Queen's powers should be removed, says Cameron

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:49 pm

I'll make no comment but "I told you so!" <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Queen's powers should be removed, says Cameron Julian Glover, political correspondent Monday February 6, 2006 The Guardian David Cameron will today call for the Queen to be stripped of many of her traditional powers, a move that takes his campaign to reshape the Conservative party to a startling new level. In his first constitutional intervention since becoming leader Mr Cameron enters unlikely Tory territory, joining forces with a campaign being waged by Tony Benn and Clare Short to give parliament formal control of powers officially held by the Queen. He is calling on his party's new democracy taskforce, chaired by Kenneth Clarke, to "consider the use by ministers of the power of the royal prerogative". That covers a vast range of government activity, from the appointment of bishops and the honours system to the right to go to war, sign treaties and fill many official jobs. However, Mr Cameron has asked it to focus on four specific areas: the right to · declare war and send troops abroad; · to make international and European treaties; · to make appointments and award honours; · to make major changes to the structure of government. He has specifically ruled out changes to what he calls "the personal prerogative powers of the monarch, such as the power to dissolve parliament and appoint a prime minister". Mr Cameron is anxious to make it clear that he does not have Her Majesty in his sights, but the powers ministers now exercise on her behalf. He is not, aides insist, a closet republican. That may help to placate some traditionalist Tory backbenchers, already uneasy at the direction of the party under its new leader. "I'm a staunch supporter of our constitutional monarchy and would not want to undermine it in any way," Mr Cameron will say in a speech today. But by venturing into a debate more often heard among Liberal Democrats and the left of the Labour party, the Tory leader has opened up the possibility of significant constitutional reform. The move also treads on Gordon Brown's toes; allies of the chancellor say he is sympathetic to calls for change. Mr Cameron paints the move as something that could limit what he calls "the personal, presidential style that has taken hold under New Labour. I believe that one of the factors causing disillusionment with politics is the decline in the status and power of parliament," he will say today. "Just last week, we first heard about the government's decision to send 4,000 troops to Afghanistan in the pages of the Sun newspaper. In the Netherlands, there had been months of debate, culminating in a formal vote in parliament," Mr Cameron will argue. Last year Ms Short won support from backbench MPs on all sides for an unsuccessful private member's bill calling for the power on going to war to be handed over to parliament. The issue is also being looked at by a Lords committee. Tony Blair has set himself against the change, pointing out the difficulties if Britain had to go to war quickly or under its Nato treaty obligation. But allies of Gordon Brown have made it clear the chancellor could back the change once in No 10. Yesterday Mr Benn, a long-time supporter of constitutional reform who once introduced a bill to abolish all royal prerogative, reacted to Mr Cameron's move with surprise. "I welcome recruits from wherever they come from," he said, pointing out that in a recent interview the Tory leader cited one of Mr Benn's books as one of the reasons he became interested in politics. But Mr Benn added that he was not about to become a Cameron supporter. "I'm not endorsing him, he's endorsing me," he said. Special reports The monarchy The Act of Settlement The Queen's golden jubilee The Queen Mother<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1703066,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/frontp...66,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:35 pm

Of course this is wholly inadequate. Cameron could not make these proposals without the consent of the Queen To do so would be ILLEGAL. So this is her survival strategy. - Keep the Treason felony Act in place - Get Camilla Parker-Bowles on the Throne as a replacement queen. This is IDENTICAL to cutting down a bush and leaving the root system in place. With time the bush will grow back even stronger. The root MUST be destroyed. The root is the Treason Felony Act. The Treason Felony Act must be nullified NOW, while they are vulnerable. Just look at how they are using it to lie to the people about the murder of the Princess of Wales <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2981.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...2981.topic</a> I wrote that last night. Here is today's story. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>5.15pm update Cameron denies copying Brown on constitutional reform Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Monday February 6, 2006 David Cameron tonight denied he was "stealing Gordon Brown's ideas", as he was forced to admit his plans for boosting democracy contained proposals suggested by the chancellor in a speech last month. The Conservative leader, launching his "democracy taskforce" today, called for a curb on the "royal prerogative" of the prime minister to declare war without a vote in parliament, and to open up current systems of patronage and appointments. Last month in his speech to the Fabian Society on "Britishness", Mr Brown also mooted allowing parliament a vote before troops were committed to action and ending the PM's appointment of bishops to the House of Lords. Today, flanked by former Tory leader William Hague and former chancellor Kenneth Clarke, Mr Cameron denied his party was simply aping the chancellor. He said: "Where we can agree in politics, all to the good. "Ken and William and I have made speeches on this subject. I made a speech on it in my leadership contest. "This is about putting parliament at the heart of our national life. If we can achieve consensus on this issue, we don't need to wait for a general election!" he joked. Mr Cameron's taskforce - one of his six policy working groups reporting back in 18 months' time - will not, however, look at either devolution, or at proportional representation. He told reporters the report would "not be reopening the debate on devolution", and that the Conservative party already has a "fairly fixed view" on PR. Instead, Mr Cameron recommends ending the royal prerogative on declaring war, and is proposing US Senate-style "confirmation hearings" for high-profile public jobs such as chairman of the BBC or NHS chief executive. Pointing out that the Tories have a track record on parliamentary reform, with Mrs Thatcher creating select committees after her 1979 victory, Mr Cameron said the review would also look at the PM's power to sign international treaties and reorganise Whitehall departments. Although a parliamentary vote on military action was finally granted by the government just ahead of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, there was no precedent for it, and no requirement to respect its result. Mr Cameron pointed out there was no similar vote ahead of action in Kosovo or Sierra Leone, although he promised any change would "clearly be necessary to find a way" to grant rapid military action in an emergency. He also revealed he has informed Buckingham Palace of his review ahead of announcing it - although did not reveal what, if any, their response was. He told an audience of journalists and constitutional lobby groups in Conservative central office: "Just last week, we first heard about the government's decision to send 4,000 troops to Afghanistan in the pages of the Sun newspaper. "While there was a vote on the decision to go to war in Iraq - albeit very late in the process - there was no vote on the action in Kosovo. So shouldn't there be a formal process for parliamentary approval?" Mr Clarke, who will head up Mr Cameron's "democracy taskforce", warned that Britain was now no longer a "properly-functioning democratic country". Another, "non-political", member of the Tory policy review will be Lord Butler, who famously criticised Tony Blair's informal decision-making processes as "government by sofa" in his review of intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq conflict. But today the cabinet minister Peter Hain insisted that the Tories were merely playing "catch-up" with the Labour government. He told the Today programme: " We had a vote before we went to war in Iraq - the first time that had ever happened by the House of Commons. "And secondly, we have also now switched to - instead of the PM appointing judges - an independent judicial commission [to] do so. "So that is two royal prerogative issues that we have actually put in a much more modern setting."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,1703491,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/c...91,00.html</a> Cameron and Brown are both Scottish. The two English contenders for leadership of the third party have both been knifed by Rupert Murdoch, Leaving Sir Menzies Campbell as the inevitable choice. Yes, he's Scottish too, and a QC to boot. I know they are Scottish Rite Freemasons but I cannot prove it. This is the choice facing the English electorate. You can have Scot No 1 You can have Scot No 2 You can have Scot No 3 Or you can have the British National Party (!) You won't have a functioning democracy until the Treason Felony Act is nullified.

by **dbeach** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:23 pm

<a href="http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/Members%20Archives/asded.jpg">www.cloakanddagger.de/med.../asded.jpg</a> incase you missed this I think the masons murdered JFK BK MLK all with the help of prescott bush and GHW Bush ..its how the bush dynasty became the queens viceroys

by **antiaristo** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Comment The evil fruits of power are democracy's biggest danger Questioning the crown prerogative is all very well but more radical measures are needed to sustain parliament Simon Jenkins Wednesday February 8, 2006 The Guardian So David Cameron thinks parliament and not "the crown" should declare war. Gordon Brown is angry because he thinks the same but has not had time to mention it to Tony Blair. They are not alone. The most trenchant attack on crown privilege was written in 1994. "The royal prerogative has no place in a modern western democracy," it said. It should no longer give cover for "the declaration of war or the signing of treaties". As for party donations being tied to high honours under crown privilege, the outrage was "too stark to ignore". The author of these fine words was Jack Straw, now foreign secretary. Since then he and his prime minister have declared or at least fought no fewer than five wars. The prerogative was rather convenient after all. So too is the happy coincidence of high honours and party donations. When politicians accuse commentators of being cynical I sometimes reply, no, just sceptical. Other times I think cynicism is too kind. So what do we make of David Cameron's assertion this week, conjoined with Brown's, that he questions not just the royal prerogative but Downing Street's "presidentialism". For Brown to favour executive delegation is merely bizarre, like Scarpia favouring the right to silence. But for both leaders-in-waiting to abjure presidentialism at the same time is intriguing. Radicals should either cheer or count their spoons. Cameron's proposed constitutional inquiry covers a range of powers vested in the prime minister. These include declaring war, signing treaties, appointments and honours. He believes that crown prerogative has become a cloak for circumventing parliament. The power of the monarch, supposedly clipped by Magna Carta, has re-emerged in a mass of special powers and "Henry VIII" clauses. Sleaze has been institutionalised. The question is not whether Cameron (or Brown) is sincere but whether, like Blair, he is merely "sincere at the time". He has scant experience of making pledges and keeping them. He has fumbled the one domestic issue on which events demanded a clear answer, school selection. Now he has adopted a subject that always brings politicians out in hot flushes. Blair's one firm commitment to constitutional reform before 1997 was to devolution. He regretted it but was stuck with the pledge. Cameron could hardly have chosen for his inquiry two men more steeped in prerogative government than Kenneth Clarke and Lord Butler, formerly chancellor and cabinet secretary respectively. Unless something most odd has happened we can expect genteel proposals on parliamentary procedure, select committee reform, honours scrutiny and other changes in the Westminster tea ceremony. I attended one last week before the Commons public administration committee. For decorum it lacked only geishas in attendance. To shift the British constitution out of presidential mode needs a bulldozer, not a chopstick. The dignities of parliament cannot be rearranged to make it proof against the imperatives of power. The only way to achieve what Cameron claims to want is to create an institution outside the ambit of Westminster. Change in the British constitution customarily relied on respect for convention and on a spread of quasi-autonomous institutions. One convention was that reform be preceded by a bipartisan royal commission. This canvassed expert and public opinion, and carried an authority that made it hard for government to ignore reform or give it a partisan gloss. Thus did postwar governments reform the House of Lords, the BBC, the police, the universities and local government. Thatcherism discarded this convention, replacing it with the Thatcher/Blair doctrine that whatever prime ministers want they should get. Yet they rarely get it. How much more stable might NHS or schools reform have been if preceded by a bipartisan commission? Instead we have the welfare state in Gordon Brown's hand, the honours system in Blair's pocket, the police under Charles Clarke's belt and the BBC in Tessa Jowell's head. Reform of the judiciary, which surely merited a commission, was a shambles. The royal-commission basis for constitutional reform was a good one. Disbanding it removed not just an agent of consensual change. It removed a valued forum of pluralist participation. Recently there has been one newcomer fighting against the trend, the proposed British supreme court. Fashioned from the existing law lords, it is specifically intended to have a status sufficient to confront the power of government face to face. I would parallel this court with a similar body overseeing British democracy. Such a democracy commission would have formal and informal powers. It would vet senior political and government appointments and oversee the honours system and House of Lords membership, however described. It would adjudicate on standards in public life. It would determine electoral boundaries, voting systems, the funding of political parties and the constitution and powers of local authorities. Though set up under statute, such a commission must be detached from Downing Street and parliament. Its membership should exclude present or past politicians. Its sovereignty, even if technically under the crown, must be independent of party, parliament and government. Its very eccentricity would be its strength. A democracy commission would embrace a mass of subordinate regulation and form a distinct "fifth estate" of the realm. But since it would strip the prime minister, the whips and party machines of much of their patronage and power, it is inconceivable that those in office will ever contemplate such an institution. Only in opposition might it be contemplated, since only to pledges made in opposition do governments feel even mildly accountable. That is why Blair's pre-1997 pledge on devolution was vital to its realisation. That too is why today's "Cameron moment" is critical to constitutional reform. Cameron is a rare opposition leader who has not yet tasted the fruit of the tree of evil. He will taste it one day, and he will change his mind on most things pertaining to his power in office. That is why any radical reform must be branded into every speech and written in blood in the Tory manifesto. As for the odds on that happening, who dares cry cynic?<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1704704,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/commen...04,00.html</a> Sorry, Simon. If it is "technically under the crown" it is subject to the Treason Felony Act. Which means, like Lord Goldsmith and Lord Bingham and Lord Hutton and Lord Butler and...they have to do what the Queen says. It will not remove the roots of the problem. The Treason Felony Act. The Treason Felony Act must be nullified, and nullified NOW. By the way, I highlighted Tessa Jowell, who holds the fate of the BBC in her hands. See this thread <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...sageRange?</a> Tessa Jowell appinted Richard Hooper Deputy Chairman of Ofcom. Tessa Jowell is married to David Mills. David Mills is Silvio Berlusconi's consigliere. David Mills is being pursued by the Italian Justice authorities. Tessa Jowell is more than a gangster's moll. She is a gangster herself.

Queen's powers should be removed, says Cameron

Queen's powers should be removed, says Cameron

Re: Queen's powers should be removed, says Cameron

Re: Queen's powers should be removed, says Cameron

They are in a blind panic

Who is online