Sure... the people are morons, who can't walk and chew gum simultaneously. Sure, most have a grasp of the 'ishoos' informed, if at all, mostly by plotlines in 'Eastenders'. Fewer than 20% of the voting-age population watch newsnight, or regularly read a broadsheet newspaper. Yup... we the people are idiots.

Anyone making argument against regular plebiscites on vital issues will make these arguments, though they will probably use the word - 'ill-informed' rather than 'moronic', which is what they actually mean, and they will add the word "representative" as a prefix to 'democracy', citing centuries of constitutional precedent...


Which let's face it is a bit arrogant, after all we are all part of the voting age population. What people who don't favour referendums are really saying is 'we don't trust the (other) people to give the answer we want', instead preferring a self-selecting political elite to make all the decisions, who defend their management of the country using the word "consensus".

Well bugger consensus. The European Union is run on 'consensus' and that's a total clusterfuck. A camel is a horse designed by such a committee. The people may be stupid, lazy and ill informed, but they get it right more often than the politicians or heaven forbid the even less representative "intellectuals" who as Hayek noted are uniquely susceptible to the charms of Socialism. The is because for every idiot who comes out with the wrong answer, there are likely to be 2 people who have come out with a better one. It's called the wisdom of crowds, and it works.

Let us not forget that Democracy is supposed to be in the interests of the people, and like the criminal justice system, it matters not only that the right thing is done, but that it is seen to be done. In this, Westminster is broken, and the institutions of the European Union are even more so. Never has there been such mistrust of our elected political leadership.

So here's my plan. The No. 10 petition site should be mirrored in one at Buckingham palace, which will list every law as it is debated in the house. Any controversial bill which gets above a certain threshold (say 5 million signatures, or 10% of the electorate for example) during its passage through parliament could trigger a plebiscite on whether the Queen should ascent to the new act. Some petitions have reached this order of magnitude - the anti-road pricing petition got nearly two million, even without a guaranteed constitutional result.

The constitutional justification could be that the Queen will refuse assent for such controversial laws, until her people are consulted. Perhaps a suitable, higher threshold should be set for the Monarch, at the request of the people, to dissolve parliament and call a general election. This will at once make the Queen relevant again in the constitution, enfranchise those with an axe to grind and give a reason for people to take an interest in politics. The politicians would once again have to have an eye on whether a Law is acceptable to the people, and this would allow us to effectively hold our masters to account between general elections. Communication would have to go beyond the tiresome repetition of soundbites and laws would have to be sold in detail to the electorate. It would have the benefit of simplicity and transparency, giving everyone a chance to influence lawmaking. Finally it would not at all damage the impartiality of the monarchy, which makes no decisions at all, rather providing a conduit for the people to influence the executive.

Representative democracy works when the political class is held in high regard. They aren't, and we're poorer for it. We need to check an over mighty and incompetent executive which is constantly meddling in affairs which are not its proper business.

I can guess the issues which would probably be able to cross this threshold at first - a referendum on the EU in some form, Iraq, Hanging and immigration. The answers will probably not please the political class, or even libertarian bloggers, but who cares about their convenience: they shouldn't be in charge. We (the people) should be.