Referendum and Constitutional Reform

Now if commenting on today's referendum, you would think I would do it in advance, but I've only just got round to it...

Most of what has been said (by both sides) has been utter tosh. For some examples (probably mostly from the Yes campaign, because it winds me up more):

Today in the Guardian Timothy Garton Ash claims that reforming the voting system will fix all that is wrong with the current Parliament system. Will it obviously increase the power of Parliament over the Executive? Will it ensure MPs do not fiddle the expenses system? Will it increase engagement and encourage people to vote when they don't care about any of the candidates on the ballot? Will it solve the problem of what to do with the Upper House? And did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green?

He is however, topped by one of the comments on his column though. Apparently, voting no to AV will "entrench Tory power in England until the end of time". Well actually, since 1945 there have been swings of over 5% on only three occasions. One of those occurred in 2010... and didn't give a Conservative majority! (The other two were 1997 and 1979 - bringing in Blair and Thatcher respectively.). Sounds like it's not the voting method deciding if the Government stays in!

On the No side, there has been rubbish too. AV is certainly not complicated - certainly not when compared to STV that almost anyone who has been a student recently will have voted in (nearly every Students' Union in the country uses it to elect their officers). The only genuine criticism I have seen for people understanding it was when it was first introduced in some Australian states, but the confusion mostly stemmed from the fact people didn't realise that they didn't have to rank all the candidates (in federal elections in Australia it is compulsory to vote, and to rank all the candidates in order of preference). Yes, it is more complex, but it isn't that hard!!

My ire next falls on Ekklesia, a Christian think tank, who have basically claimed that the Bible demands a change to AV. Now, last time I read it, there was very little in there about what voting system to use in a Parliamentary democracy. Instead, there is quite a lot of time spent, especially by this 1st Century AD jew who kept calling himself the "Son of Man", on how the best form of government is a theocracy called the "Kingdom of Heaven". But then WWJK? (What Would Jesus Know)

Now, enough with the ranting, a point of confusion. Apparently, this referendum (unlike the only other one in British history) is binding. I don't understand how that can be true, though I will accept it may require drastic measures to avoid it. Let me explain: the foundation of the constitution - yes we do have one, it's just not written down nicely together like the American one - is that Queen-in-Parliament is sovereign. If so, then a popular vote cannot bind them - or they are not sovereign - they should be able to pass a law that says that they will ignore the outcome of the referendum. Another cornerstone is that Parliament may not not bind its successors. Now in the event of a Yes vote (much as opinion polls suggest it is unlikely, consider the hypothetical), either under its sovereignty QinP can change the law to ignore the outcome or under the future binding principle, the Queen can dissolve Parliament before the change is implemented, and then the new Parliament (elected FPTP - no implementation) can decide it doesn't wish to follow the previous Parliament's decision. In the event of a No vote, sure the existing legislation is dropped, but that doesn't stop any MP who can get the Parliamentary time introducing a new bill that would introduce AV without a referendum.

Of course, the path above in the event of a Yes vote would create a constitutional crisis on par with the entire Royal Family joining the Ordinariate en masse, but...

Now, leaving all the poltiking aside, it is important that we vote. People have died to allow us today to have the freedom to choose our own government. Remember those who fell in the Second World War and the suffragettes, and put an X in a box, any box!

Aside from this referendum on a major constitutional change, there has been much talk lately of other reforms. Much of this seems to be to give the Deputy Prime Minister something to do that he thinks is important but is too complicated and uninteresting to go anywhere, but some is worthy of comment.

There has been talk about revision to the principles used to decide who should inherit the throne. Unfortunately, the Government seems a little unaware of the possible consequences of some of the changes. The two big highlights seem to be primogeniture and Roman Catholicism. Apparently, Mr. Clegg wishes to abolish primogeniture, and allow girls to inherit on an equal basis with boys, and wishes to abolish the prohibition on Roman Catholics inheriting the throne. That clearly means there are two mainstream parties now in Westminster who wish to review the Act of Union 1707 - the SNP and the Lib Dems. To clarify, the most recent piece of legislation that determines the application of these principles is not the widely touted Act of Settlement 1701, but the Act of Union - after all the latter was the piece of Law passed to join England and Scotland, and determine that they would forever share the same King (subject to the same principles above about sovereignty and successors). I'm not sure it was one of Nick Clegg's ambitions to discuss Scottish independence!

Aside from this oversight, the official reason behind the review is fairness and equality. I don't understand the logic that leads to a discussion about whether or not it is fair for a certain member of a family to do a job over another on religious or gender grounds, without also asking the question about whether we should continue to only offer the job to members of just one family!

The Laws and Usages of the Realm

I have not blogged for a while, and my first post back is no doubt an ill-informed rant about the misunderstandings of the Law by the Judiciary!

Firstly, I think the answer that the Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have reached in the case of Eunice and Owen Johns is in danger of creating a legal precedent where what we think about religion can be criminsalised. I have limited objection to the illegality of incitement to violence against a minority, but regulating what we think... I think Winston Smith would like to welcome us to Airstrip One and to remind us to be ready for a visit from the Thought Police later...

One particular part of their judgement has been quoted a lot. The judges said that "the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity , in whatever form". Now according the Government's website, legislation.gov.uk, the Coronation Oath Act 1688 is still part of "the law and usage of the realm" - at least no claim is made that it has been repealed, and last time it was necessary to use it, we did. And said Act contains the following Oath which the Sovereign shall swear at their Coronation: Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.

Yes, that's right, it does indeed call upon the Sovereign to "maintain the Laws of God, the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". And on the 2nd June 1953, our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth II did so swear. Now m'lords, how exactly does this sit with you assertion that Christianity is not part of the law and usage of the Realm?

Indeed if Christianity has no such part, why then does a Papal (later Parliamentary) title still appear on all our coinage? Look on the head side of any coin issued by the Bank of England, and you shall see around the Queen's head the letters DG REG FD. For those with limited Latin, DG stands for Dei Gratia - "By the Grace of God", REG for Regina - "Queen", FD - fidei defensor - defender of the faith. The latter title was initially issued to King Henry VIII by the Pope for his theological critique of Martin Luther, and following their later dispute, it has been issued by Parliament to each successive British Monarch.

Ignoring the question of whether or not the judges made a correct legaljudgement, I also feel they made the wrong moral judgement. Obviously, we do not have judges to tell us morals, we have bishops, but, as bishops in the Church of England don't usually feel the need to criticise Caesar...

I disagree with the position held by Mr and Mrs Johns that homosexuality is sinful. However, I respect their view as a fair reading of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition and not entirely unreasonable. It is also largely indistinct from the official position of the Established Church - that homosexual sex is sinful but being homosexual is okay. If the State may regulate who is fit to take care of children because of their religious convictions, we are well on the way to Doublethink. I suppose a reasonable argument could be made against extremist views, but when was the last time anyone called the Church of England "extremist"?

It might be a little bit of a jump from prohibiting people from fostering because they hold "unacceptable views" to taking away children from the biological parents because of the parents' views, but in some way that is not my objection - that is a view taken by the more screechy libertarians, but to my mind, it is a far more pressing concern that the State has legal precedent to discriminate against people because of how they think!