LEGISLATION of PRIMARY IMPORTANCE-must be REFERRED to the PEOPLE.
[MANDATE OF THE PEOPLE]
‘No Minister who is charged
in Parliament with being unfortified with the Mandate of the People would dare
nowadays to assert that Parliament is competent to pass whatever legislation it
pleases, regardless of the necessity to obtain popular approval,
[Not so today-June 2004 –with
the signing of the New European Constitution by our- supposed ‘Servant of the
People’.]
The above and what follows
are extracts from the work of one of the greatest constitutional writers of the
20th century Cecil S Emden: –
[With contributions from many
leading legal minds from the past centuries]
‘The People and the
Constitution’ first published in 1933.
Commentators
such as the
‘Journal
of Comparative legislation’ say:
‘One
of the most considerable contributions to the study of the British Constitution
made in recent years…His scholarly and dispassionate work is not unworthy of a
place besides the classic treatises of Dicey and Anson.’
*
Lord
Salisbury [1884], in his speech in the House [of Lords], gave vent to
democratic views, which must have struck the older Liberals as in marked
contrast to the old Tory outlook of 1831 and 1832. But perhaps the feature of
his speech, which is most interesting, is the stress laid on the importance of
consultation with the people where large constitutional changes were in
contemplation. [Not as now in the case of the almost destruction of our once FREE
Nation State].
‘As a mere party matter, [he
said] we have no desire to force a dissolution; but we do, with reference to
this great revolution in the machinery for electing the members of the House of
Commons-we do urge upon the Government, not only the prudence but the justice
of consulting the people. We urge upon
them that they have no right to make these vast constitutional changes without
formally consulting the opinions of those by whose authority they really, in
the long run, make them, and whose interests will be specially affected… In the
presence of such vast proposals we appeal to the people’
In 1885 Gladstone when working to present his mandate to
the constituencies in order to work for Home Rule for Ireland said in his
central passage:
‘To maintain the supremacy of
the Crown, the unity of the Empire, and all the authority of Parliament
necessary for the conservation of that unity, is the first duty of every
representative of the people. Subject
to this governing principle, every grant to portions of the country of for enlarged
powers for the management of their own affairs is, in my view, not a source
of danger, but a means of averting it, and is in the nature of a new guarantee
for increased cohesion, happiness and strength.’
Lord Hartington [an opponent of Home Rule]
addressed the House of Commons:
‘I
am perfectly aware that there exists in our Constitution no principle of the
mandate. I know that the mandate of the constituencies is as unknown to our
Constitution as the distinction between fundamental laws and laws which are of
inferior sanction. But, although no
principle of mandate may exist, I maintain that there are certain limits, which
Parliament has morally not got the right to go in its relations with the
constituencies. The constituents of
Great Britain are the source of power, at all events in this branch of
Parliament; and I maintain that, in the presence of an emergency which could
not be foreseen, the House of Commons has no more right to initiate
legislation, especially immediately upon its first meeting, of which the
constituencies were not informed, and as to which, if they had been so
informed, there is, at all events the very greatest doubt as to what their
decision might be.’
*
In
the words of C .S. Emden… ‘No
Minister who is charged in Parliament would dare nowadays to assert that
Parliament is competent to pass whatever legislation it pleases, regardless of
the necessity of obtaining popular approval.’(1933)
‘The
main or at least the final responsibility for the definition of election issues
must obviously rest primarily on the Leader of the Party in office. He has the information from Government
departments and other official sources, which is not available to the Leader of
the Opposition Party. It is of
essential importance to the beneficial working of the Mandate principle that
the Prime minister shall disclose the real issues to the electorate, and if they are
urgent ones, that he shall disclose them promptly regardless of considerations
of Party advantage.
It
was in this respect that Stanley Baldwin grievously failed to perform his
duty to the State in 1933 and 1934. He
knew that a vigorous policy of rearmament was necessary in view of the information
he had of Germany’s rapid increase in her armed forces. But he failed to seek prompt authority from
the people to take essential defensive measures because he considered that
there was a widespread feeling in the country opposed to rearmament.
He
knew that the people were ignorant of the facts; and if he had had the courage
and the
inspiration of a genuine political leader, he would have disclosed the whole
situation to them and called on them to support him in the policy which he
realised was the right one and the urgent one for the country’s safety.
G.
M. Young,
in his biography of Baldwin (page.204), pointed out that, even at the
later stage, he had an admirable opportunity shortly before 1935 election to
prepare the way for a patriotic policy with the leaders of the trade union
movement, but he failed to take advantage of it, though, it would seem, the
lethargy which frequently disabled him from energetic action.
When the next general election came in 1935,
while including in the programme the need for filling ‘gaps’ in our defences’,
he did not give rearmament the most predominant place the among the issues,
as his colleague, Neville Chamberlain, wished.
Speaking
in the House of Commons in November 1936, Baldwin excused himself
from telling the people the facts in 1933 or 1934 on the ground that there was
a strong pacifist feeling running through the country. ‘Supposing’, he said,’ I had gone to the
country and said that Germany was rearming and that we should re-arm,
does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry
at that moment? I cannot think of anything that would have made the lose of the
election from my point of view more certain.’
He
remarked in his speech that he put these views before the House’ with appalling
frankness.’ His frankness was more
appalling than he realised.
If,
in 1933 or 1934, he had aroused the people’s patriotism [As the UKIP seems successfully
to be doing since June 10 2004] with the facts [As the Euroscepic NO Campaign
today] about
the rate of rearming in Germany, he might well have won an election then on
the rearmament issue, and thus have been able to provide the country with adequate
protection.
If
he had failed to secure a majority, he would at least have done his duty and
have placed the responsibility where it properly belonged.
This deplorable episode should remind us that the Mandate principle could
be a source of National Peril. Without
any such principle, Baldwin could have gone ahead with rearmament with
parliamentary authority alone. [Our Troubles today are because the Executive over 32 years have
ignored the Mandate – with their Lies and Deceit]
As
it was, the need for the people’s authority for the large programme of
rearmament had the effect of paralysing him, because he thought too much in terms of
electoral gains or losses and too little in terms of leadership and the Nation’s
NEED.
[Are you listening Michael
Howard?]
*
The MESSAGE has not changed in NOVEMBER
MR NICE GUY DAVE
JUNE/04
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
PETITION
FOR A
REFERENDUM
SIGN TODAY ON LINE
telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum
*
July 18-2007
VOTE
-2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
http://www.ukip.org.uk
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE
TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
Home Rule for Scotland
WHY NOT
HOME RULE for
ENGLAND
*
MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate
bulletin
THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST
ANSWER
‘DO
YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT
,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?