European Commission

The European Commission has a peculiarly privileged position in that it has the right to propose new legal initiatives – and once adopted, European law trumps national sovereignty.   This has enabled a strange kind of bureaucratic vanguardism to emerge, with the Commission self-consciously extending the reach of European integration free from the standard political oversight at the national level.
In their glass boxes the commissions, committees and sub – committees play an absurd billion-euro bridge game.   All are entirely without democratic legitimisation: those who had power had not been elected, and those who had been elected had no power.
The European Commission should be the civil service of Europe not a quasi government.   By it having the  right to propose new legal initiatives it sets the agenda for the direction it wishes Europe to move.   New initiatives should emerge from the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament.   The Commission should be there to serve the peoples of Europe, not to govern them.
The European Commission should no longer have the power to propose legal initiatives.   Either the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament should propose them.

Don't make old people mad!

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should  bring her own shopping bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."
The cashier responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day. Back then, we returned milk bottles, pop bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But we didn't have the green thing back in our day. We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every shop and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.
But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right. We didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the county of Yorkshire . In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the post, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not
Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right. We didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank water from a fountain or a tap when we were thirsty instead of demanding a plastic bottle flown in from another country. We accepted that a lot of food was seasonal and didn't expect that to be bucked by flying it thousands of air miles around the world. We actually cooked food that didn't come out of a packet, tin or plastic wrap and we could even wash our own vegetables and chop our own salad. But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the tram or a bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mothers into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-ass young person.
Remember: Don't make old people mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

European Scrutiny Committee

Before the 2010 General Election the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee met in secret in spite of the Committee voting for its meetings to be held in public.   David Cameron promised that it would meet in public.  After the General Election it did meet in public, but then it decided that it would meet in private.   The public have a right to know what is going on in their parliament.

The European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons should meet in public.

European Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers meets in secret.   It is totally unacceptable that in a democracy a legislative body should meet secretly

                The European Council of Ministers should meet in public. 

House of Lords Reform - Things you should know

Of the 827 members of the House of Lords 22 have leave of absence, 3 are suspended (problems with expenses), 13 are disqualified as members of the judiciary and 1 is disqualified as an MEP.   Only approximately 130 are active members and these are mainly former politicians who were MPs, Council Leaders, etc.

<There are 92 hereditary Peers. The only other country in the world with a hereditary element in its legislature is Lesotho.

<There are 26 Bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords.   They are all male. The Church of Scotland, The Church of Wales and the Church of Ireland are unrepresented as are all other faiths. There are only three other "democratic" countries in the World that have a theocratic element in their legislature. They are Iran, Israel and soon Syria.

<Just because you are an expert in say Human Fertilisation (Lord Winston) does not mean that you are more qualified than anyone else to legislate on defence, education, foreign affairs etc.

<79 Peers did not attend a single session of the House of Lords last year.

<When Tony Blair ceased to be Prime Minister over half the members of the House of Lords had been appointed by one man – Tony Blair.

<Other than the People’s Congress of China the House of Lords is the largest legislative body in the World.

<61 other countries have an elected second chamber.

<5 Peers with criminal convictions are members of the House of Lords – some are even in prison now.

<9 members of the House of Lords have never made a speech including Lady Falkender who was made a Peer in 1976

<Lord Heseltine has yet to make his maiden speech although he has been a member of the Lords for 11 years

<Divisions in the Lords tend to be decided not on the merit of an issue but by the timing of a vote, since independent cross benchers go home in the evenings.

<The Lords receive £300 per day attendance allowance – tax free.

<The Appointments Commission appoints on average 4 independent members to the House of Lords each year.   All other appointments are party political.

European Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers is probably the most powerful body in the European Union and yet in practise it is the executive, rather than our own Parliament which interfaces with the EU in legislating in the Council of Ministers, and the executive rather than Parliament then makes regulations to transpose the directives into national laws.   Parliament’s involvement should be strengthened:

                There should be a legal obligation for Ministers to obtain parliamentary approval before exercising the United Kingdom’s vote in the Council of Ministers of the European Union.

                This is done in some other member states such as Denmark and Sweden

House of Lords - Constitutional Reform

               

                A directly elected House of Lords should have the power to block major constitutional reform unless that reform has been put to the people either at a General Election or in a referendum.

Elect the House of Lords

 It is unacceptable in a democracy that a key part of the legislature is not elected.   In 2007 the House of Commons passed a resolution calling for 80% of the House of Lords to be elected.   Only then would it be able to claim independence from the House of Commons.   Were this to happen there would be a real debate on what powers the House of Lords should have.  These powers would have to spell out what would happen if, on occasion the two democratically elected Houses could not agree.      On financial matters the House of Commons would remain supreme.

               

  The people should directly elect the House of Lords.

House of Lords - Expulsion of Peers

Peerage titles cannot be withdrawn except by Act of Parliament, but during the First World War many members of the German Royal family held British titles and fought against the British.   In 1917 Parliament passed The Titles Deprivation Act, which allowed the King to establish a committee of the Privy Council.  The committee was empowered to take evidence and report the names of British peers who served in an enemy military force, or rendered assistance to or voluntarily resided in an enemy nation.   The report would then be laid before both Houses of Parliament.   If neither House passed a motion disapproving of the report within forty days, it was to be submitted to the King, whereupon the persons named therein would lose their titles.

 The committee reported their findings to the King in August 1918 and on March 28^th 1919 the King issued an Order-in-Council depriving the following of their titles: Duke of Albany (Queen Victoria’s grandson), Duke of Cumberland, Duke of Brunswick, and Viscount Taaffe.

                The successor of a person thus deprived of a peerage is allowed to petition the Crown for its restoration; the petition is to be referred to a committee of the Privy Council, which may recommend whether the petitioner be reinstated or not. To date, no descendant of the persons who were deprived of their titles has petitioned the Crown for the restoration of their title.

                Members of the House of Lords should be subject to the same procedures as members of the House of Commons regarding expulsion from the House.

At present there is no procedure in place for such disciplinary proceedings to take place.   This is wrong.

Statutory Instruments - should they be amended?

Statutory instruments are regulations, orders or rules, which have the force of law.   They are made by a Minister, or sometimes by some other committee or body, in accordance with powers granted by an Act of Parliament.   Many Acts confer powers to make statutory instruments for purposes specified in the Act.   The powers to make statutory instruments are often very widely defined, and in some cases statutory instruments can even be used to repeal or amend Acts of Parliament: so-called “Henry VIII” powers

The most important and widely drawn “Henry VIII” power is that contained in the European Communities Act 1972, which permits ministers and a range of other bodies to make regulations making “any such provision as may be made by Act of Parliament”.   Regulations under this section can and regularly do repeal or amend Acts of Parliament, and may be made for the purpose of implementing EC obligations or “for the purpose of dealing with matters arising out of or related to any such obligation.”

Almost all the directives emanating from the European Union have to be converted into Statutory Instruments in the United Kingdom.

The key weakness of Statutory Instruments is that while each House can vote down a Statutory Instrument as a whole, there is no power to amend it.   Rejecting the whole instrument is a drastic remedy if the objection is to parts of it.   The fact that they cannot be amended in Parliament is one of the reasons, which at present make them so attractive to the Whitehall machine, and yet scrutiny of these Instruments is essential.   The key reform is:

                Statutory Instruments should be capable of amendment by Parliament.

 

Conflict of interest

In an article in The Guardian on 27 June 2007 Marcel Berlin wrote:

“The office of attorney general contains an inherent inescapable flaw; a potential conflict of interest between the two hats that come with the job….Under one hat, the attorney general is a political animal, appointed by the party in power and owing allegiance to its policies.   He’s also the government’s legal advisor and although not a member of the cabinet, can be invited to attend meetings…Yet the same insider, wearing the other hat, is expected to make decisions over a whole range of issues (especially criminal prosecutions) as an independent lawyer, taking into account the public interest, with no thought of how they would affect government policy or colleagues.”

  This is an untenable position and one way or another, the conflict should be resolved.

Major public appointments

When the political party in power also has a large majority in the House of Commons, the power of the Prime Minister is almost unlimited.   Why should one person be able to exercise so much power?   If Parliament fails to be the centre of democratic legitimacy its main function has been lost.   Only parliamentarians themselves can re-assert this function.   If they fail then the decline of parliament is inevitable.   They could begin to reverse this decline by insisting that the heads of executive agencies and Quangos and many other public bodies should be confirmed in their jobs by parliamentary committees.   Those confirmed should only continue to hold the positions subject to parliamentary approval.

 This is done in many other countries including the United States of America.

                Major public appointments should be confirmed in their jobs by parliamentary committees, and hold them subject to parliamentary approval.

               

Fixed Terms for Prime Minister

Now that we have fixed terms for parliament, perhaps we should consider having a maximum fixed term for the Prime Minister.   Two terms of parliament, i.e ten years should be the maximum.   If this had been in place for Margaret Thatcher she would have avoided her humiliating dismissal.

The Prime Minister should not serve for more than two consecutive parliaments.

The patronage of the Prime Minister

A major fault in our democracy relates to the way we are governed.   Under our constitution our Prime Minister uses the powers of the Royal Prerogative to exercise power.   The House of Commons could and should hold the Prime Minister accountable but continuously fails to do so, perhaps because the Prime Minister exercises great power of patronage.   The Prime Minister appoints the Government Whips.   For MPs, promotion, position, overseas trips, appointments to outside bodies, all, effectively rest in the hand of the Prime Minister.

The powers of the Prime Minister should be set out in writing and where appropriate placed on a statutory footing.

Directly elect the Prime Minister

Today the more an MP’s electability depends on the public perception of the Prime Minister the more exclusive becomes the Prime Minister’s power.   The vacuous circle which characterises British politics needs to be broken.   It can be broken by directly electing the Prime Minister.   The MPs would then stand for Parliament in their own right.

                 The people should directly elect the Prime Minister.

Comment below

Limit House of Commons to 450 MPs

The Westminster Parliament is one of the largest in the World.   It has become institutionally corrupt.   In 2008, of the 123 hospitals under construction 83 were in areas represented by the governing Labour Party.   Twice as much lottery funding was going to constituencies of Cabinet members as was going to members of the Shadow Cabinet.   Of the 23 railway stations that were being closed 20 were in seats held by the opposition parties.   There needs to be a cultural shake up.   Parliament fails to hold the Government to account.   Perhaps the shake-up could be achieved if it was reduced in size to say 450 MPs.

                The House of Commons should be reduced to 450 MPs.

Leave your comment below

Strengthen Parliament

During the course of a Parliament the House goes into recess on a large number of occasions.   The summer recess is the longest, often running for three months or more.   When Parliament is in recess the Government may recall Parliament, but if Parliament is independent it should have the ability to convene itself without having to have the permission of the executive.

Following instigation by a group of 150 MPs the Speaker should recall Parliament from recess for a specific reason given in the request.

Limit MP's expenditure on campaigning

In the early days of Parliament it had been common practice for Members of Parliament to be paid by their constituents.   A horse was given to them plus expenses to enable them to get to parliament plus so much per day for attending.   The last recorded occasion when this happened was in 1678.

MPs began to be paid in 1911.   Today, over the course of a full term Parliament an MP receives over £1 million in salary and expenses.   This gives the incumbent MP a huge advantage over a candidate opposing him in a General Election.   Democracy is thus distorted.

There should be a rule limiting the amount MPs and candidates may spend each year on campaigning.

UK citizens for UK parliamentary elections

In a national parliament it is the people of the nation that should determine how they are governed.   Why then do we allow citizens of another nation to participate in our General Elections?   Citizens of the Irish Republic, who are resident in the United Kingdom and over the age of 18, are eligible to vote.

It is one of the extraordinary anomalies of democracy in the United Kingdom that the citizens of a foreign country that have no allegiance to the United Kingdom are allowed to vote in an election for the United Kingdom Parliament and in so doing determine who should govern us.

According to the census of 2001 there are 412,000 Irish nationals living in the United Kingdom.   We do not know how many of these register and vote but small numbers can swing seats.   They are not evenly spread throughout the United Kingdom.   Large numbers are to be found in Liverpool, Glasgow and in certain Boroughs of London such as Kilburn.

Only United Kingdom citizens should be allowed to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary elections.

Click on comments below to make a comment

Prince Charles consent law to remain - Downing Street

David Cameron has no plans to change laws which require the government to seek Prince Charles's permission to pass legislation which could affect his private interests, Downing Street says.

It follows a Guardian report saying ministers have sought Charles's consent on at least 12 bills since 2005.

Subjects included gambling, coroners and the Olympics, the paper says.

Clarence House said this was a "long-standing convention" and was not about seeking the prince's personal views.

Neither Downing Street nor Clarence House would say whether bills were altered as a result of objections from the heir to the throne.

The newspaper, which obtained the documents following a freedom of information request to the House of Commons, said in the last two parliamentary sessions Charles had been asked to agree to bills on wreck removals and co-operative societies.

And, between 2007 and 2009, he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, and energy and planning.

The prime minister's spokeswoman said it was "protocol" for the prince to be consulted over some legislation, citing the parliamentary guide book, Erskine May, which said his consent was required on bills that affected the principality of Wales, the earldom of Chester and the Duchy of Cornwall - his private business and property empire.

This is not about seeking the personal views of the Prince but rather it is a long-standing convention in relation to the Duchy of Cornwall, which would have applied equally to his predecessors”

This power is different to the "royal assent" - a constitutional formality - the Queen gives all laws passed by parliament.

The PM's spokeswoman added that she was aware of no plans to change this rule.

She would not say whether Downing Street was aware of any bills being changed as a result of this procedure.

A Clarence House spokesman said he would not comment on any correspondence between the government and the prince.

He did say however that parliamentary procedure meant Prince Charles, as the Duke of Cornwall, could be required to give his consent to bills directly affecting the interests of the Duchy.

Concerns have been raised in the past about Prince Charles's role in political matters.

In 2009, the prince, who is known to have strong views on the environment, farming and architecture, was reported to have written to politicians in eight government departments, including the Treasury and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, since 2006.

***

It is quite ludicrous in this day and age for Prince Charles to have these powers.   They should be abolished forth with.

 To comment click on comment below;