The English Statesman

Volume 2
April 1979

English errs on Europe?

Randolph English has certainly
never been the most popular
man in Westminster. Being
famed as a young MP as one of
Joe Hipright's “Snakes” he then
proceeded to find himself
battling with fellow
Conservatives in the recent
election to save the Party's
reputation. Being Shadow for
Economic Affairs he has had to
battle both John Steward and
Longship on key matters such as
the Fair Trade Act and the
recent legislation on co-
operatives as well as wage
boards for agriculture. However
he is now in the paper for
something much different.
When the European Parliament
Elections act was introduced it
was believed by many that it
would receive a smooth passage.
However Mr.English
immediately challenged the
legislation believeing that the
electoral mandate may be
abused by the Parliament.
Despite these being concerns
that seem quite reasonable, the
Government and Liberal Party
have latched onto the comments
as if being a sign
English speaking to the LSE recently
of the Conservatives and
Mr.English being anti-Europe.
Even former Party leader Ted
Heath has attacked the
comments. However once the
surface is scratched the
comments aren't so bad at all.
English has stated several times
that he doesn't oppose Europe,
nor does he oppose the ECC.
However he worries that the
electoral mandate may be used to
try and justify taking powers
from Westminster. He has
received support from the
Shadow Foreign Secretary on this
matter as well, they have asked
for an amendment to be made to
prevent this occurring without
direct consultation but yet this
has been shouted down. One has
to ask the question. Why?
There has been a lot of blustering
about Democracy in the House
recently, but those that have been
supposedly for Democracy now
oppose such referendum. Using
Mr.English's opposition to an
immediate referendum on
devolution and electoral reform
they believe they have him. On
closer inspection, all Mr.English
has said is that he believed the
matter should be fully debated
before consulting the people. As
such that seems to be a fair
comment to make.
Therefore there is a clear choice.
If we are to have the Parliament
which is truly democratic in
Europe, we should not only elect
the Representatives, but also make
sure that all the powers they
receive get a fully electoral
mandate. We had a referendum
upon entry to Europe, then a
referendum on the ECC. Why not
have a referendum on new
powers?
At least the Government could
agree to the convention of
referendum on Europe, but as
usual, referendum only suit the
Government when it suits them.

Before Parliament...
Parliament has once again been graced by the Home Secretary as he has
two new pieces of Legislation before the House. Firstly he legislation
outlining the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service, and also a
reintroduction of the Firearms Control Act with stiffer penalties. It will be
interesting to note if these Bills get a smooth passage or not. Both seem
rather simple now, and it will be an indication if the Conservatives are
involved in opposition for opposition's sake.
Government's Missing Mandate?
There is a sense of fully elected chamber. This
causes problems immediately
unease in the
as we have to ask which
Commons at the
Chamber is dominated the
moment. On both
lower or upper? If the Upper
sides there seems to be
is elected then surely it has
a gathering storm as
just as much mandate to rule
two camps very
as the Lower? Then we have
opposite in opinions
the mess of how many
seem certain to clash
members, what plans are to be
over one of the largest
used.
constitutional issues of Prime Minister Lewis – Still the young firebrand?
We also have to ask ourselves,
our entire History.
what is this new Chamber to
As reported in the last mandate lies there. They have now said that
they have a mandate in the form of the do? If elected will it get its
issue of the English
Parliament Act 1911, a little passage that powers of veto on legislation
Statesman there has
mentions that it should be made a “popular” back? Or will the Government
been a lot of debate
chamber. reject this, in case the Upper
over reforming the
House disagrees with them?
Lords. After rejecting However relying on a piece of legislation that
was written over 70 years ago, by a Will it be partly elected?
proposals by the
Government elected by 1/3 the franchise that Causing a two-tier system of
Government to have
unelected local we currently have, that seems like a very small Lords? Which are more
parochial committees, mandate. Especially considering that the matter worthy therefore the
the Government was at hand, the very essence of the Constitution of hereditary, life peers or the
in such a rage that it this country is at stake. The Prime Minister still elected?
Who is to elect these Lords?
became determined to maintains that there is a mandate and that the
Chamber shall be reformed. There is another The people, the Lower House,
reform that House in
issue behind the idea of reform also. Is the the Cabinet?
order to make sure
motive correct? There are hundreds of
that it would not be
This Government had remained quiet on the questions that this reform will
able to oppose such
measures again. The issue of the Lords until it rejected the have to answer, and there is a
Administrative Powers Act, which was a strong possibility that any
problem is however,
do they have the right keystone of Government legislation. So has this reform will face problems
to reform it? desire for change come from anger at the Lords from backbenchers that
The Government has for rejecting their bill or is it through a genuine believe them too weak, and
claimed that it has an desire to attack the issue of Lords reform? John opposition from others for
Steward has perhaps given an example of what going too far.
electoral mandate.
However in the the Government's motives are. He attacked the Perhaps Noble-Gordon is
“Establishment” a few days ago for being a correct, perhaps the old
General Election just
maxim that has been part of
past it did not mention roadblock to reform, but yet as Mr.English
the British Constitution for
Lords reform, indeed replied only a few days ago, it has been this
in its manifesto for all “Establishment” that throughout our history has many centuries, and is even
30 pages there was defended our rights and democracy. The Lords more a cornerstone then
Dicey or any other work has
only one reference to have always been champions of the people, yet
the Government has attacked them for being a got the problem down to a
the Lords, on the
block on reform. metaphorical T.
matter of reform to
The problems begin to mount however, when “It it ain't broke, don't fix it”
Aircraft and
Shipbuilding. you have to decide what form this new chamber
Therefore there can be is going to take. There are a number of forms
no doubt that the that are could be used, the most obvious is a
That was the week that was....
A look at the goings on in British Politics this week

John Steward lambasted the “Establishment” (no use of the word effete however)
for not being fair. He claimed that they were scared by the democracy that the
Labour Government was introducing and that it only wished to have elections so
that it could elect those that it liked into Government.
A very interesting line of attack, though it bares a question, if they are a unfair
minority would they really benefit from elections where they would have to
battle against the majority of the public? In any case, it was a nice appeal to the
old Red Guard in their battle against the Lords.

The Foreign Secretary made an embattled speech on the European Parliamentary

Elections attacking the Conservatives for opposition for oppositions sake. He
claimed that they were trying to make a U-Turn on the policy laid down by
previous Foreign Secretary (and Tory Party Leader) Robert Noble-Gordon.
This was quite a scathing attack on the Tories, and will no doubt have been
warmly received by people such as Ted Heath, however it does seem to revived
the debate over the Tories and Europe. It will be interesting to see if these
speeches cause any dissent within the Tories.

Liberal Leader Alexander Shackleton announced the “Third Way” the points
highlighted the Liberal Commitments to furthering Democracy, beating the
economic malaise of the country and trying to make sure that freedom was
protected.
Behind the fluff of democracy and freedom, there is very little to go on. The
policies are quite vague and the economic policy seems to rest on balancing the
budget, a Conservative Proposal.
No doubt this will raise some interest as people are eager to find out exactly what
the Liberals are talking about.

Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,
I was simply appalled by your
attack on the Firearms Control
Act. The Labour Government had
the idea absolutely spot on. Aiming
at a human being isn't hurting
anyone, and fining people £25
seems more a fair punishment on
people that have done so.
Dear Editor,
I would like to congratulate
the English Statesman on a
fantastic first issue, it was a
thrilling read and I look
forward to further issues. It is
certainly better then anything
that the Guardian could of
produced.
Dear Editor
The last issue of the
English Statesman was
a complete load of tosh.
This Labour
Government has always
been a strong supporter
of the Sen..I mean the
Lords.

Yours, Yours,
Yours,
General Sir Smith Smythe James Cornton
Margret Hernthrop (deceased)
Smith