There is an interesting discussion point in the Telegraph called Should we be looking for a new England?.
And my answer would be yes. Ideally I would have liked to preseve much of the old England but I fear that is no longer a realistic option. I used to support the idea of an unwritten constitution because of the importance of unenumerated rights, but the Major and Blair years have shown that Britain’s unwritten constitution was not worth the paper it was not written on. We have been disarmed, we have had our rights to free speech greatly curtailed, our rights to trial by a jury of our peers abridged, our underpinning civil society regulated out of existence in area after area, our right to property vastly infringed upon.
In short, there can be no pretence whatsoever that The System has worked to protect us from our political masters. The British system survived for a long time because enough people wanted it to survive. As most are now willing to allow themselves to be herded and bought off with their own money, the system is now little more than populist authoritarianism.
Yes, we very badly need a new England.
(Kindly spare us any jokes about New England.)
Reading through the comment section of that article, Englishness would seem to mostly involve having an obsessive hatred of the Scots.
It makes me glad that the American Founding Fathers, when debating if our rights should be enumerated on paper or not, decided to take the paper route. It has proved to be the best stumbling block to the statists these past 225+ years.
That said, England (and the rest of the UK) should be proud they held on so long. It’s been quite some time since The People bent King John over his throne and made him sign the Magna Carta.
Part of the reason I believe the UK went downhill was the whole colonialism thing. That gave many of the hardiest and stoutest (in spirit) fellows reason to leave the Isle and go “rough it” in the colonies where they could become self-made men. That worked out pretty well for the colonies, but not so well for the homeland.
Perry,
Surely the problem for us is not implementing a constitution- I think Blair would hand it to us on a plate if there was demand for it- but getting one worth having and fighting for- one that is right for us all.
The way Britain- England, even- is today, I would be wary of floating such an idea, lest it become an immovable charter for tyranny, cementing so many of the problems Blair has wrought upon us.
I can imagine that it was perhaps easier for the new Americans in some ways, as they faced and understood a problem that a constitution could seek to prevent in future. There seemed to be (I’m not a man of American history, so don’t shoot me if I’m wrong!) the will in the face of adversity.
In my opinion, the best chance of England obtaining relative freedom and renewal is for it to declare independence- independence from the United Kingdom. It saddens me to say it, as I’m proudly British (for all our country’s faults, I still feel something strangely sentimental knowing that I am part of a large mark on the world’s history), but between a Union flag under the jackboot of EU commissioners and the chance to escape it under an English flag, I surely choose freedom.
What I mean to say is, if England declares independence, it breaks free of the treaties and laws bound by the United Kingdom. It is our one chance to be released from the EU. We cannot remain as the United Kingdom, even with an independent Scotland. I’m using Serbia and Montenegro as the model for my example. Serbia kept the former union’s relationship with the EU- Montenegro had to start over.
Freedom can be ours, if we choose to pursue it with vigour.
*Gets sentimental hat and leaves*
I know I’m not English, so I expect my opinion to be disregarded in this debate. The unwritten constitution Perry talks about is not solely that of the English, it is that of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and all the other bits and pieces that make up Britain. You can look for a ‘new England’ if you want, I’ll be looking for a new Britain. I don’t want to break up the United Kingdom, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts after all. Devolve some functions of government, certainly, but to go our separate ways when we are stronger together is idiocy. The risk of independence is that the same political parties will exist in each of the nations and their policies for the whole will be set in smoke filled rooms behind closed doors.
There is no point in looking for a ‘new England/Britain’ as if its out there waiting to be found, we have to build it. If a written constitution is what is required why don’t we write one? It would give us a platform to take to the people and it would be something that could be printed on bits of paper and shoved through people’s doors. I reckon anything that the various disparate libertarian groups can agree on would be wide enough to accommodate all the people. Keep it simple, keep it in plain English, and keep it simple and it may be enough to open peoples eyes. If we can show them the freedom that is possible it may just wake them up. Starting from first principles, what would you put in it?
James has a neat theoretical proposal for UK independence. Unfortunately, as we are now, getting from here to there would be likely to involve a civil war, and things would have to get a lot worse before Joe public would “risk and hazard all he hath” for an uncertain end.
At the moment our best hope is to encourage the Scottish Nationalists to take their nationalism to the extreme in the hope that they will shake themselves off, and a load of socialists in Westminster with them. This would give England (and Wales optionally) a good chance to rethink and re-order its constitutional arrangements.
Sadly a written constitution created today would be full of rights “to” things (welfare rights) as are the various international declarations of rights (remember the British representatives on the group that wrote the U.N. declaration were Stalin’s pals Harold Laski and E.H. Carr – it would be no different now). No doubt it would also be full of P.C. stuff as well (such as E.U. or American left style provisions against “hate speech”, although these are comming in anyway).
However, yes, the unwritten constitution has broken down. The various “conventions” and practices are ignored (no, held in open contempt) by the government.
This was predicted many years ago.
The great Anglophile Paul E. Moore (the friend of Irving Babbitt and teacher of T.S. Elliot) visited the United Kingdom before World War II – partly because of his intense interest in the British (really English) culture and partly for relief from the atmosphere of the United States during the New Deal period (Moore was not a libertarian, but the mixture of Fascists and Communists that made up the New Deal elite filled him with disgust).
I have read Moore’s writings from that time and, yes, he is full of love for the way of life that he found here (so much so that he wished he could be a young man in order to make a life here), the culture of unwritten conventions and traditions fill him with joy.
However, he was shocked and concerned by something. The people here (whether ordinary people or academics) seemed to have no idea about the principles behind their conventions and traditions – no knowledge of what they defended or why it was worth defending.
In the United States there was intense political debate about basic principles – the good guys seemed to be losing, but there were vast numbers of people who understood the principles of liberty and wanted to defend them.
Here people did things in a certain way, because they had always done things in a certain way. The reasons why both Whig and Tory people had adopted certain ways of doing things (in order to defend liberty) were forgotten by all but a tiny (really tiny) minority of people.
Moore predicted that if the various conventions, customs and traditions here ever came under real attack they would not be defended – because people would not have any reason to defend them. “We have always done things this way” or “this is our way of doing things” is a fair weather defence that falls apart under determined attack (and the attack has been and is determined). And once the unwritten system has been destroyed it is virtually impossible to recreate – because hardly anyone understood it.
“Paul, you have rejected both sticking with the unwritten constitution and going for a written constitution – so what can be done?”.
I doubt anything can be done. I strongly suspect this country is finished.
As for the England – Scotland thing (although that does seem to leave out Wales and Ulster).
I do not know much about Scotland, but what little I do know indicates that most (although not all) of the things I dislike about the political culture of modern England are even worse in Scotland.
Seems to me that you Brits, after taking care of ol’ King John in 1215, took about 400 years to have yourselves another little revolution.
I’d say that it being about 400 years now since the last one, perhaps a new one is in order? That is, if you can dodge the surveillance cameras throughout London.
Americans, of course, are known for doing things a bit faster. We had our revolution 230 years ago… And I think we may already be due for another.
I have just followed your link Perry.
So the Daily Telegraph authority on Englishness (and the rights of English) is the leftist pop singer “Billy Brag”.
This pathetic gesture to the “youth market” (in reality the man is middle aged), in an effort to appear “hip” and “with it”, reminds me of why I no longer regularly buy the Daily and Sunday Telegraph.
Would a conservative American newspaper (such as the Wall Street Journal) or even a middle of the road one (such as the Chicago Tribune) set up a leftist pop singer as an authority on being American or the rights of Americans?
Yet the Telegraph group are what passes for “conservative” in Britain, it sickens me.
if one is lookingfor a “new england”, the free state project in New Hampshire sounds tempting.
although, the thought of putting all my worldly goods into a freight container and shipping it 3000 miles across the atlantic is not a decision to be taken lightly, and indeed is a logistical nightmare, not to mention the lack of an open door immigration policy in the U.S. towards England (thanks, in part to our membership of the EU and the American jitters about Londonistan).
Free State Project
Perry
I strongly suggest you consult with Dale about setting up an independent off world “England’ . Space colonization is going to happan anyway within the next 50-75 years, why not give it a push?
It might beat waiting around for the EU or the Blair/Cameron UK, to reform themselves or to go out of business.
Our written Constitution has stood us well for over two hundred years; but it really guarantees nothing. Fidelity to its principles are our guarantee. We now witness the folly of Supreme Court Justices, whose sole function is to interpret the intent of the Constitution and apply it to modern disputes, deciding cases on the basis of their notion of “common international norms”.
Although the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were “white”, and are now “dead”, (Dead White Men (DWM) being anathema to modern Academia), they did magnificent work. It will be a sad day when their work is finally undone because “group entitlements” have replaced individual rights.
Given the state of society in the U.S. & Europe, I would fear any Constitution drafted today.
Much of our woe comes from the recent legislation that just granlulates an existing law that was not being implemented properly anymore into a multitude that will not be properly implemented at all. That, and the Welfarism since 1908-11.
Solution? Perhaps we just dust off Magna Carta and see what contradicts it. Put all that into a holding pen, cull the obvious tat, granularity and absurdities first along with all the welfarism, as a welfare right means a taxpayers obligation.
With health and education moved from being a State entity to just State regulated (as in ‘weights and measures’) and so much disorder and unrulines fading once the Welfare State is out of the picture, people will be freer to do what they want.
As you can see, for me the key is to shrink the State as part of the solution, for until it is shrunk, trying to recreate our society is like doing chemotherapy before cutting out the tumour.
The English system survived because the English people had total dominance in England, that is no longer the case, a long way from being so.
Paul,
So the Daily Telegraph authority on Englishness (and the rights of English) is the leftist pop singer “Billy Brag”. …
I think you are mistaken that this is a gesture to youth. Bragg has not appealed to the youth market for 25 years, if he ever really did.
The reason the Telegraph likes Bragg for this purpose, and so do I, is that being explicitly a socialist – an honest, clear-speaking, open one – he disarms the post-modern undercutting of the cause of English constitutionalism. Without such a spokesman it is trivial to stop the arguments being heard, because they can be characterised as ‘reactionary’, ‘outdated’, ‘in the interests of the rich’, ‘racist’, and so forth.
Getting anything done in the political arena requires persuasive methods, which include pre-empting counterstrategy. It is never going to be sufficient to plonk down your beliefs and expect the world to accept them a priori. If libertarian and constitutional conservative precriptions (which may in any case not be reconcilable) were obviously correct and obviously not being implemented for a majority of the dominant classes, then not only the Telegraph’s campaign but Samizdata itself would be unnecessary, since we’d just be retailing elements of the received wisdom.
mister scruff,
Some of us aren’t going to be admitted to the United States.
Perry, you have no need to feel despondent. England is in much better shape than France, with its’ over-controlled economy! The best candidate there, Sarkozy, is saying how France needs to copy some of the ‘Anglo’ traits to survive in the world. Economically, statism is on the run. Now if you take over the UKIP, you might be able to internalise antistatism, and even if UKIP doesn’t win the election, it might hold the balance of power!
And let’s not get too sentimental about fixed constitutions. The whole idea is reminiscent of Plato, and his belief that Heaven has the true type of everything, whilst down here on Earth we only get pale imitations of the heavenly original. Since there is no such critter as a ‘Perfect’ constitution, you’ll always have to update the institutions you have. Regular referendae and amendments are a better way to go, with people able to propose their own, not just the politicians.
Nick G,
Regular referenda are precisely the reasons why we need the protection of a constituion.
”Englishness would seem to mostly involve having an obsessive hatred of the Scots”
Rubbish! Personally I had always thought they were slightly serious hard workers who avoided wasting money and made excellent whisky. Lately I have come to wonder if the oppostite of the above comment does not have at least a grain of truth in it.
”Seems to me that you Brits, after taking care of ol’ King John in 1215, took about 400 years to have yourselves another little revolution”
Three hundred and nineteen years if you count “The Glorious Revolution”, that might be a better model than Cromwell’s antics. At least the US has English as it’s official language and I suspect we have more in common with the US than Europe. The Sandwich Islands and Alaska did it why not England? Maybe we could petition the US to make us a state, we do still have some oil reserves…
”Englishness would seem to mostly involve having an obsessive hatred of the Scots”
You are right. It is nonsense. But then having chopped off the first half of the sentence it would be. Lets see if we can fo further…
”Englishness would seem to mostly involve having an obsessive hatred”
Yeah. That’s better. I am talking complete rubbish now.
I totally agree about the whisky though.
Laphroaig, Lagavulin, Dohnuts, Mmnnnnn……..
I believe the big problem has been pointed-out. The U.S. Constitution – “We the People”. The E.U. Constitution – takes two or three people to lift the thing, and NOBODY reads or heeds it.
I would suggest a written constitution is in order, but if it goes much over two double-spaced pages, it wanders away from “correct, concise…” into a morass of pettifogging no-value-added wordsmithing, and nobody understands it – let alone “believes in it” or “feels any desire or obligation to defend it”.
Incidentally, might you Brits adopt the American Constitution? It did them proud for the last 230 years, and they’re no longer using it anymore so it’s available if you want it… ;))
I am coming to the conclusion that Englishness involves an unpleasantly authoritarian streak, best summed up as “everything I do should be compulsory, and whatever doesn’t interest me should be banned”, or “everyone must be like ME” for short.
This is usually accompanied with a rather touching faith that the government is benign and the passing of these laws will not affect the speaker either deliberately or accidentally (because mistakes are, of course, impossible).
Perhaps we could require that an acceptable constitution could be recited from memory by the responsible minister? But what would we do if he forgot that clause in his recitation?
I am coming to the conclusion that Englishness involves an unpleasantly authoritarian streak, best summed up as “everything I do should be compulsory, and whatever doesn’t interest me should be banned”
MarkE, You appear to be confusing the English with the NuLab UK Government, incidentally propped up by Scottish MPs…
You got them to a “T” though.
Phil A, Eamon,
From my point of view, being a scot, it would seem that, Englishness would seem to mostly involve having an obsessive envy of the scots.
nick g,
Did you read this(Link)? The title is unfortunately misleading, and its a little lacking in some places but its all about regular referenda. Instead of having some idea of Britishness/Englishness imposed from on high by a select few the people should be able to define it themselves.
To all others, on the subject of a written constitution.
We should not let the state draft a constitution. EVER As some have mentioned it will be full of entitlements, impositions on inividual liberty, overcomplicated, indecipherable to all but a select few, and grossly overweight (look at the abortive attempt at an EU constitution and you’ll see what I mean). I’ll repeat the question I asked before: If there were to be a written constitution, what would you put in it? Its all very well to complain about the state of things now but they’re never going to change unless we do something about it. Even if it is arguing over points in an imaginary written constitution, something concrete might come of it.
FSP are a great bunch of people, I recently attended their convention, and not a bunch of nutters as they are portrayed at times. If you don’t mind the winters NH is a great place to live it has to be said and in the south of the state there is a lot of high tech work to be had.
“We should not let the state draft a constitution. EVER”
I would agree with that statement more if it had the qualification “EVER EVER EVER times INFINITY” appended to it.
What drivel. The majority of people who voted for Blair in England are English. The majority of people who voted for Major in England were English.
Even if your fascist fantasy came true tomorrow and all the ‘darkies’, ‘pakis’ and ‘wogs’ vanished overnight, the culture of appropriation and regulation would remain because all too many English people have accepted that regulatory statism is the only way things can be.
With acknowlegerment to the US constitution
Mandrill, Here is a, by no means exhaustive, starter:
1. The powers not delegated to the State by the Constitution are reserved to the people. The State shall make no law amending this except by the will of the people expressed in a full referendum.
2. Parliament shall enter into no treaty, or agreement with any individual, group or state, that in any way abrogates or diminishes the sole sovereignty, or power, of the people of the United Kingdom, save with the full agreement of the people as expressed in a full referendum
3. The State shall make no law concerning the establishment, elevation or imposition of any religion, or prohibiting the free peaceable exercise of religion. No person or persons shall have the right to impose any religion on any person by means of force or threat.
4. The State shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, including the written word, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
5. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No warrants shall be issued, except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and precisely specifying the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Parliament shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
6. All persons born, or naturalized, in the United Kingdom, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Kingdom. The State shall make no law, or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State. Nor shall it deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
7. Neither slavery, nor any form of involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United Kingdom, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Parliament shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
8. The right of citizens who are over 21 to vote shall not be denied, or abridged by the Government or by any Local authority on account of race, creed, colour or sex. This right shall not be denied or abridged by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Parliament shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
Oh and…
9. Parliament shall make no law interfering with the right of any individual, groups, or companies, to freely associate, or make agreements and contracts together, excepting where said are contrary to, or bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom.
Perry – I afraid any attempt at writing a constitution in the UK will bring out all the “interest groups” that will fill it with “social justice”, “fair markets”, “a right to [shelter, a job, etc..]”, and other 21st century newspeak.
As an admirer of Churchill, and the stubborn defiance of tyranny he stood for, (yes, yes, I’m sure he had zillions of faults and contradictions, as all great leaders do), I would never try to steal the idea of the “finest hour”, but I might be so bold as to suggest that there is nothing stopping those who love liberty in Britain from staging that peoples’ second finest hour in the campaign against statist repressions of any kind.
Will that struggle be easy, or victory swift? No & no.
Is violence necessary? No, again. In fact, the most effective means are clearly non-violent—an organized and adamant refusal to participate in any repressive scheme the state proposes.
Is Britain finished? No. Is the anglosphere it founded and nurtured over the centuries finished? No.
As Lincoln said at Gettysburg, what is needed is a new birth of freedom, and a new committment to its preservation and expansion.
Regardless of where and how the inspriration is derived, those Britains, and, indeed, any of us, who love liberty, must embrace the difficult labor required to restore it where it has been lost, and extend it where it has not previously blossomed.
Each time a newly born child draws its first breath, it should be as a free man or woman, enabled, by our efforts, to enjoy its birthright—liberty to choose his life’s path, and live it as she sees fit.
As the Gospel says, which of you, when your child asks for bread, would hand him a stone?
Can you do any less for liberty, this most vital of nourishments for the mind and heart?
The future is now. The task is at hand. It is up to all of us to see that the work of those who stood in the finest hour is carried on. As free men and women, we can do no less.
“Reading through the comment section of that article, Englishness would seem to mostly involve having an obsessive hatred of the Scots.” – Eamon Brennan
Eamon, you said it now you should justify it. I seriously doubt that Englishness is actually defined in any way by a relationship with Scotland or the Scottish but ignoring my opinion on that, objective analysys would have to conclude that you are making things up.
For Englishness to mostly involve having an obsessive hatred of the Scots you would need a whole heap of evidence that simply does not exist.
So, I call bullshit on your statement.
vr,
If the government persists with ID cards the Brits will rise up. It will make the poll-tax riots look like a kiddies’ party.
We will just not put up with it.
I really want you to be right and to prove me wrong, but I fear the great majority of the English will not rise up, and they will accept what they are told; that ID cards will solve all their problems (including the weather) and those of us who oppose them are anti social and dangerous. You need only read the typical comment on (for example) the BBC’s Have Your Say board, where I try to combat the statist consensus.
Sorry Phil A but NuLab, for all its reliance on Scottish MPs, enjoys enough support south of the border even now, to support my post of 11:03.
I should perhaps have added that I will be there when you rise up; even it is only thee & me and a few others they will never be able to say they enjoyed unanimous support.
Parliament shall not make any laws.
In separation or isolation or special case, in other words, parliament shall be of the people, not of itself.
Phil A, I hope you don’t mind me suggesting a small change:
2. Parliament shall enter into no treaty, or agreement with any individual, group or state, that in any way abrogates or diminishes the sole sovereignty, or power, of the people of the United Kingdom, save with the full agreement of the people as expressed in a full referendum and any such agreement shall be so arranged as to permit a full referendum to be called to reaffirm or revoke any such treaty or agreement.
p.s. would you object if I posted this with hat-tip to either my neuearbeitmachtfrei or rogersmanifesto blogspots?
Right now that scumbag Blair is aiming to weedle in the treaty version of the Constitution, the lying creep.
MarkE: I really do think that the ID card is being pushed with a charge on purpose to distract the energies of the opposition to it. I am sure they will keep the “charge” as a bargaining chip to yield at the appropriate time so as to weaken/divide that opposition. The issue of individual charging of the card should not form the basis of the opposition IMHO.
Parliment shall not pass any laws which infringe the rights of all citizens to bare arms in personal and collective defence against enemies both internal and external.
MikeG,
I have bare arms every time I go shooting in the summer. I also have bare arms working in the garden and practicing Ju-Jitsu.
While I very much enjoy martial arts and find it a fun as well as a potentially useful pastime my preferred method of participation in collective defense is the right to bear arms regardless of the fact that my arms may or may not be bare at the time.
I find the right to bear arms without regard to whether my arms are bare or not allows me to shoot year round including times when the outside temperatures here in New Hampshire preclude the use of bare arms while practising bearing arms.
Regards
Earl.
😉
TimC and all.
Mandrill threw down the challenge. So that was a start. It’s out there:
Call it an open source enlightened libertarian constitution…
Phil A,
Thankee kindly, Sir. Let me know via neuearbeitMF if and how you would like the hat-tip, otherwise I will refer back to this article and comment thread.
p.s. Earl, if you want the bear’s arms, I recommend you shoot the bear dead first. Anthing else would be a paw substitute. Aythenkyor.
I have no such fantasy Perry.
And you know as well as anyone that very few people actually voted Labour, only about 25% of those eligible to vote. It takes only a small number of people in key constituencies to swing the vote.
Besides I was not claiming that Labour only got in because of the non-English vote (although clearly that helped), the centre ground has shifted over time and one of the reasons for that change is the change in culture brought on by mass immigration.
Another one:
The citizen has an absolute right to protect their life family and property, also lives and property for which they may be responsible, against unlawful attack. The citizen may use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, if necessary, in order to exercise that right.
This right shall only be bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom. Parliament
Nor any other governing authority, shall enact no law, and enforce no law, which shall abridge, abrogate, or diminish that right.
Johnjo
Bullshit it may be. But I don’t have to defend an idea I have not espoused simply because you are projecting it onto me (which I have to say is beginning to become something of a recurring theme on this blog’s comment boxes). Let me put it simply. I did not post. “Englishness mostly involves having an obsessive hatred of the Scots.” If I had posted that then, yes, I would have to defend it (and frankly I would have no idea as to how I would go about doing that).
However, if you had bothered linking to the article and then reading the comments you might have been as suprised as I was at the sheer number of Scot-bashing posts therein. So I am preprared to defend the following “Reading through the comment section of that article, Englishness would seem to mostly involve having an obsessive hatred of the Scots.” because that’s the impression one would easily get.
Phil A, its a good start but the language a touch on the archaic side, we want something that is easy for those that have succumbed to a state education to understand. It also needs to be beyond interpretation, it shouldn’t be possible to argue about what it means.
Now to the meat:
1. Why couldn’t it read “The state shall make no law amending this.”? You have to remember that the US’s founding fathers had no idea about spin, PR or marketing. An adept politician could persuade the unwary to vote for just about anything.
2. Much the same point as above. The people may be persuaded.
3 and 4. No argument there.
5. Replace parliament with the state/government. It could be construed that having the idea of parliament included in the constitution means that we have to have one.
6. Possibly split this one in two. The “All persons born…” bit and the “The State shall make no law…” bit.
7. Take out the exception.
8. “This right shall not be denied or abridged for any reason at all.”
9. No problems here either.
And an addition:
10. the state shall have no claim upon the property of the individual or groups of individuals, except where said property is voluntarily given without coercion or threat of force on the part of the state.
This would force the state to:
a) Charge for occasional services such as health care (if it is to be state run) and the like, in this prices will be governed by the market.
b) Ask nicely for donations much like a charity to fund larger projects.
Phil A, its a good start but the language a touch on the archaic side, we want something that is easy for those that have succumbed to a state education to understand. It also needs to be beyond interpretation, it shouldn’t be possible to argue about what it means.
Now to the meat:
1. Why couldn’t it read “The state shall make no law amending this.”? You have to remember that the US’s founding fathers had no idea about spin, PR or marketing. An adept politician could persuade the unwary to vote for just about anything.
2. Much the same point as above. The people may be persuaded.
3 and 4. No argument there.
5. Replace parliament with the state/government. It could be construed that having the idea of parliament included in the constitution means that we have to have one.
6. Possibly split this one in two. The “All persons born…” bit and the “The State shall make no law…” bit.
7. Take out the exception.
8. “This right shall not be denied or abridged for any reason at all.”
9. No problems here either.
And an addition:
10. the state shall have no claim upon the property of the individual or groups of individuals, except where said property is voluntarily given without coercion or threat of force on the part of the state.
This would force the state to:
a) Charge for occasional services such as health care (if it is to be state run) and the like, in this prices will be governed by the market.
b) Ask nicely for donations much like a charity to fund larger projects.
Phil A,
That last one: “The citizen has an absolute right…” should have an addendum about still having to face prosecution for assault/murder though any punishment should be greatly reduced to reflect the defense angle. Possibly an obligation to pay medical/funereal costs incurred by their attacker. This shouldn’t give someone carte blanche to assault/murder, its not the dark ages after all.
However it should also be impossible for the injured attacker/dead attacker’s family to claim compensation.
This article more than anything else in the past month causes me to shake my head in total disbelief at the notion of the neutered imbeciles that our government expects us to be turned into.
If there were to be a UK constitution on the lines discussed above, I think one would also need to make explicit provision for the right of the government to raise taxes, with a defined constitutional limit on their maximum percentage of GDP. What that maximum percentage should be would have a defining effect on the character of government, and no doubt would occupy constitutional lawyers for a long time.
My ecological friends have been banging on to me all week about how such warm weather in London definitely proves global warming is happening (presumably caused by evil capitalists) and asking me how I’m therefore going to reduce my carbon footprint.
Hmmm…. Well, if we must have an English constitution, it better be one printed on a small piece of paper then.
How about this?
1). Anyone who thinks they are better than anyone else (e.g. anyone aspiring to the title of ‘politician’) and therefore has the right to tell other people how to live their lives, the right to tax others to fund their own lives, and ultimately the right to force others to do what they are told, will be declared an outlaw
2). All outlaws shall be pelted with rotten vegetables on sight until they renounce their ambitions to tell others how to lead their lives and to live off the fruits of taxation
3). That’s it
Who needs Thomas Madison?
Perry, your comment at 1:26pm was an outrageous smear.
The original commenter is simply stating the truth – the English are being denied true democracy by the British State and our Scottish Raj overlords. Just how accountable to the English elecorate is John Reid, to take but one example? He is Scottish, his constituents are Scottish, subject to Scots Law and yet he is in charge of the English Home Office. Some “democracy”!
And for your information one of my oldest friends has brown skin and came here as an immigrant from India aged 7. I am proud to call him a good Englishman, but apparently you are not – to you he will only ever be “Indian”, and presumably his “half-brown” children the same. Shame!
Dave is obsessed with immigration and often comments here . He just hedges around the core issue but I have seen it all before and I am not fooled. If my remarks upset some people, too bad. That is how I see what Dave actually means.
Not all people opposed to immigration are racists, but most are however. That is my default assumption unless proven otherwise.
Just like representative democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others –
a written constitution is the weakest protection for your rights, except for all the others.
Well, over here in the U.S., we’ve got a written constitution and enumerated rights and all that jazz, and it doesn’t seem to be posing much of a road-block as our legislators and president strip away our rights.
Of course I’m mostly talking about terrorism legislation, but there’s also the nicotine nannies and the campaign to make it illegal to sell foods with trans-fatty acids in them. The assaults on personal freedom seem to come on all sides.
—
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Eamon, you might be able somehow to draw that conclusion but I simply cannot from the comments. It seems clear to me that the statement “Englishness would seem to mostly involve having an obsessive hatred of the Scots” is simpy nonsense. From the comments it would not seem so. One could only conclude that it seems that some people in England have a problem with the Scots for some reason. Perhaps you are mixing up concerns about the asymetrical nature of devolution with something.
Mandrill, My feeling is that to some extent the style of language is tried and tested already and is easy enough to understand, plus there is a hint of gravitas/street cred to it – It sounds good. Not married to it though.
Re your: 10. The state shall have no claim upon the property of the individual or groups of individuals, except where said property is voluntarily given without coercion or threat of force on the part of the state.”
Right general direction – but surely this wording would make it impossible to raise any sort of tax. Whilst I am not a fan of taxation (the less the better) there is certain stuff that I presume the state would have to fund such as the armed forces for instance.
I personally wouldn’t want to rely on charity for the defence of the realm, or allow private individuals to raise professional armies.
Re your Assault/Murder worry:
As written it only applies to defence and then only against unlawful attack and the response has to be reasonable. That should make it pretty difficult to use it to murder innocent citizens. I would think a coroner’s court might probably look into any such deaths as a safeguard.
Here is another:
The citizen shall have a right to pursue health, wealth, happiness, associate and conduct their lives however they choose, provided it is within the constitution and is not to more than minimal detriment of others and does not harm the general good. The State shall have a duty to ensure this and shell enact no law, allow no law, and enforce no law, which shall abridge, abrogate, or diminish that right.
Re Freeman’s “explicit provision for the right of the government to raise taxes, with a defined constitutional limit on their maximum percentage of GDP”
Max percent of GDP has to be way lower that whatever the current lot are taking, I have a feeling it’s around 35%, but stand to be corrected. How about a 21% max? That should be lower than even the US.
I think a maximum limit on personal and corporate tax would be a good idea also.
While we are at it should here be any sales tax at all (VAT) and what about tax on goods such as alcohol, fuel, tobacco etc?
Guy Herbert argues that I am wrong in thinking that “Billy Brag” (if that is his real name) appeals to the youth market.
Actually I put “youth market” in quote marks and pointed out that the man is middle aged.
As for the rest of Guy’s comment, it irritated me (both the principles on which the comment is based and the way those principles are argued for).
However, this may be part of my “Guy derangement syndrome”, it is perfectly possible that what you said was correct Guy (although I do not believe it to be so), and I just become irritated because it is you saying it.
If you ever just tell me the time (or something similar) and I find myself becoming irritated, then I will know my G.D.S. is a serious problem.
Back to the posting:
I know we have been warned not to make jokes about New England, but I will make a nonjoke comment.
New England seems to suffer, in some ways, from the political culture problems that old England does.
Three New England States (Vermont, Maine and Rhode Island) are in the top four States in terms of combined State and local taxes as a percentage of the local economy (out of the region New York is number three). Connecticut is very high tax these days (in the top ten if my memory is not playing me false) and even Massachusetts (which radically reformed itself after the Proposition vote in 1980) is starting to get worse again – the crazy health plan is going to make it go down the drain.
Even New Hampshire (the lowest tax State after Alaska and long the bright spot in New England) is showing bad signs – not just a Democrat Governor (who replaced one of the better Republicans in the 2004 vote), but now a Democrat State legislature – for the first time in over a century.
“You can not judge things just on tax, or party labels, Paul”.
Quite true – but it is also a cultural thing.
For example, conservative newspapers are getting thin on the ground in New England. Even the Manchester Union Leader is not the type of newspaper it was a few years ago.
It is fashionable (in the United States and outside it) to snear at Fox News in general and Bill O’Reilly in particular, but he has a point about places like Massachusetts and Vermont.
For example, in Vermont some child rapists are spared jail time. And there have even been cases where the Judge of a case is an ex-defence lawyer for the accused. And yet the local media report nothing – because the local newspapers (and so on) are almost all “in the tank” with the “liberal” elite who have gained a stranglehold on most of New England.
Of course Mark Steyn would jump in at this point and point out that New England States tend to have “blue State” demographics (the local population do not breed enough to replace themselves) and that this is even true of New Hampshire – as libertarians (the people who keep New Hampshire taxes down) tend to breed (or rather not breed) like “liberals” do (i.e. one child or none being the general rule). Of course I am an example of libertarian childlessness.
If they can hold out over the next few years (whilst the “liberals” who control the media, academia and so much else are still alive) the future belongs to American conservatives – but there are not enough of them in New England.
I should point out that by “child rapists” I mean people who rape children – not children who commit rape.
Phil A.
Even under Mr Brown’s stats (which are rigged in various ways) government in Britain takes about 40% of G.D.P. in taxation (it spends much more than this).
You are correct that 21% would be lower than the United States.
Even State and local tax is over 11% of G.D.P. these days (the Tax Foundation is the source of my stats here). Add in the Federal taxes and you are well over 30%. The American government deficit (even counting off budget spending on Iraq and other such) is much smaller (as a percentage of G.D.P.) than the United Kingdom – but it still exists.
All major Western nations (including Ireland and Switzerland) have government spending over 25% of G.D.P. – the level that Colin Clark, the Anglo-Australian economist and friend of Lord Keynes, claimed (back in the 1930’s) was the maximum that could be sustained in the long term (he accepted that taxes lower than 25% of G.D.P. would be better, but claimed that an advanced economy could sustain taxation levels of a quarter of G.D.P. and still get by even in the long term).
Of course governments do not tend to think about the long term (i.e. generations) – as long as the society is not going to collapse before the next election they do not care, at least they do not spare much thought about the subject.
By the way Australia was below 25% government (both tax and spend) as recently as the 1960’s.
The United States was below the 25% mark (Federal, State and local) back in 1950. And was close to it much later than that. Also the United States varries interally more than any other Western nations does. Even Switzerland hits low tax Cantons hard to subsidize high tax Cantons.
For example, in Texas total government tax or spend (Federal, State and local and as percentage of the economy) was well below the 25% mark as recently as 1960.
Of course that was the last year that there was no sales tax in Texas (as well as no State income tax or business tax).
These days the lowest taxed States in the South (at least if one is just counting State and local tax as a percentage of the local economy – the Federal impact I can not remember off hand) are Alabama and Tennessee.
I would not be surprised to learn, that even with the Federal taxes, that (say) Alabama was not far over the 25% point.
As States (with a few exceptions, such as officially Vermont and unoffically California) have to balance their budgets the total State and and local tax level is much the same as the total State and local spending level (although Federal subsidies must be counted of course).
As for Britain the low point for taxes and spending (indeed general government – even counting the nationalized industries) since World War II was about 1963-1964.
And even then British government was on the big side. Since then things have been really bad.
The Thatcher revolt achieved some things (a bit of deregulation in some ways – although the 1986 Single European Act tossed that into reverse) and holding down of govenment spending as a percentage of G.D.P. (at least in the 1983-1989 period), and some selling off of government owned companies.
But the Thatcher revolt did not reduce overall govenment back to the level of 1963-1964 (let alone below it). And since Mrs Thatcher was betrayed by her own party things have got worse.
Things are still getting worse and will continue to get worse.
As for the event of 1990. Even after 17 years I still can not believe that men could backstab a lady (let alone betray the greatest Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since Winston Churchill), may the men who did it burn in Hell.
Mandrill- the estate of the dead criminal should be liquidated to help pay for the ammunition used to kill him.If necessary he should be buried in a pauper’s grave.
After all, this is not the Dark Ages.
Paul Marks- your comment about Maggie- hear hear!
There is too much country music in New England for it to really work for me. SLim Dusty works for some, I suppose.
Fascinating, inspiring ideas. At Brits at their Best we have a liberty timeline that shows the freedoms fought for by Alban, Anselm, Montfort, Askew, Lambert, Lilburne, Monck, Hogarth, Penn, Brougham, Curwen. . .
John Adams thought the Brits had a Constitution, and so do we. They just have to dust off the sheets (and load their guns). It is described in the liberty timeline and in the thematically organised the freedom network. The British Constitution includes the Charter of Liberties, Council of Westminster, Magna Carta, Provisions of Oxford and Westminster, common law, Habeas Corpus Act, Bill of Rights. . .yes, it’s too long, but I think what you want is there if only it were condensed and polished. More radically, of course, Brits could just take the US Constitution, most of which was written by men who were originally Brits and fought “for their freeborn rights as Englishmen”. (A manner of speaking. A host of Scots, Irish, and Welsh fought with them.)
Right, well, if the US Constitution is not adopted, we will have to figure out how a balance of power can be established. The monarch as executive has been so shorn of power there is no power to counter Parliament, which increasingly acts as a tyrant.
Let us know what you think. Thanks for your site and the dialogue.
I’m not sure how one has a state without taxation. If you’re going to have an army, streets, etc., the money has to come from somewhere.
We have a part of our state constitution called the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. TABOR requires a referendum before any new tax may be imposed, before any existing tax can have a rate increase, before any governmental entity can issue multi-year debt, and limits government growth in dollar terms to the previous year, plus inflation, plus population growth, and requires a referendum before government can increase one cent beyond the above limit.
We also have a balanced-budget requirement subject to the above statement about multi-year debt.
It makes the usual nanny-state people scream and whine about not having enough money. That alone makes it worthwhile, IMHO.
You can also have our state constitutional statement on weapons: “The People shall have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of their selves and the state, but nothing in this Constitution shall justify the carrying of a concealed weapon.” Chop it off at the comma, and it says everything it needs to say IMHO.
And, “It is the sense of the Constitution that New Labor are jackasses.” It needs to be said.
Wow, Sunfish, I thought you live in CA?
A constitution should do more than guarantee the right to pursue happiness, you should have the right to keep it, and use it, as well! That’s the flaw in the Declaration of Independence- there is no guarantee of being left alone to attain personal happiness.
Nicholas, Sadly nothing on this earth I know of can guarantee you will either attain, or keep happiness permanently, if you get it.
Certainly the State can’t, though politicians love voters who will believe them when they claim the can.
I suspect the best you can hope for is for the right to be allowed to try.
Of course the Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution of the United States.
As for TABOR – that sounds like the Colorado provision that was partly undermined some years ago. Although Sunfish might point out that it was just that the people decided to increase spending that year.
Sadly there are fewer people like Tom Tancredo (spelling alert) in Colorado (whatever one thinks about his stand on immigration his opinions on tax, spend and regulation are good) – in relation to the influx of new people from California who seem to be determined to recreate the very thing they feld from.
I suppose they fled from the consequences of Californian statism – but do not understand that the bad things were consequences of the statism (in tax, spending, and regulations).
This thread has gone a long way from England. I suppose that is because there are only a certain number of things that one can say about here – it does seem to be a dying (if not actually dead) country.
Presently we are in the middle of an local election campaign – I can not write about it because I promised I would not till it was over.
However, it does not break my word to say that I am not happy.
Sunfish: sorry, a misunderstanding on my part, no offense meant:-)
Phil A,
I see your point, my intention with clause 10 was to prevent the state stealing from the citizens but now see that some degree of theft is necessary. Though I do like Sunfish’s idea, here’s a revised clause 10:
Its a bit clunky, maybe someone could tidy it up a bit?
As to the self-defense clause, I would assume that all such injuries and/or deaths would be fully investigated.
Pietr,
What about the dead criminal’s family? Would you hold them responsible for the actions of the other? If we are each to be individually responsible for our actions then no blame should rest with the family of the deceased. Also getting the wronged party to pay for medical/funereal costs would possibly make them think twice about doing too much damage. Revenge, even spur of the moment revenge, is not justice. Ideally any criminal who attacks someone should ideally face criminal charges and prosecution for their crime. Death is not a punishment it is getting off scot-free. If the act of self defence kills the attacker then justice is not served.
And how about a clause that forbids seats in the House of Lords being sold to the highest bidder? How is the police investigation going?
As for pursuing happiness, we should have a guarantee that our government will let us choose our own happiness, and not interfere in personal life-style choices!
And how about a clause that forbids seats in the House of Lords being sold to the highest bidder? How is the police investigation going?
As for pursuing happiness, we should have a guarantee that our government will let us choose our own happiness, and not interfere in personal life-style choices!
I’ll let it slide. This time. 🙂
Mandrill:
Not much different from how it’s done now. Someone reports that he was attacked and defended himself. We investigate it. It could be sent to a grand jury, but that’s not common here anymore. Coroner’s inquests are even less common. The last few instances of self-defense we had, we investigated them and sent the report to the district attorney’s office, who decided that charges were not appropriate.
Had they filed, the defender can still introduce self-defense as an affirmative defense: basically, they provide any factual basis at all for the claim. The prosecution must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self-defense.
“Make My Day,” our version of the castle doctrine, is even better. If it applies, then its a defense to prosecution and civil liability entirely.
And they wonder why I still like it here. 🙂
If the attacker created the problem by attacking, then he reaps what he sowed, in my opinion. The defender does not deserve to pay for the attacker’s bills or burial, since he didn’t create the problem.
Assuming, of course, that the defender’s use of force was actually reasonable. Deadly force in response to foul language isn’t so easily justified, but if someone enters my home and assaults me, I owe him (or his estate) nothing.
And how about a clause that forbids seats in the House of Lords being sold to the highest bidder? (Nick G)
Just thinking laterally here – Provided it is sufficiently expensive, all in the open and the cash goes to the public coffers then does it really hurt? How about a biding system with reserved prices? That way we can cut down on the tax the rest of uas have to pay.
Think about it. On average, if a person has managed to amass sufficient wealth that they can afford to splash out a few million, then they, as a group, will have to be pretty sharp, think about the ramifications of decisions, have a track record of making good choices etc.
Is that really such a bad sort of person to have double checking the sort of dodgy reflex action legislation parliament has been churning out in such huge quantities over the last decade or so?.
Mandrill, Re tax see my suggestion of a max of 21% of GDP. Though It may be better to limit Personal taxation and company taxation also.
Sunfish, Generaly I agree the presumption should be on the behalf of the aggrieved householder or the robbery victim.
Mandrill, your Clause 10 pretty much demands that a Flat Tax system is rapidly introduced.
Another good reason to like it.
Tim C,
Is that the revised clause 10 or the original? If its the revised, then I give full credit to sunfish and as I said my revision needs tidying up to make it fit stylistically with the rest of the document.
Phil A,
There is a problem with selling seats in the second house (Calling it The House of Lords Seems archaic and out of sync with what it would be) in that you would have to guarantee that the funds used to buy the seat were obtained in an honest, legal and ethical way. People generally become rich in this world by being selfish, ruthless, and merciless in their business dealings. Having the skills required to make a huge amount of money does not necessarily mean you are fit to oversee government.
If we were to have a second house I would rather see its incumbents chosen on a lottery basis from the general population, to serve for a fixed period. Much like jury duty. It could even be possible to do away with the physical building allowing the majority of the second house’s business to be done from home through tele-conferencing or something similar.
Mandrill,
I used the term “House of Lords” following on a comment from Nick G who raised the issue. Just take it as an upper house.
I don’t suggest that bidding should be the only means of populating the house. I had in mind a competitive bidding system open once every now and then (maybe every leap year in February?), with a limited number of seats up for grabs and a substantial minimum reserve price set each time.
It would be nice to have a system that ensured lots of non politicos got in. People who have ‘the long view’. People with a history on service to the public good. People who take it seriously and see deeply. People willing to take the time to get it right. People who don’t necessarily lean towards a particular party.
I quite like the lottery idea as another contributor to the ‘house’ and no real upper limit to ‘seats’/teleconferencing thing.
I also think a lower age limit of, say 35, might be good and a rule that if a person does not participate to a certain extent they loose their seat. Also I am in two minds about actually making some or all of the seats be for an indefinite period.
I think the historical (and possible present, if restored) benefits of hereditary peerages are badly underestimated. I would even go so far as to say that nobody could serve in the HOL until they had retained the peerage for three or four generations of good conduct. It is clearly a privilege, and not a right.
You want a house that cannot be fired by the fads of the day. You want a house that thinks in generations, not news cycles.
Hereditary peers will be much more cautious because if they lose the peerage through vote selling or some such, they lose it for all time. For all generations of their decendants to come.
The isle of Great Britain has had the best government on average of any major nation on the planet for approximately a millennium.
Why have you been able to retain this long term view for, well, for so long? Because throughout that time, most if not all of your governance has been hereditary. While I can give you absolutely no moral vindication for this system, as a practical matter, your nation has unravelled right along with the unravelling of your hereditary lords. I believe that if you went around and dug up (figuratively!) 4+ generation peers, you would have a very good upper house. Perhaps you could let the Commons and the Crown sit together to judge impeachment (?) of lords with some kind of super majority to overrule the crown veto, and then let the HOL retain the rest of it’s historical function intact.
Midwesterner,
Some good thoughts there re the long view. I think you may be right thet as it was the HOL did provide that. Not sure about the possibility of putting humpty back together again though now he is broken though.
Why the minimum age limit? Anyone who pays tax should be eligible to sit in the HOL, which would mean a minimum age of 16. Personally I think its daft that 16 yr olds don’t have the vote already. “No taxation without representation” and all that. Either that or bring the age you pay tax from into line with the voting age.
Mandrill, I see your point and it’s a work in progress, but the reasoning behind the suggestion – Two things.
One. Trying for a little ‘headology’. If you have to wait for something you may value it more, so may get greater participation and it is a reasonably short wait.
Two. Maybe bring some maturity & restraint to politics. I figured 21 was where the desire the fire of youth started to meet up with the begining of practical common sense.
We could always put it that under 21s didn’t pay tax, but I wanted to avoid any suggestion of poll taxation.
So having taken into account many comments and with acknowledgements to Mandrill, Tim C, Mark E, Jim, Freeman, Nick G, RC Dean, Paul Marks Pietr, Cat, Sunfish, Nicholas Gray and the US constitution (sorry if I left anyone out) here is a distillation of the discussion to date.
Still a work in progress so feel free to offer any comments or suggestions, even to the order of importance of the clauses if anyone is still keeping an eye on this thread.
1. The powers not delegated to the State by the Constitution are reserved to the people. The State shall make no law amending this except by the will of the people expressed in a full referendum .
2. The state shall enter into no treaty, or agreement with any individual, group or state, that in any way abrogates or diminishes the sole sovereignty, or power, of the people of the United Kingdom, save with the full agreement of the people as expressed in a full referendum.
Any such agreement must be subject to a full referendum to reaffirm , or revoke any such treaty, or agreement. At any time on a Petition signed by over 25% of the eligible citizens, or in any case within 15 years of the agreement.
3. The State shall make no law concerning the establishment, elevation or imposition of any religion, or prohibiting the free peaceable exercise of religion. No person or persons shall have the right to impose any religion on any person by means of force or threat.
4. The State shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, including the written word, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
5. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No warrants shall be issued, except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and precisely specifying the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
6. All persons born, or naturalized, in the United Kingdom, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Kingdom.
The State shall make no law, or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State. Nor shall it deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
7. Neither slavery, nor any form of involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United Kingdom, or any place subject to it’s jurisdiction.
Parliament shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
8. The right of citizens who are over 21 to vote shall not be denied, or abridged by the Government or by any Local authority on account of race, creed, colour or sex. This right shall not be denied, or abridged, by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Parliament shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
9. Parliament shall make no law interfering with the right of any individual, groups, or companies, to freely associate, or make agreements and contracts together, excepting where said are contrary to, or bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom.
10 Parliament shall make no law in separation or isolation or special case . in other words, parliament shall be of the people, not of itself.
11.The state make no law which infringes on the rights of all citizens to bare arms in personal and collective defence of the constitution and against enemies both internal and external. Towards this end any honest citizen of voting age and sound mind has a right to take training, obtain a licence of competence to bare arms and subsequently to bare arms. Citizens shall have a right to form and join licensed militia.
The State shall have a duty and the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.
12. The citizen has an absolute right to protect their life family and property, also lives and property for which they may be responsible, against unlawful attack. The citizen may use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, if necessary, in order to exercise that right.
This right shall only be bound by the constitution of the United Kingdom. The State, or any other governing authority, shall enact no law, and enforce no law, which shall abridge, abrogate, or diminish that right.
13. The citizen shall have a right to pursue health, wealth, happiness, associate and conduct their lives however they choose, provided it is within the constitution and is not to more than minimal detriment of others and does not harm the general good. The State shall have a duty to ensure this and shell enact no law, allow no law, and enforce no law, which shall abridge, abrogate, or diminish that right.
14. The constitution recognises that from time to time for certain needs the State may need to raise Taxes. Taxation should be limited as much as possible and at no time, except temporarily, for no more than three calendar years, in a state of dire emergency, or war, should total taxation exceed 21% of Gross Domestic Product. Total individual and total Company taxation should not exceed 14% of income in any three year period and in the case of individuals be restricted to those over voting age. Any new tax, or increase in taxation, shall be subject to ratification by a full referendum.
In furtherance of clause 9 – The state shall make no tax nor impose any unreasonable hindrances on the sale and transport of goods and services.
The State shall not incur debt, or increase borrowing, beyond it’s ability to pay within it’s existing tax structure and income without a full referendum.