On "sovereignty" of parliaments and citizen law-making

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. While the term "sovereignty" (of parliament) is not defined in Daniel Leighton's "fascinating" (groan) report, the requirement sine qua non for a healthy constitution, that power expressly originates only from the people, was apparently not considered by the assembled experts. Clearly, an elected parliament has received the right to wield power, on loan, from the electorate. In this way it may legislate and rule (as "sovereign") over all persons, groups and institutions (e.g. churches, commercial companies, aristocrats, even talk show hosts). The right to exercise sovereignty remains with the people. For instance, on a proposed Westminster or Holyrood law, the electorate should be able exercise the veto. Consequently and naturally (sic), the right to propose law (as in citizens' initiative, "ballot issues") is an essential component of constitution.

Literature: A senior Manchester law student's dissertation, to be found at our web site. See "Free paper by GUEST AUTHOR" http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
A reply to :

A festival of disbelief  (LINK to full text)
May 28, 2007 at 1:04 pm | In I D Cards, Executive power, New Labour, Parliament, Bill of Rights |

Dan Leighton (Hay-on-Wye, Power Inquiry): A fascinating debate occurred at the Power Inquiry sponsored debate at the book festival at Hay-on-Wye yesterday between Henry Porter, Billy Bragg and Phillippe Sands. .... Phillippe Sands objected that parliamentary sovereignty must remain at the centre of the British system or an entrenched a bill of rights would just give power to the unelected judiciary. .... Brown says that people should have more say while the planning white paper sets out to abolish the influence of local people. Once burnt, twice shy? Those whose hopes were raised by the advent of New Labour seem thoroughly alienated.