THE BRITISH CONSITUTION

A constitution is the body of rules which lays down the relationship between the individual citizen and the state, and between the different parts of the state: government, parliament and the courts.  The powers which the government has to make and enforce laws, and our rights as citizens, are defined by the constitution, which therefore affects us all.

Importantly, the UK has no single written constitutional document. Much is written in a number of different documents, including within statutes, court judgments, and treaties as well as unwritten sources, including parliamentary conventions and royal prerogatives. At present Parliament can change the constitution as it wishes. Recent constitutional reforms have taken place on a piecemeal basis and without formal public debate on their long-term implications or consideration of the impact on other elements of the constitution.

The British constitution remains a ramshackle construction, but generally it is flexible, political and has largely been the product of incremental, peaceful change – no revolutions in Britain and no defeats after a war. It is said to more ‘legalised’ as EU law must be implemented, above UK law if there is a conflict, and the Human Rights Act must be followed.

Britain, along with Israel and New Zealand,  is one of only 3 democracies in the world not to have a written constitution so constitutional reform is high on the current political agenda, and reforms were promised in the manifestos of all three main political parties. Previously it was accepted changes to the Constitution would only be made after a period of consultation and with broad cross-party support.

In contemporary Britain, the government of the day does not see the need to draw any distinction between changes to the constitution and changes in, for example, health or education policy.  The players in the political game can change the rules of the game itself, and regularly do so, in a way which is not possible in other developed democracies. Under our current system, Parliament – meaning in practice the government of the day – can pass any law it likes.

If a written constitution were entrenched (either by requiring a ‘supermajority’ of MPs to agree to pass legislation or by introducing an external method of confirmation, such as a referendum) then the government’s power would be restricted.  In this sense, parliamentary sovereignty might remain in principle without being fully operable in practise.  

What do you think?

‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” as the saying goes – should this apply to the UK Constitution?

Other countries, e.g. Canada, have made the transition from an unwritten to a written constitution so it is not beyond the realms of possibility. Should the British Government be considering whether to start this process?

Should other checks on Parliamentary sovereignty be imposed, e.g. by requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority or a referendum to endorse constitutional amendments?

THE ROYAL FAMILY AND THE MEDIA

The practice of the Court circulating a report of the Sovereign's official daily engagements to the newspapers was reportedly begun by George III in 1803, as a result of his frustrated at the inaccurate reporting of Royal events in national newspapers. Today, the Court Circular reports the previous day's Royal engagement and is always approved by The Queen before it is sent to The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Scotsman which print it daily apart from Sunday. It also appears on the official website of The British Monarchy, which was set up in 1997. Now two official accounts on Twitter exist – http://twitter.com/BritishMonarchy and http://twitter.com/ClarenceHouse but they do not engage the public, they merely make note of what is going on in the Royal Family’s life. So in fact have the Royals embraced the modern world and social networking or not?

The relationship with the Press has developed over the years, becoming ever more intrusive.

1940s – strict control – newsreels and radio broadcasts

1950s – Queen Elizabeth’s coronation televised live, rumours of Princess Margaret’s involvement with a divorced man, Group Captain Peter Townsend, criticism that the Royals are too upper-class and Christmas Message on TV.

1960s – Royals satirised on the radio, film made about their life, ‘The Royal Family’.

1970s – The Sun and the News of the World follow Royal scandals and gossip, e.g. Prince Charles’ girlfriends, Princess Margaret’s divorce and love affair.

1980s – Charles and Diana hounded, photographs taken, rumours abound, TV programme ‘A Royal Knockout’ – for charity but embarrassing.

1990s – Charles and Diana’s marital problems: books and recordings of private conversations published, TV programmes aired with confessions of affairs, health problems and personal comments. Separation followed by divorce. Diana killed in car crash in Paris – paparazzi to blame?

2000s – more restraint and a more robust attitude from the Royal Family especially towards Princes William and Harry, and later Kate Middleton. However, in 2009 a spokesman said: "Members of the Royal Family feel they have a right to privacy when they are going about everyday, private activities. They recognise there is a public interest in them and what they do, but they do not think this extends to photographing the private activities of them and their friends."

Graham Smith of the anti-monarchy campaign group, Republic, insisted the Royal Family must remain open to scrutiny. "Given the high level of secrecy already surrounding the monarchy the press must be allowed to pursue stories and take photos if there is genuine news value or public interest," he said. The Royal Family "routinely use the media" and so they "cannot have it both ways", he added.

The Royal Family – victims of the Press or is such intrusion part of their role?

THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT

The Act of Settlement of 1701 was designed to secure the Protestant succession to the throne, and to strengthen the guarantees for ensuring parliamentary system of government.

James II fled England in 1688 during events described as the ‘Glorious Revolution’. James’s Roman Catholic sympathies and belief in the divine right of the Crown, resulted in disgruntled parliamentarians offering the throne to his eldest Protestant daughter, Mary. She accepted it on condition that she could reign jointly with her Dutch husband, William of Orange, who became William III.

From this time onwards the Bill of Rights proved to be of fundamental importance for the evolution of constitutional monarchy – government was undertaken by the Sovereign and his/her CONSTITUTIONAL advisers (i.e. his/her Ministers), not by the Sovereign and any personal advisers whom he/she happened to choose. The Act also laid down the conditions under which alone the Crown could be held. No Roman Catholic, nor anyone married to a Roman Catholic, could hold the English Crown. The Sovereign now had to swear to maintain the Church of England (and after 1707, the Church of Scotland).

Two members of the current Royal family have been removed from the line of succession, The Earl of St. Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, through their marriages to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in the Church of England. In 2008 it was announced that Peter Philips, son of The Princess Royal, would marry Autumn Kelly. She had been baptised as a Catholic but had been accepted into the Church of England before her marriage. Therefore Peter Phillips retained his place in the line of succession.

In 2011 it was announced that Commonwealth leaders had agreed to lift the ban on sons taking precedence over daughters and that in the future marriage to a Roman Catholic would not disbar a member of the Royal Family form the line of succession – a considerable change that is waiting to be ratified in Parliament.

What do you think?

The Act of Settlement – should it be altered to accommodate changing times?

Is there any argument against the change in the Act of Settlement?

Could the previous situation even have been considered an infringement of human rights?

THE CIVIL LIST

The Civil list - the amount of money provided by Parliament to meet the official expenses of The Queen’s Household, so that The Queen can carry out her role as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth. The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh are the only members of the Royal Family to receive an annual parliamentary allowance.

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Crown Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which we call today the Civil List.

About 70 per cent of the Civil List expenditure goes on staff salaries. It also goes towards meeting the costs of official functions such as garden parties, receptions and official entertainment during State Visits. The Queen entertains almost 50,000 people each year. The Royal Household strives to be open and transparent, and details of expenditure are published in an Annual Summary and Annual Report.

According to new figures published last week, this now costs the population an estimated 51p each per year. The Queen herself takes care of the expenses of the other members of the Royal Family, who assist her with the many requests for royal engagements. Last week, the Crown Estate announced a record annual profit of £230.9 million. The monarch receives a fixed payment, while the rest goes to the Treasury.

The new Sovereign Grant Bill creates a new scheme in which the royal family’s annual budget, still paid from the profits of the Crown Estates, would theoretically rise and fall in line with the wider economy, and any end-of-year surplus could be saved to reduce the government payment in the next financial year. The sovereign grant would also enable MPs to subject the Queen’s coffers to the same detailed audit and examination as Whitehall departments, to ensure they provide “value for money”.

What do you think?

Is the Monarchy worth the money it is paid?

And even if the costs are high does the revenue generated actually benefit the country?

POLITICALLY NEUTRAL – SO HOW CAN THEY SUPPORT VARIOUS CAUSES?

As Head of State, The Queen must remain politically neutral, since her Government will be formed from whichever party can command a majority in the House of Commons. The Queen herself is part of the legislature and technically she cannot therefore vote for members of another part of the legislature. Under the Maastricht Treaty, The Queen and other members of the Royal Family would be entitled to vote for the European Parliament, or to stand for election to that Parliament. However, the Queen and her family never vote or stand for election to any position, political or otherwise.

However, on occasions Prince Charles has publically aired his concerns:

National Gallery Extension, Trafalgar Square, London

On 30 May 1984 Prince Charles sent shock waves through architecture when he lambasted modern design, describing a scheme by Peter Ahrends for the a towering extension to the National Gallery as a "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend". The plan was scrapped and a post-modernist design was chosen instead. "The result is not as exciting but looking at it now we can see it does work well," said Amanda Baillieu, editor of Building Design.

He has also not been afraid to comment on other proposals as, for example, when a skyscraper was designed to replace a Victorian building, "It would be a tragedy if the character and skyline of our capital city were to be further ruined and St Paul's dwarfed by yet another giant glass stump, better suited to downtown Chicago than the City of London," said the Prince.

Genetically-modified Crops:

"What we should be talking about is food security, not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand. And if they think it's somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another, then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."

"Any GM crop will inevitably contaminate neighbouring fields”, making it impossible to maintain the integrity of organic and conventional crops. For the first time in history this would lead to "one man's system of farming effectively destroying the choice of another man's" and "turn the whole issue into a global moral question." There was substantial evidence "to show that a growing world population can be fed most successfully in the long term by agricultural systems that manage the land within environmental limits".

What do you think?

Should all members of the Royal Family have to remain politically neutral as after all they have many years of experience?

By having their say is it possible that they can raise awareness and support what many actually think?

MONARCHY VS. REPUBLIC

Despite the industrial revolution and the collapse of the British Empire, the UK remains a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as the unelected head of state. Whilst few people in secular Britain would now support the notion of a divine right to rule, many enjoy the celebrity, pomp and ceremony of the Royal Family; seeing it as part of a harmless British tradition, good for tourism and international trade, and a bulwark against political and social instability. Campaigners against the monarchy point out the more insidious anti-democratic aspects of having an unelected head of state, for instance the use of the ancient royal prerogative by the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet to pass legislation and make decisions without having to consult elected representatives in parliament.

As an example, in the UK, the power to declare war lies with the executive rather than the legislature. The Prime Minister can exercise the royal prerogative to declare war without the approval of Parliament. In the case of the UK's commitment to take military action in Iraq, the Prime Minister did in fact obtain Parliamentary approval - although it was not strictly necessary. Indeed in 2008, the UN Human Rights Council published a report recommending that the Britain should consider holding a referendum on whether the monarch should remain the head of state. Others argue there is no public appetite for such an initiative and that Britain benefits from having a monarchy that stands apart from the ‘murky’ process of electioneering and the potential ill-judgement of the electorate.

The view of Republic, an anti-monarchy group, is that the monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.

It does this is in a variety of ways:

• The royal prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament

• The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament

• The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.

What do you think?

Is the Monarchy an anchor in a changing world or does it hold back progress?

Is the Monarchy a threat to democracy or are the kings and queens simply harmless figureheads?
What are the benefits of the Monarchy? Many say it is popular and good for tourism, but does this counter the disadvantages, the fact that the UK is not a true democracy.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

For over 55 years, The Queen has been Head of the Commonwealth. This is an important symbolic and unifying role. As Head, Her Majesty personally reinforces the links by which the Commonwealth joins people together from around the world. At present there are over 2 billion people living in Commonwealth states, around 30% of the total population of the world.

One of the ways of strengthening these connections is through regular Commonwealth visits. During her reign, The Queen has visited every country in the Commonwealth (with the exception of Cameroon, which joined in 1995 and Rwanda, which joined in 2009) and made many repeat visits. One third of The Queen's total overseas visits are to Commonwealth countries, which at present numbers 54 member states, although the count varies depending on the politics of individual countries, e.g. Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth in 2003 over concerns over the rule of its President, Robert Mugabe.

The Queen keeps in touch with Commonwealth developments through regular contact with the Commonwealth Secretary-General and his Secretariat. This is the Commonwealth's central organisation. Based in London, it co-ordinates many Commonwealth activities, usually linked to education, development as well as sport and culture. Her Majesty also has regular meetings with Heads of Government from Commonwealth countries.

What do you think?

Is the Commonwealth a remnant of the former British imperialism?

Or does it provide benefits for those involved?