Rt Hon Sir John Redwood MP (Wokingham) (Con): Opposition parties are struggling a bit with this idea of democracy, are they not? Taking back control was to have control by the people and for the people, and offering the people an early general election so that they could choose an effective Government when a Parliament was logjammed, hopeless and not prepared to govern with clarity and passion was the right thing to do. I just cannot understand why Labour and the SNP are still queuing up to defend the indefensible, and to say that because they may well be faced again with a situation in which they do not dare face the electors, they need some kind of legal rigmarole and manipulation of votes in a balanced or damaged Parliament to thwart the popular will yet again. âNever let the people make the decision,â they say: it must be contained within Parliament, even when a Parliament has obviously failed, as it did when it could not implement the wishes of the British people over the great Brexit referendum.
I want assurances from the Minister that this new policy will protect the Crownâthe Queenâfrom the difficult business of politics. I think the Ministerâs version of it is better than the version from the other place. Of course, it must keep the courts out. There is nothing more political than the decision about when we go to an election and when we give the people their power back and the right to make that fundamental choice. It is a choice that now can mean something, because we do not have to keep on accepting a whole load of European laws that we have no great role in making. Again, we need that absolute guarantee that we will have this freedom so that that can happen.
Those who say that they do not want the Prime Minister to have this much power have surely been in the House long enough to know that, while the Prime Minister has considerable power from his or her office, they are also buffeted and challenged every day by a whole series of pressures in this place and outside. If a leader of a party with a majority wanted an early election that their supporters did not want, I suspect that that would get sorted out without an early election. So we are only talking about what happens when a Government have lost their majority and the Prime Minister is doing his or her best to govern as a minority. We get the extraordinary position we got when the whole Opposition wanted to gang up to thwart the public making a choice, but did not want to govern. That was totally unacceptable, and the Opposition should hear the message from the doorsteps in the 2019 election. The public wanted a Parliament with a Government who could govern, so they decided to choose one. Those who sought to block it made themselves more unpopular, and they showed that they do not understand the fundamental point of democracy that, when Parliament lets the people down, the people must be able to choose a new and more effective Parliament.
March 15, 2022
Oh right.
The gradual erosion of democracy then?
Further and further down the rabbit hole.
Can we take much more?
March 16, 2022
I wonder if Sir John – given what he says – would write a few words as to why he opposes a formal constitution which enshrined the sovereignty of the people?
It would save an awful lot of squabbling every time that someone blew the dog whistle with the claim that Parliament was defying “the will of the people” wouldn’t it?
As it stands, it is under no obligation whatsoever to pay any heed at all to whatever it might appear to be anyway.
March 15, 2022
I will never, ever, forgive the undemocratic politicians of 2017-2019 who obtained their seats via outright deceit, then tried to thwart the democratic decision of the electorate and went even further by preventing the electorate from kicking them out. The undemocratic politicians who obtained their seats by promising to uphold the referendum, and then fought it, should have been prosecuted for fraud. Unfortunately, the majority still carry on today, trying to bypass and ignore the electorate but they win their seats based on lies and deceit and the electorate have no means to remove them. They caused untold damage to the UK and it’s negotiations with the EU.
Democracy in the UK is a facade. It is manipulated by politicians for the benefit of politicians and their ‘influencers’. Boris and your party are avoiding Brexit, as far as possible. No wonder the EU feel emboldened when blackmailing and ‘punishing’ the UK. The EU has plenty of willing accomplices in the UK that are well places to assist them.
March 16, 2022
I think that any Ukrainian could tell you what punishment and blackmail actually are and look like, Shirley.
That you should continue to make such claims at this time speaks volumes.
March 16, 2022
Some of them are now in the Lords, unelected legislators-for-life.
March 17, 2022
+1 Well said.
March 15, 2022
Well said.
I want so much more.
I would like to see it easier for new parties to get into Parliament.
None of the major parties has any interest in losing their power even if they are not in government, of keeping the status quo.
When voters get hacked off with the Tories they vote in labour, when they get hacked off with Tories and labour, the greens and libdems get a high vote — but we never see the fresh faces that parliament so badly needs.
The status quo has failed us badly – Time for the largest parliamentary shakeup ever.
March 16, 2022
we do see fresh faces – but they have been carefully selected to become ‘yes-men and women’.
March 16, 2022
Changing the status quo requires a change to a fair and representative voting system (not AV which can produce results even more distorted than the current FPTP system). However, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
March 15, 2022
The ruling by the Supreme Court in 2019 that the Queen’s decision to prorogue parliament was justiciable was a constitutional outrage, a piece of filthy marxist politics disguised as law. The Crown is supreme, and the monarch’s decisions CANNOT be challenged in court. Similarly, elected governments, which represent the will of the people, must no longer be stymied by unelected judges – that is a denial of democracy. The fact that Boris the Traitor has done NOTHING to punish those vile political activists masquerading as judges, or to assert that ministerial decisions and actions can no longer be challenged by judicial review, is yet another demonstration of his gutless surrender to the marxist ideology destroying Britain.
Examples of this government’s betrayal of Britain and the British national interest emerge every single day. Although you, Sir John, understand that free trade must be subservient to the national interest, the government clearly does not. Just yesterday I learnt that the two new aeroplanes for the Queen’s Flight will be bought from France, rather than designed and manufactured in the UK. The government has stabbed Britain’s aerospace industry in the back. The Queen’s Flight could have been a project to revive our aviation capability, showcasing our ability to produce the finest business jets on the world stage, but instead Boris is promoting France, French industry and the French economy instead. The man’s treachery is beyond belief.
March 15, 2022
Parliament’s decisions cannot be challenged in any court.
It would be preposterous if any entity other than that – such as government – could compete with that supremacy.
March 16, 2022
Ridiculous statement NHL
What was the Supreme Coury rulings over Brexit or the numerous challenges by the “Good” Law Project
Just two examples of many.
March 16, 2022
They only challenged government or other entity, never Parliament.
March 17, 2022
Another pedantic statement from you NHL
The activist judges interfered in a decision of the government elected by the people.
March 17, 2022
You repeatedly refuse to accept the absolute basis of how this country works and has done for centuries now.
March 17, 2022
I have a different opinion to you NHL.
I think you are wrong and that you refuse to accept that your obsession over Brexit makes you like activist judges when they interfere to stifle both tbe elected government’s wishes and the result of the biggest referendum vote in the history of thos nation.
March 17, 2022
It is a simple, centuries-established legal fact – not an opinion – that no court can challenge the actions of Parliament.
It’s also a fact that the law binds everyone, and every entity, including government. Only in tyrannies is the government above the law.
Try to remember these things and you won’t find events so confusing Peter.
March 17, 2022
A court did challenge the decision of our government who were elected by us.
On a matter that was a decision we took in a referendum.
And w get the power to vote the government out every few years.
I’m not confused at all.
March 18, 2022
Thank goodness that we live in a free country where ordinary people can hold to account the government when it breaks the law, eh?
Clearly you do not think so, and that, absolutely and finally, defines you.
March 18, 2022
I’ve not said never challenge the Government
Judicial review is also available.
I am specifically talking about the decision they took regarding frustrating our decision to leave the EU
Which failed when the election gave us a huge majority
Like your post fails NHL
March 17, 2022
Sorry P2, but the Supreme Court did not rule over Brexit, it ruled over the proroguing of Parliament. As for the Good Law Projectâs challenges, please tell me what is wrong about them asking the Government to publish details on
– how the PPE contracts and other Covid-related contracts have been decided,
– how the Levelling Up Fund is being distributed,
– how they intend to deal with the Net Zero Strategy.
I would have thought that as a taxpayer/voter/citizen/subject you would have been interested in how at times big sums of taxpayersâ money have been or are distributed by our Government.
Or is it kosher/legit only if it comes from the Taxpayersâ Alliance?
March 17, 2022
Most of the good law challenges have been failures.
Thanks for joining in heffy.
March 16, 2022
The Crown has not been supreme since the 17th century. A civil war was fought to establish that. The government is supreme in countries like North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Russia, but never in this country. Here, Parliament is supreme – as the courts made clear when they stopped the government closing down (‘proroguing’) Parliament. You seem very angry but, please, start by finding out the basic rule on how this country works
March 16, 2022
I’m not even near being angry Gary.
And I notice you avoided any comments on the examples I gave.
March 24, 2022
P2, I note that you didnât answer the question, but you complain about others doing the same.
Whether the GLP was successful or not is irrelevant. What did you think of the potential problems they were looking at? Do you agree with everything the Government has been doing regarding these matters?
March 16, 2022
Parliament is the Queen’s parliament.
Its sovereignty is hers.
Therefore its unlawful proroguing is denying her that sovereignty.
March 16, 2022
Did the Queen voice any complaint?
Remainers used Blair’s new court of activist judges to interfere.
But all their efforts failed in the end as the voters gave their verdict
The worst election result for Labour since 1935 and poor results from Lib Dems and the Greens.
March 17, 2022
The Supreme Court is not new at all.
It simply replaces the House Of Lords in its function and premises as a court.
March 17, 2022
Very different make up comparing those in the Supreme Court and the House of Lords.
And different powers.
March 17, 2022
The judges are appointed in very similar manner to the law lords and are steadily changing through natural process of retirement, ageing etc..
It has exactly the same powers as any court but only Parliament can trump it.
March 17, 2022
Irrelevant.
March 18, 2022
No, it’s the absolute, central point.
March 18, 2022
It is irrelevant.
It was Blair’s Supreme Court’s activist judges who tried to stop the elected government’s decision.
It was an attempt to make unelected judges the ultimate power in the nation.
Fortunately the voters told the judges and the dreadful Speaker what they thought of their deliberate attack on the decision to leave the EU in the next election.
Parties that wanted to go back into the EU had a terrible election result.
March 15, 2022
My goodness, you seem to be firing on all cylinders Sir John – good for you, but do look after yourself! Good wishes.
March 15, 2022
Why are all politicians, even Labour politicians, so obsessed with âthe queenâ? It sounds like something out of a fairy tale. Why canât we grow up and have a constitution without a monarchy? And, no, the alternative is not President Blair. When one leader meets another it should be elected leaders. Not a hangover from feudal times.
March 15, 2022
Every country has a Head of State. Given that we have to have one too, why not keep the way ours becomes Head of State as being superior to the way other countries choose theirs? Ours is trained from birth to do something which is a lot more complex and specialised than is realized. It is a full time vocation, a dedication, not part of a political career. It is uncorrupt and non partisan. It separates the pomp from the power. It is unifying. Everyone can see it hasn’t been rigged – at least not now we have dispensed with warming pans. The loyalty of the armed forces to the Monarch is very special indeed and very important. They would not feel that bond with an elected president. Our monarch is more special than other monarchs because she is an anointed sovereign, of which there aren’t many about now. The Dutch monarch for example is now just a paid civil servant. Because our monarch serves for life, she brings great stability, continuity, wisdom, knowledge, and experience which rarely get acquired to the same extent by politicians.
March 16, 2022
Well it is not that complicated really you just smile, wave, read out the lines written for you, keep to small talk and pleasantries, wear the right outfits as provided, keep well out of politics and cut all the ribbons provided.
Alas Prince Charles has trouble keeping out of politics with his green crap private jet hypocrisy and his spidery green ink letters and his very questionable gifts of honours.
Still anything is better than President Blair or President any of the other dire PMs we have suffered under in the past ~ 60 years.
March 15, 2022
The alternative to a monarch is an elected president. But then you have two problems:
(i) Being elected, the president will claim that he has a democratic mandate and will want genuine day-to-day powers, which will create a conflict with the prime minister and the government of the day.
(ii) An elected head of state will inevitably be a politician. What will be his term of office? Politicians are popular for a while and then become unpopular – like Blair.
Do you really think a politician would do a better job than the Queen has done? Look at Biden or Macron – do you really think those are better than the Queen?
March 15, 2022
I would say that by just taking a quick look at First World history over the past 200-odd years demonstrates that constitutional monarchies generally have more internally peaceful administration – not ‘perfect’ but much more ordered.
March 15, 2022
That is a very good test, SM. And even today, just look at any monarchy and compare it with the republic next door: you will find the subjects are freer than the citizens.
March 15, 2022
Balderdash! Mike
March 16, 2022
Yes quite right. There should be an elected head of state and an elected upper house.
March 16, 2022
One problem with two elected Houses: how do you decide which one backs down?
March 17, 2022
Well how does it work in other countries, such as Germany. It’s not a new thing, and other countries run very well with an elected president and upper house.
March 17, 2022
Quite right Rose.
March 15, 2022
I presume that whatever the latest tinkering is, that there will still have to be a General Election within 5 years?
March 15, 2022
I don’t like the fixed term Parliament Act
It should be removed.
The Prime Minister should have the right to call a general election.
March 15, 2022
You’re entitled to those preferences.
Care to give any reasoning?
March 16, 2022
Surely this is obvious to almost anyone logical – just look at the appalling mess & gridlock we had under the appalling Theresa May and Boris.
David Starkey has an excellent analysis of this.
March 16, 2022
Thank you LL you have said what I was going to say.
March 16, 2022
So what of the fixed-term presidencies and legislative elections in the US, say?
March 16, 2022
Indeed. There are plenty of democracies where those in power don’t get to pick and choose when the next elwction happens.
March 16, 2022
Irrelevant NHL
We were focused on Parliament.
March 17, 2022
It is the UK which is the oddity, without even a proper constitution.
March 17, 2022
Seems to work OK compared to many with written constitutions and PR election systems.
March 17, 2022
Work OK?
You Leavers never, ever, stop whining about your brexit and everything else.
March 17, 2022
How is that relevant?
We are talking about the constitution and now you bring up this odd comment about Brexit.
March 16, 2022
It should never have been made law by the appalling Cameron and Clegg. Cameron threw the excellent chance of an overall majority at this election by not being a real EU realist and proper Conservative. This with his ratting on his obviously dishonest âCast Ironâ promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and by not seriously promising lower taxes. Osborne did promise a ÂŁ1 million IHT threshold each (which made Brown bottle his early election plan) but this has still never been delivered.
March 15, 2022
David Frost’s lecture in Zurich this evening contains some statements that beggar belief.
“Most Brexiteers were not hostile to the EU in the beginning. They didn’t want to see the whole European project collapse.” He’s obviously never spent any time reviewing the comments section of Conservative Home, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail or the Daily Telegraph – or this site – where hundreds of Leavers have posted remarks wishing for the day when the European Union collapses through the whole period 2016-2021.
“We didn’t think that leaving an economic union necessarily had to put us at loggerheads with it. We saw it as like leaving a club and paying your outstanding bills, not as a divorce.” Likewise, hundreds of Leavers have posted comments on print and social media sites – including this one – advocating that the country should turn its back on bills due as a result of its membership.
The man is delusional. I have no idea what his intention might have been in giving this speech but he misrepresents the facts of Brexit utterly.
March 16, 2022
Mr Frost negotiated the exit deal, hailed it as excellent, then turned round and told us it was rotten after all and quit his job rather than clear up his own mess. And now he carps from the sidelines. Some CV
March 17, 2022
The same Lord Frost now accepting that the âdealâ he negotiated is failing UK touring musicians by inflicting excessive red tape.
But we have been told by some here that it was all EUâs fault when originally the EU had wanted to maintain the previous system but Lord Frost had rejected the offer.
So will there be as much humble pie from âsome hereâ as from Lord Frost?
March 16, 2022
‘Most Brexiteers were not hostile to the EU in the beginning. ‘
Odd use of hostile – doublespeak in all its glory.
Brexiteers strongly wanted out…Hostility means UNFRIENDLY / OPPOSED towards EU- that was true.
Hostile to UK being a member or hostile towards the very existence of EU?
Now both are true.
March 16, 2022
âMost Brexiteers were not hostile to the EU in the beginningâ – well no they were not – they even (foolishly) voted 2 to 1 in the first Common Market referendum to remain. (I was already against remaining then though still too young to vote). Only as they slowly realised that Heath, Wilson and the PMs that followed had all blatantly deceived them about the true nature of the project did they become more and more hostile. Especially after Majors ERM disaster and also as they kept being promised referendums but these were never delivered until Farage and others finally forced Cameron to deliver one. Even then the appallingly negligent Cameron and Government failed to prepare for a leave vote.
March 16, 2022
An excellent contribution JR.
March 16, 2022
+1
March 16, 2022
Dear Sir John
I just wish to register my thanks for the above, and also to signal my agreement with the comments of X-Tory above.
March 16, 2022
I believe you are incorrectly mixing different issues in your statement. The logic behind repealing the FTPA is sound, we should never be in a position where an incumbent PM is unable to call a GE to break a deadlocked parliament, this I agree is a transfer of power to the electorate. However, proroguing parliament for false reasons is not acceptable. We all know the illegal prorogation for a proposed 5 weeks was not, as stated to HM, to enable the preparation of a new Queen’s Speech, it was to try and trigger a no-deal form of Brexit which was against the will of parliament and probably against the will of the electorate (the exact form of “leaving the EU” was never nuanced in the referendum question but the Leave rhetoric implied a smooth exit from the EU with no turmoil). Likewise, to say that “parliament failed to implement the wishes of the British people” over the EU referendum is true but not in the way you mean. Mrs May’s deal would have meant leaving the EU which was the only question on the ballot paper. You, amongst others, blocked it. Even now we have fulfilled the referendum mandate and left the EU, you still complain that we have left the EU in the wrong way with the wrong deal. The electorate gave Boris a large minority with this exact form of leaving the EU as his flagship policy. You should ponder that when complaining about the dark forces of Remain or false ideas of the electorate not being listened to on this topic. The Leave side post referendum has been abject in its responses. It has gone from triumphalism (52/48 ha ha) to childish parroting of “Project Fear” to now moaning about it not being what was hoped for and it’s all Remain’s fault
Reply Before and after the referendum I said No deal was a good outcome and did not vote for a bad deal on NI, money and fish
March 17, 2022
Oh dear, still rewriting history. The Prorogation was to secure Brexit. That particular Parliament was hell bent, as were the judges, on stopping it. You have no idea what the Queen was told by Mr Rees Mogg as you weren’t there. Only remainer liars tell us she was lied to by the PM who wasn’t there either. It will have been a very short form of words, a familiar, formal request.
March 17, 2022
Oh dear, surprising take on history. The Prorogation was clearly not to secure Brexit but to avoid scrutiny by Parliament. Proof is that, even with the prorogation cancelled, Brexit happened, all the same, as scheduled three months later.
And except if you were the Queen, Mr Rees Mogg or a lady-in-waiting lurking in the Palaceâs corridors, you have no idea what the exchange was about as I guess you werenât there either.
Huffing and puffing your immoderately inflated ego, arenât you?
March 18, 2022
Perfect example of Pot and Kettle heffy in your last sentence.
March 24, 2022
It is so easy to âhookâ you P2. Fishing is really great fun, isnât it?
March 18, 2022
From the horse’s mouth to N Ferrari on LBC:
“Let me tell you how the Privy Council works. There I was in Balmoral with my Sovereign. I read out various things – one of them was James Cleverly has become a member of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council. At which point, the Queen said ‘Approved’.
“The next thing I read is that parliament will be prorogued between such and such a date to another date and a commission will be drawn up. And the Queen said ‘Approved’.
“We don’t sit around having a chat over a cup of tea and a bun, discussing whether this is the right way to do government policy.
“It’s a very formal approach. It’s a bit like the Speaker saying ‘The ayes have it’. It’s that type of formality and that’s why I can answer the question with such certainty that there is no question about lying. I was simply making a statement that should happen and the Queen formally approves it.”
The Leader of the House then explained that there is a precedent for the Queen to deny permission.
March 18, 2022
PS It was alright for the Leader of the House to explain how the PC works as it is public.
March 18, 2022
I’m not sure about ego, Hefner.
Do slaves have them?