It is an appropriate moment to consider how our political system could 
be improved in order to reduce the risks of further major errors of 
policy (e.g. finance) and corrupt or irresponsible behaviour by MPs and 
government ministers.

Factors to be addressed include:

Reduced influence of MPs and parliament and dominance of country and 
parliament by the "executive" (essentially, so it seems, the prime 
minister and a few confidants). Parliament cannot effectively scrutinise 
government or EU proposals and in recent decades has rarely acted 
effectively to introduce, change or reject (proposed) policy and law. 
The self-esteem of MPs is thus reduced and the chances of anti-social 
behaviour by them increased. .

Powerlessness of the people. After giving away your vote to a political 
party and MP you have no say at all until the next election ... Even 
Quintin Hogg called this state of affairs "electoral dictatorship". We 
as an electorate have no effective way to put forward a proposal and no 
way to veto an unwanted law.

An electoral system -- "first past the post" -- which produces very poor 
representation of the people's political will.

-----------------------------------------------------------
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform

'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:

>It is an appropriate moment to consider how our political system could 
>be improved in order to reduce the risks of further major errors of 
>policy (e.g. finance) and corrupt or irresponsible behaviour by MPs and 
>government ministers.
>
>Factors to be addressed include:
>
>Reduced influence of MPs and parliament and dominance of country and 
>parliament by the "executive" (essentially, so it seems, the prime 
>minister and a few confidants). Parliament cannot effectively scrutinise 
>government or EU proposals and in recent decades has rarely acted 
>effectively to introduce, change or reject (proposed) policy and law. 
>The self-esteem of MPs is thus reduced and the chances of anti-social 
>behaviour by them increased. .
>
>Powerlessness of the people. After giving away your vote to a political 
>party and MP you have no say at all until the next election ... Even 
>Quintin Hogg called this state of affairs "electoral dictatorship". We 
>as an electorate have no effective way to put forward a proposal and no 
>way to veto an unwanted law.
>
>An electoral system -- "first past the post" -- which produces very poor 
>representation of the people's political will.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>http://www.iniref.org/
>http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform


IOW we need a proper written constitution.

aracari wrote:
> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
> 
>> It is an appropriate moment to consider how our political system could 
>> be improved in order to reduce the risks of further major errors of 
>> policy (e.g. finance) and corrupt or irresponsible behaviour by MPs and 
>> government ministers.
>>
>> Factors to be addressed include:
>>
>> Reduced influence of MPs and parliament and dominance of country and 
>> parliament by the "executive" (essentially, so it seems, the prime 
>> minister and a few confidants). Parliament cannot effectively scrutinise 
>> government or EU proposals and in recent decades has rarely acted 
>> effectively to introduce, change or reject (proposed) policy and law. 
>> The self-esteem of MPs is thus reduced and the chances of anti-social 
>> behaviour by them increased. .
>>
>> Powerlessness of the people. After giving away your vote to a political 
>> party and MP you have no say at all until the next election ... Even 
>> Quintin Hogg called this state of affairs "electoral dictatorship". We 
>> as an electorate have no effective way to put forward a proposal and no 
>> way to veto an unwanted law.
>>
>> An electoral system -- "first past the post" -- which produces very poor 
>> representation of the people's political will.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>> http://www.iniref.org/
>> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
> 
> 
> IOW we need a proper written constitution.
> 

Agreed. But this must come from We The People and not be imposed by the 
Powers That Be. So we need an innovative process of constitution 
building and that needs a culture of democracy which we have so far 
neglected to nurture and develop. IMO we should introduce the 
"initiative and referendum" -- citizen-led democracy -- and then begin 
to give ourselves a codified constitution.

This does not mean getting rid of parties and parliament. The proposed 
elements of direct democracy would enhance the existing representative 
system.

'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:

>aracari wrote:
>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>> 
>>> It is an appropriate moment to consider how our political system could 
>>> be improved in order to reduce the risks of further major errors of 
>>> policy (e.g. finance) and corrupt or irresponsible behaviour by MPs and 
>>> government ministers.
>>>
>>> Factors to be addressed include:
>>>
>>> Reduced influence of MPs and parliament and dominance of country and 
>>> parliament by the "executive" (essentially, so it seems, the prime 
>>> minister and a few confidants). Parliament cannot effectively scrutinise 
>>> government or EU proposals and in recent decades has rarely acted 
>>> effectively to introduce, change or reject (proposed) policy and law. 
>>> The self-esteem of MPs is thus reduced and the chances of anti-social 
>>> behaviour by them increased. .
>>>
>>> Powerlessness of the people. After giving away your vote to a political 
>>> party and MP you have no say at all until the next election ... Even 
>>> Quintin Hogg called this state of affairs "electoral dictatorship". We 
>>> as an electorate have no effective way to put forward a proposal and no 
>>> way to veto an unwanted law.
>>>
>>> An electoral system -- "first past the post" -- which produces very poor 
>>> representation of the people's political will.
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
>> 
>> 
>> IOW we need a proper written constitution.
>> 
>
>Agreed. But this must come from We The People and not be imposed by the 
>Powers That Be. So we need an innovative process of constitution 
>building and that needs a culture of democracy which we have so far 
>neglected to nurture and develop. IMO we should introduce the 
>"initiative and referendum" -- citizen-led democracy -- and then begin 
>to give ourselves a codified constitution.
>
>This does not mean getting rid of parties and parliament. The proposed 
>elements of direct democracy would enhance the existing representative 
>system.

I think there is room for aspects of direct democracy in our
system but I would not see it as a pre-requisite to having a
proper constitution, perhaps contained with it. Virtually every
major cock-up, abuse of power or stripping away of our civil
rights by politicians can be traced back to our lack of a proper
written constitution and lack of a Bill of Rights. The growing
police state is another example.

There are plenty of other constitutions in the world to draw on
and we have a fair number of experts who could be entrusted
to draft one. Direct democracy would perhaps operate under 
the auspices of said constitution.
I would see independent oversight of compliance as a necessity
even to the extent that every Bill had to be signed off by the
supervisory body before it became law.

  -laws govern people
  -constitutions govern government

The current fiasco over MPs expenses is a classic example of
what happens when there is no effective limitation of powers
and no oversight of the Executive or of Parliament, which has
allowed them to become of the mind that they're above the
law and out of reach. The ultimate expression of arrogance?

aracari wrote:
> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
> 
>> aracari wrote:
>>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>> It is an appropriate moment to consider how our political system could 
>>>> be improved in order to reduce the risks of further major errors of 
>>>> policy (e.g. finance) and corrupt or irresponsible behaviour by MPs and 
>>>> government ministers.
>>>>
>>>> Factors to be addressed include:
>>>>
>>>> Reduced influence of MPs and parliament and dominance of country and 
>>>> parliament by the "executive" (essentially, so it seems, the prime 
>>>> minister and a few confidants). Parliament cannot effectively scrutinise 
>>>> government or EU proposals and in recent decades has rarely acted 
>>>> effectively to introduce, change or reject (proposed) policy and law. 
>>>> The self-esteem of MPs is thus reduced and the chances of anti-social 
>>>> behaviour by them increased. .
>>>>
>>>> Powerlessness of the people. After giving away your vote to a political 
>>>> party and MP you have no say at all until the next election ... Even 
>>>> Quintin Hogg called this state of affairs "electoral dictatorship". We 
>>>> as an electorate have no effective way to put forward a proposal and no 
>>>> way to veto an unwanted law.
>>>>
>>>> An electoral system -- "first past the post" -- which produces very poor 
>>>> representation of the people's political will.
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>>>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
>>>
>>> IOW we need a proper written constitution.
>>>
>> Agreed. But this must come from We The People and not be imposed by the 
>> Powers That Be. So we need an innovative process of constitution 
>> building and that needs a culture of democracy which we have so far 
>> neglected to nurture and develop. IMO we should introduce the 
>> "initiative and referendum" -- citizen-led democracy -- and then begin 
>> to give ourselves a codified constitution.
>>
>> This does not mean getting rid of parties and parliament. The proposed 
>> elements of direct democracy would enhance the existing representative 
>> system.
> 
> I think there is room for aspects of direct democracy in our
> system but I would not see it as a pre-requisite to having a
> proper constitution, perhaps contained with it. Virtually every
> major cock-up, abuse of power or stripping away of our civil
> rights by politicians can be traced back to our lack of a proper
> written constitution and lack of a Bill of Rights. The growing
> police state is another example.
> 
> There are plenty of other constitutions in the world to draw on
> and we have a fair number of experts who could be entrusted
> to draft one. Direct democracy would perhaps operate under 
> the auspices of said constitution.
> I would see independent oversight of compliance as a necessity
> even to the extent that every Bill had to be signed off by the
> supervisory body before it became law.
> 
>   -laws govern people
>   -constitutions govern government
> 
> The current fiasco over MPs expenses is a classic example of
> what happens when there is no effective limitation of powers
> and no oversight of the Executive or of Parliament, which has
> allowed them to become of the mind that they're above the
> law and out of reach. The ultimate expression of arrogance?
> 

Perhaps there is even more agreement than meets the eye if we look at 
the growing interaction of constitution-building and direct 
participation of electorates seen across the world in recent decades. 
New constitutions have been made after extensive public debate and 
indeed finally approved by plebiscite. It seems to be the norm that the 
people should decide on fundamental and enduring principles of statehood 
and governance.

Are there proposals for a constitution in UK and the countries? Lobby 
groups, campaigns?

I would recommend taking a look to British Columbia, where they set up a 
  Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. The proposals of this assembly 
were put to a binding referendum of the electorate.

How do we stimulate a country-wide debate about written constitution? 
How could such a debate occur?

'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:

>aracari wrote:
>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>> 
>>> aracari wrote:
>>>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>>>>
>>>>> It is an appropriate moment to consider how our political system could 
>>>>> be improved in order to reduce the risks of further major errors of 
>>>>> policy (e.g. finance) and corrupt or irresponsible behaviour by MPs and 
>>>>> government ministers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Factors to be addressed include:
>>>>>
>>>>> Reduced influence of MPs and parliament and dominance of country and 
>>>>> parliament by the "executive" (essentially, so it seems, the prime 
>>>>> minister and a few confidants). Parliament cannot effectively scrutinise 
>>>>> government or EU proposals and in recent decades has rarely acted 
>>>>> effectively to introduce, change or reject (proposed) policy and law. 
>>>>> The self-esteem of MPs is thus reduced and the chances of anti-social 
>>>>> behaviour by them increased. .
>>>>>
>>>>> Powerlessness of the people. After giving away your vote to a political 
>>>>> party and MP you have no say at all until the next election ... Even 
>>>>> Quintin Hogg called this state of affairs "electoral dictatorship". We 
>>>>> as an electorate have no effective way to put forward a proposal and no 
>>>>> way to veto an unwanted law.
>>>>>
>>>>> An electoral system -- "first past the post" -- which produces very poor 
>>>>> representation of the people's political will.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>>>>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>>> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
>>>>
>>>> IOW we need a proper written constitution.
>>>>
>>> Agreed. But this must come from We The People and not be imposed by the 
>>> Powers That Be. So we need an innovative process of constitution 
>>> building and that needs a culture of democracy which we have so far 
>>> neglected to nurture and develop. IMO we should introduce the 
>>> "initiative and referendum" -- citizen-led democracy -- and then begin 
>>> to give ourselves a codified constitution.
>>>
>>> This does not mean getting rid of parties and parliament. The proposed 
>>> elements of direct democracy would enhance the existing representative 
>>> system.

 
>> I think there is room for aspects of direct democracy in our
>> system but I would not see it as a pre-requisite to having a
>> proper constitution, perhaps contained with it. Virtually every
>> major cock-up, abuse of power or stripping away of our civil
>> rights by politicians can be traced back to our lack of a proper
>> written constitution and lack of a Bill of Rights. The growing
>> police state is another example.
>> 
>> There are plenty of other constitutions in the world to draw on
>> and we have a fair number of experts who could be entrusted
>> to draft one. Direct democracy would perhaps operate under 
>> the auspices of said constitution.
>> I would see independent oversight of compliance as a necessity
>> even to the extent that every Bill had to be signed off by the
>> supervisory body before it became law.
>> 
>>   -laws govern people
>>   -constitutions govern government
>> 
>> The current fiasco over MPs expenses is a classic example of
>> what happens when there is no effective limitation of powers
>> and no oversight of the Executive or of Parliament, which has
>> allowed them to become of the mind that they're above the
>> law and out of reach. The ultimate expression of arrogance?
 

>Perhaps there is even more agreement than meets the eye if we look at 
>the growing interaction of constitution-building and direct 
>participation of electorates seen across the world in recent decades. 
>New constitutions have been made after extensive public debate and 
>indeed finally approved by plebiscite. It seems to be the norm that the 
>people should decide on fundamental and enduring principles of statehood 
>and governance.

Exactly so. There have been a few debates on ukpm about the need
for a Constitution over the past coupla years.

That would herald a complete change in our system of governance
and a lot of changes/transition would follow. That makes it a far
off possibility for most people who are more worried about events
going on today etc.

There is also the major obstacle that no mechanism exists in
Britain for introducing one, outside of the current system which
is completely under the control of the ruling Executive. That is
no coincidence. Cromwell failed us!

Those inside the current system would fight tooth and nail against
it because however weak or strong it was, it would impose limits
on their powers and define their own roles and responsibilities.
"Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!"

A constitution drafted by existing pols wouldn't be worth the
paper it was written on and might do even more damage if it
entrenched the current system even more firmly. I'm sure 
that would be their intent.

Thus, the only way of introducing a decent one is to impose it
from the outside but that immediately leaves those involved open
to arrest for (eg) terrorism. Incarceration would surely follow
and everything would return to BAU.

Some say that the only time one can be introduced is when the
current system collapses or implodes, as happened in Germany 
after WW2 or Brazil after the military junta collapsed etc.

Even the current fiasco of MPs expenses is almost certainly not
enough to cause major changes to our system. The political elites
are working hard to contain the damage and will probably offer 
up a few sacrificial lambs in order to protect their current
unconstitutional system.


>Are there proposals for a constitution in UK and the countries? Lobby 
>groups, campaigns?

The only group I know of are Charter88 but my only communication
with them was a waste of time. The very major problem is that most
people do not understand where a Constitution fits in or how it
would operate and what changes it would bring.

I have always envisaged a proper Constitution which was part of
the educational curriculum and voted upon by each generation, so
every person grew up having a clear stake in the nation instead of
feeling like a managed sheep as we see today. IMV young people
have just as much right to a say in how the nation is governed as
older people. Citizen ownership of the nation's Constitution is a
way to achieve that.

We could see a reduction in crime and more participative society.

>I would recommend taking a look to British Columbia, where they set up a 
>  Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. The proposals of this assembly 
>were put to a binding referendum of the electorate.
>
>How do we stimulate a country-wide debate about written constitution? 
>How could such a debate occur?

Dunno. It would have to involve a powerful team of respected
people and supported by well known figures. One good way is 
for some leading politicians to provide active support but with a
promise not to influence its content. But that would take very
special statesmen. I'm not sure if we have many of them left.

aracari wrote:
> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
> 
>> aracari wrote:
>>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>> aracari wrote:
>>>>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is an appropriate moment to consider how our political system could 
>>>>>> be improved in order to reduce the risks of further major errors of 
>>>>>> policy (e.g. finance) and corrupt or irresponsible behaviour by MPs and 
>>>>>> government ministers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Factors to be addressed include:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reduced influence of MPs and parliament and dominance of country and 
>>>>>> parliament by the "executive" (essentially, so it seems, the prime 
>>>>>> minister and a few confidants). Parliament cannot effectively scrutinise 
>>>>>> government or EU proposals and in recent decades has rarely acted 
>>>>>> effectively to introduce, change or reject (proposed) policy and law. 
>>>>>> The self-esteem of MPs is thus reduced and the chances of anti-social 
>>>>>> behaviour by them increased. .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Powerlessness of the people. After giving away your vote to a political 
>>>>>> party and MP you have no say at all until the next election ... Even 
>>>>>> Quintin Hogg called this state of affairs "electoral dictatorship". We 
>>>>>> as an electorate have no effective way to put forward a proposal and no 
>>>>>> way to veto an unwanted law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An electoral system -- "first past the post" -- which produces very poor 
>>>>>> representation of the people's political will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>>>>>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>>>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>>>> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
>>>>> IOW we need a proper written constitution.
>>>>>
>>>> Agreed. But this must come from We The People and not be imposed by the 
>>>> Powers That Be. So we need an innovative process of constitution 
>>>> building and that needs a culture of democracy which we have so far 
>>>> neglected to nurture and develop. IMO we should introduce the 
>>>> "initiative and referendum" -- citizen-led democracy -- and then begin 
>>>> to give ourselves a codified constitution.
>>>>
>>>> This does not mean getting rid of parties and parliament. The proposed 
>>>> elements of direct democracy would enhance the existing representative 
>>>> system.
> 
>  
>>> I think there is room for aspects of direct democracy in our
>>> system but I would not see it as a pre-requisite to having a
>>> proper constitution, perhaps contained with it. Virtually every
>>> major cock-up, abuse of power or stripping away of our civil
>>> rights by politicians can be traced back to our lack of a proper
>>> written constitution and lack of a Bill of Rights. The growing
>>> police state is another example.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of other constitutions in the world to draw on
>>> and we have a fair number of experts who could be entrusted
>>> to draft one. Direct democracy would perhaps operate under 
>>> the auspices of said constitution.
>>> I would see independent oversight of compliance as a necessity
>>> even to the extent that every Bill had to be signed off by the
>>> supervisory body before it became law.
>>>
>>>   -laws govern people
>>>   -constitutions govern government
>>>
>>> The current fiasco over MPs expenses is a classic example of
>>> what happens when there is no effective limitation of powers
>>> and no oversight of the Executive or of Parliament, which has
>>> allowed them to become of the mind that they're above the
>>> law and out of reach. The ultimate expression of arrogance?
>  
> 
>> Perhaps there is even more agreement than meets the eye if we look at 
>> the growing interaction of constitution-building and direct 
>> participation of electorates seen across the world in recent decades. 
>> New constitutions have been made after extensive public debate and 
>> indeed finally approved by plebiscite. It seems to be the norm that the 
>> people should decide on fundamental and enduring principles of statehood 
>> and governance.
> 
> Exactly so. There have been a few debates on ukpm about the need
> for a Constitution over the past coupla years.
> 
> That would herald a complete change in our system of governance
> and a lot of changes/transition would follow. That makes it a far
> off possibility for most people who are more worried about events
> going on today etc.
> 
> There is also the major obstacle that no mechanism exists in
> Britain for introducing one, outside of the current system which
> is completely under the control of the ruling Executive. That is
> no coincidence. Cromwell failed us!
> 
> Those inside the current system would fight tooth and nail against
> it because however weak or strong it was, it would impose limits
> on their powers and define their own roles and responsibilities.
> "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!"
> 
> A constitution drafted by existing pols wouldn't be worth the
> paper it was written on and might do even more damage if it
> entrenched the current system even more firmly. I'm sure 
> that would be their intent.
> 
> Thus, the only way of introducing a decent one is to impose it
> from the outside but that immediately leaves those involved open
> to arrest for (eg) terrorism. Incarceration would surely follow
> and everything would return to BAU.
> 
> Some say that the only time one can be introduced is when the
> current system collapses or implodes, as happened in Germany 
> after WW2 or Brazil after the military junta collapsed etc.
> 
> Even the current fiasco of MPs expenses is almost certainly not
> enough to cause major changes to our system. The political elites
> are working hard to contain the damage and will probably offer 
> up a few sacrificial lambs in order to protect their current
> unconstitutional system.
> 
> 
>> Are there proposals for a constitution in UK and the countries? Lobby 
>> groups, campaigns?
> 
> The only group I know of are Charter88 but my only communication
> with them was a waste of time. The very major problem is that most
> people do not understand where a Constitution fits in or how it
> would operate and what changes it would bring.
> 
> I have always envisaged a proper Constitution which was part of
> the educational curriculum and voted upon by each generation, so
> every person grew up having a clear stake in the nation instead of
> feeling like a managed sheep as we see today. IMV young people
> have just as much right to a say in how the nation is governed as
> older people. Citizen ownership of the nation's Constitution is a
> way to achieve that.
> 
> We could see a reduction in crime and more participative society.
> 
>> I would recommend taking a look to British Columbia, where they set up a 
>>  Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. The proposals of this assembly 
>> were put to a binding referendum of the electorate.
>>
>> How do we stimulate a country-wide debate about written constitution? 
>> How could such a debate occur?
> 
> Dunno. It would have to involve a powerful team of respected
> people and supported by well known figures. One good way is 
> for some leading politicians to provide active support but with a
> promise not to influence its content. But that would take very
> special statesmen. I'm not sure if we have many of them left.
> 
I can endorse all of that except to mention that there is no need to be 
pessimistic about the chances for reform. And no violent upheaval
will be required.

Once the reformers have described and shown the way forward then the
"team of respected people and ... well known figures" will volunteer
their support. Because of modern communication, the ability to reach
many people easily, this team may not be needed (although welcome).

A good presentation of constitution will be needed. What is a 
constitution of state? What are the component parts? What are the 
options? How do other countries do it?

The internet is an ideal medium for such a project.

"I&R ~ GB" <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in message
news:77cnq5F1gshisU1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> aracari wrote:
>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>>
>>> aracari wrote:
>>>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>>>>
>>>>> aracari wrote:
>>>>>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an appropriate moment to consider how our political system
>>>>>>> could be improved in order to reduce the risks of further major
>>>>>>> errors of policy (e.g. finance) and corrupt or irresponsible
>>>>>>> behaviour by MPs and government ministers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Factors to be addressed include:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reduced influence of MPs and parliament and dominance of country and
>>>>>>> parliament by the "executive" (essentially, so it seems, the prime
>>>>>>> minister and a few confidants). Parliament cannot effectively
>>>>>>> scrutinise government or EU proposals and in recent decades has
>>>>>>> rarely acted effectively to introduce, change or reject (proposed)
>>>>>>> policy and law. The self-esteem of MPs is thus reduced and the
>>>>>>> chances of anti-social behaviour by them increased. .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Powerlessness of the people. After giving away your vote to a
>>>>>>> political party and MP you have no say at all until the next
>>>>>>> election ... Even Quintin Hogg called this state of affairs
>>>>>>> "electoral dictatorship". We as an electorate have no effective way
>>>>>>> to put forward a proposal and no way to veto an unwanted law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An electoral system -- "first past the post" -- which produces very
>>>>>>> poor representation of the people's political will.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>>>>>>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>>>>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>>>>> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
>>>>>> IOW we need a proper written constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. But this must come from We The People and not be imposed by
>>>>> the Powers That Be. So we need an innovative process of constitution
>>>>> building and that needs a culture of democracy which we have so far
>>>>> neglected to nurture and develop. IMO we should introduce the
>>>>> "initiative and referendum" -- citizen-led democracy -- and then begin
>>>>> to give ourselves a codified constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> This does not mean getting rid of parties and parliament. The proposed
>>>>> elements of direct democracy would enhance the existing representative
>>>>> system.
>>
>>
>>>> I think there is room for aspects of direct democracy in our
>>>> system but I would not see it as a pre-requisite to having a
>>>> proper constitution, perhaps contained with it. Virtually every
>>>> major cock-up, abuse of power or stripping away of our civil
>>>> rights by politicians can be traced back to our lack of a proper
>>>> written constitution and lack of a Bill of Rights. The growing
>>>> police state is another example.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of other constitutions in the world to draw on
>>>> and we have a fair number of experts who could be entrusted
>>>> to draft one. Direct democracy would perhaps operate under the auspices
>>>> of said constitution.
>>>> I would see independent oversight of compliance as a necessity
>>>> even to the extent that every Bill had to be signed off by the
>>>> supervisory body before it became law.
>>>>
>>>>   -laws govern people
>>>>   -constitutions govern government
>>>>
>>>> The current fiasco over MPs expenses is a classic example of
>>>> what happens when there is no effective limitation of powers
>>>> and no oversight of the Executive or of Parliament, which has
>>>> allowed them to become of the mind that they're above the
>>>> law and out of reach. The ultimate expression of arrogance?
>>
>>> Perhaps there is even more agreement than meets the eye if we look at
>>> the growing interaction of constitution-building and direct
>>> participation of electorates seen across the world in recent decades.
>>> New constitutions have been made after extensive public debate and
>>> indeed finally approved by plebiscite. It seems to be the norm that the
>>> people should decide on fundamental and enduring principles of statehood
>>> and governance.
>>
>> Exactly so. There have been a few debates on ukpm about the need
>> for a Constitution over the past coupla years.
>>
>> That would herald a complete change in our system of governance
>> and a lot of changes/transition would follow. That makes it a far
>> off possibility for most people who are more worried about events
>> going on today etc.
>>
>> There is also the major obstacle that no mechanism exists in
>> Britain for introducing one, outside of the current system which
>> is completely under the control of the ruling Executive. That is
>> no coincidence. Cromwell failed us!
>>
>> Those inside the current system would fight tooth and nail against
>> it because however weak or strong it was, it would impose limits
>> on their powers and define their own roles and responsibilities.
>> "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!"
>>
>> A constitution drafted by existing pols wouldn't be worth the
>> paper it was written on and might do even more damage if it
>> entrenched the current system even more firmly. I'm sure that would be
>> their intent.
>>
>> Thus, the only way of introducing a decent one is to impose it
>> from the outside but that immediately leaves those involved open
>> to arrest for (eg) terrorism. Incarceration would surely follow
>> and everything would return to BAU.
>>
>> Some say that the only time one can be introduced is when the
>> current system collapses or implodes, as happened in Germany after WW2 or
>> Brazil after the military junta collapsed etc.
>>
>> Even the current fiasco of MPs expenses is almost certainly not
>> enough to cause major changes to our system. The political elites
>> are working hard to contain the damage and will probably offer up a few
>> sacrificial lambs in order to protect their current
>> unconstitutional system.
>>
>>
>>> Are there proposals for a constitution in UK and the countries? Lobby
>>> groups, campaigns?
>>
>> The only group I know of are Charter88 but my only communication
>> with them was a waste of time. The very major problem is that most
>> people do not understand where a Constitution fits in or how it
>> would operate and what changes it would bring.
>>
>> I have always envisaged a proper Constitution which was part of
>> the educational curriculum and voted upon by each generation, so
>> every person grew up having a clear stake in the nation instead of
>> feeling like a managed sheep as we see today. IMV young people
>> have just as much right to a say in how the nation is governed as
>> older people. Citizen ownership of the nation's Constitution is a
>> way to achieve that.
>>
>> We could see a reduction in crime and more participative society.
>>
>>> I would recommend taking a look to British Columbia, where they set up a
>>> Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. The proposals of this assembly
>>> were put to a binding referendum of the electorate.
>>>
>>> How do we stimulate a country-wide debate about written constitution?
>>> How could such a debate occur?
>>
>> Dunno. It would have to involve a powerful team of respected
>> people and supported by well known figures. One good way is for some
>> leading politicians to provide active support but with a
>> promise not to influence its content. But that would take very
>> special statesmen. I'm not sure if we have many of them left.
>>
> I can endorse all of that except to mention that there is no need to be
> pessimistic about the chances for reform. And no violent upheaval
> will be required.
>
How  can you "reform" this ?

"Peerage and £1.4m pension for shamed Speaker who quit  in 34 seconds"

http://mail.dailymail.co.uk/go.asp?/bDML001/mEFN9E/qWFNRE/uWZ215/x4AAHT


> Once the reformers have described and shown the way forward then the
> "team of respected people and ... well known figures" will volunteer
> their support. Because of modern communication, the ability to reach
> many people easily, this team may not be needed (although welcome).
>
> A good presentation of constitution will be needed. What is a constitution
> of state? What are the component parts? What are the options? How do other
> countries do it?
>
> The internet is an ideal medium for such a project.
>
>
>
>
>
>

"I&R ~ GB" <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in message
news:77cnq5F1gshisU1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> aracari wrote:
>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>>
>>> aracari wrote:
>>>> 'I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org">' wrote thus:
>>>>
>> 8<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< snip
>> There is also the major obstacle that no mechanism exists in
>> Britain for introducing one, outside of the current system which
>> is completely under the control of the ruling Executive. That is
>> no coincidence. Cromwell failed us!
>>
>> Those inside the current system would fight tooth and nail against
>> it because however weak or strong it was, it would impose limits
>> on their powers and define their own roles and responsibilities.
>> "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!"
>>
>> A constitution drafted by existing pols wouldn't be worth the
>> paper it was written on and might do even more damage if it
>> entrenched the current system even more firmly. I'm sure that would be
>> their intent.
>>
>> Thus, the only way of introducing a decent one is to impose it
>> from the outside but that immediately leaves those involved open
>> to arrest for (eg) terrorism. Incarceration would surely follow
>> and everything would return to BAU.
>>
>> Some say that the only time one can be introduced is when the
>> current system collapses or implodes, as happened in Germany after WW2 or
>> Brazil after the military junta collapsed etc.
>>
>> Even the current fiasco of MPs expenses is almost certainly not
>> enough to cause major changes to our system. The political elites
>> are working hard to contain the damage and will probably offer up a few
>> sacrificial lambs in order to protect their current
>> unconstitutional system.
>>
>>
>>> Are there proposals for a constitution in UK and the countries? Lobby
>>> groups, campaigns?
>>
>> The only group I know of are Charter88 but my only communication
>> with them was a waste of time. The very major problem is that most
>> people do not understand where a Constitution fits in or how it
>> would operate and what changes it would bring.
>>
>> I have always envisaged a proper Constitution which was part of
>> the educational curriculum and voted upon by each generation, so
>> every person grew up having a clear stake in the nation instead of
>> feeling like a managed sheep as we see today. IMV young people
>> have just as much right to a say in how the nation is governed as
>> older people. Citizen ownership of the nation's Constitution is a
>> way to achieve that.
>>
>> We could see a reduction in crime and more participative society.
>>
>>> I would recommend taking a look to British Columbia, where they set up a
>>> Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. The proposals of this assembly
>>> were put to a binding referendum of the electorate.
>>>
>>> How do we stimulate a country-wide debate about written constitution?
>>> How could such a debate occur?
>>
>> Dunno. It would have to involve a powerful team of respected
>> people and supported by well known figures. One good way is for some
>> leading politicians to provide active support but with a
>> promise not to influence its content. But that would take very
>> special statesmen. I'm not sure if we have many of them left.
>>
> I can endorse all of that except to mention that there is no need to be
> pessimistic about the chances for reform. And no violent upheaval
> will be required.
>
How  can you "reform" this ?

"Peerage and £1.4m pension for shamed Speaker who quit  in 34 seconds"

http://mail.dailymail.co.uk/go.asp?/bDML001/mEFN9E/qWFNRE/uWZ215/x4AAHT


> Once the reformers have described and shown the way forward then the
> "team of respected people and ... well known figures" will volunteer
> their support. Because of modern communication, the ability to reach
> many people easily, this team may not be needed (although welcome).
>
> A good presentation of constitution will be needed. What is a constitution
> of state? What are the component parts? What are the options? How do other
> countries do it?
>
> The internet is an ideal medium for such a project.
>
>
>
>
>
>

"I&R ~ GB" <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in message news:774os8F1fncneU1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> It is an appropriate moment to consider how our political system could > be improved in order to reduce the risks of further major errors of 
> policy (e.g. finance) and corrupt or irresponsible behaviour by MPs and 
> government ministers.

Self-imprisonment for fraud of taxpayer's money would 
be an honorable thing to do for some MPs and cutting 
down numbers of MPs from 646 to 400 would do nicely.

> 
> Factors to be addressed include:
> 
> Reduced influence of MPs and parliament and dominance of country and 
> parliament by the "executive" (essentially, so it seems, the prime 
> minister and a few confidants). Parliament cannot effectively scrutinise 
> government or EU proposals and in recent decades has rarely acted 
> effectively to introduce, change or reject (proposed) policy and law. 
> The self-esteem of MPs is thus reduced and the chances of anti-social 
> behaviour by them increased. .
> 
> Powerlessness of the people. After giving away your vote to a political 
> party and MP you have no say at all until the next election ... Even 
> Quintin Hogg called this state of affairs "electoral dictatorship". We > as an electorate have no effective way to put forward a proposal and no 
> way to veto an unwanted law.
> 
> An electoral system -- "first past the post" -- which produces very poor 
> representation of the people's political will.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
> http://www.iniref.org/
> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
> 
> 
> 
>