|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
CABINET TYRANNY v CLARE SHORT MP
- the inevitable result of NEW LABOUR with charge of ROYAL POWERS on TRUST since 1689. Over 129 years ago it was warned of by a seasoned and well-versed observer of the British political scene of the dangers inherent in the English Constitution to unwarranted and unconstitutional interference with the sure old mixed with new in a growing super structure of our world admired parliamentary democracy. As was stated at the time the Cabinet, which through a series of Constitutional fictions has succeeded to all the powers of the CROWN, has drawn to itself all, and more than all, of the ROYAL POWER over LEGISLATION. It can dissolve Parliament, and, if it were to advise the CROWN to VETO a BILL which had been passed through both Houses, there is no certainty that the proceedings would be seriously objected to. That it can arrest a measure at any stage of its progress through either House of Parliament, is conceded on all hands; and indeed the exercise of this power was exemplified on the hugest scale at the end of the Session of 1884 when age number of Bills of the highest importance were abandoned in deference to a CABINET decision. The CABINET has further become the sole source of all important legislation, and therefore, by the necessity of the case, of ALL CONSTITUTIONAL legislation; and as a measure amending the CONSTITUTION passes through the House of Commons, the modification or maintenance of its depends on the fiat of the MINISTERS of the DAY. Although the CABINET, as such, is quite unknown as such, (into the mid 1930’s) is quite unknown to the law, it is manifestly the ENGLISH INSTITUTION -which is ever more and more growing in authority and influence; and already, besides wielding more than the legislative powers of the CROWN, it has taken to itself nearly all the legislative powers of PARLIAMENT, -depriving IT in particular of the whole right of initiation. The long familiarity of ENGLISHMEN with this INSTITUTION, and with the copies of it made in the European countries which possess Constitutions, has blinded them to its extreme singularity. There is a fashion among historians of expressing wonder, not unmixed with dislike, at the secret bodies and councils which they occasionally find invested with authority in famous STATES. In ancient history, the Spartan Ephors – in modern history, the Venetian Council of Ten – are criticised in this spirit. Many of these writers are ENGLISHMEN, yet they seem quite unconscious that their own country is governed by a secret Council. No secret has been better kept than that of ENGLISH CABINET procedure. Apart from CABINET MINISTERS, past and present, there are probably not a dozen men in the country who knew accurately how CABINETS conduct their deliberation, and how they arrive at a conclusion. Some information may, however, be obtained from the published Diaries of the second Lord Ellenborough, from some printed, but unpublished, Memoirs left by Lord Broughton (Sir J.Cam Hobhouse), and in some degree from Lord Malmesbury’s recent Memoirs of an ex-Minister [Written in 1886] There can be very little doubt that the secrecy of the CABINET is its strength. [Though as we all know 126 years later that Tony Blair and his note-free sofa-style Cabal kept their discussions even out of the 2003 CABINET.] * We have given the above narrative as the background to the CABINET -of the day in 1884 as we intend to refer to this question of CABINET RESPONSIBILITY and the almost destruction of our ENGLISH CONSTITUTION In 2006. We intend to compare the Constitution of the As we have mentioned above and in the Daily Mail on Saturday, October 21st 2006 Clare Short has resigned as a Labour MP angry over Tony Blair’s ‘arrogant error-prone’ nine years as Prime Minister. She claimed to be increasingly disillusioned with the bloodshed in HAD STRIPPED PARLIAMENT OF ITS POWER She accused Labour’s HIGH COMMAND of trying to stop her discussing Mr Blair’s ‘half truths’ and deceits’ over the WAR in Her decision came a month after her call for Labour voters to switch sides to force a hung Parliament at the next election. Her departure is a further blow to Mr Blair’s dwindling authority and will increase pressure on him to say when he will quit. ^The former International Development Secretary will sit in the Commons as an Independent MP. In a letter to the Chief Whip Jacqui Smith, she said: ‘I am sorry it has come to this, but after a lifetime of service to the Labour Party and 23 years in the House of Commons I think I am entitled to discuss what has gone wrong with the Government. ‘Our political system is in trouble and the exaggerated majorities in the Commons have led to an abject Parliament and a concentration of POWER in No10.’ Miss Short, 60, said she wanted to be free to argue for a HUNG PARLIAMENT -so the COMMONS more accurately reflected public opinion and was more able to HOLD THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT. The MP for Birmingham Ladywood resigned as a CABINET MINISTER after the [illegal] * (Daily Mail –Jane Merrick –Political Correspondent.) * Returning to 1884 – What is the reason of the advantage which historical Constitutions, Constitutions gradually developed through the accumulation of experience, appear as a fact to enjoy over a priori Constitutions, *Constitutions founded on speculative assumptions remote from experience? [As for example the fantasy of our own Tony Blair in 2006 –The United States of That the advantage exists will hardly be denied by any educated Englishman. With Conservatives [1884] this is of course an axiom, but there are a few really eminent men on the opposite side who do not from time to time betray the same opinion, especially in presence of a catastrophe suffered by some Constitution of the last-mentioned type.* [As in 2006 the Blair/Bush-Iraq debacle and the mission impossible in Afghanistan.] Not many persons in the last century [18th] could have divined from the previous opinions of EDMUND BURKE [one of the greatest parliamentarians of the time] -the real substructure of his political creed, or did in fact suspect it till it was uncovered by the early and comparatively slight miscarriage of French revolutionary institutions. A great disillusion has always seemed to me to separate the: “Thoughts on the Present Discontents in 1770” And the “Speech on American Taxation in 1774” -from the magnificent panegyric on the British Constitution in 1790. ‘Our political system is placed in a just correspondence and symmetry with the order of the world and with the mode of existence decreed to a permanent body composed of transitory parts; wherein, by the disposition of a stupendous wisdom, moulding together the great mysterious incorporation of the human race, the whole, at one time, is never old, or middle-aged, or young, but in a condition of unchangeable constancy moves on through the varied tenour of perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression. Thus, in preserving that method of nature in the conduct of the State, in what we improve we are never wholly new; in what we retain, we are never wholly obsolete. [Try telling Tony Blair and his destructive Scottish Cabal and allied English traitors to keep their hands off centuries of achievement in the political landscape of One of our greatest historians of the 19th century Lord Macaulay Who closed his account of the [Bloodless] revolution of 1688 just when a new French experiment in a priori Constitution –building had spread confusion through the Continent of Europe and his pictures of events which gave birth to the party that had a monopoly of his admiration would almost rob them of their historical name of “Revolution Whigs,” -which he nevertheless claimed for them. ‘As our Revolution was a vindication of ancient rights, so it was conducted with strict attention to ancient formalities. In almost every word and act may be discerned a profound reverence for the Past. The Estates of the Realm deliberated in the old halls and according to the old rules… The speeches present an almost ludicrous contrast to the revolutionary oratory of every other country. Both the English parties agreed in treating with solemn respect the ancient constitutional traditions of the State. The only question was, in what sense these traditions were to be understood. The asserters of liberty said nothing about natural equality of men and the inalienable sovereignty of the people, about Harmodius or Timoleon , Brutus the elder or Brutus the younger. When they were told that, by the English law. The Crown, at the moment of a demise, must descend to the next heir, they answered that, by the English law, a living man could have no heir. When they were told that there was no precedent for declaring the throne vacant, they produced from among the records in the Tower a roll of parchment, near three hundred year old, on which, in quaint characters and barbarous Latin, it was recorded that the Estates of the Realm had declared vacant the throne of a perfidious and tyrannical Plantagenet [In 2006 we hope Tony Blair a sworn traitor and known ardent destroyer of our English Constitution] When at length the dispute had been accommodated, the new sovereigns were proclaimed with the old pageantry. All the fantastic pomp of heraldry was there, ,Clarencieux and Norry, Portcullis and Rouge Dragon, the trumpets, the banners, the grotesque coats embroided with lions and lilies. The title of King Of [Macaulay. History of * We ask the constituents of Clare Short to support their honourable Member of Parliament in her new role as their Independent Member as it is so rare in these days to witness an INDEPENDENT attitude from the numerous party clones who put their parliamentary career before matters of JUSTICE and INTEGRITY and the questions of LIFE and DEATH of our FIGHTING SERVICES * * * OCTOBER/06
*
*
* [Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
* GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU? * 67% want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95% of British people want a REFERENDUM * FOR A REFERENDUM SIGN TODAY ON LINE * July 18-2007
VOTE -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY 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 CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
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 WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE *
SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
*
*
[All underlined words have a
separate bulletin] |
