remove the UK from the EUROPEAN UNION

 We pay millions for little return and the money saved will help clear our Countries deficit. how many business people do you know  who would invest vast sums of money in a company who haven't provided 'approved audited accounts''??? OUR GOVERNMENT DO JUST THAT!!!!

If you were a member of an expensive club and fell on hard times you would cancel your membership, so the obvious as we have fallen on hard times , as a Country, is to cancel our membership. How can we justify the millions we pay for the 'Tail to wag the dog'???

look at the expensesthe Euro MP'S claim, it makes Parlaments indiscretion look a small mistake in comparison. how many Kinnocks really work in europe for example????

Why is this idea important?

 We pay millions for little return and the money saved will help clear our Countries deficit. how many business people do you know  who would invest vast sums of money in a company who haven't provided 'approved audited accounts''??? OUR GOVERNMENT DO JUST THAT!!!!

If you were a member of an expensive club and fell on hard times you would cancel your membership, so the obvious as we have fallen on hard times , as a Country, is to cancel our membership. How can we justify the millions we pay for the 'Tail to wag the dog'???

look at the expensesthe Euro MP'S claim, it makes Parlaments indiscretion look a small mistake in comparison. how many Kinnocks really work in europe for example????

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."
 

Repeal the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

The right to join a trade union, and the right to strike, are as fundamental as free speech. If you don't have them, you're not an employee but a serf, and a society that outlaws strikes isn't free.  Where individual bargaining power is weak – perhaps because the employer is a quasi-monopoly purchaser of an employee's particular skill, collective bargaining power is all that employees have.

Yet the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes strikes, in effect, illegal.

Why is this idea important?

The right to join a trade union, and the right to strike, are as fundamental as free speech. If you don't have them, you're not an employee but a serf, and a society that outlaws strikes isn't free.  Where individual bargaining power is weak – perhaps because the employer is a quasi-monopoly purchaser of an employee's particular skill, collective bargaining power is all that employees have.

Yet the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes strikes, in effect, illegal.

Sale of services: clarity on legal insurers & unions

I want two pieces of clarity.

  1. The same consumer protection service should cover legal insurers & the legal insurance work of trades unions.  At the moment if you ring Consumer Direct about a rip-off by a trades union, they tell you to try the Financial Services Authority. Try them and they say try the Certification Office. I pressed my point on the phone so the boss of the helpline office rang me back to say that this was not a political thing; unions do other things apart from legal insurance, and that's the reasoning "like getting you cheap food at the canteen" he said. But a legal insurere that also offers human resources advice or is bundled with the services of Cardsave or the Federation of Small Businesses is covered. Likewise unions have no trouble registering with the FSA for their work flogging financial services to the mailing list, but don't want to register as legal insurers. On to the Cerfication Office: "complaints regarding a union’s failure to represent a member adequately, or at all" are not covered. That's what they say on their web site.
     
  2. Legal insurers who use no-win no-fee lawyers should be transparent about it. At the moment some legal insurers pay no insurance premium tax: all the money goes to the broker. They charge no-win no-fee lawyers such as Shoesmiths referral fees, accoding to the company quoted in an Observer article: "It's the only source of income we get", said someone at DAS legal insurance.

    Now, if the whole edifice of a legal insurance company is funded by no-win no-fee lawyers, most consumers would cancel their subscription and think of another way to get such lawyers. They would be right to do so. Apart from a murkey hope that a legal firm can use cross-subsidise cases there is no excuse for running such a service and a murkey hope is no hope at all.

Why is this idea important?

I want two pieces of clarity.

  1. The same consumer protection service should cover legal insurers & the legal insurance work of trades unions.  At the moment if you ring Consumer Direct about a rip-off by a trades union, they tell you to try the Financial Services Authority. Try them and they say try the Certification Office. I pressed my point on the phone so the boss of the helpline office rang me back to say that this was not a political thing; unions do other things apart from legal insurance, and that's the reasoning "like getting you cheap food at the canteen" he said. But a legal insurere that also offers human resources advice or is bundled with the services of Cardsave or the Federation of Small Businesses is covered. Likewise unions have no trouble registering with the FSA for their work flogging financial services to the mailing list, but don't want to register as legal insurers. On to the Cerfication Office: "complaints regarding a union’s failure to represent a member adequately, or at all" are not covered. That's what they say on their web site.
     
  2. Legal insurers who use no-win no-fee lawyers should be transparent about it. At the moment some legal insurers pay no insurance premium tax: all the money goes to the broker. They charge no-win no-fee lawyers such as Shoesmiths referral fees, accoding to the company quoted in an Observer article: "It's the only source of income we get", said someone at DAS legal insurance.

    Now, if the whole edifice of a legal insurance company is funded by no-win no-fee lawyers, most consumers would cancel their subscription and think of another way to get such lawyers. They would be right to do so. Apart from a murkey hope that a legal firm can use cross-subsidise cases there is no excuse for running such a service and a murkey hope is no hope at all.

Controlling personal injury claims

1. All personal injury claims must pass a reasonableness and honesty test before being issued. If the injury could have been avoided by the application of simple common sense then it would fail the reasonableness test. If the claimed injury could not be found or was felt to be exaggerated following medical examination by an independent court appointed party then it would fail the honesty test.

2. The costs of the up-front medical examination should be borne by the claimant solicitor and it should not be possible to cover these costs under conditional fee insurance. Cost recovery should only be available from the claimant.

3 It should be a specific criminal offence to lie in support of a personal injury claim.

4. All medical assessments used in claims must be required to consider all other sources of exposure that could cause an injury e.g. hobbies, second jobs, etc.

5. Claimants must not be allowed to change the basis/detail of their claim during the course of the claim. The initial letter of claim must summarise the items that will appear int he particulars of claim.

6. There should be a simple mechanism for employers to be able to reclaim sickpay and other costs from claimants who have made dishonest claims.

7. Employers should be allowed to claim back the reasonable cost of their time investigating a claim and providing information to claim solicitors should the claim subsequently fail.

8. There should be far more fixed cost claims or there should be a fixed ration of damages to costs to prevent legal costs far exceeding the value of a PI claim.

9. The Civil Courts must not impose through their judgements a more onerous duty of care than is imposed by the Criminal Law. Where 'reasonably practicable' is permissible in law it must be applied by the Civil courts.

10. Claim Solicitors must not be allowed to advertise in NHS or other Government premises.

11. Trade Union appointed solicitors should be prevented from charging 'notional fees' as part of a conditional fee arrangement.

Why is this idea important?

1. All personal injury claims must pass a reasonableness and honesty test before being issued. If the injury could have been avoided by the application of simple common sense then it would fail the reasonableness test. If the claimed injury could not be found or was felt to be exaggerated following medical examination by an independent court appointed party then it would fail the honesty test.

2. The costs of the up-front medical examination should be borne by the claimant solicitor and it should not be possible to cover these costs under conditional fee insurance. Cost recovery should only be available from the claimant.

3 It should be a specific criminal offence to lie in support of a personal injury claim.

4. All medical assessments used in claims must be required to consider all other sources of exposure that could cause an injury e.g. hobbies, second jobs, etc.

5. Claimants must not be allowed to change the basis/detail of their claim during the course of the claim. The initial letter of claim must summarise the items that will appear int he particulars of claim.

6. There should be a simple mechanism for employers to be able to reclaim sickpay and other costs from claimants who have made dishonest claims.

7. Employers should be allowed to claim back the reasonable cost of their time investigating a claim and providing information to claim solicitors should the claim subsequently fail.

8. There should be far more fixed cost claims or there should be a fixed ration of damages to costs to prevent legal costs far exceeding the value of a PI claim.

9. The Civil Courts must not impose through their judgements a more onerous duty of care than is imposed by the Criminal Law. Where 'reasonably practicable' is permissible in law it must be applied by the Civil courts.

10. Claim Solicitors must not be allowed to advertise in NHS or other Government premises.

11. Trade Union appointed solicitors should be prevented from charging 'notional fees' as part of a conditional fee arrangement.

Amend or Repeal Employment Act 1980&1982, Trade Union Act 1984 and Employment Act 1988

The all-but complete removal of the working persons right to withdraw their labour, to picket and therefore to defend and fight for rights and safety in the workplace has been systematically destroyed by these Acts.

At the every least recognised trades unions should not be under constant legal threat of injunction against industrial action for petty and ridiculous "infringements" of ballot rules (eg BA stopping cabin crew action without any real legitimate cause, merely a legal nicety).

Why is this idea important?

The all-but complete removal of the working persons right to withdraw their labour, to picket and therefore to defend and fight for rights and safety in the workplace has been systematically destroyed by these Acts.

At the every least recognised trades unions should not be under constant legal threat of injunction against industrial action for petty and ridiculous "infringements" of ballot rules (eg BA stopping cabin crew action without any real legitimate cause, merely a legal nicety).

Restoring worker’s rights

Repealing all anti trade union legislation that has been introduced since the 1970's to allow  trade unions to be able to fully support their members in order that their rights to campaign to improve their working conditions are protected. These laws include:

  • The 1980 Employment Act
  • The 1982 Employment Act
  • The 1984 Trade Union Act
  • The 1988 Employment Act
  • The 1989 Employment Act
  • The 1990 Employment Act
  • The 1993 Employment Act
  • 1999 Employment Relations Act

Why is this idea important?

Repealing all anti trade union legislation that has been introduced since the 1970's to allow  trade unions to be able to fully support their members in order that their rights to campaign to improve their working conditions are protected. These laws include:

  • The 1980 Employment Act
  • The 1982 Employment Act
  • The 1984 Trade Union Act
  • The 1988 Employment Act
  • The 1989 Employment Act
  • The 1990 Employment Act
  • The 1993 Employment Act
  • 1999 Employment Relations Act

Repeal the 1707 Act of Union

A repeal of the Act of Parliament uniting England and Scotland as a single political entity, thus paving the way for both countries to emerge as sovereign states in their own right.

Why is this idea important?

A repeal of the Act of Parliament uniting England and Scotland as a single political entity, thus paving the way for both countries to emerge as sovereign states in their own right.

Removing overly-prescriptive regulations on trade union ballots

Repeal of sections 227-235 inclusive of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and their replacement with a simpler, less prescriptive code drawn up in consultation with trade union membership.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal of sections 227-235 inclusive of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and their replacement with a simpler, less prescriptive code drawn up in consultation with trade union membership.

Employers should not have to pay for union activities in the work place

I find it incredible that employers are required to pay union reps for undertaking union business during work time.   In my experience (particularly in the public sector) this has led to members of staff spending the majority of their work time on union business, to the detriment of their employer's business requirements.

Why is this idea important?

I find it incredible that employers are required to pay union reps for undertaking union business during work time.   In my experience (particularly in the public sector) this has led to members of staff spending the majority of their work time on union business, to the detriment of their employer's business requirements.