If you are at all interested in matters British and constitutional, or even in matters British or constitutional, you really should read this, the latest from Sean Gabb.
Final two paragraphs:
The headline news is grim. We have just had imposed on us a Prevention of Terrorism Act more subversive of due process than any law made in peacetime since the 1650s. Add to this the Civil Contingency Act, the abolition of the double jeopardy rule and the allowance of similar fact evidence made by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Proceeds of Crime Act, and all the lesser invasions that have come and are yet to come from this current Parliament, and we might suppose all was already lost. And look before this Government, to the Thatcher and Major Governments – those, to be fair, laid the foundations on which the present structure of despotism is now being raised. But look beyond Parliament, to those quiet places where the lawyers gather and discuss what the politicians have in mind for us, and there is a counter revolution under way.
It may be worth giving our support and best wishes to those charismatic outsiders who are now beating on the doors of Parliament. It is still more worth while, though, to thank and support those old men in wigs, whose often pedantic and always long decisions about pounds of bananas and hunting bans are restoring to fact what once seemed the theory of a limited constitutional order.
“The Jaws of the Trap Are Closing” says Sean’s title, and that will almost certainly lead you to think that he reckons, as per usual, that we are all doomed, doomed, etc. But it is not that kind of trap. On this matter, Sean is guardedly optimistic.
I have just read the whole thing, and urge you to do so also, if for no other reason that Sean Gabb is one of the great unsung prose stylists of our time. I read him with pleasure about anything – which is why, in defiance of his oft-stated-to-me wishes, I wish he would become a blogger, instead of just a set-piece essayist.
The recent judgement to which Sean is referring to is to be found here (more disintermediation!), and Sean’s earlier (Feb 2002) piece on this same subject of judicial challenge to the politicians, about the Metric Martyrs case, is to be found here.
You need a BILL OF RIGHTS like we have here in U.S. What is more, when you fashion it, just say in the 2nd Amendment ‘The Rights of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed!” Skip the militia bit so the government knows just what you mean.
Don’t beat around the bush with fancy language. Say each Amendment in plain language.
Hmm, I’m not convinced by Gabb’s argument. I’m not a lawyer, but:
The first “new” doctrine, whilst novel in some respects, is surely more of a clarification than anything else. As I understand it, and as discussed in the judgement, there has for many years been the acceptance that law passed by virtue of the 1911 Act is subordinate legislation.
The second doctrine, IMO, is not new at all. Again AIUI (and recall from law classes at university in the 1980s) it has always been understood that the Lords’ veto on, amongst other things, extending the life of a parliament is absolute and cannot be overridden by use of either the 1911 or 1949 Acts.
We do actually have a Bill of Rights, you know.
In any case, the British constitutional system would mean that any such Bill could be cancelled by Parliament – indeed, the existing Bill of Rights of 1689 can be so repealed. To have a Bill of Rights with the force you suggest would mean removing the legal supremacy of Parliament. This would in turn and pretty much inevitably require a written constitution to clarify where supremacy lay, and would no doubt need a supreme or constitutional court. This last would fundamentally alter the position of the courts within the constitutional settlement of the nation, since in principle all laws could be challenged in court. Whilst all of this is doubtless possible, it really would amount to a revolution in the nature of government in the country. Pace Gabb, I don’t see this happening.
EG
Paul, you’re absolutely wrong. The last thing Britain needs right now is a new constitution. The EU human rights laws and the proposed EU constitution are accurate reflections of what we’d get: stale leftism and welfare entitlement raised beyond the reach of repeal.
We already have a constitution – which was assembled during less “compassionate” times, thank god. It doesn’t need replacing, just repairing.
Too little, and too late! Which means that a lot of people will have to suffer, and many old battles will have to revisited, before this tide of universal socialism can be repelled…
Then you need a revolution before you get your new Bill of Rights!
Paul, no, the point is, that’s not just what we’d get from this government but from any government. It would reflect the unconsidered assumptions of a large proportion of the UK population: guns bad, skoolz’n’ospitals good, power to the police, tax the rich, commerce can’t be trusted.
It’s not that the public have had this mess imposed upon them. They voted for it quite deliberately.
We’ve had our revolution thank you very much – The English Civil War. Don’t need another one for another 1000 years or so.
I dunno:
Norman conquest – 1066
Peasants’ revolt – 1381
Revolution – 1649
I think we’re overdue…
EG
I think we’re overdue…
Euan, if only. Unfortunately, if you rewrite your brief history as:
Norman conquest – 1066
Peasants’ revolt – 1381
Revolution – 1649
Bloodless socialist coup – 1940s
There may be reason to be pessimistic.
Rich
We were sliding in that direction (liberal that is, anti-gun, anti-decency, anti-conservitive, etc….) It took things like the Christian Right, the NRA, and MANY YEARS to correct the backsliding. I don’t know if that can be done in your country, but the only way to find out is to try and try and try and try!
Your ‘revolution’ will have to be a slow motion one. I suspect 50 years or more. You will have to use ‘increatmentalism’ as the liberals do to slowly turn back from the brink. It’s either that or a REAL revolution, with all it’s blood. And real revolutions many times get out of hand (look at the French.)
I really suggest looking at the grass roots movements in the NRA and Christian groups and how they turned things around here.
Paul,
What works in the US doesn’t necessarily work in the UK, and vice versa.
Guns – gun ownership was far less common in the UK than in the US. Something like 1% versus 30-40% of the population. There is widespread public dislike of guns and no popular appetite to have them freely available.
Religion – Britain is a Christian country in name only. Most people are not particularly religious, with under a million attending Anglican (Episcopalian) services on a regular basis. Similar low figures apply to most Christian denominations. Religion does not to any measurable extent influence the daily life of any but a tiny number of people. Islam probably shows higher attendance proportions, but Moslems are about 5% of the population – and even then, large numbers drink, smoke, screw around and so forth just like everyone else.
Right & Left – Britain is conservative in the way that Russia is rather than America – reluctant to change, rather than right-wing. The centre-right of the UK spectrum as typified by Blair (but not most of his party) and Howard’s brand of Conservatism is about where most people seem to be politically comfortable. People moan about paying so much tax, but don’t like the idea of wholly private alternatives, which in any case are not necessarily that much cheaper. No political party proposing the abolition or radical reduction/reform of the welfare system is going to get anywhere.
America – the ultimate bogeyman for the British electorate is Uncle Sam. Any intimation that we should become more like America in any way is electoral suicide. This especially applies to guns, religion and private healthcare.
EG
Euan,
Surprise, surprise, I actually agree with you on that last post…..about time, I suppose..:-)
Bloodless socialist coup – 1940s
Don’t you mean 1909-11? Much of the C20 was working through the consequences.
Not sure the Peasant’s Revolt counts for much, since the peasants lost. 1215 and 1688 any good to anyone? They were revolutions.
Well then you have all better hope for Pax Americana. Cause the UN is a farce.
isn’t the feminist movement and the [imo] disastrous impact it’s had on society in effect a ‘revolution’ without the blood and guts? Minorities succeed because of a mix of apathy and ‘I’m alright jack’ attitude by the majority. And there is no effective opposition to the present Government. As for guns I think many would consider owning a gun for self-defence given the increase in violent crime.