26 Jan 2010
The Iraq Inquiry is important to the monarchy debate for two reasons.
Firstly, because it has exposed just how close Prince Charles is to the heart of government. Whether he really did “campaign” against the war, as his PR office would have us believe, we will probably never know. What we can say for certain is that Charles, as a Privy Councillor, saw exactly the same dossiers (dodgy or otherwise) as Tony Blair. If, as the stories leaked by Clarence House suggest, Charles came to a completely different conclusion to Blair then we should know how he reached that conclusion. That’s why we submitted evidence to the Inquiry and asked for Charles to be called as a witness.
Unfortunately it is unlikely that Charles will ever be interrogated by Chilcott and his colleagues. To do so would be to undermine the monarchy’s veneer of impartiality. So here we have a key player in quite possibly the most controversial, divisive and disastrous political act in living memory – yet Charles enjoys complete protection from any kind of scrutiny or accountability.
The second area of our constitution that the Inquiry has shed light on is the royal prerogative. Speaking about the Inquiry this morning, sketch writer Quentin Letts bemoaned the increasingly presidential nature of the office of Prime Minister. Blair had sidelined Parliament in the run up to war, he said, and that’s why it all went so wrong. The advisors and aides in Whitehall seemed to hold more decision-making power than MPs.
Never the most incisive of political commentators, Letts is missing the point. While we may want our Prime Ministers to involve Parliament in decisions about war, they have no constitutional obligation to do so. It’s easy to see our current political mailaise as the result of a few bad individuals, but it’s the system that is really at fault.
Blair held a vote on military action not because he had to, but for PR reasons. The royal prerogative allows Prime Ministers to declare war, sign international treaties (e.g. Lisbon) and take a range of other significant decisions without so much as a nod to Parliament. The monarchy gave Tony Blair more power than he would ever have as President.
Interestingly, the royal prerogative also gave Alastair Campbell, whose sole loyalty was to Blair, the power to give orders to professional civil servants, whose ultimate responsibility was to the public. Considering Campbell’s central role in the Iraq debacle, this is a hugely significant fact.
More than fifteen years ago, Justice Minister Jack Straw described the royal prerogative as:
that most obscure area of what is too grandly called the British constitution. Its survival shows that Britain is still less of a democracy than almost any other Western nation.
He’s absolutely right, of course. Yet what is so easy to criticise in opposition becomes rather useful in power. After more than 12 years of New Labour government, we are no closer to reforming the prerogative powers than we were in 1994.
If you want to find our more about the royal prerogative, and debate its impact on British democracy, come along to our next Republic Talks event on February 3 in London.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 10:54 am and is filed under British constitution. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
January 26th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
People are asking about the legal basis for Lord Hutton’s decision to keep the medical evidence in the inquiry on David Kelly’s death.
January 26th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)
January 26th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Plus the whole Iraq saga demonstrates the need for a head of state with a democratic mandate to safeguard the nation against arbitrary acts of government that fly in the face of (in this case) international law.
January 26th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Has Republic approached Jack Straw about that quote? (In public?!)
January 26th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
A few weeks ago, John Major criticised Blair for apparently “misleading” Parliament.
What he hoped for was the public to forget that he let Parliament vote on the 1st Gulf war AFTER deploying troops with the powers Mr Gray mentions in his piece. Major’s Anti-Blair rhetoric is still weak, weak, weak!
January 26th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
I have commented elsewhere re J. Straw and at one time he worked for the former NCCL (National Council of Civil Liberties) and how demeaning it is when he as Lord Chancellor totters backwards from the Queen at the State Opening of Parliament.
Today at Chilcott Michael Wood and Eliz Wilmhurst both reported that the FCO legal team consistently said that war with Iraq would be illegal without a further UN resolution. Wood reported that he – as the senior law officer – was called into Straw’s office in Jan 03 and told off for being too dogmatic! He had told Cheney it would only be like Kosovo! It was not analogous of course. Straw said he was used to ignoring legal advice at the Home Office and always got his way in the courts!!!!
EW resigned of course just before othe war started. After an exemplary acount of how she had behaved in fact with great dignity and conscience, she was clapped by the audience. This is most unusual and indeed she may be the only person in the whole sorry saga to emerge with credit.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Hello to all republicans from the US!
Hopefully, we get a fresh crop of monarchists who are willing to debate till one side succumbs! No more phony monarchists!
Thanks,
eclub1
January 29th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Graham/James:
Did you get my email about the Campaign for Conservative Democracy? With the Blog having gone dead, we need some lively debate – and the chairman of that campaign is just the man to provide it.
January 29th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Matt says:
“Plus the whole Iraq saga demonstrates the need for a head of state with a democratic mandate to safeguard the nation against arbitrary acts of government that fly in the face of (in this case) international law.”
I see your point, but could that President be relied on for that safeguard? What happens if the President agrees with the government on going to war, especially if (s)he is of the same party of the PM?
Also hasn’t the government got an equal democratic mandate, to make “arbitrary acts of government”– thus rendering the government ultimately impotent if they can be over-ruled by a President– I geuinely puzzled how this would make government more democratic.
Sincere questions, I was just curious to how it would work– or how a presidential candidate would be selected?
January 29th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Steve,
Easy one, this.
If the President was charged with being the “Keeper of the Constitution” and that Constitution did not allow such actions to take place, the President would have every right to prevent the Prime Minister from making such bad judgements.
The new “upper house” (e.g. “The House of Constitution”) would act as a challenge to legislation, state of emergencies, declaration of war, etc. that the Prime Minister and government sought to bring in.
This arrangement already happens to varying degrees in other republics.
This arrangement also does not preclude the government from creating, modifying or repealing laws but laws would have to be dealt with within the Constitutional framework.
As things stand today with regards to Iraq, the Prime Minister, via the Queen, is sovereign. War was effectively declared (illegally according to UN, other foreign authorities and even many British advisors) via the prerogative. The debate in the Commons was very much after the fact on the eve of hostilities when the decision to declare war has already been made.
This state of affairs is a shambles and is a perfect example of how renegade and undemocratic decisions care not a jot for the safety not only of the citizens of Iraq but also the citizens and members of the armed forces of this country.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Thanks Martin. What’s more, Steve, my personal preference would be for a president who didn’t come from a party-political background. As for how they would be chosen, I’m not 100% certain exactly how I’d want that to happen – but a system of public nomination (including by local authorities), parliamentary scrutiny and finally popular election seems like a good basis for the system.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Got an email off the Lib Dems in reply to a message I think we wrote on behalf of Power 2010. Typically, lots of lovely promises about elected senates and four-year terms but nowt about the monarchy.
I will not take parties’ commitment to democracy seriously until they allow us to elect our head of state.
January 30th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Ta for the information Martin G. I had wondered how republicans would justify a president overuling his/hers government, when they both have an equal democratic mandate from the people– and how to you avoid gridlock. You have gone some way to answering my questions on that, much appreciated.
However I presume by “constitution”, this would mean I fresh one at the time of becoming a republic? My question would be, who would write this constitution (would the public be directly consulted)– the new upper house– a president? Would it be based on our current de facto consitution?
I would hope a new consitution would continue our system of Common Law, which has (traditionally) given us our freedoms and liberties: “That which is not expressly prohibited, is permitted by law.”
Your arguments againt the Royal Family are compelling. My only problem with this Republican cause, was exemplified by Matt Showering (sorry to pick on you!): What *exactly* to we replace the monarch with? It’s all very well say get rid of the Queen, but I think this site ought to specify exactly how a British republic would work (at least in this site’s opinion)– in other words what sort of president would we have.
I know your president would be directly elected by the populace, but how exactly would a presidential candidate be nominated? Would the president have to have any qualifications for the post, other than British/Crown Dependency/BOT citizenship or birth? I, like Matt, would hope for a non-politician– to avoid the “not another sleazeball politico” argument.
Would (s)he have to be politically independent; if not how do we ensure that the president serves the people’s interests, and not those her/his party (other than the threat of not being re-elected) How much power would the president wield?
What about all the other countries and territories who have the Queen as head of state– do they get a say in whether a monarch to remain head of state? Or do we (as the UK) assume to speak for them?
Sorry for all these questions: I’m sure you all, like Matt Showering, have individuals opinions on these things. I just would like to know what the ‘official line’ is on the above questions, re your ogranisation.
I do think that when QEII shuffles off her mortal coil, then I think we should definitely consider the republican route, given that Queen’s death would make it an unavoidable issue– plus I can’t see Charles being anywhere as popular as the incumbent! I appreciate some would say the decision should be as soon as possible, but I’m happy agree to disagree on that.
In the meantime I do think to make the country democratic before that event, we need to scrap the House of Lords, adopt a mixed-member proportional (MMP) election system (as of New Zealand) and withdraw from the EU.
The HOL is inherently undemocratic, borderline theocratic! I’m not sure we need an upper house (NZ manages with one chamber), although Martin’s argument is sound. MMP may provide checks and balances; if nowt else it’s the most democratic election system I can think of. First-past has its benefits, but is a governing party with over half seats in Commons with just 35% vote democratic?
EU is ostensibly democratic: Laws and treaties can only be inititated and rescinded by the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission. Plus its Napoleonic code of law is contrary to and erodes our Common Law, which gives us our traditional freedoms and liberties
My personal view is that we definitely need a Head of Government (a PM, runs the country), and a Head of State (represents our country, does all ceremonial/ambassadorial stuff).
Having the choice on who our HOS is would preferable, even if (s)he just does the latter duties mentioned^. I am open to the idea of a President having executive power, however to be persuaded, I would like to know what ‘form’ exactly and president would take and why. Perhaps this fine site can provide definitive…
January 30th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Hi Liam
I’ve suggested to Graham and James that they invite the chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, John Strafford, to write a Blog post. According to Crossbow magazine, Mr Strafford “wants to see a ballot occur on the death of a monarch in order to endorse their successor: if the electorate then rejected both the successor and their oldest child, the monarchy would be abolished.” If we can get him on here then we can try and talk him round to the idea of a no-holds-barred referendum on a republic while the present monarch still lives, and either way it should generate some lively debate to kick this Blog back into life.
January 30th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
I think it is a good idea to invite some people to contribute in this way. Incidentally,are there any monarchist sites we could blog into.? It would be interesting to be a republican”Simon” ,perhaps,and see what life is like in the opposing camp ! I think Simon and a few others have perhaps finally given up persuading us all to become sycophants.
January 30th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Evening Barry
Interesting idea, though of course unlike Simon we would put up decent arguments instead of regurgitating the same old meaningless claptrap again and again and again, not to mention all those infernal YouTube clips…
The best place to go would be The Monarchist – http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/ – it’s a Canadian site but it covers the entire Commonwealth and more. Notice how the photo at the top of the front page makes Wills and Harry look as thin as pencils LOL!
January 30th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
@ Steve
Re: Presidential veto over government.
If the president agrees with the government then that is the case (I’m very sorry if that sounds like a non-argument). What we are suggesting is that we need to have a head of state who can be relied upon to make such rare and vital decisions. Mrs Windsor does not offer this and has absolutely no democratic legitimacy with which to act, anyway.
“Also hasn’t the government got an equal democratic mandate, to make “arbitrary acts of government”– thus rendering the government ultimately impotent if they can be over-ruled by a President– I geuinely puzzled how this would make government more democratic.”
Currently, the government has no democratic mandate in my opinion. We elect one MP. The head of the government does not need to be elected and blatantly isn’t in the case of Brown but, I believe, has never been. The members of the government do not need to be MPs. Ultimately, no member of the government can be held to account by the electorate in an executive election.
How would a presidential candidate be selected? Difficult one. I would be inclined to look at the Irish model: candidates must receive the support required from at least twenty Oireachtas members or at least four county councils to stand for election as president.
“Who would write this constitution (would the public be directly consulted)– the new upper house– a president?”
I would have a commission set up, consisting of lawyers and politicians. They would make suggestions. These would be debated by parliament. Then different models would be put to the electorate in a referendum. I am strongly, strongly against this idea that has been put forward by many commentators that we should have a citizens’ jury of randomly-selected people to draw up the constitution. It is highly unlikely that these people would have any knowledge or expertise in these matters. I realise that that may seem as if I’m undermining my argument for democracy but it is in fact an admittance that pure democracy is not necessarily workable. (Let me stress though: it should be the people who make the final decision).
“I would hope a new consitution would continue our system of Common Law, which has (traditionally) given us our freedoms and liberties:”
As a law student, the English legal system is something that really interests me but from my very limited knowledge of it so far, I would want to radically change it. I think that the doctrine of precedent is too sacrosanct currently. We seem to favour consistency over justice, which often leads to consistently unjust decisions! When I was applying to university last year I drew up a very brief new proposal which, if I remember rightly, centred on keeping precedent but allowing lower courts to go against it if such a decision was necessary in the interests of justice. The ability to go against precedent would have to meet certain criteria and have to be reviewed by an upper court.
“What *exactly* to we replace the monarch with? … I think this site ought to specify exactly how a British republic would work (at least in this site’s opinion)– in other words what sort of president would we have.”
Republic constantly insists that it is not its role to write a prospective British constitution and I am fully in support of this. However, it does spell out quite clearly on the site that it favours a ceremonial presidency with reserve powers, similar to the Irish and German models. I, personally, would have an executive head of state, directly elected, called “the prime minister”. He would chair a technocratic government made up of his appointees who had been approved by parliament. Parliament would be bi-cameral with an upper house of legislative MPs elected by PR and a lower house of constituency MPs elected by AV+ (who would also scrutinise legislation).
Will continue this on another post!
January 30th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
@ Steve again
“What about all the other countries and territories who have the Queen as head of state– do they get a say in whether a monarch to remain head of state?”
Completely up to them! I would have thought that they will be republics before us at the current rate, anyway. Hope I’m wrong, mind!
Why do you reckon we should wait until Elizabeth dies before trying out republicanism?
I disagree with withdrawing from the EU. I’m very much in favour of it but wholly sympathise that it is not democratic enough and that there is too much corruption. (That’s my friendship with Matt over!)
“First-past has its benefits”
Such as?!
Re EU Commission – I see very little difference between our executive and the European executive.
Make sure you stick around. I think we could all do with a decent debate!
January 30th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Where’s the boy Simon gone, everybody?
January 30th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Liam:
Where’s the boy Simon gone, everybody?
Maybe he finally got tired and gave up! Or perhaps he’s busy writing a book entitled ‘One hundred different tangential ways to present the same groundless argument for stifling the development of British democracy and taking Britain back to the Stone Age’!
But Steve, I second Liam’s request for you to stick around. With regards to your comments about New Zealand, a country where I took a long working holiday and whose constitutional framework fascinates me, would you not agree that the passage of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 illustrates the need for a revisionary chamber?
January 31st, 2010 at 6:02 am
It’s strange that Simon goes, and all monarchists follow him. Big coincidence, or all those posters were one and the same person?
Great answers to Steve, Liam. Hello Showering!
January 31st, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Steve,
Great to have you on board and offer some throught provoking comments.
Here’s an example of how it might work (bearing in mind that there is no legal basis for or against the war in Iraq other than the learned opinions of advisors, many of whom contradict each other).
My view of the “upper house” would be to make it aparty-political (maybe salvage something of Liam’s views regarding FPTP!).
To do this, maybe we have a situation whereby “chartered organisations” – that is to say organisations that meet criteria on open membership, funding, openness of activities and so on, are granted a seat in the upper house. Such organisations might include professional bodies, trades unions, voluntary sector and other similar associations.
Whereas a citizen could belong to any number of organisations, each citizen would only be entitled to a single vote to elect a representative through one of these organisations.
Now, the president…..
The President’s prime role would be “Keeper of the Constitution”, ensuring that the activities of the government were not illegal in terms of the Constitution.
The president would be nominated (maybe have four, five or six nominees?) from the upper house. Nominees are presented for election to serve for a fixed period of, say, five years.
I’d be happy to hear views or a variation on a theme but something like the above would:-
1) Make the upper house democratic
2) Make the upper house divorced from party politics
3) Create stakeholders of us all
4) Make the Government accountable on a Constitutional basis
5) Stop/check the current FPTP system without undermining the authority of the Government of the day (assuming that the actions of that government were constitutionally sound).
To answer your other query, the new upper house could be in place before the reforms are made formal. In that way, the upper house could devise the new Constitution and we’d all have an interest in some way, shape or form.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Dear Matt,
Thank you for the information !
January 31st, 2010 at 11:01 pm
No worries Barry. Just realised it’s a painting, not a photo; but you’d think that monarchists as hard-core as those ones would make a bit more effort to present pictures of royals in their proper width/height ratio!
January 31st, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Matt,
I am still about and watching over the debates, however i am more focused on other more pressing matters with the election coming up and the growing separatist threat. I am starting to lose faith in Mr Cameron, whilst it pains me to say it i think we may need a labour government. A conservative victory is going to cause huge danger to the union from the separatists, im not sure its a risk im prepared to take.
On your point about having a ballot following the death of the monarch, i support that position. It is however a big step from supporting that to attempting to suggest that Queen Elizabeth II somehow needs a mandate and that her position needs to be challenged in a referendum. There will be no referendum on the monarchy whilst the Queen is alive, it simply is not going to happen. The debate can begin following her death but not before.
Liam / Martin.
I am sure both of you would design great systems that would be very democratic and provide protection for this new constitution people want. However ive asked the question before, do we trust the current or future bunch of MPs to “do the right thing” in establishing such radical changes to our country and bind it for generations to come.
Martin said:
Does it not make sense to improve our democracy first so that we do have a better and more accountable upper and lower house? People here simply want too much to happen at once. You want to bring down an entire system that has governed this country for centuries. It is not as easy as starting with a blank page and saying we will have… this this and that.
Surely its more important to get rid of the unaccountable house of lords, make the house of commons more accountable then have the debate about the constitution and the monarchy. It can not all be done at once.
Also the point i have made before about the implications of having an elected head of state chosen by English people and opposed by Scottish people and the SNP has not been addressed. Such a system would put the union at more risk.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:52 am
Simon,
It might not be obvious to you but when independent scrutiny is enforced, it’s amazing how trusting people become.
As we do not currently have any such scrutiny and formal rules that must be followed, we end up with a corrupt system that we have at present.
What politicians and the monarchy doesn’t realise is that proper scrutiny protects THEM because they are protected from accusations that are currently being levelled and not without some justification.
It’s a very easy principle to understand. What is difficult about that?
You are clearly very happy supporting a corrupt (or corruptible) regime. As for bringing down “an entire system that has governed this country for centuries”, just because something has been in place in an unassailable and unquestionable position for a long time does not equate to being right.
On the contrary, the “system” has remained in power because of deference, patronage and syncophancy.
Also, for the umpteenth time, forget the Unionist argument. It’s a red herring – we can have either a British Republic or a devolved republic.
February 1st, 2010 at 1:22 am
No i can not just forget the unionist question. Your proposed republic comes with great dangers for the union. Wed have to change our country’s name and have a new constitution.
These are radical changes and the implications of having a head of state for the British people simply chosen by English voters which is what a popular vote would come down to is dangerous.
The survival of this very nation in the next few years is at risk, the idea we should mess around at the heart of the British constitution and remove the monarchy when we have a Queen supported by the majority of people and parties throughout this United Kingdom is crazy.
Defence of the union may be a bit too “overtly British” for some peoples tastes though.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:56 am
I just want to thank people for taking time to answer my questions, much appreciated– you have addressed my points well. First I will expand on the NZ system, I’ll address other points in separate messages..
To clear I don’t support FPTP used on its own, however FPTP does have some advantages, I feel: The innate simplicity and the fact it gives you a local voice in parliament (whom you can lobby directly). However the days of two-party politics have now vanished and our electoral system now gives disproportionate power, as I pointed out previously
Many critics would point to PR, the mathematically fair way of voting– there are absolutely no ‘wasted’ votes. The disadvantage of PR is that you only get a choice of ‘what’ you vote for– rather than ‘whom’ (a personal representative) — thus the party-machines dominate.
One could point to a slight improvement on the above two systems– Single Transferable Vote (STV): You get to vote for a local candidate via FPTP, and your party choice gets taken into account too. However the disadvantages are that candidates who fail to win a constituency could get in on the party-list ticket– also STV usually leads to unwieldy coalitions or unworkably tight results (Welsh Assembly and Scottish Executive being current examples). Plus you still have the potential of having to vote for a sub-standard local candidate, in order to maintain to your loyalty to chosen party.
This why I support the New Zealand electoral system. Originally they used FPTP; but dropped FPTP in 1996– this was after the government consulted the populace on whether they wanted to ditch FPTP. Upon voting “yes” to that, New Zealanders were offered four alternative electoral systems via a referendum; by a sizeable majority, they chose adopt a new system they termed “mixed-member proportional” (MMP).
In MMP each voter gets two votes on his/hers ballot paper– a “party vote” and an “electorate vote” (“electorate” being the NZ term for a constituency). The former is merely a list of parties standing in the NZ Parliament, so one X goes on that list. The latter is a list of candidates (and respective political affiliations, if applicable) standing for the voter’s constituency– so the other X goes by their constituency candidate of choice– so the same as our system in this respect.
When it comes to results, the “party vote” decides the proportionality of the parliament (correct within 1.1% at the last NZ general election) — this is considered the ‘over-riding vote’. A party must get at least 4% of the vote to get a seat, this ought to exclude trivial or dangerous parties. The result of the “electorate vote” works the same as in the UK– the candidate with the most votes for that constituency becomes MP for that seat.
The beauty of this system is that it considers separately, the two things voters think about when voting: The party they wish to see in office, and the quality of the local candidates/ the current constituency MP. So if the constituency candidate for your chosen party is useless, you can vote for a better candidate– but still vote for your favoured party. Or if you live in a safe seat where the constituency candidate for Party Z will win, then you can for Party Y without feeling so futile– since your party vote will still count.
It also gives greater scope for independents, local issue parties and smaller parties — however one party is discernibly in charge: Although in recent years the governing party in NZ has had to form a minor coalition: However their parliament has only 120 seats, we have 646, so much less chance of coalitions forming with our larger numerical margins (although we could do with trimming the number of MPs, I feel).
February 1st, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Some good points have been raised about the necessity of an Upper House.
My confusion intially was that an Upper House would negate the need for an executive president, if the UH is guardian of the consitution– in other words the UH would be duplicating the role of the prez. However it appears you wish to see a ceremonial prez with \reserve powers\.
My query would now be that if the Commons couldn’t be trusted to be consistutional, what would stop the UH from behaving in the same way? I suppose non-party members of an UH may stop that.
However if a new consitution was properly drawn up, then surely this preclude the Commons from passing unconstitutional legislation? I don’t know the details of the that 2007 NZ bill, but I understand they don’t have a codified constitution either; perhaps if they did, such damaging legislation wouldn’t be passed?
Iceland (a republic) only has one chamber, and is one of the most free (if not *the most*) countries in the world. So I would argue that an upper chamber is not necessary to safeguard a republic’s consitution; I’m more inclined to think an UH is an unnecessary (and costly) tier of government– I believe government ought to be as small as possible.
BTW, you say the public would get final say about the new consitution– would that be in the form of a referendum?
I concede I’m no expert on English law either. However I would like to see the basic philosophy of Common Law to be retained in a new Constitution: \That which is not expressly prohibited, is allowed\. I believe *that* is what gives us (as people) freedom and liberty from the government, rather the Napoleon Code of law which works on the exact opposite principle and makes the gov more tyrannical.
This brings onto the subject of the EU. Liam I’m puzzled by your views on this: You sympathise that is corrupt and undemocratic– yet you support the EU? Let’s not forget it makes the majority of our laws, and we are discussing making this country more transparently democratic.
The EU at best is a pseudo-democracy. Although we have an elected EU p’ment, it has little power. It cannot initiate or rescind and laws/ treaties, it can only vote yes or no. I have seen the p’ment in action, and it can vote on literally hundreds of ‘bills’ in an hour– without little briefing or debate– indeed MEPs are strictly limited to 90secs of speech.
Yes we have the Council of Europe, but the UK only has a 7% of the vote, which can be easily over-ruled by other countries– so we can end up with legislation unwholly suitable for our country. Also we don’t know how our ministers voted, because the details are redacted before they reach Westminster.
The ultimate power lies with EU Commission; the guardian of treaties, who has the sole privilege of initiating EU laws and rescinding them. The Commission is unelected by the populace, it is unaccountable (an institute that’s not had its accounts signed off by auditors over 14 years– but with what consequences?) and its dealings are made in secret (the selection of Baroness Ashton being an example)
I see no purpose for the EU, certainly not for the UK’s membership thereof. Especially since the EU cannot be reformed, and is becoming more undemocratic and corrupt if anything.
I believe in friendly co-operation with Europe (and the rest of world), but not to be ultimately run by some Soviet-esque supranational government. 1984 is supposed be a warning, not a blueprint!
Given the number of internationl organisations the UK belongs to, we would be far from isolated if we left the EU. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland manage just fine.
If we want a transparent and more democratic country, then I strongly feel this incompatible with EU membership. I feel leaving the EU is a postive and progressive thing to do; along with scrapping the House of Lords, adopting MMP and drawing up a codified constitution (electing a head of state too!). Only then would I…
February 1st, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I, I, I, me, me, me….. ‘My policy AND British policy……..’ This was TB speaking at Chilcot. IMO it highlighted nicely the argument re the royal prerogative on this strand. It was very clear that he did not care re the cabinet. The committee did elicit that the cabinet meeting held just before the Crawford ranch meeting with GWB in 2002 when Christoper Meyer said British support was ’signed in blood’ long before it was admitted, was held at Chequers not no 10. Not only that, the dissidents, Robin Cook and Clare Short were not even invited. Nor was Lord Goldsmith as At. Gen. invited to cabinet meetings to give his legal opinion. TB and A Campbell ignored this as it was irrelevant to what they were working for. The committee is polite but I think seems on the ball. AC was asked rather pointedly re a committe meeting on the intelligence for WMD, why were YOU chairing it? To which he blustered.
It is interesting that the Americans were surprised just how much power the British PM has and in fact he has more than any other western ‘democracy’ because we would say of it being directly royal and there being no written constitution or adequate checks and balances.
February 1st, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Simon:
On your point about having a ballot following the death of the monarch, I support that position.
That is not my point, that is the preference of the chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy. More seriously,
I am starting to lose faith in Mr Cameron, whilst it pains me to say it I think we may need a Labour government. A Conservative victory is going to cause huge danger to the union from the separatists, im not sure its a risk im prepared to take.
I am morbidly curious as to how you think a Conservative victory will threaten the Union. But be that as it may: if you freely admit that you would rather live in a morally bankrupt Stone Age cesspit (which Labour have reduced us to) called the UK, than a thriving, virtuous nation called Britain (England & Wales), then, sir, you are a traitor.