Claim right of citizens to propose and obtain a referendum!


You can discuss the items below and related subjects in DEMOCR@CY FORUM

WEBLOG OF COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE

SCROLL DOWN OR USE PAGE SEARCH TO FIND ITEMS
IF YOU AGREE WITH OUR OPINIONS THEN PASS THEM AROUND BY PHONE, INTERNET ETC.


DEMOCRACY: CAN WE TRUST THE MAJOR PARTIES WITH REFORM (2009)


DO WE RECALL?
Failed, incompetent or corrupt politicians in the UK and countries

(link to another page)

SELF-SEEKING POLITICIANS: SOME REMEDIES
(link to another page)

SWISS ALPINE INITIATIVE AND PEOPLE'S REFERENDUM: SHORT FILM
(link to another page)

CLAIM OUR RIGHT TO DEMOCRACY STATED IN UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1948

LIBDEMS LUKE-WARM ON CITIZEN-POWER :: CONFERENCE VOTE 2008


LIBDEM PARTY DEBATES DIRECT DEMOCRACY :: CONFERENCE 2008


DEMOCRACY AND THE UK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 2008 (III) (CENSORED)

DEMOCRACY AND THE UK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 2008 (II)

DEMOCRACY AND THE UK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 2008 (I)


CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY IN THE UK

JUDGES BLOCK REFERENDUM ON EU


REFERENDUMS: WHAT ARE THEY GOOD FOR? HANSARD SOCIETY
(link to another page)

AFTER THE IRISH "NO": REFLECTION ON DEMOCRACY IN THE UK

MPs REJECT EU TREATY REFERENDUM

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION OR ETHICS LESSONS?

MORE DEMOCRACY IN FRG: THE ECONOMIST, DER SPIEGEL


HOW TO REGULATE AND ORGANISE A STATE REFERENDUM

SINCE MAGNA CARTA 1215 SLOW PROGRESS


LEIPZIG: CITIZENS' PLEBISCITE STOPS SELL-OFF

SHROPSHIRE CITIZENS' PARISH POLL TO PROTECT TOWN PARK

EXPERT CALLS FOR EXTENDED DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS
(link to another page)

TAX AND LOCALISM AND CITIZENS' DEMOCRACY: RESPONSE TO TIMES ARTICLE

PARISH POLL VOTERS FAVOUR RE-OPENING CEMETERY GATE

REFERENDUM-DEMAND "FOR A HEALTHY CLIMATE"

HOW TO OBTAIN A REFERENDUM EVEN IF THE PRIME MINISTER SAYS NO!

DARLINGTON MAYOR BALLOT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT DEMOCRACY

PARISH POLL RULES (ENGLAND AND WALES) NEED REVISION


CITIZENS' DIRECT DEMOCRACY DEBATED IN "OURKINGDOM"

SWISS DEMOCRACY BY PAUL CARLINE

DEMOCRATIC PERSPECTIVE UPON GORDON BROWN'S CONSTITUTION SPEECH
TO THE COMMONS, JULY 2007
   (link to another page)

LETTER TO "THE TIMES"
Does power to the people mean democracy or direct participation?

CITIZENS DEMAND REFERENDUM ON EUROPEAN TREATY: DOWNING STREET
ADRIAN ROMILLY CALLS FOR OUR RIGHT TO FACULTATIVE (VETO) REFERENDUM
ON "SOVEREIGNTY" OF PARLIAMENTS AND CITIZEN LAW-MAKING 
(link to another page)

CITIZENS' DIRECT DEMOCRACY AT WORK

CZECH GOVERNING GREENS DRAFT REFERENDUM BILL (LINK)

 
QVORTRUP SPEAKS UP FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN BRITAIN

WEAK DEMOCRACY: PETITION DOWNING STREET

LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS: CHANCE FOR DD CAMPAIGN 

SAVE BERLIN'S CITY AIRPORT

ROUTINE SWISS DEMOCRACY

GM CROPS VIA THE BACK DOOR?

LOCALISM OR CITIZENS' DEMOCRACY?

DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTION

ROWNTREE'S POWER INQUIRY

LINK TO MORE NEWS


DEMOCRACY: CAN WE TRUST THE MAJOR PARTIES WITH REFORM (2009)

Your Ed. mentions that in the current crisis of confidence many commentators  have called for "direct democracy" as a way to improve the way we govern ourselves. Mainly these calls have come from members of the public and electorate rather than from the political parties, the government or journalists.

Most people in the UK and countries have no experience of citizen-led direct democracy for the simple reason that – with very rare exceptions – we have no elements of direct democracy (for a definition of citizen-led democracy see http://www.iniref.org/ ) So it may help to find out if the political parties plan to bring in reform of this type.

For some years our advocacy and education campaign for "more" direct democracy has been following what the major parties say or do about this.

All three of the major parties have claimed that they will "give" us more direct democracy, with devolution "down to the citizen" and real opportunities to participate in politics. To what extent can they be trusted to enact reform in this area?

Short introduction.

A few months ago our Labour Party government of the day published a "green paper" about governance which, in the introduction, emphasises the importance of direct democracy. Later, apparently without batting a ministerial eyelid, Michael Wills decrees that in future the only way for us to obtain a referendum will be if the government (formally, parliament) allows us to have one. They also set the question, fix the timing and decide at their whim whether to not to act upon the people's decision! That's reform? It is exactly what we have now. In summary: expect little from Labour except spin and placebo reform such as "citizens' juries".

The Conservatives are a tricky old bunch. They founded a "think tank" (for several months off-line, presumably defunct) which they had the nerve to call "direct democracy". It's well established that direct democracy includes citizen-led governance such as the "initiative" (e.g. law-proposal) and the citizen-triggered plebiscite (binding referendum). In their Ten Aims this think tank did not mention any form of direct democracy. However, a few of the (while in opposition) ideas of the Tories are well worth considering, e.g. the veto-referendum, which could be demanded by voters. Like the LibDems, Cameron has recently mentioned the option for constituency voters to "recall" MPs. In summary: A few useful ideas but their proposals are not democratic enough. What would they do if elected to power?

The LibDems at their last party conference (2009) voted to *reject* a proposal to introduce citizen-led direct democracy ("initiative and referendum"). Clegg mentions that the "Recall" of failed or corrupt MPs might be introduced. There is a handful of praiseworthy lonely voices in the party, people who have consistently worked for effective reform.

PROSPECTS FOR REFORM
Whatever the outcome of the next general election (assuming no great surprise involving a fourth party), whether Conservative, Labour, LibDem or some unlikely coalition, the chance that our new Leaders will seriously begin to share power with the electorate are slim. Those who would like to see elements of direct democracy in the UK, countries, cities and towns, must continue to campaign and inform, seeking support from broad segments of the electorate in order to change public policy and constitution regarding our democracy. There are not enough campaigners and supporters. We urgently need help.

Our survey is available free of charge via the web page http://www.iniref.org/latest.html 
CLICK THE HEADER Citizens and Direct Democracy: What chance of reform do the major UK political parties offer?

Michael Macpherson

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/

similar posted to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/bluprint-for-reforming-government
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/campaign-for-democracy-brown-vs-cameron-vs-clegg-1691210.html

-------------------------------------------------------------



CLAIM OUR RIGHT TO DEMOCRACY STATED IN UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1948

A reminder on the 60th anniversary of this international agreement.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states:

"Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."
Article 21 (1).

"Directly" participating in government refers to procedures such as citizen-lawmaking, a veto on government law by means of referendum and the right to sack a member of parliament by "recall".

The UK government recently stated that "This part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises that democracy can be exercised by electing representatives as part of a representative democratic system. It also makes clear that direct democracy can be part of a democratic system. The principle is that the will of the people is the basis for the authority of government." Communities in control: real people, real power. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, by Command of Her Majesty 9 July 2008
-------------------------------------------------

Direct democracy enables the electorate to veto unwanted government laws, to make public proposals and to call a referendum by right.

How to introduce this in UK and the countries? See the web site below.

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/


COMMENT


LIBDEMS LUKE-WARM ON CITIZEN-POWER :: CONFERENCE VOTE 2008

LibDem conference Saturday 13th October 2008
Policy Motion F3 Giving Citizens a Voice in Parliament
Mover: James Graham
http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/conference/A08motions.pdf

RESULTS of conference debate ...

At the request of a LibDem constituency group, Item 3, for a people’s veto-referendum, was put to the conference vote separately. It was rejected by about 60 percent of delegates, with about 40 percent in favour. The remaining, democratically weaker, proposals were approved.

A LibDem member and supporter of the motion commented that "our call for wider petitioning and agenda initiative was adopted, while our proposal for a veto was defeated.  It's still progress, but it was a frustrating debate."

For background and detail of the direct democracy motion see below
LIBDEM PARTY DEBATES DIRECT DEMOCRACY and for more about attitudes of major political parties to democracy see Citizens and Direct Democracy: What chance of reform do the major UK political parties offer? via http://www.iniref.org/latest.html

COMMENT


LIBDEM PARTY DEBATES DIRECT DEMOCRACY :: CONFERENCE 2008


At the upcoming Liberal Democrats Autumn Conference 2008 a proposal for more direct democracy will made by James Graham of Unlock Democracy (a fusion of New Politics and Charter 88). An announcement of this appeared a few days ago in the Guardian online, see link below (a).

Here is an excerpt from the proposal:
Saturday 13th
Policy Motion
http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/conference/A08motions.pdf

Chair: Jeremy Hargreaves (Vice Chair, Federal Policy Committee) Aide: Catherine Bearder

QUOTE:

F3 Giving Citizens a Voice in Parliament
12 conference representatives
Mover: James Graham
Summation: David Boyle
Conference notes:
a) In the Government’s 2007 Governance of Britain Green Paper, it
proposed to ‘improve direct democracy’, yet has failed for over a year to produce substantive proposals on how it plans to do this at Parliamentary level. (....)
Conference therefore calls for:
1. A petitioning system fit for the 21st century: the system for
petitioning Parliament should be simplified and it should be possible to submit petitions online; Parliament should develop a system formally to consider petitions submitted to it and take action where appropriate, and any resident or expatriate of the UK or a British Overseas Territory would have a right to petition Parliament in this way.

2. People’s bills: whereby the six legislative proposals that received the most petition signatures from registered voters in any given year would be guaranteed a second reading debate in the House of Commons.

3. A people’s veto: all Acts of Parliament would be subject to a rule whereby, if one million registered voters petitioned against it within 60 days of the law being passed, a referendum would have to be held on whether or not to repeal it.

4. A responsive electoral system: elect both Houses of Parliament using single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies (STV); unlike other electoral systems, STV gives the voter choice between candidates from a particular party, as well as choice between parties.

5. A Constitutional Convention: an independent convention to review how to improve the governance of the UK, including producing a written constitution, as set out in Policy Paper 83 For the People, By the People; at least 51% of the Convention’s membership would be made up of randomly selected members of the electorate, and the government would be required by law to co-operate with the Convention. (....)
UNQUOTE

a.
Guardian On-line, reply to Bridget Fox, LibDem parliamentary candidate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/aug/28/liberaldemocrats.houseofcommons
Aug 29 08, 8:49am

In 2001 the Liberal Democrats' manifesto included a promise, if elected to rule, to introduce citizen-initiated referendum. In their 2005 manifesto there was no trace (confirmed by your researcher) of this most effective and well-tried form of democratic participation.

The veto referendum by which a large number of voters can attempt to block a law is to be welcomed.

Bridget Fox's article mentions that the LibDems will discuss what looks like Douglas Carswell's (Con., Harwich) proposal, introduced at Westminster, for the agenda-setting "initiative", which is really a glorified petition and may be ignored by parliament and government.

The Declaration of Human Rights, numerous recently drafted and some older state constitutions indicate that an electorate should be able to decide on pubic issues in addition to electing politicians. Shall we be allowed to decide only on those issues which our politicians (who work for us!) dictate to us?

The term direct democracy covers many concepts and to allow intelligent debate needs to be qualified. Our proposals refer to a clear concept which may be read here http://www.iniref.org/about.html

Dr. Michael Macpherson

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/


COMMENT


DEMOCRACY AND THE UK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 2008 (III) (CENSORED)

 
DEMOCRACY AND THE UK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
A little known official public debate which may be viewed at

http://governance.justice.gov.uk/2008/07/08/the-process-continues-a-discussion-forum/

mojuser Elspeth Rainbow - Moderator - Ministry of Justice  wrote
20 August 2008

Well there are lots of comments on the constitution, a bill of rights and european issues. Perhaps as Michael Macpherson says we can refocus the discussion on Deliberative engagement

Barney Leith writes ‘I’m not yet quite clear what ‘deliberative techniques’ are. These cover any mechanism which provides an opportunity for people to talk to each other, to question their own standpoints and to gain further, and alternative information. Not simply an individual providing their current view solely to government.
Professor Fishkin in the US has used ‘deliberative polling’ - a deliberative technique - in a number of countries and it has been shown that by listening to others people are really open-minded and can change their views. Have a look at some results of his work here http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/#results

Such an approach also mirrors more closely the kind of dilemmas and trade-offs that elected representatives face.
-------------------------------------------------

I&R –  GB reply which was censored by Ministry of Justice
Thurs. 21st August 2008

"Deliberative polling" as proposed by Fishkin can involve only a tiny
fraction of the electorate -- one of his studies involved 340 people
chosen from almost 300 million citizens of the USA. It could be used as
a way in which governments can consult a small number of people about
issues which the government has selected. It is rather expensive to
organise.

Contrast this with the deliberative effects of real participation in
democracy. Around the time of the Danish referendum on a european
treaty, Maastricht, many citizens were better informed about what was in
the treaty than were the members of parliament. Before the more recent
french "Non" to the draft european constitution there was rich public
debate in which millions informed themselves about the issues. Where
referenda occur more often, a routine can develop in which information
about the issue is posted to voters (internet can help here), people
discuss the proposal at home, at work and even in public transport.

See for instance
Proposal for the introduction of new democratic procedures in Great
Britain and Northern Ireland   http://www.iniref.org/steps.html


Swiss governance http://www.iniref.org/swiss-home.html

An introduction to direct democracy
http://www.iniref.org/swissdemocracy.html

Wahlen und Abstimmungen
http://www.admin.ch/aktuell/abstimmung/index.html?lang=de

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
> http://www.iniref.org/

COMMENT


DEMOCRACY AND THE UK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (II)
A little known official public debate which may be viewed at http://governance.justice.gov.uk/2008/07/08/the-process-continues-a-discussion-forum/

Michael Macpherson
18 August 2008
Comment ID #128
Anne Palmer 14 August 2008 Comment ID #102 wrote:
“Magna Carta of course is a Treaty between the people and the Crown and Parliament may not alter it. See also the people’s Bill of Rights. To get round this however, the Government have realised that either Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II (The Crown) would have to repeal them, which she either obviously has not be asked to do, or has been asked and has refused, so the alternative is to perhaps ask the other ‘parties to the treaty-in other words “the people” to repeal them, themselves.”

The barons who negotiated with King John can hardly be said to have represented the people in a democratic way. However, the principle that in our time the people should naturally decide on major issues of state in plebiscite is a good one, sadly unfamiliar to or resisted by most current day politicians and UK pundits of state constitution.

The Green Paper states “In all cases, it is for Parliament to debate and decide on the precise terms of a referendum. The Government believes that it is right that it is for Parliament to determine when to hold a referendum and the precise terms.” In practice it is even worse, because the government of the day dictates the issue, formulates the question and decides on the timing. Parliament obediently waves the show through.

The right of a people to decide public issues by plebiscite is fundamentally and widely recognised, for instance in the Declaration of Human Rights (cited on precisely this question in Minister Blears’ recent White Paper) and in numerous state constitutions. Denying an electorate and people the right to choose and initiate a plebiscite, as previous and present governments of the UK have done, is a totally unacceptable restriction of this right to democracy.

This thread is meant to be about deliberation of public issues. We should discuss how the electorate can participate more effectively in public decision making (far beyond citizens’ juries or token-gesture “budgetting”) for instance in the run-up period to a plebiscite. Further, in constitutional matters, a citizens’ convention, which has the power to formulate proposals for plebiscite, may be of use (compare British Columbia). First however we should establish our right to choose public issues and trigger referenda on them.

Glossary: Above we use the term plebiscite to mean a legally binding ballot or “referendum”.

References
SINCE MAGNA CARTA 1215 SLOW PROGRESS reply to Jack Straw, may be found here http://www.iniref.org/blog.html#magna
More about right to referendum at http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb

COMMENT


DEMOCRACY AND THE UK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (I)
A little known official public debate which may be viewed at http://governance.justice.gov.uk/2008/07/08/the-process-continues-a-discussion-forum

Michael Macpherson
12 August 2008
Comment ID #90
“Topic 2 - Deliberative Engagement
Thanks for comments so far on current engagement. We’d like to move on to a discussion on deliberative engagement.”

According to the Green Paper “Effective public engagement should complement representative democracy. Direct democracy, at the national level, in which the public makes the decision rather than their elected representative has some advantages …” So far, so good … We at I&R ~ GB propose that elements of direct democracy, such as the citizens’ law-proposal and the right of the electorate to obtain a referendum on any issue which they choose, should play a more important role in the UK and countries.

Much too conservative is the Labour government’s attitude to direct democracy. No serious reformer has suggested that referenda etc. should replace the established system of political parties and parliament. They should be helped to get on with their work “for us”. But, according to reliable studies, a large majority of us would like to be able to take part more in running our own affairs in the periods between general elections. In surveys we “The People” strongly approve propositions like “A large number of citizens should be able to trigger a referendum on a matter of public concern”.

The Green Paper continues “The Government believes that the holding of national referendums should continue to be an exceptional feature of our constitutional arrangements, used in circumstances where these sorts of fundamental issues are at stake.” Elsewhere in the tract an assertion is made that referenda are rare in other countries, “there are very few countries where the use of the referendum is commonplace”. It is odd that the Min. of Justice seems unaware of the extent and dynamic growth of direct democracy across the world. Here are some figures, from a talk given at a social science conference in Glasgow, 2007:
Referenda held at country level in Europe (excluding Switzerland) were counted as follows
(10 year periods ending …)
1960 four
1970 fourteen
1980 twenty-nine
1990 fifty-three
2000 one hundred and thirty
2001 to 2003 thirty-six

Further, by limiting consideration of direct democracy to “referendum” the Minister does not do justice to the rich culture of public participation, social responsibility and deliberation of complex issues which result from and feed a mixed system of “direct” and “indirect (representative)” democracy. This may be found, with interesting and instructive variations of form and practice, for instance in the USA, Italy, Switzerland, Lands of the federal state of Germany and even just now in “overcentralised” France!

More about citizens’ direct democracy, the initiative, referendum, recall and more, may be browsed and downloaded at http://www.iniref.org/
On a historical note, I point out that we at I&R ~ GB appealed in the late 1990s to the government for a Green Paper on governance and democracy in the UK, see: “People’s Proposal to Renew Democracy 1999: An historic document” on the page http://www.iniref.org/case.html

COMMENT


CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY IN THE UK


The following statement is similar to a comment posted in a discussion on the web site of the New Statesman.

A crisis of democracy in the UK? A historical sketch linked to a call for action.

In the late 19th century England failed to mesh with the international movement for stronger democracy whereas in the USA the citizens' initiative, binding referendum, and recall were introduced (over several decades) in about half of the USA states. In the same epoch the democracy movement in Switzerland strengthened and refined their combination of direct and indirect ("representative") democracy. In the early 20th century in England there were proposals to hold referenda on major policy issues but this did not come about. Then perhaps because we had The Great War, the economic depression and World War II, a serious public debate aimed to optimise our democracy failed to materialise. Perhaps the proponents of "representative rule" were too well entrenched. (Historical insights welcomed.)

Recently written, adopted state constitutions across the world contain elements of direct, citizens' democracy, from Taiwan to the baltic states, eastern Europe to Australasia.

Even "centralised" France has just (July 2008) adopted an instrument of citizen-triggered law proposal for state governance.

Now unsurprisingly we in the UK have an "elective dictatorship", "democracy deficit", and a crisis of trust in formal politics, acknowledged (1) even by a government which, like a King Canute facing the incoming tide of democracy, hangs on desperately to a failed, near absolutist system of representative rule, "political" parties with invisible membership, falling election turnout and an alienated, non-voting generation of youth which will probably never take part in political life.

I&R ~ GB proposes that we begin to use the citizens' initiative (e.g. law-proposal) and binding referendum at all levels of government, see (2) and http://www.iniref.org/

Ideas recently put forward (under duress) by the Labour government, such as the citizens' jury or various petitions, can do little to improve democracy. At best they can be seen as pedagogic instruments, at worst as frustrating distractions from real considerations of constitutional-political power and governance.

1. Reply to government Green Paper: A national framework for greater citizen engagement: A discussion paper – published July 2008 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2008-07-09a.77WS.3#c18867
2. PROPOSAL FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES IN GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND http://www.iniref.org/steps.html

COMMENT


JUDGES BLOCK REFERENDUM ON EU


I&R ~ GB Statement to Usenet fora:
uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc, scot.politics,uk.politics.parliament,
uk.environment, alt.politics.british,alt.politics.media

Legal bid to force EU referendum fails
Andrew Sparrow and agencies Wednesday June 25, 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/25/eu.foreignpolicy

"... in their ruling, the judges said that the constitution and the
Lisbon treaty were not the same.

And, crucially, they said that even if ministers had promised a
referendum on the Lisbon treaty, that would be a political promise to be
enforced by parliament, not the courts."
-------------------------------------------------------
Statement

Most experts and at least one co-author of the constitution document
have stated that the Lisbon treaty is substantially the same. Certainly
it will bring constitutional changes which affect the UK, e.g.
governance of the EU and so should go before the people in referendum.

In their opinion that parliament could force the government to hold a
referendum, the judges appear to ignore the reality of whipped
parliamentary obedience. Presumably, sadly, with regard to public law
they are correct. Unlikely, but could it be that their lordships are
secret reformers who wish to illustrate deficits in our democracy, such
as an unrepresentative, supine parliament and a lack of the citizens'
right to push through a referendum (even if the government refuses to
have one)?
=============
from a related discussion in UK.POLITICS.MISC
"Re: New Liebour paid off judges, NO referendum in England on EUSSR"
aracari wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2008 09:14:37 GMT  'Ar'
> wrote this on uk.politics.misc:
>
>> With this verdict, the judges mean that general election manifestos are
>> worthless bits of paper who's only use is for the wiping your arse on.
>>
>> Gordon Brown bought the judges verdict, the same way he bought the DUP 42
>> days vote.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7472449.stm
>
> A bad day for judicial independence, but not unexpected.
> I suspect the deal was much more subtle than being bought off.
>
> Yet another reason why Britain needs a written constitution
> to clearly set out the roles/responsibilities/powers of govt.
(I&R ~ GB:)
With the citizens' initiated referendum CIR, a large agreed number of
voters can make a proposal and force a referendum on it. In this way a
referendum can be held even if the prime minister of the day does not
want it and government policy can so be overruled or improved upon.

See proposals for CIR at

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/index.html
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation

COMMENT

-------------------------------------------------------


AFTER THE IRISH "NO": REFLECTION ON DEMOCRACY IN THE UK


June 2008

Claim right of citizens to propose and obtain referendum

Political parties in Britain fish for votes by using the promise of a referendum as bait. Recent experience on several important themes -- the electoral system, the Euro currency and worst of all the constitutional treaty for Europe* -- has shown that such promises were unreliable or worthless.

We are told by politicians that a referendum cannot be held unless the government of the day "allows" one. An Act of the usually obedient parliament is required to rubber-stamp a wish of the prime minister to hold a referendum. There are better ways to govern our own public affairs. There is no good reason to do things in this centralised and dictatorial manner. The Irish example in 2008, similar in Denmark 2005, show that this must *not* be the case.

The electorate must take back their power to decide on certain important issues which they select. How can this be done? We must simply introduce the right of citizens to propose and force a referendum, by collecting a large number of endorsements for a proposal. Using this method, which is used in a number of countries similar to ours, we can propose or change a law and formulate a directive to our representatives in the European Union. Also, we can put up for veto (by referendum) a government bill, a new international treaty or proposed change in constitution.

See also the posting below "
MPs reject EU treaty referendum"

===================================
*The Labour Party manifesto 2005 stated:

"The EU now has 25 members and will continue to expand. The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."

COMMENT


MPs REJECT EU TREATY REFERENDUM


bbc.com 5.3.2008  "MPs reject EU treaty referendum
The government says a referendum is not needed on the treaty
MPs have rejected proposals to hold a UK-wide referendum on whether to ratify the EU's Lisbon Treaty.
The House of Commons turned down the Conservative proposal by 311 votes to 248 - a margin of 63.
The result means Parliament itself will decide whether to ratify the treaty, signed by EU leaders last December."
--------------------
It is the Labour Party in parliament and government which carries major responsibility for the above decision.

After their year-long, shameful tactic of vacillation and deception or hidden motivation the ruling group in UK and Europe has presented us with a fait accompli, a situation in which we have only bad choices.

Thank you, representatives.

It has been clear for decades that the people, those who provide your employment and succour, politicians, wish to co-decide on important matters of state and upon international treaties. The Labour Party's promise to hold a referendum on a european constitution ... (see extract from their 2005 manifesto in the next posting, above).

It was possible -- it remains possible -- to put (separately) controversial aspects of the european constitutional debate, and/or the whole "amending treaty", to the peoples for debate followed by decision in plebiscite.

Wallace-Macpherson

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/


posted to Usenet discussion newsgroups : uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc, scot.politics, uk.politics.parliament, uk.environment, alt.politics.british, alt.politics.media


RELIGIOUS EDUCATION OR ETHICS LESSONS?

May 2008
In the city-state of Berlin, Germany, the citizens' initiative Pro Reli proposes that school pupils should be able to choose to take either ethics lessons or religious education lessons. The Land's government, the Senat, prefers to maintain the status quo by retaining ethics as a compulsory subject for all pupils and allowing those who wish to take religion in addition.

In order to trigger a referendum which could overrule the Senat, Pro Reli must within four months collect 170,000 endorsing signatures.

More detail:  Religionsunterricht: Abgeordnetenhaus berät über Volksbegehren


MORE DEMOCRACY IN FRG: THE ECONOMIST, DER SPIEGEL

Recent articles which illustrate the growth of citizens' direct democracy in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Spiegel Online 25th April 2008
"Citizens' Participation and Direct Democracy, a research group at the University of Marburg, has studied
the phenomenon and come up with statistics to corroborate the trend toward citizens taking matters into
their own hands. In the mid-1990s there were fewer than 100 referendums a year in Germany. Last year
there were about 300, with half of them ending in victory for the rebels."

The Economist (print edition) Direct democracy in Germany: When voters want a say
May 1st 2008
"Bavaria's ruling party, the Christian Social Union (Ed -- formerly an opponent of direct democracy), credits direct democracy with giving citizens a way to disagree with the government on single issues without voting for the opposition. Tempelhof (Ed. Recent topic of a referendum, Berlin's city airport) may close, but direct democracy will soldier on."



HOW TO REGULATE AND ORGANISE A STATE REFERENDUM
Hungary

A referendum held in early March 2008 has been widely reported. I&R ~ GB reviews the regulations for Citizens' Direct Democracy in a country of the European Union.

From the Constitution of Hungary
Chapter I  General Provisions
Article 2  [Democracy, Rule of Law, Sovereignty]
(1) The Republic of Hungary is an independent, democratic constitutional state.
(2) In the Republic of Hungary supreme power is vested in the people, who exercise their sovereign rights directly and through elected representatives.
---------------------------------------------------
The Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
National Level
The "instruments" for direct democracy are Paragraph 28 of the Constitution and the Third Law of 1998 on national referendums and initiatives. Everyone who is eligible to vote in the national elections can participate in referendums and initiatives.

According to the constitution, a referendum can be either consultative or binding.

There are cases in which a referendum is obligatory; otherwise Parliament can choose whether or not to hold one.

If 200,000 eligible voters initiate it a referendum MUST be held; if the referendum is successfully carried out and the quorum reached then the outcome is binding on Parliament.

If the referendum is initiated by 100,000 voters, by the president of the republic, the government, or one third of the Members of Parliament, then Parliament has the right to decide whether or not to hold a referendum.

Before the collection of signatures can begin, a copy of the signature forms must be presented to the National Election Committee (NEC) for verification. The NEC can deny verification only if the question is not in the jurisdiction of Parliament, if it is not eligible for a national referendum, and/or if the formulation of the question and/or the form for collecting signatures does not comply with the law. The initiative can be presented to the chairman of the NEC within 4 months after verification.

An obligatory referendum is automatically binding. Also binding is a referendum on a law adopted by parliament but not yet signed by the president of the republic. A referendum initiated by the president, the government or one third of the members of parliament can be either consultative or binding, depending on the decision of the parliament. A binding referendum is successful if more than 50% of the valid votes cast are in favor and if these represent more than 25% of the electorate.

Referendum March 2008.

Over two hundred thousand endorsements for the referendum proposal had been collected so the government was obliged to organise a referendum.

The referendum addressed three topics
-- Fees paid for visiting a medical practice, 82.5
-- Fee demanded for an inpatient stay in hospital, 84.1
-- Fee (planned for Autumn 2008) demanded from students for attending university or college, 82.3

The electors were called to veto these items of government policy.

The figures shown are the percentage results after 99 percent of votes had been counted.

Some commentators have criticised the referendum topics as trivial but this Initiative may be seen as part of a decade-long campaign to oppose privatisation and commercialisation of health and educational services.

Acknowledgements to IRI-Europe; Der Standard (Austria); net-tribune.de


SINCE MAGNA CARTA 1215 SLOW PROGRESS
I&Rgb replies to Guardian leader and government minister Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.

    Magna Carta may have provided us with vestigial democracy but we must confront the reality that, in the countries of UK, in comparison with some other countries, we have not progressed much over 800 years. Over centuries the people struggled to achieve voting rights but only in the early 20th century did women get the vote and a few decades before that male workers could not vote either. We have achieved small advances, that the elected parliament is seen as the highest legislative body and that the electorate once every five or so years may vote for politicians. On the down side, the politicians' agenda follows a mandate which is at best vague, some would call it deceptive, and black sheep may not even be recalled between elections.
    Leaving the task of drafting a constitution of state to politicians and jurists such as Jack Straw is like appointing the fox to write the farm rules for the geese. Constitution is what constitutes We The People and to be valid and effective it must come from the people and be modifiable by them. The principle that state constitutions must emerge from a process of the widest public debate followed by referendum is accepted across the world. A "plebiscite" imposed by a ruling elite is *not* meant. The Citizens' Convention Bill introduced at Westminster by Charter88 (aka Unlock Democracy) is worthy of consideration here. Admittedly a constitution of state is complex and multi-facetted. Different sections could be put forward for public debate and then voted upon successively.
    From the above it follows that a culture of democracy and preferably well-tried instruments for its application should be available before a constitution-forming process is initiated. At the latest, our democracy should be improved in parallel with the beginning debate about rights and constitution. The reforms, opposed by the vast majority of politicians, should include: Citizens' law-proposal (covers constitution and change to constitution), "ballot issues"; Electorate-triggered referendum; Obligatory referendum on important treaties and changes to constitution; Facultative (optional) referendum, initiable by an agreed number of voters, effectively a veto of unwanted government law or policy.
    Author: Michael Macpherson I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Campaign for direct democracy in Britain http://www.iniref.org/ Posted at Guardian web site in reply to leading article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/14/constitution.jackstraw


LEIPZIG: CITIZENS' PLEBISCITE
STOPS SELL-OFF
Posted to Usenet groups uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc, scot.politics, uk.politics.parliament, uk.environment, alt.politics.british, alt.politics.media

In contrast to the way things are in the countries of the United Kingdom, in post-WW2 Germany the citizens of cities and regions (states of the federation) have effective tools of participation in politics beyond voting for candidates every few years.

A recent case is Leipzig. The city government had begun to sell off publicly owned services such as electricity supply and had worked out a deal with a large company. A citizens' initiative put forward a proposal to block the sale (and similar sales) for at least three years. After success of the "initiative", requiring some thousands of endorsements, a referendum was compulsory. This was held in January 2008 and with an overwhelming majority and respectable turnout "the motion was carried".

Now the city council will be forced to prepare a new plan for the city finances.

More information:
Leipziger gegen Verkauf ihrer Stadtwerke an Gaz de France
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6_9iPoxkPTszeO7yK4UUIhrHNzA

Leipziger Haushaltsplan muss nach Bürgerentscheid überarbeitet werden http://leipzig-seiten.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1736&Itemid=42

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/



SHROPSHIRE CITIZENS' PARISH POLL TO PROTECT TOWN PARK

Here's an example of the succesful use of the Parish Poll procedure.

Citizens of Hollinswood and Randlay Parish called on the district council to hold a poll (referendum) about Telford's 'Jewel in the Crown' Town Park. The district council, Telford and Wrekin Council, was then obliged to hold a poll in the parish.

Telford and Wrekin Council has announced the outcome of the parish poll.

The poll asked people to vote as to whether they agreed with the following statement: "We agree that Telford Town park's boundaries should be restored and kept as they were when the Commission for the New Towns handed the park to Wrekin District Council in 1991 as free open space for public use, and that there is no development upon it."

A total of 222 voters took part in yesterday's poll, with 214 voting yes and 7 voting no. One ballot was void. The turnout for the poll was 5.19%.

It is claimed that the low turnout was as a result of there being no promotion of the poll by the parish and because of the limited amount of time available for the actual voting to take place.

The rules for Parish Polls are to be found in the Local Government Act 1972. The Council is not obliged to comply with the result of the poll. For more detail see the blog item PARISH POLL RULES (ENGLAND AND WALES) NEED REVISION below

December 2007 

Source: http://shropshirenews.blogspot.com/2007/12/campaigner-vindicated-electorate-calls.html


TAX AND LOCALISM AND CITIZENS' DEMOCRACY: RESPONSE TO TIMES ARTICLE

Reply to P Riddell*. From The Times, November 14, 2007 "Tories pick the right issue but wrong answer"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article2865819.ece

I&Rgb replies:
We should extend the scope of "citizens' initiative and referendum".
This would allow a large number of electors (varying with size of
political unit) to put forward a proposal to introduce, change or veto
a law or public policy. If council or government rejects the proposal,
then a referendum of the whole electorate may be enforced. Genuine
direct democracy, an electorate can select and decide upon public issues
in addition to electing politicians.

The scope of citizens' initiatives corresponds, or should do, with the
remit of council, parliament or government. So, where the power of local
councils includes taxation then the local electorate should be able to
intervene by proposing a referendum.

How powers are distributed between state (centre) and smaller political
units is a matter of public constitution. There is broad international
acceptance that matters of constitution, whether its creation or
amendment, should be subject to referendum. Recent proposals for more
localism (devolution of powers to local government) involve change in
constitution.

For the UK and its countries, our provisional recommendation is to
introduce the optional referendum (in Switzerland "facultative") for
matters of constitution.

Published in Usenet 14th November 2007: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc, scot.politics

*** See related below LOCALISM OR CITIZENS' DEMOCRACY? -- a reply to Gordon Brown ***

Further information
http://www.iniref.org/

p.s. The Times declined to publish the above comment by I&Rgb.

*EXCERPT from P Riddell's article
"David Cameron has missed an opportunity with his new proposals on council tax. He talks the language of localism, but is reluctant to concede its substance. .......
"He rejected capping of council tax increases by Whitehall as “an old-fashioned idea straight out of the bureaucratic age”. Capping would be scrapped. Instead, councils that want to introduce high council tax rises, apparently those above the inflation rate, would have to submit their plans“ to a local referendum. Councils would explain why they want to raise their taxes by so much and show what they would do if their plans were rejected. Such ballots would be sent out with annual council tax bills and if rises were rejected there would be a rebate."


PARISH POLL VOTERS FAVOUR RE-OPENING CEMETERY GATE
November 14th 2007
Citizens of Sleaford, Lincolnshire apparently used the 1972 Local Government Act rules to demand that the Sleaford Town Council should hold a referendum. This is quite easy to do -- at a Parish Meeting only ten people, or a third of those present, can demand a "parish poll". A large majority voted for the citizens' proposal, against the Council. However, according to the Act, the result is not binding so that the Council is entitled to ignore it. (See item below "Parish poll rules (England and Wales) need revision"). PRESS REPORT


REFERENDUM-DEMAND "FOR A HEALTHY CLIMATE"

November 7th 2007
The Referendum-Demand (Volksinitiative) for a "Healthy Climate", according to the proposing group, has succeeded. The Association "Klima-Initiative" announced this Tuesday that 120,000 endorsements have been collected within five months .... Neue Zuercher Zeitung http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/medien/klima-initiative_zu_stande_gekommen__1.580462.html


HOW TO OBTAIN A REFERENDUM EVEN IF THE PRIME MINISTER SAYS NO!

Copy of letter to single issue pressure groups, lobbyists and pro-referendum (single issue) campaigners such as:

Democracy Movement
72 Hammersmith Road
London W14 8TH

Promises, promises. When will we have democracy?

We were promised a referendum
- on the electoral system for the House of Commons,
- on whether to join the European currency system and abolish the pound
sterling,
- on a proposed constitution for the European Union

but not one of these ballots has been held.

We urge campaigners to think beyond the single issue currently on the
agenda, at present the European "constitution".

For how many decades more should we continue to accept that a prime
minister and government can toy with the electorate's clear will  to
decide a particular issue by plebiscite?

We should urgently campaign for the procedures of citizens'
referendum-demand to be introduced.

If a large agreed number -- say one or two million -- voters sign a
proposal, then parliament must debate it. If the MPs turn it down, then
a referendum must be held.

Regards,

---------------------------------------------
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/indexxx.html




DARLINGTON MAYOR BALLOT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT DEMOCRACY

The Northern Echo wrote:
Democracy under spotlight as referendum count ends
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/display.var.1723559.0.0.php

Extract:
Spurred into action through dissatisfaction at the way the Labour-run
Darlington Borough Council had handled the Pedestrian Heart Scheme,
Hurworth School and Tesco's town centre plans, the Yes campaign had
gathered nearly 4,000 signatures to trigger the referendum.

And last night, Labour cabinet member Nick Wallis said lessons had been
learned from the poll.

He said: "I don't think status quo was on offer, the question is how we
move forward, how we listen better and how we engage with residents.
Change has started because, after knocking on doors for the May
elections, we saw the need for that."

COMMENT 4:05am Saturday 29th September 2007
Posted by: I&Rgb, Guildford on 10:11am today

Ways to improve voter satisfaction with government include providing
better ways for people to participate on those issues which are
important to them. The government decided that we are allowed to decide
by referendum about form of local council and whether to have a "boss
mayor". We can do better than that. Why limit our democratic rights to
only one topic? With the "initiative" (proposal) a large number of
voters can put forward a proposal on any issue in the council's area of
responsibility. For the mayor question this needs five percent of
eligible voters. The proposal can then be debated by the council and if
rejected it goes to referendum. More about this "citizens' democracy" is
at http://www.iniref.org/

I&R ~ GB

Posted to Usenet newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.parliament, uk.environment, alt.politics.british, alt.politics.media, uk.politics.misc, scot.politics


PARISH POLL RULES (ENGLAND AND WALES) NEED REVISION

A loophole, really an error, in local government law allows a very small number of citizens of a parish to force a district council to hold a referendum. Clearly, our right to protest against government policy is important and the initiative shown by the activists in this case is praiseworthy. (See article about East Stoke cited below).

However, the democratic instrument ("parish poll") regulated in the Act of 1972 is defective and the regulations should be revised, preferably as part of a reform which entrenches our democratic rights of citizen-initiated referendum at all levels of governance.

For instance, only a substantial number of electors, not a handful, should be needed in order to trigger a referendum. A sliding scale, currently used in The Netherlands, offers a guide to proportion of  "signatures" needed, depending on size of the political unit (village, town, city etc.).

More detail about "citizens' democracy" is at
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
http://www.iniref.org/

Regards
Michael Macpherson
---------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2492732.ece

An EU referendum will take place today, but only in the tiny parish of East Stoke, Dorset.

The village, population 339, will have its say thanks to a little used clause in the Local Government Act 1972 which permits a parish poll on any subject if at least ten people are in favour. Residents of East Stoke in the Isle of Purbeck put the matter to a show of hands at a parish meeting last month.

The mini-referendum was arranged by the UK Independence Party, which is campaigning for similar local votes elsewhere. Today’s vote is not on the reform treaty itself, but on whether there should be a national referendum.

Darren Patterson, a local activist, said: “We are hoping for a good turnout and hope about 100 people will vote.” However, Barry Quinn, a Conservative Purbeck district councillor, said that it was a waste of money that would be better spent on refurbishing the war memorial.

After East Stoke, the 865 residents of Lanteglos, near Fowey, in Cornwall will stage a parish poll on the same subject.

More about Parish Polls and Local Government Act 1972



CITIZENS' DIRECT DEMOCRACY DEBATED IN "OURKINGDOM"

Extract:

Gareth, from experience of partial direct democracy elsewhere we would expect most government business and parliamentary legislation to be done as before.

We would not advise introducing the obligatory referendum (e.g. for constitution change and international treaties) unless the electorate wants this instrument. With citizens’ initiative (proposal) and the optional veto referendum the electorate could choose when and on which issues to intervene.

Complex issues can be handled by “ordinary” citizens. This has been proved in studies of deliberative polling and citizens’ juries. And how much do you think the average MP can grasp about the biology of stem cell science? Surely ethical decisions should not be left only to the specialised scientists. Not long ago an initiative about gene-manipulated animals and plants went to referendum (Switzerland).

The “I and R” process is rather long - many months to years - so it cannot be applied to emergencies. Going to war? Well, at least principles could be set. (Emergency law can be retrospectively considered by I and R).

Comment by Michael Macpherson — 11 July 07


SWISS DEMOCRACY BY PAUL CARLINE

Federal): 1) amendment to military law (optional referendum); 2) federal law on civil defence (optional referendum); 3) 'Fair rents for tenants' (citizens' initiative); 4) 'One car-free Sunday per quarter' (citizens' initiative); ...
more


LETTER TO "THE TIMES"

Does power to the people mean democracy or direct participation?
July 5, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article2028757.ece

Riddell wrote "There is little dispute now that voters have a right to be involved between elections, rather than just every four or five years at the ballot box."
------------------------------
I&R ~ GB replies

It is good to hear this but many of P. Riddell's concerns about democracy reform which increases public participation are ungrounded. Gordon Brown's suggestions in this context are over-cautious.

Riddell fears that introducing the right to propose legislation will empower "vocal" groups. Well, yes, but it would also create the conditions for any person or group who has a serious suggestion or proposal to seek support for the idea and put it to the rest of us (maybe via parliament or council) for decision. Experience shows that not only  the "usual suspects" such as opposition parties and trade unions will propose policy etc. but also that ad hoc and small lobby groups can succeed.

A report about "57 varieties" of political participation for the Power Inquiry selected three for special praise: The citizens' deliberative assembly (as for British Columbia's constitution); Citizens' juries on public policy; Real direct democracy such as citizens' initiative and citizen-triggered referendum.

More about the latter may be found at the web site http://www.iniref.org/  and an account of how the procedures work in five nearby countries may be found in Journal of the Association for Accountancy & Business Affairs http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/aabajourVol5-No1.html


CITIZENS DEMAND REFERENDUM ON EUROPEAN TREATY: DOWNING STREET
The appeal reads: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the
British people will be permitted a binding referendum on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU "constitution" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature.

In order to show your support for this demand for "binding referendum" CLICK


ADRIAN ROMILLY CALLS FOR OUR RIGHT TO FACULTATIVE (VETO) REFERENDUM
In reply to: Ruth Lea, Referendum on EU Constitutional Treaty, Telegraph, Sat June 30th 2007

Sir,
as matters stand, whether or not a referendum is held on the new EU Constitution is in the hands of the Primed Minister. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs in a democracy; we the electorate should not need to beseech the Prime Minister to grant us a referendum on this, or any other treaty.  The right for electors to petition for a veto referendum on a treaty, subject to a threshold of, say, 500,000 petitioners in favour of calling the referendum, should be written into our constitution.  Mr Brown, has said he wants to introduce constitutional reforms; he would make a good start by introducing a right to petition for a veto referendum.  This would certainly make the politicians listen (Mr Bragg Wed. June 27) to us in a way they have not hitherto. 
yours truly,
 
Adrian L Romilly, Plymouth, Devon, England  e-mail: AdrianRomilly AT  aol.com


ON "SOVEREIGNTY" OF PARLIAMENTS AND CITIZEN LAW-MAKING (more)

Michael Macpherson I&Rgb: As often in British debate about constitution what is glaringly missing is that essential organ of the body of state, the people. May2007


CITIZENS' DIRECT DEMOCRACY AT WORK


swisspolitics.org alert from 27.02.2007

Dear swisspolitics reader,
The next nationwide vote takes place on March 11th. Voters are invited to decide on the popular initiative for a single health insurance scheme.
For more information and links on the issues click on our special page:
http://www.swisspolitics.org/en/news/index.php?page=aktuelle_abstimmungen

QVORTRUP SPEAKS UP FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN BRITAIN


Radio 4's Today programme 0845 on Saturday morning 17 Feb 2007
BBC writes: "Despite having attracted nearly a million and a half signatures the petition to stop road charging has not worked. So what does this sort of situation do to democracy? We ask Steve Richards & Matt Qvortrup."

Interview. Visit the 18 Doughty Street website click on the One to One programme and selecting Prof Qvortrup's interview with Michael Ediae (or search archive).

Supply Side Politics: How Citizens' Initiatives could revitalise British Politics, by Prof Matt Qvortrup, published by the Centre for Policy Studies, a conservative institute     DOWNLOAD      Source

Peter Riddell in The Times comments on Qvortrup


WEAK DEMOCRACY: PETITION DOWNING STREET

Subject: Petition Downing Street
From: INIREF
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:42:54 +0100
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,uk.environment,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.media,uk.politics.misc,scot.politics

The press corps seems impressed by the prime minister's on-line petition system -- see recent articles cited below.

Our view on this system is as follows: The Downing Street e-petition scheme's novelty may soon wear off. It does seem to be of some use as a way to bring problems and ideas to public attention. On the other hand even very good and well supported proposals can be ignored by the government.

Can we do better democracy? We think so. If say half a million people sign a proposal then parliament should be obliged to debate it and decide for or against. If they turn it down then the proposal should be put to the whole electorate in referendum (plebiscite). Local issues may be treated in the same way via the council.

Compare the petition at  http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb

For more information about citizens' law proposal (initiative) and referendum see http://www.iniref.org

Regards
Wallace-Macpherson

Background:
The Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article1336496.ece

Guardian
Don't ignore a million angry voices, Mr Blair
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2010571,00.html


LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS: CHANCE FOR DD CAMPAIGN 

Subject: Local council elections: Propose I and R
From: INIREF~GB
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:42:31 +0100
To: press@iniref.org
BCC:

Subject: Local council elections: Propose I and R

cc:
Our-Say, Saira Khan and friends
Diana Wallis MEP
Electoral Commission
Charter88, Ron Bailey
New Politics Network, Peter Facey
Unlock Democracy
Democracy International
Initiative and Referendum Institute - IRI Europe
Democratic Audit

Posted in TalkDemocracy 6th Feb 2007
http://www.talkdemocracy.org.uk/talk/

--------------------------------------------------

Friends and Colleagues:

In May 2007 there will be local elections.

Well prior to these I suggest that members of this forum put together broad recommendations for local DIRECT democracy, including the citizens' initiative and referendum. The proposal could then be sent to local news media, candidates for election and campaigning groups, perhaps concentrating on a selection of constituencies.

Is someone doing this already? If not, who would like to work on it?

Quite a few local councils have already run their own referenda. There appears to be no reason why they should not be able to do this. The result must not be formally binding on the council but a council could agreed in advance to be guided by the ballot.

(Similar proposals could be prepared for elections to Wales Assembly and Scottish Parliament).

Sincerely,
Michael

Dr. Michael Macpherson
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
a campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/


SAVE BERLIN'S CITY AIRPORT: FORMER CONSERVATIVE MP STARTS INITIATIVE
29 Nov 2006 Lobbyists for Tempelhof airport, Berlin FRG, will tomorrow launch a citizens' initiative to save the centrally situated airport which is threatened with closure. More ...

600.000 endorsements (signatures) will be needed for a referendum demand. If enough endorsements are obtained, unless the city government accepts the proposal unchanged, a binding referendum will follow.



ROUTINE SWISS DEMOCRACY
On November 26th 2006 citizens were invited to cast their ballots on the following issues :
- Standardisation of family allowances
- The Swiss contribution to the European cohesion fund
For more information see:
http://www.swisspolitics.org/en/news/index.php?page=aktuelle_abstimmungen
http://www.iniref.org/swissdemocracy.html


GM CROPS VIA THE BACK DOOR?


"Public opposition to GM crops is being overridden by a government
determined to back the industry"

"the government's view is that there is "no scientific case" for a
total ban. ... campaigners, suspect that the Environment Secretary,
David Miliband, is looking for a way to overcome public opposition."

Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1904982.ece
Defra accused of introducing GM through back door By Andy McSmith 20 October 2006

I&R ~GB OPINION

Where there is a clear political will of the people then we should

exercise our right to decide by plebiscite.  In 2005 the Swiss  people,
following a citizens' law initiative, decided "in favor of a five-year
ban on the use of genetically modified plants and animals in farming"
(Reuters). Under two percent of registered voters can place such a
proposal on the public agenda and compel parliament to debate it.
Parliament may pass the proposal as law, put forward an alternative or
reject the proposal. In the latter two cases a binding plebiscite of
the whole electorate must be held.

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
a campaign for direct democracy in Britain



LOCALISM OR CITIZENS' DEMOCRACY?
Posted 22 Sept 06 Guardian comment
 
According to today's Telegraph (24Sept06) Gordon Brown is going to offer a radical renewal of government. This includes so called localism expressed as "It means the devolution of power from central government to local communities and to individuals," echoing a conservative party group's campaign (falsely named) "Direct Democracy". Also he generously mentions the possibility that he is considering plans to "give" us a written constitution. In an earlier remark made in response to the Power Inquiry's 2006 report he conceded that those in power should perhaps "give" a little power to the people.

Brown apparently does not do democracy.
 
What am I getting at? For instance
 
1) We in Britain urgently need a review of the state constitution. A healthy way to do this would be to have a focussed and serious public debate about what we want and to organise a process of drafting which is fair, egalitarian and efficacious. This cannot be done by a government "constitution" department. A constitution enables a people and electorate to control, scrutinise and if necessary sanction its power-holding and -exercising bodies such as parliament, government and legal system. Allowing government to write the rules about governing is like setting the fox to guard the geese, or giving the stag the gardener's job.
 
 2) Power addicts across the political spectrum are attempting to cash in on the rising popularity of principles of stronger democracy with broad sweeping suggestions such as "devolution of power from central government to local communities and to individuals".  They carefully avoid to endorse effective ways to participate in power, such as the citizens' law-proposal ("initiative"), veto-referendum and "proposative" (electorate-triggered) plebiscite.
More detail about the latter is at http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
 
 Wallace-Macpherson
   
 
  DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTION
  Posted to Taking Power
  September 6th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
A number of problems with our democracy and government are fundamental and may be termed constitutional, for instance the way we elect politicians or the structure, powers and functions of the second chamber of parliament, House of Lords. This sort of reform should not be “self-made” by parliament alone but should be made after information and debate which has involved, as far as reasonably possible, the whole electorate and many young people, future voters. The resulting proposals should be put to referendum, a plebiscite meaning “decision of the people”.

There’s a lot to be said for the method of people’s initiative or citizens’ law proposal. If a large agreed number of people endorse a proposal then it must go to parliament for debate and on to referendum if the MPs reject it.
The Our Say project for more direct democracy such as referenda is to be welcomed http://www.our-say.org
Lets hope that we can co-operate.

Our campaign I&R GB, for citizens’ initiative and referendum, has been up and running for longer. We offer lots of free information, welcome active members and supporters, see http://www.iniref.org/campaign1.html
Michael Macpherson
   
 
  ROWNTREE'S POWER INQUIRY
  Posted to Taking Power
  September 6th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
We have already published a response to the Power Inquiry. Here are some excerpts and a reference to the on-line document.
The PoWEr Inquiry provided helpful insights into how people across the land judge the hitherto conduct of (their own) public affairs by “the powers that be”, into their attitudes to our system of governance and to politicians. Answers to specific questions about how people would like to participate in local and national public affairs if given the chance are especially illuminating and encouraging, confirming survey data which we have previously cited (….) At least in the PoWEr report, “ordinary” people have their say. (….)
  PoWEr has included direct democracy with other reforms in a “packet” and “cherry-picking” is discouraged. PoWEr proposes three “fundamental shifts in the way politics is conducted in Britain” QUOTE
  • A re-balancing of power between the constituent elements of the political system: a shift of power away from the Executive to Parliament and from central to local government.(….)
  • The creation of an electoral and party system which is responsive enough to the changing values and demands of today’s population to allow the necessary and organic creation of new political alliances, value systems and organisations which better represent those values and demands.
  • The creation of a culture of political engagement in which policy and decision-making employs direct input from citizens. The system should provide citizens with clear rights and processes by which to exercise that input from conception through to implementation.
These three imperatives stand or fall alongside each other. The implementation of only one or two of the three will not create the re-engagement with formal democracy for which many people now hope. Elected representatives need greater freedom, but if they still belong to parties which have lost their connection with the wider public or have no reason to enter into detailed dialogue with that wider public, disengagement will continue. UNQUOTE
  I&R GB comments:
The most effective way to ensure that “policy and decision-making employs direct input from citizens”, as identified in PoWEr’s own survey (57 varieties, drafted by Graham Smith) is to introduce and apply elements of direct, citizens’ democracy as described (see link below) in connection with PoWEr’s Recommendation 24. These methods and procedures, such as citizens‘ initiative and referendum, enable the people of a polity to decide matters of constitution and to steer important policy issues. Thus, this “direct democracy” is a principle of higher order than all other proposed reforms. Direct democracy may, arguably should, be used to introduce major reforms and make changes to constitution.
  ——————————————–
  The above excerpts are taken from a short on-line paper which may be loaded down free from http://www.iniref.org/poWEr.prelim.html
  Comment on the Report 2006 of the Rowntree Trusts’ Power Commission — Power to the People
  What’s in it for direct democrats?
  Preliminary response
  Regards
  Michael Macpherson

LINK TO MORE NEWS 
 BROWSE
continue
 

HOME | CAMPAIGN | AIMS | 3-STEP-DD | JOIN | DONATE | BALLOT | INTRO | I&R-BASIC