We don’t need a Bill to have a Citizens’ Convention.

Stop asking for permission from our servants, for crying out loud.

They’re illegitimate, but you/we keep acting like WE are the illegitimate ones.

WE’RE THE CITIZENS. THE NATION BELONGS TO US, NOT THEM.

We will NOT ask them for permission to shape the way OUR COUNTRY is run.

WE OWN IT, WE WILL DECIDE HOW IT’S RUN.

Simple.

I agree with Chris – just have the damned Convention, present it to the PM and force it down his throat until he agrees to get Parliament to endorse it.

What is the difference between this convention and Parliament? Except for Parliament being elected and democratic? You don’t, as has been said, need permission for a convention. But you talk of being non-political and influencing the government, yet there aren’t many conservatives on that list which seems to rule out the possibility of either happening.

I’m inclined to agree with the sentiment @1 but the Bill itself is quite interesting.

James @ 3, the signatories are unlikely to be in the convention. Read the bill.

#1: We need a bill because if we don’t have one then the Convention will have no legal force. It will be just another talking shop.

We’ve had plenty of similar initiatives in the past. Charter 88 held a Citizens’ Inquiries in the early 2000s; Power reported in 2006. They haven’t been listened to for the simple reason that the government hasn’t had to.

The purpose of the bill is that it ensures that the Convention is independent of Parliament and that Parliament cannot simply ignore its findings. If Parliament rejects any of its proposals, either the Convention or 5% of citizens will be able to force a referendum on the subject. If either Parliament or government attempted to circumvent it, it would be judicially reviewable, and if a future government wanted to disband it they would have to formally revoke the act via Parliament.

The problem with creating a citizens’ convention on a whim is that it can be disbanded on a whim.

Citizen’s convention. Selected like a jury. Like the one in 12 Angry men, with or without Henry Fonda ? Like the one that convicted the Birmingham 6 ? Michael Shields ? The real question is, who decides the questions that the convention will address, the terms on which it is addressed, the evidence that it is and is not allowed to hear. Will its members be enjoined from looking at the mass media ? By whom ? Who will give it “direction” ? If the signatories are not deeply embedded members of a political class then no-one is.

Have we forgotten why we wanted secret ballots ? So citizens could be free from coercion explicit or tacit. Will convention members be thus free ? Will they be anonymous (think of how difficult that would be – “just off to London to do something I can’t tell you about, hold my job open and feed the kids”), or named in the media, and subject to its “investigation” ? Or, alternatively, are we to be ruled in secret, decisions of central importance taken by people who are never named. Will that build “trust” in the system ? Are we not aware of the social psychology, of groupthink, of risky shift, and so on ?

Referenda. Like California, you mean ? Great example. I like a lot of the signatories, but this is really a childish fanstasy, if only things weren’t as they are. Yes, as they are, things are pretty dire, but this isn’t the answer.

While I have nothing but utmost respect for most of those who signed their names to this petition – I can’t help but wondering how many of them wrote a single line about how the Labour Party and The Liberal Democrats shoved down the EU Constitution without the emblems

What happened to democracy then folks? What happened to pledges made by political parties during an election?

Further, it changed our governance for good — according to our own Constitution our parliament is sovereign and what one parliament does another can rescind it. But that basic framework was altered — and I did not read much about how that subverted our democratic will.

Therefore looking at this list — a cynic might wonder if this is one last ditch attempt to keep Cameron from No. 10. Well one would have to agree this could be spun that way especially since there was silence when the whole Lisbon Treaty thing went down.

Shamit,

For the record Unlock Democracy – which is the driving force behind this bill – publicly called for a referendum to be held on the Lisbon Treaty, although we did suggest that there was an argument that the referendum should be held about membership more generally as more significant treaties such as the Single European Act have not been subjected to such a procedure either.

“Parliamentary sovereignty” is a nonsense however, both in principle and in practice. Because the government typically has a majority in Parliament, it is effectively government sovereignty – a most dreadful concept – and essentially means the government is above the law.

I would recommend you read the entertaining Unspoken Constitution which demonstrates quite what a dreadful “constitution” we currently have in the UK and why we need to change it.