Home page EHRT review confirms discriminatory nature of British system of governance The independent European Human Rights Tribunal has finally issued a view on a complaint from British citizens concerning the discriminatory nature of devolution against the English electorate. For technical reasons this did not become a case against the British government because the complainants wished to remain anonymous so the EHRT was limited to reviewing the evidence presented to issue an opinion. This was issued on 25th October, 20071 and confirms that the devolutionary settlement in the United Kingdom allows the government to discriminate against the population of England. The complaint The complaint was brought on 20th October 2005 to the Tribunal by: .."various men and women from England, against the Government of the United Kingdom and complaining about the practice of "double voting" by Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales who have the right to vote: in their regional assemblies (parliaments) on national issues in the United Kingdom parliament on issues affecting the United Kingdom when, the English have no such level of representation for their constituency Members of Parliament can only vote in the United Kingdom parliament." And that ....."The government's majority resides in the Scottish and Welsh seats so this device of discrimination is considered to be means of the Labour Party (who have taken all governmental positions) to remain in power and enforce legislation on the English population against their wish ..." and .."There is a lack of separtion of powers between parliament and government in the United Kingdom. A so-called whip system is used to encourage MPs to vote as directed by their political party as opposed to constituency interests. This party-based whip raises concerns of the undue and ongoing influence of the Labour Party over the affairs of state when this party is just a small private organization enjoying a direct membership of less than 1% of the population of the United Kingdom. As a result, the English electorate does not enjoy a free and fully responsive constituency representation but their wishes are compromised by the preferences of a single private group (Labour Party) which the majority do not support." The EHRT resolution In a resolution set out on the EHRT website (please note the relevant section starts under Session: 4th Quarter 2005) it is stated: .."This case has been complicated by a request for a status of confidentiality by the complainants from which they did not wish to move. We therefore had to consider this to be a review and the EHRT is therefore limited to reporting a summary of its observations on this case." The review continues by stating that: .."The system of "devolution" applied in the United Kingdom does indeed appear to provide options for government to manage Parliamentary voting in a discriminatory fashion as set out by the complainants. On the other hand the political system which brought this devolved administrative structure into existence was through the organization of referenda in each of three nations involved. On the other hand no referendum was held in England set against any explanation of the possible effects of devolution for other nations upon the affairs of England. However, this does not overlook the fact that the essential complaint of the complainants had been foreseen by the Rt. Hon. Tam Dalyell, MP for West Lothian in the British Parliament in an intervention and contribution which became known as the West Lothian Question. It does not appear to be the case that any British political party is on record as having responded to this member's questions in a substantive manner." The EHRT continues with some factual but quite damming observations on the state of health of British democracy by stating: .."This therefore causes this evolution to represent a complex state of affairs because it involves a need to pass an opinion on the standards tolerated by the dominant British political parties, none of whom seem to have objected to the process outlined above or of the need to provide the English electorate with a say on the devolution process. On the other hand, it is also clear that this also raises the question of the standards tolerated by the English electorate. In this context we would call attention to the so-called first-past-the-post voting system which enables political parties with a minority of electorate support (for example 20%) to control governance with a dominant Parliamentary majority and thereby impose what are policies favoured by a minority on the majority. The population of England also tolerate a situation whereby there is no means of raising substantive objections to such courses of action by governemnts other than through political parties or general elections. A petition system has long been removed from the control of the Sovereign and this does not have any characteristic of independence from the governing political party. Thus the British electorate seems to be locked into a political system where they tolerate minority political party government being able to impose policies on the majority without any effective mediation or opposition." On the other hand the EHRT confirms that this is not a specific British tendency: .."We should note, however, that such a the minority tendency of governance has spread throughout European member states during the last 25 years largely as a function of declining numbers of the electorate turning out to vote." The EHRT focuses upon the destructive impacts of political party interests by stating: .."In terms of the harmful effects, generally classified as discrimination against the English, most expert opinion consulted and exchanges examined indicate that constitutionally the United Kingdom does not have a constitution which is fundamentally structured to promote or sustain governments that act in a discriminatiry fashion against the electorate, segments of the electorate, constituent nations or England in particular. We are of the opinion that there remains very little doubt that any discrimination arises specifically from the overbearing control of the political process by political parties and the orientation of motivations of politicians to act in line with political party priorities. The central issue seems to be a common inability of each Member of Parliament to resolve a conflict of interests between representing their constituency and representing their party. This lack of freedom is imposed by the political parties as observed by the complainants, through such devices as the so-called party whip. Again we return to the questions of the standards tolerated by both the electorate and politicians in Parliamentary affairs." The EHRT then, as a forum with expertise on human rights, hones in on a worrying aspect of British political party behaviour: .."There are serious questions to be asked as to the extent that coercion bordering on intimidation can be acceptably applied to constituent representatives to follow party policies. This is because such coercion distorts and corrupts the information and messages transmitted by those represented and this can be pushed to such an extent that representatives (MPs) end up effectively refusing to uphold any preferences expressed by their constituents. There is also the question as to what degree MPs seek to find out the preferences of their constituents. This raises a fundamental issue of the right of members of the electorate to a transparent, free and expressive representation in Parliament. Related to this specific point is the lack of separation of powers of the executive (government) from a free voting Parliament which seems to be subject to manipulation by Prime Ministerial patronage effected by providing government positions to a significant number of sitting MPs." The EHRT clealy considers the defects in the British political system to be more an issue of constitution but not of the type currently under consideration by the government: .."This complex set of circumstances has arisen from a well known sequence of historic events in the history of the United Kingdom and it seems to be evident that the resolution of the issues raised by the complainants can only be resolved in the domain of constitutional reform geared to the demarcation of limits on the exercise of power by political parties. We would add that the current constitutional settlement proposals contained in the British government's recent paper "The Governance of Britain" dos not appear to touch on any of the more substantive issues under question and identified as a result of this review. This is, without any doubt, a matter of vital concern to all of the British electorate and future generations in the United Kingdom. However, such issues of constitutional settlement are a matter of direct concern of the people whose sovereignty is affected and as such they lie outside the direct competence of the EHRT." A notable admission by the EHRT is that they were so struck by the distortion in human rights arising from the issues of a lack of free representation and separation of powers existing in the case of the British political system, that they have been encouraged to request, as a separate exercise, an investigation by independent counsel into: .."... the significance and meaning of definitions of democracy." and that this will take into account the: ....."interaction, and sometimes conflict, between law, constitution, political parties and the expressed preferences of the electorate." The EHRT has commissioned this work because of what they consider to be an evident complexity of these issues and the need for them to prepare EHRT briefs as analytical guidelines on how to discern specific cases of tendency, bias and discrimination against the interests of members of an electorate. 1Note: Real News asked the EHRT why this review had taken almost two years to complete. We were informed that the main independent counsel report ("The Peoples' Preferences under the British Constitution", BSR) was only made available in July 2007. This delay was caused by the effort being completed on a voluntary basis but that the content was of a good quality and was crucial to enabling the EHRT gain sufficient understanding of how the British system of governance operates. This document was issued at the same time as the British government's smaller Green Paper, "The Governance of Britain" containing some proposals for constitutinal change. Posted: 12th November, 2007.