18/07/2012
We're now looking at the second item on our list, which is an extremely complex one â the idea of a codified constitution. As before, I'm taking this on the run, exploring the issues arising from this recommendation - a process which is taking several days, as we think about and discuss the ramifications.
The idea of a codified constitution was a popular one during the meeting, but it changes the tenor of any "demands". Clearly, if we are to have our own constitution, then it must be produced by "we the people". This is not something government can do for us. Only once it is produced can we then demand recognition of it.
A further issue changes the nature of our list, because it becomes more than just a list of "demands". Our document must include a precursor, amounting to a formal declaration of sovereignty. "We the people", we declare, are sovereign. Power resides with us, the people, making government in all its manifestations subordinate to us.
The fact of a constitution then necessarily begets certain safeguards, such as restrictions on the ability to amend it, ensuring that it retains its original purpose. And then it must have its protector, in the form of a constitutional court, which much have the power to strike down any law or action of government (and any other impost, for that matter), which is unconstitutional.
The problem then is how we frame these demands in the context of a "Harrogate Declaration", or some such. We can hardly include a demand for constitution, as such, as this is a demand best addressed to ourselves. On the other hand, we can hardly demand of government to accept something that does not yet exist.
It strikes me, therefore, that we have to be a little creative in our framing. First of all, it might be more appropriate simply to confine ourselves to an opening declaration of sovereignty, along these lines:
We, the Sovereign Citizens of the United Kingdom do hereby redeem and declare our Sovereignty. We assert our right, jointly and severally, to the ownership of the United Kingdom, and to the unfettered control thereof. As a sovereign people, owing no allegiance or duty to any other government or state beyond these shores, we are not bound by any statutes or laws other than those which we ourselves approve.
I am sure this wording can be improved upon, but it is something like this that would, in my view, be needed to set the tone of our declaration.
This, though, does not solve the problem of how we go about securing a codified constitution. On reflection, the best option would be to address a separate demand to a reformed parliament, instructing to to convene a convention with a view framing our document, it then to be ratified by referendum.
On that basis, therefore, the inclusion of a reference to a constitution in our declaration would not seem entirely appropriate, although it should remain an ambition, to be fulfilled once the preconditions have been settled.
