Friday, December 5, 2014

Parliament: "Voter Engagement in the UK"


House of Commons


Political and Constitutional Reform Committee


“Voter engagement in the UK”


 

 

Written evidence submitted by Gordon J Sheppard (VUK 57)

 

1. There is only one major reform necessary; and, that is that Parliament must recognize that the People of this country in General Elections, 'elect' their representative to represent them in Parliament; they do not 'elect' a political party; and that therefore Parliament ought to be, a "People's Parliament".

 

2. Sadly, today, the 'People' have hardly any influence at all. Parliament, unlawfully, is wholly dominated and controlled by the political parties.

 

3. This wicked domination and control of the political parties is maintained in parliament by the political party WHIPS. The WHIPS countermand, overrule and supplant all rightful influence placed upon Members of Parliament by the Constituents; and, thereby 'prejudice the people'.

 

4. "Prejudice of the People" is wholly outlawed and proscribed by the 'precedent of law' set out in the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

 

5. This paragraph in the Bill of Rights 1689, designed and created by the Rights Committee  of the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, was solely designed for the protection of the People; and, it specifically requires and instructs parliament that when parliament 'enacts' its SUPREMACY (afforded to parliament by 'Article 9' of that Bill), or 'enacts' any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; that parliament should not, 'prejudice the people'.

 

6. Thereby, whenever Parliament does 'prejudice the people' the very SUPREMACY of parliament becomes null and void. Thus determining by 'precedent of law' that the political party activities of the WHIPS in parliament, is wholly illegal and unlawful, and has no legal validity at all.

 

7. The WHIPS in parliament should therefore be abolished.

 

8. Every vote taken in parliament should be a FREE VOTE.

 

9. Thus, creating a TRUE DEMOCRACY.

 

CONCLUSION

Sooner or later the People of Great Britain will secure their rightful access to LAW; where it is possible to test, question, and challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of parliament from within law. Sooner or later the People of this great country will awake from their 'political' apathy and, the slumbers of the middle ages, emerging into the bright sunlight of the 21st Century; when they will destroy the present dominance and control of their 'elected' parliament, by the political parties. Sooner or later, Britain will create a TRUE DEMOCRACY.

 Sooner or later Parliament must recognize that at present the People (the 'common people' of this land have no protection of 'LAW' whatsoever. They have no true Citizenship recorded in Law; they have no 'written constitution', or proper 'Bill of Rights'; or access to a "Supreme Court of Law" where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the abuses and the prejudice of parliament from within law.

 

Furthermore, although there is a 'Reigning Monarch' sitting upon the throne charged with the responsibility and duty to honour the 'Original Contract' and provide the protection of the Crown's Subjects; throughout her entire reign, she has miserably failed to provide any protection at all. Today, the British do not have a 'Reigning Monarch'; they have a village sub-postmistress franking and rubber-stamping every piece of paper laid before her by parliament.

 LAW today in Great Britain is looked upon by the elite and the establishment as being something that only the 'common people' must obey. Whilst, they, abuse and flout 'LAW' all of the time.

HISTORY:

King James the Second was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688 for "Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People". The CONVENTION determined that he had thereby, 'abdicated the throne'; the throne was declared "Vacant" and Prince William of Orange was offered the throne. The CONVENTION, however, did not want the same problems and interference it had to endure from 'James II' and so therefore the CONVENTION appointed a Rights Committee to create a Bill that would protect parliament, from this interference by a King. The Rights Committee therefore knew at the beginning of their task, that the Bill was only necessary ands required in order to protect parliament from a King. It was never intended to protect parliament from the people. And, so the Rights Committee had the responsibility with any Bill that they created, to protect the people from any abuse. They had to ensure that the Bill that they created would not be misused or wrongly interpreted by parliament; and, therefore they created for insertion within their Bill the overruling paragraph guaranteeing the peoples protection.

 

Firstly, the Rights Committee set out a complete list of 'Articles' or 'Rights' that Parliament claimed from a King; then directly below this list they inserted the paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed" and this reads as follows:

  

“The Said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

Note: Everyone assumes that the most important feature of the "Glorious Revolution" and the "Bill of Rights 1689" is that it provides parliament with its SUPREMACY and its protection from a King. But this is not the most important feature at all; the true most important feature of all of this is, that it provided the PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE from within law. It specifically determines that parliament may have its SUPREMACY but only on the conditions as determined by the "Said Rights Claimed".

The most interesting feature of all of this is that the "Said Rights Claimed" restricts parliament from 'amending' or even 'abolishing' the Bill of Rights 1689. Because, in order for parliament to try to do either; actually creates, 'prejudice of the people'. Parliament is thereby prevented from amending or abolishing the Bill on two counts: firstly, because it breaks the Law; secondly, the people have their protection afforded by "The Said Rights Claimed". They will never permit parliament taking that protection away.


 

No comments: