Constitutional Crisis as Brown abdicates his responsibilities

Unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown today made a statement
to parliament and began moves to change the constitution of the United
Kingdom, and to relieve himself of the
responsibility of his office in certain areas. This is the attempted legalisation
of his McCavity syndrome.

He is attempting to give away powers that are not his to give away.
Royal Prerogatives are the remaining powers of the Monarch, exercised by the
executive on her behalf. If he wishes to abdicate those powers, he can only
return them to the Monarch.

Gordon Brown has been instructed to
give up the Royal Prerogative over these powers, because these are the
ones that are being given to Brussels in the EU
Constitution Treaty.

He is only pretending to give these powers to Parliament, knowing that in months they will be in Brussels.

You can read the full text of his speech here.

You can read the document released by the Ministry of Justice called The Governance of Britain. (much more revealing).

 

He announced that in twelve
areas important to our national life, the Prime Minister and executive should
surrender or limit their powers – the exclusive exercise of which by the
Government should have no place in a modern democracy.

These are: the power
of the executive to declare war; the power to request the dissolution of
Parliament; the power over recall of Parliament; the power of the executive to
ratify international treaties without decision by Parliament; the power to make
key public appointments without effective scrutiny; the power to restrict
Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services; power to choose bishops;
power in the appointment of judges; power to direct prosecutors in individual
criminal cases; power over the civil service itself; and the executive powers
to determine the rules governing entitlement to passports and the granting of
pardons.

 

Now that said, all is not what it seems, and I shall explain
how Gordon Brown is using again smoke and mirrors to hide the truth, and in
some cases outright lying to the nation and to Parliament. 

He is giving away powers that are not his to give away.
Royal Prerogatives are the rightful remaining powers of the Monarch, exercised
by the executive on Her Majesties behalf.

If he wishes to abdicate those powers, he can only return
them to the Monarch.


Gordon Brown has been instructed to give up the Royal Prerogative over these powers, because these are the ones that are being given to Brussels in the EU Constitution Treaty.

He is only pretending to give these powers to Parliament, knowing that in months they will be in Brussels. So its business as usual for NuLab, spin, lies and deceit.

While constitutional
change should never limit our ability to deal with emergencies and should never
jeopardise the security of our forces or any necessary operational decisions,
the Government will consult on a resolution to guarantee that on the grave
issue of peace and war it is ultimately this House of Commons that will make
the decision.

If Parliament is to decide on the issue of peace and war,
then why is government still refusing a full un-whipped debate on Iraq
and Afghanistan,
one that can call off our involvement and bring our troops home, or is this
measure only for future wars. (more on this later).

 

I propose, in
addition, to put onto a statutory footing Parliament's right to ratify new
international treaties.
 

This is his biggest abdication of responsibility, and whilst
in the longer term would be a good thing, right now it gets Gordon Brown out of
having to decide on the European Treaty.

This will mean that Gordon Brown will never have to make the
decision over whether or not to hold a referendum on the Treaty. Gordon Brown
is ensuring that he can never be blamed.

Brown can claim that the decision on whether to ratify the
treaty is now one for parliament, a parliament where he currently has a
majority, therefore he is unable, no longer has the power etc, to call a
referendum.

This is the action of a clever coward.

 

We will also consult
on proposals that this House of Commons would have to approve a resolution for
any dissolution of Parliament requested by the Prime Minister and that, while
at present members of Parliament cannot decide whether the House should be
recalled, for the first time a majority of Members – and not just the Prime
Minister – should have that right, subject to your authority Mr Speaker.
 

This is potentially the first move to divorce Government
from the Crown. To remove the link between State and Head of State.

We have written at length in the past of such moves, and I
would remind readers that at this time all members of the Armed Forces,
security forces, police forces and the civil service all swear allegiance to
the Crown, not the Government, but I shall come on to that later as it is
linked to the item above about future wars.

 

The House of Commons should also have
a bigger role in the selection of key public officials. I propose as a first
step pre-appointment hearings for public officials whose role it is to protect
the public's rights and interests – and for whom there is not currently
independent scrutiny.

This includes the Chief Inspector of
Prisons, the Local Government Ombudsman, the Civil Service Commissioner and the
Commissioner for Public Appointments. For public offices where appointments are
acknowledged to be market sensitive the Chancellor will set out today how
pre-commencement hearings will apply to new members of the Monetary Policy
Committee, including the Governor of the Bank of England, and the Chairman of
the Financial Services Authority. I propose that we extend pre-commencement
hearings to utility and other regulators; that we review too the arrangements
for making appointments to NHS boards; and it is right that this House of
Commons vote on the appointment of the Chair of the new Independent Statistics
Board.

This part of his statement is the only part that I have to agree would
possibly be a good thing, as it could put an end to the patronage that has led
to many scandals in the past.

Mr Speaker, I can announce that from
now on the Government will regularly publish, for Parliamentary debate and
public scrutiny, our national security strategy setting out for the British
people the threats we face and the objectives we pursue.

I have said for some time that the
long term and continuing security obligation upon us requires us to coordinate
military, policing, intelligence and diplomatic action – and also to win hearts
and minds in this country and round the world.

The danger here is that in an attempt to make security transparent, it will
also signal to our enemies how we intend to fight them. It is also an ideal platform
for the NuLab spin doctors to sow the security propaganda that government wants
the public to see. That in itself is a danger to our country.

I am sure that the Security Services will retain much behind closed doors,
as they most certainly should, but my biggest fear is that this will no longer
be entirely British, as the invasion of European influence begins to bite into
our ability to remain sovereign in our defence.

So following discussions over the last
few months, I have decided to establish within Government a national security
council, charged with bringing together our overseas, defence and security but
also our development and community relations effort – and sending out a clear
message that at all times we will be vigilant and we will never yield in
addressing the terrorist threat.

As I said in February,
Brown has been running Britain
since the beginning of the year, if not longer, Blair was only the lawyer to
push through the legislation, and this part of his statement only confirms
that.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with a National Security
Council per see, however, couple that with the separation of State and Crown as
mentioned above, abdicating the Royal prerogatives, and the item below, we have
the potential for state abuse.

And again I remind our Armed Forces, Security and Police
that they owe their allegiance to the Crown, not the government.

 

As the security agencies themselves
recognise, greater accountability to Parliament can strengthen still further
public support for the work they do. So while ensuring necessary safeguards
respecting confidentiality and security, we will consult on whether and how the
Intelligence and Security Committee can be appointed by, and report to,
Parliament.

And we will start now with hearings,
where possible, held in public; a strengthened capacity for investigations;
reports subject to more Parliamentary debate; and greater transparency over
appointments to the Committee.

Lets see how this goes. Lets see how much use of the
propaganda machine is made and how many lies are told to Parliament. Call me
sceptical, but the trust is just not there.

 

The Church of England
is, and should remain, the established church in
England. Establishment does not, however, justify
the Prime Minister influencing senior church appointments, including bishops.
 

This is the second move in making the ‘State’ a free entity.
This will effectively break the link between Church and State, and along with
the break with the Crown removes the constitutional checks and balances for
regulated government.

An extremely dangerous move, and history teaches us that it is one that only Authoritarian governments undertake, it is therefore one that I do not want. However, if we cannot stop it, we must ensure that our Parliamentarians
devise new checks and balances to counter abuse of state power.

 

And I also propose that the Government
should consider relinquishing its residual role in the appointment of judges.

The role of Attorney General which
combines legal and ministerial functions needs to change. And while we consult
on reform, the Attorney General has decided, except if the law or national
security requires it, not to make key prosecution decisions in individual
criminal cases.

This can only be a good thing. It should remove Government
influence over the Judiciary, but Parliament must ensure that the Judiciary
remains completely independent, and that their allegiance remains with the
Crown.

Hopefully a change in the Attorney General's role will clear the way for the CPS
to make law based decisions over the Cash for Honours scandal, without fear or
favour, no matter who the individuals are. (although it is noted that the
government will retain the right to intervene on national security grounds,
which could include Blair). Is this a smoke and mirrors proposal?

 

To reinforce the
neutrality of the civil service, the core principles governing it will no
longer be set at the discretion of the executive but will be legislated by
Parliament – and so this Government has finally responded to the central recommendation
of the Northcote-Trevelyan report on the civil service made over 150 years ago
in 1854.
 

Bad, very very bad. The Civil Service is a non governmental
body, again whose allegiance is to the Crown. It is there to support the
workings of State, not government or party, and with the removal of the other checks
and balances, a parliament with a government majority can effectively legislate
the Civil Service to do anything they want.

The Civil Service must remain independent of both Government
and Parliament, they must be responsible only to the Crown. This proposal
removes a Crown power by abdicating a Royal prerogative to Parliament.

 

The frameworks for
granting pardons and for issuing and withdrawing passports should also be set
not by Government but by Parliament.

Setting the frameworks in parliament is fine. Absolving
himself of the decisions is not. Lets see what the consultations flush out.

 

And I propose we
reduce the advance sight Government departments have of the release of
statistical information from as much as 5 days currently to just 24 hours.
 

This statement is confusing.

Does he mean that he will give parliament just 24 hours
notice of any releases, down from 5 days, or
Does he mean he will turn statistical information around for
release in 24 hours rather than 5 days.

If he means the second one, then I think that he is lying. I
don’t honestly believe it is possible for government departments to respond
that quickly. As a target, it will fail and become another broken promise.

 

Mr Speaker, even as we
reduce the power of the executive, we will also increase its accountability.
Following my decision to revoke the provisions which previously allowed Special
Advisors to give orders to Civil Servants, I am today publishing a new
Ministerial Code which provides for a new independent adviser to supervise
disclosure and who I can ask to scrutinise ministerial conduct including
conflicts of interest.

This just sounds like a new layer of advisor to come in to
supervise the special advisors and arbitrate on disputes of authority. This
sounds like a waste of money, time and effort.  

It is also interesting to note that Gordon Brown himself broke
the previous Ministerial Code on special advisors limiting the number to 2, and
had in the Treasury 8 special advisors.

As David Cameron said in his reply to the statement in the
commons,

“Constitutional change is not the solution
because the constitution is not the cause: the cause is broken
promises. People will ask how the person who broke this trust can be
the person to mend it.”

 

I propose we reinforce
the accountability of the executive to Parliament and the public with a
statement in the summer prior to the Queen's Speech on the provisional forward
legislative programme and annual departmental reports debated in Parliament.

Again, we see another move to usurp the Authority of the
Crown, and I see it as a cynical precursor to the abolition of the State
Opening of Parliament.  

It is an obligation upon the Prime Minister to avail the
Monarch of his proposals for the forward legislative programme. It can only be
announced in Parliament following the approval of the Monarch. It is not within
Gordon Brown’s office to change this.

 

But just as the
executive must become more accountable to Parliament, Parliament itself must
become more accountable.

Brown could instantly build new trust here by strengthening
the freedom of information laws in favour of the public, by publishing everything
created or held by government, including full disclosure on expenses,
except those items concerned with National Security.

 

Given the vote in this
House in March for major reform of the House of Lords as a second and revising
chamber with provision for democratic election, a statement will be made before
the recess as we press ahead with reform; a statement on the reform of local
government will propose a new concordat between local and central government;
we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to publish our review of the experience
of the various voting systems introduced since 1998; and the House will have a
full opportunity to discuss in detail and vote upon the legislation that flows
from the European Union amending treaty.
 

This paragraph has a lot in it.

Reform of the House of Lords. This I believe is big enough
to put to the nation in a referendum. It suits NuLab to have a fully elected
chamber, they are then justified in abolishing the State Opening of Parliament,
and with no Noble Lords, removing the Crown completely from the business of Government.

Local Government reform. The only reform we need here is to
do away with the totally superfluous layer known as Regional Government. We don’t
need regions, it is only the European Commission that want that. We have a
country called England,
and call for a Secretary of State for England,
to sit alongside the ones for Wales,
Scotland and Northern
Ireland. 

Voting systems. I think that personal paper voting is the
only way forward after the debacle of the electronic systems in the last
election, and the allegations of postal fraud that wont go away. Again, let the
people decide.

I am happy for the debate in Parliament on the European Treaty,
however, the final decision MUST be
one of a referendum. The European
political elite are declaring war on this country with their lies, deceit and
underhand tactics, their attempts to destroy our culture, corrupt our history,
split the United Kingdom
and destroy
England
as a nation.

 

Just as we have
appointed ministers for each region of England, I propose that to increase the
accountability of local and regional decision-making the House consider
creating committees to review the economies and public services of each region
– and we will propose a regular question time for regional ministers.
 

Ahh, the creation of the Gauleiter
class. Not in England
thank you, we only need 1 minister, a Secretary of State for England.

 

But while we will
listen to all proposals to improve our constitution in the light of devolution,
we do not accept the proposal for English votes for English laws which would
create two classes of MPs – some entitled to vote on all issues, some invited
to vote only on some. We will do nothing to put at risk the
Union.

Brown, you have already destroyed the Union.
The only way now to redress the balance is to either undo devolution, or set up
an English Parliament.

Your government can then debate and fuss over things which
are only relevant to all 4 countries of the Union, but
not to be involved in a single one. 

The West Lothian question will NOT go
away. Time to deal with it. We know it does not fit into the European scheme of
things, but tough, we don’t want that either. We want an English Parliament,
and a referendum on the European Treaty.

 

The right of all the
British people to have their voice heard is fundamental to our democracy and to
holding public institutions to account.

Yes it is a right. But you have never listened to the people’s
voice before, why do I not trust you now. 

The people voted to have no regional
government in the North East, you ignored them.
The people (1.8m) signed a petition against road charging,
you ignored them.
The people (86pct) are calling for a referendum on the Euro
Treaty, you are ignoring them. 

What do we have to do before you will listen?.
We don’t ever want anyone to do what the doctors have done,
but somehow it seems that it is the only thing that you appear to listen to.

You can only push the British people so far before they
break, so what is it that we have to do to make you and the government listen to the people?

 

Britain is rightly proud to be the pioneer of the modern liberties of the
individual. And I think it right to make it a general rule that in this area
there is independent oversight of authorities and accountability to Parliament.
I also encourage this House to agree a new process for ensuring consideration
of petitions from members of the public.

If you are proud of the 26,000 new
laws
that NuLab have introduced that removed many of my ancient rights and
liberties, including my right not to incriminate myself, my right to silence,
my right to protest, my right to choose, I will call you a liar. 

Before you bring in another layer of statutory watchers to
watch the watchers in local authorities etc, perhaps it would be better to have
an independent oversight of government, to force MP’s and Ministers to conform
to the rules and laws.

Petitions. McCavity is doing it again. Pass the buck out of
No.10, give it to someone else, that way Brown wont have to make a decision… Mr
Brown is fast proving himself to be a Ministerial and Parliamentary coward.

 

Disengagement is too
often reflected in low turnout in elections.
Britain is unusual in holding elections on weekdays
when people are at work and My Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State
for Justice will announce a consultation on whether there is a case for voting
at weekends.
 

Why oh why does he think there is a disengagement. After 10
years of NuLab crap, people haven’t disengaged, they are just pissed off with
not being listened to. They sit back, waiting, knowing that if given enough
rope, Brown and NuLab will hang themselves.

Beware the British Lion Mr Brown, it is waking up. This is the Lion that Europe is so scared of and wants you to neuter, but beware, it bites hard when awoken.

 

The Government will
also bring forward plans to extend the period of time during which parties can
use all women short lists for candidate selections and to give more time for
all parties in this House to take up this new right if they choose.

Equality Act !!! We will only agree to this if there is
reciprocal time given to all male short lists and mixed gender short lists.

You wrote the laws, we expect to you to adhere to them.

 

And while balancing
the need for public order with the right to public dissent, I think it right –
in consultation with the metropolitan police, Parliament, the Mayor of London,
Westminster city council and civil liberties groups – to change the laws that
now restrict the right to demonstrate in Parliament Square. 

So just what is Brown giving away here. Well, Not a lot. And what the hell has it got to do with Red Ken anyway.

All he is doing here is removing Parliament
Square from the designated list. Is he going to
change or scrap S.126 and S.132 – 138 of the Serious and Organised Crime Act or just one area on the list.

Will all the other designated sites remain on the list or is
he bold enough to scrap it all. I doubt it.

 

Mr Speaker these measures I have just
announced represent an important step forward in changing the way we are
governed. But it is possible to do more to bring government closer to the
people.

While our system of representative
democracy – local as well as national – is at the heart of our constitution, it
can be enhanced by devolving more power directly to the people and I propose we
start the debate and consult on empowering citizens and communities in four
areas.

First, powers of initiative, extending
the right of the British people to intervene with their elected local
representatives to ensure action – through a new community right to call for
action and new duties on public bodies to involve local people.

Second, new rights for the British
people to be consulted through mechanisms such as 'citizens juries' on major
decisions affecting their lives.

Third, powers of redress, new rights
for the British people to scrutinise and improve the delivery of local
services.

And fourth, powers to ballot on
spending decisions in areas such as neighbourhood budgets and youth budgets,
with decisions on finance made by local people themselves.

This sounds good, but in practice what will it achieve.
Local authorities only control about 5 to 15 pct of their budgets, the rest is pre-allocated
to Quango’s.  Will any of these measures
mean we can get rid of the Quango’s.  No,
didn’t think so.

How are you going to give local people themselves the
decisions on how neighbourhood and youth budgets are spent.
What will Citizens
Juries do, how will they be appointed/elected.
That is what we have councillors
for is it not.? 

Councillors will be very miffed, put out. This sounds more
like a local soviet system to me.

This is totally unworkable, and as such I see this as a red
herring. Smoke and Mirrors….a vote catcher, just like his budget tax cut. The people are not stupid, they will see through this.

 

At the same time, we must give new
life to the very idea of citizenship itself.

All of us in this House would
acknowledge there are very specific challenges we must meet on engaging young
people and improving citizenship education – and I hope there will be all-party
support for a Commission to review this and make recommendations.

In other words, NuLab and European propaganda in schools. That is illegal.

 

And while the voting age has been 18
since 1969, it is right, as part of this debate, to examine, and hear from
young people themselves, whether lowering that age would increase participation
in the political process.

And consultation will take place with
you, Mr Speaker – and through the Leader of the House, this House – as to
whether the Youth Parliament – and the Youth Parliament alone – should be
invited here in this Chamber, once a year and on a non-sitting day.

All part of the bigger plan for the Hitler Brown
Youth scheme
….. Not good.

 

What constitutes
citizens rights – beyond voting – and citizens responsibilities – like jury
service – should itself be a matter for public deliberation. And as we focus on
the challenges we face and what unites us and integrates our country, our
starting point should be to discuss together and then – as other countries do –
agree and set down the values, founded in liberty, which define our citizenship
and help define our country.

NO Mr Brown, what you are trying to do is re-define my
country. We already have a well established moral and values system that works,
it just needs enforcing, but in order for the European system to take hold you
need to re-define it.  

The other thing of course is that because of devolution, any
re-definition will only apply to England.
Well thats my country, not yours. Yours is north of the border, so go talk to
them about re-defining their country. I can imagine Alex Salmond telling you
where to go with that idea.

 

And there is a case
that we should go further still than this statement of values to codify either
in concordats or in a single document both the duties and rights of citizens
and the balance of power between Government, Parliament and the people.

This is a very
dangerous statement
. This is where the Authoritarian government gets to have
written into law that the people are subservient of the government. 

NO Mr Brown, you are the public servants. You work for us.
Full stop.

 

In Britain we have a largely unwritten constitution.
To change that would represent a fundamental and historic shift in our
constitutional arrangements. So it is right to involve the public in a
sustained debate whether there is a case for the
United Kingdom developing a full British Bill of Rights
and Duties, or for moving towards a written constitution.

And because such fundamental changes
should happen only where there is a settled consensus on whether to proceed, I
have asked my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for Justice to lead a
dialogue within Parliament and with people across the United Kingdom by holding
a series of hearings, starting in the autumn, in all regions and nations of
this country – and he will consult with the other parties on this process.

In Britain
we have a largely unwritten constitution. It has served us well for many
hundreds of years, we have never been afraid to fight in its defence. Until
now.

Now we have a government to want to sell it to foreign
masters, we have a government who want to give our sovereignty to Brussels,
and believe they can buy off the public with a few documents. 

Do you notice how in the government circles England
no longer exists as Europe has dictated. – in all regions and nations of this country
England has
been eradicated from government newspeak.

But, if we must have a written Bill of Rights, may I suggest the one put together by Bishop Hill.

 

Mr Speaker, the changes we propose
today and the national debate we now begin are founded upon the conviction that
the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to strengthen our
democracy.

It is my hope that this dialogue of
all parties and the British people will lead to a new consensus, a more
effective democracy and a stronger sense of shared national purpose

And I commend this statement to the
House.

He should have stopped, right at the beginning when he said: 'I now propose to surrender..'.

Strengthen our democracy. Ha, What he means here is Socialist
democracy. The same kind of democracy that took Brown into No.10.

Mr Brown, I commend
your statement to the Dustbin
.

But Gordon Brown has been instructed to
give up the Royal Prerogative over these powers, because these are the
ones that are being given to Brussels in the EU
Constitution Treaty.

 

Brown is trying to give away powers that are not his to give
away. Royal Prerogatives are the remaining powers of the Monarch, exercised by
the executive on her behalf. If he wishes to abdicate those powers, he can only
return them to the Monarch.

Remember earlier on I said I would come back to the item
about future wars. If Gordon Brown pushes this lot through parliament, it will
mean that the Armed Forces will have to swear allegiance to either the
government, or worse, Brussels. 

There is already planning underway to merge much of our
armed forces with those of other European states to form ‘European Forces’
under a single command structure outside of NATO.  This is why we only have a part-time Defence
minister in Des Browne, and why there will be no more new investment from the
British Treasury in large scale military hardware.

I fear now for the Monarchy in Britain,
it is clear that legislation and planning is bent on destroying forever the
Crown as head of state, with the House of Lords reforms, Browns plans to split
government from the Crown, and government from the Church of which the Queen is
head.

NuLab have for the past 10 years been following Mein Kampfe
as their blueprint, and injecting it with elements from Joe Stalin and George
Orwell.

 

After reading Brown’s statement today, the next logical step,
by 2009, is to have parliament responsible for everything, and for Brown to
take on the powers of Head of State.  

Mein Kampfe must have been essential reading
over the years for Brown.

Unadulterated McCavity syndrome.

 

 

NuLab – Destroying Britain
from the inside out.

See how others see today's events. This from Texas. from Dizzy, the Final Redoubt, the EU Referendum blog,

Advertisements

About IanPJ

Ian Parker-Joseph, former Leader of the Libertarian Party UK, who currently heads PDPS Internet Hosting and the Personal Deed Poll Services company, has been an IT industry professional for over 20 years, providing Business Consulting, Programme and Project Management, specialising in the recovery of Projects that have failed in a process driven world. Ian’s experience is not limited to the UK, and he has successfully delivered projects in the Middle East, Africa, US, Russia, Poland, France and Germany. Working within different cultures, Ian has occupied high profile roles within multi-nationals such as Nortel and Cable & Wireless. These experiences have given Ian an excellent insight into world events, and the way that they can shape our own national future. His extensive overseas experiences have made him all too aware of how the UK interacts with its near neighbours, its place in the Commonwealth, and how our nation fits into the wider world. He is determined to rebuild many of the friendships and commercial relationships with other nations that have been sadly neglected over the years, and would like to see greater energy and food security in these countries, for the benefit of all. Ian is a vocal advocate of small government, individual freedom, low taxation and a minimum of regulation. Ian believes deeply and passionately in freedom and independence in all areas of life, and is now bringing his professional experiences to bear in the world of politics.
This entry was posted in Main Page. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Constitutional Crisis as Brown abdicates his responsibilities

  1. Anonymous says:

    We're told that he did discuss his plans, presumably including relinquishing powers, with the monarch last week and that she was “content”. So, perhaps that satisfies the presumption that they should go back to her.
    Anyway, these powers are some of the very nails in the coffin of British “democracy”, at least, that's what we are taught in law school. So rejoice that they are being given to Parliament.
    Hope they don't go to Brussels though…
    IanS