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


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

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

I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in
news:6h0p9rFi4st2U2@mid.uni-berlin.de: 

> 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-dis
> cussion-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.

That'll be the English people, English Crown and English Parliament. It
does not apply to other parts the UK such as Scotland.

> 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.” 

Bill of Rights is an Act of Parliament and, like any act, can be repealed
as no government is bound by its predecessor. The reality is that there 
have been so many changes made to the BoR over the last 200 years through
various acts, it's pretty much meaningless. For example habeous corpus, 
guaranteed under the BoR has effectively been scrapped under anti-
terrorist legislation.

I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in
news:6h0p9rFi4st2U2@mid.uni-berlin.de: 

> 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-dis
> cussion-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. 



You want to check Statutes at Large, or Halbury's Law of England.  


All but three of the original articles of the Magna Carta have been 
repealed by Acts of Parliament.

I&R ~ GB > wrote:
 > 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/ 


Thurs. 21st August, latest comment (may be rejected by MoJ moderator 
Elspeth)
"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/

I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in
news:6h50j3Fj6cefU1@mid.uni-berlin.de: 

> I&R ~ GB > wrote:
> > 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-dis
> cussion-forum/ 

What's official about it?


> Thurs. 21st August, latest comment (may be rejected by MoJ moderator 
> Elspeth)

Well, that's not very democratic if comments are being rejected on
the say-so of one person! What happened to 'public debate'?