The Herberts V Andy Tyrrell

[herbertmatt]

who cares!!! write to question time if ur that bothered.

[dyson]

Alright then, we'll all listen to your badly thought out drivel as if its the most important thing in the world, but as soon as someone puts together a constructive valid post, we'll all laugh. Hahaha. Idiot.

[Jonny W.K]

Its true, it would signal a possible end to the Monarchy. But said Monarchy would have to be overthrown by a coup, because we could not just 'vote them out' by some act of parliment. Thats why we are still a Monarchy. Because they are not going to turn round and say 'Alright, we give up and re-nounce our throne and all benefits and such associated with'
That aint gonna happen, and until it does happen we will not truly live in a democracy. A shadowy(?) image of one, yes, but not true democracy.

And France and the USA did write their constitutions after said events, both of said events to decide who would run their respective countries. A similar event, or every single member in the royal line to renouncing the throne, would have to take place before a Constitution would have to be written here.

And on a lighter note, that Gator banner had me pissing myself for hours )
Britains uncodified Constitution is made up of numerous sources and as such, parts are subject to change on a hypothetical daily basis. Such Statutes for which it is based (ie The Magna Carta) are more than likely cemented into its roots today, but also this 'unwritten constitution' is also decided upon by modern Case Law, meaning anything the courts decide about our 'unwritten constitution' BECOMES part of said constitution. This effectively gives one of the deciding factors as to what we are/are not entitled, to people above us with no input from our 'Democratic' Joe Public. In this sense, you only have these 'unwritten guidlines' which can be changed very much at will. And I believe the final input is our Laws, which has been talked about and is Proposed by the Goverment, passed by the House of Lords and stamped by the Queen.

So basically the only time you have to decide on the future laws and 'unwritten constitution' is when you vote, so make sure you know who your voting for. After the government is elected, they can do pretty much what they please with our 'unwritten constitution'

If we gonna have a constitution, make it written. Otherwise it is nothing more than someone above our stations decision. Not your rights at all. The current government candidates don't want a written constitution because it would put the publics interests into the hands of the public and truly give us Rights which we could protect with the power of our votes.

And as a final note, the European Commission has the power to overule any existing law in Britain, and *could* create laws as it deems fit (as it stood in 2002).
And did you vote for any of those un-elected people in Brussels? Speaks for itself really. )Not very democratic, and in opposition to what most people think our uncodified constitution should be about (ie Britain for Britain)

Freedom/rights/uncodified constitution... all are fucking words to keep you grinding away and not giving a shit. They dont really mean anything. Voting is like a kick, or a kick in the nuts (I read that on a street sign somewhere) but its the only system that would work. The only way you gonna change the world is with the tip of a Nuclear Bomb (or 30)

[BigDes_GY]

one problem with asking the opinion of the public - say via a referendum especially on complex issues - is that the electorate are GENERALLY IGNORANT MUPPETS! not a clever idea to distribute such power to the masses (also depends on whether the referendum is mandatory i suppose) - why do you think the government wont give a referendum on the euro apart from the tests etc that the government use as excuses?

[DJ-Ants]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by herbertmatt:
who cares!!! write to question time if ur that bothered.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


I believe the FACTS are going above some peoples heads...

[Sim]

Shouldn't the constitutional state be built upon the requirement for 'reasoned' public opinion, rather than immediate and/or 'emotional' responses to issues as they arise? Things such as courts requiring basic respect of others rights to participate in public debates. A "pure" democracy ruled by referenda, in which the people consent to all measures, sounds good in theory but the only real way to ensure the real voice of the people is heard is by forcing everyone (who is eligible) to vote, like Don_Revie says. But the paradox here is that by forcing everyone to vote, you are denying a basic right of democracy, which is a fundamental freedom of expression (or in this case a lack of it). Can you force people into exercising their democratic right? And would you want everyone to have a say on complex issues? But then again would you want all the decisions regarding your rights to be left to politicians ? who don?t even have the support of the majority of the country? In the last election only 25% of the entire eligible electorate voted Labour despite their massive parliamentary majority. If one party can have a landslide victory with 25% of the national consent then something appears to be wrong. Also the Government can go ahead with the Euro regardless of what any referendum says and although it may prove unpopular at first, they can do it when first coming to office and see out any backlash by the electorate.
Also, that reference to Question Time reminded me ? did anyone see it last week when David Dimbleby turned to Robin Cook to get his response to a question, and proceeded to say: "What do you think, Robin Cock...er, Robin Cook." Dead Funny.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 26, 2003 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Sim ]</font>

[Jonny W.K]

*momentary lapse in brainpower*

Huh huh, he said 'Cock'...

[the new kid]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DJ-Ants:
I put it to wind people up...now Ive blown it...deff.

My predictions.....

5 years totally legal dope...taxed of course
10 years decriminalisation of other drugs
15 years Monarchy is abolished.....


time will tell...</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE> couldnt we just expose the monarchy for the worthless waste of time and money that they are, make drugs MORE illegal..and put all the monarchy and the people convicted of drug related offences in a big spaceship with the old people and send it into the sun?

[DJ-Ants]

Nope...Im a capitalist and all the taxes from legal drugs would make us an economic super power...plus keep taxes down for joe public,so then it isnt just them funding all these millionaire asylum seekers...

[the new kid]

thats a fair point, stoners should at least do us somw good somehow