In short, this government has broken the social contract, and one can objectively prove this to be so. That being the case, what recourse—given that the social contract is in abeyance—do the citizen body have?
First and foremost, publicize the fact that Government has broken the contract, and thus has no further claim to democratic legitimacy. It may still be acting 'within the law', but that's only because, absent a written Constitution, the government itself decides what the law is. But 'legitimate'? I suspect not, on any reading of historical jurisprudence.
One could appeal to the Sovereign, whose ultimate purpose in existence is to protect 'the People' from their own Government if necessary. Indeed, all the pomp and circumstance, the very institution of monarchy, is precisely and ONLY to act as the ultimate deterrent to rogue governance.
So, we can appeal to the Crown, outlining the case for the Queen to dissolve this government and call elections.
Interestingly, of course, this ties in with my discussion of the role of the monarchy of a couple of months back. As readers will know, I am a libertarian but I do not regard the Royal Family as being intrinsically above or superior to me—they are, in any case, precisely as much in thrall to us as we are to them. The monarch, in theory, owns our bodies but we, in actual fact, own their lives. As such, I view them merely as a useful tool. Their PR and marketing value is obvious (especially if we wished to rebuild links to the Commonwealth after withdrawal from the EU), but their usefulness as a Constitutional tool is deeply underused.
Let me state this very clearly: the biggest threat to the people of this country is our Parliament. Largely undemocratic, corrupt, dictatorial and with no sense of duty beyond getting their snouts firmly in the trough, our Parliament is also effectively unfettered: when the politicians of all parties conspire against the people—as in the case of terrorism laws, state funding of political parties—we, the people, can exercise no practical brake on their ambitions at all.
This is especially true in recent times with the attempts to bind future Parliaments to the ambitions of one—the effectively binding EU legislation, for instance, and NuLabour's ludicrous emissions targets—something which is utterly anathema to what written Constitution that we have.
But, under our Constitution, Parliament is the highest power in the land. Except for the monarch.
The monarch has been, over the years, seriously emasculated by Parliament; no wonder that they now take little interest in such matters. My proposal was to reinvigorate the monarchy, to bind Parliament, and to provide practical protection of our most basic freedoms.
It was in the first post that I laid out the background, explaining why a mere US-style written Constitution was simply not good enough.
A Constitution does not, as I pointed out before, limit an inimical government. The only reason that it has worked in the US is because the government has made no real effort to ride roughshod over the document.
As I pointed out, where the US government wanted to get around the provisions of the Constitution, they did so: the idea that blacks were not "men" as defined in the Constitution allowed slavery. So why this faith in a piece of paper that was, in any case, drawn up by the Executive?
Documents can be destroyed and Constitutions can be altered and amended with any amount of will. We have seen that for ourselves.
Because, you see, we have a fucking written Constitution in this country: it is made up of a number of separate documents, the principle ones of which are Magna Carta Libertatum ('Great Charter of Freedoms') and the 1689 Bill of Rights.
And what good have these declarations, these laws, done us? None. Because we have a government—or rather, a huge number of governments, of which NuLabour is the worst—that are not interested in maintaining those rights. They can use their majority to ram any damn law they like through Parliament, hence the erosion of our most fundamental rights.
It was in the second post that I repeated and elaborated upon my peculiar—and some would argue, un-libertarian—solution: to make the monarchy stronger.
The more that I think about it, the more I like my solution to the monarchy question.So, here's an idea: let us make the monarch the guardian of the Constitution. The manrchy shall carry on as they are now—ambassadors and figureheads—but with this proviso: the monarch is required not to give Royal Assent to any law that contravenes those rights laid out in Magna Carta Libertatum and the Bill of Rights—and a modified Act of Settlement which will lay out the measures outlined below.
If the monarch should do so, they will trigger an immediate referendum after which, should they lose, the monarch will be dethroned and replaced with the next in line to the throne. At the same time, any Bills given Royal Assent in the current and previous Parliamentary session shall be declared null and void, must be re-presented and the whole saga gone through again.
That should provide adequate punishment for both monarch and Parliament for attempting to fuck over the people, and keep Parliament so tied up that they cannot do a fucking thing. And that can only be to the good.
In a way, it hardly matters what we base our rights on, although I would say that Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are good places to start: it is my (off-the-cuff) proposed mechanism for maintaining our freedoms that I like.
- My solution provides the strengthened monarchy that I maintained might be a good brake on Parliament.
- The only way in which the monarchy is strengthened is through binding them to protect the interests of the people.
- The monarch is required to understand and pay attention to what they are signing.
- The triggered referendum allows for the people to approve measures—such as liberty restrictions during wartime—to be passed.
- The referendum also provides a mechanism to remove lazy or tyrannical monarchs.
- The whole thing puts up massive barriers to the tyranny of the Parliament.
- It provides a wonderful excuse for our Parliament to tell the EU to fuck the fuck off—"Terribly sorry, Mr Barroso, the monarch wouldn't pass it and you know that we can't bypass the monarch in the same way as we can bypass the people. Bummer, eh?"
This is an entirely practical solution—those of you who are Republicans, please, put aside your principles for a few moments whilst you consider the practical implications of this idea.
- An effective brake on Parliament—not simply the government of the day.
- The ability to knock down harmful or illiberal laws before they are enacted.
- Ultimate power to sign a law resides with the monarch, but the ultimate power to decide who the monarch is resides with the people.
- We retain the monarch for marketing purposes and we are able, provided they do their job properly, to retain their services and experience for a long time (the monarch doesn't think in five year tranches).
- But, the monarch has no ability to initiate laws and thus cannot play the role of oppressor.
Is it just me, or is it a win-win situation all round. For the people, I mean: the MPs would be heartily pissed off, and very glad I would be to see it.
So, just for once, I thought that I'd garner some of your opinions on the issue. Since I refuse to switch The Kitchen over to Blogger's arcane new template code, I am unable to use polls on this blog: so, I have set up a new blog, Petition The Queen, wherein I would be most grateful if you would give me your opinions on the matters discussed above.