It seems that British politics, has reverted back to feudalism and patronage. The Conservative Party having emptied itself of anyone competent in management, has decided to try a late term reset and is mining the past for classic hits and memories.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67401753
Suella Braverman has been sacked as home secretary, after she defied No 10 over an article accusing the Metropolitan Police of bias in the policing of protests.
Mrs Braverman was accused of stoking tension ahead of protests in London.
James Cleverly has been announced as her replacement, with former prime minister David Cameron unexpectedly replacing him as foreign secretary.
- BBC News, 13th Nov 2023
Wait what? David Cameron? As in former Prime Minister David Cameron?! Yes, that David Cameron.
Immediately after this was announced, the commentariat on Twitter, and formal news outlets like the BBC collectively went apoplectically into confusion:
How could Cameron take up a ministerial post if he is neither an MP nor in the Lords, or is this not a requirement but a tradition?
- (name withheld) via Twitter, 13th Nov
The specific answer to that question was not yet known but was answered upon the opening of that famous black door at No.10 Downing Street.
The ex-party leader is no longer an elected politician as he stood down as an MP in 2016, having called the Brexit referendum and his campaign to remain in the EU losing the vote.
But the government has confirmed he will now enter the House of Lords as a life peer, giving him the opportunity to serve as a minister once more.
- Sky News, 13th Nov 2023
The short answer is that owing to the Peel Convention of 1936 (which was named after William Peel, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and the youngest son of Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel), that Ministers of the Crown of His Majesty's Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, should be a Member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. By appointing David Cameron to the House of Lords, the requirements of the Peel Convention have been met and everyone is satisfied.
Or not.
It's like, wow; whatever.
Here's the thing about parliamentary conventions. Parliamentary conventions are in fact materially different to constitutions. The United Kingdom talks about an unwritten constitution, which is actually a series of untied laws which are not held together in a collection. A constitution is really just a set of replaceable rules, with instructions about how that body corporate will operate; including replaceable rules about how you replace those replaceable rules. However, parliamentary conventions are not even replaceable rules. They are in reality nothing more than vapours and suggestions about how things should operate. As they are not laws, they aren't actually legally binding. As they are not laws, they actually only last exactly as long until the point that they don't any more.
The appointment of David Cameron as Foreign Secretary inadvertently lets us peek behind the curtain of the law and see what actually stands behind it. What we actually see is that even in the twenty-first century, the United Kingdom still has the raw naked power of the Crown behind the veil of law. The Crown as of now, as in days of yore, still has powers that sometimes dares to use.
As I live in the remnants of empire; and under not one but two sets of law made by Westminster Parliaments, I live in a place bound by law and convention duplicated. This also means that if we examine the written constitutions of the place where I live, we get a formal look at those vapours as though they were stopped from swirling, because in the case of both Australia and New South Wales they have been frozen. Section 64 of the Australian Constitution lends some insight as to what that frozen vapour looks like.
Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
- Section 64, Constitution of Australia (1900)
Here's some fun and scary things of note. The Governor-General who is the King's Representative, holds massive amounts of mostly sleeping reserve power. Frequently throughout the Constitution, the Governor-General is granted power with no direction or advice coming from the Constitution about how to wield that power or what it is for. The appointment of Ministers of the Crown, to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth, is one of those powers.
Note that Section 64 offers no direction at all about who the Governor-General can appoint as a Minister of the Crown. The only impedance is that the person must become "a senator or a member of the House of Representatives" within a period of three months. Without any binding whatsoever, this means that the Governor-General could appoint anyone they wish. Think about that, Section 64 allows the Governor-General to appoint literally anyone in the world as a Minister of the Crown (including the role of Prime Minister which isn't even mentioned in the Constitution) for 89 days. When we get to 90 days, we start to test the boundaries of what is meant by "three months".
The Constitution of Australia does not exist in isolation. It is the end point of more than a decade of argument, counter-argument, at least one fist fight, perhaps lots of swearing; by a lot of fuddy-duddy old men, sitting in the basements of town halls in Sydney and Melbourne, hammering it out. Yes there were some legal scholars amongst the men in the various Constitutional Conventions but the most important thing to remember is that they weren't inventing some new form of government but rather, trying to establish descriptions for what already existed and come to some set of formal agreements. The six several colonies of Australia already had their own Westminster Parliaments and the new Commonwealth Parliament was yet just another copy of the form, coined from the die cut in the Palace at Westminster.
Section 64 formally states what always was and apparently what always will be. That is, that The King can appoint anyone he jolly well feels like as a Minister, at any time, for any reason.
Ministers of the Crown are still officers who administer such departments of State as the King is pleased to establish. Ministers of the Crown are agents of the Crown and curiously, so is the King. The person of the Crown did not magically disappear upon the death of the Queen, nor has it done so upon the deaths of previous Kings and Queens, nor will it do so upon the deaths of future Kings and Queens. Parliament and every Ministry of the Crown and every Department of State of the Crown, are the property of the Crown; and the King who is the executive agent at the centre, still formally has untold and unknown power to make and unmake officers to administer that property.
In my not very well paid opinion, the question of whether or not David Cameron could take up a ministerial post if he is neither a Member of the House of Commons not a Member of the House of Lords, was never an issue. The answer was always "yes". The power to make and unmake Ministers of the Crown always resided with the King; who always had that power. Whether or not David Cameron actually was a Ministers of the Crown without having a seat in parliament will be a question of fact, that will be answered upon the minute by minute signing of writs.
Having said all of that, there should absolutely be outrage. The outrage should exist as a result, not of the King having plenary powers to make and unmake Ministers but that David Cameron can become a life peer of the House of Lords with no election whatsoever. Thankfully the reform process in Australia meant that our upper houses are elected. Ultimately every single Senator or Member of a Legislative Council can be removed by election. The fact David Cameron can not be removed by the people, says that the United Kingdom is still not a democracy in this respect. If you can not remove the people who govern you, you do not live in a democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment