The UK Government have assured us that any other transfer of sovereignty away from the Westminster Parliament should be put to a referendum. This treaty is a back door method of getting around this pledge to the detriment of our democracy and sovereignty.
    176 of 200 Signatures
    Created by David Bellamy
  • 72 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Yvonne Anson Picture
  • Give Londoners first choice on the housing market
    People who live and work in London are being priced out of their own city. Something must be done to give London back to londoners.
    43 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Ivan Seminerio
  • A call for a review of the SNP Government's oil revenue estimates.
    Prior to and since the referendum on Scottish independence there have been repeated allegations that the SNP Scottish Government deliberately and recklessly overestimated the oil revenues an independent Scottish state would collect whilst simultaneity playing down the importance of these monies to public finances.These allegations have become so persistent, wide-ranging and detailed that they are now undermining the credibility of the SNP Scottish Government. It is in the interest of both sides of this debate that the Scottish Government (Mr John Swinney) commissions a fully independent review of the basis for the oil revenue estimates it used to support its case for Scottish independence and publish considered analysis of how a independent Scottish state could have managed any oil revenue shortfall .
    135 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Scott Arthur
  • Corporation Tax Increase
    Large profitable companies get away with paying less than ordinary people, in parliament you will hear the politicians arguing about the top rate 50 p for personal tax. Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g USA Principles Applie to the UK MPs hardly ever talk about corporation tax mostly because of vested interests in large companies, and old beliefs in capitalist market being able to take care of everything. The figures below tell you the facts vote now: Personal Income Tax Tax rate Taxable income above your Personal Allowance Basic rate 20% £0 to £31,865 Most people start paying basic rate tax on income over £10,000 Higher rate 40% £31,866 to £150,000 Most people start paying higher rate tax on income over £41,865 Additional rate 45% Over £150,000 Vs Corporation Tax 21% April 2014 The government would be able to spend the 50% tax money on public services such as the NHS, Schools, and Legal Aid, Police, Fire Brigade and other public sectors !
    25 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Viran Patel Picture
  • (Tax Avoidance) Diverted Profit Taxation
    The UK public purse loses tax that can be used to fund much needed public services 25% is too low for the new tax rules. Organisations that have little or no investment in the UK and earn large sums for example: Google made £3.3 billion they paid tax of £20.4 million small compared to if they were taxed 50 % through the new scheme: The public purse would have gained £1.65 billion that could have went to the NHS, Schools, Fire Services, Legal Aid. The consultation closes on the 4th February 2015. Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5FZU64Bnw&x-yt-ts=1422503916&x-yt-cl=85027636
    34 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Viran Patel Picture
  • Force Telcos to provide broadband without a fixed phone service.
    This will save the average consumer around £180 to £200 per year as many (myself included) only have a fixed phone line service into my house because I have to in order to make it possible for broadband to be delivered. In many cases, the phone service is more expensive than the broadband. There is absolutely no technical reason why this service could not be turned off and as long as there is a copper pair into the property, the broadband will still work as well as it does now. We are effectively being held to ransom by telcos if we want fixed line broadband. This also affects most domestic, so called "fibre optic" broadband as this service is still delivered to the property over the copper wires. Whilst we cannot realistically expect that the provision and maintenance of the copper network can be carried out for free, Ofcom should look at what is fair pricing for the provision of a "naked" copper pair with only broadband provided over it and the removal of the obligation to have a fixed landline telephone service to the home as a large percentage would prefer to remove this option if they were given the choice.
    40 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Warren Wilding
  • Referendum on Public Spending
    For too long politicians from all the major parties have publically stated they would not sell or privatise areas of public spending on the run up to elections, only to then do so once they are in office. They clearly cannot be trusted. If any area of PUBLIC spending is going to be privatised, then it should be THE PUBLIC who decide, not politicians. It should be the public who have the last say on the matter. If it is the PUBLIC's money that is going to spent, then it should be the PUBLIC who decides how it should be spent.
    22 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Joshua Cooper Picture
  • Say no to George Osborne spending £50m on the National England Football Team
    After Abu Dhabi's leading royal Sheikh Mansour committed to investing in the UK, at the opening of a new £150m football academy by Manchester City Football Club, the Chancellor wanted to do the same. This is important to campaign against because there are currently almost 1,000,000 people in the UK who are having to resort to food banks to survive whilst the Government splashes £50 million on something that isn't a priority.
    10,493 of 15,000 Signatures
    Created by Lee Kemp
  • Reduce the cost of landline rentals.
    How many of you with a landline actually use it? Ofcom proposed an upto 8% cost reduction, yet the costs have just gone up by 6%+!! Ofcom produced a report that proposed the reduction in the costs of landline rentals over a number of years. At the time of the Ofcom report, 11th July 2013, the wholesale cost of a landline was £93.27 per annum or £7.77 per month. These are phone lines rented from BT by the likes of Sky, and then re-sold to Sky subscribers at a cost of £196.80 per annum or £16.40 Ex VAT per month (current price after latest price rise). The current landline rental price from Sky Is £16.40 Ex VAT per month and that's a rise of 6.49% on last years cost - yet Ofcom proposed a reduction in these rental costs! Ofcom stated in its published article 11th July 2013, and I quote: "Wholesale line rental: the regulated wholesale price today is £93.27 per year. Under Ofcom's proposals the prices will fall in real terms by between CPI - 2% and CPI - 8% every year" and if the proposal was successful the reduction in charges would come into effect on 1 April 2014 and run until 31 March 2017. CPI = Consumer Price Index. See full details of Ofcom's proposals here:http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2013/new-prices-for-landline-and-broadband-services/ What happened to Ofcom's proposals as monthly costs for landlines are still rising? Perhaps this text below explains the price rises?! According to a BBC article; Latest figures from the regulator, Ofcom, show that consumers spent three billion minutes fewer on their landlines in the year to June 2014, a reduction of 12.7% in one year alone. As a result, operators lost out on £85m of revenue compared with the previous year. "Call volumes are declining," said James Barford of Enders Analysis. "People are using Facebook or WhatsApp, or even email if they're a little old-fashioned, so operators are having to recover their costs from increased line rental," he added. see full article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30251029 The landline price increases: Sky: up by 6.49% to £16.40 a month BT: up 6.25% to £16.99 Virgin Media: up 6.25% to £16.99 Talk Talk: up 4.7% to £16.70 Why are the costs of landlines still rising and what happened to Ofcom's proposals to reduce the costs of landlines? We all understand that companies have to make money but making a margin of £103.53 per year, per landline, per customer is scandalous, especially when the likes of Sky do not have to do any work or maintain the landline, as they pass this job back to BT. We do understand there are processing costs associated with these charges though!! Let's put this into context:- SKY have 5.3 million subscribers who need a landline to receive the full TV service from Sky and use their broadband services. So, all the subscribers have a phone line, thats 5,300,000 x £103.53 (Sky's margin on landlines) = £548,709,000.00 income from landlines per year! That's over HALF A BILLION plus revenue, per year from landline charges! BT, Virgin and Talk Talk are making vast amounts of money as well from landline rentals per month. There where as of December 2013 - 22.6 Million residential and SME broadband connections - do the maths at £103.53 margin per connection! See full details here: http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/ 'Margin' is the amount of money made by Sky when charging for a landline:£16.40 x 12 = £196.80 less the £93.27 quoted by Ofcom = £103.53 Margin. What about the elderly that don't have SKY TV or Talk Talk TV or BT TV/Sports? These are people that need a landline to stay in contact with family and the outside world? The fact that it costs them £16.99 + VAT per month or £203.88 +VAT per annum for a landline from BT is outrageous. Is it any wonder some elderly people will not put the heating on? They probably can't afford it when they are paying £16.99 + VAT a month NOT TO TALK! In 1995 BT ran an advertising campaign with the late great Bob Hoskins and the strap line was "It's good to talk". Their next advert should use No Doubt's song 'Don't Speak' as the backing track and they should have a Dick Turpin character holding a sign with the strap line "It's great for us!" or they could pay Bork to use her version of the song 'It's Oh So Quiet" with an elderly person in a cold house, staring at the landline telephone!! The more people that sign the petition the better. "Come on BT, Sky, Talk Talk and Virgin, show some community spirit and immediately reduce the costs for landlines for the elderly and for those who need landlines to communicate with the outside world because they are house bound. Individually we can moan about the costs of landlines, sign the petition and collectively we could get cost reductions as proposed by Ofcom. Please sign. Thank You Philip Smith-Lawrence
    24 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Philip Smith-Lawrence Picture
  • Keep the Eurostar
    The small amount we receive in profit is apart of our Welfare State and should go back to the few public services we have left. Our Government seems to be trying very hard to privatise our NHS and ALL of our transport services and the ten million pound yearly profit from the Eurostar should play a small part in financing what our nation needs the most. The money made from selling it will disappear very quickly and we will never know how that money was spent. Every time we have privatised a public service, such as the Royal Mail, the estimated profit was never reached and it just so happens that George Osborn's close friend, Peter Davies bought the most shares. Interestingly, very few other share holders made any profit where Davie's is said to have made £18 million. It is important that our politicians realise that if they sell everything the State owns, then there will be nothing left to help the Nation in benefits, health and education. These are fundamental issues that are not being looked at enough by our Government and the Eurostar is just one example of how, little by little, our Welfare State is being shredded to pieces. Please sign this petition in the hope that this will play a role in saving our services. We shouldn't sell business's that generate any kind of profit which could be put back into our system.
    22 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Michelle Klein
  • Palace of Westminster Unsafe? Move Parliament!
    Parliament is currently considering spending at least two billion pounds on renovating the Houses of Parliament. The building is increasingly unsafe to use, with falling masonry, asbestos, fire hazards and many other dangers. Spending this amount of money to keep an out of date system hobbling on would be indefensible. This is the ideal opportunity to change not only the home of Parliament, but the way it works. The Government say they want to make the North of England an economic powerhouse: now is the opportunity to make a move in that direction. A new purpose built campus would be a start. A modern debating chamber - such as we have in Scotland, with a design to make it less confrontational - would be a start. Apart from the chamber, offices, committee rooms etc,. the campus should also include flatted apartments for MPs who have to travel. These would be furnished to a comfortable, but not luxurious, standard and would be free to use, so there would be less opportunity for the suspicion of fiddled expenses. This could be extended to including an on-campus dining system where a number of restaurants would be available. MPs would be given a daily allowance when staying on campus to attend committee meetings or plenary debates. These could be paid for by a customised debit card system. This would allow them to budget by dining in their apartments at times, or going out at others. The cost of security would be less, with all MPs under one roof whilst they were at "Northminster". The accommodation area of the campus would be secure and private for the safety and convenience of MPs and their staff: the debating chamber would be open to the public, as well as being visible on televsion as now. One big advantage for all of us, including MPs and their constituents, would be that the new system would be designed for video-conferencing and electronic communications generally. This would reduce the inconvenience and cost of MPs having to travel as frequently as they do now. Of course, there would be a need for occasional plenary sessions, but these could perhaps be reduced to one week in four or something similar. There would still be a need for a presence in London, for the meeting and greeting of foreign dignitaries etc., so Number Ten could continue to function as the Prime Minister's residence. There might also be a need for similar official residences for one or two senior figures in the Government, but apart from that MPs would live in their constituencies - at least we'd hope so - and use a mixture of new technology and visits to "Northminster" to carry out their duties. There are, of course, already plans afoot for a high speed rail link: this would enable MPs from the south of England to travel efficiently from their constituencies, as required, and would mean MPs from Midland, North of England or Scottish constituencies had shorter distances to travel. I firmly believe that this would a) help the general population to see they were getting value and relevance from their MPs, b) bring an outdated and much-lampooned mediaeval system of government into the twenty-first century and c) bring economic benefits to an area which apparently feels left behind in modern Britain.
    19 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Doug Morrison