I say I respect both your opinions in this matter. As I don't live there, I don't feel confident expressing strong opinions on British government as I don't want to sound patronizing or meddlesome. It's like I can criticize my dear Aunt Mildred, my cousin can criticize dear Aunt Mildred too, but anyone outside the family raises a criticism and we'd both defend her as saint.
Very true, basic Human nature, even [perhaps especially] when we know the criticism is justified.
So please forgive me if I opine. My interest in the British parliament is that of an outsider who realizes that many nations look to the UK as an example of how to create and run a successful democratic government. The Commonwealth is certainly a remnant of empire, but it is also a vote of confidence in the essential goodness of the system. Like the American Constitution, people of other countries, frequently where freedoms and democracy are nothing like we enjoy in the west, look to the UK parliament and wish they could enjoy such stable and effective participatory government. Like it or not, the UK and the US share the responsibility of being role models for democratic governments, and democratic governments yet to be, all over the world. It would be a tragedy to lose that kind of confidence because of the gross misbehavior of MPs combined with the lack of effective leadership occurring in the current parliament.
I entirely agree, and despite the fiascos our Governments can appear to be to
us, compared to many [perhaps a majority] they are virtual bastions of stability and democracy. Compared to a number of Governments I am familiar with, I'd take even Brown's lame duck over most of them every day and twice on Sunday.
I think the strength of Parliament lies in the simple fact that unless people are willing to embrace
true democracy - and how practical is that in any modern, sizeable nation - then it's perhaps the best there is. The weaknesses lies less in the institution than the people. I know, the age old story, but there it is.
In my view, the current parliament is dead in the water, incapable of governing. Constitutionally, the monarch should step-in and dissolve parliament. This is what has happened in the past and while constitutional scholars debate unilateral crown action, traditionally British jurisprudence has favored common law.
Indeed it is, although in fairness even if recent events had not unfolded as they have, the efficacy of a third term Parliament approaching its end would likely be at a very low ebb indeed - with more focus on re-election than governing. Of course in Labour's case, there's almost no hope of the former, and thus the latter seems pointless.
On the Monarch dissolving (or refusing to dissolve) a domestic Parliament, the last time the latter happened was 1923. IIRC, the last Monarch to act
unilaterally to remove a sitting PM was William IV (in 1830 something). It's
not a common event for which there is little precedent, in modern times at least.
So what do you do when the crown feels it does not possess the power to do what it's constitutionally empowered to do. There might be some sort of public outcry against it. I'm sure a few editorialists would endorse sacking the monarchy because of it. On the whole, however, I think the average Brit would be relieved that they've been put out of their misery with the current parliament and enjoy a summer of their pols stumping for re-election under the most humiliating of circumstances. I also think that HM has enough respect among the masses for her experience and wisdom that they would back unilateral action. For whatever reason, however, she lacks that same confidence.
I don't think it's a matter of authority (or lack, thereof) and it's certainly don't think it's a lack of confidence. I do think it's not so clear cut - and that the economic and political ramifications would be somewhat unpredictable - not necessarily good or bad. I'm quite sure that a majority of the UK populace would support HM were she to act, but that doesn't mean she would be right to do so.
To my mind, unless some new catastrophe befalls Brown's government I think the moment to act has passed. Summer recess is almost here, an October election would be ideal but that seems unlikely.
If Brown is hanging on simply to secure ratification of Lisbon, shame on him. I would have voted
for Lisbon, but that in no way ameliorates my anger at being denied the chance to do so, as promised. If Brown is staying because he earnestly believes he can achive something, he's merely deluded.
This is where, in other parliamentary democracies, a president would ordinarily step-in and dissolve parliament. I wonder if a president would not then make more sense? I'm saying the monarchy should necessarily be sacked, but perhaps for situations precisely like these, a president with explicit powers to act in such circumstances would be of greater benefit?
From a
purely practical standpoint I can't really disagree, but I doubt the idea would find much favour in the UK. Tony Blair was vilified for merely
acting in a manner deemed too 'presidential', and no, it
wasn't all lighthearted ribbing.
In effect, if what you're suggesting is a non partisan head of state, with the constitutional authority to summon or dissolve Parliament, isn't that the same thing as HM currently does - in purely practical terms that is?
It would be rather like re-inventing the wheel, one which by and large has served the UK well - since a certain execution at least. But of course I know you're a rabid anti-monarchist, so I can understand and appreciate where you're coming from on this.
I'm not a monarchist, I'd like to see more power placed in the hands of the electorate when it comes to dissolving parliament - not too much or nothing would ever get done!
Where the UK to abolish
all residual Royal prerogative (something I'd support in principle) or the Monarchy itself (something I wouldn't support) I would require some form of these former prerogative provisions enshrined in a written constitution before I would even
consider a presidential system never mind their mere abolition.
I'd also have concerns about the legal 'loyalty' of the armed forces, civil service, judiciary and police (even more than I do now, that is). All this may well happen one day, in fact I'm sure it will. I can only hope that it's a step forward, not back.
While it may follow the US in many things, I'm not sure the UK is ready to become a republic
quite yet - it tried it once, long ago - and didn't like it. :biggrin1:
