Lords have a duty to uphold government manifesto
Yesterday a Conservative attempt to force a referendum on the issue of the EU constitution/treaty failed. This means that the EU constitution/treaty will now pass to the Lords for ratification. If this fails, Gordon Brown may well use the Parliament Act to force through this bill. In the Lords, there is a convention that no legislation which was in the governing party’s manifesto should be blocked. Even if I disagree with some of the legislation, this seems right and proper to me, as the government has been given a mandate to govern on those issues by the people and so an unelected chamber should not stand in its way.
What though should be the Lords’ convention if a government is in fact attempting to pass legislation that is actually in direct opposition to what was promised in their manifesto (namely the promise to hold a referendum on the EU constitution/treaty)? In my opinion, the Lords have a responsibility to block this proposed legislation. I would like to see the constitution/treaty scrapped on a personal level, but I think that there is a more important long term issue here, and that is about an elected government implementing its manifesto promises where humanly possible. Of course there will be exceptions to this rule if circumstances changed drastically, but for the most part manifesto commitments must be implemented. Otherwise, what is the point of representative government?
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, Party politics
I think the Lords might be on tricky territory if they try to uphold manifesto commitments in the face of the elected Commons – it could lead to some difficult questions about where their own mandate comes from.
Why do you want the Treaty scrapped?
You can still vote – at http://www.FreeEurope.info
BenM:
Because of its creation of useless offices like EU president and the extension of power at the expense of national elected governments.
I still don’t get your opposition Rumbold.
The EU president will chair meetings at the Council of Ministers and maintain whatever the agenda happens to be.
It neatly counterbalances the president of the Commission and stops the 6 month merry-go-round that currently exists.
This will enable the EU to focus on long term strateges which have been stymied by the pre-occupations of incoming presidencies in the past. It’s a much needed change.
On the extension of power issue, this is mightily overblown. The Treaty proposes that parliaments at national level gain more time to scrutinse legislation and can rebut any that it deems unworthy.
The voting weights of each nation at the Council of Ministers is to be amended meaning that the UK’s influence is actually beefed up! Ok, so we lose some of our vetoes, but this voting change offsets some of this, and the jealous guarding of vetoes in areas already long ceded to the EU are patently undemocratic anyway!
Moreover this treaty does not extend the EU’s field of competency (ie. into criminal law, health etc) , and any such changes is still subject to unanimity at the Council of Ministers.