Resident Involvement In Social Housing In The Uk And Europe: Fill & Download for Free

UK constitution works — Flint still doesn’t have clean water :)US Supreme Court itself said:“England has no written constitution, it is true; but it has an unwritten one, resting in the acknowledged, and frequently declared, privileges of Parliament and the people, to violate which in any material respect would produce a revolution in an hour."—Justice Bradley, Slaughter House Cases, 1873 [1].Indeed ‘no taxation without representation’ in The Colonies. It manifests that English constitution (rather than the American).UK Riots (1990) denotes that: people should rebel (and election is holiday); Americans rarely riot about taxes, millions cannot vote.[2]That English constitution keeps government on toes; US Constitution hinders revolts, promotes power-grabs, and prevents resolutions.Flint takeovers ignore the Sovereign (People); meanwhile British PM is complaining to his local council, on behalf of his constituencies! [3][4]Without immediate electoral threats Government ignores the public.[5](2016, Source)INTRODUCTION: GOVERNANCE — ACTUAL TO ABSTRACT(1) The concept of the ‘unwritten constitution’ is the core of the issue, it is fundamental and will be repeated here tiresomely.(2) ‘UK versus Flint’ framing is intentionally provocative. It is symbolic, yet it holds: these are real life results endemic to the nature of each constitution.A constitution is nothing but a list of our basic principles: what constitutes our society. If some principles allow toxic water then some principles do not work well. A good constitution allows amendment of failures.Far from being a single incident or a local issue Flint is emblematic, it is an epitome of decades of receivership, neglect and corruption (Alabama Water same). The UK had known hardship and corruption, but not to such systematic extensive violations of basic human needs. We forget these are not ‘rights’ nor ‘freedoms’ — these are basic necessities to sustain life.Constitutional law defines first and foremost the roles, powers, and structure of state entities[6]. It also defines values, however those are divergent (the concept of freedom changed). Over millennia humanity have developed and maintained many consistent core beliefs — British and Americans share most. But, by nature values across different centuries and cultures are malleable. Therefore it is extremely hard to judge by. But how do we structure values? By our basic political structure. This is our ‘social decision-making system’, and it enabled different phenomena over centuries.Constitutions are means to an end. And this review is an abstraction of that process. Rather than referring directly and dissecting its explicit content (say freedom) — it refers to the conventions that construct values. Simply put: how the system works.These two cornerstones, governance structure and basic life, are irrefutable and will form the scope of this article.(1) GOOD REVOLUTIONS (and bad legislatures)This constitutional investigation will start with the process of impeachment. And canceled instantly: no such a thing in the UK.Each and every PM in the parliamentary system is forced to resign, by their own party members. For example, both Margret Thatcher and John Major enjoyed a nasty leadership contest[7][8] [July 2018 update][9].UK Prime Ministers face an election threat on a daily basis. The PM’s own cabinet revolts against them, while they are all still the acting Government (and maintain legislative functions). It is common for cabinets to constantly plot against the PM. This is the norm for Westminster systems, and Australia follows closely with its ‘spills’[10]. [updated Aug 2018]These mechanics are intertwined to legislation itself — it works the same. British ‘welfare boom’ of 1906–1911[11] was revolutionary by itself. The Lords vetoed that which was revolutionary as well. And the Government called two General Elections in one year, later to change the constitution (again quite a revolution).Produce a revolution within an hour, indeed! The UK system encourages political revolt and change - which the US Constitution discourages.To be fair the US has a different political structure (Federation) with another layer of government (States) and super-majority requirements (Senate). Legislative changes are not meant to be quick. The Electoral College and The Senate were meant to empower smaller states, to prevent the tyranny of the majority, and are effective in doing so. However, Congresses and Presidents failed while many other federal states succeeded (Australia, Canada, Germany). Even the European Constitution, residing over a much looser co-federation, protect against basic rights, why did the US Constitution fail?US constitutional amendments require obtaining a special ¾ super-majority, which is common; but to do so with more than 100 legislative assemblies (50 States’ bicameral legislatures plus Congress). This amounts to a staggering 7,383 State legislators[12]. Now that’s a proper bureaucracy.This clearly denotes a co-federation: a loosely grouped nations with very strong veto powers each (see regional integration spectrum). The US had decided to move to an integrated federation but failed to practically to do so.States determine their own basic laws (basic like marriage; until recently). For most Americans crossing a State border is nothing special, but in many judicial aspects it’s like crossing to a different country. Rather than small changes the laws of the land may be completely contradictory. Shooting guns, or shooting pornography, may be illegal (or perfectly lawful).States also tend to refuse federal laws. For decades Southern States did not enforce civil law[13], Sanctuary Cities do the same today[14]. Apart from suffrage not many amendments since the 14th dealt with federal integrity or personal rights[15]. In a sense the US’ legislative framework had frozen in time.Child Labour[16] and Women Rights[17] failed as amendments to the US Constitution. The Civil Rights movement required 100 years of litigation[18] and another 15 years of protest in the streets just to start desegregation. That’s not a constitution that works better.Congress may (and should) legislate Federal laws instead of Constitutional Amendments. Indeed Congress protected women’s rights. But at best the Federal legislation is slow, incomprehensive, lack enforcement, easily impeded, and its incorporation constantly contested (Federal laws to States). At worst it is not written in stone and could be changed any day. State level legislation is lacking as well and many issues require nation-wide cooperation.While Representatives are constantly under election threat (House elections every two years) that’s a misleading impression: the system as a whole lacks instantaneous political threats.The President cannot demote Members of Congress, while himself being immune; Members of Congress, although sworn to serve the United States, are positioned by the Constitution to mostly service their districts. Lacking imminent threats they are less inclined for comprehensive legislation, nor to enforce it afterwards. No wonder Federal Shutdowns have become the norm. The Constitution offers no solutions, and it was meant that way.These problems are neither theoretical nor contemporary. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 against discrimination was not enforced, and later deemed unconstitutional by our very own Judge Bradley[19]. The 14th Amendment forbids State discrimination but not discrimination by individuals. Indeed the 1964 Act prohibit such ‘private’ discrimination[20]. Not only did it came almost 100 years late it is based on Congress’ right to “regulate commerce”[21] .What a pure legal chaos. To this date full equality is yet to be incorporated constitutionally.This is clearly endemic and an epidemic. It is endemic in that regular issues that are inherent characteristics; it is an epidemic as it spreads and seriously affects the mass population. It also indicates Congressional disillusionment of the constitutional route: using the British norm of ‘simple’ parliament legislation, with the many disadvantages discussed.——— POWER GRABS — Update, December 6th 2018 ———As Republicans in Michigan and Wisconsin stripped Governors powers[22], Rick Taylor, a Republican strategist spoke with Stephanie Ruhle (MSNBC) on this issue, on Tuesday, December 4th, 2018:Ruhle: “THIS IS WHY PEOPLE HATE GOVERNMENT”Taylor: “POWER-GRABS ARE ENDEMIC, they're part of the system. I don't want to sound cynical, this is what they do --”Ruhle: "So we should accept them?"Taylor: "I don't know.. I'm not sure.. Because.. No, we shouldn't accept them. The voters shouldn't accept them"Ruhle: "VOTERS DON’T HAVE A CHOICE. The voters went and voted last month and now this is happening, WITHOUT THEM KNOWING”Democrats did the same, e.g. Houston 1988[23] , so this is an epidemic. Instead of policy the representatives are busy with power-grabs; instead of justice for the people — the judicial is busy with lengthy legal battles.It also COSTS TAXPAYER MONEY — “The power struggle between Democratic Gov. Cooper and the Republican legislature over political appointments has cost taxpayers more than $1.5 million in legal fees from private lawyers.”[24]——— End of update ———In sharp contrast the European Constitution directly calls EU states to actively combat any discrimination (Amsterdam 13, Rome 19[25], ECHR 14, EUCFR/CFREU 21, FRA[26]). The UK adheres to these laws and British lawmakers were involved in its drafting. It is of such importance and consensus the British Parliament is obliged to legislate in accordance with it. Section 3(2) of The Human Rights Act 1998[27] is probably the only UK law allowing the judiciary to override Parliament.(Notes: (1) UK lacks ‘equal branches’ — Sovereignty of Parliament is absolute. (2) UK outside the EU will incorporate these into its legislation.)The machinery of the legislative in both countries was laid bare here and clear patterns emerge. While the UK entertain itself with political revolutions leading to change, the US legislature fails to deliver crucial persistent ones. The US framework lack real political threats for its representatives, uniform consistent rule of law, federal integrity, and basic contemporary rights.These two constitutions offer legislative frameworks with profoundly different processes — leading to quite distinct outcomes.(2) NATURAL CHAOSThe Founding Fathers were wary about primitive ‘checks and balances’ of their time (rightly so) and wanted more: a proper democracy. Not only did they saw far above Monarchy they wished for an authentic political discourse. Government itself, a stronghold of the few at the time, was viewed as a threat to be curtailed. They created many strong individuals, institutions, and states — with the price of an overall impotent governance.Many compare constitutional formats (technical), or popular content (values), but miss the political system a constitution encourages (framework). It’s not about codification but rather about dynamic parliamentary system versus a rigid presidential one; the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy versus judicial review; the weakened individual actors versus brutal empowerment; and the norms and aims of each system.Members of Parliament are under direct pressure from the Prime Minister (and vice versa), as well as direct pressure from his or her constituency. In contrast, the Constitution has no consequences. When a UK Parliament or Government fails they all go down. If Congress or President fails nothing happens.The UK laws encourage constant ‘revolt and change’ which turns the political arena to a real free market of ideas. Every MP and PM has multiple imminent political threats, forcing them to take action beforehand; ‘if we are all to perish (politically) we’d better do something now’. There is an urgency to make things work rather than just win a partisan gain (though it is politics after all). In contrast the Constitution actually encourages procrastination. The market of ideas is perpetually forced upon the elected. It’s rigid rules are infused with more legislatures, encouraging conflicts and vetos, infighting and lawsuits, twists and turns. It was meant to achieve a stalemate. It’s genuine admirable plans of sophisticated discourse and negotiated solutions were quickly forgotten in favour of partisan wins.While The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives can refuse a vote[28] solely on their own — such veto powers would be outrageous in the UK. The Speaker of the House of Commons is actually required to sever ties with their party and act impartially. Unlike Representatives and Senators, UK Members of Parliament can be instantly demoted from their position at all times. Despite the whip MPs vote against their party and leadership, and backbenchers have power[29]. MPs are obliged by their constituency surgery on a weekly basis — which put US Representatives’ once-in-a-year town hall meetings to the shame.Many British resent their electoral system, and it may appear undemocratic.[30] It lacks proportional representation and distorts the electorate. For example the Conservatives got only 36% of the popular vote — yet 51% of seats in parliament. UKIP received 12.6% of the votes but only 0.2% of the seats. More than half of MPs were elected without winning the majority of their constituency votes (just a plurality). Not to mention the closed party-list selection, in contrast to American open primaries.(Source)But, looks can be deceiving. Members of parliament, including government ministers, have a direct link to their constituency. For the UK a ‘constituency’ is not a technical term but a concept rooted in the sense of community.[31] The ‘hashing of votes’ (aforementioned distortions of British FPTP and party-selection) promote tactical voting and local alliances, while positioning politicians on a shaky ground. This is by no means exculpatory of British politics, but it does establish their urgency to make things work.Only in the UK would a PM write to his own party-run local council, complain about local cuts that his own government initiated, and receive a detailed answer. [32]Somewhat absurd but this phenomena is quite extraordinary: elected officials are forced to be involved in the nitty-gritty daily business. The examples are many: overburdened with constituency work, facing a bewildering array of events and cases, dangerous job while satisfying demands of every person, constituency surgeries vital part of democracy; MPs are attuned.While not a law, this tradition dates centuries back and forms a crucial part of constitutional conventions (unwritten customs).[33] Conventions are not foreign to the US Senate as well: seniority, blue slip, quorum call, etc.Conventions are an inseparable part of any constitution. The concept of ‘unwritten constitution’ is rooted in constitutional norms. Indeed, ‘the link between MPs and their constituents is one of the most highly prized aspects of British democracy’.[34]——— Update, July 9th 2018 ———British Prime Ministers answer to Parliament every week, televised live. Question Time is theatrical yet works. Gordon Brown was easily embarrassed. A proper fight: challenging and confronting the PM directly. This amounts to a weekly presidential debate, can one imagine the President answerable to Congress in a live debate on a weekly basis?Nothing happens if a US secretary resigns, but when the British PM presented her EU policy it took just one day for ministers to resign and threaten the Government. Indeed a ‘revolution in an hour’.This may not change history, the event itself is not the issue but the constitutional principle: public outcry swoop Government instantly, no equivalent in the US.(Presidents are rarely confronted by cabinet nor ousted by Congress. The Constitution creates a limbo: no real balances but endless checks; procrastination.)(Boris Johnson resigns as Foreign Secretary, BBC News, 9/7/2018)——— End of update ———That pattern is well-felt: the insignificance of an individual turns Parliament from a bunch of powerful people (like Congress) to a powerful institution that stands on its own. In the long run Parliament is composed of its body of work not by the people who work there. This impermanence is manifested daily.A funny example happened when the Defense Secretary was asked “Why should the public believe you, a transient here-today gone-tomorrow politician?”[35] :That orderly chaos of Westminster system is its beauty.European countries mastered this well, and Belgium excelled this chaos: 9 parliaments[36], 6 constitutional reforms[37], 589 days without a governmentThis mode of action is possible even for a federal multi-cultural state with a codified constitution, like Belgium. Indeed a single regional parliament in Belgium halted a trade deal for the entire EU. [39] Unlike a US State vetoing an Amendment resulting in stalemate, the ‘natural chaos’ in EU and Belgium forced them to fix the issue.(3) “RESOLVE AND CHANGE” (Threats and Reforms)Radical changes are a coin with two sides, or more accurately two world wars (and many bloody civil wars). But the constant abrasive forces, tragic, also taught Europe it must make it work.North Korea, though a threat for Americans, is faraway. For the British the threats are close both in time and space: Franco, The Wall, The Troubles, Kosovo, to name few. Crimea, Calais, Brussels still are, and so is Derry (Irish border). The UK is constantly reminded it must shift its focus. Its governance cannot deal with political warfare and must focus on public welfare.The country and its leadership are forced to constantly stop and review issues, devise themselves wisely, and act. This is not about a commercial innovation of the country as a whole, but rather a societal-political dynamics and shifts. UK policies are not infallible (on the contrary as follows), but over time it works. It must work. This sort of maneuverability is a national political flexibility.(Note: UK ‘devise wisely’ when compared to how Congress works)The U-turn is a well known British institution. Unlike President Trump’s volatility the British U-turns are a consistent behaviour: ‘public rejects, Government reverses’ (embarrassing government u-turns). Unlike American legislatures the UK counterparts cannot afford to do otherwise. They can never rest assured. This political reality is part of the constitution and vice versa.For example UK welfare reforms at the turn of the century were prompted by Liberals’ need to remain in power. The Labour Party emerged with popular socialism and gained seats in the Parliament. There were fears of trade unions gaining political power. Germany enjoyed success and implemented a social legislation that threatened the UK. And soldiers fighting the Boer War were in such poor conditions the army couldn’t enlist recruits.It’s interesting to compare US’ changes in welfare policy during the 1930s with UK’s welfare reforms of 1900s, not by the policy itself, or its effectiveness; it is the modus operandi that is of interest here.The US was forced to change its course due to a humanitarian crisis, while the UK saw a political party urged to reform. Imminent political threats and sour war experience pushed the reforms. The Liberals went all the way: King George V even planned to install 500 new Lords to neutralize their power. At the time The Lords acted as a supreme court of appeals and as a senate (at a limited scope; nothing like the American ones) — so this really echoes Roosevelt’s 1937 attempt for a Supreme Court power grab[40].While President Roosevelt was halted, UK’s constitutional crisis caused the country to reform its constitution: after 2 elections a tentative coalition passed the Parliament Act 1911[41] . The US Constitution not only lacks flexibility but also lacks the ability to resolve issues and change; it brushes them aside.The aforementioned Belgian constitutional reforms and federalization really manifest that ‘natural chaos’ and ‘resolve and change’. Learning about that process is highly recommended. [42](Passing of the Parliament Bill, 1911, source)"The partisan warfare that raged around these topics was so fierce that by 1913, this country was brought to the verge of civil war."— Lloyd George, UK Chancellor and Prime MinisterJustice Bradley said it first, ‘produce a revolution within an hour’.——— RESOLVE, CHANGE? — Update, December 6th 2018 ———1973 — Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox1994 — Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr2017 — Special Counsel Robert MuellerEvery counselor more controversial than the other; every time a new constitutional crisis arises..This is not about power abuse but incompetence: US has yet to find accepted constitutional tools to resolve basic issues. It hadn’t figured out simple tasks (like the proper way to investigate the executive branch).——— End of update ———(4) USA: NO REVOLUTIONS, PLEASEThe American Revolution left little room for contemporary revolutions. It resolves the few revolts it allows with gridlocks (note revolts today are social, less of a violent power-grab). This was its ingenious (at the time) plan . The Constitution was aimed first and foremost to sustain the independence (1776) and the integrity (1861) of a federation, especially against its own dark innerworkings.We The People? The United Colonies of America were above all. Not the government but the existence of The States. Freedom is a fundamental hallow value, but the Constitution was meant first and foremost to “keep it all together”. It was written to heavily mitigate public uproars via sophisticated and elaborate political discourse, and many built-in brakes and stops. Its clockwork of ‘smart bureaucracy’ (complicated political procedures) is its real magic and beauty.That’s a noble design and a noble cause. It is also written beautifully (especially compared to English Law). The Constitution is ingenious and visionary, and it mostly works wonders. But intentionally adding spokes in the wheel worsened unresolved problems and created half-baked solutions.This subject must be approach carefully, as contemporary public resentment is high. In determining effectiveness civil unrest, past and present, must be set aside. Neither a single protest nor a single decade can be indicative.For decades huge portions of American society found itself left behind, lacking basic infrastructure (health, education, transportation). Far from being a minorities or a cultural issue it affects all. The UK had known hardships but living without drinking water for years is unheard of. The average Brit would revolt in a minute (write a strongly-worded letter). What can Flint do?[43]Not much, their constitution does not allow them to revolt.This encapsulates the ironic problems of the Constitution. The encouragement to fight government was violent and futile, thus countered by proper process and rule of law. And vice versa: fighting the public was countered by due process. This friction is extremely common around the world, but in the US these principles were hurtled upon the public. The Constitution (and Federal laws) did not accommodate comprehensive solutions. Unlike most constitutional resolutions around the world the Constitution did not create dialectic solutions, a synthesis. It empowered a strong government — and then empowered a strong public. It intentionally pitted one against the other, later using crude remedies, finally making all participants too slow to act.So this situation is not unique to Flint. We must remember this is not a rant about delayed trains — proper drinking water is crucial and toxic water kills. Rather than a mishap or a localized issue, and as detailed above, it is clear that this governance system actively pushes cities and states to spiral into financial and public health emergencies.(American water pipes, Flint, Michigan)The Flint Crisis is much more than toxic water, it presents a nation-wide dysfunctioning governance (enabled by the Constitution).Unelected Emergency Managers, who may not work for the best interests of the people, cannot be removed. Appointed by a Governor that cannot be removed. Overseen by Congress and President that cannot act.Flint City Council voted to reconnect with Detroit water but Emergency manager overruled the vote. Michigan Governor Snyder knew about the imminent crisis a year beforehand but failed to act, against the backlash of ACLU and EPA alarming warnings. Although rejected a referendum the Governor signed a controversial emergency manager law. President Obama refused a mere 55$ million emergency aid, and Congress also failed to act. For more details review ‘Flint Water Crisis Fast Facts’[44]and A Step-By-Step At The Makings Of A Crisis[45] .Is that shambles unique to the State of Michigan?No, power-grabs and lack or responsibility are common. The Constitution not only lack protection against those but encourages it. Though US’ governments and people relentlessly employ advanced tools like referenda, recalls, lawsuits and impeachments, this rich toolbox fails to provide accountability. Governors simply go rogue (one Chris Chrsitie comes to mind).Now, compare government response to Flint’s crisis with British PM complaining to his local council.The unwritten English constitution, avoiding an artificial tinkering of political powers and elevating individuals, put its elected officials at constant peril. Its toolbox: the rogue rebellious Public itself. Raw. Unhinged at times. Well before nasty water hits the taps, even low-pressure flow would send the British storming the streets. No wonder a complaint letter would suffice. (Note: written humorously nonetheless true.)The American Constitution, which allows many to speak, to dream, to succeed — inherently created a political structure that perpetuate and exacerbate problems, where fundamental things don’t work for many people.(5) POWER, CORRUPTION, REVOLTTyranny is not limited to freedom, privacy, democracy, speech, individualism, etc — it is also freedom from aggressive unjust prosecution.IRS and FBI hold enormous powers. They can literally own you. I’m not protesting their powers just stating the obvious: these bodies are very powerful (compared to UK’s HMRC or the Met).Accordingly many Americans think the Federal Government is ‘too strong’. However neglect, corruption and abuse exists on the state and city level. Many focus on the States-Federal tension but forget they both fail.Police brutality is not just a Federal thing. And a British constable would not act aggressively. There were many riots in the UK and police used force. But when it wrongly does so — the British fight persistently. American still find it hard to hold police accountable.Just 20-something years ago the British rioted against poll tax[46]. People swept the streets over taxes and few months later Thatcher was forced out; ‘produce a revolution within an hour’.Tyranny and prosecution: UK did not have McCarthy Hearings[47]. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg’s trial was marred by clear judicial and legal improprieties and they should not have been executed (this view is in consensus). The US wrongly executed its citizens.A century ago, as boom and bust come and go, freedom meant you could succeed or die (especially when resources were sparse). Applying this concept today is cruel and oppressive. Again: basic human rights.(Poll tax riots 1990, scenes from the event, source: wikimedia)UK tax riots are modern day Boston Tea Party. What can Americans do against wrongdoings? Wait for years. Lawsuits and Senate elections take time. Political capitulations are unconstitutional in the US as you cannot depose anyone. And there won’t be any ‘IRS Revolt’.The Constitution encourages people and institutions to 'go rogue' then gives them immunity. This is used mostly by the powerful. The UK had its scandals: Cash for Honours, expenses scandal[48], Lords were put to jail[49], Thatcher and Blair subjugation, etc. But things like Chicago’s jailed mayors[50], Watergate, Lewinsky, just wouldn't happen in the UK.It’s not a cultural issue, Americans are not corrupt by nature. At the end UK's constitution does not allow mega-corruption to these levels. At times British people viewed their leadership as abhorrent, but a Prime Minister’s actions amount to horrible decisions — not an extended abuse of power or ill-intentions.The Constitution intentionally gave ‘too much’ power to everyone. Freedom of Speech is almost ultimate, including Nazis[51] . And so are the powers of Senators, rarely impeached. This is an active artificial push to ultimate freedom, a forcible empowerment, that may prevent actual tyranny but does not protect against grave injustices. While most constitutions protect (deal with modern rights), the US Constitution allows malice.Over the last century the UK’s constitution, if compared to the 'brute force' of American lawmaking and policy-making, nudged its participants to be thoughtful. Even British Prime Ministers viewed by some as ‘evil’ had to accommodate demands and show attention and careful consideration. Failing to do so brought public’s revolt that could not be ignored.At the end all prime ministers fail, it is inherent to the system: confidence is routinely checked until failure — and removal. Indeed all British Prime Ministers were ousted. This is revolutionary by nature. Be it Blair or Thatcher, many thought they weren’t deposed fast enough. Swings and roundabouts, resigning or early elections were there all along: Tony Blair to Resign in a Year , Gordon Brown and the 2007 election, David Cameron resignation, to list a few.A prime minister is destined to fail and resign — and that’s a good thing.(Tearful Thatcher announcing retirement from Commons in 1991, source)(6) AMERICAN GREATNESSMany principles of the Constitution are not discussed here. They critically pushed freedom and entrepreneurship and spun many cultural and economical forces. This American success boosted its citizens’ welfare. US economical, scientific, and social revolutions are incomprehensible and its success stories are innumerous. But this is not about success, it’s about failure: which constitution hurts people.Some of the great US political standoffs, when its institutions and its citizens fought for their rights, were not discussed. The Senate and The Supreme Court are the most honorable and distinguished clubs in the world. Their body of work is superior. So is the US Government, composed of millions of hard-working men and women, doing an impeccable job.While this review may appear to bash the US Constitution, it is is actually in the spirit of it. It may be a cliché but the simple notion of ‘fighting for democracy and freedom’ is important. It is a very American thing, and so is dissecting justice and values. These are not ‘British things’ — or as Brenda from Bristol famously said about elections: “Not another one?!” [52]. It is no coincidence that Justice Bradley’s eloquent words guide this text. Modern perception of justice and the conventions in which to apply it rely heavily on American work, not to mention the phenomenal “Theory of Justice”[53]. It has become such an immense dogma any law student around the world learn it unknowingly.And of course this does not devalue the American people, their hard work and professionalism, their kind heart, and their clever minds. Simply put — the American political system as a whole is creaking and cracking (from the start).(7) CONCLUSIONTo sum things up, this review focused on(1) how US basic laws and political structure (“which constitution”),(2) contribute to basic welfare of citizens (“works better”),(3) in recent century,(4) in comparison to the UK.If compared so, not only does The US Constitution appears to be inflexible and curbs reforms of fundamental principles — it also does not allow real conflict and resolution of daily political discourse; it heavily mitigates and excessively endures.Ironically, it does not create immediate threats for the powerful. While the UK’s constitution encourages revolts the American one doesn’t. It does not allow neither Congress nor President to fail and fall. The British chaotic system of natural pressures is effective. The US constitutional system may be a masterpiece by design — but it glitches a lot. It works by over-empowering political players and by power grabs.As a system it is neither natural nor fluid — it dictates ejections and jerks violently. Instead of squeezing grapes and allowing wine to ferment the Constitution guides people to throw grapes at each other. The English system is shaken and stirred, it bubbles, explodes, mixes, convolutes, coagulates, and rests; the American system is like a game of conckers, but with heavy rocks, and people’s lives. This “raw-power politics” bring about animosity and procrastination.Justice Bradley’s quote opened the discussion and it will close it. Its phrasing should be given a careful attention, as it is particular and peculiar. Paraphrasing in simpler terms:acknowledge the declaration of privilege; to disobey something that warrants a revolution..Is that ‘a constitution’? Are those ‘principles’ or ‘values’? It sounds more like a psychologically twisted plot, from a Hitchcock tale of terror and suspense.Indeed Justice Bradley does not speak of a simple law nor real acts of rebellion. Bradley ingeniously eludes to a naturally occurring entangled web, theoretical counter-reactions, and multi-threaded perceived threats.(Judge Joseph Bradley. Library of Congress)DISCLAIMERI do not disparage the US (which I like) nor its system. Prime-ministers exercise powers to an alarming extent, but if a serious review is warranted, that cannot be about preferences.Our scope is of basic political structure and how it affects people’s basic needs. That avoids economical indicators. It is not about success, contemporary issues, society and economics; nothing here takes a stance on big social-economical ideas.In accordance, terms mentioned lack ideological connotation: welfare is not ‘government support’ (but general well-being), freedom is not ‘libertarian’ (but basic rights), fairness is not ‘socialism’ (but a judicial concept), etc.Somewhat hollow to ’rule’ for one constitution, as I have done:Constitutional strengths are weaknesses (‘no government’ can be good and bad).Different constitutions suit different situations (and cultures).US is huge and its federal structure is crucial, compared here with a minuscule Westminster system.Comparable federations are problematic: Canada, Australia, Belgium, Germany — smaller than US by order of magnitude.Interesting comparisons: parliamentarian India[54], presidential Brazil[55] (both huge federal nations with codified constitution).This is a long write which has not been proofread, editorial rewrites are welcomed.EPILOGUEDespite a bold opening I hardly ‘picked a winner’ — this is a reflection not a verdict. I tried to dive in, find patterns of behaviour, and describe them from afar. I learned as I wrote.A big portion of written constitutions is not about “freedoms” but just how to set up the system. A constitution is first and foremost like an IKEA manual. The formation of governing bodies and their behaviour as institutes throughout centuries (rather than on a slice of time or on a single issue) is fundamental.Many today resent “the system”, but at the end we choose our self-governance, based on our social contract; constitutions describe its format. This answer deals with that aspect.● DO NOT TROLL | This is a review of governance structure — not a cultural / political / economical debate ●Footnotes[1] Slaughterhouse Cases[2] Tax Revolts: Some Succeed, Most Don't[3] Emergency manager calls City Council's Flint River vote 'incomprehensible'[4] David Cameron complains to his local council about cuts to services[5] Sack cartoon: Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder[6] Constitutional law - Wikipedia[7] Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990 - Wikipedia[8] Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1995 - Wikipedia[9] Boris Johnson has resigned as Foreign Secretary - BBC News[10] Why Australia is not done with leadership spills[11] Liberal welfare reforms - Wikipedia[12] State legislature (United States) - Wikipedia[13] Why President Trump Can't Directly Order National Guard Troops To U.S.-Mexico Border[14] Maps: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States[15] Amendment Summary: 27 Updates to the U.S. Constitution[16] Child Labor Amendment - Wikipedia[17] Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia[18] Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia[19] Civil Rights Cases (1883)[20] Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia[21] Commerce Clause - Wikipedia[22] First Wisconsin did it. Now Republicans in Michigan move to strip Democrats' power.[23] Houston Democrats Strip Chairman of Power[24] Your $$$ pays for political battles[25] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN[26] Article 21 - Non-discrimination[27] How the Human Rights Act works[28] Why is the Speaker of the House able to stop a vote on a clean spending bill?[29] Backbencher - Wikipedia[30] Voting system leading to break-up of UK, says report[31] Why not use proportional representation?[32] Cameron accused of hypocrisy over letter complaining of cuts[33] Constitutional convention (political custom) - Wikipedia[34] Are MP surgeries under threat?[35] John Nott. Walks out of interview[36] Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium - Wikipedia[37] State reform in Belgium - Wikipedia[38] 2010–11 Belgian government formation - Wikipedia[39] EU-Canada free trade deal at risk after Belgian regional parliament vote[40] Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia[41] Parliament Act 1911 - Wikipedia[42] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03096564.1994.11784017?journalCode=ydtc20[43] Flint water crisis - Wikipedia[44] Flint Water Crisis Fast Facts[45] Lead-Laced Water In Flint: A Step-By-Step Look At The Makings Of A Crisis[46] Poll tax riots - Wikipedia[47] McCarthyism - Wikipedia[48] United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal - Wikipedia[49] Expenses peers facing suspension[50] Blagojevich Joins 4 Former Illinois Govs Behind Bars[51] Post–World War II legality of Nazi flags - Wikipedia[52] Election 2017: "NOT ANOTHER ONE!" Brenda from Bristol's reaction[53] A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia[54] Constitution of India - Wikipedia[55] Federal government of Brazil - Wikipedia

The question and many of the answers are based on an assumption - that the decision for Britain to leave the EC was a mistake.The question is “Isn’t the Brexit proof that (direct) democracy may not produce the best decisions?”If in the long term, it turns out that Brexit was the right decision, then the question does not arise at all.If Brexit turns out to be the right decision (in the long term), then direct democracy has not failed.So it is a question of whether Brexit will turn out to be the right decision. It would be myopic to start criticising the effectiveness of direct democracy now and hit out at the ‘uninformed’ masses who voted to “Leave”.Let’s ignore the short-term reactions of Brexit such as the pound and stock markets plunging. Let’s have a look at the long-term consequences of Brexit.First, let’s look at how much UK paid to be a member of the EU club.How much does Britain pay to the EU?In 2015, the UK’s full membership fee would have been £17.8 billion. However, Britain doesn’t pay that full fee.Because of a deal negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984, Britain gets a “rebate”, an annual reduction in contributions.Last year, that rebate reduced our contribution to £12.9 billion. That’s around £200 for every person in the UK.For context, that is more than the annual budget of the Home Office, which spends about £9 billion a year. It’s around a tenth of the budget for the NHS in England. It’s also enough to reduce the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound.How much is that a day?£12.9 billion is around £35 million a day.Source: EU Facts: how much does Britain pay to the EU budget?This alone is savings of £35 million a day for the UK government which can be used for other more productive things. UK has always paid more to EU than it got back.In the next 10 years, UK would have saved £129 billion. In other words, it will have £129 billion to invest elsewhere in the nation.Immigration from EU nations was one of the main issues behind Brexit.The total net migration figures further illustrate that the last 18 years have seen unprecedented and literally out of control immigration that resulted in a net 3.7 million net migrants, (total of 9.8 million) taking up residency in the UK which compares against just 308k during the preceding 18 years (1980 - 1997). Or at TEN TIMES the previous rate. So has Britain had an immigration crisis during the past 18 years ? The answer most definitely is YES! And what's worse is that the last figure in this series for 2015 is showing net migration accelerating to a new extreme level of 323k which implies that if urgent action is not taken then the UK could look forward to far higher net migration over the next decade, i.e. to at least DOUBLE the average rate of the past 18 years of 206k.Source: EU Referendum - Britain's Immigration / Migrant Crisis ExplainedThe latest ONS data release continues to show an ACCELERATION in the rate of immigration into Britain with net migration of +333k in the year to December 2015 added to Britain's population, an INCREASE of 20k on the preceding year which illustrates that immigration is STILL ACCELERATING. Which literally translates into a DAILY flood of near 1000 people turning up on Britain's shores and demanding housing, education, school places, jobs and benefits such as tax credits, housing and child benefits, health & social services that have been buckling and breaking as illustrated by social housing that in most cities has been in a state of total paralysis for many years now.The impact of out of control immigration is all persuasive from jobs, to housing to health. For instance call your local NHS dentist up for an appointment after a while and they will likely tell you that you are no longer registered even though your last visit was less than 2 years ago! As since without any knowledge of registered patients the Dental practice has CHANGED its registered patients rule from 2 years to 15 months ultimately down to 12 months. Which effectively means that an increasing number of British people are no longer able to see ANY NHS dentist! As they are no longer taking new patients. This is just ONE REAL WORLD example of the consequences of out of control immigration.Why People are Migrating to the UKContrary to press stories of civil wars, most of the migration (90%) into the UK has been purely economic that includes to study, many of whom turn out to be bogus students who instead are here to work illegally and for permanent settlement.Which illustrates the fact that approx 60% of all new jobs created have gone to migrant workers, most of whom will be claiming in work benefits such as tax credits that amounts to fraud on the British tax payers, which typically means that for every pound a low income migrant family earns in income then they tend to receive an equal or greater amount in benefits as the following example illustrates:Family of 6, with both parents working for minimum wage, each earning £8k per annum.So a family of six with BOTH parents working will receive approx £22k in benefits ON TOP of their £16k earnings, for a total income of £38k. However on top of this would be in receipt of services of at least £25k per annum i.e. £5k per school place and £5k healthcare costs. THIS illustrates the magnitude of what to all intents and purposes is FRAUD perpetrated on British tax payers as most migrant workers tend to take FAR MORE in benefits than they actually receive in wages whilst paying virtually NO taxes.Whilst a 3 child family would receive approx £18.5k in in work benefits and a 2 child family £15k which makes a mockery of the claims of hard working migrant families contributing more than they take which is JUST NOT TRUE! And this does not include benefits taken by non working migrant families that are capped at £20k per annum (outside London).UK Housing Crisis ConsequencesIn terms of the impact of out of control EU immigration on the housing market, Channel 4's series 'How to Get a Council House' has done an excellent job of demonstrating the real world impact on the housing crisis, of how the mass migration statistics translate into real world examples of what is taking place right across Britain.The latest episode to air which is still available online for another 25 days once more demonstrates how out of control EU migration is having a disastrous impact on Britain's housing market. For instance a Romanian family of 7 ( 2 adults and 5 children) is shown arriving into the UK at Hounslow's housing department demanding that they be housed, and after tooing and froing for a couple of weeks for the cameras, are thenwithin 2 weeks housed in a 4 bedroom house in Birmingham at a cost to the tax payer of £750 per month! And in total will likely be in receipt of over £60k in benefits per year! (includes £25k cost for schooling 5 children).Source: EU Referendum - Britain's Immigration / Migrant Crisis ExplainedThe impact of immigration of people from Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and other countries have affected the British who were born and raised in the UK in terms of housing, health care, employment, etc. The British have been paying taxes to support the immigrants.This is something that the so-called ‘uninformed’ masses know very well simply because they encounter these issues every day.With less strain on the finances of the UK government in terms of free or subsidised healthcare, housing and welfare payments to immigrants and more jobs available for the British people, the economy of the nation should do well in the long term.As to loss of trade with the eurozone and the possibility of London losing its role as a leading international financial centre, there are some certainties and some uncertainties.Certainly, there will still be trading activities between UK and Europe. The only difference would be quotas, import taxes and preferential treatment (if any) involved. UK will still trade with the US, China, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and other countries. As to whether any major bank will leave London and domicle in Scotland (should Scotland declare independence) or Paris, it is impossible to say at this stage.In the long term, if the economy of the UK improves, the well-being of the people improves and the happiness index of the nation improves, then Brexit would be considered a good, a right decision.Then this question would be a non-issue.

We technically tried or at least had the theatre of trying, with the threat of leaving as the price of no reform.The EU opted for no reform and thought the UK was bluffing.David Cameron ended up asking for nothing and getting even less in return, he didn’t even ask for reform of the CAP, and of course didn’t get it.EU deal: What David Cameron asked for... and what he actually gotIn his January 2013 Bloomberg Speech, David Cameron announced he would seek a “new settlement” for Britain in Europe, promising to win a host of concessions from Brussels that would convince Britons to remain in a newly-invigorated Europe.More than three years later, on February 20 2016, Mr Cameron finalised that deal with 27 other European leaders.Here we analyse line by line, what Mr Cameron originally promised…and what he actually delivered.The Union flag flutters next to the EU flag. CREDIT: TOBY MELVILLE/PAMigration and benefitsPledge"We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015What he gotDraft text: This was Cameron's trophy achievement. It consists of a mechanism to “limit the access of union workers newly entering its labour market to in-work benefits for a total period of up to four years from the commencement of employment” if the UK, or any other member state, can show that EU migrants are “putting an excessive pressure on the proper functioning of its public services”.No details are provided on what “excessive pressure” means, but a note on the mechanism says it will be tabled on the understanding that "it can and will be used" by the UK and the UK will do so "in full expectation of obtaining approval". However the control of the brake appears to remain firmly in the hands of the Commission who must be "notified" by any member state that they believe they are eligible to use it.The text also adds an important caveat that the “limitation should be graduated, from an initial complete exclusion” to be followed by “gradually increasing access to such benefits” the longer that an EU worker stays in the host member state’s labour market.Migrants stand in line to receive food from an oragnisation inside the "Jungle" slum in Calais. CREDIT: PHILIPPE HUGUEN/AFPFinal deal: All of the above, including a declaration that the four-year brake will be available to Britain for “a period of 7 years”. This is a ‘win’ for Cameron, although he had reportedly demanded up to 13 years availability.On the negative side, Mr Cameron’s negotiators were unable to remove the “tapering mechanism” which will see EU migrants start to receive benefits when they start to contribute to the system – probably after their first year of work.Critics will point out that deal only fully denies in-work benefits for one year, not four. There is also no mention of the benefits changes being protected by treaty change, which some critics have warned could leave them vulnerable to challenge in the European Courts.Euro safeguardsPledgeA mechanism to ensure that “Britain can't be discriminated against because it's not part of the euro, can't pick up the bill for eurozone bail-outs, crucially can’t have imposed on it changes the eurozone want to make without our consent.” - George Osborne, the Chancellor, to BBC Newsnight January 14 2016What he gotDraft deal: A pledge that the UK will not be on the hook for future bail-outs of eurozone states - specifically, crisis measures to shore up the euro area "will not entail budgetary responsibility for member states whose currency is not the euro”. The is also a promise of “reimbursement” if a eurozone state rescue-measure calls on general EU funds. (p4 of draft agreement)A statement noting that any member state, including the UK, can demand that any issue pertaining to the eurozone may be discussed in the European Council, which means all 28 member states. However the clause notes that such a request cannot “amount to allowing one or more member states to veto the effective management of the banking union or the future integration of the euro area” which begs the question over how 'safe' Mr Osborne's safeguard really makes non-eurozone states.A mechanism whereby an unspecified number of non-euro states can “indicate their reasoned opposition” to a measure being proposed by the eurozone states, and an undertaking that the Council “shall discuss the issue”. The council also pledges to “do all in its power” to engineer a “satisfactory solution” to address the concerns and seek to facilitate “a wider basis of agreement in the Council”. [Draft statement on section A].Crucially however the text gives no indication of what will happen if such an agreement cannot be reached.A petrol bomb explodes in Athens on May 8 as protesters clash with police over a controversial vote on an austerity bill. CREDIT: YORGOS KARAHALIS/APFinal deal: A significant ‘win’ for Mr Cameron here, after leaders agreed that only “one” non-Euro state can invoke the safeguards mechanism which will force a review of legislation by the European Council.Although in practice a British Prime Minister has usually had this power, if he protests loudly enough – as Mr Cameron did last year over UK involvement in the bailout of Greece – it is still a talismanic ‘win’ that campaigners will be able to point to when persuading voters that the UK will not be held to ransom by the in-built majority of Eurozone states.There is also new language referring to a commitment to “preserve the level-playing field” designed to allay French fears that the UK was seeking carve-outs for the City that would enable it to avoid element of European banking regulation to give a competitive advantage to UK-based financial institution. The devil will be in the detail here.Also, in another victory for Mr Cameron, the changes will also be incorporated into the Treaties when they are next opened, guaranteeing the safeguards in perpetuity.Working Time Directive - EU regulationsPledge“For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.“In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.” - David Cameron in his January 2013 Bloomberg speechWhat he gotDraft deal: Nothing. Mr Cameron decided last August not to demand a full exclusion for the UK from EU employment directives after Labour and the trades unions made clear they would not support an EU renegotiation that included opting out of the Working Time Directive.Final Deal: Still nothing.Budgets and EU wastePledge“Can we carry on with an organisation that has a multi-billion pound budget but not enough focus on controlling spending and shutting down programmes that haven’t worked? - David Cameron in his January 2013 Bloomberg speechWhat he gotDraft text: A pledge by the European Commission to continue its current work cutting red tape. Specifically “continue its efforts to make EU law simpler and to reduce regulatory burden for EU business operators...by applying the 2015 Better Regulation Agenda, including in particular the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT). Cutting red tape for entrepreneurship, in particular small and medium size enterprises, remains an overarching goal for all of us in delivering growth and jobs.” (Draft declaration on subsidiarity implementation mechanism)Final deal: UnchangedChild benefitPledge"If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015What he gotDraft text: An agreement to pay child benefits at local rates, specifically “an option to index such benefits to the standard of living in the Member State where the child resides” (p15 of draft agreement)Final Deal: This was one of the hardest-fought parts of the negotiation is where Mr Cameron appears to have given the most ground in order to win his headline “seven years” deal on his so-called “benefits brake.The text now says that indexation of child benefit should “only apply to new claims” when UK negotiators had wanted all EU migrant children receiving child benefit in their home countries to go onto the new rates immediately.Instead, there will now be a four-year transition period with the new, lower rates not kicking in until January 1 2020. While Downing Street will claim this as a victory, critics will point out this is a very long way from the manifesto pledge.Sham marriagesPledge"A continued crackdown on “illegal working and sham marriages” - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015What he gotDraft text: The Commission will adopt a proposal to exclude from the scope of free movement rights, “third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a member state before marrying a union citizen or who marry a union citizen only after the union citizen has established residence in the host Member State”.Final Deal: Unchanged.Red card for national parliamentsPledge"We want national parliaments to be able to work together to block unwanted European legislation." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015What he gotDraft text: A win. An agreement that if, proportionately speaking, 55 per cent of national EU parliaments object to a piece of EU legislation “within 12 weeks” the Council Presidency will hold a “comprehensive discussion” on the objections raised and “discontinue the consideration of the draft legislative... unless the draft is amended to accommodate the concerns expressed in the reasoned opinions”. (p13 of draft agreement).It remains far from clear that the current European Commission which has made a point of cutting red tape would ever table a measure that would garner such high level of objections. Critics will argue this is a 'red card' that, in practice, will never be shown.Final Deal: Unchanged.Ever closer unionPledge“We want an end to our commitment to an ‘ever closer union’, as enshrined in the treaty to which every EU country has to sign up." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015What he gotDraft text: A re-statement of a EU heads of government decision from 2014 that has already clarified that the phrase “ever closer union” does “not compel all member states to aim for a common destination". The Tusk text says (p10) specifically: “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union.” It also promises to incorporate this in the EU treaties next time they are opened.Final Deal: A win for Mr Cameron who has convinced EU leader that the EU treaties, when they are next opened, will include a new reference to make it clear that the words “ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”.This clearly meets the manifesto commitment, however in a sop to Europe’s federalists like Belgium early drafts suggesting this exemption might apply more broadly – for example to countries like Poland and Hungary who have no intention of joining the Euro any time soon - were removed. This is a blow to Mr Cameron’s calls for the EU to accept the need for a looser, more flexible ‘live and let live’ Europe.SecurityPledge"To seek increased powers to bolster UK defences to "stop terrorists and other serious foreign criminals who pose a threat to our society from using spurious human rights arguments to prevent deportation." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015What he gotDraft text: A win. Specifically an agreement for the UK to take "necessary restrictive measures" against individuals deemed to represent "a genuine and serious threat" to public safety, even if they do not pose an "imminent" threat to security. Taking a suspect's "past conduct" into account could be sufficient grounds to act.Final Deal: UnchangedMulti-currency unionPledgeThat the EU should formally recognise that it is a "multi-currency union" and that all members must not inevitably join the euro.What he gotDraft text: An apparent recognition, in writing, that while the union's objective is to establish "an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro" it is also stated that "not all member states have the euro as their currency". (Draft agreement, p.2) Downing Street is claiming this as a victory for its vision of a multi-speed, multi-direction Europe.Final Deal: This language is unchanged, but the deal text as a whole gives less credence to Mr Cameron’s desire for a “live and let live” Europe than Britain would have liked.Its also rather expensive for the UKThe UK contribution to the EU budgetIn 2018 the UK abatement was £4.5 billion. This means £15.5 billion was transferred from the UK government to the EU in official payments.And staying in an organisation that is willing to sacrifice peace in the name of punishing those who don’t believe in their European ideal?It's the EU that has broken the Good Friday Agreement, not the UKPart 1: The EU’s Withdrawal Treaty breaks the terms of the Good Friday AgreementBREXIT Brexit facts for voters in the UK, based on official EU and UK information SUMMARYUS House of Representatives Speaker Pelosi : “No chance” of UK-US trade dealBrexit Brexit facts for voters in the UK, based on official EU and UK information presents some facts which Ms Pelosi does not seem to be aware ofThe Government’s UK Internal Market Bill is needed to maintain the free flow of trade across the United KingdomTo prevent this would be contrary to the 1800 Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland and 1707 Articles of Union between England and ScotlandThe Withdrawal Agreement would clearly alter the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the UKIt would amount to a major breach of the core principle of the Belfast (Good Friday) AgreementAccording to the GFA, NI’s constitutional status cannot be changed without the consent of the people of Northern IrelandThe EU’s Withdrawal Treaty requires the imposition of tariffs between the UK and Northern Ireland. As the distinguished barrister and EU law specialist Martin Howe wrote yesterday in [paywall] the Daily Telegraph:“International law does not justify a later treaty to which these community representatives are not parties being used to over-ride the rights they enjoy under the earlier treaty, especially where it involves over-riding such a fundamental right as the right to self determination of the people of NI.”“If there were any doubt that Parliament has this right, section 38 of the Withdrawal Agreement Act preserves Parliamentary sovereignty and makes it quite clear that Parliament has the right to pass the clauses which the government is proposing and thereby override these errant clauses in the Protocol.”“The EU has a long history of disregarding adverse rulings by WTO disputes bodies, for example on subsidies to Airbus. The ECJ itself in a case called Portugal v Council decided that it should not give any direct effect to the WTO Agreements under EU law, because that would force compliance with the WTO obligations and so have the consequence of depriving the EU’s legislative or executive organs of the possibility entering into negotiated arrangements.”“The Protocol sets out the clear principle that NI is part of the customs territory of the UK, so goods should be allowed to flow from Great Britain to NI without tariffs. There are provisions for the UK authorities to levy EU tariffs on goods which are “at risk” of crossing the open border into the EU. The problem is that the circumstances in which goods are to be treated as “at risk” are not defined in the Protocol, and joint agreement is needed with the EU on the rules which would define this.”Selected excerpts from the article by Martin Howe QC in yesterday's TelegraphPart 2 (tomorrow): The EU has deliberately manufactured a problem which barely existsIn tomorrow’s (Saturday) edition of Brexit facts for voters in the UK, based on official EU and UK information we will publish devastating testimonies from senior figures in the official bodies running the Republic of Ireland’s and UK's Customs and Excise, together with a damning quotation from the EU officials revealing how the EU negotiated with the UK.The harsh evidence we shall publish makes clear the agendas of the Irish Government and the EU, over Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement.We will also show that the entire issue of the Northern Ireland border has been manufactured by the EU over an amount of trade so tiny as to be irrelevant to them.OBSERVATIONSIt is essential that the truth about the whole issue of the Northern Ireland border is in the public domain. We find it simply extraordinary that the UK Government seems unable to communicate this.Whilst some of this fiasco may be down to the usual Remainer civil servants being unwilling to present any case which shows the EU in a bad light, this cannot explain the complete absence of any debunking of some of the statements from the EU and by some UK Remainer politicians who have never accepted the democratic result of the UK's EU Referendum and should know better. These statements are now influencing opinion around the world on an hourly basis.The Government is now materially damaging the UK’s economic prospectsFor years we have publicly lamented the appalling performance of the Government’s various communications departments, in ever more strident terms. We even offered to assist them, if they needed facts to back up Government statements and press releases.Now we must go further. It is wholly unacceptable to read that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has taken a position – from which she will find it impossible to row back – that no UK-US trade deal will be approved by Congress if the UK Government proceeds with its plans to protect the integrity of the Union and the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement.To be clear, Brexit facts for voters in the UK, based on official EU and UK information were the first to publish a condemnation of the draft Withdrawal Agreement when it first surfaced, and we condemned it repeatedly all the way up to the slightly revised version being signed by Boris Johnson in January.We are where we are, but the abomination that is the Withdrawal Agreement does not preclude the most strenuous efforts from being made to clean it up so that it does not repudiate the tortuous peace process which led to the Good Friday Agreement.Effective communication is a duty of Government to its peopleA duty of Government is to communicate its policies and actions to its people, and to the wider world. The Johnson Government is failing abysmally in this regard. We strongly suggest that No.10 bring in outside help. We and other respected Brexit organisations stand ready to respond.TOMORROWIn Saturday’s edition of Brexit facts for voters in the UK, based on official EU and UK information we will publish the second part of this summary on Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. You do NOT want to miss the devastating evidence we present against the EU.There are so many other reasons why it is bad to remain in the EU and better to be out.But as Europhiles seem to like the EU, shouldn’t the UK leave them to it, rather than try to prevent their European Ideal?