To respond effectively to political situations, the doctrine of CMR has been ‘waived’ occasionally. In 1932, the coalition government in office decided on an ‘agreement’ to differ following Cabinet disagreements over an economic policy of tariffs, where members of the Cabinet were allowed to express different views in public and Parliament. CMR was later reinstated once dissident members resigned from the Cabinet. In 1975, the convention of CMR was ‘lifted’ by PM Harold Wilson to facilitate a full and free public debate when the Labour Government was divided as to benefits of continued membership of the European Community .
However, it is submitted that CMR remains when ministers depart from the collective action to encourage freedom of expression and thoughts for a fairer and more holistic decision made by the Parliament . On a separate note, although it was previously required that a Minister be …show more content…
Their lack of enforceability confuses the public on decision of matters by government. For instance, former PM Tony Blair under the convention of CMR and royal prerogative by Queen hid the reason of armed forces invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 which turned out to be illegal according to UN and asserted by former deputy PM Nick Clegg . Conventions are ill-defined and uncertain in application thus becomes a threat to government principles according to law.
Similarly, Horwitz has argued that ‘Conventions were developed as undemocratic devices that reassure the ruling class that constitutional fundamentals…If conventions exist as a matter of politics and not law, does it mean that the constitution is merely what the government of the day claims it to be?’ This provides food for thought that conventions have transformed the constitution to be adaptable according to interests and benefits of political
However, it is submitted that CMR remains when ministers depart from the collective action to encourage freedom of expression and thoughts for a fairer and more holistic decision made by the Parliament . On a separate note, although it was previously required that a Minister be …show more content…
Their lack of enforceability confuses the public on decision of matters by government. For instance, former PM Tony Blair under the convention of CMR and royal prerogative by Queen hid the reason of armed forces invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 which turned out to be illegal according to UN and asserted by former deputy PM Nick Clegg . Conventions are ill-defined and uncertain in application thus becomes a threat to government principles according to law.
Similarly, Horwitz has argued that ‘Conventions were developed as undemocratic devices that reassure the ruling class that constitutional fundamentals…If conventions exist as a matter of politics and not law, does it mean that the constitution is merely what the government of the day claims it to be?’ This provides food for thought that conventions have transformed the constitution to be adaptable according to interests and benefits of political