Monday 21 October 2019

The people can often see what our politicians can not.

 The 'People' often register the 'bleeding obvious' before our own bubble dwelling politicians do.

Take the increasing evidence that the EU is heading for some seriously choppy water, which could well destroy it, as described in this article.

Our six demands, and in particular our fourth demand, gives us the real power over our politicians but with all the necessary checks and balances to prevent mob rule by a minority of active zealots.

Saturday 5 October 2019

Supreme Court ruling.

The main trouble with the above is that it wasn't the 'People' asking the court to rule on the government's proroguing of parliament but the rich elite, in the form of Gina Miller, who have taken it upon themselves to impose their views, beliefs and standards on the rest of us.

The same will be true if we ever get a 'People's vote'. It won't be the 'People' demanding it but again it will be imposed on us by a largely Remain parliament.

THA's fourth demand, The People's Consent, is in three parts with the third part establishing the right for the 'People', if they so chose, to challenge decisions and I quote from our pamphlet.

"This category would include certain types of decisions by government or official bodies, - by elected and appointed officials including ministers and judges.

Clearly, there could not be a referendum for every one (or even a tiny number) of the hundreds of thousands of decisions made each day, so the type of decisions amenable to challenge would have to be specified. Mainly, one could imagine, the '"negative" resolution procedure would have to apply, where decisions are deemed to have been approved unless challenged.

With certain types of formal decisions, such as planning approvals - and even, maybe sentences handed down by judges for certain types of criminal case - one could see referendums triggered by a set number of objections, with a majority vote enabling a decision to be rejected. In effect this would be a form of popular judicial review.

Putting the people back in the driving seat in this way entails a real transfer of power from the political elites to the people. But, there are ways of undermining the power, as have seen with EU referendums, where polls have been repeated until the people get the "answer right". To prevent this, we would expect to see a "don't ask again" rule introduced. For instance, a law proposed by the executive and approved by parliament but rejected in a referendum, could not be reintroduced for a number of years.

Periods up to 25 years for a "don't ask again" rule have been suggested, although there is a possible alternative of adding a yes/no question to referendums. By this means voters are asked whether they wish to be consulted again on the issue, within the defined period."

Real democracy demands the 'People' hold the ultimate power over decisions of the executive,government, parliament, other elected officials and judges.