Sure, so if we're going all the way down the route of "parliament is no longer sovereign" and throwing away the principle that no parliament can bind a future parliament (which has been a bedrock principle for a good while now), then that's... a view, certainly.
I wonder why they don't lead their manifesto with the statement "we believe that parliament should no longer be sovereign"?
> that no parliament can bind a future parliament (which has been a bedrock principle for a good while now)
It's that the excuse the UK uses when it breaks international agreements? And I wonder how it works for the ones it hasn't broken (e.g. Good Friday) or stuff like debts.
And things existing "for a good while" is a shitty reason for them to continue existing. The same could be applied to the monarch, or the legal system.
> It's that the excuse the UK uses when it breaks international agreements? And I wonder how it works for the ones it hasn't broken (e.g. Good Friday) or stuff like debts.
Any country is free to break whatever treaties they previously signed. There's just usually consequences to doing so, which is why we still have peace in Northern Ireland.
> And things existing "for a good while" is a shitty reason for them to continue existing. The same could be applied to the monarch, or the legal system.
Oh I completely agree. It's just that if you want to re-invent the wheel, you need to be realistic about how much work and disruption will be involved, and the knock-on effects there will be.
I think people underestimate how much expertise and knowledge we have baked into our system based on these long-standing principles, and what we'd lose by throwing them away.
Reading these, it strongly smells like they started with the answer and then worked backwards. It's not at all clear how you can start from the enumerated of rights and end up with "replace the crown with an elected policitian".
Similarly, there's a lot of hand-waving and contradiction. "The will of the people should be the basis of the authority of government." contradicts "Citizens have the right to be protected from tyranny, whether the tyranny of one or the tyranny of the majority;". If the will of the people is to deport all black people, then which institution is going to protect them? What protects that institution from being dismantled by the will of the people?
I'm no monarchist, but the republican movement really needs to put a bit more effort in than that. This stuff is hard.
