Public Representation Monitoring and Standards

The aim of this proposal is to ensure that politicians should be actively in touch with the lives of those they represent. The following are suggestions for making this happen:

(1) Elected politicians should be obliged to use at least one public service in their constituency or ward per year. For example, they should either (a) use public transport (however awful it might be) from, to or within their constituency or ward, (b) use the local hospital (and (i) be made to pay for parking like everyone else, (ii) put up with the same conditions as members of the public – e.g. delays, mixed wards, referrals to distant hospitals), (c) use public toilets, etc, in their own area, (d) visit local schools and see the conditions some teachers, kitchen staff, etc., are having to work under. Their visits should not be preceded by a grand 'clean up' of the school.

(2) Politicians should be rated on the effectiveness of their response to constituency problems, e.g. time taken to respond to constituency letters, constituent satisfaction, etc.

Why is this idea important?

The aim of this proposal is to ensure that politicians should be actively in touch with the lives of those they represent. The following are suggestions for making this happen:

(1) Elected politicians should be obliged to use at least one public service in their constituency or ward per year. For example, they should either (a) use public transport (however awful it might be) from, to or within their constituency or ward, (b) use the local hospital (and (i) be made to pay for parking like everyone else, (ii) put up with the same conditions as members of the public – e.g. delays, mixed wards, referrals to distant hospitals), (c) use public toilets, etc, in their own area, (d) visit local schools and see the conditions some teachers, kitchen staff, etc., are having to work under. Their visits should not be preceded by a grand 'clean up' of the school.

(2) Politicians should be rated on the effectiveness of their response to constituency problems, e.g. time taken to respond to constituency letters, constituent satisfaction, etc.

Bar signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right (1988) from holding office in British government.

 
 
Signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right affirm that the interests of Scotland are paramount over those of all other countries, including those of other parts countries in the United Kingdom.
 
The claim states:
 
"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."
 

Why is this idea important?

 
 
Signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right affirm that the interests of Scotland are paramount over those of all other countries, including those of other parts countries in the United Kingdom.
 
The claim states:
 
"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."
 

Abolish the 30 Year Rule

I think people should know the history of their own country as it happens and not 30 years after the event.

 

I know some amendments to this were made recently but far too much of what is done in our name is kept secret for too long.  The 30 year rule can of course be extended so some documents, for instance those dealing with high ranking Nazi sympthizers in British society in the 1930's, are still classified.

Why is this idea important?

I think people should know the history of their own country as it happens and not 30 years after the event.

 

I know some amendments to this were made recently but far too much of what is done in our name is kept secret for too long.  The 30 year rule can of course be extended so some documents, for instance those dealing with high ranking Nazi sympthizers in British society in the 1930's, are still classified.

My FREEDOM is limited, because I cannot read our constitution

May I suggest the following:-

THE LOGIC – Introduction

I believe in individual rights and freedoms ‑ but that individual responsibility, social cooperation and mutual respect are also important.

I have an approach to life based on humanity, real data, and reason – I recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone, and are based on the available and sought for evidence, and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions only.

I believe that people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems ‑ so that quality of life can be improved for everyone.

I am positive ‑ gaining inspiration from our lives, art and culture, and a rich natural world.

I believe that THE LOGIC may evolve, but must never exceed 1500 simple words. It surely will never do so, if logically examined.

 

B J A Quinn FIMechE
1st December 2007

THE LOGIC – 21 Detailed Articles

Article 1
THE LOGIC is the expression of the general will, here enacted. All citizens have the right to personally take part in its evolution through a referendum. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes.
Article 2
Men and women are born and remain free and equal in rights. The employment of children is prohibited. There are too many people in the world, and a plan for the whole of humanity must be evolved.
Article 3
The State will be a Secular Republic. The President is to be Head of State, and will be a good manager of multi-disciplinary teams, and will be elected by majority vote every four years, with a maximum tenure of eight continuous years. A National Assembly will be composed of democratically elected people, who will merely voice their feelings upon any Plan, Rule or Procedure, thus to ensure that The President actions Policies appropriately, and does not lose touch with the ordinary person. All citizens shall be equally eligible for all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without distinction other than that of their character.
Article 4
The aim of every political association will include the preservation of the natural rights of every man, woman, or child, as here enacted.
Article 5
The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the State. No corporate body, and no individual, may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it. All citizens have the right, through their elected representatives, to decide the need for and approve simply written Law, which is subject to THE LOGIC.
Article 6
Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others. Thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.
Article 7
Everyone has the right to freedom of assembly and association.

Article 8
The Law must prescribe only the punishments that are strictly and evidently necessary. No one may be punished except by virtue of a Law drawn up and promulgated before the offense is committed, and legally applied. Those who solicit, expedite, carry out, or cause to be carried out arbitrary orders must be punished. Any citizen summoned or apprehended by virtue of THE LOGIC, must give instant obedience, since resistance makes him guilty.
Article 9
As every man or woman is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any harshness that is required to secure his person must be severely curbed, including accusation without proof.
Article 10
No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not reject THE LOGIC, which welcomes helpful clarification.
Article 11
The free communication of ideas is one of the most precious rights of man or woman. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by The Law.
Article 12
To guarantee the Rights of the Citizen, a Public Service is necessary. This Service is therefore established for the benefit of all, and not for the particular use of those to whom it is entrusted.
Article 13
For the maintenance of the Public Service, for Public Investment and Personal Benefits and Pensions, a general tax is essential.
Article 14
All citizens have the right to decide through their elected representatives the need for simple public taxes, to consent to pay freely, to watch over its use, and to determine its proportion, basis, collection and duration. It must be collected from all citizens and businesses, in proportion to their income and to their expenditure.
Article 15
A Citizen has the right to ask a public official for an accounting of his or her administration.
Article 16
Since the right to property is necessary and traditional, no one may be deprived thereof, unless public necessity, legally ascertained, logically requires it, and just and prior indemnity has been paid.

Article 17

Everyone has the right to health and welfare care, as determined by the State alone, but the individual may decide their own future for themselves, including the right to choose when to die peacefully. Homo Sapiens is to practice the elimination of all genetic disease by careful selection of embryo when circumstances permit.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to a personal education to bring out their natural ability and talent and upon which that personal education is based, and for that education to continue throughout Life, as determined by the State and the individual alone.

Article 20

The use of the Earth’s Resources, whether of climate, organic or inorganic materials, or people, must be carefully husbanded, to provide a measure of sustainable fun for the Future.

Article 21

The Orang Utan is our 10 million year heritage. It and other extremely rare animals must be protected from extinction, their natural environment protected, and their rights the same as here enacted in THE LOGIC.

B J A Quinn FIMechE
1st December 2007


All the above based upon the Declaration of Rights made during the 1789 French Revolution, as a result of the Hierarchy bankrupting the country and starving the peasants – I have added some words plus a few articles. I am a peasant and all I see around me in Government is  British Hierarchy bankrupting the Country too. The French Declaration was born out of extreme anger, because the Hierarchy ignored their complaints, so the only forward was to CUT THEIR HEADS OFF. And the French have been living and having fun ever since.

The British Human Rights Act (not in my name!!) came into force years ago – and it is rubbish. We should learn from the long experiences of others, not simply dismiss them.

Why is this idea important?

May I suggest the following:-

THE LOGIC – Introduction

I believe in individual rights and freedoms ‑ but that individual responsibility, social cooperation and mutual respect are also important.

I have an approach to life based on humanity, real data, and reason – I recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone, and are based on the available and sought for evidence, and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions only.

I believe that people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems ‑ so that quality of life can be improved for everyone.

I am positive ‑ gaining inspiration from our lives, art and culture, and a rich natural world.

I believe that THE LOGIC may evolve, but must never exceed 1500 simple words. It surely will never do so, if logically examined.

 

B J A Quinn FIMechE
1st December 2007

THE LOGIC – 21 Detailed Articles

Article 1
THE LOGIC is the expression of the general will, here enacted. All citizens have the right to personally take part in its evolution through a referendum. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes.
Article 2
Men and women are born and remain free and equal in rights. The employment of children is prohibited. There are too many people in the world, and a plan for the whole of humanity must be evolved.
Article 3
The State will be a Secular Republic. The President is to be Head of State, and will be a good manager of multi-disciplinary teams, and will be elected by majority vote every four years, with a maximum tenure of eight continuous years. A National Assembly will be composed of democratically elected people, who will merely voice their feelings upon any Plan, Rule or Procedure, thus to ensure that The President actions Policies appropriately, and does not lose touch with the ordinary person. All citizens shall be equally eligible for all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without distinction other than that of their character.
Article 4
The aim of every political association will include the preservation of the natural rights of every man, woman, or child, as here enacted.
Article 5
The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the State. No corporate body, and no individual, may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it. All citizens have the right, through their elected representatives, to decide the need for and approve simply written Law, which is subject to THE LOGIC.
Article 6
Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others. Thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.
Article 7
Everyone has the right to freedom of assembly and association.

Article 8
The Law must prescribe only the punishments that are strictly and evidently necessary. No one may be punished except by virtue of a Law drawn up and promulgated before the offense is committed, and legally applied. Those who solicit, expedite, carry out, or cause to be carried out arbitrary orders must be punished. Any citizen summoned or apprehended by virtue of THE LOGIC, must give instant obedience, since resistance makes him guilty.
Article 9
As every man or woman is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any harshness that is required to secure his person must be severely curbed, including accusation without proof.
Article 10
No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not reject THE LOGIC, which welcomes helpful clarification.
Article 11
The free communication of ideas is one of the most precious rights of man or woman. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by The Law.
Article 12
To guarantee the Rights of the Citizen, a Public Service is necessary. This Service is therefore established for the benefit of all, and not for the particular use of those to whom it is entrusted.
Article 13
For the maintenance of the Public Service, for Public Investment and Personal Benefits and Pensions, a general tax is essential.
Article 14
All citizens have the right to decide through their elected representatives the need for simple public taxes, to consent to pay freely, to watch over its use, and to determine its proportion, basis, collection and duration. It must be collected from all citizens and businesses, in proportion to their income and to their expenditure.
Article 15
A Citizen has the right to ask a public official for an accounting of his or her administration.
Article 16
Since the right to property is necessary and traditional, no one may be deprived thereof, unless public necessity, legally ascertained, logically requires it, and just and prior indemnity has been paid.

Article 17

Everyone has the right to health and welfare care, as determined by the State alone, but the individual may decide their own future for themselves, including the right to choose when to die peacefully. Homo Sapiens is to practice the elimination of all genetic disease by careful selection of embryo when circumstances permit.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to a personal education to bring out their natural ability and talent and upon which that personal education is based, and for that education to continue throughout Life, as determined by the State and the individual alone.

Article 20

The use of the Earth’s Resources, whether of climate, organic or inorganic materials, or people, must be carefully husbanded, to provide a measure of sustainable fun for the Future.

Article 21

The Orang Utan is our 10 million year heritage. It and other extremely rare animals must be protected from extinction, their natural environment protected, and their rights the same as here enacted in THE LOGIC.

B J A Quinn FIMechE
1st December 2007


All the above based upon the Declaration of Rights made during the 1789 French Revolution, as a result of the Hierarchy bankrupting the country and starving the peasants – I have added some words plus a few articles. I am a peasant and all I see around me in Government is  British Hierarchy bankrupting the Country too. The French Declaration was born out of extreme anger, because the Hierarchy ignored their complaints, so the only forward was to CUT THEIR HEADS OFF. And the French have been living and having fun ever since.

The British Human Rights Act (not in my name!!) came into force years ago – and it is rubbish. We should learn from the long experiences of others, not simply dismiss them.

Cannabis prohibition is unconstitutional.

Remove Cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act.

This is primarilty aimed at personal / medicinal growers, users & non-commercial suppliers (so called 'care growers', that grow for people who are too ill to do it themselves).

Why is this idea important?

Remove Cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act.

This is primarilty aimed at personal / medicinal growers, users & non-commercial suppliers (so called 'care growers', that grow for people who are too ill to do it themselves).

How Many Laws Are Necessary?

Instead of eliminating just one obsolete regulation for each new one proposed, why not eliminate 5 or 10 to bring the entire number under control?

E.g. Any given law might result in 5 or 500 new, minute regulations.  All of these could be tossed out in bunches if the basic idea behind the legislation no longer applies.

How many laws are enough?  It's time to return to common sense, identify those basic laws that are necessary for the regulation of society, and let the courts and government decide cases appropriately within that framework.

If one asked his MP, "How many laws are necessary?"  what could he answer?  But, to get a handle on the problem, think about how many words are in the English dictionary vs how many are in one's vocabulary.  [Perhaps several million vs several thousand.]  How many laws and regulations should one person be expected to know?  Or, how many is reasonable for the regulation of a particular trade, and could reasonably be known by a practitioner of that trade?

There must be a way to put a reasonable upper bound on this, even if the number chosen is arbitrary.  If you took the common man and said, "here are 10,000 laws we expect you to live by," he must be overwhelmed; because his vocabulary is likely less than 10,000 words – and who has time to read all those laws, unless they're only one or two sentences each?  If the laws and regulations pertaining to a particular trade cannot be printed in a 200-page book, perhaps there are too many?  Here are suggestions to carry out the process of paring down the total number of laws:

Step 1: List the founding constitutional documents of the nation which have given the people their freedoms.  Note that some make reference to freedoms that are "self-evident."

Step 2: List the statutes which are a direct outgrowth of the foundational documents that have also secured these freedoms to the people.  At his point, one should also be able to list those freedoms that were "self-evident" to his ancestors.

Step 3: Identify ordinary, common laws and statutes that speak to offences which the average person's conscience would see as demanding correction: murder, theft, mayhem, embezzlement, etc.  It would be very interesting to see how long this list becomes.  Are there 200 commonly recognized offences that demand sanctions, or 10,000?

Step 4: Identify the best laws on the books that address these offences and leave them be.  Eliminate duplicate laws passed over the centuries.  All other laws are open to repeal if not urgently important to protection of life, liberty, and property.

Step 4: Identify antique or modern laws and regulations that contradict the founding documents in respect of allowing persons their self-evident and documented freedoms.  Repeal them.

Step 5: Use sunset provisions on all new legislation and consider it for all but the most basic laws.  Most laws are now passed to address temporary situations whipped up into a "crisis" by media, or to give a handout to some favored group.  If the law can't re-justify itself in 5 or 10 years and be passed anew, why shouldn't it just fall off the books. 

If it's true that the nation could live with a finite number of laws and regulations, it would really help to keep the MP's busy re-enacting needed laws every 10 years, instead of proposing unneeded, expensive and oppressive new ones.

Freedom is the way to prosperity.  But it is not proposed that laws against moral or social evils should be abandoned without thought, to satisfy the greed and gratuitous urges of the age.  The government can help by exercising responsible leadership when filtering through the suggestions for repeal.  Good ethics and good morality are good public policy.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Instead of eliminating just one obsolete regulation for each new one proposed, why not eliminate 5 or 10 to bring the entire number under control?

E.g. Any given law might result in 5 or 500 new, minute regulations.  All of these could be tossed out in bunches if the basic idea behind the legislation no longer applies.

How many laws are enough?  It's time to return to common sense, identify those basic laws that are necessary for the regulation of society, and let the courts and government decide cases appropriately within that framework.

If one asked his MP, "How many laws are necessary?"  what could he answer?  But, to get a handle on the problem, think about how many words are in the English dictionary vs how many are in one's vocabulary.  [Perhaps several million vs several thousand.]  How many laws and regulations should one person be expected to know?  Or, how many is reasonable for the regulation of a particular trade, and could reasonably be known by a practitioner of that trade?

There must be a way to put a reasonable upper bound on this, even if the number chosen is arbitrary.  If you took the common man and said, "here are 10,000 laws we expect you to live by," he must be overwhelmed; because his vocabulary is likely less than 10,000 words – and who has time to read all those laws, unless they're only one or two sentences each?  If the laws and regulations pertaining to a particular trade cannot be printed in a 200-page book, perhaps there are too many?  Here are suggestions to carry out the process of paring down the total number of laws:

Step 1: List the founding constitutional documents of the nation which have given the people their freedoms.  Note that some make reference to freedoms that are "self-evident."

Step 2: List the statutes which are a direct outgrowth of the foundational documents that have also secured these freedoms to the people.  At his point, one should also be able to list those freedoms that were "self-evident" to his ancestors.

Step 3: Identify ordinary, common laws and statutes that speak to offences which the average person's conscience would see as demanding correction: murder, theft, mayhem, embezzlement, etc.  It would be very interesting to see how long this list becomes.  Are there 200 commonly recognized offences that demand sanctions, or 10,000?

Step 4: Identify the best laws on the books that address these offences and leave them be.  Eliminate duplicate laws passed over the centuries.  All other laws are open to repeal if not urgently important to protection of life, liberty, and property.

Step 4: Identify antique or modern laws and regulations that contradict the founding documents in respect of allowing persons their self-evident and documented freedoms.  Repeal them.

Step 5: Use sunset provisions on all new legislation and consider it for all but the most basic laws.  Most laws are now passed to address temporary situations whipped up into a "crisis" by media, or to give a handout to some favored group.  If the law can't re-justify itself in 5 or 10 years and be passed anew, why shouldn't it just fall off the books. 

If it's true that the nation could live with a finite number of laws and regulations, it would really help to keep the MP's busy re-enacting needed laws every 10 years, instead of proposing unneeded, expensive and oppressive new ones.

Freedom is the way to prosperity.  But it is not proposed that laws against moral or social evils should be abandoned without thought, to satisfy the greed and gratuitous urges of the age.  The government can help by exercising responsible leadership when filtering through the suggestions for repeal.  Good ethics and good morality are good public policy.

 

 

 

Stop racism against the ethnic English

Multiculturalism will never work as it racist against the native ethnic English. The fanciful concept is based on the oppression and ethnocide against the native ethnic population of  England.  Multiculturalism by definition needs to eradicate the native culture and people, the native ethnic people and culture of the English and England (we era not a mongrel nation-learn your history and do not be racist). The English created England and named it after themselves.

Today most people would quite rightly be disgusted if they heard of a native ethnic population and culture being eradicated in its own land  for the benefit of the failed Multicultural project. Yet today in England the ethnic English, the native population of England are subject to state backed racism and bigotry in our own country. Our ethnic English history is not be taught or is being re-written to accommodate PC lies and disinformation. The ethnic English are being banned from applying for jobs in their own country because of who they are and their skin colour. Their ethnic identity of 'ethnicity  white English' is not to be found on monitoring or census forms. Whereas other peoples ethnicity is!  The ethnic English are being forced down the waiting list for council properties due to asylum seekers and loosing jobs because of over population. England is the fourth most densely populated area on earth.

There is no labour shortage or need for immigrants from the EU or elsewhere. In a civilised country it is for the state to make sure the native ethnic English and existing population is always trained, employed and housed at all times. Why are successive governments not doing this? Yet pulling out the stops to accommodate unnecessary immigration. This must be a bribe for votes and symptom of Multicultural fanaticism at all costs.


Multiculturalism causes meltdown and social decay, all that ties a nation together, it's shared history, traditions, ancestors and achievements, it's identity is undermined. So self-imposed multicultural ethnic segregation will always occur because of it. Where loyalty is not to country, its native culture of even a political party, but to a group whose identity, traditions and loyalty lie elsewhere and always will. It is fact that most victims of racist crime are native ethnic English and this number has increased in-line with open door immigration, and will continue along with social and national breakdown unless the doors are locked. 

The ethnic English are the goose that lays the golden egg, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and the illegal EU all need English tax payers money. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and or parliaments paid for by the ethnic English. Yet the English do not have ether own parliament. Westminster is the UK parliament not England's. And governments continue to refuse the ethnic English to once again have their own parliament where only English people can represent and vote on English matters! Yet England is largest and oldest nation in the British isles. Again this is case of bigoted multiculturalism where the native ethnic population is subject to ethnocide. There must be an immediate end to immigration. This also means leaving the illegal EU, contrary to what politicians say the EU has no jurisdiction or sovereignty in England.

All laws that discriminate against the ethnic English from existing, participation in their our culture and being 'Fully Represented' in their own country must be ended. We need to immediate and permanently leave the illegal EU, the pointless Human Rights Act and so end unwarranted and unnecessary immigration. By doing this the fast approaching maelstrom can be prevented. England has the Magna Carta, English Deceleration of Rights The English Bill of Rights, Common Law and Act of Settlement. All these are our constitution and cannot be rmeoved contrary to what politicians say. And I am speaking ethnic Englishman who has friends of various ethnicity.
 

Why is this idea important?

Multiculturalism will never work as it racist against the native ethnic English. The fanciful concept is based on the oppression and ethnocide against the native ethnic population of  England.  Multiculturalism by definition needs to eradicate the native culture and people, the native ethnic people and culture of the English and England (we era not a mongrel nation-learn your history and do not be racist). The English created England and named it after themselves.

Today most people would quite rightly be disgusted if they heard of a native ethnic population and culture being eradicated in its own land  for the benefit of the failed Multicultural project. Yet today in England the ethnic English, the native population of England are subject to state backed racism and bigotry in our own country. Our ethnic English history is not be taught or is being re-written to accommodate PC lies and disinformation. The ethnic English are being banned from applying for jobs in their own country because of who they are and their skin colour. Their ethnic identity of 'ethnicity  white English' is not to be found on monitoring or census forms. Whereas other peoples ethnicity is!  The ethnic English are being forced down the waiting list for council properties due to asylum seekers and loosing jobs because of over population. England is the fourth most densely populated area on earth.

There is no labour shortage or need for immigrants from the EU or elsewhere. In a civilised country it is for the state to make sure the native ethnic English and existing population is always trained, employed and housed at all times. Why are successive governments not doing this? Yet pulling out the stops to accommodate unnecessary immigration. This must be a bribe for votes and symptom of Multicultural fanaticism at all costs.


Multiculturalism causes meltdown and social decay, all that ties a nation together, it's shared history, traditions, ancestors and achievements, it's identity is undermined. So self-imposed multicultural ethnic segregation will always occur because of it. Where loyalty is not to country, its native culture of even a political party, but to a group whose identity, traditions and loyalty lie elsewhere and always will. It is fact that most victims of racist crime are native ethnic English and this number has increased in-line with open door immigration, and will continue along with social and national breakdown unless the doors are locked. 

The ethnic English are the goose that lays the golden egg, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and the illegal EU all need English tax payers money. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and or parliaments paid for by the ethnic English. Yet the English do not have ether own parliament. Westminster is the UK parliament not England's. And governments continue to refuse the ethnic English to once again have their own parliament where only English people can represent and vote on English matters! Yet England is largest and oldest nation in the British isles. Again this is case of bigoted multiculturalism where the native ethnic population is subject to ethnocide. There must be an immediate end to immigration. This also means leaving the illegal EU, contrary to what politicians say the EU has no jurisdiction or sovereignty in England.

All laws that discriminate against the ethnic English from existing, participation in their our culture and being 'Fully Represented' in their own country must be ended. We need to immediate and permanently leave the illegal EU, the pointless Human Rights Act and so end unwarranted and unnecessary immigration. By doing this the fast approaching maelstrom can be prevented. England has the Magna Carta, English Deceleration of Rights The English Bill of Rights, Common Law and Act of Settlement. All these are our constitution and cannot be rmeoved contrary to what politicians say. And I am speaking ethnic Englishman who has friends of various ethnicity.
 

The ultimate civil lberty: Public to debate and vote on all legislation

Eliminate the verbal parliamentary bedate and replace it with a system which is to prepare legislation for public review and approval via an interent format such as " Your Freedom". 

Why is this idea important?

Eliminate the verbal parliamentary bedate and replace it with a system which is to prepare legislation for public review and approval via an interent format such as " Your Freedom". 

Where does it allow in the British constitution that Britain can be governed by an outside nation not elected by the British people?

Britain must sever its links with the EU due to the fact that the past Labour-Union government administration of Britain entered into an illegal affiliation with the EU governing body contrary to the Constition of Britain which requires that the approval of the citizens of Britain must be gotten before such an alliance with another government can be made on their behalf. This was not done by Blair. He misled the British public and did not adequately explain or communicate the matter to the public or the parliament of Britain. He contrived to deceive.

Why is this idea important?

Britain must sever its links with the EU due to the fact that the past Labour-Union government administration of Britain entered into an illegal affiliation with the EU governing body contrary to the Constition of Britain which requires that the approval of the citizens of Britain must be gotten before such an alliance with another government can be made on their behalf. This was not done by Blair. He misled the British public and did not adequately explain or communicate the matter to the public or the parliament of Britain. He contrived to deceive.

Get out of Europe

We should leave the EU.

Repeal the laws that have taken sovereignty away from the people and their Parliament. 

All functionaries of the Eu now in our Parliament must, by law, declare an interest everytime they speak – as their penssions are conditional on the supporting the EU – and so doing down the UK.

I am very happy to trade with Europe, and to visit it – and have Europeans come here to play or to work.

The EU – with its unaccountable bureaucrcy, is a source of far too many rules and regulations – som probably sensible, if not strictly necessary; others, like bent cucumbers [I know that, finally, has been repealed] simply beyond parody.

Why is this idea important?

We should leave the EU.

Repeal the laws that have taken sovereignty away from the people and their Parliament. 

All functionaries of the Eu now in our Parliament must, by law, declare an interest everytime they speak – as their penssions are conditional on the supporting the EU – and so doing down the UK.

I am very happy to trade with Europe, and to visit it – and have Europeans come here to play or to work.

The EU – with its unaccountable bureaucrcy, is a source of far too many rules and regulations – som probably sensible, if not strictly necessary; others, like bent cucumbers [I know that, finally, has been repealed] simply beyond parody.

AV must not be adopted; axe the Whips instead.

I have to admit I'm bending the rules here a bit: no legislation has been passed yet to bring forward a referendum on changing the electoral system to AV, but I would be in favour of its repeal should it be passed.

In theory, constituent democracy works on the premise that constituents choose a candidate, not a party.  As such, the constituents have the greatest pull over the candidates and MPs.  Greater, that is, than the parties.  For, if local parties select their candidates and local constituents select their MPs, then the MPs owe their jobs and their power to their constituents.  MPs know that they will lose their jobs at the next election if they don't do what their constituents wish.

Unfortunately, the practice is somewhat different.  Any MP who harbours any ambitions of a miniserial portfolio or even a seat on a Select Committee must do as the Whips say, even if their constituents wouldn't want the MP to do so.  And how few people go into politics to spend their entire career on the back benches?

There is a simple solution to this: ensure that Whips can only force MPs to vote in a given way on manifesto commitments.  MPs would then vote with their consciences on all other legislation; which is, after all, what their constituents elected them to do.  The game of Tug-'o-War between their conscience and their ambition would be over. 

However, the proposed legislation also stipulates a fixed term five year parliament.  This would merely entrench unpopular and failing administrations in power; who wouldn't have wished Brown's failed administration out much sooner than it held on until?  If the Whips had no power over MPs for non-manifesto commitments, MPs would feel more able to throw out an unpopular administration, even if it was their own party. 

We have the system, one of the best electoral systems in the world, but it is being abused by power-hungry party-leaders and Governments.  We must first try fix the system and only replace if we cannot.

In order to reinforce all MPs' sense of duty towards their constituents, there is one change we could make without altering the system irrevocably.  We could introduce powers of recall, whereby a petition signed by a proportion of electors in a constituency could force a by-election.  This would focus the minds of MPs on their constituents' wishes.

Axe the Whips, not the electors's power.

Why is this idea important?

I have to admit I'm bending the rules here a bit: no legislation has been passed yet to bring forward a referendum on changing the electoral system to AV, but I would be in favour of its repeal should it be passed.

In theory, constituent democracy works on the premise that constituents choose a candidate, not a party.  As such, the constituents have the greatest pull over the candidates and MPs.  Greater, that is, than the parties.  For, if local parties select their candidates and local constituents select their MPs, then the MPs owe their jobs and their power to their constituents.  MPs know that they will lose their jobs at the next election if they don't do what their constituents wish.

Unfortunately, the practice is somewhat different.  Any MP who harbours any ambitions of a miniserial portfolio or even a seat on a Select Committee must do as the Whips say, even if their constituents wouldn't want the MP to do so.  And how few people go into politics to spend their entire career on the back benches?

There is a simple solution to this: ensure that Whips can only force MPs to vote in a given way on manifesto commitments.  MPs would then vote with their consciences on all other legislation; which is, after all, what their constituents elected them to do.  The game of Tug-'o-War between their conscience and their ambition would be over. 

However, the proposed legislation also stipulates a fixed term five year parliament.  This would merely entrench unpopular and failing administrations in power; who wouldn't have wished Brown's failed administration out much sooner than it held on until?  If the Whips had no power over MPs for non-manifesto commitments, MPs would feel more able to throw out an unpopular administration, even if it was their own party. 

We have the system, one of the best electoral systems in the world, but it is being abused by power-hungry party-leaders and Governments.  We must first try fix the system and only replace if we cannot.

In order to reinforce all MPs' sense of duty towards their constituents, there is one change we could make without altering the system irrevocably.  We could introduce powers of recall, whereby a petition signed by a proportion of electors in a constituency could force a by-election.  This would focus the minds of MPs on their constituents' wishes.

Axe the Whips, not the electors's power.

Bill of rights and a written constitution

It's all very well repealing some of these laws to restore our eroded civil liberties.  What is required is a 'Bill of Rights' which all citizens can understand and relate to, and a written constitution so that future governments cannot so easily introduce laws which have already been passed and which so many contributors to this site would like to see repealed.

Why is this idea important?

It's all very well repealing some of these laws to restore our eroded civil liberties.  What is required is a 'Bill of Rights' which all citizens can understand and relate to, and a written constitution so that future governments cannot so easily introduce laws which have already been passed and which so many contributors to this site would like to see repealed.

Produce a codified constitution which enshrines our rights and liberties.

We are one of only 4 remaining countries in the world which do not have a codified constitution. (Including San Marino, New Zealand and Israel)

A codified constitution is a single document, containing the rights of every individual person, enshrined in law and transcending statute law, making it very difficult for a government to remove our civil liberties and allowing us to live with a clearer knowledge of our exact rights. This document would provide the limits of the government on what it can and cant do to us and help prevent the abuse of laws.

This would enable us in the future to challenge any laws which may infringe upon our civil liberties as they contravene an article of the constitution, meaning our rights would be clear, outlined and they could not be taken away from us in the blink of an eye.

Currently our constitution is uncodified, meaning in order to find out what your rights are, you need to look up previous test cases, there are no real core values or documents containing clear and consise details of the rights of the people in this country, the powers of the government or any iron-clad document with which to challenge controversial laws or with which to strengthen existing ones.

Why is this idea important?

We are one of only 4 remaining countries in the world which do not have a codified constitution. (Including San Marino, New Zealand and Israel)

A codified constitution is a single document, containing the rights of every individual person, enshrined in law and transcending statute law, making it very difficult for a government to remove our civil liberties and allowing us to live with a clearer knowledge of our exact rights. This document would provide the limits of the government on what it can and cant do to us and help prevent the abuse of laws.

This would enable us in the future to challenge any laws which may infringe upon our civil liberties as they contravene an article of the constitution, meaning our rights would be clear, outlined and they could not be taken away from us in the blink of an eye.

Currently our constitution is uncodified, meaning in order to find out what your rights are, you need to look up previous test cases, there are no real core values or documents containing clear and consise details of the rights of the people in this country, the powers of the government or any iron-clad document with which to challenge controversial laws or with which to strengthen existing ones.

confirm Magna Carta and the 1688 Act of Settlement,

The Freedom Act should pave the way for a new constitutional settlement within the life time of this Parliament.

The Freedom Act should call for a wide ranging commission to make proposals for a written Constitution that confirms Magna Carta, that confirms the 1688 Act of Settlement, and confirms our individual rights protecting us from the State under  English common law.

All Acts that are then deemed unconstitutional would become void
 

Why is this idea important?

The Freedom Act should pave the way for a new constitutional settlement within the life time of this Parliament.

The Freedom Act should call for a wide ranging commission to make proposals for a written Constitution that confirms Magna Carta, that confirms the 1688 Act of Settlement, and confirms our individual rights protecting us from the State under  English common law.

All Acts that are then deemed unconstitutional would become void
 

Constitution

 

Instead of tinkering with PR voring systems we should completely overhaul our system of Government.

There should be a total separation of powers. No-one in Government should be sitting in the Commons or the Lords.

The Executive (Prime Minister) should be directly elected. This should short-circuit the debate about PR.

MPs should continue to be elected on the current system. As the Government is directly elected, we would hopefully see more independent MPs, and begin to transfer power away from the political parties who have such low membership as to be totally unrepresentative.

House of Lords to be elected in a separate electoral cycle.

Fixed term 4 year Parliaments.

Monarchy can be retained or not .

All subject to a referendum, of course.

Why is this idea important?

 

Instead of tinkering with PR voring systems we should completely overhaul our system of Government.

There should be a total separation of powers. No-one in Government should be sitting in the Commons or the Lords.

The Executive (Prime Minister) should be directly elected. This should short-circuit the debate about PR.

MPs should continue to be elected on the current system. As the Government is directly elected, we would hopefully see more independent MPs, and begin to transfer power away from the political parties who have such low membership as to be totally unrepresentative.

House of Lords to be elected in a separate electoral cycle.

Fixed term 4 year Parliaments.

Monarchy can be retained or not .

All subject to a referendum, of course.

Scrap the Lords

Federalise UK. SE Assembly to use the Commons, the Lords being used for a Federal Parliament with representatives from the UK Assemblies dealing with Europe, Defence and foreign affairs, and as a final court of appeal, etc. Nobody should be a Lord in this day and age. This would be very attractive to all, other than the Lords, and particulary to Labour voters who we must get on our side. Will not meantime go on to other issues. John Prescott gave a poor presentation to the NE.

Why is this idea important?

Federalise UK. SE Assembly to use the Commons, the Lords being used for a Federal Parliament with representatives from the UK Assemblies dealing with Europe, Defence and foreign affairs, and as a final court of appeal, etc. Nobody should be a Lord in this day and age. This would be very attractive to all, other than the Lords, and particulary to Labour voters who we must get on our side. Will not meantime go on to other issues. John Prescott gave a poor presentation to the NE.

Remove MPs exemptions from regulations

Repeal all laws and regulations which entitle MPs to exemption from laws which they have imposed on the rest of the population.

Exemptions and privileges affect many areas and were, of course, at the heart of and well illustrated by, the recent expenses scandal. 

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all laws and regulations which entitle MPs to exemption from laws which they have imposed on the rest of the population.

Exemptions and privileges affect many areas and were, of course, at the heart of and well illustrated by, the recent expenses scandal. 

Democratic constitution:

I believe that it is anachronistic and dangerous for Britain to be without a formal, legal and most importantly knowable constitution.

I believe that a constitution must serve three functions. Firstly it must lay out, clearly, the rules by which the state operates; it must demarcate areas of power within the state and formally lay out procedures to follow after and during elections. Secondly it must protect the legal concepts that are absolutely essential to the operation of a democratic state: equality before the law, freedom of speech, the right to privacy and the right to vote. Thirdly a constitution must also enshrine the relationship between state and people (a bill of rights and responsibilities).

Constitutions, however, are not protection by their self. Just ask the Jews in Germany or the citizens of the USSR how there constitutions were ignored and bypassed to act as mockeries of themselves. An added anger of conventional constitutions is they are often protect ludicrously outmode ways of behaving and undertaking government business of the past. Take the 2ndamendment of the US constitution or the revolting anti catholic rules within our own.

Therefore I propose something more than a simple constitution. I propose a constitution which is formed section by section, concept by concept by the people. Therefore ever fifteen years a democratic convention would take place in which ideas which has gained a set number of signatures, would be debated by all and finally voted into or out of the constitution. In his way the constitution would represent the will of the people. 

Why is this idea important?

I believe that it is anachronistic and dangerous for Britain to be without a formal, legal and most importantly knowable constitution.

I believe that a constitution must serve three functions. Firstly it must lay out, clearly, the rules by which the state operates; it must demarcate areas of power within the state and formally lay out procedures to follow after and during elections. Secondly it must protect the legal concepts that are absolutely essential to the operation of a democratic state: equality before the law, freedom of speech, the right to privacy and the right to vote. Thirdly a constitution must also enshrine the relationship between state and people (a bill of rights and responsibilities).

Constitutions, however, are not protection by their self. Just ask the Jews in Germany or the citizens of the USSR how there constitutions were ignored and bypassed to act as mockeries of themselves. An added anger of conventional constitutions is they are often protect ludicrously outmode ways of behaving and undertaking government business of the past. Take the 2ndamendment of the US constitution or the revolting anti catholic rules within our own.

Therefore I propose something more than a simple constitution. I propose a constitution which is formed section by section, concept by concept by the people. Therefore ever fifteen years a democratic convention would take place in which ideas which has gained a set number of signatures, would be debated by all and finally voted into or out of the constitution. In his way the constitution would represent the will of the people.