347 years ago today (well, yesterday mostly) Charles II returned to London and ended Commonwealth rule, restoring the monarchy and exiling tyranny forever, more or less.
So, since the Euro Unionist Turkey thread has been going so well, and on this anniversary of anniversaries, it seemed alright to introduce this article:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleade...2078063,00.html
Some highlights:
· Chancellor will consider written constitution
· Promise of 'a new government'
Gordon Brown will try to restore public trust in British politics by proposing an all-party convention that could pave the way for a written constitution.
In an attempt to draw a line under damaging perceptions over sleaze and spin in the Blair era, the chancellor will seek consensus for the historic move to enshrine certain values and rights.
The convention will also look at new powers for parliament and a rebalancing of powers between Whitehall and local government, similar to those laid out in the US constitution of 1787 which has a central place in American law and culture.
His aides indicated a written constitution, stronger ministerial code, review of the royal prerogative, and financial freedoms for local government. He is not enthusiastic about Commons electoral reform after the Scottish poll debacle.
A codified constitution? Abolition of the monarchy? Republicanism? An equalizing of the British class system? A zombie apocalypse? O, one wonders where this may lead.
Uh-oh, more "tradition" and "history" talk!
Well to be honest, it neither hurts nor helps Canada to have a figurehead. Though it would be a bitch to get rid of all the coins bearing the Queen's face. From Canada's point of view Trudeau left becoming a republic off the table just to save us from one more headache during the patriation of 1982. (Yeah, Canada needed the Brits permission to make Constitutional changes until 1984.)
Recalling my own intense history classes about Patriation; it essentially became a place for minority groups of all types to have their grievances heard (whether legitimate or not,) and became a mere power play between the Provinces and the Federal government.
With the UK under Blair decentralizing authority to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's a tricky fine line one must walk, especially if other areas start demanding the special rights and privileges of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As for a codified system dividing rights and responsibilities and also fundamental rights, it would be the final end to Britain's unitary system. Sometimes fragmenting the inner political borders brings politics closer to the people, sometimes it just causes more bickering over differences between London and elsewhere.
It would also give appointed judges the final say as to how and what can be implemented, limiting the role of Parliament. Some people decry this as surrendering our voice to a bunch of appointed elites, others point to Hitler's election and the Nuremberg nightmare.
The last thing to come to mind is the Monarchy. For the Brits to become a Republic would make Canada look stupid first, as no law may be passed without Royal Assent where the rep for the Monarch signs the law and gives it credence. (I'm ignorant of all other former British colonies but yeah, we'd share the stupidity.)
Custom, convention, and common sense however means our Governor General just signs the damn thing and cuts ribbons. Given the popularity of the Princes and the Queen, I find it hard pressed they'd be removed by popular choice.
For Browne, it's a good political move. To say, New Labour has done its job; finished phase one and now it's time to finish it with a new social contract. Especially with polls showing a minority government in the picture.
