in republics such as France, Ireland and Germany are happy with what they have, and believe it to be superior to our system of government. Maybe its because they enjoy living under a democratic system which means that not only are they - on a per capita basis - wealthier than we are, it also periodically gives them the opportunity to remove their head of state and also allows any citizen to aspire to that position if they wish. These nasty republics affected with sclerosis seem to have hidden attractions to those living under them. I’m sure the people of Britain are clever enough to come up with a clearly stated and unambiguous written constitution if we tried. Any written constitution would be better than the shambolic dog’s dinner of antiquated law and parliamentary precedent we have at the moment |
