web analytics

Time For A Constitutional Crises

By ATWadmin On March 29th, 2009

According to the Ernst & Young Item club, in the two years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the government will probably have to raise £350bn.

That is more debt bequeathed to its successor than the total borrowed by successive rulers and governments of Britain between 1691 and 1997, the year Labour was elected.

We’ll come back to that report.

A DISSOLUTION of Parliament is the device that triggers a General Election. Because the sovereignty of the people resides in her, only the Queen can dissolve Parliament. She has the power so to act at any time, for any reason, or for none. No exercise of this power can be struck down by any court of law.

We know that for the Queen, acting on her own initiative, to dissolve Parliament and call a General Election would cause a ‘constitutional crises’. We know because this mindless and ignorant mantra is often repeated. In my opinion the opposite reflects reality; in becoming the custodian of our sovereignty, the Queen swore to govern the people in accordance ‘with their laws and customs’ and to protect our liberties. These are solemn promises she is obliged by law to honour.

Instead, she has acted always on the advice of her ministers and not in our interest. It is no mere coincidence then that she is suzerein to hostile foreign powers while Parliament ruins our nation. Back to that report then, which if true ought to horrify us. It bears repeating (via the Libertarian Party UK blog):

According to the Ernst & Young Item club, in the two years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the government will probably have to raise £350bn.

That is more debt bequeathed to its successor than the total borrowed by successive rulers and governments of Britain between 1691 and 1997, the year Labour was elected.

If true, we have the prerogative to be horrified, the Queen does not. She is obliged to discover for herself how deep is the debt hole that her ministers plan to dig for her subjects. If the E&Y report is accurate, she must dismiss her government, dissolve Parliament and order a General Election.

19 Responses to “Time For A Constitutional Crises”

  1. If the E&Y report is accurate, she must dismiss her government, dissolve Parliament and order a General Election.

    Way above her pay league. The government would have to lose a confidence vote in parliament and that ain’t likely.

    But suppose the queen acted as you suggest and the Labour party was re-elected. What then?

  2. Peter –

    It’s her job and a confidence vote has nothing to do with it.

    So anyway, if the Labour faction again was the largest the Queen could invite one of its members to form a government. She could ask a member of a minority faction to form a government.

    Part of the reason we’re in the state were are is because she hasn’t asserted her lawful authority over her ministers.

  3. What does she know about governing a country? She was born into her position and is only part of a show for tourists. On paper she has these rights but they should be removed immediately in case a subsequent monarch tried to use them. The current queen knows her place and if she tried to step out of her box the monarchy would be abolished as quickly as you could say ‘guillotine’.

  4. Pete, whether you like it or not, the only reason the Queen retains those powers is for the sake of Tradition. If she or Charlie or Willy were to ever to exercise those powers then you will very quickly have the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In theory the Queen has those powers. In practice she doesn’t.

  5. In my opinion the opposite reflects reality

    I am not sure that you would get too many to sign up to that view point.
    The monarch has a number of duties and obligations and his or her powers are limited, not only by written law, but by convention and practice, such is the nature of a largely uncodified constitution.
    So for example there is nothing that prohibits the monarch from appointing a member of the House of Lords to be PM, but convention says no (eg when Lord Halifax could have been appointed instead of Churchill, or when Baldwin was chosen instead of Lord Curzon).
    In much the same way is also a well-established convention that the Monarch follows the advice of his or her ministers, thus differentiating an absolute monarch from a constitutional monarch.
    Clearly were the monarch not to follow that convention, he or she would be putting the position of the monarchy in a very difficult position, so I think it is not unreasonable to describe such a position as a constitutional crisis. You would have a monarch directly defying established convention, while asserting Royal Prerogative.
    If you don’t describe that as a constitutional crisis, I am not quite sure what one would look like.

    BTW I loved the line on the website where this all came from that because CDS and the Gov Bank of England both had audiences with the Queen on the same day – when GB was out of the country – that this is some sort of a coup in waiting. I see also the Master of The Queen’s Music was there. Guess he is going to write the theme tune for it…

  6. If she wants an election the government should agree on the condition she stands too.

  7. Brown is a bully and incapable of changing his mind. Moreover, he is well aware of the reality of Adam Smith’s statement that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Gordon is an evil accountant, well aware how to keep pushing a scam along. The trouble is almost that Gordon is trying to make himself indispensible- pushing debt so far as to make himself a global economy linchpin. If the Queen, with the support of a number of interested parties, were to intervene to stop him, not only would there be a wonderfully cast-iron case that this was in the national interest, there would be a sigh of relief from everyone including his own party. Gordon is a dangerous man. Failure to notice that has been and will prove to be very costly- the longer that realisation takes the more so.

    Key point btw is that Gordon was never elected- not even by his own party. His whole mentality in office reflects it. He is the opposite of our restrained Monarchs- he is an unrestrained despot in disguise.

  8. Gordon Brown was elected to parliament, re elected when chancellor and re elected when it was known that Blair was going to stand down and pass the mantle. The queen was never elected to anything and it is ludicrous to suggest that some inbreed who was lucky to be born where she was should dissolve an elected parliament and this would be good for democracy!

  9. "Key point btw is that Gordon was never elected"

    Actually the key point is that Frau von Battenburg wasn’t.

  10. Actually the key point is that Frau von Battenburg wasn’t.

    And unlike GB, who we can get rid of at the next election if we so chose, we have no say in who gets to be monarch.

  11. Pete:

    “£350bn.

    That is more debt bequeathed to its successor than the total borrowed by successive rulers and governments of Britain between 1691 and 1997, the year Labour was elected.”

    Let’s talk apples and gooseberries shall we? £350bn is of course a lot of money but in world terms not really much in the way of a national debt.

    George Bush inherited a national debt of $5.727 trillion; that’s over £4 trillion. When Obama took office he was left with a debt of about $10 trillion. Bush had in effect increased the national debt by more than 70% or $4 trillion.

    The UK debt is chickenfeed compared to those figures. And no one was calling for the Bush administration to resign even halfway towards incurring that extra debt of $4 trillion.

    And for even more perspective:

    $10 trillion is about £7 trillion, or

    £7,000,000,000,000

    £350 billion is

    £350,000,000,000

    I’m open to correction if I got my zeros wrong.

  12. Barry, the £350 billion is not the UK’s national debt: that is the money that GB will have to borrow over the period cited in the report.

    When the PFI scams and the public sector non-job pension commitments are taken into account and added to the public sector debt as it is, IB’s figures get another zero added. That’s pretty serious debt for a de-industrialised country.

  13. Allan:

    GB hasn’t borrowed it yet. GWB did actually increase the national debt of the USA by the amount I mentioned (pardon me if I don’t quote those figures any more; they make my head reel).

    How much would less would the US have been out of pocket, one wonders, if the Iraq adventure had not taken place. The Chinese must be laughing their heads off.

  14. Barry, Brown "hasn’t borrowed it yet" but that is what he needs to borrow to cover his squandering. If brown doesn’t get the money, the UK’s finances collapse. The UK’s national debt today is far higher than £350bn which Brown must add to it over the next two years.

  15. Allan:

    I wasn’t aware Brown had been squandering.

  16. Barry, if a government has a public sector borrowing requirement of 3% of GDP during the good times, then that government is squandering. Meanwhile, at the worst economic situation for decades, government, one sees these essential jobs being advertised:

    http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/839788/corporate-sustainability-officer/

  17. US debt: ~£7 trillion.
    UK debt: ~£3 trillion

    US population: ~300m
    UK population: ~65m

    Our debt per capita is about twice theirs…

  18. Allan:

    Still doesn’t explain the charge against Brown of "squandering".

    Zelazny:

    Well spotted. Are you any relation of Roger? I read all his books. I loved the Amber series.

  19. sadly no – I too loved the Amber books. They were very oddly written and took a lot of getting into, but were worth the effort 🙂

    Incidentally, does anyone have figures for UK debt when Labour took power? I’d be interested to see how much it has increased by.

    Of course, there’s still the question of the debt that’s not on the official balance book (pensions, PFI and the like)…