Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!batcomputer!garry
From: garry@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Garry Wiegand)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: British Institutions of Government: Reply to Frank Adams (long)
Message-ID: <239@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Date: Tue, 11-Feb-86 23:11:49 EST
Article-I.D.: batcompu.239
Posted: Tue Feb 11 23:11:49 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Feb-86 19:49:34 EST
Organization: Cornell Engineering && Flying Moose Graphics
Lines: 70
Xref: linus net.politics:12768 net.legal:2641

In a recent article jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) wrote:
>
>	Frank Adams has repeatedly asserted the claim that England's
>"constitutional monarchy" is a democracy. To answer this I quote someone who
>has lived under British Rule throughout his life. In his book (published by
>Mercier Press) "An End to Silence", Reverend Desmond Wilson states:
>...

British history is not one of my specialties, but the Reverend's complaints
about British democracy sound trite. In particular:


The Queen: 
    On paper, the Queen still has power. On paper! But custom is everything
    in British government, especially in constitutional law. And the custom
    is that monarch is powerless. To me it seems nice that the British people 
    are pleased to keep around a token reminder of their long history; but 
    the monarchy nowadays is nothing more than that: a nicety. (I can see that 
    to the Irish the Queen might be an emotional reminder of *their* history 
    too. But Mr. Wilson claimed to be arguing legalities, not emotions.)

The Lords:
    The same argument about custom and power versus paper applies. But the 
    Lords don't even have the power on paper anymore! I seem to recall that 
    it was the Irish Question itself around the turn of the century that 
    caused their last hurrah, before Commons cut them off. (I can see why 
    the Lords too might still cause emotional memories.)

Church of England:
    Where has anyone ever said that a democracy MUST not touch a religion??
    Speaking as an American, it does seem like a good idea, but it's not
    a requirement! The British are not prima facie guilty of being 
    undemocratic merely because of the *existence* of Anglican church. 
    I'd be willing to listen to better reasoning and examples on the
    subject. (This century, if you please.)

and, "Corruption":
    Strong emotional words were used. Strong emotional words, standing all by
    themselves, do not persuade.
    

I understand the militant Northern Irish have to persuade us that the
British government is, right now, illegitimate. (If the militants
couldn't succeed at that, they would rank as merely another minority
that would use violence to force its views upon everyone else.)

But complaining about the House of Lords is awfully feeble!


Justifications to the side, the British government sitting in London to the 
side, please perform a "thought experiment" with me:

    If Northern Ireland were sovereign unto itself, and the people
    who live in that geographical region had a chance to freely choose their 
    form of government, and to choose whether to associate themselves with 
    G.B., with Ireland, or with no one, tell me honestly: is there any possible 
    outcome in which they would not still hate each other, and throw bombs? 

    If not, perhaps the northern end of the island deserves to sink into 
    the sea... soon as I rescue a friend I have there.
    
Tell me more. My ideas are not set in stone.

Yours truly,

garry wiegand
garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu

PS - Would any net.legal people like to enlighten us further on the British
     constitution? I'm not properly competent. (We need a net.history!)