"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Thursday, 14 January 2010

UK Parliamentary Sovereignty Act 2010

Bill Cash (Con, Stone) has put forward his Sovereignty Bill.  It apparently has the support of Cameron and the Shadow front bench.
"The fundamental issue that lies at the heart of this debate is the democratic freedom of choice at the ballot box-the free choice of the voters of the United Kingdom to decide the laws under which they are to be governed and to deal with the question of who governs Britain. This is a vital matter of national interest as we approach the general election, which will probably take place in May. It is therefore also a vital element of the political manifestos...
"I am putting forward a proposal based on the rejection of European government, albeit with co-operation on European trade, and on endorsing global trade and political co-operation and democracy in our national interest, with a reversion to an association of nation states in Europe, which is what I believe the people of this country really want."

No. 4 is an interesting proposition about the Monarch withholding Royal Assent from any Bill unless such legislation receives the approval of both Houses AND the electorate, in a referendum.

This should have been done before ratification of the Lisbon Treaty; Germany delayed its formal ratification until they had a Bill similar to this one in place.


  1. This bill is complete and utter tosh. Parliament is already sovereign, it has never legally signed away its sovereignty and only applies EU rules on a voluntary basis.

    Binding the Queen to politics is dangerous. What is she does not comply? Revolution?

  2. This bloody government volunteers everything in the extreme - this bill will put a spanner in Labour's works for good. It is precisely because we don't have a written constitution that Labour have been taking liberties, (literally), for the last twelve years.

  3. The wording of the bill is that Parliamentary sovereignty is 'reaffirmed' and it also affords the possibility of referenda to the electorate - that seems like a good thing to me, 13th. The Queen has her Coronation Oath - it didn't stop her giving Royal Assent to a law giving power to foreign 'princes and prelates' though. It's since she's sat back and seen our sovereignty eroded that I've seriously begun to consider whether we need a Monarchy at all.

    Our unwritten Constitution was just as valid as a written one Spidey but it suited the govt to disregard it and tell everyone we needed something in writing. They're sneaky b@st@rds. I look forward to Cash's Bill going forward and the debates in the House - then we'll find out more. I like Cash; he seems like an honourable man.

  4. You make some good points Vienna. I like Cash also, as do many others simply because he has principles and he sticks by them even in the worst of times.

  5. It isn't quite an in/out referendum but it gives us more than we have today.

    Do any of you think Cameroid orchestrated this?

    Just curious.


  6. Dippy Dave has promised to make British Laws supreme but, as we all know, 80% of 'British Laws' now come from Brussels so what's the difference?

  7. Hi Cap'n & Banned, the gist of the Bill ties in with Cameron's statement: "Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the European Union without the say of the British people in a referendum," so there's no reason to doubt reports that he backs it.

    You need to suspend disbelief to think that it will have any material or dramatic effect on relations with the EU given the ratcheting nature of Lisbon - + there are so many sub-clauses and footnotes within footnotes of protocols. Even Art.50 which specifically provides for the withdrawal of a country is so fraught with obstacles as to make any attempt extremely bloody & bruising.

    The possibility of referenda aside, I'm waiting to hear the debates before I make up my mind whether this can really do anything meaningful or just provide cover to a Conservative Party who can then say, 'well, we tried.'

    You also have to ask about the principle of one Parliament not binding the next and if we get a hung Parliament in May the whole thing could be academic anyway.


Related Posts with Thumbnails