eurealist.co.uk

I said I was going to post on Jonathan Freedland article in the Guardian about the reform of the House of Lords, I do not intend to actually comment on Freedland`s article, except to say he is suggesting a fully elected house and use that as a springboard for my own thoughts. Although many belive the present House of Lords is an affront to modern democracy, and a fully elected House of Lords would be a more effective, legitimate and representative chamber. I tend to think that such suggestions need very careful consideration.

The Lords does not actually need to be elected to have legitimacy, nor does it actually need to be representative, it is in fact allready quite effective in its present form and as Lord Norton of Louth, who has been described as the greatest living expert on Parliament- has recently made clear the White Paper - which was presented to Parliament earlier this month - was a recipe for instability, was disjointed and would actually deliver a second chamber devoid of the benefits of the existing House. It does not explain how the election of 50% of members under a list system will ‘increase its effectiveness’. Or how the House that is proposed will work better than the existing House?” Nor did it provide any empirical evidence for the claim that in many people’s eyes the Lords now lacks the legitimacy to carry out “its current role”.

Perhaps “its current role” is the fly in the ointment? what exactly is its current role, and do we want that to be its role for the future, might well be examined before we launch into yet another round of reform of the second chamber.

Without doubt the Labour government has continued the destruction of the original role of the Lords by assuming it is nothing more that a simple revising chamber, thereby removing its original function as a guardian of the British Constitution and part of a democratic system of government. As over the years more and more powers have been acquired by the elected executive in the Commons, the Lords has been relegated to nothing more than a hindrance on the leaders ambitions. We have in effect actually ended up with in the situation where we have in all but name an elected dictatorship that cries foul every time the Lords refuse to accept its proposals at face value.

So it becomes relevant to inquire exactly what role we would ask our second chamber to fill, if it is to be just a revising chamber whos duty will be to examine the legislation emanating from the lower house for legal flaws before rubber stamping it, then the house ought rightly to be filled with lawyers and as they will have no real powers, it really does not matter how they get to fill their positions, if it makes some people happy why not just elect them for a relatively long period.

If on the other hand if the Lords is going to have real power to prevent an elected administration overstepping its powers, it should be filled with people who are totally independent of the political party machines. If that is the case then how are they to be elected if not with the backing of the major political parties who are in any case so short of members and cash that they are working their way toward forcing the voters to pay for their control of the political system which they have invented to suit themselves.

In reality we should not consider the composition of the Lord’s without considering it’s role and purpose as part of a wider constitutional settlement.

It is generally believed that Britian does not have a Constitution, a misconception the political parties are only too pleased to bolster, as it allows them free reign to do anything they like once there have garnered enough votes to get into power. It is true that that this is in reality the situation, because our governments have simply ignored the existence of any existing legislation which would bind their hands, and all attempts to rectify this misrepresentation and force our governments have been thwarted by what has grown into a self-supporting political elite. Reform of the House of Lords would not change that situation and just as the politicians have removed any blocks to their increased power they will not willingly allow a situation to develop that will confine their determination to rule without being restrained by inconvenient obstructions like a written Constitution, any that manages to get through the political system will be as worthless as the present one has proved to be. In this situation not only is the House of Lords an affront to modern democracy our whole political system of government is an affront to democracy, modern or otherwise.

Before we embark on any further reform of the House of Lords we must decide what is going to happen with regard to the whole constitutional settlement of Great Britain, because depending on the outcome of that, the second chamber might well have a totally different role to play, or there might not be any role at all for a second chamber.

We need to decide if we are going to remain a member of the European Union, if so it would be much better to accept that all of our government power will not reside in Britain but will be decided and delegated from the EU level. In that instance I would have thought that a second chamber would become surplus to requirements, because the EU constitution would be our constitution and it would be the controlling influence on our government and the laws would be checked by the EU parliament and council and backed by the European Court of Justice, in that event we could operate in Britian with a really slimmed down national parliament, with extra powers being delegated from the EU level to the Regional Parliaments.

If we decide we do not want to swallowed up into the maw of the United States of Europe and opt for a looser association retaining and regaining some of our sovereignty, we would still have to face the left over damage of the EU Regionalisation Program; The Conservatives have promised to disband the embryo Regional Parliaments- Regional Assemblies, they have not as far as I know mentioned the Regional Development Boards, which were set up as the embryo regional civil service to receive and distribute out taxes the EU returns to us. But assuming they do also disband those, we will still be possibly left with the London assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. If we also had an English parliament perhaps the second chamber would be better suited as something approaching a federal chamber with representatives from the separate British parliaments.

If we now leap headlong into further reforming the House of Lords either by fully or partially electing the members, without first deciding the constitutional settlement and the second chambers place in that settlement, we will be devoting a great deal of time effort and money on something which will not improve the effectives of the present chamber and something that could itself become another impediment to creating a new constitutional settlement for the nation state of Great Britian or a group of regions in the in the USE.

I am going to post my thoughts on Jonathan Freedland article in the Guardian about the reforom of the House of Lords, but first this e-mail from Anne Palmer

A thought provoking article on the proposed Lords reform by Jonathan Freedland and his desire for an all elected second chamber. I doubt very much that there will ever be an all elected second chamber because the House of Commons itself will prevent it for it fears for its own superiority and primacy. The Commons will even retain the Parliaments Acts to ensure its cries that “we are the elected Chamber” which would of course have no meaning if the “Lords” were an all elected house. The fact that they may get some legislation WRONG does not even enter their heads. Without the steadying presence of the Law Lords once they are installed in a new “Supreme Court” (which of course will never actually be ’supreme’), will be sorely missed also in the House of Lords.

The Rt Hon Jack Straw suggests ‘how a Hybred House MIGHT work’, so even now this Government does not have a clue, it only MIGHT work. Not once in the Government’s White Paper on the matter does it mention the Treaty and Act of Union 1707 which of course in article XXII requires 16 Peers to sit in the House of Lords, a most important Article to the Scots at that time, and of course, there were only Hereditary Peers then. I am aware of the outcome of Lord Grey’s case on that matter but one cannot get beyond the fact that it was a Treaty that had been observed for hundreds of years until 1997. To remove all the Hereditary Peers may also be seen as discrimination against one particular group of people.

Some people in Scotland wish for complete independence, but the greater danger at this moment in time is not just from the people of Scotland, but the people of England, for they are wanting their own Parliament too for they most certainly do NOT want EU Regions. To damage the Treaty of Union may be just the opportunity the separatists are waiting for. The Act of Union between England and Scotland was a Treaty and a Treaty that was ratified. Article 11 of the Treaty of Union 1707 embodies the substance of the Act of Settlement of 1701. If the Union is destroyed it affects all the Members of the Commonwealth. There would also be no British Government because there would be no United Kingdom of Great Britain left. All this put in jeopardy because a Government is afraid of a challenge?

Mentioned also is the reduction in numbers in the House of Lords from 732 (including Bishops) to 540. Why then have 35 new Members been set on since January last year? Mention of compensation (redundancy) for those that “choose” to stand down rather looks as if they are expecting the tax-payer to foot the Bill. Well I respectfully suggest that any Member of the House of Lords that are made Redundant by this Government’s constant “modernisation” of that once highly respected part of our constitutional arrangements, that any proposed redundancy pay should come out of Labour Party Funds. Anne Palmer