DANGERS OF A SUPREME PARLIAMENT

 

Over fifty-two years ago the following article was one of a number in a publication:

 

PARLIAMENT

 

A survey

 

George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

 

The contributor was J.J. Craik Henderson who also wrote the Preface of the work, which included contributions by many eminent parliamentarians, lawyers, historians and civil servants.

 

The issues raised then are as topical today in 2004 as they were in 1952.

[Extracts are shown below. Comments in brackets ]

 

 

[The purpose of outlining the following details of the Constitution is in order to assist those who wish to know more about the workings of Parliament particularly as in the very near future a Referendum is to be held to obtain the consent of the people to lose their Ancient Constitution of a Thousand years in the making .

 

Even in 1946 there was great doubt existing about the survival of our Constitution without a written replacement. The following information we hope will be of help to you in making your decision]

*

 

‘There is a danger that the supremacy of the Cabinet may be used by extremists or fanatics to carry through policies designed to destroy or injure our constitution or to employ parliamentary procedure which, whilst not illegal, is contrary to constitutional practice and convention.’

 

 Whilst the supremacy of Parliament has many advantages, it is also a serious danger should a Government be formed of men prepared to curtail liberties or to form a dictatorship, as has happened [Then] in Czechovakia. The methods employed by Communism should make us consider very carefully whether the dangers of a supreme Parliament do not override the advantages of a flexible constitution.

 

Perhaps instead of referring to a supreme Parliament it might be more correct to say that the Cabinet is supreme in the exercise of Executive power and of law making through its control of the majority Party in the House of Commons.

 

It used to be said in textbooks that Parliament controls the executive-the Cabinet. It will be remembered that [Walter] Bagehot regarded the Cabinet as merely a committee of the Parliamentary majority but neither historically nor in fact is that correct, though there is some excuse for the mistake.

 

The Cabinet, generally speaking, consists of Members of Parliament of the majority party and so has some appearance of being such a committee but it is not appointed by the majority party or by Parliament but in effect by the Prime Minister.

 

The fact that Parliament by a vote of no confidence may bring the then existing to an end may also have misled Bagehot. It must be remembered that the Cabinet has many powers, which are not derived from Parliament but from the fact that their executive powers, so far as not expressly conferred by Parliament, descend from the prerogative. [Order in Council].

 

An alternative or additional method would be to have a written constitution, or a partly written constitution, which would provide for Fundamental Rights, which the House of Commons could not abrogate or alter by a bare majority. In such cases it may fall to a Supreme Court [The EDP suggested this in 1994-it is part of our Constitution for the English Nation] in the particular country to determine whether the proposed change is contrary to the constitution or not.

 

In this country a written constitution would be a very far-reaching change. It is doubtful whether there would be support for such a proposal [written in 1946], except after some invasion of the constitution. The British electorate is unwilling to foresee dangers [Some even today in 2004 -though there appears to be an awaking taking place over the last six months]. It prefers to adopt an ostrich-like attitude. The fondness of the British public for locking the stable door after the event is one of our cherished and established political principles.

 

Another possible safeguard is a referendum which, however, is a constitutional device which is unfamiliar to our constitution and has few supporters among constitutional lawyers in this country [Written in 1946] It may be that, with our ancient system, we feel anything not having its roots in Norman or Saxon times is unworthy of consideration and should be cold -shouldered. [Well our politicians in the 60’s and 70’s knew how to fool the people all the time. Few knew all the facts and the greater number lied and cheated in order to confuse the population.

 

We have the laughing sailor Edward Heath still laughing no doubt who gave away our fishing industry and much else and has almost achieved his ambition if you let him to see his countrymen in chains in the New European Constitution.

 

In connection, too, with the more difficult federation of South Africa, a referendum was held in Natal, Bryce called the referendum a method of ‘direct Popular Legislation, i.e. law-making by the citizens themselves and not through their representatives’.

 

In this country [written in 1946] however, the greatest use that could be made of the referendum would be a safeguard against abuse and in order to give the electorate a direct vote on Major Constitutional Issues. [Well as most of us all know the past Referendums on the so-called Common Market have been a fraud of momentous proportions the details are listed elsewhere on our Bulletin Board.

 

That is why it is vital that strict international supervision is needed to prevent any abuse by the Government in the future Referendum on the New Constitution. Possibly Jack Straw could ask a deputation from Iraq to see that is done in the correct way in our so-called Democracy.]

 

It is interesting to note that in Australia between 1901 and 1946 there were ten referendum covering twenty-three proposals and that only four were carried which seems to show that the electorate does not favour alterations of the Constitution [They do of course have a written Constitution. The details of referendums over the past 58 years 1946 to 2004 are not immediately to hand but can be obtained.]

 

How could the referendum fit into our system of Parliamentary Government? There are probably three ways in which it could be used.

 

(1) Any Government, which was meeting with strong opposition on some matter of outstanding importance, might itself take a Referendum, but this method is optional and gives no safeguards against oppression. [We will have to see the wording of the Referendum on the New European Constitution in 2005 or whenever.]

 

(2) We might adopt a written Constitution or Constitution providing that certain rights were to be Fundamental Rights which could only be changed after a referendum [This sounds the best option but even some Fundamental Rights are not of a type to lose at any price as under the New European Constitution which Tony Blair signed 25 times in Rome -November 2004.]

 

(3) We might have a Second Chamber with real powers of rejection of any measures proposed by the House of Commons or of Acts which were contrary to or at variance with specified rights or subjects, combined with the right of the Government to a Referendum.

 

The difficulty under (2) is that it would probably be necessary to leave it to the Courts to determine whether for example an Act of Parliament was contrary to some fundamental right [As in 2004] and it is possible for the Executive to appoint judges who are prepared to accept the views of the Cabinet. [Well we have over the past few years had a number of so-called Independent judges who have been a great disappointment to many who looked to our Judges as the ‘Lions of Justice’.]

 

An objection, which applies, to all kinds of referenda is the important question who is to frame the questions? [Certainly not Tony Blair]

This is very important and some people believe that in most cases the framers could so word the questions as to get the decision they desired. This may go too far, but undoubtedly the method of framing questions could have some influence on the result.

 

In Australia arguments for or against the proposal are issued to all electors and these arguments form quite a lengthy document. In connection with the referendum in 1946 it consisted of a thirty-one-page pamphlet.

 

Another problem is what majority should be required and it is suggested that a bare majority of those entitled to vote should be sufficient and would be fair. For if a man or women does not take the trouble to vote, it would be unfair to say that they cannot feel strongly in favour of the proposed change

 

It surely must be admitted that in a country like ours it should be impossible for Parliament to pass Constitutional measures of the most vital importance which have not been submitted to the electorate or approved at a general election [As constitutional matters cross party lines it is not appropriate unless every ballot paper has the question separately shown] without some body or method being available to ensure that such an Act or Measure has sufficient support among the people.

 

For example, if the Cabinet wanted to suspend the sittings of Parliament and quinquennial general elections, should there not be safeguards? If Parliament wanted to form a Republic or abolish Habeas Corpus [As they wish today in 2004] or to impose a censorship of the Press, is it right that this should be done through a Parliament elected on a quite different programme?

 

There is much to be said for a written constitution. But probably the reform which is most in accordance with our constitution is to establish a strong Second Chamber, with general powers of rejection of measures which offend against subjects which would require to be specified and which should certainly include those rights which a majority of the people of this country believe to be part of their political heritage- such as free speech and the press, a freely elected Parliament, Habeas Corpus and many others. It might also be provided that if the Government did not accept the verdict of the Second Chamber, a Referendum might be taken. [As with Hunting Bill today-November 2004 -the outright ban without compromise is not the usual method of the English People]

 

I also believe that one of the greatest problems and an urgent one is, whilst maintaining the strength of the Executive, to provide reasonable and adequate safeguards against abuse of power.

[As we suffer from 52 years later under New Labour in 2004.] 11/04

 NOVEMBER/04

* * *

 [Fonts altered-bolding used-comments in brackets]

 

 

[Added MARCH 2007]

 

 

http://eutruth.org.uk

 

 

*http://thewestminsternews.co.uk

 

 

[ *Learn how Blair added a clause to a 1998 bill which nullified the TREASON ACT -signed by all who had taken an OATH to protect the Constitution but where afraid of their own necks hence the virtually secret addition to the Act which was revealed in 2005.]

 

*          *          *

 

 

*

 

www.eutruth.org.uk

*

www.thewestminsternews.co.uk

*

 

www.speakout.co.uk

*

 

Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU

www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs

 

*

 

 

VOTE

MAY -2007

 

TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION

WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE

TO SET YOU

 FREE

 

THE

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

www.ukip.org

 

TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER

BUT

SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.

*

 

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

[EACH WORD HAS A DIFFERENT BULLETIN]

 

*

MAY/07

 

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin

THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER

 

‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’

 

-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?