I am currently being bombarded by a bunch of eccentrics because I have questioned the wisdom of trying to bring treason charges against politicians who have taken us into the European Union. Treason is a very difficult one to interpret, people like the late Norris McWhirter and Rodney Atkinson have tried that route and failed. I have the utmost respect for both and met them on a couple of occasions. With their talents and resources to have failed leads me to believe that continuing down that road is a waste of time and effort.
This latest group, the ones I have upset, are basing their efforts on the fact that successive British governments, in relation to the EU, are in breach of the British 'written' constitution.
When I pointed out that we do not have a written constitution , and forwarded a link to an internet site to prove the point, I was told that it was part of a CIA conspiracy.
In fact, thinking about it, they are not eccentric, they are actually mad.
8 comments:
LOL.
At least you're trying to make your peace with them by posting stuff like this!
Too late for that Mark, they seem to think I'm a 6ft lizard, well 5'10" lizard. I'm going on a training course with the BBC next week for a couple of days, it's only a writing for radio course, but these nutters will probably think it's part of the CP conspiracy.
Well we do have a written constitution, but in several parts.
Magna Carta and the declaration of rights are as much a written constitution as any nation has, the trouble is that parliament and the monarchy are under the mistaken impression that they can bugger about with it at will.
Wrong.
Parliament is not sovereign, the nation is sovereign. In theory the monarch should be the embodiement of the nation but the useless old witch seems to think it her job to sign any treason that crosses her desk. Hang the old bag.
Mind, she's probably a lizard like you.
The nation in parliament is sovereign, at least when I studied the constitution. The problem with the unwritten constitution, those mentioned by Lurch being mere elements, is that we are dependent on convention and precedent with parliament being all powerful.
The strongest case for a written constitution is that it would limit the powers of parliament, so that they can no longer trample on the checks and safeguards that were respected for centuries prior, largely, to Blair
Just one other thing Lurch, I agree about the old bag, it is time we got rid of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas. Is Liz an abbreviation of Elizabeth or Lizard?!
"The nation in parliament is sovereign"
Yes, but that does not make "Parliament" itself sovereign.
It really cannot simply 'give away' (with a dowry!) powers which the nation lend it. The Magna Carta and Declaration of Rights are not simple laws to be amended and ignored by parliament at will as they are the basis of said Parliament and a Treaty between Sovereign and Nation.
It would be akin to me lending you my car to collect my shopping only to find you'd flogged it to Mr Singh who now won't let me use it.
Academic of course as they do it anyway because they can get away with it.
Sneaky buggers those lizards.
Oh, I forgot!
Any written constitution would be written by the shower in power and would therefore actually limit bugger all. Much like the Lisbon Constitution sets out minimums the EU has competence over but sets precious little in the way of limits to it's power.
We need a good war, pestilence (ideally one particularly deadly to lizards) or a revolution before we are in a position to create a meaningful modern constitution which enshrines the powers and liberty of the individual and curbs the reach of The State.
I absolutely agree Lurch. My argument is that Parliament has abused its powers and now, perhaps, is the time for a written constitution that clearly defines the power of Parliament. But maybe we have to undo all that the last few governments have done first.
Post a Comment