Post Brexit To-Do List

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
We should have a by election if a sitting MP changes party.
The only exception to that would have to be if the country is at war, in the midst of a natural disaster or facing a constitutional crisis.

There needs to be a proper federal settlement, including a parliament for England. (Or England should go independent, though I accept there is little appetite for that currently).
If the Union is to survive federalism is likely the best way of going about it. Prising power away from Westminster is the big task. We don't need a parliament for England, what we require is regional Government with devolved powers for the regions combined with Citizens assemblies to help decide upon the big issues.

The speakers role needs significant reform to address the blatant politicisation Bercow has brought in.
He's stood up for the Commons in face of the Executive, which is too powerful. I haven't agreed with everything Bercow has done but he is far being the worst speaker. If you want to make an actual reform to the role of speaker then you should be looking at doing away with the convention that means a Speaker is elected without challenge. It's the safest seat of them all and makes Speakers unaccountable to voters. But changing that convention might make speakers far more interventionist than Bercow. Also read Erskine May it's a most enlightening read if a little dry.

The HoL should be abolished and not replaced. Let's have a unicameral legislature.
A second chamber is required to ensure bills are debated and amended properly before passing into law. I'd rather see the Lords replaced with a fully elected chamber, than have to wait for the courts to sort out ill defined laws due to a lack of oversight and debate in Parliament.

We should abolish the monarchy if we can find a suitable model to replace it. I would not want anything like the US presidential model. I can't actually find a model I prefer, but I'm open to suggestions.
The only viable option is a Presidency, so there is little point in abolishing the monarchy if you don't like that idea. I'd slim the Monarchy down and cut costs where necessary. As for the Royal Estates and Palaces ? I'd open them up to tourism.

We should have a written Constitution that covers the previous points.
A Written Constitution would have to go much further than the points raised in this thread.

Genuine question, isn't the tabloid press from any country equally embarrassing?
The national enquirer might give the sun a run for it's money in some ways. But in general the tabloid press pokes at the worst of human nature to generate clickbait headlines (physical newspapers seem to be on the way out). They've shown they can't police themselves therefore it is time for Leveson 2.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
I wouldnt support censorship of the media - a free press is essential for democracy
Neither does anyone I imagine. He has a good point about it being re-examined.

They have a responsibility, something they appear to be increasingly forgetting about.
 

krish

Distinguished Member
They have a responsibility, something they appear to be increasingly forgetting about.
They appear to find Markle's family relationships of great importance, while happy to bury Airmiles Andy's dubious associations with paedophiles and dictators
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
They appear to find Markle's family relationships of great importance, while happy to bury Airmiles Andy's dubious associations with paedophiles and dictators
That's getting buried mate. There's barely even a mention of Epstein either now.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
They appear to find Markle's family relationships of great importance, while happy to bury Airmiles Andy's dubious associations with paedophiles and dictators
And the Markle's have just made it onto Question Time.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
Neither does anyone I imagine. He has a good point about it being re-examined.

They have a responsibility, something they appear to be increasingly forgetting about.
What do you mean by 're-examined'? - who is going to do this re-examining?

Why not just call it what it is.
 

Derek S-H

Distinguished Member
What do you mean by 're-examined'? - who is going to do this re-examining?

Why not just call it what it is.
We frequently discuss transparency and accountability when it comes to all kinds of bodies and organisations, why should the press/media be any different?

We already have internal investigations for MP's and the Police conduct and standards, neither of which are truly independent and are frequently just cover ups. The press are even worse because they can basically print lies and ruin lives, and there's no comeback other than the legal route.

I do believe in a free press, but I also believe in responsibility, accountability and a decent set of minimum standards. What good purpose does running a story about Ben Stokes' family history serve? Or calling Remain-supporting MP's "Traitors"?

We're very good at setting up bodies who examine other bodies in this country (with fairly mixed results, it must be said). I'm sure we can find a way to create another body to oversee media behaviour that's truly independent, though I'm sure the press would kick up a fuss about it and start bleating about censorship.

As they say on "Star Trek": "With great power comes great responsibility" (or maybe they stole that from somewhere else); the press seem to want the power but abdicate responsibility and hide behind arguments about freedom.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
We frequently discuss transparency and accountability when it comes to all kinds of bodies and organisations, why should the press/media be any different?

We already have internal investigations for MP's and the Police conduct and standards, neither of which are truly independent and are frequently just cover ups. The press are even worse because they can basically print lies and ruin lives, and there's no comeback other than the legal route.

I do believe in a free press, but I also believe in responsibility, accountability and a decent set of minimum standards. What good purpose does running a story about Ben Stokes' family history serve? Or calling Remain-supporting MP's "Traitors"?

We're very good at setting up bodies who examine other bodies in this country (with fairly mixed results, it must be said). I'm sure we can find a way to create another body to oversee media behaviour that's truly independent, though I'm sure the press would kick up a fuss about it and start bleating about censorship.

As they say on "Star Trek": "With great power comes great responsibility" (or maybe they stole that from somewhere else); the press seem to want the power but abdicate responsibility and hide behind arguments about freedom.
Well Singapore are doing exactly what you suggest with regards to social media (they already have restrictions on the press). The fact is that if you give such powers to politicians then of course politicians are going to use them. Why do you think people go into government if it’s not to have power over people and society?

'Chilling': Singapore's 'fake news’ law comes into effect
 

Derek S-H

Distinguished Member
Well Singapore are doing exactly what you suggest with regards to social media (they already have restrictions on the press). The fact is that if you give such powers to politicians then of course politicians are going to use them. Why do you think people go into government if it’s not to have power over people and society?

'Chilling': Singapore's 'fake news’ law comes into effect
Call me naive, but isn't it for public service and a greater good?

At least, that's what they claim. As do the media.
 

krish

Distinguished Member
As they say on "Star Trek": "With great power comes great responsibility" (or maybe they stole that from somewhere else)
Thought that was from Spider-Man, said by Peter Parker's uncle
- the many Marvel-lous people here (as established in another Brexit thread) should know that

Stan Lee might have nicked it from Churchill though
 

kav

Distinguished Member
Thought that was from Spider-Man, said by Peter Parker's uncle
- the many Marvel-lous people here (as established in another Brexit thread) should know that

Stan Lee might have nicked it from Churchill though
Pretty sure Churchill nicked it from Martin Luther King.
 

kav

Distinguished Member
According to James Cleverly, it was first coined by Liz Truss as she battled Thanos on Titan.
A common misconception. It was actually Nick Clegg who said it upon receiving his first taste of power in a coalition government.
 

raduv1

Distinguished Member
I fully believe our form of governance is pretty strong sound and stable even in the midst of the last three years of unprecedented events. I do not want a PM or goverment that is not held by some degree to account by parliament . We may not like the checks and balances and indeed full on disagree but they are needed and important proccess that should never be weakened or circumvented .

To gain just one thing by losing all we believe in is the height of stupidity.
 

Panavision

Active Member
The following list (I like lists as you may have gathered) is my first stab which I shall update when others have hopefully provided feedback and suggestions. It is not in any specific order of importance either yet :-

  1. When MPs resign or are sacked from their party they MUST be replaced by that party immediately and not allowed to go Independent or change parties mid-term


  1. Agreed.

    [*]Politics and decision making needs to become less centred in London and more distributed around the country
    Agreed. Sortition is one way to engage the whole country. I'd like a handful of people from all classes to be invited to various political presentations where grievances can be heard and politicians can use it as a basis to determine how to proceed with laws, even distribution of money, etc. I want to see the PM spend more time in other cities rather than just London.

    [*]England should have its own national assembly like the other UK countries
    Do we need another layer of bull?

  2. [*]A written constitution must be constructed and approved by the people defining how the MPs, Peers,Monarch and the Judiciary shall interact and which has final sovereignty
    Agreed.

    [*]Members of the House of Lords must be replaced by elected peers in future
    Agree.

    [*]The role of Speaker must be defined in writing to emphasise the need for impartiality and clear duties and rules for them to be followed by the incumbent.
    Agree

    [*]UK Parliaments both central and devolved must have the fundamental goal of being co-operative rather than confrontational
    Not sure how you can police that. Contravenes freedom of speech? Emotions run high.

    [*]Proportional representation must replace our first past the post system to better reflect the views of the people even if that means more coalitions
    Yep.

    [*]People no longer want to be led by Parliament but want to direct it more. For example by more referendum and/or decision making using IT applications
Disagree with more refs. People need to be educated on the subjects, sure, but I think Parliament should have final say in the interests of the country. I suppose people can offer advice, though.

I'd like to add that politicians must not have conflicts of interests with corporations.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Top Bottom