Do you still think MaizieD that this isn't how our constitution works as you said, or do you not want to consider the points made about how our constitution should work? Just interested.
I think the writer of the piece was muddled about the function of parliament.
This is what I have particular difficulty with.
That's not how a democracy should work. Parliament is there to work for us, not to rule over us. And given the control government has over parliament, the current constitution ends up concentrating huge amounts of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and government ministers.
Go back to the basics of the constitution.
There are three elements: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.
The Legislature comprises the Commons and the Lords, together they are 'parliament'. It has no regard to party affiliations.
The Executive is the body that represents the Crown in Parliament; it proposes legislation but, legislation can only be enacted if it is the will of parliament. This is why parliament is 'sovereign', its 'will' overrides the 'will' of the Executive (the 'crown in parliament')
Parliamentary sovereignty was established after the 17th C English Civil War, which was fought to challenge the absolute power of the monarch. After the death of Cromwell it was parliament that recalled the monarch, but the balance of power remained with parliament.
The monarch kept the power to appoint a government, but attempts by the monarch to over ride parliament and form a government of its own choosing, with a view to that government carrying out the monarch's wishes, were always stymied by parliament when it refused to accept that government and wouldn't enact the legislation.. In the end, monarchs gave up trying.
So, although the monarchy retained some of the privileges which Republic doesn't like, it was, and is, basically unable to direct government legislation.
The problems of excessive Executive power arise from the party system rather than from the monarchy. Members of parliament were, in theory, independents, though naturally they would tend to ally themselves with other members who shared their beliefs and ideas on how the country should be run (mostly to the advantage of the male, wealthy and propertied classes because they were the only people who could vote and could afford to sit in parliament). But even then, the parties could be quite fluid and people could easily swap between parties or vote against their party if it suited them. And with only two parties voting was simple and results clear cut. Until the inception of a third party, the Labour party in the early 20th C voters chose one party or the other and power, over time, was pretty evenly distributed. It was pretty simple in that the majority of votes gave a party the majority of seats. And the monarch had to ask the party which could command a parliamentary majority to form a government. It had no choice. It still has no choice.
But having three parties means that a party can win a majority of seats without having the majority of the votes cast. So, as far as 'expressing the 'people's will' is concerned the winning party no longer does express it... It is, if you like, no longer a truly democratic system and no longer expresses the wishes of 'the majority'. This is not in any way the fault of the monarchy. It's abolition would make no difference to our current situation.
In theory, parliament is working for the people. The article writer is wrong to say that it isn't. And parliament does 'rule over us' because we ask it to legislate on our behalf. Again in theory, it implements the legislative programme set out in its manifesto the 'the majority' (which, as we've seen, isn't really the majority of voters) voted for.
In our current situation it is clear that MPs in the party of government have little understanding of the significance of parliamentary sovereignty but have given away their powers to scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account. Either through ignorance of the significance of their powers or because having their party remain in power is more important to them than observing the principle of the constitution; that parliament is sovereign, not the Executive.
We are, indeed, throwing away the sovereign independence of the Legislature and returning power to the 'crown in parliament'. But this is not because of any actions of the monarch. There may be excellent reasons for wanting a republic, but the key battle is to curb Executive power, not monarchical power. (and, TBH, the only people who seem to be trying to do this are the 'unelected' House of Lords)
I hope this is understandable. It's quite a complex area.
