The Guardian today gives details of Ming’s plan to get a written constitution for Britain.
Britain’s first written constitution should be drafted by a convention whose membership has been partly chosen by random lot, the Liberal Democrats propose today.
Half of those involved should be members of the public, with the others drawn from parliament, and the final draft subject to a national referendum.
The Lib Dem proposals are part of a raft of measures designed to bring politics back from the brink of disrepute. Fixed term parliaments and better parliamentary scrutiny of civil servants are amongst the measures proposed.
The policy will be debated on Wednesday at Conference – members can download the full policy paper For the People, By the People from the members’ only site.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
35 Comments
Right. Now let me TRY to understand LibbyDem ‘principle’… A referendum for a written constitution is ok; but a referendum on Scottish Independence is not?! Erm… that’s straight forward then!
Yes, I have to say that I think we were mad not to go into coalition with the SNP. Th referendum would have been lost, which would have kicked the issue into the long grass for a generation. Crazy.
membership has been partly chosen by random lot
SORTITION! Yay! *does a happy dance*
That’s exactly what I’ve been pushing for for ages, so glad to see it as a serious proposal. Most Excellent.
Also? Laurence, are you quoting my normal line deliberately, or is this one of those stopped clocks moments? š
No, I made that one up from scratch. But maybe you were exerting a subliminal influence on me.
This is one of those knee jerks Ming is always telling us not to have. A british constitution will not include Wales Scotland or northern Ireland as all are down the path of framing their own laws.
Is it not time to stop this nonsense and for more Lib/dems to sign Frank Field’s early day motion 670
“That this House notes that those polls that have questioned the English report a clear majority in favour of an English parliament; and further notes that it is this issue, and not Scottish independence or even House of Lords reform, that is the issue that voters now put at the top of their priorities for constitutional reform”.
Demarchy is an intersting concept, but how will we prevent outside infulences on those selected? Will they be required to make declarations in the same way as elected officals, and if they do will that reduce how representative the body is?
With modern communications technology, couldn’t we find a way to open it up to the wider public, not just a selected group?
It is difficult to think of anything more daft than asking lay people to draft legislation.
Many of the new Commonwealth countries that emerged during the 1950s and 1960s had their constitutions written by the late Ivor Jennings, a public lawyer of some distinction. Even he got it wrong on occasions. What hope the rest of us?
I can just imagine the “Daily Mail” huffing and puffing every time the term “human right” is mentioned. Forgetting, of course, that human rights have often been pleaded by reactionary causes, such as the Duke of Westminster, the Countryside Alliance and the Police Federation.
An entrenched catalogue of fundamental rights means that Parliament is no longer sovereign. There will be certain areas where not just government, but also legislators, cannot go.
Most Lib Dems, I suspect, will see that as a good thing. The “Daily Mail” will regard it as bleeding heart liberals being soft on the undeserving, while John Griffith will call it an invitation to right-wing judges to make political choices that should be left to elected politicians. And die-hard Neo-Hegelians, like Roger Scruton, perhaps, will deride it as a device to enable individuals to shirk their obligation to conform to society’s norms.
What is Joe Public, chosen at random, going to make of all this?
It seems as though Ming is proposing to extend the Datafin doctrine (from which the subsequent lines of authority have shied away). But we will need to have very clear rules telling us what is and what is not a “public body” for the purposes of the Constitution. Will it include the Jockey Club and the Chief Rabbi, for instance?
Will there be a general duty to give reasons? Will errors of law within jurisdiction be reviewable in all circumstances, even those of an inferior court? Will the Wednesbury doctrine be replaced by the more precise and realistic test of proportionality?
And here is a question almost too hot to touch. Are we going to enshrine in our Constitution the ECJ doctrines of Supremacy and Direct Effect?
Tally, what are you on? “A british constitution will not include Wales Scotland or northern Ireland as all are down the path of framing their own laws.”
Unless they actually declare indepence, they are part of Britain. Westminster has devolved power-power devolved is power retained.
In addition, you can’t separate out just one aspect of the constitution-Field may be right that an EP is a popular request at the moment, but as I set out over a year ago it’s an issue linked to so many other problem. Sying “this is the big issue, let’s ignore the rest” is blinkered myopia–besides, many of us aren’t convinced an EP is the best answer, preferring to take power to a much lower level, whatever the SNP likes to call itself, Holyrood isn’t much more than a glorified county council, I’d rather sort out the division of power equitably.
“human rights have often been pleaded by reactionary causes”.
How could it be otherwise? Having a right means you are allowed to carry on doing something.
The Lib Dem policy in Scotland is for a constitutional convention to sort out Scottish governance. The Lib Dem UK policy is for a constitutional convention to sort out UK governance. I’m really struggling here: how is that in any way contradictory or confusing?
I’ve written more about these proposals over at Our Kingdom.
Ming proposes a referendum on what is to many voters a minor / non issue,but is against a referendum for a major issue for voters namely the EU constitution treaty.
Oh,I forgot that the Lib Dems were also against the referendum
proposed by the SNP in Scotland.
Typical irrational rag bag Lib Dem policies.
No 12: Gosh. The way the United Kingdom is governed is a minor/non issue. You really must be drunk.
Ming & fellow Law Lords should sort out the constitution of his Party first before pointificating about the constitution of the country
The wording of a UK constitution has DIRECT bearing on our role in the EU and what our government can agree to in our name.
13
OK if Ming is serious about the way the UK is governed then let the English electorate have a referendum on English votes for English laws,that at least would give England parity with Scotland and Wales.
oops,forgot that Ming reprents a Scottish constituency so no chance of that happenning,no wonder he’s so selective in his support for referendums.
And here was yesterday’s final version of the TOP TEN REASONS THE LIBDEMS SHOULD DITCH MING CAMPBELL…
Number 10: He really has no idea about anything apart from what is the best ‘Werther’s Original ‘ flavour
Number 9: He’s older than the average Conservative Party member.
Number 8: Because if he mention Jo Grimond one more time…
Number 7: H e hasn’t got any skeletons in his closet, which is ironic given that he looks like one.
Number 6: Stanna Stairlifts have been stuck for someone since Thora Hird died.
Number 5: He reminds me of Mr Grace from ‘Are You Being Served?’
Number 4: He makes a complete Horlicks of everything, when he should be drinking it instead.
Number 3: T he limited resources of the Liberal Democrats just canāt stand the cost of all the false teeth and incontinence underwear.
Number 2: The Upper House really needs a ‘Lord Ming of Merciless’
And the number 1 reason the LibDems should ditch Ming is: H e might mistake the nuclear button for the emergency home help.
15 – I might be wrong, Jim, but the LibDems believe in a federal Britain with decision-making devolved, so we have our answer to that constitutional question.
Not sure what the Tories believe really… well, apart from the fact that they used Scotland as a huge national guinea pig for water privatisation and the Council Tax.
And, Jim, your top 10 in comment 16 is just not funny. I will happily laugh at myself and at my party if the joke is funny. I respect anyone with a sharp wit.
Your problem is this is just some half-arsed attempt at copying Letterman, and (a) Letterman isn’t funny any more and (b) your list is crap.
18
Wow can’t take a joke,at least its a fairly accurate synopsis on the current Lib Dem leader.
Jim, past your bed-time, I think.
I agree with James Graham that the constitutional convention is a highly consistent approach and not at all confusing.
It does, however, just slightly avoid asking the difficult question about what the party as a whole would prefer as an outcome, for obvious reasons (ie that all prior debate has polarised opinion by highlighting problems and inconsistencies rather than reaching consensual conclusions), but introducing a fair form of due process is methodical and has to be far more desirable than maintaining the hodge-podge in current existence through opinion and polemic.
It is only those who’d wish to pre-empt any recommendations of such conventions with their own blindingly self-righteous speculation that criticise due process (instead of participating in it) – which hardly shows them up as democrats or respecters of law.
Now, while we wait for a pronouncement on what constitues ‘fair’ to set the ball rolling…
I don’t care if lib/dems don’t think EP is the best answer. Why not put the case for an English Parliament to the English public, surely that would be the liberal and democratic thing to do?.
by the by, I hope the lib/dems are not considering bringing Kennedy back into the fold, we do not need this ignoramous prediding over English affairs
http://www.scottishpolicynet.org.uk/scf/publications/oth14_kennedy/frameset.shtml
The British Question
Lecture to the Scottish Council Foundation by Charles Kennedy MP, 30 June, 1999
(extracts)
There is, according to the old joke, no equivalent in Gaelic to the word maƱana – nothing, as the crofter is supposed to have said to the tourist, “expressing quite that degree of urgency”. By the same token, there is as far as I am aware no equivalent in Gaelic, or for that matter in English, to the word schadenfreude, a useful German expression meaning to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others. But it is not an emotion exclusive to the Germans.
Do I detect a certain schadenfreude among Scots at the apparent current turmoil among the English over their sense of national identity? If so, it is given extra savour because that crisis of identity is provoked at least in part by the creation of the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales. Suddenly it is Scotland which is forging ahead in a grand constitutional experiment, and England which is poring over its national navel and asking: who are we … and why?
Many in England once used the terms ‘English’ and ‘British’ interchangeably. Yet, in the wake of our constitutional revolution, the nature of Britain itself has changed. We no longer live in a unitary state, with a single common identity – representative bodies in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and growing interest in regional government in England are focusing attention on the different ways we see ourselves. Britain is now more diverse than ever, with diverse identities: to be British today is more to accept values of tolerance and decency, and a spirit of innovation, rather than being about ethnic origin, religion or even language.
We are increasingly celebrating diversity, and this has implications for several policy areas. In particular, Britain needs much clearer rules for regulating relations between the constituent parts of the Union. Liberal Democrats have long argued for a written constitution for the UK. Now, more than ever before, this is an urgent need, if we are successfully to cope with the tensions that will inevitably arise from the existence of powerful bodies in Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh and London.
Supporting diversity also means that we should be taking action through a coherent race relations policy when harmony in this area is undermined, and providing refuge for genuine asylum seekers. We should be proud of the heritage of our isles, but we are an innovative and resourceful people who are not restrained by tradition. The idea of Britain now encompasses the Londoner whose grandparents came to Britain from the Indian sub-continent, and the Welsh man or woman whose family has tended the same farmland for generations. And we will all feel at different times that we belong to different groups – as someone who feels himself to be a Highlander, a Scot, a Briton, and a European, I am more comfortable in the new diverse Britain than I ever have been. The Britishness of the modern United Kingdom is a picture painted with a broad brush, but it is no less a work of art for that.
Yes – these are indeed remarkable times in the relationships between the nations of our isles. For a significant part of the twentieth century, and indeed during the latter years of the nineteenth, British politics has been beset with the problem of how to govern the non-English nations of the Union. First, we had the Irish Question, which exercised Westminster politicians for well over forty years until it was ‘settled’ in the early 1920s, only to re-emerge nearly fifty years on. By that time, of course, we also had Scottish and Welsh Questions to answer. It was many years until those of us asking those questions received a satisfactory answer.
Yet today, the Scottish and Welsh Questions have been answered basically to the satisfaction of all but the nationalists. We may even be on the verge of an answer to the Irish Question.
So the most remarkable feature of British politics today, is not that politicians are finally dealing with ‘Questions’ about Britain’s non-English lands. It is that there is a new question – and it deals with England. The English Question, put simply, asks how England should be governed in the light of Britain’s constitutional revolution. South of the border, people have suddenly realised that England has no democratic structure of its own, and that its affairs are dealt with through a British Parliament in which MPs from outside England sit. Some, most notably Teresa Gorman, have said that a separate English Parliament is the answer to the English Question.
I do not want to rule out an English Parliament, but there are problems with that approach. First, it is simply not true that an English Parliament would entirely solve the English problem, for the situation is not as simple as advocates of an English Parliament suggest. Under the current devolved framework, the Scottish Parliament has more powers than the Welsh Assembly, and they both have different powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. This means that there are certain areas where Westminster legislates for England alone, but others where it legislates for combinations of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. To tackle this problem we might not need just one extra Parliament, but, conceivably, several – dealing with English, English and Welsh, English/Welsh/Northern Irish, and conceivably English/Northern Irish matters. Would this really make sense to the British people? Would it in any way reflect the identities of communities within the Union?
The second problem is that an English Parliament would do nothing to give voice to the serious regional differences within England. The population of England is vast compared with other parts of the Union. A national Parliament within the UK is all very well for the Scots with a population of five million, but will the forty-six million people of England really get something much more accountable than Westminster if an English Parliament is established? And, if an English Parliament was established in Westminster, as it surely would be, would the people of Newcastle, or Cornwall really feel that it is any less remote than the current UK Parliament? Within England, there are serious concerns in areas such as the North-East and the South-West, that the current Westminster Parliament treats these areas as peripheral. The regions of England are not bothered about Scots and others voting on English matters – they are far more concerned about decisions being taken in a far away place which seems to know nothing of huge swathes of England. An English Parliament would do little to meet these regional concerns.
The third problem with the idea of an English Parliament is that the English Question is itself misphrased. Surely we should instead be focusing far more on a new British Question – how do we create fluid structures which allow new relationships to develop between the different nations and regions of the Union? Instead of assuming that cities such as Bristol, Leeds and Newcastle want to look towards London all the time for their next level of government, we could be much more imaginative. If you live in Bristol, it is, by and large, far more easy to reach Cardiff than London. If you live in Newcastle or Sunderland, your nearest capital city is Edinburgh, not London. And if you live in Leeds, you are probably far more likely to think of that thriving city as the centre of a bustling region with international strengths, than you are to feel like a junior partner to London.
We need in other words, to rethink the idea of Unionism, so that it is no longer associated with the Conservative Party, or one community in Northern Ireland. A new Unionism in Britain should not be about treaties between capitals and crowns. It should be about relations between the regions of England, and the other nations of the UK, in which the North-East works with the Scots, and the South-West works with the Welsh, and both work with Europe, just has much as they feel subject to London. The new Council of Isles to be established as part of the Good Friday Agreement already offers exciting opportunities for liaison between the various UK capitals and Dublin. The English Regions should be added to this equation.
There was much wrong with the old Britain. It was the most centralised democratic state in Europe; it assumed that there was little regional diversity within England; and it gave the non-English nations of the Union with a profound sense of being ignored. In the past three years, the sweeping away of that old structure has been truly a sight to behold.
Yet we must not throw the idea of Britain itself out with the proverbial bathwater. The diversity of the Union gives us many strengths. Centuries of success and innovation have shown the British together to be a resourceful, tolerant and open-minded people, with much to learn from each other, and much to give to the wider world. Michael Ignatieff recently argued that “there is something intrinsically good about multi-ethnicity”, and that this applied to the nations of the UK as much as anywhere else. “Let us remain together” he said, “so that we can continue our argument together”. There are certainly great arguments to be had within our own nations in the United Kingdom. Yes, this means tackling the English Question. But, just as importantly, it means rethinking the way Britain as a whole is governed, and giving it new meanings in the next century.
ENDS
Why not put the case for an English Parliament to the English public, surely that would be the liberal and democratic thing to do?.
If the convention recommends an EP in the way the Scottish convention recommended an SP, then so be it, put it to a referendum as part of an overall settlement.
Focusing on one issue at the expense of all else is pointless. Also? You might want if you want to simply copy/paste a whole speech to at least highlight what you object to, most of us won’t have time to read the whole thing–how about you try to make a point rather than regurgitate talking points?
I seem to be the only contributor to this post thus far to address the substance of what Ming is proposing.
Have no Lib Dems anything to say about entrenchment, about giving judges the power to disapply primary legislation, about the extension of the Datafin doctrine?
Really revolutionary stuff, and of crucial importance to the way Britain is governed.
Yet all we get are Tory trolls griping about Scotland and Europe.
Fifty years ago, Sir William Wade said that entrenchment could only be achieved by “another revolution”, and that is the view that most public lawyers held certainly up until the Factortame litigation.
Ming is launching a revolution. What do you make of that, Laurence?
“Have no Lib Dems anything to say about entrenchment, about giving judges the power to disapply primary legislation, about the extension of the Datafin doctrine?”
I for one, Angus, have no idea what the Datafin doctrine, the Factortame litigation or entrenchment are, so I’m afraid you’ll have to do without me.
“highlight what you object to”
I object to the whole bloody speech. would he have made such a speech to an English audience?
no he would not.
In the same year he said” Scotland has a parliament,Wales an assembly and hopefully soon a Norther Ireland assembly. Regionalism in England is growing as never before, challenging the very idea of England”.
The man is an anti English bigot and we do not need him debating our affairs.
“would he have made such a speech to an English audience?”
Yes, he frequently did.
Angus at 25. Governments swing from “red light” theories of judicial reveiw to “green light” theories of judicial review as they move from opposition to Government (ie they want judges to stop the Government doing stuff when they are in opposition; they want the judges to butt out when they are in power).
There needs to be a balance certainly, and there is a balance in the current rules on judicial review and the Human Rights Act. But there also needs to be a commitment from the Government not to play politics with it when they don’t get their own way.
As to entrenchment, certain bits of legislation are “sort of entrenched” already – the Human Rights Act being one of them. (I won’t bore people with stuff on the operation of the doctrine of implied repeal). All I will say, is that it might be eye-catching to say that we’ve have a written constitution where judges can strike down primary legislation, but we need to think very carefully about when and why we want them to do that . . .
“I for one, Angus, have no idea what the Datafin doctrine, the Factortame litigation or entrenchment are, so Iām afraid youāll have to do without me.”
Datafin: the decisions of a private body exercising public functions may be amenable to judicial review (when previously only public bodies were). Has been applied very narrowly.
Factortame: Established the primacy of EU (then EC) law over UK legislation (in this case the Merchant Shipping Act).
Entrenchment: Related to the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty – the idea that no Parliament can bind its successors (so that when a subsequent Act contradicts an earlier one without explicitly repealing the earlier Act, the subsequent Act will prevail).
What I think of this:
* Judges striking out Acts of Parliament – I can see why this appeals to some people, especially if it was limited to constitutional/HR grounds… and it appeals to me. But yeah, watch out for the Daily Mail brigade.
* Entrenchment – A constitution could easily become entrenched… It would just be one of Wade’s “revolutions” – and I welcome it. And yes, it would almost certainly depend on judges being able to strike out primary legislation.
* Extension of Datafin – As I said above, this has been applied narrowly thus far, and deserves to be extended, especially when a private body is funded by public money. If private bodies don’t like that, they don’t take the money.
In the discussions over the ‘historical legacy’ of the English, it is constantly amusing to remember that the name ‘English’ refers to the invading tribes of foreigners who gained overlordship during the dark ages.
‘English’ is in fact the vernacular term of the Anglians for themselves, which gained currency among the wider population for the Saxons and other subsequent invading forces of non-British peoples.
The ‘British’ were however even more heterogenous than the invaders, being themselves the product of numerous invasions – one of the reasons why the new foreigners found their ‘divide and rule’ tactics so successful.
Any English Parliament is dangerously flawed because, due to its sheer size, 1)it cannot be more representative 2)it cannot be more responsive, and 3)it can do neither without without creating a rival structure of government to both Westminster and to it’s neighbours in Cardiff and Edinburgh.
Dear Jack, the british isles was under water once, so everyone must have come from somewhere else.As far as an English parliament goes you can vote no if there was a referendum.Who gives a shit about Cardiff and Edinburgh?.
“Dear Jack, the british isles was under water once”
When was this? The Cretaceous? Most of Britain was under ice until about 8,000 BC, but then that is probably far too recent for anti-Scottish, anti-Europe obsessives.
Anyone interested in the genetics will probably find that the British are descended mainly from the original wave of Upper Palaeolithic settlers. If it matters.
Gure arbasoek euskaraz zekieten.
There was, once, an English National Party, and a man called Hansford-Miller who used to dress in a beefeater suit (as though he was entitled to wear one). The only MP they ever had was the late John Stonehouse (no, he never donned a beefeater suit).
Now, tell me, Tally, what do English nationalists say should happen to Cornwall? Or Berwick-on-Tweed?
And what about the Isle of Dogs, which actually declared independence in 1969?
English nationalism, far from being a coherent political ideology, is (as articulated by Tally and his friends) nothing more than an expression of dislike for those parts of the United Kingdom who decline to elect Conservatives.
English Parliament would be a good idea it will keep the Union of the United Kingdom?
Let’s ask about historical legitimacy again – who are the English?
Before those foreigners were conquered by all manner of subsequent foreigners they operated numerous separate kingdoms, regia and dux within these shores.
There was never any point at which civil war was not ongoing or ready to break out while we were unwilling and unable to evolve our political institutions to deal with the imbalances of power.
And the ‘English’ legacy?
The unification of political power created shared interests and laid the conditions for lasting peace and prosperity, without which we would still be in the dark ages.
We have subsequently exported the principles of good government to the rest of the world, yet we must still face down retrenchant opposition to the glory of our own success inside our own borders.
Those ‘English’ spread to all the corners of the globe, our shared language spread before us and everybody now plays according to our rules.
Yet now the ‘English’ are complaining that their ‘England’ is less ‘English’ as a result! Oh, the price of fame!
‘English’ opposition to Europeanisation is idiocy, considering Europe has learnt the lessons of ‘England’, is based on ‘England’ and mirrored all our characteristics.
‘England’ is the free world, just don’t shout it so loud that other people might hear you say so.
Maybe I’ve got it wrong, maybe we do want to squander our knowledge by marching back to a time when it’s ‘England’ and them!