Governance of Britain

I’m not active in politics apart from reading about or listening to debates on it; my view is that we need to use more electronic devices as a way to allow more people to become involved in providing inputs into the decision making process.

Not currently active, but was coordinator of local forum involved in LocalSP and would like to be more active locally and nationally. I feel we need something like ‘Open involvement’ as described on the Sustainable Community Action wiki - standards for involvement to rebuild trust amongst citizens and community groups that all contributions will be fairly, adequately, respectfully and transparently valued. Issues where believe this is vital: sustainable and low carbon futures.

A set of standards would be a good start, as would a clearing house for news about discussion places such as these.

Thanks for your comment Anthony. You might be aware that the NCC and Involve have recently published some deliberative engagement principles.
But what about the use of deliberative techniques per se?
Elspeth - Ministry of Justice

I’m a community advocate and am sickened by how local councils cannot be brought to heel over how they treat the elderly in such a shoddy manner. I beat them on individual cases, but they see these as insults to their work and not a pointer as to how they should work. In many ways local councils don’t work.

I also want a referendum across the whole of the UK regarding dissolution of the UK. Especially Scotland leaving the UK, to be followed by the others when ready.

England needs a parliament now, with no interference from MPs with seats in Scotland, Ireland or wales.

I would also like to see a forced referendum on the EU treaties such as the Lisbon treaty. Gordon Brown was never elected to be prime minister and as such a legal case needs to be made to negate any treaties he’s signed.

When are we going to have more positive talk on the establishment of an English Parliament….or is that all a bt to radical!

I’m not yet quite clear what ‘deliberative techniques’ are. I was at a equalities working group meeting at the Department of Health the other day (about the reform of the care and support system) and we were given a brief introduction to what might be involved in deliberative techniques. (I’m on this and other such groups in my capacity as chair of the Religion and Belief Consultative Group on Equality, Diversity and Human Rights.)

At one level, I think it is important to provide structures through which citizens can contribute to important policy discussions about matters that will affect the way society functions. However, I think there are big challenges about: (a) finding people who will give time to summits and juries - the tendency will be for those people who are already engaged to self-select, so the challenge is to get otherwise unheard voices into the process; (b) finding dialogical methodologies that will really engage people and get us thinking and talking beyond merely repeating what we already think, restating our prejudices and preconceived positions; and (c) sustaining the engagement beyond the big-tent events.

I have ideas about methods of dialogue. The faith community of which I am a member - the Baha’i community - uses a framework of principles and methods for our decision-making and conflict transformation. The underlying principle is one of mutualism rather than contest. In other words, we eschew ‘debate’, proposition and opposition and so on, in favour of regarding the issue or question for decision as being something which we can resolve mutually. This doesn’t lose the clash of differing opinions, but the aim is not to have one position or another ‘win’; the aim is to find the best possible practical and principled decision.

In the wider community there is always a risk that people’s cynicism about politics will restrain them from engagement in deliberative engagement. And there is a further risk that, if the deliberative engagement is not done well and if people perceive that their efforts have been wasted, the cynicism will be confirmed.

However, it is worth a try. Experience teaches me that, given half a chance, people will engage in what they perceive as meaningful exercises. The Religion and Belief Consultative Group encompasses representatives not only of the major faiths but also of the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society. Not a recipe for success, one would have thought, given that the BHA and NSS are opposed to public roles for religion. And yet the group (numbering between 20 and 30) works and has worked for almost four years. People are able to speak frankly, to engage with each other, while knowing that what they say will not be ridiculed or stamped on. It’s a good model - not perfect - but it has possibilities.

So let’s give deliberative engagement a go.

It is interesting that on a forum designed to ‘encourage’ engagement there have been so few comments posted! I found this site ‘by accident’ - where has the existence of this forum been publicised? You have only to look at fora on for example the BBC website to find a much higher level of interest and engagement. I applaud the sentiments and passionately agree that we need a much higher level of interest and engagement from ‘the public’, but unless you widely publicise the existence of such fora, it will not happen!

“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

The government have proposals for a new Bill of rights. here is a little-but not all- of my contribution to this debate.

We already have a Bill of Rights and if perhaps they knew their own Constitution better, they would realise what they seek to do would be, as far as Magna Carta and our Bill of Rights 1688/9 is concerned, null and void for they violate the very Oath they have all sworn that is contained in our Bill of Right 1688.

No new written constitution, including a new Bill of Rights can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government’s own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that clear. A snippet here for you

“Again, the theory of sovereignty means that no Parliament can bind its successors, and this inability of Parliament to prevent any law from being later altered or repealed by a Parliament means that, in principle, no scheme of constitutional change-Bill of Rights, devolution, even, perhaps a written constitution itself* - can be entrenched - made secure against any or easy amendment or repeal-in the legal order. The recent
schemes by proponents of Scottish devolution and some form of a Bill of Rights demonstrate how difficult (perhaps impossible) it is to reconcile formal, legal entrenchment (as opposed to ‘political-moral’ entrenchment) with conventional sovereignty”.

Parliament did not make these laws of which I write even though Parliament believes it can do anything it likes. Parliament can undo anything IT does but what it may not do is to repeal our long standing Magna Carta nor the Declaration of Rights/Bill of Rights because Parliament had no hand in either.

Certain members of Government seem to have great difficulty in accepting that they cannot just do as they like. That the term, “no parliament can bind its successors” applies to legislation that Parliament instigated. Anything that Parliament has done, can be undone. However, they should hold in mind that in unravelling one Document (maybe like the Act of Union) can also have an effect on the Act of Settlement which in turn may affect the whole of the Commonwealth. (Is that what theyr want to do?)

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. Perhaps not in a true, open and straight forward way but the Government’s usual devious way as with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

This is why then, the people will be offered a Referendum on “Their own NEW written ‘Bill of Rights” and it does not matter really what is in those NEW rights because they can be repealed when the next Government comes in or overridden straight away by the EU. However, where our long standing constitution is concered, if destroyed has certain consequences, perhaps particularly so by MP’s that have so recently made that Oath, for all of us here in the UK who are British citizens bear allegiance to the Crown and through the Crown, to our Country. For quite simply, ‘according to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the Constitution is treason. The laws of Treason are there to protect the Crown and are entrenched..

Clearly any discussion about the governance of Britain must take as its first priority the political reality that 85% of our governance is a direct result of European Union policies imposed upon us without a shred of democratic accountability.
The self appointed, self regulating, and unelected body is, I repeat, unaccountable to the British people in any shape or form. Therefore the first priority is to reverse this anomaly which runs counter to every democratic principle for which many millions of British (and other nationals) have fought and died in world wars.
Any government which does not understand that a speedy exit from the EU is a priority if democracy is to survive in the UK is naive and politically doomed.
Perhaps someone could answer the obvious question that EU membership provokes, namely, what point is there for voting for any political party in the UK (apart from UKIP and the BNP) when all three main parties are committed to EU membership? To vote under such a system is simply a waste of time and effort.

I am engaged in the periphery of local politics and must confess to finding it an intensely frustrating exercise. Like all forms of deliberative exercise the ability to communicate effectively relies on information and the communication environment. To be effective there must be a degree of interaction to let ideas develop.

Too often in our political and administrative system the process is not considered important enough and results in alienation. Although the process may commence with good intentions it almost always degenerates through lack of good organization, in-adequate funding and not enough time. Also, very often, too much is attempted at once. The end result is that poor decision making emanates.

A surfeit of legislation makes understanding our rights and responsibilities an overwhelming task, let alone complying with them. A recent statistic I saw stated that one quarter of the population had a criminal record, i.e. 25% of the population had a reason for feeling alienated against the state. The question has to be asked what is their attitude towards and involvement with the governance process. That there should be such a large proportion of the population who have been judged to have broken the rules makes one question the rules and their administration in the first place. Secondly, why are questions not asked as to why as a state we find it necessary to put so much of the population at arms length in this way.

The saying ‘less is more’ often springs to mind when considering the manner in which we govern ourselves. Give people responsibility and standards and often they will make governance easier and less formal.

Ken Walters wants a referendum re “across the whole of the UK regarding dissolution of the UK. Especially Scotland leaving the UK, to be followed by the others when ready”.

There is the Treaty and Act of Union 1706/7 that joins Scotland to England and Wales, therefore all three Parties should have a referendum, not just Scotland. However, it should also be remembered that in dislodging the Treaty of Union it would also dislodge the Act of Settlement which also affects the whole of the Commonwealth and the Crown.

The Government have already intruded on the Treaty of Union when they started to ‘get rid of’ the Hereditary Peers from the Lords, because the conditions to the Treaty in Clause XXII is that there should be16 Peers -and there were only Hereditary Peers at that time, and 45 elected Members of Parliament in the Commons.

There is a big difference between Hereditary Peers and Life Peers-there must be, otherwise why did the Government make the changes at the risk of abrogating the Treaty?

We must remember and plan for the future because when the EU breaks up we will need our Commonwealth friends more than ever we have done in the past. They are on our side, they fight with our forces in the “thick of it” not placed out of the danger zone.

There is a great deal more than I have placed here, but deeper into the EU is the slow and painful death of this nation state. Is that what you REALLY want?

One thing OUR Government should remember, it is the people that pay their “wages”, and their vast expenses yet it is the EU that instigate the vast majority of our laws. So how come their numbers have not been reduced accordingly? In these hard times money wise at present, the people simply cannot afford to keep paying for all these extra layers of Government nor can they continue paying for a Government that can no longer govern.

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 timimg. 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

Michael, there is not one Government Minister that has the guts or decency to tell the people that a)they are removing far more genuine RIGHTS than they are being given, and they have lasted for hundreds of years, until this Government. and b) any new Bill of Rights that is agreed on by the people, may or will destroy our long standing Bill of Rights 1688 which holds the Oath of Allegiance and also Magna Carta.

None, for 36 Years has come up with the Courage to tell the people the truth about the EEC or EU anyway.

However, at the same time any new Government (All three Parties wish to remain in the EU of Course) that comes into power can either continue with further integration into the EU and any New EU Treaty can override completely any new UK Constitution and new of Rights. Which is why this Government has to replace the ‘old’ with the ‘new’ in readiness.

One of Sir Edward Coke’s greatest contributions to the law was to interpret Magna Carta to apply not only to the protection of nobles but also to all subjects of the crown equally, which effectively established the law as a guarantor of rights among all subjects against even Parliament and the King. He famously asserted: “Magna Carta is such a fellow, that he will have no sovereign. “END of Quote.

This then means, that if ‘put’ comes to ’shove’, then Claus 61 Magna Carta can be legally used by all the people, not just by 25/4 Barons.

I would love to see more referendums on major issues or at least public polls to gauge peoples feelings on particular subjects. People could vote or contriute by texting, emailing or simply calling a number. This would be a truely democratic process and involve the public in a more direct way. Perhaps this would be a good way to engage with the public and make them feel that their voice really does count.