22 April 2008
An abuse of the constitution
An attempt to undermine the parliamentary process is underway today. A court case has been brought by a eurosceptic to overturn the decision of the House of Commons to ratify the Lisbon treaty without recourse to a referendum. Stuart Wheeler claims that his case is directed at the executive on the grounds of “legitimate expectation”: a referendum was promised on the constitutional treaty and one should therefore be held on the Lisbon treaty instead.
However, it is the legislature, not the executive, that has the power to bring the treaty into UK law and also to convene a referendum, and the legislature has decided in favour of the former but against the latter.
Stuart Wheeler did not get the outcome he wanted in parliament, so he is now resorting to extra-parliamentary means to change that decision. It was wrong when the coal miners tried it: it is wrong now.
Not only is it an abuse of the constitution, it is also an abuse of the parliamentary process. He claims to rely on reports from the European Scrutiny and Foreign Affairs committees in the House of Commons. But what did those committees actually say?
The European Scrutiny report, it is true, concluded that “Taken as a whole, the Reform Treaty produces a general framework which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty” (para 45), but there is a difference between the general framework and the overall content.
An attempt was made by Bill Cash to insert into the report an explicit statement that “The Reform Treaty, as compared to the Original Constitutional Treaty, requires a referendum of the electorate of the United Kingdom because it is the equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty, even if not the same.” This proposal was rejected by the committee, 7 votes to 3. So the European Scrutiny committee did not, contrary to reports, support the notion that the Lisbon treaty was similar enough to the constitutional treaty as to require a referendum.
The Foreign Affairs committee report, too, concluded “We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied.” (para 29)
But again, an amendment to that report was proposed as follows – “We therefore conclude that the Government should reflect on the fairness of relying on the distinction it draws between the Constitutional Treaty, and the "amending" nature of the Lisbon Treaty, when refusing to submit the latter document to a referendum.” – which was rejected by 8 votes to 2. So the Foreign Affairs Committee cannot be called in support of the pro-referendum case, either.
The Daily Telegraph is happy to suggest that “legitimate expectation” is “a requirement of good administration, by which public bodies ought to deal straightforwardly and consistently with the public”. In which case, perhaps the eurosceptics can start by no longer telling lies about the European Union. They should not demand from others what they are not willing to do themselves.
However, it is the legislature, not the executive, that has the power to bring the treaty into UK law and also to convene a referendum, and the legislature has decided in favour of the former but against the latter.
Stuart Wheeler did not get the outcome he wanted in parliament, so he is now resorting to extra-parliamentary means to change that decision. It was wrong when the coal miners tried it: it is wrong now.
Not only is it an abuse of the constitution, it is also an abuse of the parliamentary process. He claims to rely on reports from the European Scrutiny and Foreign Affairs committees in the House of Commons. But what did those committees actually say?
The European Scrutiny report, it is true, concluded that “Taken as a whole, the Reform Treaty produces a general framework which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty” (para 45), but there is a difference between the general framework and the overall content.
An attempt was made by Bill Cash to insert into the report an explicit statement that “The Reform Treaty, as compared to the Original Constitutional Treaty, requires a referendum of the electorate of the United Kingdom because it is the equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty, even if not the same.” This proposal was rejected by the committee, 7 votes to 3. So the European Scrutiny committee did not, contrary to reports, support the notion that the Lisbon treaty was similar enough to the constitutional treaty as to require a referendum.
The Foreign Affairs committee report, too, concluded “We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied.” (para 29)
But again, an amendment to that report was proposed as follows – “We therefore conclude that the Government should reflect on the fairness of relying on the distinction it draws between the Constitutional Treaty, and the "amending" nature of the Lisbon Treaty, when refusing to submit the latter document to a referendum.” – which was rejected by 8 votes to 2. So the Foreign Affairs Committee cannot be called in support of the pro-referendum case, either.
The Daily Telegraph is happy to suggest that “legitimate expectation” is “a requirement of good administration, by which public bodies ought to deal straightforwardly and consistently with the public”. In which case, perhaps the eurosceptics can start by no longer telling lies about the European Union. They should not demand from others what they are not willing to do themselves.
Posted by Richard Laming at 11:36
Nice try, but your notion that the Parliamentary process is being sidelined by Stuart Wheeler is absurd. Those Parliamentarians of which you speak derive their authority from ELECTIONS. The results of those elections are predicated on what the various parties state in their MANIFESTOS. The vast bulk of those elected members stood for Parliament on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the EU constitution. The only people who pretend that the Lisbon Treaty is significantly different from the EU Constitution (the document that was put to a vote, and rejected by the French and Dutch) are our own egregious government, and their apologists such as you.
They have no democratic mandate whatsoever to exclude the people from the ratification process. But, we know that EU-fanatics like you are not remotely interested in democracy. It is you, and people like you, who are abusing our constitution by supporting the transfer of power from our elected representatives, to an unelected polyglot bureaucracy that meets in secret in a foreign capital.
Stuart Wheeler is standing up for the right to govern ourselves. He is as far removed from the venal manipulation and conspiratorial manoeuvrings of the EU’s political elite, who simply won’t take ‘no’ for an answer. That’s why they don’t like referenda; when they don’t like the answers they get, they stop asking the question. Your feigned protestations about constitutional probity fool nobody.
Every British citizen has a duty to protect their Country, their Queen and their own Constitution. This sadly is only the beginning. I sat sadly because none of us want this to happen. Every person born here in the UK has a duty to uphold their Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and their Country. Matters are going too far now and this treacherous Treaty must not be ratified without the consent of the people.
This Treaty affects ALL of us, not just those that sit temporarily in Parliament.
Abuse of the British Constitution??
The undermining of the parliamentary process??
"Lies"??
This is sickeningly rich coming from a man who has done everything within his power to erode the institutions he now seeks to defend, and who works tirelessly to secure the hand over of Britain to the unaccountable, corrupt and anti-democratic EU.
And you have the GAUL to wave the BRITISH Constitution in our faces to make your point??
How dare you!
I won't insult the intelligence of your readers by mentioning Samuel Johnsons quote on "false patriotism"
JO
p.s. Dammit I will - "Patriotism is the last vestige of the scoundrel" And scoundrel you certainly are Mr. Laming!
Applying for judicial review of decisions made by governing authorities is an important check and balance provided for in our Constitution.
How disappointing to see that using that facility becomes "abuse" when you disagree with the aims.
Neither do 'legitmate expectation' claims rely on the views of HoC committees, but public statements made by those authorities.
So this whole posting appears pretty low grade in both philosophy and fact from start to finish.
Well, the judge hasn't yet said that this is "an abuse of the constitution" - he's gone away to consider it, which must mean that he thinks there may be an arguable case.
Your claim that a citizen is abusing the constitution by seeking to verify whether parliament acted legally or not in rubber-stamping the executive's refusal to honour a manifesto pledge betrays a profound misunderstanding of what a constitution is.
To enlighten you, try this from the American revolutionary, Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
And few governments are as in need of restraint as the one currently in office in the UK. Except perhaps the quasi-government of Brussels and Strasbourg.
The BBC reports that the court will hold a hearing on 9 and 10 June: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7379610.stm
Post a Comment
Back to the top