youcanhandlethetruth

Just giving my opinion....

Sorry if you think disagreeing is being rude.

I'm not sure if David will be right about parliament being abolished but then again, it is practically abolished in terms of representing British interests anyway - it would be the final nail in the coffin though.

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Millennium3

The thing that I find most frustrating is that the latent threat of the LT is not taken seriously enough by the anti EU parties - there needs to be a real effort to work together to build up some pressure - they should not be fighting each other.

Aardvark

The only way the anti-EU parties will work together is when they have properly analysed the situation and agreed an interpretation. Only when we are agreed what the situation is going to be can we tackle it.

This will never happen. The majority of those of us debating on this forum haven't even had time to read the LT from cover to cover, let alone genuinely interpret what it means. Most people who are on 'our side' can't be bothered to read and understand the treaty so we're going nowhere.

I think Parliament will continue after the various suggested dates as it is national Parliaments which provide the Council(s) of Ministers and national PMs/Presidents who nominate the Commission.

Many local decisions will have to be made on the remaining areas that haven't been surrendered and many national decisions will have to be made on the best way to implement certain directives. Parliament will have a fraction of its powers and will probably be as powerful in many areas as a County Council. The country will have to be managed, even if it is doing Brussels' bidding.

The LT is not the final nail in the coffin, but it is certainly one of those holding down the lid.

The problem is that we are completely stuffed at present. I think it is unlikely that we are going to pick up seats at the next election, although some candidates will do well.

I don't know what it is like anywhere else, but the candidate for Witney won't even loan the branch the £500 deposit as he has no intention of trying to win it back. He won't be pushing any leaflets and he won't be knocking any doors. Our candidate has effectively given up and I assume others have done the same.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

youcanhandlethetruth

If you really think about it what reason is there not to create a completely new constitution under a government independent referendum or "people vote" ?

Why do we need to work within an existing poiltical system that doesn't serve the people or grant people a vote on the EU - i.e. those who govern us.

Why can't a majority of people conduct their own vote irrespective of government, and if the vote allows it, declare the existing government as null and void ?

If the people voted on it in a free vote(irrespective of being granted a referendum) and more than 50% agreed then why can't people simply claim the political process for themselves and determine it's rules under their terms ?

I feel too many people are blinded by the need to stick to a political process which wasn't created to serve them to start off with.

And who says we need MP's or the HOC at all ?
We could change that if we wanted to(depending on the nature of the constitution).

For example you could allow local people to vote on local issues, rather than trusting a representative to act on behalf of everybody, whether it be at a local or national level.

What if for example everybody at the next general election voted "New constitution" on the ballot paper ?

I admit there's a lot of difficulties in implementing such a system but we should consider some "outside the box" thinking.

Shouldn't we ?

Just some alternative thinking....

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

aarable

'If you really think about it what reason is there not to create a completely new constitution under a government independent referendum or "people vote" ?'


You're talking my language YCHTT, our political system is beyond it's sell by date and cannot be fixed

Rebirth

youcanhandlethetruth

Suppose you could call it revolution but really it's just about getting people to go back to the fundamentals of law and governance.

I'm no expert but our system didn't just come from nowhere.

It was instigated for specific reasons - I'd be interested to study history and examine the constitution more to learn how it came about and whether it was based on the wishes of a majority or a minority.

Anyone know ?

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Aardvark

By and large it was the wishes of a minority.

Until the great Reform Act 1832 there was no standard system of voting. We had a system of rotten boroughs where, often, towns that had existed when Parliament was first called in the 13th century were reduced to a handful of people who might vote (property rights, being a free man etc were conditions of voting). Some 'boroughs' had no voters and the landowners could nominate MPs. After 1832 many rotten boroughs were abolished, but only property owning males over 21 had the vote. With life expectancy of barely 40 it meant that in terms of population it was only a small minority who could vote. The party system originates from 1832 when Joseph Chamberlain set up the modern Conservative Party.

Boroughs and counties had 2 MPs which made it possible to split votes between parties.

The secret ballot was only introduced in 1872 so intimidation and bribery were rife. Corrupt practices were only defined in 1883. The electorate was doubled, to 5 million, in 1884 by the Representation of the People Act which abolished property rights and brought in near equality for males over 21.

For a long time graduates had 2 votes.

Various reforms reduced the number of MPs to one per consituency and boundaries were redrawn to equalise constituencies. This was still happening in the 1970s when Labour held Newcastle Central had just over 20,000 constituents whilst Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland had 90,000!!!

We didn't get universal adult suffrage until 1928 when all women were given the vote; in 1918 married women over 29 got the vote, a right exercised by my grandmother in 1927. The voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 as recently as the Family Law Reform Act 1969.

Effectively until 1928 we did not have universal adult suffrage, but even then constituencies were uneven. Allowing for the 1918 introduction of votes for some women that meant over 50% of adults had a vote for the first time, it is not possible to argue that any statute before 1918 had the consent of the majority of the population since we just don't know what women thought.

Prior to 1884 no women and only half of the men had a vote. Prior to 1832 only a very small percentage of the population had a vote, although some places like Coventry, Westminster and Preston had universal adult male suffrage.

The Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement were passed by rich people looking after their interests. Cromwell was a very rich man, supported by other rich men, who fought a war against a monarch who was more in touch with the drinking, dancing, music playing, fornicating general populace than they were.

It is unlikely, in an age before newspapers and any form of mass communication, that the majority of the populace were even aware of Magna Carta 1215 let alone supported it. It was signed at sword point by a very reticent king and was only supported, as far as we will ever know, by a few Norman Barons and some clergy. A number of copies were distributed around key cathedrals so that the details could be promulgated to the literate and powerful churchmen who might pass the gist onto the odd freeman who was interested. Understanding feudal history, you would have to be pretty credulous to think that the people of England knew or cared what their Norman rulers were doing.

In conclusion, most of our constitutional laws were enacted with the interests of a minority at their heart.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

youcanhandlethetruth

Thanks for the info Aardvark

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Popeye

Absolutely right.

The Lisbon Treaty quite clearly states that all member states shall work for the furtherance of the Union's objectives.

Within the competencies controlled by the EU (virtually all except defence):

At European Council level decisions are reached by concensus;

At Council of Ministers level decisions are reached by qualified majority voting;

At Commission level it is prohibited to consider your own country's interest when framing Directives and Regulations. To strengthen this principle it is proposed to reduce the number of Ministers from 27 to 15, so that some countries will have no voice at Commission level at all

And of course at MEP level they've got their snouts so far in the trough that they'll vote for anything that keeps it that way, with a few exceptions.

Thus, "representing British interests" is an impossibility unless those interests coincide exactly with those of Latvia, Greece, France etc and no doubt fairly soon Turkey, Serbia and Albania.