Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

@Flicker

I shall ask again

Do you accept that parliament can not legally change the constitution without consent of the populous? yes or no?

Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

Oh dear, your Civics teacher should be shot if this is what he taught you.

The last truly direct democracy was in Ancient Greece. Wherever there is a sitting parliament (or whatever name you give to a body of decision makers) you have a Representative Democracy. You hand your own vote to another who makes the decisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

As for the highlighted bit, I have already pointed out that every piece of EU legislation was adopted into the UK statute books AFTER IT WAS SCRUTINISED BY THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND LORDS. Sometimes it was nodded through, sometimes it was put to a vote.
NOTHING from the EU was imposed. EVERYTHING was approved by your elected MP's. Democratically.
Every person in the EU except the Commission (who has not voting rights) is elected by someone. and every MEP, every member of the Council (28 duly elected PM's)has equal voice in raising, debating and voting for legislation.
How else do you make decisions between 28 countries?? You can't have half a billion private citizen going to the polls every day to cast a direct vote!

Never mind what the press says...one paper has been propagandising for over 40 year and telling the public only what it wants you to know. Look up the information yourself...any of the Europa sites will tell you. They are PURELY information.

I do find it a disgrace that these things are not taught in school.

Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

I think I am right in saying that the MP's speak for the people.
And that to change the constitution you have to have the approval of the judiciary but I am not clear on that.

In effect "changing the constitution" is in reality a process of repealing and replacing legislation.
This is what Parliament does. I do not think that every case brought before the judiciary and which is potentially changing the constitution needs the approval of direct democracy.
For example David Steele's abortion legislation was a big change in the constitution touching on human rights and the meaning of how a living person is defined but it was not voted on by the people directly.

Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

I wouldn't be so hasty s to suggest that those who voted to remain didn't know what the vote was about.

It was merely that they disagreed with you. And majority decisions do not mean they are right. Just that a lot more people got it wrong than right in the end.

and it might well mean that they knew better than others what it meant. or that they had other priorities. or could see further into the distance to the ultimate consequences. Or that they understood the EU better than the Leavers did.

That "controlling your own country" is exactly what you already do except your own migrant intake which was an important part of the original treaty of accession the country signed in 1972. That has never changed. The UK has.

Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

Hi

A response to Flicker.

I have posted the direct links to the EU Website which explains Article 50.

My views in no way contradict their opinion.

If no agreement is reached in two years following a Notification under Article 50, then the the State wishing to leave, automatically leaves.

We, the voters of the Uk were given the opportunity of voting in a free Referendum to stay or leave.

We voted to leave, rightly or wrongly.

The legislation granting the Referendum was voted through in Parliament.

Parliament as such voted for the right of the people to make a decision.

The decision was made and must be respected.

The fact that Parliament made a procedural error in the wording of the Act is unfortunate.

If any Political Party did not agree, they should have voted against the people having the final decision.

The Referendum was passed by Parliament, our elected representatives.

The outcome of the vote must be respected.

It is a very simple matter for Parliament to rectify this procedural error.

Anything else would be a total betrayal of our Democratic System.

Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

Well they certainly didn't know what the leave vote was about! I am pleased to say that I consider all the alternatives before making such a serious decision.
If you actually believe that Britain would have been in total control of it's own country, by voting remain, I would suggest that you try listening to the many news reports that believe we will be expected to form a European military force, in the future. Try listening to the members of the European Commission, who believe that we should open our borders to more Muslim immigrants ( we have all seen what a disaster happened in Germany when Merkel did that!).
We don't have a majority vote when the EU want to change the rules, so how can we possibly control our own country and it's activities. I believe the long term intention is to make Europe one large country with many smaller countries becoming states.
We were all coaxed in by the common market idea, but things have changed a lot since then and I don't want to live in a country that will become one of the States of Europe..... I have seen the disastrous results of politics in the USA. I am just happy that the majority of voters thought as I did.

Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

Agreed not every case need have a referendum however "significant" changes to the constitution very much should involve public consent.

Whilst the definition of the constitution is not fully compiled or encoded, the heart of that constitution is well known and understood and has been for centuries.

Various parliamentary committees have frequently referred to a checklist drawn up by Professor Sir John Baker which, while neither exhaustive nor closed, represents “a useful guide to the principal measures which would fall under the rubric of significant constitutional change.”

The list was as follows:

- any alteration to the structure and composition of Parliament;

- any alteration to the powers of Parliament, or any transfer of power, as by devolution or international treaty, which would in practice be difficult to reverse;

- any alteration to the succession to the Crown or the functions of the monarch;

- any substantial alteration to the balance of power between Parliament and government, including the conferment of unduly broad or ill-defined powers to legislate by order;

- any substantial alteration to the balance of power between central government and local authorities;

- any substantial alteration to the establishment and jurisdiction of the courts of law, including any measure that would place the exercise of power beyond the purview of the courts, or which would affect the independence of the judiciary;

- any substantial alteration to the establishment of the Church of England;

- any substantial alteration to the liberties of the subject, including the right to habeas corpus and trial by jury.


I believe it can be clearly shown that most, if not all, of the above "significant constitutional changes" have been undertaken by the implementation of the 5 EU Treaties.

The public has not been consulted on any of those changes, not given a vote, a referendum or a choice. Parliament and indeed the Monarchy, is there to uphold the law and customs of this country.

Allowing such constitutional changes to be made piecemeal, by stealth, and without public consultation and consent, is wrong in the extreme and quite probably an act of treason.

Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

Was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
I can't decide!

Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

Re: And Still They Try To Thwart Democracy!!

I don't know what you mean by "consent of the populous".

If you mean direct consent, then no.
If you mean indirect consent via MP's as is the constitutional case, then yes the vote must pass through the Parliament s does ever other change in law.

So since your question is unclear that is the best answer I can give.

I refer you to the abortion legislation. The two houses voted on it AS YOUR REPRESENTATIVES. That is how the UK works.