Direct Democracy
One of the most pressing questions of our time is how to reconcile the impersonal forces of globalisation with the very basic need of human beings for a sense of identity, a sense of “belonging” and a sense that they are not powerless in the face of forces over which they appear to have little control. This section will address this question directly by bringing real democracy to the local level, as well as to the national level and, by extension to the European level. In this section, the nouns “kingdom” and “territory” have been used interchangeably. This is mainly for stylistic reasons. The repetitive use of the word “kingdom” might sound old-fashioned while the use of the word “territory” is, perhaps, too redolent of nations such as Canada and Australia. As will be seen below, the term “territory” it used here in an entirely different sense. There is a similar difficulty with their adjectival forms. Etymologically, the term “regional” is derived from the Latin “regere" to rule and, indirectly, from the word “rex, regis” - relating to a king. However, in modern parlance, as we all know, it has come to mean something very different. For this reason, when referring to a geographical area adjectivally, the word “territorial” is employed. A question Does it not strike you as odd that we can now conduct all of our financial affairs online but that, when it comes to voting, we must still go (once every four years or so) to a makeshift polling-station to make a cross with a pencil on a little piece of paper and to put into a slit in a box?
Recent failings of direct democracy
The outcome of last year’s “referendum” has made many people understandably sceptical about the benefits of direct democracy. But there is a paradox here. The unfortunate consequences of the “referendum” are attributable to a number of factors:
1.The general ignorance of the majority of the UK’s population about the nature and benefits of membership of the European Union.
2. The fact that this ignorance had been cultivated for more than thirty years by hostile reports in most of the tabloid newspapers. This had been achieved by an endless stream of disinformation about the EU promulgated in order to increase their sales by whipping up public indignation against the EU on spurious grounds. In most instances these have subsequently been shown to be outright lies.
3. The faulty design of the “referendum” itself. It was defective on a number of grounds. In the first place it was a binary choice: Leave or Remain. Neither side had even contemplated what might happen if the outcome was Leave. There was no plan for this eventuality - for the simple reason that nobody (not even the Leave campaigners) imagined that Leave might “win”.
4.The design of the “referendum” was severely defective in a number of other important respects. It was not made clear to the British public that the enabling legislation for the “referendum” had deliberately and explicitly made its outcome non-binding on the Government. The “referendum” was advisory only. Nevertheless, cabinet ministers were instructed to tell the people that whatever they decided would definitely be implemented.
5. Large sections of the significant “stakeholder” population were denied a vote altogether. Most disgracefully sixteen and seventeen year-olds were denied a say in their own futures. Equally deplorably, EU citizens who had lived, worked and paid taxes in the UK for many decades were excluded from having any influence on the matter.
6. There was no requirement for a substantial majority before any change was contemplated. It is customary for important constitutional changes to be made only if two-thirds of the electorate approve them. In the case of this botched “referendum” all that was required was a simple majority. In the event, the result was almost too close to call. 48.1% voted to Remain while 51.9% voted to Leave. There was a mere 3.8 percentile difference. In any other field, so small a margin would not be considered to be statistically significant.
7. Finally and, in this context, most crucially, no mechanism was put in place to ensure that, as the true consequences of the “referendum” became increasingly apparent, the people might be entitled to change their minds. The political establishment has attempted to present the result of this deeply flawed “referendum” as the immutable “will of the people”. It is already becoming clear that, for very good reasons, the people have changed their minds. But both this “Government” and the official “Opposition” are being wilfully deaf and blind to this reality and seem hellbent on a course which will ruin the nation and bring the UK into disrepute throughout the world.
These circumstances cannot be permitted to continue.
It is therefore the settled purpose and determination of the Progressive European Party to set right the blunders and ineptitude of the present complacent political establishment. Herein, then, lies the paradox with which this section began. We of the Progressive European Party consider that the remedy for a hopelessly inadequate and bungled exercise in gauging “the will of the people” lies not in relying less on direct democracy, but rather in relying on more and on much better forms of direct democracy Let us, as a brief aside, consider for a moment the salient characteristics of the majority of present-day politicians in the UK. Four things about the qualities needed to succeed in contemporary British politics are immediately evident:
1. An ambitious politician must have a desire to exercise power over his or her fellow-nationals. 2. Successful politicians must have the ability to lie convincingly, even in the face of evidence that directly contradicts their pronouncements. 3. They must develop to a very high degree the art of evasiveness and of avoiding answering direct questions in a straightforward way. 4. They must be willing to plot against their closest colleagues and, if it will further their personal ambitions, to stab them in the back without compunction or remorse.
It is superfluous to remark that none of these qualities are particularly attractive and, in any other context, might be considered to be signs of sociopathy. We appear to be governed by sociopaths. What is the solution to this deplorable state of affairs? We of the Progressive European Party consider that the most effective countermeasure is to remove power from the political classes and to transfer it in much greater measure to the people themselves, while avoiding the abuses of direct democracy outlined above. Let us look, therefore, at the practical mechanisms by which these aims can be accomplished.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Every day, new refinements of the technologies of information and of communications improve the efficiency with which views and information can be exchanged - between individuals, throughout societies, within nations and on a global and international scale. As communications technology becomes ever more “user friendly”, greater numbers of ordinary people will gain access to the facilities that are now available. More and more people will become aware of the power which is already at their disposal. To use the current jargon, they will become “empowered”. What this means, in practice, is that every individual will potentially have the power to influence the course of events more effectively, and to a far greater extent, than ever before.
You yourself can have a more direct, active and personal role in taking the decisions which affect your own life, your own family and the life of the nation as a whole: decisions which, at present, are taken for you by a tiny clique of self-important “politicians”. Many of these politicians would like to disguise from you the fact that the technology to empower ordinary people already exists. Anyone who has ever used an ordinary touch-tone telephone, used internet banking or an ATM, or who has participated in a radio or TV phone-in, knows the truth of this. The entire apparatus of parliamentary and “representative” government is now as outmoded and irrelevant as the 19th Century conditions that, in very large measure, shaped it. Today it is possible for the people to speak directly and authoritatively on every issue of importance. The whole concept of democracy is predicated on the principle that the ultimate authority is the people. We simply take this premise to its logical conclusion. The Progressive European Party believes that the case for extending real decision-making power to the real people of this country (possessed of adequate information) is now so strong that it has become overwhelming. We hope that, as you read further into this manifesto, you will come to agree with us - and we urge you to join us.
B. How does it work?
Synopsis Present power structure Practicalities of broader democracy Progressive attitudes and commitments Integrity of democratic systems Checks and balances
Here are some of the questions which people are beginning to ask:
Q. Who has the power at present?
A. Well, if you are an ordinary member of the public, it certainly isn’t you! In Britain, in theory, Parliament has supreme power. In practice this means that the Government of the day has power. The Government is composed of the most plausible politicians of the party which controls a majority of Members of Parliament.
Q. Politicians from the traditional parties love to talk about “democracy”. What do they really mean?
A. Once every four years or so, for approximately thirty seconds, you are allowed to help in choosing, from a tiny short-list, your local MP. That’s about it. That’s all the power you have. That is what most politicians mean when they talk about “democracy”. In the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, when our political institutions took on many of their present characteristics, these arrangements seemed adequate. Communications were slow and unreliable. Information was scarce. It seemed to make sense that the nation’s administration should be entrusted to a small number of the people’s representatives. In theory, these “statesmen” had access to the facts upon which policy-decisions could be based. The broader populace did not, at that time, have access to the necessary information. But now, as we move further into the 21st Century, conditions are dramatically different. Printed media (newspapers, magazines etc.) and, increasingly, electronic media (radio, TV and the Internet) can supply you with exactly the same information as is available to the politicians. There is no longer any need for “representatives” to take all the important decisions on your behalf. You can help to decide for yourself.
If you can press a few buttons on an ordinary touch-tone telephone, you can cast a vote - not just in a General Election or in a cumbersome “referendum”, but on every vital issue that arises.
Q. How will I know when to vote on the issues which concern me?
A. At present, forthcoming government and parliamentary business is briefly notified in a handful of broadsheet newspapers, in the limited circulation publications of Westminster and Whitehall and on specialised Government and Parliamentary websites. The Progressive European Party will ensure that this information is published daily, a fortnight in advance, in national and local newspapers, on radio and television and on the Internet.
Q. How will it be possible for me to vote on any issue?
A. If you have access to an ordinary tone-phone, you will simply dial an access number between 6.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m. on the day assigned to the vote. Once connected, an automated message will prompt you to key in your Social Security number, your voter’s PIN number, your postcode and your date of birth from your telephone keypad. This is known as 4-factor verification and is the most secure form of identification in existence. Your call will then be transferred to an anonymous Registry server to ensure that no record is kept of your voting history. To further eliminate the possibility of hacking and of identity fraud, the network to which you are connected will be a “closed” network. That is to say, it will be an “intranet” and completely isolated from the broader Internet. You will be able to choose between numbers on the keypad to cast your vote. Your vote, but not your identity, will be registered. For those who have no access to a telephone, a network of “hole-the-wall” voting machines (similar to cash-machines or ATMs) will be provided. Specialised equipment will be provided for the disabled and for the visually or hearing-impaired and as technologies develop other foolproof methods of voter recognition could also be used such as facial or voice recognition software.
Q. What is the point of having a political party if you are going to allow the whole population to make policy decisions?
A. Our ultimate aim is to put all political parties (including ourselves) out of business by rendering them obsolete. We consider that the system of adversarial politics that has prevailed for too long in the UK is unhelpful and outmoded.
We can therefore make the unconditional promise that no measure will be imposed against the expressed wishes of a majority of voters. The system proposed, moreover, will be much more responsive to changes in the aggregate “will of the people”. It will be possible, for example, to revisit with great ease issues such as “Brexit” in the light of new facts and developments. A lean and efficient elected administration is obviously needed to identify the most pressing issues and to implement the decisions of the people. Our sole aim is to serve the nation by administering its affairs under direct instruction from the people as a whole. We reject the boastful terminology of the wielding of power which is the political currency of the other parties. We shall not “govern”. We shall administer on behalf of, and under instruction from, the people themselves. As we have already made plain, the Progressive European Party is not a “single-issue” party. The gradual introduction of direct democracy is only one of our many proposals. Nor do we imagine that direct democracy as outlined above can be achieved overnight. It will need to be phased-in incrementally. The main difference between us and the more antiquated political parties is that, before implementing any policy, we shall present that particular policy to the whole nation for rejection or approval. At present, any party which wins a General Election claims to have a mandate for all of its policies. But this is clearly a deception. Voters vote for many different reasons. They may like some policies of one party but dislike others. Their decisions are therefore based on a balance of likes and dislikes. A Progressive administration will be bound by the decision of the people on each and every policy. We believe that, if the public is treated with the respect that is due to the collective electorate and if the relevant information is made freely available, the nation as a whole will demonstrate its political maturity by making wise and beneficial decisions. It is, at any rate, inconceivable that the people of Britain could make a worse mess of the nation’s affairs than that concocted by out-of-touch politicians over the course of the last nine decades.
Q. Won’t the electorate be vulnerable to manipulation by the media, by big business, by “special interest” pressure-groups and by the Administration itself?
A. If we are to extend real decision-making powers to the people, as the Progressive European Party intends, it is obviously desirable that the public should be as well-informed as possible. As the 2017 General Election outcome demonstrated, the majority of people (especially younger people) no longer rely exclusively on the mainstream media in forming their opinions. Theresa May was not returned to power with the overwhelming majority that had been confidently predicted by most of the polls and actively promoted by most of the tabloid newspapers.
As we have noted above, at present only a handful of serious newspapers make any effort to address the important political, social and economic issues of the day. Most of the tabloids scarcely merit designation as “newspapers” at all. They have become little more than scandal-sheets and the propaganda organs of vested interests. Fortunately, there is now a great wealth of information from many different sources to be found on the internet especially in social media and by means of search engines. By publishing, on a daily basis a fortnight in advance, all forthcoming business of the nation’s administration (in every major national and local newspaper as well as on TV, radio and the Internet) we shall open up the seemingly esoteric art of political decision-making to the entire nation and place it under direct democratic control. The closed doors and shuttered windows of secretive “Cabinets” will be thrown open. The true nature of the issues will be seen in the daylight and the forum of debate will shift and expand. These public announcements will contain only the unadorned essentials of the issues to be decided. Each day’s bulletin need occupy no more than a single page printed spread or a single web-page. For it would not be right to attempt to influence the outcome of the vote by including partisan comment or “spin”. Legislative safeguards will be put in place to prevent this. However, the mere fact that a Progressive administration has chosen to seek the nation’s approval of a particular policy would serve as an indication that we recommend it. Editorial comment will remain, as now, in the hands of the editor or proprietor of the news medium concerned. Some will support our measures. Others will oppose them. We do not fear this process; firstly because it will all contribute to public awareness of the issues at stake, and secondly because (as result of the last “referendum”) we do not believe that members of the public are now nearly as gullible as most politicians and media tycoons like to imagine. Finally, if (for whatever reason) the public rejects a particular proposal, it will be an indication to us that the case for it is not as strong as we had supposed. We shall adjust the proposal to take account of the public’s reservations and submit it, reformed and refined by proper and inclusive debate, for public consideration at a later date. One advantage of submitting everything to public scrutiny is that, along with the power of the public to decide the issues, comes greater public responsibility for the outcomes, It will very soon become apparent that there is a vast difference between registering an “opinion” in a “snap-shot, straw poll” and casting a real vote which will have real consequences.
Q. When a proposal is submitted to the public, how will the question be framed?
A. Initially, a cross-party, independent Registry Commission will be elected by the people to formulate guidelines for the framing of questions and to regulate the process itself. The main brief of the commission will be to ensure that phraseology used in the formulation of questions will be as neutral as possible. It will not be considered legitimate, for instance, to combine two or more separate proposals into a question that requires a single answer. The substance of the questions (their content) will be stipulated by the Administration. Their form will be shaped by the Registry Commission.
Q. How will the inviolability, integrity and anonymity of the computerised ballot-system be safeguarded?
A. In addition to the safeguards already mentioned, the Registry Commission will have power to co-opt three additional members from among the foremost authorities on computer systems and security. The recommendations of the Commission for maintaining the system’s integrity will be given legal force by the assent of the people. It will certainly be more secure and less subject to error and abuse than the present deeply compromised and unwieldy method.
Q. How will minorities be protected from oppression by majorities?
A. The uncodified Constitution of Great Britain will be clarified and augmented by three written and legally enforceable codes: 1. A Statement of Constitutional Principles 2. A New Code of Civil Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities 3. A New Freedom of Information and Open Administration Act. The final form of each will be determined by public debate and will be subject to public approval in the normal way.
Q. What other policies will The Progressive European Party advance?
A. These are set forth in detail in the other sections of this Manifesto.
C. Devolution, Citizenship and Local Democracy
Synopsis
Inadequacies of present system of local government Historical considerations Ethnicity Restoration of the ancient kingdoms of Britain
To maintain the creaking system of occasional paper-ballots and “representative” democracy at the local level, while promoting direct democracy in national affairs, would be inconsistent and unjustifiable. If anything, the urgency of achieving administrative transparency in local politics is even more pressing than it is for the national administration. The possibility of the system being corrupted by town-hall predilections for nepotism and “jobs-for-the-boys”, lucrative collaborations with developers, the passing of bribes, election-rigging and the exchange of “favours” with local businessmen, are all removed with direct democracy. The British people will not quickly forget the inordinate sums spent by this “Government” on unelected “advisors”, on Foreign Office “travel expenses” and on lavish “refurbishments” to Ministers’ and MPs’ already luxurious dwellings. Seldom has it been more requisite or salutary that those whose nests are built in local politics should submit each fondly nurtured scheme to the stern appraisal of local people. The desire of many for greater autonomy in the management of their local affairs is evidence of a renewed awareness of of regional identity - in response to the impersonal forces of centralisation and of globalisation. Some progress has been made in recognising and addressing the legitimate aspirations of the inhabitants of the ancient lands of Wales and Scotland for a revival of the signs of their nationhood. Much, however, remains to be done. And the arrangements for Northern Ireland are in a deplorable state of chaos. Arrangements that have an historical beginning may also have an historical end. By the same token, those things that have fallen into desuetude may come, in time, to be restored.
But it is not only to the Celtic lands of Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Cornwall and Scotland that these considerations are relevant. Those whose roots are in the ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria (including Bernicia and Deira), Wessex, Essex, Kent and Sussex could advance an almost equally persuasive claim - as could the former kingdoms within Scotland, Wales and Ireland. In the strength of a shared history and a common purpose, the peoples (for there are many, both old and more recent) of Britain may also wish to express and to celebrate the diversity of their origins and the rich variety of their cultures. The historical maritime robustness of the British is attributable, in part, to the cultural cross-fertilisation which has occurred down the centuries as wave after wave of new arrivals have made their homes in these islands. This process continues to the present-day. For these reasons, among many others, The Progressive European Party utterly rejects unthinking racialism and narrow xenophobia. Who, after all, may be said to be the natives? Are they the present-day descendants of those Dutch who came with the wool-trade, or of Huguenots escaping religious persecution in France? Perhaps the descendants of the Normans who arrived with William, or of more recent immigrants from Commonwealth countries? Those, perhaps, who can point to the Vikings that settled these shores as their distant progenitors? Offspring of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes? Or should it be only those of Celtic stock, who boast traces in their veins of the blood of the Ancient Britons? All these and more can legitimately call themselves British. We are a mongrel people with the advantages of hardihood which hybrid vigour confers. It ill-befits us to vilify, to reject or to persecute minorities of any ethnic kind. We take it as axiomatic that the central administration has no business in interfering with matters which can be settled at a local, subsidiary level. And we apply this principle as much to the regional organisation of Britain as to the larger questions thrown up by the European Union. As might be expected from our electoral policies, we view the electorate as composed of responsible individuals capable of regulating themselves - and, for the most part, very willing to do so. As a general principle we believe that the less a government is given to cajoling, patronising and controlling, the better it is for the people. Similarly, if there is no very compelling reason for centralising the orchestration of a particular aspect of polity, it is best left in the hands of those whose lives it touches most nearly. By a happy historical coincidence the demographic distributions of the present are closely analogous to (and roughly coextensive with) the bounds of the former kingdoms (illustrations of pre-Norman Britain to follow). The Progressive European Party intends to recreate, in reformed and contemporary image, the ancient kingdoms of Britain as local administrative hubs.
The inefficient, costly, officious apparatus of local authorities will be swept away and replaced with a streamlined network of territorial administrations. Gone will be the County Councils, the City Councils and the “unitary authorities”. In each territorial jurisdiction these will be replaced by a single regional government called and elected by electronic plebiscite and answerable directly to local people for its stewardship of territorial resources. Direct democracy in territorial affairs will ensure that no measures are taken without the consent of local people. These islands will be renamed the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. One of the factors that produced the regrettable outcome of last year’s botched and poorly planned “referendum” was the sense of powerlessness, alienation and neglect that many of those who lived in more deprived areas felt. For this reason, the provinces of polity controlled by the people at the local and territorial levels will be very much more extensive than at present. The power of local people to determine their own priorities and to shape their own mechanisms of local taxation will be correspondingly greater. The burdens of national taxation will be correspondingly lighter. The determination and settlement of precise relations between the central Administration and the territorial Convocations (and their respective areas of competence) will be guided by the principles enunciated in the earlier sections of this manifesto and will be subject to the approval of the people. The aim will be to find a distribution of jurisdictions which is fair, responsible, economical and efficient - while ensuring that those functions which can be performed satisfactorily at a subsidiary, territorial level are entrusted to the Convocations, acting under the direction of local people. A few functions (e.g. those of the police in preventing and detecting crime at the national and international levels) which, for historical reasons, are still inappropriately fragmented by the old regional structures, will be unified under national control - but operated through their territorial subdivisions. The flow of power will be overwhelmingly away from the central administration and into the hands of the people at local level. Macroeconomic policy, higher education, national transport and communications policy, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy are obvious examples of areas in which the people of the entire Union of Kingdoms will have an interest - and will therefore be managed at the national level. In the other sections of this manifesto we have set forth our proposals for each of these.
D. Parliament
Synopsis Present decline and debasement of Parliament Shortcomings of ”representative” democracy Retaining the useful functions of Parliament Mechanisms and consequences of reform
Through no particular fault of their own, the majority of those who haunt the corridors of Westminster (and especially those of the House of Commons), under the present system of “representative” democracy, are supernumerary drones. They are paid large sums of money for achieving very little. It is true that a small minority of MPs do good and useful work on behalf of their constituents. But what they can achieve is limited and the processes by which they sometimes achieve results are intricate and cumbersome. The perennial brouhaha, stirred up by MPs (and especially by Governments) about the House of Lords provides them with a very convenient excuse for ignoring the glaring defects of the House of Commons and of the machinery of government. Since real power resides with the Government at present, there is very little that most MPs can achieve of their own volition. Except for the occasional Private Member’s Bill (with Government approval), they are there to rubber stamp, or to ineffectually oppose, the actions of the ruling party. The only circumstances in which the Government’s power is rather more limited is when an General Election produces a “hung” parliament. Even then, as we have seen all to recently, the “Government” can enter into an alliance with some small, sectarian party in order to cling onto power. In the most recent of this the current Government has been willing to jeopardise the Northern Irish peace-process simply so that they could cling to power. This whole mechanism is in obvious need of reform. By reason of the party system and because of the old-fashioned requirements of “representative” democracy, Parliament has been reduced to a huge, impotent, petrified talking-shop - paid for and maintained by taxpayers, most of whom are understandably mystified by the impenetrable proceedings of Parliament and are justifiably revolted by the childish squabbling of its Members. The “best behaviour” of MPs, put on since the introduction of television cameras, is seldom edifying and often would disgrace the classrooms of an average secondary school.
Since Parliament has become an irrelevancy, even in terms of the “representative” form of democracy whose main arm it claims to be, in a nation whose business is conducted by direct democracy it will become entirely pointless. There are, perhaps, five useful functions that Parliament currently fulfils: 1. It provides a (very inefficient) mechanism through which, by the condescension of their MP, the concerns of local constituents may be drawn to the attention of those in power. 2. It is a forum in which those who wield power can be questioned semi publicly. 3. In the shape of the House of Lords it may act as a temporary check on the more preposterous impositions of absolute power by the Government. Each and every one of these three ends is achieved more expeditiously by the mechanisms of direct democracy here proposed. The two other specialised functions of Parliament which may be considered to be of some value are: 4. The continuing role of the House of Lords in adjudicating matters of impeachment may still be considered useful - but not irreplaceable. 5. The role of the Palace of Westminster as a focus for national ceremonial is an object of curiosity to television producers and to foreign tourists. Since, in its judicial capacity in cases of impeachment, the House of Lords is represented only by the Law Lords, the powers of this same Court could readily be transferred to the Supreme Court. The process of impeachment has, in any case, become effectively obsolete in the United Kingdom. With the permission of the people, therefore, we propose to abolish Parliament and all of its tawdry pretences. It will be replaced by a Convocation of State of directly elected by the people of the Union of the Kingdoms. (The people may wish to vote a small sum of money annually to maintain the relics of the hereditary peerage in the Upper Chamber, for the performance of elaborate ceremonials for the entertainment of the people and as an attraction to foreign tourists. The Lords Spiritual may be permitted to participate in these rituals but will not be paid for doing so.)
For all other purposes, as indicated above, Parliament will be replaced by a unicameral Convocation of State of not more than ninety-nine members directly elected from the new territorial jurisdictions or “kingdoms”. Each member will be elected either as a Territorial Envoy by the people of their own territory or “kingdom”, or as a Uniate Envoy by all of the people of the Union. Each Uniate Envoy will be responsible to the people for the conduct of a particular policy portfolio. Each Territorial Envoy, therefore, will be ex officio Secretary of State for the Territory that has chosen them and will be answerable to the people of the Convocation that has chosen them. Each Uniate Envoy will be Secretary of State for the area of policy to which they have been elected by the nation and will be directly answerable to the people of the nation as a whole. Secretaries of State will no longer be chosen by the head of the Government. They will have to demonstrate to the people who elect them that they are fit and proper persons to serve in the Convocation of State and that they intend to pursue, in their area of competence, policies which have the support of the people. The First Secretary, whose job will be to coordinate the work of all the others, will also be chosen by the electorate of the whole of the Union of Kingdoms, as will the Second Minister, who will act as deputy to the First Secretary. The mandate of the First Secretary will be renewable every three years and no First Secretary will serve for more than three consecutive terms. Secretaries of State will be required to resign if more than three of their proposals are rejected by the public consecutively. Likewise, the Territorial and Uniate Envoys will normally be elected every two years. Any envoy may be removed from office by a Petition signed electronically by more than half of the electorate that has chosen them. Byelections may also be triggered by the death or any other cause of incapacitation of an Envoy or Secretary. The different and staggered times at which portfolios are changed will help to assure stability and continuity in the administration as a whole (thus removing the temptation of short-term “fixes”) and at the same time will help to prevent the administration from becoming stale, stagnant and corrupt by the regular introduction of new faces and new ideas. It will readily be seen that, since all of the Envoys and Secretaries will be directly elected as individuals, over time the political party system will gradually become irrelevant. The logic of the case leads inexorably towards the collapse of the party system.
The people will ultimately be able to vote individuals into or out of office, just as they will vote for or against the implementation of particular policies.The puerile “gang” tenor of adversarial politics will become manifestly inappropriate. Prime Minister’s Question Time and other questions to Secretaries of State will gradually be replaced by questions from members of the public. For two hours every fortnight, in a purpose-built television studio, each Secretary of State will be required to answer directly questions put by members of the public - either directly from the floor or telephoned in from other parts of the Union. The Editor of Secretaries’ Question Time will be elected annually by the people. The long-term realisation of these these goals will take some time but, if and when this point is reached, The Progressive European Party will voluntarily disband. All of the above proposals represent a very radical departure from the present constitutional arrangements. For this reason they are to be regarded as a “blueprint”. We are not so arrogant as to suppose that the suggested dispositions are faultless. Nor do we claim that the forms of social and political organisation which we have here recommended will lead to the establishment of any kind of “Utopia”. They represent progress only in the sense that they are designed as a means of rendering our society more fair in its internal operations, more responsible in its collective and individual attitudes, more economical in the way in which it regulates itself, and more efficient in the attainment of its common goals. We of The Progressive European Party will welcome comment from the public, whether advert or supportive. It is not very difficult task to discover objections to almost any proposal for reform of any kind. What is more difficult (and more rare) is the ability to suggest better alternatives - improvements to the overall plan- and these we shall especially welcome. Finally, The Progressive European Party recognises that all of these major constitutional changes cannot be expected to occur overnight. It will take a considerable period of time to make the machinery of government more flexible and more rapidly responsive to the needs of the people. At the outset it will be necessary for us to work through the existing antiquated political structures. Parliament, after all, will have to vote for its own abolition. That is why it is vital that, as soon as possible, the people of these lands should accord us an indisputable majority - in order that we shall have the democratic authority to begin to blow away the cobwebs of the past and to usher in a new era of responsible and responsive governance.
It is worth repeating that changes of the magnitude required will not happen overnight. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary change has usually been the defining characteristic of British constitutional history. And this organic growth of a Constitution, with its roots in history, nourished and informed by constant reference to experience and to precedent, has often helped to preserve us from tyranny. Long may it continue to do so.
For the present purposes the ancient kingdoms are: Cent (Kent) Sudsexe (Sussex) Wedesexe (Wessex) including Dornsete (Dorset), Somersete (Somerset) and Defnas (Devon) Essexe (East Saxons - Essex) Cernieu (Cornish Celtic). Mercna (Mercia) Austur Anglia (East Angles or East Anglia) Nordymbria (Northumbria) including Deira and Bernicia Yorvik (York) - Viking controlled. Glywysing (Welsh Celtic) Gwent (Welsh Celtic) Brycheiniog (Welsh Celtic) Deheubarth (Welsh Celtic) Powys (Welsh Celtic) Gwynedd (Welsh Celtic) Gododdin (Scotland) Strathcluade (Strathclyde, Scotland) Fib (Fife, Scotland) Fortriu (Scotland) Fotla (Scotland) Circinn (Scotland) Ce (Scotland) Fidach (Scotland) Cat (Scotland) Part of what is now Scotland (Dal Riata) was then Irish - and, indeed the original inhabitants of Scotland were Pictish. The Scots came from Ireland. Ireland itself was then composed of a number of major kingdoms, namely: Mide (Meath) Leinster Munster Connaught Ulster For the present purposes, we need only concern ourselves with Ulster. It is obvious that urbanisation has caused high concentrations of population to appear in some of these former kingdoms. Essexe, for instance now includes London (formerly Lowindinjon). Similarly the great conurbations of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle etc., would formerly have been within the territories of Mercia,
Northumbria and Yorvik, while Edinburgh and Glasgow formed part of Gododdin and Strathclyde respectively. It will obviously be necessary for a new Boundaries Commission to divide these territories in such a way that a total of ninety-nine Envoys from the various parts of the Union of Kingdoms (together with the Uniate Envoys) will form the Convocation of State.
E. The Monarchy
Synopsis
Nature of the modern monarchy Advantages of constitutional monarchy Insufficiency of the alternatives Expenditures on the monarchy Constitutional implications and provisos
In our exploration of the present institutions of “parliamentary” democracy and “representative” government, we identified much that would benefit greatly from the changes suggested by (and made possible by) the new technologies. The case is rather different with the constitutional monarchy. If we apply the Free-Test to this curious and quintessentially British institution, the results are rather surprising. It may be argued that the selection of the nominal Head of State by the hereditary principle does not meet the requirement that it should be fair. This would be of some significance if any real power were attached to the office. There is a tendency in the modern world to regard the Monarchy as “family business” - and there is much to be said for this analogy. It would be unusual to suggest that the very natural wish of a small-town greengrocer or cobbler that his son or daughter should succeed him in his business should be thwarted because it would not be “fair”.
It is no longer the case that the Royal Family (as an example of family cohesion and right conduct) is seriously considered, by any significant section of the population, to be a model that invites emulation. A number of ill-judged remarks by some of its members have completely ‘demystified’ the Royal family However, the constitutional monarchy not only has very little power, it also has no very extensive influence. But it does still have a number of useful functions which will be considered below. On the question of responsibility, it is true that there are no formal channels for ensuring that the Monarchy is answerable to the people. But recent events have shown very clearly that the nature of the institution, in the modern world, requires it to be extremely sensitive to public opinion. And our history shows repeatedly that there are means “of last resort” for removing a given monarch from the throne. However, on the only occasion when the whole institution of the monarchy itself went into abeyance (during the “Protectorate” of Oliver Cromwell and his Puritans) its removal was soon adjudged to have been a dreadful mistake - not least because the “Lord Protector” proceeded to attempt to found his own dynasty. This latter tendency is still regrettably seen among some of the “political family dynasties” in republics throughout the world. To make a meaningful judgment about the extent to which our monarchy may be said to be economical or efficient is virtually impossible. The impact which it makes on people, both within and beyond these shores, is difficult to identify, impossible to quantify and depends on too many variables - not the least of which is the personality of the reigning monarch. It may reasonably be supposed, however, that a person who, from birth, has been trained and prepared for a particular occupation, whether it be the vocation of greengrocer or of monarch, is likely (barring some mental impediment) to excel in the skills and qualities required by the “trade”. That our monarchy is greatly admired by many foreigners (including, ironically, those who have unwisely jettisoned their own royal families) is a matter of common observation. That it is one of the pillars of our tourist-trade and helps to swell our reserves of foreign currencies, most would concede. That it lends a dignity which no mere president could supply to our rituals and at times of national import, is a fact of common experience. That it is the most potent symbol of our Union, and therefore of our unity, is beyond question. Even our enemies and zealous republicans admit (and usually regret) that our monarchy serves as a focus for patriotic feeling. That the monarchy is currently held in affectionate esteem by the great majority of British people, even when they disapprove of some of its particular actions, could probably be shewn.
The modern constitutional monarchy may have its flaws, but most of the alternatives are too horrible to contemplate. Would we really wish upon ourselves an executive President who does not have the necessary skills of international decorum. The examples of those republics that have an executive President are usually enough to make the blood of British nationals run cold, while a nominal presidency (for convenience but without executive powers) would have no discernible advantages over the present constitutional monarchy - and would probably be almost equally costly to maintain. It might rapidly become an expensive constitutional sinecure for retired politicians. The Progressive European Party therefore believes that, at present, there are no very good reasons for abolishing the monarchy altogether. There are, nevertheless, very good reasons for reforming the funding of the monarchy. Much of the land owned by the monarchy was seized from the noble enemies of former monarchs or (by Henry VIII) from the pre-Reformation Church. These lands should be reclaimed for the nation and the expenses of maintaining the monarchy should be greatly reduced. These expenses, under a Progressive administration will be part of the annual Budget. The restoration, if only in name, of the ancient “kingdoms” within a single Union would be greatly enhanced and strengthened by allegiance to a single, and preferably shared, monarch. It is possible that the Scots, if they become an independent nation, may wish to find a monarch with with stronger Stuart credentials. It is also possible that they may eventually wish to become a republic. As they already have their own parliament, whose nature and functions may be expected to change with the introduction of direct democracy, that will be a matter for them. The same might eventually be said of the Welsh. In the event that any of the restored “kingdoms” (or Territories) decide - by a clear popular majority that a different Head of State is more appropriate to their needs, their wishes will, of course, be respected. Nor will any individual kingdom be prevented from seceding from the Union if a clear majority of its inhabitants believes this to be in the best interests of their nation. By the same token, if (at some future time) a majority of the inhabitants of the Union of Kingdoms wishes to do away with the monarchy, then that wish will be implemented. But we cannot on the one hand argue that Northern Ireland should remain within the Union for as long as a majority of its people wish it to do so, or that Gibraltar or the Falklands should remain British for similar reasons, without also, on the other hand, conceding the converse.
It will not, therefore, be a condition of participation in the Union that a given Territory should accept the House of Windsor, or indeed any Royal House, as the only legitimate source for their sovereign. And it is a corollary of these principles that, at least in theory, nations which have not, hitherto, formed part of the Union will not, henceforth, be discouraged from joining it.
