« Who will rid me of this meddlesome judge? | Main | A Friday Miscellany »
June 29, 2006
Crisis. What Crisis
The phrase of the day would appear to be Constitutional Crisis.
The Guardian - Judges spark 'constitutional crisis'
Judges have sparked a "constitutional crisis" by their decision to quash the government's control orders, the chair of the home affairs select committee claimed today.
Mr Denham told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "There is a constitutional crisis emerging here, I think, about the way in which the judges and the courts are approaching these issues.
The Guardian - MPs fear constitutional crisis in pension battle
The government risked sparking a constitutional crisis if it continued to refuse to pay compensation to 85,000 workers who lost their pensions when their companies went bust, MPs warned yesterday.
The committee chairman, Tony Wright, asked Mr Hutton why he had risked a constitutional crisis when he refused to agree with the ombudsman's findings. He said it was for the ombudsman to determine maladministration, not the government.
The dictionary definition of a constitutional crisis is a situation where the smooth operation of government breaks down as a consequence of different groups within government disagreeing on just which group retains soveriegnty in any given matter.
Now, in spite of the lack of a written constitution, the United Kingdom has had many such crises in the past, including
1215 - The Baron's Revolt - which resulted in the signing of Magna Carta by King John
1534 - Henry VIII breaks with Rome
1642 - Charles I raises the standard at Nottingham and the First English Civil War starts
1659 - Removal of Richard Cromwell by the Army, re-installing of the Rump Parliament, dissolution of the Rump
1688 - The Glorious Revolution
1909 - Dispute between the Commons and the Lords over the budget. Eventually resolved by the 1911 Parliament Act
1936 - Abidcation Crisis
Now the one thing these crises have in common is that they have predominantly been between Parliament and the Monarch regarding primacy of authority. The current "crises" are between Parliament and the Judiciary, and the real issue is that the Government wishes to avoid the consequence of its ill-considered actions and lack of attention to detail. The role of he Judiciary is to implement the law as defined by the Government and approved by Parliament. If the Government fails to do its job with sufficient attention to detail then it shouldn't complain when new laws fail to have the desired effect.
Indeed the current crisis affecting control orders is purely down to a conflict between two items of legislation introduced by this Government, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. If you consider that New Labour has introduced four anti-terror acts since 2000, it becomes obvious that this government isn't very good at defining workable and consistent laws.
Likewise the constitutional crisis surrounding failed pension schemes and government liability. Once again the government fails to consider the consequences of its actions and is taken to task.
The real constitutional crisis is the massive disconnect between the government and the governed, the increasing sense of disenfranchisment which has led to declining voter turnout and disillusionment with the political process. One of the outcomes of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the Bill of Rights, although it is worth noting that the Bill effectively defined the relationship between government and governed in relation to the respective roles of Parliament and the Monarchy. At the moment, that's the best we have.
But what is really needed is a new Bill of Rights, though not Desperate Dave's illconsidered gimmick. Instead we need a Bill of Rights which clearly defines the relationship between Parliament and the People, effectively a written constitution. It should empower the population, not provide further opportunities for the Government to burden us with more oppressive and ill-made legislation.
Posted by Clive on June 29, 2006 5:09 PM in the category Politics
Comments
As far as I understand it, the High Court ruling the other day didn't throw out the law which permitted control orders (ie the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005), but rather the secondary legislation which applied this law in individual cases. Usually, the Prevention of Terrorism Act would overrule the HRA because it came after it. However, there is a clause in the HRA which allows judges to declare *secondary* legislation illegal if it cannot be interpreted to conform to the HRA. Thus, it is the orders themselves, rather than the actual Act which was thrown out. I think John Denham's wrong to say that there's a constitutional crisis here, the judge simply followed the letter of the law. At least, that's my understanding of it.
Posted by: mark at July 1, 2006 1:03 PM