52% intelligent. 9% modest. More monkey than bear.

Monday, December 20, 2004

Ignorance has taken over...

I've been inspired (and not for the first time) by The Urban Fox - this time by a thoughtful post on the issue of ID Cards . For those who don't know, Parliament are voting tonight on a plan to introduce these cards into the UK. There's a good Q&A here on the issues involved, but basically the idea is that they will:

"strengthen national security and protect people from identity fraud and theft by providing them with a convenient means of verifying their indentity in everyday transactions"

This is obviously nonsense, but Fox explains all of this, so I won't repeat here.

This all got me thinking about the British Constitution. Basically (and you politics graduates please bear with me.... especially you and you) A constitution is a document that establishes the structure and principles of a government; it outlines the form of govenment, the structure and powers of the governmental institutions and usually talks of the rights and duties of the citizen. Probably the most famous of these is the Constitution of the USA. Why is it famous? Because it is always being harped on about - especially people who like guns (who puts that they are a multi-method deer hunter on their CV? )


The British Constitution is different. In the British Constitution, instead of the three branches of government being separate (legislature, executive and the judiciary), in Britain they are concentrated in Parliament. Parliament is sovereign and cannot be limited (in the way that, say, the US Congress can be limited by the Supreme Court). That's not the biggest difference though. Unlike the American Constitution, the British Constitution has never been written down. You cannot take it out of a library and have a look at it. In fact, you pretty much have to be a constitutional expert to have any real idea of what it is. This makes it an inherently flexible system, although its critics would say that never writing it down means that the citizens have no real idea what their rights are or when they are being violated.

This brings me to ID Cards.... (as well as the government's other proposals, like detaining terrorist suspects without trial, planning the removal of trial by jury in some cases... as discussed on this very blog)


If the Government can muster a majority in parliament for these reforms, then basically, they will end up as law. Yes, the House of Lords can hold the law up for a while, but they do not have the right to halt legislation that has been passed in the House Of Commons. We can get out onto the streets and protest if we like - as happened with the opposition to the War in Iraq and opposition to the ban on hunting with hounds. Oh look. That got us nowhere. We are fighting an unpopular war in Iraq and fox hunting has been banned.

So what can we do? Wait for a credible political party to come along that takes a responsible view on these issues, listens to what the people want and comes to a sensible, rational and practical decision? Hm. I'm not holding my breath for that one.

Don't get me wrong. I think we basically have a fantastic political system. We have liberties and freedoms that (we like to think) are the envy of much of the world. I'm just wondering how this system has allowed us to get to a place where some of these freedoms and liberties can be signed away. Where the opposition party find themselves falling over themselves to agree with the policies of the government. Where the government can ignore the vocal protests of millions of citizens. Where a Labour prime minister can cosy up to a Republican president....

How did we end up here?

The roots of our parliamentary democracy can be traced all the way back into the middle ages and beyond. It has traditionally been believed that the primacy of parliament began when a succession of kings in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were deposed "by the authority of Parliament" ( a phrase actually used in the confirmation of the claim of Henry IV to the throne).... This view of the "Lancastrian constitutional experiment" is dented somewhat by the fact that Edward IV seized the throne from Henry VI in the traditional way - by battle - and Parliament had nothing to do with it. There is however a substantial body of evidence to suggest that people in the middle ages had a real sense of their historical past and a notion of constitution. This awareness only increased with the advent of the printing press, and is reflected in the popularity of the theories of kingship and law found in "mirrors of princes" manuals (like 'De Regime Principum' by Giles of Rome that had been translated into 10 languages by the end of the fourteenth century). This popularity shows that, amongst the political nation represented at parliament at least (we're not talking about the Monty Python peasant here), there was a notion of a consitution dealing with law, justice and property. Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI - the 3 deposed kings - aroused the anger of the political nation by breaching this notion of constitution to such an extent that parliament acquiesced to their deposition. It is this notion of constitution that still underpins the authority of the British Parliament today. It is the bedrock of the constitution.

Why am I telling you this?

We might have an unwritten constitution, but that doesn't mean that we should simply allow the government to roll through their vile reforms. We, the political nation of the UK, the electorate, have a strong sense of what we believe is right and wrong. We have a sense of law, justice and property. This Labour government, and the pathetic, toadying opposition are making me angry and they are failing to meet what I believe are their obligations to us. For me this justifies their removal.

We must act.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that we sharpen our axes or stick a gibbet onto Parliament Green (attractive though that idea sounds). Our next chance will come at some point in the next 12 months and will come at the ballot box. Labour look nailed on to win again, but we have to take our chance to make our feelings known. We need to get off our arses and make ourselves heard. We don't have to lie down and die and let them get away with this. We've got to take the power back.

erm.

Shall I start my letter writing campaign now?

sigh.


8 Comments:

  • At 2:44 am, Blogger Jenni said…

    ST, I think you did an excellent job. I didn't feel as though I had to "bear with you" at all. If you want any American help with your letter writing campaign, just let me know. In the mean time, the best we can do is get the word out and make sure our voices are heard.

    I've always thought the British concept of an unwritten constitution was both admirable and slightly scary. I'm used to having a piece of paper that I can point to and say "you can't do that!" and I like that security (although even with a piece of paper, there are many issues that turn on differing interpretation). On the other hand, I always wished that I lived somewhere where the politicians seemingly had enough respect for rights and liberties that these became ideals were constitutionalized without having to be written down.

    Then again, the US Constitution came into being because a group of British citizens in the colonies didn't think that the British politicians were holding up their end of the bargain...so there are obviously times that the trust is broken. It's a tenuous balance, and one that citizens can never ignore, or you risk having your rights over run while you are looking the other way.

     
  • At 5:37 am, Blogger Aravis said…

    I agree with what Jenni said. It sounds to me as though you could use an organization like MoveOn.org for the UK. Do you have anything like that in existence there?

    BTW, regarding fox hunting, I read in the news yesterday that fox hunters are simply crossing the channel and hunting the poor things in France now.

     
  • At 9:10 am, Blogger LB said…

    Whilst I support your stance on the issues you raise, I am not sure exactly what you're expecting can be done about this.

    The Government are democratically elected and they are working within the boundaries of law and the constitution to make these decisions. Just because you don't agree with the Government (or indeed the main Opposition in this instance) doesnt make them wrong. I can't see how they are failing their obligations to you simply by acting within the scope of their powers.

    Big majorities in this country are, bizarrely, not always a Good Thing. As you rightly identify, if effectively gives the Government carte blanche to push through whatever legislation they decide. Although they would argue that the election gave them this mandate and so they can hardly be blamed for using it, can they?

    Over recent years it has taken large scale public unrest to change or temper any controversial decisions that have been made (poll tax and the fuel protests spring to mind) so maybe you're right, the only way if you disagree strongly is to do something personally.

    We're reasonably like-minded I think and so if you're anything like me I was offended and angry with a lot of stuff the previous Government did as well as some of the stuff this one is doing. The fact they both got controversial and (some would say) unpopular laws through is not their fault - they were capable of doing it within our democratic system.

    Conclusion: surely it's the system that needs tinkering with?

    And please don't remove this Government quite as quickly as you want to. Look at the alternative.....

     
  • At 9:48 am, Blogger The Num Num said…

    That is my problem too. I can't vote Blue, and I'm fed up of what Red is doing. I'm going to have to voice my concern somehow, and the only way I can see that will register with the Red is by a Threat of losing power. Thus I'm going to have to vote Yellow, in the vain hope that they win lots of seats away from Red and Blue, and become a credible threat to the NEXT-NEXT term. Red will win NEXT, but its a case of rustling the chain a bit to remind them that they're on the brink of urm, losing.

    Arse, hate this. Bloody tories have messed it up big time. Wonder if Blair would change things if his kids were sent to Coventry?

     
  • At 10:21 am, Blogger John McClure said…

    What problems we have. Let's all move to Northern Ireland where we can vote for a raving lunatic or a terrorist. Better yet, let's move to Saudi Arabia where we don't get to vote for anyone.

    I agree that our system is not ideal, and an unwritten constitution isn't worth the paper it's not written on, but we're still in decent shape, and, as LB says, they're not actually doing anything they're not allowed to - other than fast tracking the odd visa application.

    They're a shower of wankers - but to reiterate, look at the alternative!

     
  • At 10:57 am, Blogger swisslet said…

    I'm very aware of the system that we have and how we have much to be grateful for - as I've tried to say in the post above.

    I know that the government aren't stepping beyond the bounds of their authority by using their majority (and the support of a supine opposition) to get these policies through Parliament. The point that I am trying to make here to look at how Parliament ultimately derives its authority from us, and that although we have a paucity of choices at the ballot box, it is up to us to get ourselves off our arses and to make our voices heard.

    Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI were all kings of this country, and presumably could do what they wanted... but no, they couldn't. They either overstepped the bounds of what was considered acceptable for the king of england, or were otherwise deemed to fall short of the standards expected of a king. This is how parliament originally gained its primacy. When they first started getting rid of kings in parliament, the usurper didn't do it because Parliament had the final say in these things, they did it because parliament represented the will of the people, and they needed this support to seize the throne.

    Just because Labour are able to push this stuff through parliament, doesn't mean that we should just sit back and take it..... we are the political nation and we can make this change.

     
  • At 12:54 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    good point, you can't blame the kid for trying for some ice cream!

     
  • At 3:07 pm, Blogger John McClure said…

    Ibrahim - you know me too well - I'm all for abuse of women and... broccoli.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home