Tom Griffin (London, OK):Brassneck's Mick Fealty is not impressed with speaker Martin's performance yesterday. Like Mary Riddell, he suggests that the Damian Green affair has highlighted the inadequacies of an unwritten constitution.
In truth, the British Constitution was blown wide open by what may have been nothing more serious than a lapse in attention to important detail. The Police it seems failed, and the House also failed.
In principle it still exists, but it is worthless if the functionaries upon which it relies at critical moments have not the first idea of how to perform that constitutional role.
Some would say such conclusions are overblown. "It is so easy to write and comment incessantly on something happening in parliament and in London," Marcel Berlins argues in the Guardian. "It is difficult to seek out far worse injustices that are occurring every day, all over the country, to unknown people."
Yet Parliament surely is supposed to be the vehicle for the redress of those very injustices. It is those unknown people who have the most to lose if their representatives can be arbitrarily arrested and their correspondence seized.
That is why the long Parliament met in 1642, and why Speaker Lenthall rightly prevented Charles I from seizing the five members. That is why, partisan considerations aside, everyone should be concerned about the arrest of Damian Green and the raid on his offices.
As William Rees-Mogg wrote on Tuesday: "All the evidence of history is that Parliament has to protect itself against outside pressure of all kinds, and particularly against coercion by the executive power."
Comments
I have read this and related articles with great interest.
Here is an interesting comparison. Today, the Counsel for the US House of Representatives filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the US Executive violated the Constitution's speech or debate clause, which grants members of Congress protections for their legislative acts. The intent of the brief was "to articulate and protect the House's interests — and not to defend defendant Congressman Richard Renzi."
Here is a link to a summary of the case:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-12-03-renzi_N.htm
It seems to me the search of Green's Parliamentary office was illegal even if the Sarjeant-at-arms gave consent.
Surely it needed the consent of the occupant - Green himself - in the absence of a search warrant.
Post new comment