Index of this Section Front page of Site
Donate to Sovereignty Join e-mail List Subscribe to Printed Journal


These three articles appeared in the March 2002 issue of Sovereignty. In summary, they suggest that we should seek a return to a House of constituency members who are truly independent of party loyalties, and we should withhold the vote from parties representing and upholding the present system.


As the various treaties of the European Union continue their path through the British Parliament, it becomes ever more clear that major political figures in Britain are willing to sacrifice the ancient liberties of the British people on the altar of the false god of Mammon in the EU.

In respect of the Parliament in Britain, party government is not true parliamentary government, but a form of dictatorship which is all the more apparent with the three major parties at Westminster supporting a pro-federalist policy in Europe.

The time has come for the present system of rule by Party to be called to account, for the Conventions by which it operates are merely the rules the Party System has adopted to enable it to exercise power outside what is live Constitutional Law.

As Sir Ivor Jennings writes in his Law and Constitution: "Most of the 'Conventions' relate to operation of the party system, which is merely an aspect of Cabinet government. The principles governing the working of that system have never been formally recognized by parliament or the courts. So far as the courts are concerned, they developed too late. The principles of constitutional law established by the courts recognize the constitution of the Revolution Settlement. Institutions and practices which have grown up since that time have not received formal recognition by the courts and the rules relating to them are not part of the Common Law. Accordingly, the rules relating to the foundation and operation of the Cabinet, the relations between the Prime Minister and other Ministers, between the Government and the Opposition and many more are not in legislation nor in Common Law nor in the law and custom of parliament."

The party system is merely composed of private organizations that are under no legal or public control and by means of the Conventions it has destroyed all constitutional restraints.

There is nothing constitutional or democratic about it.

What actually now exists in Britain is not only party dictatorship, but also a cross-party conspiracy to hand over the Kingdom and indeed, the "Mother of Parliaments" to a powerful and growing dictatorship in Europe.

With reference to the nature and character of party government, Edmund Burke, in his Vindication of Natural Society, wrote:

"The great instrument of all these changes and what infuses peculiar venom into all of them, is Party. It is of no consequence what the principles of any party, or what their pretentions are: the spirit which actuates all parties is the same, the spirit of ambition, of self-interest, of oppression and treachery. This spirit entirely reverses all the principles which a benevolent nature has erected within us; all honesty, all equal justice, and even the ties of natural society, the natural affections. In a word we have all seen ... we have some of us felt such oppression from the Party Government as no other tyranny can parallel."

There is need for vision and new leadership.

A return to a House of constituency members who are truly independent of party loyalties of any kind would be a step in the right direction.


So when did our present troubles begin? The line of demarcation between the Legislature and the Executive gradually ceased to exist.

In 1770, Lord Mansfield, a Scottish Jacobite, said that Parliament should be sovereign.

The words of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, ring down the centuries:
" ... instead of the arbitrary power of a king, we must submit to the arbitrary power of the House of Commons. If this be true, what benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny, my Lords, is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as when it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants. But, my Lords, this is not the fact; this is not the Constitution. We have a Law of Parliament - We have Magna Carta - We have the Statute Book - We have the Bill of Rights - The keystone of our Constitution is the separation of the legislative and the executive authorities, so that now, what we call Parliamentary Government is, in fact, Party Government".

Since then, MPs have grown accustomed to making their Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign while thinking only of their own political Parties and their climb up the greasy pole, and we are faced with the extinction of our country, and all that it has stood for, from time immemorial. Either the Sovereign and the People exert their authority over the MPs, or we perish.



The answer to what people can do to put a stop to this European Union nonsense is simple. The solution is not to vote for any of the three major parties since they are all the same.

So long as the British electorate slavishly casts its votes within the triumvirate Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem so long it will be enslaved.

If, at every Election, the British people were to withhold their vote from these political parties, which have all but destroyed everything they cherish, then it would be a stout blow for freedom.

These parties are not essential for good government, which is in the hands of permanent professional civil servants.

Parliament could be in recess for fifty weeks in the year so long as, in the other two, it returned to vote money for the following year.

Stable government would continue without change, which might in itself be a blessing for a while.

These parties are not even important except to themselves and those who finance and control them.

Any sane candidate who believes in a free Britain will do as an alternative. A Parliament of free spirits would be preferable to a brotherhood of automata voting as they are told and believing in nothing save power and personal advancement.

Her Majesty the Queen would invite some elected member to form a Government. She could advise and guide until he or she found their feet.

So long as he or she went about the task of restoring British freedom and independence they would meet no opposition.

In other matters what was done would inevitably be restricted by what a majority could genuinely be persuaded was sensible. This would not be a strong government in the sense that it could do what it liked and damn the electorate.

However, it would be a much stronger government because what it did would be based upon support which was unforced.

Donate to Sovereignty Join e-mail List Subscribe to Printed Journal
Index of this Section Front page of Site