Constitution, or Conventions be Dammed.
One has broached some rudiments of this subject before and it
is only returned to due to an extremely remarkable recent turn of events,
however in doing so, one does need to link two facet of the current phase of
turmoil which on first view do not really seem that they should be linked
together but both of the characteristics of the issues are part of the underling
driving forces that have, one thinks, essential elements of the measured demise
of the UK and its democratic sovereign social stability. One may be taking assessing
of things too far and sound unnecessary extremely alarmed but from the point of
view that ‘one does not have a cock in this fight’ (well one does but that’s
another anecdote or appendage ) preferring to hold to a magnanimous stance of
giving saps the benefit of rationality inclusiveness at a point of pressurised
society paradigm shift, does seem to be under some tension as there is more evidence
to the contrary, with decreasing lucidity from a range of public indicators and
little sign of vigorous unanimity for any inclusiveness.
On the 9th September once again that un-acclaimed
bastion of parliamentary sovereignty, sovereignty so claimed as its own by the
prosperous 5th column aspiration stratocracy in government, has
shown that they will go to any lengths to deliver the usefully fabricated ‘will
of the people’ for their unique view of sovereign independent utopia but it has
failed to enforce dictatorial direction to shutdown the whole of parliament.
Following on the terrible consuming febrile progression of
the delivering the peoples incomprehensible vote, the unelected “Prime Minister”
(Designate) of the Conservative Democratic Unionist Party, not achieving any
practical movement to a negotiated ‘Brexit deal’, condemned the government to a
fixed date of 31.10.19 to formally abandon the EU “with or without a deal"
but was, by parliament, legally bound to request an extension at the 19th
of October so that there would be no “crashing out” without a deal. To fore-fill
his desire to keep his Halloween date and avoid having to request an extension,
this dictator offered to “die in a ditch” before asking the EU for an extension
or obeying the law of parliament, or having
Scotland exercised its unique “Nobile Officium” power by 19/20th;
anything will be tried not to miss the Halloween party. As much as this
dictator squirmed in the face of parliamentary scrutiny over the lack of any
details relating to the Brexit termination and the government own secret
assessment of what may happen after Brexit in “Operation Yellowhammer”, (1) he decided to Prorogue (2) – shut down parliament entirely by
calling on ‘royal prerogative’ power for an extensive period of time to “prepare
a queens speech” run alongside the political parties ‘conference season’.
This action was challenged four times, once in a Scottish
court (which the government lost) then in a Welsh and English court (which
supported the government position) but the argument eventually went to the Supreme
Court, in which by taking a much more extensive in depth analysis of historic
constitution - convention, laws, acts, and the governments stated ‘intention’
of proroguing; the government resoundingly lost on all counts and parliament
was returned. (3)
With this successful challenge, carried out by Gina Miller and
her team, it was a substantial historic making legal action and in the
significant ruling has underscored the rights of MP’s in parliament to hold the
executive-cabinet-government to account and acknowledge the sovereignty of
power wholly within parliament!
BoJo and others of the extremist hard Brexit culture were
vitriolic with arrogant defiance and attacked the Supreme Court as
unconstitutional and parliament as traitors, surrendering to the EU, defying
the ‘will of the people’ (but never mentioned the will of Scotland, N. Ireland or
any other detractors) and would overrule, ignore or with any constructed
mechanism squash all insubordination against a Halloween Brexit party. (Seems
to have not made the connection that this is the date / night of warding off
ghost, the remembering the spirit of departed and hopes for a rebirth; one
cannot be sure which of those is to be more appropriate before or after with the
Halloween wake!)
With all that has transpired thus far over the past 3 years,
to have reach this current impasse both in parliament and the country and still
having no clear definitive path that secures any Brexit deal, a deal no better
than what has been built to be in existence with 43 years experience and now counteracted
with all evidence indicating that the country will be weaker with no substantiation
of anything to replace what is being cast aside; is looked upon with staggered
incredulity by the educated world. All this is matched by the astounding
venomous politicking languages, undisguised rapacious arrogance and endeavours to
blame the fiasco on those that had no hand in the start of the whole mess, which
was the CDUP; has within it untold twisted perils to unfold.
It has been long held that the lack of any formal
written Constitution for the UK has integral strength which has allowed
flexibility of elected government and parliamentary actions to meet to the
changes of society as democracy demands. Being ridged with a written
comprehensive constitution, governments may be unable to enact or adapt laws constrained
by a constitution that might otherwise hinder (assumed) ‘good governance’ of the
well being of the whole country and for the people as they democratically stipulate
over time. It is a singular doctrinaire position that governments have for decades
held to, to be eminently suitable to the history of the United Kingdom’s with
its unwritten constitution, acts, laws and conventions referenced by: Magna
Carter 1215, Bill of rights 1688 etc and all that convenient elasticised stuff.
To be usefully manipulated by governments basically unhindered by reference to
the people and manoeuvred with by pliant whipped parliaments.
On the basis of the recent proroguing closure
of parliament and the threat to repeat it and disregard parliamentary concerns
of the imminent dangers attached to a economic suicidal leap at Halloween, the behaviour
by an unelected prime minister designate (only of the CDUP), and the past
examples of dissuasive fighting in parliament with misusing the Royal
Prerogative; it must be obvious that with the lack of a constitution parliament
has become all too easily and wontedly subversively overcome when the assumed "checks
and balances" of democracy are made impotent with an aggressive dictatorial
stance in pursuit of a fractional radicalisation doctrine. That the Supreme
Court went into great examination of the untested constitutional/convention powers
available in the “checks and balances” of the cabinet government within
parliament, only came about due to the extreme seriousness of the unfolding
situation eventual demonstrating that parliament is indeed sovereign over the
executive. This is the form of sovereignty that the government in cabinet does
not want. So it now should be obvious just what form of sovereignty the
promoters of Brexit intended and one can assume it had little to do with
“taking back control” or sovereignty power for the people; it is and has always
been about strengthening the affluence of a ‘ruling class’.
This is just ones view of course but one thinks a ‘Rubicon‘ has been stepped over, that of balanced, sane,
measured exploration of political differences balancing the evidence of
detrimental risk to the people, businesses and the economy, evidence that is
without doubt is much clearer now, which, by some measure, outweighs the often vague
postulate benefits of a Halloween party. The long standing practiced civility of
parliament has been stripped bare to revel the reeking duplicity of some MP’s
placing more importance on remaining in elected position, power and to purse
Brexit at any cost denying all assessments called for by the government from government
departments, BOE, IFS and held up by economist and business sectors as plausible.
One can find no substantial, definitive, quantified, durable basis upon which a
breaking from the EU generates a “good deal” that avoids necessary or unnecessary
cost to the UK and its populace. The UK has moved into a period of pandering
stupidity of those that demand “I want my Brexit” having absolutely no idea
(with limited meme exceptions) what is required to present them with the dummy
of their Brexit. In this they now have a champion performer, with an unscripted
dictatorship prepared to exert sequestered sovereignty to be captivated within
the executive cadre to trample over rational objections, proposition or
parliament oversight.
One may suppose that one is showing and being very prejudice
with a hyper critical view of the current state of ‘play’ (this is a no
cost-free performance game) and too harsh on the so called English ‘peoples majority’
that want to have their Brexit day and one can concede that in a limited
context that there is some assumed justification with elements of the factors
that prompted them to adopt a unconstructive view of the EU; to break from it,
however everything that pushed them to move against the EU has, over decades,
been caused primarily by deficient MP’s in parliament and vindictive press;
this is unlikely to change anytime soon after their day. That there may be some
benefits to be gained by being released from the EU is positively vague but it will
ultimately depend on how the MP’s in parliament adapt and acknowledge their
failures in ignoring the economic, social, fragmentation of the UK and just how
much and for how long they will commit policy, financial and strategic
direction to correct the problems governments have caused. (4)
In this mind set there is little chance that many of the
leave followers will be able to take on board evidential alternatives or a
democratic different outcome. In a peculiar way one does not find this unusual
for it seems obvious that the rise of inaccurate press and e-media, absorbed as
truth, has resulted in a reduction in the ability to self assess or investigate
the veracity of press / e-media sources. Many people do not have the capacity
or commitment to attach an essential exploration to fact check, to look at the
real sources material. It takes time and effort to do this and as there is no
official accuracy / fact supervision of the press or e-media and no penalty for promoting
misinformation, the manufacture of lies, falsity, fabrication; stories of
directive manipulation are condensed into strap line memes, to be believed by
the unwary.
In relation to the above and as a facet in the way some
people have been manipulated, take the misinformation spread around overlaying
the Lisbon Treaty. (5)
It is adamantly stated by some individual that one has had
the fascinatingly unpleasantness to fall into conversation with, as an aside to
what they may expect or wanted from the conclusion of the Halloween party, found
an astounding surfeit of ignorance matched by a quite determined belief in
outright falsity of issues held as being true, placing erroneous responsibility
on just this one underpinning treaty of the EU often called the Lisbon Treaty
2020. For example one has reduced the elongated varied torments of complaints
to perhaps key “facts” which they believe to be true but are in fact false
shown in italics.
1) False: - The Lisbon Treaty 2020 comes into force in
2020 and cannot be changed! Truth: - No such thing as Lisbon Treaty 2020. It
was established in 2007 and operative from 2009. It can be changed!
2) False: - The UK must
leave before 2020 or it can never leave as the Lisbon Treaty says!
Truth: - has nothing to do with any treaty, it is absolute nonsense!
3) False: - The UK and All EU members lose their right
to veto from 2020! Truth: - No country looses their veto right as exiting
now, there was a change to majority voting on laws but the veto remains!
4) The UK will NOT
be able to make its own trade deals in 2020!
5)
The UK will NOT be able to set its own
trade tariffs in 2020!
6)
The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade
quotas in 2020!
7)
The UK loses control of its fishing
rights in 2020!
Truth: - All this is NOT stipulated in The Treaty; but it is
in all EU members’ negotiated existence now and has been the position long
before this Treaty. It will have to
remain a subjective negotiated position even after the UK leaves the EU.
8)
False: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by
2022 - as clearly laid down in the Lisbon Treaty 2020! Truth: - The UK is NOT part of Schengen and there is NO compulsion to do so, it is NOT in the Treaty
9)
False: - The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear
deterrent in 2020! Truth: - the
Lisbon Treaty does not say this; the EU does not have its own defense but wants
to see all members play equitable full cooperation if required. Members retain all control over their own
military!
10)
False:- The UK
loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations, like Scotland, Wales, N Ireland,
Gibraltar, Falklands, or any protectorate or commonwealth country! Truth: -
This is NOT stated anywhere in the
Lisbon Treaty, nor would it happen as a result of the UK leaving or remaining
in the EU.
11) False: - The UK loses its right to call itself a
nation in its own right! Truth: - Absolute nonsense!
12)
False: - The London stock exchange has to locate to Germany in 2020 and be
integrated into the EU stock exchange! Truth: Not mention in the treaty,
only subject to business commercial decision requirements and competition laws.
13)
False: - The UK must adopt the Euro ASAP
after 2020! Truth: - there is NO
stipulation, what-so-ever, for this in the Treaty! (6)
As per the above sample, no amount of intelligent (?)
discourse or referenced points to sources material dissuades a fixed mind view
from holding onto such fallacies, not that it is of any use to be forceful with
counter arguments but it is a worry as to how easy it is now to implant blatant
lies and fractured half truths, thoughtlessly unchallenged by these believers. The
increasing sophistication of malevolent composers to push the dissemination of falsified
information via e-media is a potentially existential, politically and
democratic danger which must at some time be forestalled. This problem one
could suggested is behind the whole crisis with Brexit and the parliamentary disagreement
occurring now with the use of political conventions and flexible ‘unwritten’ constitution
polarising the populaces view (the courts, parliament, parties; against the will
of the people) will, once the safeguards of an independent Supreme Court and established
EU laws are threatened to be annulled; it becomes more of a precarious democratic
quandary for overall stability. Without resolution one can only guess at three
scenarios, two of which will be distinctly disagreeable and one is not going to
lay them out other than to offer a view based on were one started with this
heading.
It is widely assumed and often quoted that the UK has a
constitution, prefaced with “unwritten”, in practice this means that the UK
does not have a condensed, understandable, easily referred to document anyone
can pick up read and use as a base for balancing the power of the state given
by a democratic elected parliament to the executive (nominated by a PM) which
can alter or interpreters such power without reference to “the people” and fundamentally lacks a constitution that
protects the supremacy of “the people” against the excesses, misuse, or abuse
of the powers the executive imposes in operating on parliament or the exploitation
of parliament scrutiny its self.
The arguments against a written constitution are well rehearsed
but the main one is that a written constitution can become unwieldy, timed out
of date, too constrictive and, well governments are doing very nicely without
it, as the existing situation with what is available: indicative historic ‘constitutional
documents’ laws and conventions supported by democratic election is very
flexible to meet the needs of a period. One will not bother to unravel any of
this with pros and cons, others have done comprehensive assessments even to the
extent of overlaying it with where the actual ‘sovereign’ supremacy lays (or
should) including the influence of European Treaties and legislation. (7)
After the use of conventions, royal prerogative, proroguing,
and the called into action of the necessary independent, erudite, intervention
by the Supreme Court, one can conclude that the flexible system ‘constitution’ is
working. But observing the frenetic objections and threat to the result with
another lawful restriction being placed on the executive it does not want,
brings into focus the tensions resulting from the use of unscripted authority
as in what the executive/parliament bestows it can take away or supersede as it
can and has done in the past with the unwritten constitution (which suits
governments) generally because too few people or organisation have the
resources to put up a challenge. Had it not been for the tenacity of a few
people acting together, this manipulative act of an unelected prime minister (designate)
and cabinet would have reinforced the power of the state to continuing doing
anything it chooses with no limitations, checks, or referenced authority.
Using the sovereigns power (the queen) under the royal
prerogative seems to indicate that the queen has power to exercise some authority,
in practice she does not, it is a formless illusion that she can intercede on
anything for or on behalf of the people. Up to this legal test, it is a practically
constitutional untested exercise of governmental executive power as to where
the ultimate authority of the country resides. Until now the position is that
governments, can, have and will do anything it wants. But a timely question has
been exposed about such power, unrestrained or not; is it, the ultimate authority,
within the gift of the prime minister, the cabinet executive, parliament and
laws it passes for the judicial systems supervision, or the people who are
wholly reliant on the veracity honour and altruism etc of people elected to
always act for the good of society; ultimately are politicians trustworthy?
There is evidence that in too many instances this preference (of goodness?) is
not the case. As a narrow selected cross section of society they are not
representative of the people for they come (in the main) from backgrounds that
offer a trajectory to authority positions aided by resources that advantage
their attainments and within parliament they are also at as much personal career
risk of institutional pressure as in any organisation and due to ‘whipping’
unlikely to be apolitical in decision making.
The protective balm of assuming good governmental conventions
and a sovereign constitution based on past ancient acts and treaties, (disregarding
the current overarching reach of EU acts or treaties like the ECHR or
Employment Law) that works for the people, does evidently with the UK’s
constitutional flexible unwritten foundations, have its limitations and
inherent dangers in the event of a rogue dictatorial administration; something
not dissimilar to occurrences now breaking any conventions and vying to disregard
/circumventing law or indicative constitutional papers. As has been expressed already,
to make Brexit work with the “Great Withdrawal Bill”, the intention is to initially
adopt all current EU regulation ‘en-masse’ but then to unpick / cancel elements
that the government consider unhelpful! This is without reference to
parliament, using delegated power given solely to departmental ministers to
decide for efficient action, incorporation as they see fit into new regulation
law.
One is not too hopeful that something good will come from all
the current dissatisfaction, too much trust has been lost in many spheres, too
much UK political competence destroyed, the rise in mistrust between key EU
nations towards the ineptitude of the UK government, falsification of
information promoting ignorance, the drive for personal power to override the
common good and a multi faceted sourced convention ‘constitution’ requiring
expensive legal interpretation that is hard pressed to protect the people. All
must be a source of deep unease for a strong vibrant democracies existence.
Maybe it is becoming time to seriously consider getting away from a notion that
the UK has a (unwritten or not) viable comprehensive and understandable
constitution for the era, the belief in which in part is wrapped up in the
illusion that the queen has any power, but in this, nor does the government
have any sovereign power although it continues to claim it does acting with the
queens authority/ sovereignty. An interesting aside to this is the
philosophical legal suggestion that with the accession to the EEC / EU and all
the agreed treaties by and with the
UK that followed, that sovereignty was ceded to the higher authority of the ECJ
and once this was done it cannot be taken back or voluntarily regained
primarily because of the unified approach of the EU had in dealing with the
single market, customs union and striking trade or legal undertaking that have
been reached with the rest of the world (or trading blocs) on behalf of the
whole of the EU members and trade deals outside the common market cannot supersede
or undermine those deals by using WTOR. So far as the UK is concerned some
elements of sovereignty, apart from that ceded to the EU, has also been gifted
to Scotland and N. Ireland, which in their case with Brexit has been overridden
by the English but inconveniently or not, ultimately sovereignty is within the
people – and they do not have any proactive, effective, timely power; hampered
without being able to pick up a logical document that can be wielded against a
rouge state-individual. (8)
Where does one start in a step to getting a publicly forcefully
explicit constitution? It seem that at some stage, inevitably the monarchy has
to go in the form of the queen and issue; it is, given her particular
popularity, one of longevity of service and a protective legitimacy for the
laws of the land and parliament which supports this position. This is much
aided by pomp and ceremony, tourist attraction, international recognition and
respect that are a pillar of its maintenance. Breaking this costly unrepresentative
edifice might weaken the class attachment structure that pervades aristocracy leeching
into the government and opening up the way for real public sovereignty but to
be replaced by what structure, a republic democracy or create a new role for
the sovereign, as say a presidential role, specified as a protector of people’s
rights?
The first part of the process must be the creation of a
formal, explicit constitution. Easier said than done for the problem is: - what
is the concise aim of it, who gets to write it, what goes in it, what
unchallenged basis supports it, will the intensions of the words original meaning
move, can it absorb additions, can it be amended when and if so by what measure,
can integrity of authors be relied on and how is it to be ultimately ratified?
This is enough to stop the whole process, which it has, as governments
do not want to be constrained nor hand any power to the people that it cannot
be mitigated on – for their own good. Given the ignorance and lack of knowledge
that the wide proletariats has, as demonstrated by Brexit and the Lisbon treaty
misconstructions, this is perhaps understandable but it should not be the
finality, for the attacks on political conventions, lawfulness and
‘constitution evasion’ under a maligned popularism / un-enfranchised electorate
with a ineffective parliament scrutiny or an actual minority elected
dictatorship, should be damned absolutely ineffective by a formal constitution.
All this can be extremely contentious and complicated with atypical meaningful interpretations.
Even if in a written constitution, the “right to bare arms” is included!
Just to bring this to an end, if one had a say on the matter,
one could make a stab at one’s own items of inclusions into a foundation version,
so here goes:-
The Constitution could be mandated (called
for) by public referendum.
The Constitution will contain a citizen’s Bill
of Rights and Obligations.
The Will of the people is sovereign and
supreme.
The Will of the people is exercised by free
elections of all people of the nation.
The Will of the people will be exercised by compulsory
voting for all at age 16 onwards. (Civics
education will be provided)
Elected Parliamentarians are primarily representative
and delegates of the people first. (They cannot be whipped)
There will be full proportional party representation
balanced with voting out-turn.
In all election or referendums a 3/5ths of voter
agreement should be the minimum aim.
A winning mandated manifesto will be legally
binding.
Any substantial change to the mandated manifesto
is to be ‘ultra vires’. No change can be taken up without a referendum or
election agreeing to specify the change.
Any election or referendum must allow a nil
vote.
In the event of a no party majority elected win,
a unity coalition administration must be formed to design and present a new
manifesto to be voted on.
No article of this Constitution can be change
without a 2/3rd electorate approval.
Elected Members of Parliament (and their advisors)
will be held in contempt and held accountable for duplicitous action designed
to make obscure and hide the accuracy of policy intent, actions, results or statements
made to parliament or in public that are proven false.
Parliament will require Lawful and fair accuracy
of all media reporting put into the public sphere from any source.
Parliament will require and make full
disclosure of the source of all party funding and prohibit all external foreign
sourced political influential funds.
To aid impartiality during election periods a
two week interdict will be enacted on election poll predictions prior to the
close of ‘polling day’.
Education and health provision will be
provided free.
No person will fall into destitution.
The duty of a supreme court is to be
impartial, free from political patronage.
There will be the independent elected separation
of power. (House of Oversight to replace the Lords)
END.
One can be certain that there are better placed individuals
that can obliterate any pretence of logic or practicality with establishing a constitution,
especially with ones offering; the immense complexity of pulling together the
process could be daunting, take a decade and be useless before it’s done, or it
could be stripped to a minimum of articles and leave the inference of meaning
to the prevarication of time however none of this will happen any time soon even
before or after an ele.
© Renot
1010191408
(1) https://assets.publishing.services.gov.uk/
yellow hammer
(2) www.parliament.uk/about/prorogation
(3) Gina
miller. uksc-2019-0192-judgment.
(4) ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/Brexit
(4) www.gov.uk/brexit
(4) www.lse.ac.uk/
(5)(eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content)
(6)(fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty).
(6) https://ukandeu.ac.uk › research-papers
› Professor steve peers
(7) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
› - Lisbon Treaty pdf
(7) https://europa.eu › european-union › law
› treaties_en
(8) Ref: Beyond Brexit by Vernon Bogdanor
posted by Renot at 6:13 am
0 comments
