MICHAEL CLARK writes:
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,
"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
CATHERINE STRAKER writes:
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.
WITHHOLD THE VOTE
SHEILA DONALDSON writes:
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
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
However, it would be a much stronger government because what it
did would be based upon support which was unforced.