1) That we are people of a sovereign nation capable of self rule by democracy which means that we should be saying 'NO' to EU and UN law that supersedes UK law less we give up the notion of sovereignty. We are being asked to compromise this position for three main reasons, one, because we are being threatened that our economy would be bypassed, over looked and consciously avoided if we do not submit to the dictates of EU regulation, two, we are promised that we would somehow have more control of what EU regulation is above and beyond the wishes of the other nations involved and, three, some of the laws and regulations are looking better than what we have come up with ourselves at this point in time. It is as though the people of this nation have given up on their own system of democracy when they would rather give up control to these outside forces as a preference. Without control of our own laws, our borders, our economic policy etc we do not have sovereignty.
2) We, the people, should have a democracy that we are all part of ie a Direct Democracy like MagnaSocia. What we have been given is something that is called democracy but once you factor in certin compromises it starts to not resemble democracy. Like, for example, there is a massive lobbying industry where big corporations spend millions trying to influence politicians, they often directly hire them and they support political parties. Any business expects a return on investment for all of it's spenditure and so we should be concerned that the money spent on lobbying isn't buying that influence to take policy away from the populace and into the hands of big business. Often employees of big business will be secondered in to write up new Bills presented to Parliament, in say tax law for example and then those members of one of the biggest accountancy firms like PriceWaterhouse would go back and advise their clients how to bypass or avoid tax by following the small print of the laws that they themselves have written. This is at least a corruption of our democracy if not direct corruption in terms of the self serving parliamentary law. As I suggest in the work that has culminated in the online platform of Direct Democracy that is MagnaSocia, there is a better way to do demoracy so that the people are steering the narrative, they are having their say and they are ultimately voting direct on the issues themsleves rather than representatives who give them no gaurentee that they will follow through with their manifesto promises once elected. 
3) The people of the agreed collective are supporting our currency by paying our taxes, bailing out the banks when they get into trouble as if we were underwriters, taking loans and using credit cards, having savings, keeping law and order and recognising the social contract etc. Yet our money system is essentially owned by the cartel of private banks who have the right to produce money from nothing and then charge interest on it by only having liquidity of around 1% of their own cash available should the system fail, not even the historic one part in ten fractional reserve. When people realise that this is the case then perhaps we can talk about having a currency that is owned by the people that only the state has the right to produce as the 1844 law states. If this were realised then it would be the tax payer/citizen who gains from the interest charged ion loans either by paying less tax and/or receiving better government services like health, education, policing etc. Investment could also be made into areas that show a positive return and that also have a beneficial effect on society as a whole rather than relying on private institutions who have an obligation to pay shareholder's dividends to somehow adopt a social conscience.  
4) The agreed collective need to have a written constitution so that each citizen knows exactly where they stand with the law and know their responsibilities towards society without confusion. The constitution should reflect the mainstream position on policy in order to have a foundation for a democracy to start from/ develop from. It should underlie and positively promote the ethical principles of the agreed collective in the direction of what the people want from their nation. It should be written with clarity, in as few words as possible, so that the people of the agreed collective can know it.
5) The Agreed Collective needs to learn how to have a balanced impact on the biosystem by recognising the 12 ecological boundaries and living symbiotically within them. This requires a rapid change to our communities and infrastructure. Issues that I have stated in 'Living Symbiotically' and the economic model that underlies it 'Collective Sustainable Economics'.
6) The Agreed Collective deserve a system of Capitalism that they have access to and mobility within, a more distributed form of capitalism, PopCapitalism. This means that monopolies and cartels should be broken up and discouraged. Innovators and entrepreneurs need to be inspired and supported and emerging technologies and sectors need to be absorbed into this new method of capitalism. Products or services where we only have one of should belong to the Agreed Collective such as our NHS and other government services, the rail system, our currency (as stated above), our water and sewage system, our energy needs etc. Also new models of business should be encouraged like the NFP orgs that could allow people in the community to manage some of their own services where it proves to be more efficient for the tax payer. 

 

There are many other principles that I highlight in my other writings for what 'The Agreed Collective' should expect from one's nation state. There are things that we want from our nation, an education, a health service, policing, military, etc In fact there are many shared aims that we can write into our constitution and design our democracy to best achieve. In MagnaSocia I spell out what 12 societal objectives we should codify as 12 Human Welfare Indices (HWix12). 

 

The final point I would like to make here is that the nation state has a relationship to every citizen within it's agreed collective and this needs to be formatted so that all citizens are recieving their share of attention. We do currently have a relationship to different governmental departments during the course of our lives, the education department, health department, Work & Pensions, Tax etc. so why isn't this formatted in a 21st century fashion? How much simpler could it be to establish an online platform to solidify this relationship between all departments through the one portal. How efficient would this be? Imagine one protal where you could vote, contact the local council, interact with the police one-to-one, file your taxes online, have a conversation with your GP, tell the home office that you need a new passport, etc. Surely we owe this to ourselves. 

The Agreed Collective

This is a term I use to describe what I suggest is the 'nature' of our relationship to each other as citizens of this nation state. With all our differences, we are members of the same nation whether we like it or not. That means we all follow the same law and social contract or at least should do and know when the next person is not doing so. We have a shared interest in the shared space that we refer to as society. 

 

I deliberately used the term nature because we have evolved into this situation and there is a lot that we sometimes forget to appreciate that has brought us to this place, both successes that we should celebrate and mistakes that we should bring to mind in order not go about repeating them. 

 

Within this nation, over the years, we have moved towards democracy from other structures, family based tribes, prinipalities, a feudal society, a kingdom, a kingdom with a parliament and now a monarchy with a democracy. The democracy idea can be disputed when you consider how much power the people actually have but I will come to that in other parts (see MagnaSocia)

 

There are several ways in which I think the term 'Agreed Collective' should be connsidered: