Huhne supports People's Veto

| | | | | | | |

James Graham (London, Quaequam Blog!): I haven't yet had a chance to read Chris Huhne's leadership election manifesto in full, but I was delighted to see him come out in support of a People's Veto.

I have to admit, I had some inclination that his team were cooking up something like this, as they approached me asking questions about how such systems would work in practice. I know this isn't a policy they just cobbled together without thinking about it; Chris Huhne supporter David Howarth is a sceptic of direct systems of democracy in the best sense of the word (as you can see from this video). If this policy got past David's forensic mind, you can safely bet that it has been robustly scrutinised.

What of the policy itself? A People's Veto is a system whereby citizens have a right to object to a specific piece of legislation within a set time period (in Switzerland this is 100 days; Huhne's manifesto argues that information technology means that a shorter time limit is viable). If enough people object (Huhne proposes 2.5% of the voting population, or 1 million people assuming 40 million voters across the UK), then a referendum must be held. If a majority of people vote to veto the legislation, then it falls. Parliament would be free to reintroduce the legislation all over again of course, but it would be unlikely to as the political cost would be huge.

This isn't a system of initiative and referendum, whereby the public can put (almost) anything on the table. While I am still keen that such options be explored by politicians, the clear advantage the Veto system has is that it is simple and doesn't get into complex technical issues about safeguards and the need to protect minorities. It would mean that as well as requiring Royal Assent, every piece of legislation going through Parliament would have the people's assent - passive or otherwise. It would mean that governments would have to do much more to sell controversial policies such as ID cards to the public. It would even mean that any future treaty signed up to by the government would be subject to the same process - Huhne may not support a referendum on the Reform Treaty, but he has in effect signed up to the principle that any subsequent EU treaties must be subject to much greater public scrutiny.

Constitutional issue this may be, but it is one that I genuinely believe could capture the public's imagination. It treats them like grown ups, and in my experience people respond well to that. I'm delighted to see Chris Huhne advance the debate in this way. Nick?

| | | | | | | |