6 comments for “Parliament Week 19th – 25th November 2012

  1. MilesJSD
    08/11/2012 at 4:16 pm

    The main Need of People is to have their sworn real-life needs verbatimly delivered to, and advocated throughout, the parliamentary legislative process.

    Because this is not even being attempted, all the “outreaches” from Parliament are no better than power-accretionistic, one-way, top-down, pedagogicly benevolent, Oligarchical ploys,
    under a false flag of “Democracy”.

    When Parliament can see the relevance of The People, of “every-one’s real-needs, and affordable-hows”;
    then The People will surely come to see and trust the relevance of Parliament, to ‘Real-Life’.
    ======
    Incidentally, when I followed the link kindly given by Lord Hylton, and tried to find a place where I could actually type-in and submit a few words in response to the invitation “Have your say”,
    I could find no such gateway, ‘box’, or other channel.

  2. Senex
    09/11/2012 at 12:46 pm

    In 2014 it will be the 750th anniversary of the De Montfort Parliament (taking into account both Julian and Gregorian calendars)? All were summoned to an elected chamber by Henry III, none were ordered (by writ) in this 17th sitting of his reign.

    In 1688 Ireland was annexed by a ‘Convention Parliament’?

    “Whereas the kingdom of Ireland is (as well by the laws of this kingdom, as those of Ireland) annexed and united to the imperial crown of England, and all acts judgements, sentences, orders, decrees, or other proceedings, of what kind so ever, there had, made, or done, without or against the authority of the Kings or Queens of this kingdom of England, are absolutely null and void; and all persons in Ireland that oppose or submit not to the government of the crown of this realm, are rebels and guilty of high treason…”

    The annexation of Ireland is its punishment for fighting alongside James II at the ‘Battle of Reading’. The Act is really a Cromwell style Ordinance as James II never gives it Royal Assent?

    The Irish nobility never had an automatic right to sit in the HoL but could sit as MPs. Scottish peers were denied similar rights to sit however they were able to send elected members to the house.

    The future of Scottish peers awaits us in 2014.

    Ref: Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, 1208-1265
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Montfort%27s_Parliament
    An Act for the better security and relief of their Majesties protestant subjects of Ireland. Pages 74, 75
    http://books.google.se/books?id=-ak3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA74&hl=sv

  3. Senex
    09/11/2012 at 4:10 pm

    As addenda to the above post, members seem comfortable with the notion of retirement as expressed in the ‘Steel Bill’. However a ‘writ of summons’ differs markedly from a ‘writ of election’ in that its provenance is much older than the latter.

    The only constitutional way to deliver what members want is to fully elect the house (to do otherwise would mean some appointed members could never retire) and exchange the ‘writ of summons’ for a ‘writ of election’.

    The ‘writ of election’ and its provenance traces back to a time when writs were a right of those who governed especially in the hundreds. Charles II used such to writs to fill the Commons with his cronies by ordering anybody that took his fancy to attend elections. Vote for the King’s man or else!

    Why the research you might ask? There may be a way to restore the dignity and honour of the Commons (more on this at a later time) by sending members who ‘drop the writ’ in HoL elections back there by issuing a further writ for them to attend a general election.

    In the blogs prospectus for an indirectly elected HoL no category domain election takes place in a general election year. Failing to get elected by the people would be an acceptable way for peers to then retire.

    Lord Tyler may not have to end up as Christmas dinner after all and you never know his craft might again find use in a house that misses his qualities?

    The link to Henry Powle describes a man of Parliament and of his time. He spoke against Parliamentary wages and would have been horrified by the proposal of such in the recent HoL reform bill.

    POWLE, Henry (1630-92), of Williamstrip, Glos.
    http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/powle-henry-1630-92
    Hundreds; Genealogy of the family name of Eacott
    http://www.execulink.com/~eacott/web_005.htm

    • Lord Blagger
      12/11/2012 at 10:34 am

      Why should any Peer be paid redundancy?

      They aren’t in a job as they keep telling us. It’s just expenses.

      Ah yes, just like the Director General of the BBC who has just pocketed over a million for 2 months work, its all about how much cash they get out.

  4. Senex
    12/11/2012 at 4:34 pm

    Concerns! Concerns! More on Ireland if I may; the reason why the Irish nobility could not sit in the HoL is that the Irish Parliament had a Commons and a House of Lords all of its own in Dublin.

    The relationship between England and the Ireland in 1688 is a ‘Personal Union’ contrasting with England and Scotland as a ‘Dynastic Union’ with the operative word being ‘union’.

    The Scottish Parliament is then, as it is now unicameral, it does not have a House of Lords and its nobility are not barons in the English sense. After the 1707 Act of (political) Union the Scottish nobility will be allowed to send an elected delegation to the HoL not as barons but as Lords of Parliament.

    What the executive has not made clear to anybody is the intended relationship between Scotland and England after independence. If the relationship is to be one of a ‘Personal Union’ then constitutional precedent allows the English Parliament to pass laws that supersede those of the Scottish Parliament.

    If the relationship is to be dynastic then Scotland is entitled to have its own regiments under the control of the Scottish executive which brings us to the issue of civil unrest. Under a ‘Personal Union’ which regiments would be sent to Scotland to quell unrest, English or Scottish? What would Scotland’s relationship be with the Commonwealth?

    And what is to happen to the Scottish nobility after independence, they would be orphaned out of the system of governance because of the lack of political union. The first minister is openly hostile toward the nobility and would happily see the demise of his Lords of Parliament within the political process.

    Why all of this pre-legislative, legislative legal and constitutional spaghetti could take a very, very long time to unravel. The referendum means nothing! The SNP will have delivered on its manifesto pledge, to deliver a referendum on pie in the sky?

    Ref: University College Cork: CELT: The Free Digital Humanities Resource for Irish history, literature and politics. The Irish Parliament of James II, Thomas Osborne Davis
    http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/E800002-045/

  5. Nazma FOURRE
    14/11/2012 at 6:43 pm

    Dear Lord,
    Hope some day, one day,special invitations are sent to overseas participants of this blog to follow the debates.

    God save the Queen and the Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
    Nazma FOURRE

Comments are closed.