eurealist.co.uk

Eurealist :: EU Constitution is of great significance to the future of European Monarchies: “EU Constitution is of great significance to the future of European Monarchies
by Eurealist at 07:09AM (BST) on April 17, 2005 | Permanent Link | Cosmos

From England Expects

According to former MEP, professor and senior member of the Constitutional Convention that drew up the dreadful document Olivier Duhamel, the Constition has great significance in relation to the constitutional position of monarchs as heads of State. Talking on his monthly TV political column on the Frankenriech TV channel Arte, ‘Standpunkt’ Duhamel pointed out that the EU is not only formally a republic, but there is supposed to be considerable citizen participation as well. In this regard the EU Constitution is of great significance to the future of European Monarchies. From what I understand he suggested that they would have to be stripped of any remaining Constitutional role as it would be incompatible with the democratic process.

(Religious equality –Act of succession – male primogeniture)

My response to these English Common Law based thoughts on the monarchy;

“If the foundation is a monarch, however, you have many more options - you are not constrained by fixed, abstract ideas. Legitimacy is still ultimately is found in the loyalty of the people to the monarch, and the government it empowers, - (a good basis for democracy) but you are not hemmed in by fixed and outdated notions about society and government.”

In some respects this is true, but within the context that set up the present monarchy and formed the basis for its legitimacy and thus the basis for the constitution, there is some inflexibility. Or rather I should say there is supposed to be, if we have a system of government which is self protecting that is in itself an inflexible system.

The one place that this inflexibility shows strongly in an outdated notion about society is the prohibition on Catholics in the royal family. Within the top on hundred people in line for the throne today, I believe eleven are excluded because of their Catholic links. This prohibition was not imposed in the first place, simply because the Catholics were hated, they may well have been, but rule was included for what a Catholic King stood for as apposed to their religious belifes.

The system of government in the UK is based on English Common Law and depends on a circle of power, we the people accept the monarch, which gives legitimacy to the government, which rules the people, within this there are other safeguards against any part of the system becoming to powerful. The elected chamber must have the approval of the lords for its laws, if both chambers agree the monarch has the final say in passing legislation all parts of Government are subject to the rule of law and the law lords are independent. The people have the right to elect and dismiss the elected chamber and also the right to be tried by a jury if accused, and eventually the jury was given the right of ignoring an unjust law, thus the real power lies in the hands of the people not the government, and the whole system demands sovereignty to be held within the territorial confines of the state.

A Catholic believes the Pope and their church to be the final arbiter of power, therefore a power above country, at the time Catholic Kings believed in the divine right of Kings, in other words a pyramid of power, flowing down though the various levels of government. We had at the time just rebelled against the divine right of Kings as it is inconstant with the concept of English Common Law. Hence the clause that no Catholics being allowed to become monarch was written into the Bill of Rights.

Although the Bill of Rights is still law in the UK and has not been basically amended, about the only remaining prohibition that has an affect is the clause that discriminates against Catholics.

Within the debate about the Monarchy, as the power of the Monarch, the House of Lords and the independence of the Law Lords, has been reduced to such an extent that the present system cannot intrude to maintain even the protection of the British people against the increasing power of the short term elected chamber, then I would suggest that the English Common Law system has been reduced to a meaningless hotchpotch of conventional hogwash.

As the political parties over the past hundred years have undermined the UK system of government to such an extent that today it can best be described as an elected dictatorship,. That being the case we should no longer accept these people as our Kings and Queens, what really is the point of the entire empty pageantry that surrounds the monarchy of the UK. When our ministers of the crown, swear allegiance to the Queen and to the country, and then go of and undermine the power of this country and the sovereignty of the monarch and the people, by signing international agreement that impose foreign dominance. I would suggest that the Monarchy no longer has a place in the government of this country as such because they are not doing their jobs, their titles should be removed, then Mr and Mrs Windsor and their children and hangers on can if they like support this nation, that has given them so much, by doing the only job they seem capable of and that is playing their part in the tourist industry.

As they will be removed from their position of guardians of the Constitution, they will then be free to marry whom they like, and as the divine right of kings has evolved into the divine right of the Autocrats or Eurocrats we the people have already lost out to recidivist royalists.