Switzerland and Britain
Wallace-Macpherson
http://www.iniref.org
In Britain we need the following type of democracy:
The people of Switzerland voted in a referendum yesterday, allowing
their government to apply for membership of the United Nations.
The government had been obliged to put the question to the people
because it involves an important matter of state. An "obligatory"
referendum.
On all laws and decrees passed by parliament, the Swiss people may opt
to hold a referendum, and the law or decree may be rejected. That's the
"facultative" referendum (obviously unnecessary if there's an
obligatory referendum).
Sincerely,
Wallace-Macpherson
-------------------------
Vote for more democracy at
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
Cynic
> On all laws and decrees passed by parliament, the Swiss people may opt
> to hold a referendum, and the law or decree may be rejected. That's the
> "facultative" referendum (obviously unnecessary if there's an
> obligatory referendum).
Interesting. How do the people go about requesting a referendum?
--
Cynic
Esquilax
i don't know for definite, but i think its something like a petition of
over 100,000 signatures asking for one.
phil.
Wallace-Macpherson
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote:
> > On all laws and decrees passed by parliament, the Swiss people may opt
> > to hold a referendum, and the law or decree may be rejected. That's the
> > "facultative" referendum (obviously unnecessary if there's an
> > obligatory referendum).
>
> Interesting. How do the people go about requesting a referendum?
>
The following is quoted from the Swiss federal government's website
http://www.admin.ch/ch/index.en.html Follow the link:
"Political rights", where you can find descriptions of citizens'
initiative and the various types of referendum.
Referendum
The people are entitled to pronounce on Parliamentary decisions after
the event.
Federal laws, generally binding decisions of the Confederation and
State treaties concluded for an indefinite duration are subject to an
optional referendum: in this case, a popular ballot is held if 50,000
citizens so request. The signatures must be collected within 100 days
of publication of a decree.
------------------------------
Good for Britain too, I'd say.
Rgds,
Wallace-Macpherson
Esquilax
> "Cynic" <none@none> wrote:
> > > On all laws and decrees passed by parliament, the Swiss people may opt
> > > to hold a referendum, and the law or decree may be rejected. That's the
> > > "facultative" referendum (obviously unnecessary if there's an
> > > obligatory referendum).
> >
> > Interesting. How do the people go about requesting a referendum?
>
> The following is quoted from the Swiss federal government's website
> http://www.admin.ch/ch/index.en.html Follow the link:
> "Political rights", where you can find descriptions of citizens'
> initiative and the various types of referendum.
>
> Referendum
>
> The people are entitled to pronounce on Parliamentary decisions after
> the event.
>
> Federal laws, generally binding decisions of the Confederation and
> State treaties concluded for an indefinite duration are subject to an
> optional referendum: in this case, a popular ballot is held if 50,000
> citizens so request. The signatures must be collected within 100 days
> of publication of a decree.
>
> ------------------------------
> Good for Britain too, I'd say.
what - and have the country "run" by rupert murdoch via the sun and the
news of the world?
nice idea in theory, but britain needs a fair bit more "civilisation" first.
phil.
welsh witch
"Wallace-Macpherson" <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:040320021602484175%w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org...
************************
Its funny you should have brought this up I was thinking today I
didn't think Switzerland is or wants to be part of the EU..not being
sure I thought I'd have a look. Switzerland seems to be governed by
very wise people. I don't know if this is an illusion or not.
There should be some mens by which we can have a referendum because if
you live in a parish in the UK you, if you have I think 8 supporters
can call for a referendum on any local issue...the council having to
bear the costs.
I therefore think that not many people know the above, but might there
be something allowed for a more general referendum comparative to the
above?
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/mutilation,htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/RSPCAhq.htm
Daniel Schoenmann
> "Cynic" <none@none> wrote:
>
> > "Wallace-Macpherson" <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote
> >
> > > On all laws and decrees passed by parliament, the Swiss people may opt
> > > to hold a referendum, and the law or decree may be rejected. That's the
> > > "facultative" referendum (obviously unnecessary if there's an
> > > obligatory referendum).
Your information is almost, but not entirely correct. If the Swiss
government would have propositioned joining the UN, this decision
would have had to be submitted to the obligatory referendum, because
of the constitutional level of such an act. But yesterday's vote was
the result of a "popular initiative" (Volksinitative / initiative
populaire), it was a suggestion drafted by a political coalition (of
the left) outside government. Anyone can make such a proposition, if
they collect at least 100'000 voter's signatures, it has to be put to
the vote.
In most cases, popular initiative are an instrument of opposition
groups trying to shift the policies of government and parliament. In
this particular case, tough, both government and parliament chose to
support the proposition of joining the UN.
> > Interesting. How do the people go about requesting a referendum?
>
> i don't know for definite, but i think its something like a petition of
> over 100,000 signatures asking for one.
It's 100'000 for a popular initiative, but only 50'000 for a
facultative referendum. The hurdles for the initiative are further
heightened by requesting not only a majority of the voters, but also
of the cantons (states). On the UN question, the verdict of the voters
was quite clear (54,6 % yes) but the mayority of states was only won
by one state. In fact, if a mere 2'700 voters in the canton of Valais
would have voted otherwise, the outcome of the referendum would have
been overturned.
Daniel Schoenmann
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <a604ae$237$2...@helle.btinternet.com>:
>"Cynic" <none@none> wrote:
>> "Wallace-Macpherson" <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote
Yes, something very like that. You must remember however that:
a) turnout in all Swiss elections and referenda is very low, rarely much
higher than 50%, and sometimes barely above 20% in some Cantons.
b) 20% of Swiss residents are foreigners and ineligible to vote.
There's a rule that if a proposal is defeated in a referendum,
it can't be re-presented for two years. There's a proposal to evict
foreigners, in one form or another, every two years...
--
Ivan Reid, Physics & Astronomy, University College London. i...@hep.ucl.ac.uk
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Wallace-Macpherson
ae...@gmx.net (Daniel Schoenmann) wrote:
Thank you for the correction. I had guessed that this was an obligatory
referendum having been unable to find the detail neither at the Swiss
government's website www.admin.ch nor in the pages of the centre for
study of direct democracy, Univ. of Geneva.
It's important to add to your last paragraph that popular initiative
applies only to constitutional amendments or "total revision". The
Swiss have not (yet) decided to give themselves the right to make
"ordinary" law at the federal level. In Germany, that right is being
discussed now and may be put to parliamentary vote soon. A
"constitutional" majority would be needed and that is currently
uncertain.
Sincerely,
Wallace-Macpherson
Wallace-Macpherson
witch" <webmi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Wallace-Macpherson" <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote in message
> news:040320021602484175%w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org...
> > Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
> > http://www.iniref.org
> >
> > In Britain we need the following type of democracy:
> >
> > The people of Switzerland voted in a referendum yesterday, allowing
> > their government to apply for membership of the United Nations.
>
> ************************
> Its funny you should have brought this up I was thinking today I
> didn't think Switzerland is or wants to be part of the EU..not being
> sure I thought I'd have a look. Switzerland seems to be governed by
> very wise people. I don't know if this is an illusion or not.
> There should be some mens by which we can have a referendum because if
> you live in a parish in the UK you, if you have I think 8 supporters
> can call for a referendum on any local issue...the council having to
> bear the costs.
> I therefore think that not many people know the above, but might there
> be something allowed for a more general referendum comparative to the
> above?
> http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/mutilation,htm
> http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/RSPCAhq.htm
One problem with citizen-driven democracy is that you cannot be sure
the folks will decide the way you want. On balance I think it's better
to have the option to "check" and assist government with instruments
such as citizens' initiative and referendum, rather than to not have
them (as is the case in Britain).
You can find "How To" start a parish referendum in the appendix of my
report on democracy, found via http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
There has been only one countrywide referendum in GB and N.Ireland -
about the European Community. A special law must be passed by
parliament in order that the people be allowed to have a referendum on
any particular issue. I do not know if such a referendum (e.g. possibly
on the euro) is binding on parliament and government or not. Can anyone
comment on this?
Sincerely,
Wallace-Macpherson
==================================
You can vote for more democracy at
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
Wallace-Macpherson
(Dr Ivan D. Reid) wrote:
> >> "Wallace-Macpherson" <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote
>
> >> > On all laws and decrees passed by parliament, the Swiss people may opt
> >> > to hold a referendum, and the law or decree may be rejected. That's the
> >> > "facultative" referendum (obviously unnecessary if there's an
> >> > obligatory referendum).
>
> >> Interesting. How do the people go about requesting a referendum?
>
> >i don't know for definite, but i think its something like a petition of
> >over 100,000 signatures asking for one.
>
> Yes, something very like that. You must remember however that:
> a) turnout in all Swiss elections and referenda is very low, rarely much
> higher than 50%, and sometimes barely above 20% in some Cantons.
> b) 20% of Swiss residents are foreigners and ineligible to vote.
In last weekend's referendum about the United Nations the turnout was
around 60 percent (radio report - I do not have the official figure).
In Italy (where there is much less direct democracy than in
Switzerland) 50 percent of eligible voters must vote, or the process is
invalid. This has lead to tactical boycotting of referendums so that no
decision at all could be made.
Don't forget, in a country with optional, citizen-initiated referendum,
every eligible voter (100 percent) may vote. In Britain, with
insignificant exceptions, nobody, zero percent, may vote on issues of
public concern, because there is no practice of direct democracy.
>
> There's a rule that if a proposal is defeated in a referendum,
> it can't be re-presented for two years. There's a proposal to evict
> foreigners, in one form or another, every two years...
I believe that in Switzerland since WWII there have been several
citizens' initiative proposals to restrict immigration or similar --
these have been defeated. Your statement "There's a proposal to evict
foreigners, in one form or another, every two years..." is not a
convincing argument against direct democracy. Representative government
has also caused "foreigners to be evicted".
Sincerely,
Wallace-Macpherson
Wallace-Macpherson
<an...@mous.com> wrote:
> "Wallace-Macpherson" <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote:
(snip)
> > Referendum
> >
> > The people are entitled to pronounce on Parliamentary decisions after
> > the event.
> >
> > Federal laws, generally binding decisions of the Confederation and
> > State treaties concluded for an indefinite duration are subject to an
> > optional referendum: in this case, a popular ballot is held if 50,000
> > citizens so request. The signatures must be collected within 100 days
> > of publication of a decree.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Good for Britain too, I'd say.
>
> what - and have the country "run" by rupert murdoch via the sun and the
> news of the world?
>
> nice idea in theory, but britain needs a fair bit more "civilisation" first.
>
> phil.
Governments, civil service, parties and politicians may be much more
susceptible to influence by powerful lobbies than is a whole
population. Most people are not so easily fooled by mass media -- "You
can't believe what you read in the papers" is a healthy expression of
this.
I suggest that Britain needs more meaningful opportunities for people
to contribute to public life, including politics. Having _elements_ of
direct democracy such as citizens' initiative - this is optional, not
compulsory - allows competition among ideas and proposals, some of
which if they attract enough support then land on the public agenda.
Parliament is obliged to consider an issue - if the wish is rejected or
ignored then a referendum may be demanded and the people can decide.
Sincerely,
#vonroach
<w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote:
>The people of Switzerland voted in a referendum yesterday, allowing
>their government to apply for membership of the United Nations.
>
>The government had been obliged to put the question to the people
>because it involves an important matter of state. An "obligatory"
>referendum.
>
>On all laws and decrees passed by parliament, the Swiss people may opt
>to hold a referendum, and the law or decree may be rejected. That's the
>"facultative" referendum (obviously unnecessary if there's an
>obligatory referendum).
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Wallace-Macpherson
Er... Mac, who is the King of Switzerland?
#vonroach
Very good question, Cy.
Simon
"Wallace-Macpherson" <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote in message
> I suggest that Britain needs more meaningful opportunities for people
> to contribute to public life, including politics. Having _elements_ of
> direct democracy such as citizens' initiative - this is optional, not
> compulsory - allows competition among ideas and proposals, some of
> which if they attract enough support then land on the public agenda.
> Parliament is obliged to consider an issue - if the wish is rejected or
> ignored then a referendum may be demanded and the people can decide.
Why wasn't I born in switzerland:(
Simon
dormouse
news:3c880870...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
They hold a referendum and if at least 72.87% of a minimum 63.92% turnout
(except if there's a "r" in the month in which case a mere 27% out of a 93%
turnout) requests a referendum they get one.
--
dormouse
dormouse5166 at yahoo dot co dot uk
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.330 / Virus Database: 184 - Release Date: 28/02/2002
Dr Ivan D. Reid
It was not a comment about democracy. It was a comment about the
racism endemic in Swiss[1] society.
[1] Perhaps more properly, Swiss-German; I didn't venture into the French
or Italian parts very much.
Wallace-Macpherson
vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (#vonroach) wrote:
Thank you, roach. Having being floored by your challenging question I
called one of the internet search companies for help - found i.a. the
following:
Searched the web for "king of switzerland".
Results
1 - 10 of about 20. Search took 0.13 seconds.
NOEMA > ARTS - [ Translate this page ]
... presso ląAmbasciata Svizzera André Vallana The last King of
Switzerland, a film about Frederic-William IV King of Prussia (28ą) Der
letze König der Schweiz ...
www.noemalab.com/sections/arte_detail.asp?IDArts=182 - 10k - Cached -
Similar pages
ISRAEL: KOSHER RESTAURANTS IN RAANANA.
... Hess The Sausage King of Switzerland 4 HaMasger Street, Industrial
Park, Ra'anana,
Israel Tel: 09-744-2180 Fax: Email: Website: Cuisine: Delicatessen,
Meat ...
www.kosherdelight.com/Raananarestaurants.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar
pages
Hail to their majesties!
Wallace-Macpherson
Wallace-Macpherson
(Dr Ivan D. Reid) wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 23:38:32 +0100, Wallace-Macpherson <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org>
> wrote in <040320022338325300%w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org>:
> >In article <slrna87ja...@ax9.hep.ucl.ac.uk>, i...@hep.ucl.ac.uk
> >(Dr Ivan D. Reid) wrote:
> >> There's a rule that if a proposal is defeated in a referendum,
> >> it can't be re-presented for two years. There's a proposal to evict
> >> foreigners, in one form or another, every two years...
>
> >I believe that in Switzerland since WWII there have been several
> >citizens' initiative proposals to restrict immigration or similar --
> >these have been defeated. Your statement "There's a proposal to evict
> >foreigners, in one form or another, every two years..." is not a
> >convincing argument against direct democracy. Representative government
> >has also caused "foreigners to be evicted".
>
> It was not a comment about democracy. It was a comment about the
> racism endemic in Swiss[1] society.
>
> [1] Perhaps more properly, Swiss-German; I didn't venture into the French
> or Italian parts very much.
I certainly do not suggest that having procedures which allow an
electorate to decide on those public matters which they choose can
directly cause some darker sides of human nature to become enlightened.
However, being able to participate more directly in democracy does have
many advantages for individuals and groups. Children can learn in
school and at home that they can expect to have a meaningful role to
play in society and country. Problems and tensions lurking under the
surface can emerge and be debated in a civil and regulated manner (now
assisted by internet etc.). Often a consensus can be reached and
appropriate adjustments in public affairs made after a hot issue has
been aired, cooled and before the question is put to referendum.
Daniel Schönmann
m...@SPAMNOTiniref.org says...
> In article <70fa7229.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> ae...@gmx.net (Daniel Schoenmann) wrote:
>
>
> > > > "Wallace-Macpherson" <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > On all laws and decrees passed by parliament, the Swiss people
> > > > > may opt to hold a referendum, and the law or decree may be
> > > > > rejected. That's the "facultative" referendum (obviously
> > > > > unnecessary if there's an obligatory referendum).
> >
> > Your information is almost, but not entirely correct. If the Swiss
> > government would have propositioned joining the UN, this decision
> > would have had to be submitted to the obligatory referendum, because
> > of the constitutional level of such an act. But yesterday's vote was
> > the result of a "popular initiative"
>
> Thank you for the correction. I had guessed that this was an obligatory
> referendum having been unable to find the detail neither at the Swiss
> government's website www.admin.ch nor in the pages of the centre for
> study of direct democracy, Univ. of Geneva.
>
> It's important to add to your last paragraph that popular initiative
> applies only to constitutional amendments or "total revision". The
> Swiss have not (yet) decided to give themselves the right to make
> "ordinary" law at the federal level. In Germany, that right is being
> discussed now and may be put to parliamentary vote soon. A
> "constitutional" majority would be needed and that is currently
> uncertain.
There are discussions about that possibility in Switzerland as well.
Initiatives on the level of ordinary law are already possible in some
cantons. It is possilbe that someone will launch an initiative to
introduce that instrument on federal level.
Originally, the right of popular initiative was considered as a
corrective to the workings of the legistlative and executive bodies. It
was meant to only be used for really important matters, while the
general lawmaking remainded the responsibility of parliament.
In practice, the confinement of the popular initiative to the
constitution led to some side effects:
1) With time, the text of the Swiss constitution has become rather
messy. The "Total Revision" which was voted on in 1999 contained very
few material changes, it was mainly a clean-up operation of the original
text.
2) Some matters, that were not really of constitutional importance,
where written into the constitution via initiative. For example, the
Swiss Federal Consitution contained, until 1999, a ban on the production
of "Absinth" (a higly alcoholic spirit made in the 19th century mainly
by farmers in the Jura region).
If a particular initiative in the 1980's would have been accepted, the
constitution would have read "In the Name of God, the Almighty..."
(preamble of the constitution)"...people are allowed to drive 140 km/h
on Motorways..." Or an initiative of the 1990's "In the Name of
God...the Swiss Air Force will not purchase any new F/A 18 fighters"
These were political issues, that were clearly not of constitutional
importance, but to put them to the vote, they had to be formulated as
alterations to the constitution.
Therefore, a federal legal initiative could make sense. But, IMHO, it
should not contain the complete text of the suggested law but rather an
instruction to legislate on a specified matter.
Daniel Schoenmann
******
#vonroach
>... presso l1Ambasciata Svizzera Andre Vallana The last King of
>Switzerland, a film about Frederic-William IV King of Prussia (281) Der
>letze Konig der Schweiz ...
>www.noemalab.com/sections/arte_detail.asp?IDArts=182 - 10k - Cached -
>Similar pages
>
>ISRAEL: KOSHER RESTAURANTS IN RAANANA.
>... Hess The Sausage King of Switzerland 4 HaMasger Street, Industrial
>Park, Ra'anana,
>Israel Tel: 09-744-2180 Fax: Email: Website: Cuisine: Delicatessen,
>Meat ...
>www.kosherdelight.com/Raananarestaurants.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar
>pages
>
>Hail to their majesties!
>
>Wallace-Macpherson
>
>Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
>http://www.iniref.org
Err...Mac, then the King of Switzerland now operates a sausage shop in
Israel? That is interesting, wonder how it has escaped the notice of
investigative reporting that seems to have looked into every crack in
the street (or donkey path) in the Middle East. I wonder if the shop
served horseradish in beet juice sandwich relish? Sauerkraut borscht?
#vonroach
<ae...@REMOVEgmx.net> wrote:
>Therefore, a federal legal initiative could make sense. But, IMHO, it
>should not contain the complete text of the suggested law but rather an
>instruction to legislate on a specified matter.
>
That misses the point you just made about a mechanism to _correct_
legislative action. One way is to propose an amendment (including
specific explicit language and require adoption by any 2 of 3 methods
- 2/3 majority of States or Cantons legislatures, majorities in
special conventions held in 2/3 of states or cantons, or 2/3 vote of
the national legislature. The difficulty eliminates the trash.
Wallace-Macpherson
Schönmann <ae...@REMOVEgmx.net> wrote:
> > It's important to add to your last paragraph that popular initiative
> > applies only to constitutional amendments or "total revision". The
> > Swiss have not (yet) decided to give themselves the right to make
> > "ordinary" law at the federal level. In Germany, that right is being
> > discussed now and may be put to parliamentary vote soon. A
> > "constitutional" majority would be needed and that is currently
> > uncertain.
>
> There are discussions about that possibility in Switzerland as well.
> Initiatives on the level of ordinary law are already possible in some
> cantons. It is possilbe that someone will launch an initiative to
> introduce that instrument on federal level.
> Therefore, a federal legal initiative could make sense. But, IMHO, it
> should not contain the complete text of the suggested law but rather an
> instruction to legislate on a specified matter.
>
>
> Daniel Schoenmann
Wallace-Macpherson replies:
In comparison with Switzerland, Britain is a democratic backwater. How
to improve things here? The path taken in The Netherlands looks like a
fairly good model. They recently introduced the facultative (optional)
referendum which may be used to veto laws produced by parliament. They
have set the hurdles (number of signatures needed to trigger
referendum) rather high so it is not clear if the new procedure will
ever be used. This system could in Britain have blocked Poll Tax,
dangerous dog laws and other bad, publicly undesired legislation.
As regards citizen law-making by initiative and referendum, I have
nothing against the principle, assuming that law-proposals are well
formulated. Researchers have show that laws made by citizens are
generally no worse than those made by civil servants and politicians
and better reflect the wishes of the electorate. A democratically
established board could be set up to advise law-drafters about
formalities. Opportunites for people in Britain to learn how to do all
of this could be provided by introducing such elements of direct
democacy in some cities and regions. Why not in Scotland and Wales?
Sincerely,
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Daniel Schönmann
vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com says...
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:41:34 +0100, Daniel Schonmann
> <ae...@REMOVEgmx.net> wrote:
>
> >Therefore, a federal legal initiative could make sense. But, IMHO, it
> >should not contain the complete text of the suggested law but rather an
> >instruction to legislate on a specified matter.
> >
> That misses the point you just made about a mechanism to _correct_
> legislative action.
Correction of legislative action was the original intent, when the
instrument of the initiative was introduced. But in the more than 100
years since, experience showed that the popular initiative is more a
tool of creative input than of immediate correction. Initiatives bring
up subjects and launch debates. The vast majority of popular initiatives
is rejected, but often they inspire changes in legislation, whitout
becoming constitutional law themselves.
OTOH, the facultative referendum remains a quite sharp tool of
correction. Since you only need 50'000 signatures and the simple
majority of the voters (but not of the cantons), unpopular legislation
can be stopped quite easily by the people. Threats of taking up the
referendum are taken very seriously both by parliament and government.
> One way is to propose an amendment (including
> specific explicit language and require adoption by any 2 of 3 methods
> - 2/3 majority of States or Cantons legislatures, majorities in
> special conventions held in 2/3 of states or cantons, or 2/3 vote of
> the national legislature. The difficulty eliminates the trash.
The introduction of such procedures might be considered for sates where
until now, the citizen's political rights are limited do elections (such
as Britain). Once the referendum is as deeply rooted as in Switzerland,
procedures that only foresee votes of the legislatures won't be used by
the citizens.
--
Daniel Schoenmann
******
#vonroach
<ae...@REMOVEgmx.net> wrote:
> the citizen's political rights are limited do elections
This is a good definition of a servant, not a citizen.
#vonroach
<w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote:
> Why not in Scotland and Wales?
For some reason, Scotland sounds like a dangerous place to experiment
with this reform. Wales? Why not. One of the first refrendums might be
on firing the Prince of Wales. Then they could give some serious
consideration to black lung disease.
Wallace-Macpherson
vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (#vonroach)(referring to the proposed
step-wise introduction of elements od direct democracy in Britain)
wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:58:28 +0100, Wallace-Macpherson
> <w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote:
>
> > Why not in Scotland and Wales?
>
> For some reason, Scotland sounds like a dangerous place to experiment
> with this reform.
"... Scotland sounds like a dangerous place to experiment with this
reform."! Jist whit urr ye get'n at here, laddie?
> Wales? Why not. One of the first refrendums might be
> on firing the Prince of Wales.
Is this a call to arson?
> Then they could give some serious
> consideration to black lung disease.
Health care systems and public health will almost certainly become
themes of citizens' democracy, should it be introduced.
Wallace-Macpherson
Schönmann <ae...@REMOVEgmx.net> wrote:
> > >Therefore, a federal legal initiative could make sense. But, IMHO, it
> > >should not contain the complete text of the suggested law but rather an
> > >instruction to legislate on a specified matter.
(Vonroach)
> > That misses the point you just made about a mechanism to _correct_
> > legislative action.
(Schoenmann)
> Correction of legislative action was the original intent, when the
> instrument of the initiative was introduced. But in the more than 100
> years since, experience showed that the popular initiative is more a
> tool of creative input than of immediate correction. Initiatives bring
> up subjects and launch debates. The vast majority of popular initiatives
> is rejected, but often they inspire changes in legislation, whitout
> becoming constitutional law themselves.
>
> OTOH, the facultative referendum remains a quite sharp tool of
> correction. Since you only need 50'000 signatures and the simple
> majority of the voters (but not of the cantons), unpopular legislation
> can be stopped quite easily by the people. Threats of taking up the
> referendum are taken very seriously both by parliament and government.
The above two paragraphs, referring to "the instrument of the
initiative" and "the facultative referendum" make a good case for the
introduction of these elements of direct democracy into a
representative system such as in Britain.
Some ways to help in getting these reforms brought in can be found at
the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R website
http://www.iniref.org - there are materials for campaigning and
learning.
Why not add your support to the
PEOPLE'S PROPOSAL TO RENEW DEMOCRACY (with Rider, below)
We the undersigned propose that a law be passed in parliament which
enables and provides finance for the following forms of democracy at
all levels of government from local to national, these forms of
democracy to be initiated by a fair and reasonable percentage of the
population, with decisions being made by an appropriate majority of
voters:
1) Initiation of laws to be voted upon by the legislative body be it
parliament, assembly or council (Citizens' Initiative).
2) Referendum: The people decide, for instance if the legislative has
decided against the citizens' initiatives in 1) or 3).
3) Cancellation or modification of existing laws by citizens'
initiative or referendum.
4) Recall of elected public delegates, representatives and officials at
any time during the usual period of office: The people decide.
A "green paper" outlining the hereto relevant practices of democracy in
other countries and describing different reform options and the reasons
for these shall be rapidly published and made freely available (gratis)
via wide-area computer networks such as Internet.
Signed
.......
.......
.......
___________________________
Rider
By signing the foregoing proposal I mandate my Member of Parliament to
help introduce and support an appropriate Bill in Parliament. In future
my vote will go ONLY to those candidates for parliamentary office who
promise to support the proposal.
Signed
.......
.......
.......
End of proposal.
_________________________________________________________________
contact: in...@SPAMNOTiniref.org
#vonroach
<w...@SPAMNOTiniref.org> wrote:
>"... Scotland sounds like a dangerous place to experiment with this
>reform."! Jist whit urr ye get'n at here, laddie?
The usual source, WM, - history.
IAN MCDOWELL
"Esquilax" <an...@mous.com> wrote in message
news:a60cdi$m4f$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>What are u on about Phil,your talking out of your arse mate