eurealist.co.uk

It is claimed that Britain has no written constitution. We often hear quoted the doctrine ‘No parliament may bind its successor’. Today most often it is used to imply that there are no constitutional obligations limiting Parliament’s power.

If this were true there would be no constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament would be unlimited.
The reality is we do have a constitution which is both written and unwritten, but modern politicians by stressing only the parliamentary convention, which are nothing more than gentlemen’s agreements between the parties have raised those conventions above the written parts of our constitution.

But more than that they have also undermined those very same Parliamentary conventions, governments and parliaments do constantly bind their successors.

This can be seen if we look at the EU treaties, although our parliament still has the final power to leave the EU, short of that nuclear option, every new parliament finds itself bound by international law to the treaty agreements made by is predecessors.

Because the treaties stipulate that once an area of authority has been given to the EU is may not be reclaimed by the member state, the only way for a parliament not to be bound by its predecessor would be to renegotiate a new treaty. Failing renegotiation future governments will find that they cannot legislate at all in some areas and must negotiate with the rest of the EU in many other areas before acting.
With the ratification of the Lisbon treaty any future government will even find itself bound if it wishes to use the nuclear option of leaving the Union. There are other ways parliaments are being bound by their predecessors: when government enters into an agreement that has financial implications that run beyond the length of that parliament, they are forcing a successor to continue with the agreement, such was the case with the Euro fighter.

If proof were needed the Conservative party have announced that they will not be bound by this government by any arrangements made with companies to supply technology for the ID card scheme. One assume that as they have not announced a similar embargo on the Lisbon treaty they will consider themselves bound by this governments actions in ratifying it.

So because our political elites have ignored the Constitution, both the written and the parliamentary conventions, they have create the effect of a government without control. And because they are in control of the law they have sidelined the several legal attempts to hold them to account.

The important point is that they have ignored the written parts of our constitution they have not removed or changed them, those documents which form our written Constitution are still on the statue books and still effective law in this country. This is contrary to the belief of many that they have changed the power of these documents by later legalisation.
Although they will tell us that these documents have no power in law, the fact that governments have sidelined the attempts to hold them to account rather than dismissing them as not relevant, rather indicates that they know only to well that they have not changed the essential nature of these constitutional document and have been working outside of their legal remit.
Some of the earlier attempts to hold government to account were issued under the Treason Act 1795

These private cases were taken over and subsequently dropped by the Lord Chancellor, as not being in the public interest. Without ever being heard in court and without any evidence ever being presented to refute the charges. The government had every opportunity to defend themselves and to show that signing the EU treaties was not treason, but opted instead to have the case thrown out.

It cannot therefore be unconnected that one of the first acts of Tony Blairs administration 1998 was to secretly repeal the same Treason Act 1795, which had been used as a basis for these cases. No one has yet given the reason for repealing the act, the repeal was tacked onto the end of the Crime and Disorder act 1998 and never debated in parliament

So although our Political elites have created what amounts to an almost elected dictatorship, a deeper truth is that they could possible have fallen into a trap of there own making. Because when ever they are confronted with claims under these old acts they invariable sidestep a confrontation, they do not met the challenges preferring to either drop the case or legally change the meaning of the definitions as happened when forced over the Bill of Rights and parking fines when Mr Justice Collins cut evaded the point by the simple device of ruling that a parking “penalty” is not a “fine” or “forfeiture”. Here and Here and Here and Here

It is just as well that Lord Collins did not try to argue that the Bill of Rights was no longer relevant law, because the government has recently used the Bill of Rights to defend itself.

Sir Winston Churchill said about the Magna Carta

when in subsequent ages the state swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet without success.

There is a slim chance and a small window of opportunity that those who are foolhardy or brave enough to take on the might of the State and invested interests, will win some sort of reprieve for the rest of us, and some sort of legal recognition that we do not live in an elected dictatorship.

This is being done on our behalf by a very small number of brave souls in a small number of cases of civil disobedience. Applying pressure on the system to legally justify their laws in relationship to the constitutional documents.

It is clear that our political elites have stolen the British Constitution and used it to their own ends, it cannot be incidental that just at the time some are beginning the fight back, that the political parties are all now talking about a new Bill of Right and a new British Constitution. If they get their way they will have completed the destruction of our traditional constitution and replied with something that has much less value as an internal legally enforceable instrument to control the power of government.

Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
Winston Churchill

Betty Boothroyd the then the Speaker of the House of Commons issued the following statement:
“There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights … the House is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts”
(Hansard, 21 July 1993 column 352).

Technorati Tags:
Britain, constitution, parliamentary convention, Bill of Rights. Magna Carta
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |