According to a report in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, there are plans afoot to carve up the Privy Council by the Government. The memo that was published, which was from the Cabinet Secretary to the Prime Minister gave advice on how to make the announcement suggesting that the abolition of the Council should be done as a "low-key" written statement from Blair.
The question arises, what exactly is "low-key" about abolishing an entity that has existed since the 12th century? That's a pretty significant constitutional change and whether the announcement is made "low-key" or not, the act itself is massive. Also, why is a senior civil servant thinking about how to put out a message in what appears to be political terms?
I find myself reminded of the day that Blair simply scrapped the position of Lord Chancellor not realising that it would require amendments to reams of legislation over the past 400 years. It was a classic example of Blair thinking he was a President, not a Prime Minister.
Admittedly I am no legislation expert, but I wonder how many references exist throughout legislation to the Privy Council? I'm guessing quite a few, which would make it's abolition through proclamation very difficult indeed.
8 comments:
Does this government think that it can divorce itself from the Queen? On a whim.
Are they really going to try to seperate government from head of state.?
The privy council is hers to dispose of not Blair's.
We must also remember that the armed forces and the police swear allegiance to the crown, not the politicians. Could possibly lead to a coup.
Isnt that hag he calls wife a privy councilor and if its a paid job then this wont happen.God this mans arrogance is breath taking doesnt he realise in 10yrs he will be reviled as a cultural vandal and warmonger like hitler or saddam at least they only had one war hes had loads and now two at a time maybe its cheaper to fight wars than house soldiers at home?.
Mitch's second sentence is breath-taking (although I agree with its sentiment). I sometimes wonder if Tony Blair is waiting for a payoff into a secret numbered bank account somewhere from grateful PFI financiers/White House/ID card suppliers/insert-your-favourite conspiracy-related-donor-here before leaving.
As to his legacy:
Stand not on the order of your going, Tone, but f-off out of it!
it sounds daft even saying it but they are literally about 2 moves away from a dictatorship.
I simply cannot believe he is still there.
We do look more and more like a pacific island, I keep expecting tehe Aussie nazy to turn up 8 weeks late after the president of some small island has been largeing it....
His Grace is fermenting a post on this matter.
The constitutional implications are considerable, and he shall reveal why.
they have form for this sort of behaviour; look what Falconer has tried to do.
What terrible constitutional vandals they are.
To be fair, I think they are just going to abolish the department and not the Privy Council itself, as the title will continue for the cabinet position. The functions it carrys out (judicial, cabinet office) can be done elsewhere, probably more efficiently.
Since The Royal Prerogative flows through The Privy Council as do Treaties, declarations of War, and much of the Statutory Instruments it would be rather difficult to remove the Monarch's influence from Parliaent entirely.
The Lord Chancellor was after all the Monarch's representative in the Superior House - the Lords - to control the Judiciary, Parliament, and be directly account for its "Pension Transformation" work. In fact theable to The King.
Maybe we should abolish the office of Prime Minister and rotate it as a Chairman of Cabinet Committee every 6 months ?
Post a Comment