I think manifestos are very active party members and the Salisbury Convention. I don’t believe the public bother to read them (if they ever did) because (1) they haven’t got the time and (2) they know a manifesto pledge isn’t a commitment you can bank on.

I think people might read those pledge cards the parties make - you know, the five main pledges. But what it comes down to is what party the voter trusts most with the economy, education, health, law and order, and immigration - the five main issues - at election time.

I’m sure there are a number of MPs that don’t understand legislation - if they have bothered to read it. Indeed, lots of people have complained about poorly drafted legislation, including judges, who presumably are pretty experienced, so Justin is by no means in bad company.

We do indeed delegate the responsibility to our representatives of properly understanding and scrutinising legislation - if they are incapable of doing that, or aren’t allowed to or avoid doing so (eg the short timetable given to the Commons for the Lisbon Treaty), I think it’s reasonable to wonder what is the point of their existence.

Finally, going back to Churchill’s comment, I think there a number of MPs he could reasonably say this about, which again begs the question, what is the point of their existence?

I am intending to write a follow up piece linking to an old Philip Cowley article. He quoted a pamphlet which complained about MPs who “represented not their country but themselves, and always kept together in a close and undivided phalanx, impenetrable either by shame or honour, voting always the same way, and saying always the same things…”. Our sentiment exactly, I’m sure, but that was published in 1698.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/philip_cowley/2007/03/yo_henry_dont_diss_the_commons.html

That doesn’t mean today’s politicians don’t need do a lot better, of course.

Aaron, Iain really is in overdrive at the moment. He doesn’t actually appear to be saying very much though.

PS, while I fully appreciate why you might want to, please try to resist using, er, robust language to describe Iain’s antics. He’ll only make a song and dance about it despite the fact that he’s guilty of far worse himself. :o)

UKliberty, interesting.

How many people took the time to read the 112 page Labour manifesto before voting Labour?

It’s a good point. Goes back to Churchill above and how well democracy works if citizens are neglectful of the responsibilities involved in living in a democratic society.

How many MPs have read and understood the treaty?

Now, I’d really love to know the answer to that question.

I can’t honestly express an opinion as to whether the promise of a referendum has been broken because I really don’t know how similar this treaty is to that constitution. I’m more interested in asking whether this is a suitable subject for a referendum in the first place. More widely, I’d like to see a more informed debate about the advantages and disadvantages of representative and direct democracy rather than the simplistic nonsense our politicians are treating us to.

Finally, I agree that there should be a consolidated text which would at least give us a chance of understanding what’s going on. As for the reasons why there isn’t ine, I think they did try something a bit like that a couple of years ago but it didn’t go down that well (joke, sort of).

How many people have (or will) take the time to read through the approximately 300 hundred pages (pdf) of the treaty and then take an informed view as to whether the UK should ratify it?

How many people took the time to read the 112 page Labour manifesto before voting Labour? How many MPs have read and understood the treaty?

In any case, what is the relevance? The people understood from each of the main parties that there would be a referendum on a constitutional treaty. It seems most think the promise has been broken.

As to how complicated it is, how easy or hard to understand, it really doesn’t help that the EU declines to publish a consolidated text, does it?

Aside from a leaked French language version, the ones we can find have been compiled and published by national parliaments, think-tanks and other organisations, and private individuals. There is no official version we can read for ourselves. What is the reasoning here?

This really is quite extraordinary. Our leaders are supposedly wringing their hands about disengagement, but they won’t make politics more accessible, they won’t allow us to engage, and they keep breaking their promises.

…but the thing is virtually impenetrable…

…also follows for just about any piece of domestic legislation you care to mention. I’m a reasonably intelligent guy but I was utterly defeated by the latest criminal justice and terrorism bill.

Like you say, it could be a deliberate closed shop policy to keep the proles out of the process. But I have a nasty feeling that a lot of MPs might struggle with legislatory language as well.

I wonder how many read or understand these things. The other nasty thought is that under the party whip system, they don’t really need to.