1) “If you look at the record of referenda in Switzerland and the US there is hardly a single ballot initiative that is not regressive and has been whipped up by the right-wing media.” (Neil Bradbury) / “Any kind of progressive legislation that the country introduces will almost certainly be neutered by the effects of this motion.” (Doug)

First of all, the motion does not propose a Swiss-style initiative and referendum system – that would be a step too far for me personally, at least in lieu of a written constitution and entrenched Bill of Rights.

I have looked at what happens in Switzerland and elsewhere and challenge these assertions.

For example, the Swiss overwhelmingly voted for same sex partnerships a couple of years ago. In South Dakota in 2006, a ballot initiative was used to overturn a tough anti-abortion law. Ireland scrapped the death penalty by referendum.

If you look across the board, the picture is mixed. Prosaicly, rightwing countries tend to vote for rightwing ballot initiatives and leftwing countries tend to vote for leftwing ballot initiatives, with exceptions to both rules to keep things interesting.

2. “I like the idea of the petition of a million, but it would surely be a complete administrative nightmare?” (Jennie Rigg)

At the moment, yes, which is why the motion calls for the security of the electoral register to be tightened up. Without individual voter registration (which is party policy) I would argue that a formal petitioning process would be about as secure as the Downing Street petition engine (i.e. not).

Fundamentally though, there is nothing particularly complicated about it, and the countries which operate don’t have a problem.

3. “I think we should also consider that the role of MPs is important.” (Geoffrey Payne)

Absolutely – which is why every proposal in the motion allows MPs to have the final say. Even the veto proposal does nothing to prevent MPs from introducing exactly the same legislation after a referendum has rejected it.

4. “Would the veto be applicable to a piece of legislation in its entirety or just to certain clause?” (Doug)

The motion doesn’t go into that much detail and the FCC would almost certainly reject it if it did. Personally, I’m open-minded about that. I can see how, for example, it would work very well regarding a specific criminal offence within a wider bill, but I wouldn’t want to see it being used to cherry keep “benefits” (such as a new road) but reject the means to pay for it (such as a new tax). At the same time, to take a recent example, I can see how it would come in very handy in exposing the complete mess the government made of the Finance Bill this year.

It is very deliberately limited to “think again” legislation for that very reason.

5. “The people’s Bill idea is a potential nightmare too – won’t this always be topped by some anti-liberal measures like brining back corporal punishment or some kind of Megan’s/Sarah’s law?” (Doug)

Your faith in your fellow human beings is truly touching! But no, this isn’t the international experience, and in any case MPs will have a free rein to vote whichever way they choose on these issues.

I’m a democrat: I disagree with them but I recognise that there are significant numbers of people crying out for a “Sarah’s law.” For Parliament to be relevant to the people, it is only right that they debate such proposals every now and again.

Finally, I would request that people don’t take single issues in isolation. One criticism of both the “veto” and “people’s bill” proposals I would accept is that they would work less well if Parliament remains elected by FPTP than they would under PR. But that isn’t an argument for not supporting these measures – it is an argument for electoral reform.

The people’s Bill idea is a potential nightmare too – won’t this always be topped by some anti-liberal measures like brining back corporal punishment or some kind of Megan’s/Sarah’s law? As with the veto, it would be susceptable to influence by the rightwing press.

On the whole the motion is well meaning, but if we want to be treated as a serious political party I think that it needs to be seriously amended on the peoples Bill/veto front. Any kind of progressive legislation that the country introduces will almost certainly be neutered by the effects of this motion.

The seperate vote has been requested by the Canterbury Lib Dems.