Dear Mr Slaney
Thank you for your email.
I set out in an article in the Yorkshire Post what I would
like to see as a result of the Scottish independence result which you can read
online if you are interested.
I have no problem with a referendum on constitutional reform
- we had one with the voting system recently you will recall - although it may
not be possible or desirable to put everything into one simple "accept it
all" or "reject it all" yes/no question for a referendum.
I do not agree with the regional government - and this was
rejected in a referendum in the North East when John Prescott tried to foist it
upon them and so we should accept the verdict of that referendum too. I also
don't agree with 16 and 17 year olds having the vote for which there is no
rationale - why not give it to 12 year olds, 10 year olds, 5 year olds even?
As you will know I want a referendum on leaving the EU but
the Lib Dems and Labour keep blocking it in Parliament.
Best wishes
Philip Davies MP
Dear Mr Davies,
I have read your article and agree that any constitutional
change has to be fair for England as well as the rest of the UK. What we cannot
do though is try and rush through that change through in the interests of one
political party or agenda – this has to be a large, open public debate with any
decisions made on changes to the constitution being made and decided on by the
people, not the politicians. The question of English votes on English issues,
is an emotive issue and whilst I agree in theory this would be ideal, it is not
quite as simple as English votes on English Issues, there is a danger that such
a move would effectively stop any MP from a constituency from outside of
England from ever holding the position of Prime Minister or Chancellor, or indeed
any other major cabinet decision – how could they hold that role if they were
barred from voting on their own proposals and legislation? This issue needs
addressing, but we cannot rush into making decisions on this and it cannot be a
condition on giving Scotland the extra powers that were promised – this should
not be turned into a party political issue.
I accept that it is not possible to put everything into a
single ‘take it or leave it’ referendum – that is not what I was suggesting,
the change that we need means many decisions must be debated, discussed and
voted on – we may need more than one referendum, for example one on regional
devolution, one on the future of the monarchy & one on how we give more
power back to the ordinary people of the UK, etc. If David Cameron is honest
that he wants “to change the way the British
people are governed, and change it for the better” then he needs
to let the people decide how this is done.
You may not agree with regional government, another thing we
can agree to disagree On – personally I would love to see or regions being
given more power to decide upon, for example, their own economic policies and
strategies rather than one central economic policy which is largely centred
around protecting and strengthening Londons financial sector. You may not agree
with this, but this is not your decision, it is not just my decision, it needs
to be made by the people. The proposals made by John Prescott in 2004 were so
watered down and were only ever offered to the North East – the rest of the
country and the other regions, including Yorkshire, have never been given a
chance to have their say. We must give them that chance.
I am aware that you support a referendum on the EU, I would
be happy to see this happen even though I believe we are better off in Europe
than out of it, I would like to see a mechanism whereby if enough people feel
strongly enough about an issue a legally binding referendum on that issue that
cannot be blocked by any political party. Our membership of the EU has to be
part of the wide-ranging debate that is needed – lets have the discussion.
You state that you “don't agree with 16 and 17 year olds
having the vote for which there is no rationale - why not give it to 12 year
olds, 10 year olds, 5 year olds even?” , I will try and ignore the second part
of this statement as I will assume that you are not serious about this. There
is an argument for giving votes to 16/17 year olds, as previously stated in my
original e-mail, to tell Scottish 16 year olds ‘We
trust you to make a massive decision on the future of this country’ but then
come general election time ‘but we don’t trust you to pick who you want to
represent you in Parliament’ would be hypocritical, if we are allowing 16/17
year olds in one part of the Union to have their say, it would be unfair to
those of the same age anywhere else in the Union to be denied a voice.
This debate and any decisions will not happen overnight, it
will have to be a long process, but it will be worth it n the end. We do have
an opportunity to overhaul and change our political and democratic system for
the better. One that takes some powers away from Westminster and London and
gives them to local areas where they can be better used, a system that puts the
needs and wishes of the people before those of business, one that is centred
around true equality and social justice. I ask you to do what you can to ensure
that this discussion is held and that the people of this country are given
their chance to decide how they want our democracy and politics to work.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
David Slaney
Dear Mr Slaney
Thank you for your further email which I read with interest.
I have nothing to add to my previous email to you but am
grateful to you for letting me know your thoughts.
Best wishes
Philip Davies MP
Dear Mr Davies,
Just so I am clear here, can I
ask therefore that you are not in favour of, nor will you be doing anything to
support having a full open public discussion on the future of politics and
democracy in the UK where the decisions on that future are made by the people,
not the politicians?
Yours sincerely,
David Slaney
Dear Mr Slaney
I have not said that at all.
I have long campaigned for (and voted in Parliament for) a referendum on whether or not we remain in the EU.
I am also happy for any constitutional changes (such as English votes for English laws) to be put to a referendum.
My only reservation would be where any constitutional proposals could not easily fit into a simple yes/no referendum.
Best wishes
Philip Davies MP
Dear Mr Davies,
If we avoided all discussions
that don’t easily fit into a simple yes/no referendum, we’d never have any
political debate or change. I have suggested below though a few suggestion that
could be answered yes or no to get the discussion started.
1) Do we want a full democratic, accountable elected second
chamber to replace the House of Lords?
2) Do we want more regional devolution?
3) Should we remain part of the EU?
4) Do we want a fairer electoral voting system?
5) Do we want to sign up to TTIP?
6) Should any Government have to seek permission from the
electorate before selling off or privatising state-owned assets?
Obviously the answers to these
will prompt further debate before any conclusions are reached.
I am asking you as my MP and
representative to ask David Cameron, William Hague and anybody else appropriate
to : a) Not seek to rush through and proposals or changes just to appease back
bench MP’s or to protect the interests of any one political party & b) Make
sure all discussions about constitutional change are held in an open and public
manner and no changes or legislation will be brought forth without proper
public consultation and without the people of the UK having their say and
agreeing to the proposals through a referendum.
Thank you once again for your
time.
Yours sincerely,
David Slaney.
Dear David
Thank you for your email.
With regards to your 6 headings below:
1) I have no problem with this being out to a referendum in
principle. However, given that I receive no complaints about the House of Lords
from constituents and have received no other requests in 9 years for a
referendum on this issue then there is no evidence that there is any public
demand for such a referendum.
2) This was put to a referendum in the North-East by the
last Labour Government as they felt that it would be the most supportive of a
regional assembly. This was rejected in that referendum by the electorate by
c70% to c30%. Given your support for a referendum, perhaps you would therefore
be good enough to accept the result of the referendum!
3) I have already made clear I support this. Unfortunately
it is being blocked by the Labour Party and the Lib Dems who are desperate to
avoid a referendum on this issue
4) This Government has had a referendum on the voting system
and people voted to keep the existing voting system. You really must
accept the verdict of the referendum when it is held.
5) This is not a constitutional issue and, in fact, even if
everyone in the UK voted against it, it would make no difference as all trade
deals are done and agreed by the EU not by the UK Government.
6) Again, this is a policy issue decided by a
democratically elected Government and is not a constitutional issue. If your
Party loses the election you cannot try to overturn that election by putting
anything you don't like to a referendum. We have a Parliamentary democracy in
this country.
The article I wrote in the Yorkshire Post on Saturday -
which you can read online - clearly sets out my views on the constitutional
issues which flow from the Scottish referendum.
Best wishes
Philip Davies MP
Dear Mr Davies,
I have to admit to being slightly disappointed by your
reply, mainly because you haven’t answered the last question I asked, so I will
ask it again, will you as my MP and representative ask David Cameron, William
Hague and anybody else appropriate to : a) Not seek to rush through any
proposals or changes just to appease back bench MP’s or to protect the
interests of any one political party & b) Make sure all discussions about
constitutional change are held in an open and public manner and no changes or
legislation will be brought forth without proper public consultation and
without the people of the UK having their say and agreeing to the proposals
through a referendum.
I have read your comments on the topics I suggested we could
have a simple “yes/no” referendum and would like to respond.
1)
House of Lords Reform – you may not have
received and complaints on this matter or requests during the last 9 years, but
that doesn’t mean the second chamber isn’t in need of reform. In my view having
an unelected second chamber is not democratic. We still have 92 Heredity Peers
in the House of Lords, to be given the position to decide upon, change or block
legislation because you happened to be born into the right family cannot be
perceived as correct in the 21st century surely?
2)
Yes, a form of regional devolution was put to
the North East which they rejected. The question of devolved regional powers
however was never put to Yorkshire & the Humber, Cumbria and the North
West, Devon & Cornwall or any other region – why shouldn’t we get the
opportunity to have the debate and a say? Are you really suggesting that
because the North East declined a watered-down version of devolution, those of
us in other regions shouldn’t have a say in our own future?
3)
EU Referendum – I would be in favour of this and
if after the next general election I have a Labour, Lib Dem, Green or any other
MP I will be telling them the same. As I have stated before I generally believe
we are stronger being part of the EU but I may be tempted to vote against our
membership it would stop us from being involved with TTIP.
4)
Alternative Voting Systems – We had a referendum
on one type of alternative voting system. This referendum, in 2011, was
heavily and deliberately manipulated by the Tory leadership in order to get the
result they wanted. The question we should have been asking, before even
looking at alternatives, should have been, not do we want this
alternative system, but do you think we should have a fairer voting system in
the UK? We rejected one alternative voting system, not all of them.
5)
TTIP is a massive issue that will affect every
single British citizen. Although the negotiations are happening in secret (if
you’ve nothing to hide...) we have been told by officials from both the EU and
the US that the main goal of TTIP is to remove regulatory barriers which
restrict the potential profits to be made by transnational corporations. These
so-called ‘regulatory’ barriers though are some of the things that protect us,
such as food standards, workers rights, environmental regulations etc. TTIP is
more or less saying corporate profits are more important than protecting our
people, protecting the environment or providing safe, well paid working
conditions. TTIP is a constitutional issue because of the Investor State
Dispute Treaty which it contains, which is a direct attack on democracy. Giving
corporations the right to sue Governments that make decisions in the best interests
of its citizens but could directly affect their profits, e.g. raising the
minimum wage, enforcing plain cigarette packaging, stopping or cutting back on
private involvement in the NHS. Under TTIP corporations would have more power
over government policy than the electorate – that is a constitutional issue.
6)
Continuing privatisation of public
services/selling off publicly owned assets. I can accept your argument to a
certain extent. If something was within a party’s manifesto, for example if it
stated in a party’s manifesto that if elected they would sell off the North Sea
oil fields, and that party gets elected then there is an argument they have a
mandate to then do this. If there has been no mention of selling publicly owned
assets or privatising public services in the manifesto that got a party
elected, then they should have to seek permission from those who do own the
asset – all of us! There was no mention in the Conservative manifesto that they
would privatise and sell off Royal Mail for example, a deal that was bad for
the taxpayer (despite the fact that is was undervalued, any potential purchaser
should have had to take on the pension pot as well – it is not fair to
privatise the profit, but make the public responsible for the liabilities).
What I’m saying is , yes we have a Parliamentary democracy as we stand, but
there is a general feeling that that same Parliamentary democracy is no longer
acting in the best interests of the many. We have an opportunity to start
giving some of that power back to the people. There’s a saying which I’m sure
you’ve heard before ‘Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely’
perhaps one the best ways to avoid corruption is to spread the power around
more evenly instead of leaving it in the hands of the few.
We have an opportunity to discuss and create a new 21s
century democracy that involves everyone, rather than the majority feeling
disenfranchised, or we can continue with a worn-out, tired, old system which
benefits the few at the top of the ladder. Change can be a positive thing –
give us a chance to have that change.
Yours sincerely,
David Slaney
No comments:
Post a Comment