Progressive policies explained: Direct Democracy

Progressive European Party

The lowering of standards and the reduction of workers rights, as well as the opening up of our economy to the outside world with a zero tariff, free for all, is exactly the purpose of Brexit. This could not be achieved while we were still European Union members. 

The people behind Brexit, who are now running our country, are free-market economy nuts. They had to get us out of the European Union in order to steer the country in the direction of their ideology. They don't want any rules or regulations (red tape) - not even the ones that protect our health, human rights, environment and jobs. Perversely, they want open borders for all products and services while at the same time keeping borders closed against the free movement of people. 

One of the things said back in 2017 by the then international trade secretary Liam Fox was that a free trade agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest deals in human history" - on the basis that our rules and laws are already the same. Yes fine, it could have been just that if we had stayed in the single market, retained a customs union and accepted the adjudication of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). However, our negotiators do not seem to have the first clue of what the European Union is. They want to deregulate the UK, leave the single market, have no customs union and no adjudication of the CJEU. Yet at the same time, they hope to preserve free trade with the EU: the most regulated trading block on the planet. Lunacy, lunacy driven by an ideology with no consideration of what is practicable or just plain common sense. This is the main problem with ideologies; their inflexibility. 

We, the good citizens of the United Kingdom, were only asked if we wanted to leave the EU or not. We were not asked if we wanted to be in a customs union, the single market, or to retain free movement. We have not been given any opportunity of further input beyond that single binary choice four years ago. This is democracy but only in its most diluted and perfunctory of forms. 

The situation we are in today is an extreme one, and quite unprecedented. Ideologies have, however, always had the effect of suppressing democracy: regardless of whether they were Socialism, Conservatism or Liberalism.

In the recent past, things were no better. We had no vote on whether we should be in the Schengen Area, should adopt the Euro or should be engaged in the Iraq war. These were all important decisions that affected the lives of most UK citizens and yet we were not permitted to have a say. 

The only thing we can do now is to lobby our local MP personally - usually to little effect.

The political ideology of a party that succeeds in gaining office usually becomes entrenched as a form of inflexible dogma. Imagine trying to convince Margaret Thatcher that an unrestricted free market economy had some inherent downsides and needed to have controls in place. Democracy will always take second place to dogma in the minds of the ruling political elite at any particular time. 

Pragmatism is our only ideology.

How then does the Progressive Party develop its manifesto policies if we are not following a Left, Right or Centre ideology? We have a test, we ask is it: Fair? Responsible? Economical? Efficient? This clearly has no foundation in any political ideology or philosophy and is unlikely to produce anything that could turn into an inflexible dogma. Instead for policies to pass the test and become part of our manifesto they, first of all, have to be desirable on a social level and then be workable in a practical sense. 

Our policy that would create the biggest constitutional change in this country is direct democracy. Currently, when voting for a candidate, their party logo is displayed next to their name on the ballot paper. This would no longer be necessary with a system of direct democracy. An elected MP would be a servant of the people, not the representative of the left, the right or the centre ground party. Only after enough time has been allowed for a particular policy to be published and openly discussed would we all get a vote on it. Modern technology makes it very easy to do this safely and with little risk of electoral fraud. 

Imagine a world where we, the citizens of the country, would be the ones to decide if there was to be a High Speed 2 train service. Equally if, after a start had been made, we could decide whether it should be continued in the light of unpredicted spiralling costs and delays to completion. Naturally, competent politicians and professional civil service would still be needed to do all the work. The difference is that we, the people, would be able to give them the instructions about what is to be done. 

Checks and balances are still needed to stop an extremist takeover of the country. A cooling-off period would be required before major changes could be made to how the country is run and a two-thirds supermajority required before constitutional changes were made. A mechanism would also be required to enable any member of the public to put forward proposals for debate. The current petition process of 100,000 votes before it is debated in parliament would be ideal for this. Unlike today, however, we would all be able to vote on the proposal at the appointed time.

These are just a few of our proposals. Much has been said in the past about an ideal government “of the people, for the people and by the people”. Hitherto this has remained merely a notional ideal. What we are proposing can turn it into a practical reality.

Philip Notley

(edited by John Coats)

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com