Bare Bones
Reform of the UK Parliament necessitates reform of the whole constitution
This document consists of, very briefly, my opinions of where the UK constitution needs to go. It draws on British and American history and experience. It lists the minimum requirements for the future governance of our country. The flesh can be added by further debate and consultation at a Constitutional Convention.
The latest parliamentary crisis is merely a natural consequence of Britain's top down constitution
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". -
Britain is a country labouring under an out of date constitution that needs urgent reform, while still maintaining a British flavour. The present atmosphere of crisis is a result of our clinging on to outdated constitutional arrangements and ideas, more suitable for running an empire that no longer exists, and we now have an opportunity to set a new course for a more viable and democratic future. The institutions of government should draw their authority from the consent of the people and nothing else.
Everything proposed here may seem radical, but in other democracies these measures are considered common sense. They are only radical in a British context, because the people have become enmeshed in a habit of deference. In order to work out what to do everything must be seen in context. The present scandal over MPs' expenses is only a symptom - it is a clear sign that a course correction is required.
Q. What allowed MP's to develop the sense of entitlement that resulted in them fiddling their expenses?
A. They thought they were entitled and that they could get away with it.
Fiddling expenses is peanuts compared to the abuses we have had to witness. Take the example of the Iraq war. Who has paid the price for this illegal war, which caused untold Iraqi deaths and the near defeat of our armed forces, who were sent on a fool's errand and under-resourced by the expense-fiddlers to boot? How does the retreat from Basra to the airport compare with Agincourt, Blenheim, Waterloo? And yet it is presented as a great victory. The only people to have paid the price are those who opposed it. The government was able to ignore public opinion with impunity and near contempt, as demonstrated by the host of misleading "intelligence" they released, which sadly fooled many who should have known better.
This government has also removed and diminished many liberties which were previously regarded as sacrosanct.
These are examples of lack of accountability under a command constitution where power is devolved from above, rather than exercised with the freely given consent of the people, who should be sovereign.
The people in power have grown used to treating the people they are meant to represent with contempt. It is argued that the flexibility of the British constitution is a great strength, as it is unwritten and merely a collection of laws, conventions and ideas. But this flexibility has all been one way and led to a continuing diminution of the rights of the citizens or "subjects" as we must call ourselves, (for to call ourselves anything else is merely self-delusion), and more and more power being taken by the executive. The only thing flexibility has brought is prostration. Parliament has been gutted. This is a zero sum game. More power for the executive means less for parliament and the people.
All the proposals on this website are designed to bring about a workable modern constitution in a very British way, drawing on the strength of our history, and the lessons we can learn from the histories of other countries who have made a similar journey. In this way we should be able to produce something that is better than all of them. We are not condemned to repeat their mistakes (George W. Bush anyone?), but can learn, adapt and cherry pick those parts of their arrangements which have worked most successfully, and reject those that are deficient.
Britain is not a democracy under the present arrangements. It must become a democracy in order to grow in strength, to ensure harmony, and to protect the people's rights, while simultaneously providing for efficient government, in the new digital era.
The institutions that need reform or replacement are:In addition to reform, or in some cases abolition, of the above, there should be a written constitution and an entrenched bill of rights.
"To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity."
When you get on a train you have a choice – first class or second class. Every British “subject” presently gets a second class ride by virtue of birth, bar one family. Everyone born in this country only enjoys rights which are granted from above. None are safe. Under the present scheme we and our descendants are to be “subjects” forever. The new constitution should establish the people as sovereign and the government as the servant of the people. In writing.
If we are to become a democracy, the monarchy must be replaced by an elected ceremonial head of state, as in the Indian or Israeli constitutions. In a democracy every institution of government must be subject to free elections. There is no room for argument. Either an institution is democratic or it is not. Maintaining a monarchy is the very opposite of democracy. There is no reason whatsoever why the monarchy can not be replaced by an elected head of state. The president should hold important residual powers to break deadlocks that prevent the effective governance of the country.
As a corollary the Church of England must be immediately disestablished. Government is to be entirely secular. Religion is a private matter for every citizen and is to have no part in the functioning of government or schooling.
At present the sovereignty of the UK is vested in a hat, or cap. Can we not do better than this?
"Taxes on the very necessaries of life enable an endless tribe of idle princes and princesses to pass with stupid pomp before a gaping crowd, who almost worship the very parade which costs them so dear."
The House of Lords is as undemocratic and anachronistic as the Monarchy. At present it consists of 92 hereditary members, the rest appointed by the executive. Plus nonsenses such as 26 bishops.It should immediately be replaced by a 100 or so member senate, the exact powers and numbers to be decided by a constitutional convention. We may wish to preserve its function as a revising chamber, or choose to give it more powers as in The USA. FWIW I favour revising powers, both to preserve a British flavour, and to avoid the possibility of competition with the commons.
It goes without saying that the aristocracy is to be abolished forthwith. No more nonsense.
Apart from its grossly undemocratic nature, which alone is enough to condemn it as an institution, it provides an incentive for MPs to toe the party line and never cause trouble. Your reward for always voting with the government for 20 years as an MP in the commons is a nice little sinecure for life, as you can reasonably expect a life peerage for such devoted grovelling. Your constituents' interests are thus subverted by your snobbish desire to distinguish yourself from them. You don't even have to submit receipts in the Lords to get expenses, for ever. Beyond parody.
"For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
With the new senate a revising chamber, this is where power should lie, but equally where the executive can be truly held to account.
- The authority of the House of Commons must be established by a new constitution, to which the people must assent. That should be the only source of its authority. Every citizen must be free to challenge anything it does in a free and impartial court.
- The Prime Minister shall remain in the Commons and be subject to a Question Time. He must be an elected MP. Thus is the British flavour of the constitution preserved.
- There should be primaries (but see here for the argument against) for the selection of Parliamentary candidates.
- Select committee chairmen to be selected by secret ballot of all MPs. All committees to be able to investigate executive actions with power of subpoena. Evidence may be taken on oath, on pain of perjury.
- Elections to Parliament are to be by Proportional Representation or AV, the exact form of which is to be decided by a constitutional convention.
- All ministers to be members of the Commons.
- All powers previously existing under the Royal Prerogative to continue to be exercised by the executive, but to be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and Parliamentary Committees.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you"
As much consistency as possible is to be preserved. The authority of the courts must be established in a written constitution. There is unlikely to be much change apart from the strengthening in the written constitution of the process of Judicial Review.
Obviously there is a whole area of law under a republican constitution and a true, or truer, democracy which will have to be revisited. The whole relationship of state to citizen changes. Just as now cases from other common law jurisdictions can be quoted in court in this country, and vice versa, (for instance Maryland consults English common law cases when deciding its own), so we have 200 years of American case law to draw upon when the courts come to decide constitutional issues. That is a lot of useful experience to draw on, and since there is no authority associated with it - we do not have to follow American case law, we can merely treat it as a useful resource - it can be cherry picked.
Our institutions will look very different to American ones as we will maintain a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, but nevertheless decisions on republican principles will be very important to the development of our democracy, and we should not disregard others' relevant experience.
"I had rather have a plain, russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else"
If you wish to join the smarter regiments in the British Army as an officer you need a private income. This "system" is to be replaced by a meritocracy. As far as possible the traditions and identities of all regiments to be preserved, but with a new master – Parliament.
The Constitutional Convention
To consist of representatives from all areas of Britain. To institute, sign and establish a new constitution for Great Britain. The incorporation of devolution into same. The establishment of the various branches of government - the executive, parliament, the judiciary and the armed forces.
- All Government derives authority from election, and election only.
- All discrimination on grounds of sex, age, sexual preference, age etc to be outlawed and entrenched in the constitution.
- The people are sovereign.
- The judiciary to be independent.
- The monarchy and aristocracy to be abolished.
- Capital punishment to be unconstitutional.