Amidst all of the focus on David Cameron yesterday afternoon and evening, you may have missed William Hague being interviewed later on the BBC.
One of the things that William Hague mentioned was that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution.
Now, William Hague is an intelligent man. He knows that is not the case. We KNOW he knows that is not that case, because it was through listening to him standing at the despatch box in the House of Commons saying the exact opposite that led us to seriously start looking at our constitution.
However, if there is any doubt...
In the House of Commons library, he can look up Standard Note SN/PC/0293 dated 5th October 2009.
Those without access to the House of Commons library can download the pdf file of the document
by clicking HERE.
Now, lets explore some of the points in this document.
"The 1689 Bill of Rights does not constitute what is generally understood as a modern “bill of rights”, if by that term one means a document which defines and guarantees the basic human rights of individual citizens. Nor is it, on its own, the equivalent of a written constitution, although it can be viewed as a watershed in the development of the British constitution and especially with regard to the role of parliament. It is one of the four great historic documents which regulate the relations between the Crown and the people, the others being: the Magna Carta (as confirmed by Edward I, 1297), the Petition of Right (1627) and the Act of Settlement (1700). To this list of fundamental constitutional documents should be added the recent Human Rights Act 1998.
The Bill of Rights was an historic statute that emerged from the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688-89, which culminated in the exile of King James II and the accession to the throne of William of Orange and Mary. Its intentions were: to depose James II for misgovernment; to determine the succession to the Throne; to curb future arbitrary behaviour of the monarch; and to guarantee parliament’s powers vis a vis the Crown, thereby establishing a constitutional monarchy."
So, you can see the constitutional basis of this one document of the four named.
The House of Commons library brief continues:
"After the flight of James II, all those who had been members of the Parliaments of Charles II, together with the Court of Aldermen and members of the Common Council of the City of London, assembled on 26 December 1688 in the presence of Prince William. The assembly requested of William that he take charge of the administration of government and that he summon a Convention Parliament, which met on 21 January 1688 (or 1689), was therefore irregularly convened. The Commons resolved -
"That King James II having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between the King and people and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons having violated the fundamental laws; and having withdrawn himself out of this kingdom; has abdicated the government; and that the throne is thereby vacant."
On 12 February a declaration was drawn up affirming the rights and liberties of the people and conferring the crown upon William and Mary, then Mary's children, and failing any heirs Princess Anne and her heirs; and failing also that, William’s heirs. Once the declaration had been accepted by William and Mary, it was published as a proclamation."
Now, that declaration came about as the result of an assembly involving the three estates of the land - monarch, lords and people. As such, the declaration resulting from it takes supremacy over any act of Statute. Now, whether you could make that stick in a court of law is another matter - but morally, we can bank that one.
On we go with the article...
"The declaration was subsequently enacted with some additions in the form of the Bill of Rights 1688, and the Acts of the Convention Parliament were subsequently ratified and confirmed by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 which also acknowledged the King and Queen. In this way the Bill of Rights was confirmed by a Parliament summoned in a constitutional manner and thereby acquired the force of a legal statute and appears as such on the statute book."
With us so far?
The Bill of Rights is a statutory document setting out what was agreed between the three estates in the declaration of rights.
Now this is where it gets really interesting and this is where we will show you beyond any doubt that this country DOES have a written constitution. Remember where this is coming from - a House of Commons library document:
"4 The Constitutional Status of the Bill of Rights
Because there is no single document comprising the rules of constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, it is sometimes said that the UK has an “unwritten” constitution. In fact, in the UK the fundamental rules of constitutional practice are enshrined in many individual documents: in various acts of parliament, in the common law, in judicial decisions, in parliamentary law and customs and in constitutional conventions. It is therefore more correct to say that the constitution is “uncodified”, rather than “unwritten”. One implication of the absence of a single codified constitutional document is that there are no unambiguously constitutional “higher” laws. With a written constitution it is generally easier to distinguish constitutional laws from the rest of the law, while in the UK there is no strict distinction. However, there are certain laws which are generally regarded as being “core” constitutional laws that deserve and receive particular respect and special consideration, and the 1689 Bill of Rights falls into this category. For example, the courts would generally be unwilling to accept that the provisions of such legislation have been overridden by later statutes except in very clear language."
Got it? We do have a written constitution - it's just written across numerous different places.
Now, the Bill of Rights - the statute based on the declaration - contains the following text:
"All which their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present parliament and shall stand remaine and be the law of this realme forever"
- in other words, that this cannot be repealed.
As a statute, 'they' argue that this is not the case.
Back to the House of Commons library document:
"... it is sometimes mistakenly believed that the Bill of Rights cannot be amended. This is not the case. It is a fundamental principle of British constitutional law that no parliament can bind its successors and that any statute can be repealed"
The key word here is statute. There is a difference between a statute and what is a common law. This blogger is not going to go down that alley too far but look up TPUC.org if you want to research that.
However, as far as the Bill of Rights goes, we have a debate on our hands.
The Bill of Rights clearly states that what Gordon Brown and David Miliband did in signing the Lisbon Treaty is illegal.
There is a link to the Bill of Rights in our sidebar. Read it for yourself.
There are numerous other laws that say Brown and Miliband had no authority to sign the Lisbon Treaty. But we won't digress down that path.
Under the Bill of Rights, the Lisbon Treaty is not valid here.
Now, 'they' might argue that it "is a fundamental principle of British constitutional law that no parliament can bind its successors".
Is that so?
So, Gordon Brown and David Miliband cannot bind their successors - potentially David Cameron and William Hague - when it comes to the Lisbon Treaty, then. Get it?
And if that is not that case and some things are irreversible, then we have our Bill of Rights 1689 as our constitutional document.
If they are saying that document is meaningless and null and void, then we have a major problem as Her Majesty The Queen is only The Queen because of that document. The same goes for every British monarch for the last 320 years!
And if 'they' try playing with words on that little lot, then there is the common law supremacy of the Declaration of Rights (the assembly agreement which was made into a statute a year later) to fall back on to argue 'our' case.
Certainly, we were granted certain rights and freedoms in 1688/89 and at no point have we, the people, agreed or consented to those rights and freedoms being curtailed. And, we would contend, no-one has the right to strip us of those rights and freedoms without our say so.
Call that a referendum, if you like.
And one of those rights is that we do not have to accept a foreign power's legitimacy in this land of ours.
So, bog off Brussels.
To sum up:
- We do have a written constitution
- William Hague knows that
- We are constantly brainwashed into thinking that we do not have a national written constitution, yet we do
- We the people have certain rights enshrined in our constitutional documents
- There is a debate about what our forefathers said when they passed a statute saying that the Bill of Rights was valid for all time and could not be changed.
- If no Parliament can bind a successor - as 'they' argue - Gordon Brown and David Miliband and the whole Labour shebang cannot hold any future Government to anything concerning the Lisbon Treaty.
For the final word, back to the House of Commons library document:
"The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the UK Parliament can enact any law whatsoever on any subject whatsoever, (although there are now considerations of compatibility with European Union law, and it is arguable that the European Communities Act of 1972 is “semi-entrenched”. For as long as the UK remains a member of European Union that Act cannot be repealed.)"
Well, you know what we are going to say to that latter part, huh?
So, there we go. We do have a written constitution. Now we just need a politician who understands history and who cares a damn about this country, a politician not scared to tell anyone to get stuffed, who will step forward and become the British national hero by winning us our country's sovereignty back.
Meanwhile, dear Mr. William Hague, please do not go on the BBC saying we do not have a written constitution. You know full well that we do.
