Last week I explained how the third part of our fourth demand, 'The People's Consent', would allow us to challenge the decisions made by government bodies such as elected and appointed officials, including minsters and judges.
As usual I posted this on 'EU Referendum' and some of the comments suggested that for the 'People' to be able to challenge judges would lead to mob rule.
I understands these concerns but to me it is akin to suggesting that any democratic majority decision amounts to mob rule especially when you don't agree with the majorities point of view. Furthemore it completely overlooks the significant checks and balances that we suggest must go along with the use of referenda.
Of course the decision of a jury, in a court case, can already be subject to appeal but the whole point of our fourth demand is to give the 'People' real power to ensure 'officialdom' can always be held to account.
Last week I pointed out the biased summing up at the Jeremy Thorpe trial by judge Cantley, which went against point 10 of Sir Matthew Hale's resolutions for judges toi follow, which could be the sort of issue the people might like the chance to comment on but I think there are better examples.
Take for example the 30+ years it has taken for the recent Infected Blood enquiry to be set up or the 25+ years it took for the investigation into the Hillsborough Disaster to get underway - are not these examples where, if the 'People' could have their say, governments would be forced to act sooner with the results open to the 'People' to challenge in the event of a whitewash.
I don't think governments and minsters would like the 'People' to be able to interfere in their cosy deliberations conducted at their own speed but then it is clear that our MPs, when considering Brexit, don't much like democracy.
The use of referenda, as outlined in our fourth demand, gives the 'People' real power without which we don't really have a functioning democracy.