Aims and Objectives
PREAMBLE
It is clear from the detailed information on previous pages that a monstrous perversion of our ancient and hard-won constitution by the PARTY SYSTEM has taken place. In essence we are a republic already, despite suggestions that we become one; it is furthermore suggested by some mischievous quarters of the political establishment (for whom "progress" equals constant change) that a highly-disillusioned electorate would be made happier if, by means of a system of Proportional Representation, more than 50% could be shown to have elected the government: that it would be "fairer" than first-past-the-post. Whilst history has demonstrated that PR produces more unstable government, both systems clearly continue to combine the Executive and Legislature into a dictatorship. Enlarging the "elective" proportion to 50% or above does not cancel the dictatorship! However, PR may well distract many people from discovering the truth of our calamity as explained in the preceding text.
SO VERY SIMPLE
The adjustments needed to restore the constitution to its former glory are in essence few and incredibly simple. The loud cry "it's time for a change" needs to be made whilst our institutions are still intact.
| ADJUSTMENT | REASON |
| Re-separation of government from the House of Commons, according to former legal constitutional practice. (see next box below) | So that "the people's" representatives be free to act as real "watchdogs" over the Executive, free from any "fear,favour punishment or patronage": free from any centralised influence; responsible only to their constituency electors to preserve their liberty. |
| Restore the requirement under the Act of Settlement 1700 that no MP may hold office or place of profit under the Crown; so that any serving MP who becomes a minister of the Crown must resign his seat and a by-election held. | To enforce the above separation of government from Legislature. This ancient statute is often used as an escape device by MPs wishing to quit Parliament, by applying for office of profit, e.g.Chiltern Hundreds or Manor of Norstead. |
| To limit the number of MPs which the Crown may chose during any Parliament. | Under the present
system of "conventions" there are about 100 Ministers of all grades sitting
inside Parliament. The party system long ago made it impractical for that many to resign
their seats. Without imposing strict limits the separation could be again sabotaged. |
| Restore the legal duty and power of ministerial appointment to the Crown alone. Crown Patronage is perfectly proper in relation to the appointment of Ministers of the Crown. It is not proper for the Crown to patronise the House of Commons, as do Party Leaders. | To provide the monarch with the widest possible choice of suitable persons from the whole population with which to form a government, and not to have the "party fodder", the product of the party system and a dubious electoral process forced upon Him/Her. |
| To maintain the present five year terms of parliament as fixed, so that neither monarch nor parliamentarian could dissolve it; only upon a referendum with a majority of say 70% of the people. | This is to secure tenure of their seats for MPs, so that they may not be coerced by party leaders with threats of a General Election and dissolution of Parliament, and thus prevented from doing their job. To fix the term without also removing government from inside Parliament would be to lock in an unpopular government. |
| Review the prerogative powers of the monarch. For the convenience of the present party-system the monarch is still allowed to chose a Prime Minister should the voting system produce an inconclusive result. | To establish which powers and Statutes are to be restored for the continuing separation of government from parliament: to restore consent or dissent upon reason or Common or Constitutional law, so that the monarch can no longer be a cipher for any party. |
| Restore the right of the people to effectively petition the monarch against bad government by Ministers of the Crown. (as granted under Bill of Rights 1689) but negated by the present party system. | Under the present party system petitions to the monarch are worthless..by "convention"(non-legal practice) She is required to act on the "advice" of Her Minister(complained of) and so they go into his waste paper basket or onto "big brother's" computer(list of potential trouble-makers)! |
| Restore to the Crown the duty of issuing enough currency for governmental purposes, thereby regaining for the nation the fundamental element of sovereignty. | To remove for ever the absurd situation of a nation having to borrow its money from private institutions, the banks, so creating unrepayable debt; to avoid the situation whereby necessary work cannot be carried out due to the artificial lack of "money." |
| Restore free and fair elections by publicising the dangers of the PARTY SYSTEM. Institute laws for fair and equal coverage in the media at local level for all candidates. | The party system corrupts free election by subjecting party candidates to Central Office approval. It institutes patronage of Parliament. Since elections are largely pre-determined by money, to change the emphasis by removing the deposit and substituting a substantial number of signatures from registered electors. |
| To prohibit national radio or TV interviews with any candidate or party official or publish or broadcast any opinion poll between the dissolution of parliament and closure of polling. | There is justifiable complaint from candidates that the radio and Tv coverage given to party leaders at a national level infringes the fairness of elections, in that such coverage is seen as aiding candidates of large parties and is not included in these candidates election expenses even though it has tremendous effect. It centralises the whole election process on the image and ability of a few dominant personalities, as in a presidential-style campaign. |
| To implement the most suitable form of PR within each of the constituency boundaries so that it shall apply to the candidates in that constituency only. | PR will further reduce the unfairness of the election process due to the influence of money, so giving all candidates more chance. As explained before, PR should not be entertained for the purposes of electing a government, only for electing a Parliament(which will not be the government). It should be remembered that the function of Parliament traditionally and properly is to protect the liberty of the people. It cannot do this if it engages in a partisan way on behalf of one group or another, leading to the "them" and "us" of the present party system. |
| To legislate for referenda on issues of national emergency; or constitutional importance. to provide equal state funds for each side of the argument. | to prevent conscription ever again being introduced without the full consent of the people; to prevent our sons being sent to die in wars which solve nothing; to further reduce the chance of MPs being corrupted again. |
| To preserve the independence of the judiciary from the encroachment of those who want to implement a Ministry of Justice; to preserve the judiciary from the dictates of the European Court and any other external body. | The independence of the judiciary has been one of the bulwarks of the English against dictatorship, however against a parliament dominated and corrupted by the party system the courts can do nothing (see Lord Hailsham). A Minister of Justice, as proposed, could be a transient politician from the party system in Parliament, not necessarily familiar with the law or the lawyers needed to fill important legal posts as Lord Chancellors are. (See "The New Despotism" by Lord Chief Justice Hewart, pp108/109.) It is true that modern Lord Chancellors are former party politicians but even their strong legal upbringing seems to no avail in the face of a party dominated parliament determined to commit treason against the English people. |
| To restore the
power of English Common Law and its true English roots and where in conflict with
Statute law to elevate the former to dominance, thus restoring legal democracy of the
people. To update and revise the Bill of Rights of 1689 (yes - we do have such a Bill) to further protect our liberties against the encroachment and corrupt practices of government(whether that government be monarchical or not). Warning: others want a Bill of Rights to confer economic benefits on all and sundry (at whose expense?) FURTHER WARNING! REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES alleged to provide a decentralising remedy to centralised national government will be another tier of expensive, "democratic" party nonsense, no less "whipped" than at national level.
|
The"Rule of
Law" in its English sense, meaning laws made by the people through the jury system or
by a free Parliament with their consent has suffered a terrible setback. Constitutionally
we live under a lawless form of government, made the more dreadful by its
"democratic" credentials. The people have enslaved themselves! With almost all
the law-making (and taxing) centralised in a party-dominated Parliament, law-making has
become an instrument of power over the people, as in any centralist State, rather than a
means of protecting the liberty of the people. Yet ignorant modern politicians call this
process the "rule of law".The people's disgust is only too evident with comments
like "They're only in it for themselves". Most of us fail to understand what has
been done to us, seeing the forms of the ancient constitution but failing to understand
the subtle corruptions. The "elective dictatorship" has transferred itself to a
more obvious and open dictatorship in Brussels. Our politicians have made our courts of
law inferior to those in Brussels and we are now beginning to feel what loss of
sovereignty means. Have another look at all those quotes on an earlier page. Think hard
what you might do about it. All the necessary ammunition has been given to you. See also: The New Alliance NB.this organisation is party-orientated |
CONCLUSIONS.
Since government, the Executive, would be no longer involved in the election process, the presidential-style TV campaigns would disappear, and elections would re-focus at constituency level and in the local media. It really is a battle of individual liberty under a proper rule of law versus the lawlessness of "despotic democracy" where sections of the population, from businessmen downwards want government to give them preference at the expense of the remainder, thus creating "divide and rule" in the nation.
It should be clear by now that the "democratic" process crushes real democracy, which is personal liberty and responsibility (or the freedom to choose or reject one thing at a time) at a very local level. It offers only "package deals" decided by politicians who, once elected, are effectively unaccountable to anyone for the damage they do and which forces voters to pay for programmes to which they thoroughly object but which they are powerless to stop or contract out. It is argued that you can remove them at the next election; by which time the damage is done, only to be replaced with another government equally empowered to do damage! How much better to be able, through a free parliament, to stop it before it ever happens.
WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP OUR CHAINS!
How agreeable it would be to see the hypocrisy which so sickens the young and old alike drastically reduced, so that when Her Majesty opens Parliament with the words, "My government... it would be Hers( and no monarch is more experienced than she). Parliament would be devoid of the party jeering across the floor, because jeering is the only tool left to an impotent Opposition faced with a huge majority. How much better the quiet and earnest deliberations of a united non-party House of Commons rededicated to our legal constitution and the liberty of the people and re-empowered to control and impeach the Executive.
ALL GUILTY!
It is difficult to imagine how anyone with any pride and integrity could tolerate the mind-crushing atmosphere of being a PARTY MP! Yet they; the party worker; the voter, are all guilty of allowing this to continue.
Since the Old Dominions took their Parliamentary system from England it follows that their problems (and the possible solutions) are the same, with the Govenor General continuing to act in place of the Monarch.
Since we have only transmitted Chapter 1, Law and the Constitution, if you would like to obtain a full copy of the booklet,"The Basic Factors in British Greatness" by Wing Commander Young (price £2.00 in UK / £3.50 in Crown Commonwealth countries) please click here to forward your details. Please also contact us to offer support or to make constructive comments.
Thank you for your interest.
Forward to : Discrimination against Catholics?