Blair's Big Plan

Why does our Prime Minister insist on ramrodding every single idea of his through parliment?

news.bbc.co.uk...

If he forces through parliment this constitution then he will be finished as Prime Minister. But then, he will be President of Europe and so he won't care. It is not fair that he uses his dictatorship majority to push it through. There should be a referrendum and the constitution should be put to the vote!! Any thoughts?

blair will sanction a referendum on this issue, but he will only do so when he believes he has a realistic chance of winning. well thats his plan anyway, im not sure he'll ever get the public onside.

i do worry about british democracy though. think about it:
no separation of judiciary and legislative, an unelected head of state, an unelected second chamber, no written constitution and the rejection of proportional representation.

My opinion of Blair is well known, so I won't repeat it here.

If the people of the UK don't get rid of this traitor - and quickly - they are well and truly screwed.

And I doubt there will be a referendum.

[Edited on 27-3-2004 by Pisky]

By unelected head of state i assume you mean the Queen. In truth she has no real power, its the House of Lords (or what i call the oldest old folks home in the world) that has the ability to block new laws and policies etc.

Originally posted by TPL
By unelected head of state i assume you mean the Queen. In truth she has no real power, its the House of Lords (or what i call the oldest old folks home in the world) that has the ability to block new laws and policies etc.

yes i did mean the queen, but i also mentioned the lords ("unelected second chamber"). part of the problem now is that, as you say, it used to be a old folks home but now blair has partly addressed that issue and appointed his donors and supporters. tonies cronies and all that - its just as undemocratic. its a sad situation when billy bragg genuinely has the best solution to the problem of britains second chamber.

and regardless of how little power the queen has, she still has no legitimate entitlement to it whatsoever.

The Queen is just a figure head. The house of lords do not hold absolute power either. There is something called the parliment act whereby the elected parliment can overrule the house of lords. Blair has used this more times than any previous government combined.

and regardless of how little power the queen has, she still has no legitimate entitlement to it whatsoever.

Why not? We have an elected government (As bad as it may be - and hopefully they will be voted out at the next election) who run the country. The only difference between our system and the Americans is that we have a head of state and a head of government, whereas the Americans have it rolled into one.

If the people of the UK don't get rid of this traitor - and quickly - they are well and truly screwed.

And I doubt there will be a referendum.

I agree.

Yeah we should get rid of him

It isnt democratic if the people of the UK dont get a say in having there country taken over because 1 man (or a few people say so

He is a trator

If he wasnt the PM or anything to do with it and he tryed it/sold the UK out he would be branded as a trator

Basicly Tony Blair seems to be making the UK as crap as possible (Failing schools, crime rates and crappy justice systems since hes been in power) it wouldnt supprise me if it was Intentional so that he would try justify the excuse to join the EU

The EU has always failed as before the "League Of Nations" i believe had the same idea and then under any proper pressure it collapsed

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Crash]

He just keeps going doesn't he? When will our PM wake up and realise what's happened (when we get a new one, I presume) But mean while we have to put up with him.

It's a shame the Queen doesn't have more power nowadays, I'd love to see her in political action!

Yeah we should get rid of him

Unfortunatly, who is there to replace him? The last thing we need is to have Brown in control. He would tax us to death (he almost there already). Lib-Dem Kennedy lacks that charisma and boldness required, which leaves Howard - leader of the opposition.

Humpy you have a point, I think I'd be inclined for Kennedy, but that's not gonna happen, it looks like it's up to the conservitives to sort it out.

Unless of course Mr Blair thrusts the constitution down our throats. Then it wont matter - we will become a republic under the thumb of Belgium.

Originally posted by Crash
Yeah we should get rid of him

It isnt democratic if the people of the UK dont get a say in having there country taken over because 1 man (or a few people say so

He is a trator

If he wasnt the PM or anything to do with it and he tryed it/sold the UK out he would be branded as a trator

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Crash]

One of the first things he did was sign up for the EU human rights act, and remove the death penalty from the statute books (which until that point was still applicable for acts of treason). He basically knew that once he betrayed Britain, someone would have prosecuted him for treachery. Its unlikely, even if the old law was still in existance, that he would ever have been put to death, but I daresay he didn't fancy the idea of that.

Personally, if Pierrepoint was still alive, I'd have got him out of retirement to do just one more job.

Exacly

He has got rid of the laws that will damage him

Then has used the "passageway" to get to the EU the way he wants

To Be Honest some 1 should stand up and En-force it not through sound but throgh action and get rid of him before its 2 late

remove the death penalty from the statute books (which until that point was still applicable for acts of treason).

I thought that the death penalty could still be used if the act of treason occurs during wartime?

Personally, if Pierrepoint was still alive, I'd have got him out of retirement to do just one more job.

I don't suppose Agent47 is still for hire?

Originally posted by Humpy

and regardless of how little power the queen has, she still has no legitimate entitlement to it whatsoever.

Why not? We have an elected government (As bad as it may be - and hopefully they will be voted out at the next election) who run the country. The only difference between our system and the Americans is that we have a head of state and a head of government, whereas the Americans have it rolled into one.

the difference between us and america is that they acknowledge their democratic right to choose their head of state. to grant someone a role as important as head of state (important diplomatically rather than politically that is) on the basis of family line is an unjustifiable nonesense. its tradition for traditions sake.

its tradition for traditions sake.

So what?

The PM does all the politics of the country and the Queen the diplomatic stuff as you said. Why do you need an elected diplomatic representitive? Any diplomatic incidences that take place automatically revert to the Foreign Office and back to politics. Though the Queen wouldn't neccessarily cause any diplomatic rows.

No matter how bad Blair gets we'd have to be insane to vote the Tories back in, do you want to run this country into the ground? Haven't they already done enough in the past?

Our only solution (and Charles Kennedy isn't it) is to get a new leader for Labour, and I doubt enough people have confidence in Gordan Brown. I guess it's time for the search.

CLAIRE SHORT!!!! (only joking)

I'm no fan of Blair and I certainly did not vote for him nor would I, but some people here seem to be missing the point.
As far as this new constitution goes it will have minimal impact on the UK.

Maggie took care of that at Maastricht when she handbagged her way to the vetoes. Nearly everything that can adversely affect the UK in the EU constitution can be vetoed.

Originally posted by Humpy

its tradition for traditions sake.

So what?

The PM does all the politics of the country and the Queen the diplomatic stuff as you said. Why do you need an elected diplomatic representitive? Any diplomatic incidences that take place automatically revert to the Foreign Office and back to politics. Though the Queen wouldn't neccessarily cause any diplomatic rows.

an unelected head of state is totally incompatible with democratic politics. accepting hereditary authority gives undue support to an anachronstic system where the upper classes are seen as being 'born to rule' and therefore do not have to justify their authority through general political accountability.

for someone to enjoy the role of official representative of a country abroad, they should be able to prove that they do indeed represent the people of that country.

maybe youre right that the queen has adequately fulfilled the democratic roles expected of her, but what about the rest of them. princesses ann and margaret? prince philip? charles? harry?