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?
Peter Riddell: Political Briefing
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
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
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