If there was an alliance of anti EU parties...

Millennium3 · 26-11-2007, 11:54 AM

This is a multiple choice poll.

The 'recall' MP option would give the constituents the right to sack their MP if s/he was not representing their views [e.g. not supporting a referendum on the Reform Treaty]. This would be achieved initially through a petition [on a specific issue/s] with x% of the voters signing to say they wished to recall their MP this would trigger a constituency wide opinion poll. If the majority supported this demand the MP would be sacked and a new election would be held.

The 'subject to weekly forum debate' option would require the sitting MP to make themselves available for x hours each week to answer questions from their constituents - a poll option would be available on the MP's responses.

Westcountryman · 26-11-2007, 12:16 PM

I'm not a big fan of 'recall referendums' to replace politicians. They do this in some places in the States, and there's ALWAYS a petition going to do it, it's just a question whether it succeeds or not.

Give them some tenure at least. If you don't like them, chuck them out at the next election.

Also, most MPs hold surgeries already, and invite letters. It's normally business at Westminster that keeps them from holding even more local sessions.

Millennium3 · 26-11-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist

I'm not a big fan of 'recall referendums' to replace politicians. They do this in some places in the States, and there's ALWAYS a petition going to do it, it's just a question whether it succeeds or not.

Give them some tenure at least. If you don't like them, chuck them out at the next election.

Also, most MPs hold surgeries already, and invite letters. It's normally business at Westminster that keeps them from holding even more local sessions.

If the internet forum option was selected - they could physically be anywhere and still be available.

The purpose here is to make the MP realise that his duty was primarily to his/her constituents.

kernow · 26-11-2007, 02:08 PM

All I have to say about this present poll is "None of the above". All I want is Britain out of the EU, how it achieves that I don't particularly care!

komerad · 26-11-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

All I have to say about this present poll is "None of the above". All I want is Britain out of the EU, how it achieves that I don't particularly care!

kernow - Absolutely agree, OUT at all or any Costs!!!!!!!!!

Millennium3 · 26-11-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

All I have to say about this present poll is "None of the above". All I want is Britain out of the EU, how it achieves that I don't particularly care!

Such an alliance could simply have one policy - leave the EU. However, I think most pundits would agree that this is unlikely to have much success at present because, although the majority would like a referendum on the Reform Treaty the mood of the country is not to leave.

The purpose of the 'work permits' is to link the EU to the massive numbers presently entering the country which is always underplayed in the MSM. The purpose of the 'recall MP's' and 'MP's forum' measures is to focus the electorates minds on the fact that these people are supposed to 'Work for you' - that they are prepared to simply act as lobby fodder for their party leader instead of acting in accordance with their constituents wishes indicates there is some need for them to be controlled once elected.

The 'English Parliament' measure is supported by around 70% of the English voters so might assist general support.

The global warming measure was more from interest.

The purpose of the poll was to obtain the wise council of forum members as to what measures should be included in a package in order to achieve greatest success.

Francis · 26-11-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

If the internet forum option was selected - they could physically be anywhere and still be available.

The purpose here is to make the MP realise that his duty was primarily to his/her constituents.

We already have a system in place for that, it's called elections.

If an MP fails to realize, or carry out, their primary duties then it is the right of the electorate to vote them out.

New legislation against an MP won't make the public carry out their duty any better, and therefore you'll still end up with the same results, just with an extra (and worthless) piece of legislation on the statute books, further muddling and confusing our system, and the additional costs of such a scheme.

It would force MPs to dedicate part of their time to a meaningless Q & A session (which they could completely ignore the results of), taking them away from their day to day duties, and would require extensive moderation teams, who would cost a fortune to hire.

It's fun to 'play' politics on the internet, but in the real world, on a real form, where MP's had to answer to the public you wouldn't be able to escape with a moderation team of volunteers, they would be beholden to protect the publics identity, under the data protection act, so they would have to be scrutinized, for security purposes, and they would have to be schooled in the issues, so they knew what to censor, and not to censor, so they would need to be trained, and paid civil servants.

You'd also need hundreds of them, because you could technically have all 646 members holding their net surgeries on the same day, and if there was a hot potato issue at the time (for example we were about to go to war) then you might have up to a million users trying to access these forums at that time, possibly even more, plus there would be the obvious attempts at cyber terrorism.

On top of that you'd need the servers, the bandwidth, and the technical staff, so I'd imagine this little project could cost well in excess of £7,500,000, and it wouldn't make the MP's any more accountable, just tie up more of their time.

I'd rather send the guy a letter/e-mail, or make a phone call, when I had a problem, than further overburden our statute books, and spend £7.5million tying up a guy, who may or may not need to be tied up in any specific week, and who may well chose to ignore anything said, that's if he actually was able to read through the spam to find your point anyway, and then, if he doesn't do the job required, vote against him next time around.

I don't want parliament turning into Ebssfleet football club.

Millennium3 · 26-11-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francis

We already have a system in place for that, it's called elections.

'If an MP fails to realize, or carry out, their primary duties then it is the right of the electorate to vote them out.'

M3: The problem is there are often very important matters arising which fall between elections the Reform Treaty Northern Rock and the Iraq war being two good recent examples.

'New legislation against an MP won't make the public carry out their duty any better, and therefore you'll still end up with the same results, just with an extra (and worthless) piece of legislation on the statute books, further muddling and confusing our system, and the additional costs of such a scheme.'

M3: If MP's had to face a forum on a weekly basis on the most pressing issue of the day - it would certainly ensure that they had looked into the matter and would vote in accordance with reason - not just to advance their career by pleasing their leader.

'It would force MPs to dedicate part of their time to a meaningless Q & A session (which they could completely ignore the results of), taking them away from their day to day duties, and would require extensive moderation teams, who would cost a fortune to hire.'

M3: I am not sure that most people would see that what MP's spend most of their time doing as valuable. Well not more valuable than explaining to their constituents why they are supporting this or that measure.

'It's fun to 'play' politics on the internet, but in the real world, on a real form, where MP's had to answer to the public you wouldn't be able to escape with a moderation team of volunteers, they would be beholden to protect the publics identity, under the data protection act, so they would have to be scrutinized, for security purposes, and they would have to be schooled in the issues, so they knew what to censor, and not to censor, so they would need to be trained, and paid civil servants.

You'd also need hundreds of them, because you could technically have all 646 members holding their net surgeries on the same day, and if there was a hot potato issue at the time (for example we were about to go to war) then you might have up to a million users trying to access these forums at that time, possibly even more, plus there would be the obvious attempts at cyber terrorism.

On top of that you'd need the servers, the bandwidth, and the technical staff, so I'd imagine this little project could cost well in excess of £7,500,000, and it wouldn't make the MP's any more accountable, just tie up more of their time.'

M3: Compare that to the cost of Northern Rock, The Iraq war and our membership of the EU.

'I'd rather send the guy a letter/e-mail, or make a phone call, when I had a problem, than further overburden our statute books, and spend £7.5million tying up a guy, who may or may not need to be tied up in any specific week, and who may well chose to ignore anything said, that's if he actually was able to read through the spam to find your point anyway, and then, if he doesn't do the job required, vote against him next time around.

I don't want parliament turning into Ebssfleet football club.

M3: Providing one person with a reply does not demand a high degree of accuracy whereas the same information given to a group on a forum is far more exacting.

Francis · 26-11-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

M3: Providing one person with a reply does not demand a high degree of accuracy whereas the same information given to a group on a forum is far more exacting.

Not really.

I've worked on, and run enough forums to know that.

In fact if anything the opposite is true, a piece of paper, as part of a communication between two individuals, seriously discussing a subject, is deemed to be far more important than an offhand comment in a hurly burly atmosphere (see MP's reactions to memos v's quips at press conferences).

Millennium3 · 26-11-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francis

Not really.

I've worked on, and run enough forums to know that.

In fact if anything the opposite is true, a piece of paper, as part of a communication between two individuals, seriously discussing a subject, is deemed to be far more important than an offhand comment in a hurly burly atmosphere (see MP's reactions to memos v's quips at press conferences).

On a political forum those involved can usually be flippant because their livelihood is not at stake. Press conferences are over quite quickly - if something is said by an MP which is picked up by the media, provided what is said is not too outrageous, usually the MP can issue an apology or correction. I see that you are new to this forum - I think if you follow some of the more important discussions you will see that individuals do get a remorseless grilling - which is not the case when an MP is replying by letter.

View Poll Results: Which of the following measures do you think should be adopted
Holding of a retrospective referendum on the Reform Treaty	16	72.73%
Renegotiating existing EU treaties so that other EU citizens could not work here without a permit.	9	40.91%
The establishment of an English Parliament with at least the same powers as the Scottish Parliament	10	45.45%
Giving constituents the power to recall their MP	14	63.64%
Requiring the sitting MP to answer questions from constituents on an internet forum	7	31.82%
Accepting the IPCC's findings on Global Warming and supporting their recommendations	3	13.64%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

26-11-2007, 11:54 AM	#1 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 4,609	If there was an alliance of anti EU parties... This is a multiple choice poll. The 'recall' MP option would give the constituents the right to sack their MP if s/he was not representing their views [e.g. not supporting a referendum on the Reform Treaty]. This would be achieved initially through a petition [on a specific issue/s] with x% of the voters signing to say they wished to recall their MP this would trigger a constituency wide opinion poll. If the majority supported this demand the MP would be sacked and a new election would be held. The 'subject to weekly forum debate' option would require the sitting MP to make themselves available for x hours each week to answer questions from their constituents - a poll option would be available on the MP's responses.

26-11-2007, 12:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,922 Party: None	I'm not a big fan of 'recall referendums' to replace politicians. They do this in some places in the States, and there's ALWAYS a petition going to do it, it's just a question whether it succeeds or not. Give them some tenure at least. If you don't like them, chuck them out at the next election. Also, most MPs hold surgeries already, and invite letters. It's normally business at Westminster that keeps them from holding even more local sessions. __________________ Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

26-11-2007, 02:08 PM	#4 (permalink)
kernow Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 5,183	All I have to say about this present poll is "None of the above". All I want is Britain out of the EU, how it achieves that I don't particularly care!