Bill of Rights
Make the politicians listen to you | Dt Opinion | Opinion | Telegraph
....what hope do members of the public have of influencing the debate?
The temptation to throw up our hands and say a plague on all your houses may be great - and from the tone of the comments on the Telegraph website, some readers may have already succumbed - but this is not the time for cynicism.
The urge for parties to control the debate has been accompanied by a significant fall in voter turnout. Participation at the last two general elections has been the lowest since the war. Party leaders recognise that something needs to be done to reconnect the electorate with the political process.
Gordon Brown has already shown that he is aware of the scale of the challenge, promising to take action to build trust in our democracy, using his first speech as PM-in-waiting to call for a more open form of dialogue between citizens and politicians genuinely to debate problems and solutions.
When he committed himself to bringing forward reform proposals to renew our constitution - with the first draft constitutional reform Bill later this year - many sat up and took notice.
Although viewed by many as dry and dusty, constitutional reform has the ability to address the issue at the heart of the malaise in our democracy - the loss of trust in politicians of all parties.
The first step would be to construct a new Bill of Rights, rooted in Magna Carta and the settlements of the 17th century, but also reflecting modern notions of universal rights.
Such a document would embody traditional British values of fairness and tolerance while reminding us that we have responsibilities to one another. It would also protect the rights of the individual when they come into conflict with the power of an over-mighty executive.
Ultimately, a new Bill of Rights would provide politicians with a set of rules by which we the people consent to be governed - rules that would be known by all, unlike the present situation, whereby, under our currently invisible constitution, any government with a majority can simply move the goal-posts.
But who should frame this new settlement? Surely politicians have a conflict of interest in formulating the rules that govern their behaviour? While welcoming Brown's initiative on this issue, should we just sit back and wait for him - or David Cameron - to tell us what our rights are?
The fact that Brown already has a draft Bill planned has caused concern that any consultation will be bogus, providing merely a fig-leaf for more top-down decision-making.
The time has come for people of all political persuasions and none to become pro-active in this debate. Brown has set the agenda; let us take the initiative.....
Yes, but... I'm not sure Billy Bragg's enthusiasm for Citizens' Assemblies is the answer they sound terribly French revolutionary. And I'm not sure what use there is in formulating a new Bill of Rights when our leaders tramble all over our existing one. My first step would be a robust defence of what we already have, restore the liberties therein, and if it needs amendments then discuss those line by line - a bit like the American model.
...
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare
That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
....
And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.
...... I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.