1
hereditary
Treason
2
3
4
democracy
This publications aims to educate readers on the reasons for discontinuing the Monarchy and moving towards a republic. This is something people may not think matters or affects them. It does, this is our future, and it will pass us by if we don’t demand change now. The British political systems gives very little power to the people, due to a constitutional Monarch, which the prime minister rules through. So you may think the queen does nothing but she does, she holds the power for parliament; holds it above our hands. The chapters in this book will take you through the financial negatives of the royal family, the opportunity we have for political reform and why we should move towards a Republic.
5
The Roy
11
Political Reform
21
British Constitution
45
yal Price
11
Britain & the Monachy
35
The Republic
57
democracy
Overview
The monarchy is a relic of an institution. The monarch has a arrangement with the government which involves the exchange of power, for political support and money supplied by the taxpayer. The Queen still has the power to have a decision regrading the prime minister of our country; this is no power for someone who is simply born into privilege. 90% of the population believe that our political system doesn’t work. Due to the monarchy’s relation with the current government it makes this county’s movement to reform very slow. This is because the government is happy with the power it has and the abilities to make decisions without consult of the people. This means that any suggested changes to our failed political system are jepodised by this current relationship the monarch and government have. The most talented scientist, architect or doctor are treated as someone who has less to offer than a royal. Prince Charles demands to be heard by and patronizes those professionals and people for no other reason than his bloodline, he hasn’t earned it.
Norman Baker MP It’s odd - being the 21st century, at a time of fundamental constitutional reform, to be saddled with a 19th-century monarchy. The waves of reform need to lap a bit further up the beach.
They have not worked for anything. A PR team employed by them, paid for by us, work to promote this idea of ‘hard work’, repeatedly reminding us of what they do for charity, which could be undertaken with no royal title. They are the only people with the spare time and funded transport costs for their efforts. But lets spare a thought for the Winsors, from birth they are told how brilliant they are, better than other children. This idea of importance is supported by the media, constantly reporting on them and placing them in the public eye. They are not any more evolved though, they are same, academic records show this. The monarchy is damaging to itself and democracy. It produces snobbish, self indulged, elitist, delusioned aristocrats who live and extravagant lifestyles because of what they have been born into. They haven’t worked for anything. They cannot relate to the people. They cannot emphasize with us. They don’t understand you or me.
Between
Twenty Forty of people think our country would be better of without this feudal relic of past years
10
11
hereditary
The Royal Price
The Price of The Monarchy
democracy
The Monarch does not have to supply and expense information for audit
It is an institution that abdicated political
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s Diamond
responsibility long ago and which harms
Jubilee tour of south east Asia and the South
those who are caught up in it. It is bad for our
Pacific was the most expensive foreign tour,
democracy and bad for our pockets.
costing almost £370,000 when the cost of
The monarchy costs over 100 times as much as the
a reconnaissance trip by members of their
Irish presidency, it is more than ten times more
household was included.
expensive than its German counterpart. Yet this
There was also an increase in spending on
institution which spends so much of our money
property maintenance - money used for the
is exempt from Freedom of Information laws. It
upkeep of royal residences and other buildings
does not have to hand its accounts to the National
- from £8.9 million to £9.1 million. Payroll costs
Audit Office for proper scrutiny and it continually
increased from £17.5 million to £18.3 million.
blurs the line between what
Royal finances have been reorganised with a new
is public and what is private property,
Sovereign Grant funding model replacing the Civil
allowing the Windsors to shift costs onto the
List, Government funds for the Queen and her
taxpayer while retaining tight control over access
household’s official expenses, and grants-in-aid
and accountability regarding their funds.
which paid for items such as royal travel and the
The Queen’s official expenditure increased by
upkeep of royal palaces.Under the new grant,
£900,000 from £32.4 million during the 2011/12
the Queen receives 15 per cent of the profits from
financial year to £33.3 million in 2012/13,
the Crown Estate, from funds two years before.
according to the royal public finances annual
The accounts show travel undertaken by the Duke
report, supplied by the royals.
of York in his former role as UK trade envoy, with
The taxpayer funds used to pay for official air and
seven trips last year costing a total of £358,000.
rail travel at home and abroad for members of the
These included an £81,000 visit to Saudi Arabia,
Royal Family fell by £500,000 from £5 million in
and a trip to Thailand, Malaysia and China that
2011/12 to £4.5 million in 2012/13.
cost £72,000. The only reason he has gained this position is because of his royal status, not his ability to perform the job.
Imran Khan, human rights lawyer One of the notions of a democracy is that you elect those in power and you can remove them if they abuse it. Fundamentally, it’s about accountability.
13
hereditary
The royal figure excludes a number of costs, including roundthe-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall
democracy
14
15
hereditary
The Royal Family Bring In Money Through Tourism
democracy
The argument of tourism
“The royal family brings in too much money from tourism to consider getting rid of them.” This statement always comes up. Where do people get it from? There’s a list of the top tourist destinations in England published by Visit England. Buckingham Palace isn’t even on the list. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17, beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7. Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London, number 6 in the list suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family and opened up to the public. People don’t come to see the monarchy, except on very rare events like the Jubilee - for the most part, they come to see the buildings. You get rid of the monarchy, open up all those beautiful buildings to tourists, and you’ll get more people coming to see them. If you choose to holiday in either Tunisia or Morocco, would you really be wooed by Mohammed VI being on the throne? Does anyone Trully believe Americans go up the Peak District because Charles Windsor is going to take over the firm when his mother dies? Would the Chinese stop taking photos of our capital if they thought Camilla Parker Bowles wasn’t going to be the next Queen of England? The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy, look at Versaille. Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain’s beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism,
Visit Britain, hasn’t even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination for potential tourists. The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. There is no evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism, in fact, there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue. Despite its bias to London, and the consequential failure to properly promote British coastlines, the tourist board never uses Monarchy in any of its promotional materials. This is because they know Britain has an image problem abroad. Some nations perceive Britain to be stuffy because of traditions like Monarchy. This is why considerably more people visit Legoland Windsor than Windsor Castle. Most British landmarks has little or no reference to Monarchy, and where they do, there is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the ludicrous claim those tourist came here to catch a glimpse of the royals. In both France and Germany people still visit palaces such as Versailles and Charlottenburg, despite the fact that neither country have a monarchy any more. Not having a monarch would not stop people from visiting the royal palaces. In fact it would allow them to open up more of the rooms in the palaces making them more visitor friendly & create the necessary jobs & revenue.
People in Paris don’t walk around thinking this is nice but the lack of a constitutional monarchy is really ruining the experience
Tourism will survive and flourish in the UK without the Monarchy
Opening up royal buildings to the public would create more revenue
country
democracy
18
19
hereditary
yo u r
20
21
hereditary
Political Reform
The Anti Democratic Dynasty
democracy
Britain’s royal family: cut this anti-democratic dynasty out of politics
As a rule, progressive Britain prefers to ignore the monarchy. First, it’s embarrassing: 364 years after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world dispensed with such feudal relics, we’re still lumbered with one. There are always more important things to confront, from rampant corporate power and escalating inequality to incessant war and the climate crisis. And last, the media and political class form such a sycophantic ideological phalanx around the institution that dissent is treated as, at best, weird and miserabilist. The last few days have been par for the course. As in the case of every other royal event, the birth of a son to the heir but one to the throne has been reported in tones that wouldn’t be out of place in a one party state. Newsreaders adopt regulation rictus grins. The BBC’s flagship Today programme held a debate to mark the event between two royalists who fell over each other to laud the “stability”, continuity” and “mystery” of the House of Windsor. The press is full of talk of “fairytales” and a “joyful nation”. But ignoring it leaves a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system. As things now stand, Britain (along with 15 other former island colonies and white settler states) has now chosen its next three heads of state – or rather, they have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings – so long as they aren’t Catholics, have automatic pride of place at the pinnacle of Britain’s constitution. Far from uniting the country, the monarchy’s role is seen as illegitimate and offensive by millions of
its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege at the heart of public life. While British governments preach democracy around the world, they preside over an undemocratic system at home with an unelected head of state and an appointed second chamber at the core of it. Meanwhile celebrity culture and a relentless public relations machine have given a new lease of life to a dysfunctional family institution, as the X Factor meets the pre-modern. But instead of rising above class as a symbol of the nation, as its champions protest, the monarchy embodies social inequality at birth and fosters a phonily apolitical conservatism. If the royal family were simply the decorative constitutional adornment its supporters claim, punctuating the lives of grateful subjects with pageantry and street parties, its deferential culture and invented traditions might be less corrosive. But contrary to what is routinely insisted, the monarchy retains significant unaccountable powers and influence. In extreme circumstances, they could still be decisive. Several key crown prerogative powers, exercised by ministers without reference to parliament on behalf of the monarchy, have now been put on a statutory footing. But the monarch retains the right to appoint the prime minister and dissolve parliament. By convention, these powers are only exercised on the advice of government or party leaders. But it’s not impossible to imagine, as constitutional experts concede, such conventions being overridden in a social and political crisis, for instance where parties were fracturing and alternative parliamentary majorities formed.
23
The British establishment are past masters at such constitutional sleights of hand – and the judges, police and armed forces pledge allegiance to the Crown, not parliament. The left-leaning Australian Labor leader Gough Whitlam was infamously sacked by the Queen’s representative, the governor-general, in 1975. Less dramatically the Queen in effect chose Harold Macmillan as prime minister over Rab Butler in the late 1950s – and then Alec Douglas-Home over Butler in 1963. More significant in current circumstances is the monarchy’s continual covert influence on government, from the Queen’s weekly audiences with the prime minister and Prince Charles’s avowed “meddling” to lesser known interventions.
such as pressure to reduce conflict over political successions. But it’s also a reflection of the decline of ideological and class politics. Part of Britain’s dynastic problem is that the English overthrew their monarchy in the 1640s, before the social foundations were in place for a viable republic – and the later constitutional settlement took the sting out of the issue. But it didn’t solve it, and the legacy is today’s half-baked democracy. You’d never know it from the way the monarchy is treated in British public life, but polling in recent years shows between 20% and 40% think the country would be better off without it, and most still believe it won’t last. That proportion is likely to rise when hapless
But ignoring it leaves a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system. As things now stand, Britain (along with 15 other former island colonies and white settler states) has now chosen its next three heads of state – or rather, they have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth.
Charles replaces the present Queen. There are of course other much more powerful obstacles to social advance in Britain than the monarchy, but it remains a reactionary and anti-democratic drag. Republics have usually emerged from wars or revolutions. But there’s no need for tumbrils, just fair elections. It’s not a very radical demand, but an elected head of state is a necessary step to democratise Britain and weaken the grip of deferential conservatism and anti-politics. People could vote for Prince William or Kate Middleton if they wanted and the royals could carry on holding garden parties and travelling around in crowns and gold coaches. The essential change is to end the constitutional role of an unelected dynasty. It might even be the saving of this week’s royal baby. Seumas Milne Words
back
This month the high court rejected an attempt by the Guardian to force the publication of Charles’s “particularly frank” letters to ministers which they feared would “forfeit his position of political neutrality”. The evidence from the controversy around London’s Chelsea barracks site development to the tax treatment of the Crown and Duchy of Lancaster estates suggests such interventions are often effective. A striking feature of global politics in recent decades has been the resurgence of the hereditary principle across political systems: from the father and son Bush presidencies in the US and the string of family successions in south Asian parliamentary democracies to the Kim dynasty in North Korea, with multiple other autocracies. Some of that is driven by the kind of factors that produced hereditary systems in the first place,
24
I
object on principle to singling out an incredibly rich, wealthy and powerful family for the Assembly as a corporate body to send our regards to Tom Copley
25
Every so often we are subjected to the stomach churning spectacle of Members of Parliament queuing up to offer tribute to the royal family upon some particular event or occasion. Only recently they devoted valuable Parliamentary time to debating a motion congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge upon the birth of Prince George. Amidst the crises of the civil war in Syria, the ever growing cost of living and Britain’s economic woes they managed to find an hour or so to congratulate two very wealthy aristocrats for procreating. Politics is the language of priorities. I had rather hoped that a much more modern body like the London Assembly could leave such displays of unctuous fawning and sycophancy to the experts down the river. So I was disappointed to discover that the Chair of the Assembly had tabled a motion sending our “loyal greetings” to the Queen and the royal family on the occasion of the christening of Prince George. It is particularly disappointing given that the Chair is from the only party on the Assembly which officially espouses republicanism as national policy.
To state the obvious: of course we wish William and Kate well, just as we would wish any family well on what is a joyous occasion. But I object on principle to singling out an incredibly rich, wealthy and powerful family for the Assembly as a corporate body to send our regards to. If we’re congratulating one family upon such an occasion, we ought to congratulate them all. 650,000 children in London live in poverty. That’s four in ten children in the sixth richest city in the world. Yet today we had before us a motion (taken without debate) congratulating one of the richest, most powerful and influential families in London on the christening of the child who will one day inherit the office that most modern democracies trust the people to elect. Where are our priorities?
hereditary
Where Are Our Priorities?
26
democracy
A system of inherited authority reduces the democratic system in the UK to a secondary or, if you separate the House of Lords from the Monarchy, tertiary tier of authority. This may be symbolic but it reinforces the belief in this country that voting wont change anything. The Monarchy represent the glass ceiling. Symbolically this country's system does not support the idea of freedom of collective determination which we call democracy and so many have fought and died to preserve or spread. The existence of royalty automatically creates sub classes among the general population. This promotion of class division runs counter to a meritocracy - by skewing socio economic progress in favour of who you know rather on what you know. We now have a kleptocracy with the rich taking from the poor (eg taxpayer bailouts). On any metric (other than wealth) the monarchy is not elite and should be abolished without delay. Unfortunately, the aristocracy, those to whom power and wealth accrue, depend on the presence of the royal 'benchmark' at the top of this obscenely unfair state of affairs for their survival, if the monarchy goes they could also be gone.
27
hereditary
The Royal Family is Damaging to the People of Britain
28
democracy
Change
Our constitution is fundamentally undemocratic. Sure, it has some features of a democracy for example we are permitted to elect just under half of our parliament but at its core British politics concentrates unaccountable and unlimited power in the hands of a few, at the top. Some people will tell you that the monarchy is little more than a harmless decoration, a novelty left over from our past. It isn't. It is the basis and the heart of our constitution. This is why the abolition of the monarchy is the most important of all possible political reforms. By abolishing the monarchy we will need a new constitution. This reform will provide a unique opportunity to deal with many of the problems in our current political system. We will also then address the issue of the monarchy itself, the question of what a hereditary head of state says about Britain, the way we leave the important choice of head of state to chance and how lacking in accountability and transparency the royal household really is. Britain deserves the best. That means the best democracy we can create, a democracy that genuinely puts you, us, in charge. Our children should be inspired to believe they can achieve anything they want and our democracy should encourage that sense of aspiration. We should all be encouraged to take responsibility for our own political affairs, and our democracy should embody that responsibility. The monarchy does none of these things. It embodies a spirit of deference and dependence on others. It robs us of aspiration, telling us that even the wisest and most talented commoner is no match for even the most unpleasant and immoral royal. Crucially though, the monarchy is the heart of the British constitution and as such it denies us the best democracy we could have. It keeps from us the power to rule ourselves, it crushes the democratic spirit in order to justify its own existence.
29
subject To
No-One
30
m
ster ini
s act on
th
e
Q u e e n ’s B e h a l f due to a
half baked revolution of the past
Special Powers Held By Parliament
hereditary
A historic feature of the UK constitution, the Royal Prerogative gives the Crown (the monarch) special powers, including the power to declare war, to make treaties, to pardon criminals, and to dissolve Parliament. Today the role of the monarch in such matters is largely ceremonial, but the Royal Prerogative gives considerable powers to government ministers acting on the Queen's behalf. The single most important principle of the UK constitution is that of parliamentary sovereignty. Under this principle, Parliament can make or unmake any law on any subject whatsoever. No one Parliament is bound by the decisions of its predecessors, nor can it bind its successors. There is no higher body, such as a supreme court, that constrains the legal authority of Parliament. However, parliamentary sovereignty is now directly challenged by the UK's membership of the European Union. EU membership necessitates the 'pooling' of sovereignty over areas where the member states have agreed to act together. All laws passed at the European level are considered legally superior to domestic law, and are ultimately protected by a higher constitutional court, the European Court of Justice.
democracy
32
33
hereditary
34
35
hereditary
Britain & the Monachy
democracy
36
The Monarchy a Great Tradition?
The ceremonies surrounding Trooping the Colour, Changing the Guard, the coronation and the State Opening of Parliament have all been invented since the reign of Victoria
hereditary
Republicanism is as much an integral part of British tradition and history as the monarchy perhaps more so. Constitutional innovation and reform have been crucial in Britain’s development, and much more relevant to modern times than our mock-feudal monarchy. The Magna Carta of 1215, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Great Reform Act of 1832, and the introduction of universal suffrage in 1920, are all pioneering political advances. Since the earliest days of recorded British history, our nation has aimed to curtail the power of the monarchy and expand the power of those with the greatest stake in the welfare of our country - whether medieval Barons, or, in the democratic age, all British citizens. It is important to remember that history has to be made and each age will make its own history. It is useful to remember that much of the socalled ‘tradition’ of the monarchy is a recent invention. The ceremonies surrounding Trooping the Colour, Changing the Guard, the coronation and the State Opening of Parliament have all been invented since the reign of Victoria. They are part of the monarchy’s continuing PR campaign dressing up a shabby constitutional arrangement in fancy uniforms and flamboyant occasions so as to distract the casual observer from the more serious questions about why the monarchy exists.
fight
democracy
38
hereditary
b ac k
39
The Strength of The Monarchy
democracy
How much political strength does the Monarchy offer
Two of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world are the US and Switzerland, two republics. Monarchists try to scare people into submission by suggesting the British monarchy gives us stability, but they do not say how. The British monarchy does not have the power to stop war, oppression, divisive pol itical policies or even a coup. When responding to this point it is worth asking just how stable and unified Britain is. Nationalism is on the increase in Scotland, Wales and England. Conflicts of national identity in which the symbol of the Crown played a prominent part led to 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland. Ultimately stability and unity are the products of a healthy democracy and prosperous society. They have little to do with feudal institutions or heads of state. Most countries in the Commonwealth are republics, including some which were never under the rule of the British Empire. The Commonwealth can continue as a treaty organisation, with Britain as a member, under the terms the elected leaders of those states judge to be appropriate. Even with the monarchy in place there is no assumption among Commonwealth heads of government that Charles will succeed his mother as the head of the organisation. A British republic will only help to free the body from its colonial past and give it a modern and more relevant character. The notion that the monarchy is required to provide Britain with ‘ambassadors’ for trade is pure fantasy. We only need consider the scale of
Claire Rayner, author and journalist I have nothing against the ramshackle Windsors, but the sort of person I would love as head of state would be a poet, an artist or a great scientist.
the British economy to see what nonsense this is. London is a major world financial centre. The City channels billions of pounds of investment into the UK every week - do the big businesses in the City and Canary Wharf need the help of a little old lady in a big house in central London? The UK is in the top five economies in the world. The UK is a member of the G8 group of leading industrialised nations. This is another example of the monarchy claiming credit for the work of others. Do you really believe that our economy and trade relations would suffer if we lost the Windsors? There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the monarchy brings in trade and investment. Prince Andrew’s appointment as trade ambassador is a meaningless indulgence. Most people outside the UK have never heard of Andrew and his ‘star’ value is limited. If the monarchy does want to claim credit for the British economy, they must also take the blame when it goes wrong. The notion that the Windsor family assists in any way with our diplomacy is fantasy. This is part of the official spin from Buckingham Palace. In truth senior members of the royal household, including Charles and Philip, have routinely made diplomatic gaffes when representing us overseas while do nothing to help with the difficult and complex process of international diplomacy. Thankfully we have a professional diplomatic corps to represent us and do the serious diplomatic work, and they do not need the help of the Windsors.
41
hereditary
While the monarch herself has little power, except on rare occasions when she can influence who gets to be Prime Minister, the institution of the monarchy is the source of all power in the land. The Crown is what gives parliament and government its power, the monarch hands most of her personal powers directly to the prime minister, or allows ministers to exercise her powers through the Privy Council. So the problem isn't the power of the monarch, it is the role of the monarchy in giving unchecked power to the central government.
42
Is it right that in the 21st century we continue to select our head of state by accident of birth, rather than by democracy?
43
is Everyone
Equal
44
45
hereditary
British Constitution
Our Constitution Is Profoundly Undemocratic
democracy
We enjoy some features of a democracy, but our constitution is profoundly undemocratic. It is “not worth the paper it’s not written on” according to one MP. Professor Stephen Haseler once described it as “whatever the government wants it to be”.
The Queen herself retains four key constitutional powers. Only the Queen herself may exercise these powers. No minister or advisor may exercise these powers on her behalf. Legally, the Queen has the power to appoint whomever she wishes to be the Prime Minister. Equally, if she so decided, she could appoint nobody to the office and could keep it vacant. There is no legal requirement even that the person appointed as Prime Minister be a Member of Parliament. Conventionally, however, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party with an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons. As long as there is such a majority, and as long as the party concerned has a clear leader, the Queen will have no real choice. But these things are not always so clear. In 1957, when the Conservative party was in office, it was not clear who should succeed Eden as leader of the party and Prime Minister. The Queen effectively chose Macmillan over Butler. In 1963, when Macmillan was too ill to continue, the Queen, in the words of her biographer, allowed herself to be ‘duped by’ Macmillan into once again ensuring that Butler did not become Prime Minister, inviting Sir Alec Douglas Home to form a Government. The Queen’s biographer describes this as ‘the biggest political misjudgment of her reign’. In 1974 when there was a Hung Parliament no one party commanded a majority of seats in the Commons. This time the party leaders acted wisely, effectively keeping the Queen out of it until it
Bill Emmott, editor of the Economist Britain has simply been lucky - or unlucky, depending on your point of view - that neither war nor internal turmoil has yet challenged its peculiar constitutional arrangements, so it has stuck with the legacy of history.
had become clear that Harold Wilson should be invited to form a minority administration. A dissolution of Parliament is the device that triggers a General Election. Only the Queen can dissolve Parliament and she has the power so to act at any time, for any reason, or for none. Legally, the Queen has the power to dismiss the Government at any time and for any reason or for none. No exercise of this power could be struck down by any court of law. No Bill can become a legally binding Act of Parliament unless and until it receives the royal assent. This means that the Queen has a veto on all legislation passed by Parliament. She has the power to withhold her assent to any legislation for any reason or for none. Were she to exercise this power no court could hold it illegal. This is an astonishing power. It was last exercised in the United Kingdom by Queen Anne in 1708 but has been threatened to be exercised several times in the twentieth century, not least, it is reported, by the current heir to the throne, Prince Charles. Even if some of these powers have not been exercised in the United Kingdom in many years, do not be fooled. Legally, they still exist. Several of them have been much more recently exercised by the Crown in Australia (where the Queen’s appointed representative dismissed the democratically elected Government of the day in 1975) and in Canada (The Queen’s appointed representative prorogued Parliament for several weeks in late 2008, preventing it from performing its democratic and constitutional functions).
47
The British constitution is unwritten or, to be more precise, 'uncodified'. This means that, unlike in most modern democracies, there is no single document which explains how we are governed and how power is used. Instead constitutional experts point to a number of treaties, laws and conventions which together make up the constitution. These include:
Treaties Common Law Royal Prerogative Acts of Parliament Conventions EU law This means it requires a considerable amount of study and probably a degree in politics or law to fully understand how Britain is governed. It is one of the least intelligible, least democratic and least accountable constitutions in the democratic world. Contrast this with, say, Ireland, which has a simple and readable written constitution, clearly setting out who has what power, how they got it and how they can be removed from office.
hereditary
Works of Authority
48
Crown Powers Exercised By The Government Power to Make Treaties Powers to Declare War Deploy Her Majesty's Armed Forces Overseas Powers to Employ Civil Servants Governance of Britain's Overseas Territories
democracy
Conduct of Diplomacy Appointment and Removal of Ministers Appointment of Peers Grant of Honours Claiming of Public Interest Immunity Granting and Revoking of Passports
In recent years the exercise of several of these powers has proved to be intensely controversial. In 1984 Mrs Thatcher unilaterally decided to ban civil servants employed at GCHQ from joining or forming trade unions. In 1992 ministers in John Major's Government used (and abused) the power to claim public interest immunity (PII) in order to prevent embarrassing documents concerning
Britain's arms trade with Iraq being disclosed in court. In 2003 Tony Blair used the power to declare war to wage war in Iraq, on a false prospectus, and without needing to acquire prior parliamentary approval. When he became Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would surrender this power, but to date he has yet to make good this promise which he made to the people.
49
hereditary
democracy
50
51
hereditary
democracy
52
The British constitution has never been about the rights or liberties of citizens. It has been about the concentration of power at the top of society. It is that power, which flows from the Crown, that jeopardises our liberties.
Where Are Our Liberties? The only means by which any nation has ever managed to secure and protect its liberties has been by limiting the powers of their governments and parliaments. This is something we have never done in this country - the power of the monarch has passed down, unchecked, through parliament and into Downing Street.
Thanks to our worthless and unwritten constitution, parliament is now also controlled by the prime minister (at least, for most of the time). The courts are unable to stop parliament from doing anything - if a court rules, for example, that a government decision or an Act of parliament is incompatible with the Human Rights Act, parliament can simply change the law so it isn’t. Hailsham famously added: “We live in an elective dictatorship, absolute in theory, if hitherto thought tolerable in practice.” The source of this situation is the monarchy. Parliament gets its ‘absolute and unlimited’ power from the Crown. It is our status as subjects of the Crown (subjects still, despite various ‘citizenship’ Acts) which makes parliament our master, not our servant. It is our unwritten constitution and the government’s relationship with the Crown (the Cabinet is a sub-committee of the Privy Council) which has allowed the government to control parliament though the queen. It is in this context that our rights are being eroded while so many are willing to sit in silence, often applauding the attack on their own liberties. Those in power will always seek to control and to manipulate those they govern. It is as inevitable as death and taxes. This is why written constitutions, based on sound democratic principles and containing strong defences against authoritarianism, are essential in modern society. There is no room for the Crown or for a sovereign parliament in such a constitution, only for the sovereignty and the rights of the people.
The powers of our own Parliament are absolute and unlimited. And in this, we are almost alone. All other free nations impose limitations on their representative assemblies. We impose none on ours. Parliament can take away a man's liberty or his life without a trial, and in past centuries, it has actually done so.
hereditary
The British constitution is based not on popular sovereignty, not on the rights of the citizen or the principles of democracy. It is based on enabling the state to rule and control. If we are to genuinely protect our liberties against the instincts of government, there is only one solution. We believe that a republican constitution, one based on the sovereignty of the people, is the only genuine means by which to limit the power of government, and therefore provide some safeguard against attacks on our rights and liberties. For as long as the British constitution is based on the Crown our liberties will always be vulnerable to the whims of the government of the day. Some people argue that the monarchy is just a harmless decoration, that there are more important constitutional issues to tackle first. We believe this is fundamentally wrong - the monarchy is our constitution. It is the source of the unlimited power wielded by the government and it is the means by which our politicians resist calls for change. The power of the government is derived from the Crown. Get rid of the Crown, write a new constitution based on the sovereignty of the people, and we treat ourselves to a unique opportunity to protect our liberties and rights by limiting the powers of those we choose to govern us and do the best for the people. The flow of power is simple, it flows into Downing Street. Virtually all executive power has now been handed by the monarch to the cabinet, which is controlled by the prime minister. ‘Sovereignty’ lies in parliament through the convention of the “Crown in parliament”.
s ’ t i
time
to rock the boat
Where’s the British Revolution?
56
57
hereditary
The Republic
welcome to the
republic
Why Join The Republic? A new constitution based on democratic values - not
1
medieval ones - could give voters real power over their politicians and enshrine in our society ideas about the democratic rights of the people. A republic is more than just an elected head of state: it's a new way of doing politics that is centred around
2
the power of the people. A new set of rules and
reformed institutions would give voters more power of parliament (and importantly would limit the power of parliament over the people!)
powers that it can use without needing parliament's permission - they include a long list of official
3
appointments, signing treaties with the EU and foreign countries and declaring war. Getting rid of the Crown would give our elected parliament more power and control over the government and therefore more power to people. In a republic the head of state would be elected and would have a real job to do. She or he would not
4
run the government - that would still be the prime minister. An elected president would act as a guardian of our constitution, protecting the rights of voters and ensuring the government doesn't over-step the limits of its power.
hereditary
The Crown currently gives our government huge
The office of Head of State, to be known as President, will be open to any eligible British citizen.
The Head of State will not be a member of, and will be constitutionally independent from, the legislature.
The office of the Head of State will have no constitutional link with any religious faith.
The Head of State will be required not to involve his or her extended family in the performance of their duties.
Democracy Power People
The Republican Model :
Democracy Power People
democracy
60
The Head of State will be the nominal commander-in-chief of the armed forces which will remain under the control of the government. Any deployment of the armed forces by the government would have to be approved by the Parliament.
The Head of State shall assume no military rank or title or appear in public as other than a civilian when discharging his or her official duties whether or not he or she has an entitlement to display a military rank.
The term of office will be fixed, perhaps at five years, with a possible maximum of two terms to be served by an individual.
Officials or persons who are at present required to take oaths of allegiance to the Crown, will publicly swear an oath to serve the people, uphold the law and protect the Constitution.
The Head of State will be equal before the law (as any other citizen), and will take an oath to serve the people, uphold the law and protect the constitution.
hereditary
The Head of State will be directly elected by the British people. Besides a ceremonial role, the Head of State would have reserve constitutional powers (such as the power to appoint a Prime Minister, to call elections and to sign Acts of Parliament into law) There will be provision for an impeachment procedure. The position of Prime Minister, Head of Government, will remain.
61
62
Join democracy
the
Republic Joining Republic is one of the most effective ways of supporting the movement for a more democratic Britain.
MEMBERSHIP FORM 1. Your details
I am renewing/joining *
(delete as applicable)
Please amend any missing or incorrect details. Name Address and postcode
Telephone number Email
2. Your membership rate
Our standard membership rate is £24 but you can pay anything above our minimum of £10 (£5 for students). I wish to pay ….
� £24
� £50
� £100
� £_______
3. Your payment method
We accept payment by credit/debit card or cheque. Please make all cheques payable to 'Republic'. CREDIT OR DEBIT CARD Name on card ……….……….……….……….……….……….………………..……….……….……….……….……….……….……..
Card type (please circle)
Valid From/Issue number
Card number �
Visa (Delta/Electron) / MasterCard / Switch / Solo / JCB (no Amex or Diners)
��
���-����-����-����
Expiry date mm/yy
��/��
3 Digit Security Code (back of card)
���
Signature ……….……….……….……….………................................................Today's date ……….……….……….
4. Please return to: FREEPOST RSKH-CYJS-LSXH, Suite 14040, 145157 St John Street, London EC1V 4PY
Republic Campaign Ltd is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee operating under the name 'Republic'. Registered Number: 05891072. Registered Address: Suite 14040, 145-157 St John Street, London EC1V 4PY.
References http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/cut-anti-democratic-dynastyout-of-politics http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10145663/Monarchy-coststaxpayer-900000-more.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9370100/Royal-financesAirmiles-Andy-and-the-378000-taxpayer-funded-travel-bill.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7542269/Details-of-Royal-finances-revealed. html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24477977 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1411781.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23082296
democracy
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jun/29/royal-family-public-finances http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/28/royal-weddingmonarchy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18673692 http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/royal-family-uktaxpayers/ http://news.sky.com/story/955117/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost http://www.royal.gov.uk/thecurrentroyalfamily/theroyalfamilyname/overview.aspx http://relentlesslife.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/the-true-cost-of-the-royal-familyexplained/ http://german.about.com/library/bltrivia_windsor.htm http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/09/prince-charles-letters-mps-privatecourt
65
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/28/prince-charles-cost-taxpayer-falls http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/18/unthinkable-lords-chosen-by-lot http://www.republic.org.uk/index.php http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diamond-jubilee-anti-monarchy-protestersbooed-861197 http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/63331-anti-monarchy-protest-held-in-britain/ http://www.hangthebankers.com/british-protesters-condemn-bbcs-pro-royals-bias/ http://news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2012/03/10/anti-monarchy-group-calls-for-end-to-bbc-bias-inreporting-of-the-royal-family/ http://tomcopley.com/spare-sycophancy/
hereditary
66
67
don’t jubilee’ve it
subject
not
z i t e i n c 68
mo
make monarchy history
nar
y ch
politicians ’ this is a
69
n ot a b oat
we want a vote
rock the boat
it’s time to
70
11
peop
owe le pow er not crown p
r
your time is up
number
e m i o n c 71