As is well known, Britain has no modern written constitution to supervise the way political power is exercised and what the law can say. The constitution held valid until today originates from 1215, is eight hundred and nine years old and not contemporary, has no relevance to the present time, and cannot regulate what politicians can and cannot do, what they can and cannot decide on and what they can or cannot vote on.
The need that imposes a modern written constitution cannot be disputed anywhere in the world in respect of any state and the society it is in charge of. In the United Kingdom, politicians are left unsupervised to decide about matters where choices must be exerted by those concerning their own actions. This is very often performed arbitrarily by politicians and parliamentarians who exercise political power, are allowed to abuse it without complying to a modern written constitution and can turn it against those who voted them in their place.
Why not consider some notorious and scandalous examples of the abuse of political power entrusted to certain individuals who stole those decisions from those to whom they belong:
- Boris Johnson is presently still the elected prime minister of the country, since no new elections were held after he resigned from power. This is why he is the prime minister who got elected, but not the same person who is still in power. This happened in 2019 and the person who got elected later resigned. Right, but where are the elections that are needed to replace him? Let’s find out:
- Instead of holding elections after the elected prime minister from 2019 resigned, it was compromised that the ruling party will appoint the new prime minister from electing its own next leader! Whose idea of holding elections is that?
- As if that was expected, the next leader Liz Truss of the ruling Conservative party who was appointed prime minister, not being elected to her post, was toppled again by the government ministers and parliamentarians, and what happens next? The person who lost from her who is Rishi Sunak who she defeated to become prime minister got the leadership of the country and became the prime minister himself! Who would argue that he got elected to his post? Who thinks that this was performed democratically? Whoever cannot see the truth, that this is not reasonable and cannot happen in a democratic country, but it still happened in a country where the content of the law can be dictated from the state down to society and the citizens.
- Later the prime minister Boris Johnson who was elected from the last parliamentary elections in 2019… resigned from his seat in parliament! But how can you have chosen a prime minister who hasn’t got a seat in parliament? Through indirect representative democracy or without it? It mustn’t be allowed for the duration of the same term. The person who still has the trust of the public to run the country but has no seat in parliament!
- Municipal authorities have been left free to decide irrationalities of the type of extending the Ultra-Low Emission Zone to the whole capital city by thinking that the city where people live is a zone where something else can happen along. It must be repeated towards them that the county of Greater London is not called the ULEZ-zone! They have been left to arbitrarily decide about having 15-minute cities, a horrible restriction that regulates traffic by paying fees to circulate your vehicle depending on where you go and where you are each time, violating the basic human right of free movement and free transportation, and about Low Traffic Neighbourhoods whereby a street cannot be used unless the driver lives close or around it without it even being barred out with a sign that imposes fines to drivers who are innocent and clear of any wrong-doing.
- Counter-smoking legislation is arbitrarily set and defined and dictated by the minimum requirement of one individual dictating what the rest of society can and cannot do based upon his or her choice. Plain packaging legislation fails to protect intellectual property rights which should always be guaranteed and protected by the state while it is that which infringes on the intellectual property rights of the private sector. Smoking bans act upon the attainer of a property or value which can only be judged upon by the judiciary, instruct affirmative actions of moving elsewhere instead of obstructing them, and define who smokes by combining the set of nationals to the same country intersecting this with those of them who smoke to define their subset. The tobacco tax is robbed off the consumer by going to the state based on the fact that taxes exist and are made of money. In other words, just because something was possible, it happened as a consequence. Although this is typically called a crime. Like robbing tobacco taxes in the form of smokers’ fortune which is their income and dictating the content of the law like a dictator does and infringing on intellectual property rights of the private sector.
It is apparent that something must be done about about most of the above. That something must be done by the electorate that needs our attention since we are ruled without the rule of a contemporary constitution. Especially with counter-smoking legislation it is being imitated by other states with a constitution which is usually violated to accommodate it.
But what about what is already in force in England from 1215? The clause of the Magna Carta from 1215 clearly states that “No free man [citizen who may also smoke] shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions [his or her right to smoke against the coercion involved with paying a fine not to do so], or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way [how smokers are targeted and stigmatised by others], nor will we proceed with force against him [the exchange under the blackmail of the smoking ban], or send others to do so [the Police who would charge fines for smoking], except by the lawful judgement of his equals [the dissemination of what is fair and what is not], or by the law of the land [which had not passed through parliament if it is so before all of the above took place].” As a proven conclusion, the smoking ban and all subsequent same-fashioned legislation is unconstitutional according to the Magna Carta of 1215 which is the valid constitution until today.
Bring Back Smoking Freedom 