Post Brexit To-Do List

Brexit won't be over for decades

but lets start with:
1 - a crackdown on fake news
2 - better public education on politics
3 - mandatory independent fact checks on all political claims by politicians and the media
4 - ban on politicians having any other paid or advisory jobs while serving - especially in the media
5 - ban on all political donations unless from a verified named government gateway user/individual and UK taxpayer.
With 1, 2 and 3 there would have been 99% in favour of Brexit :D
 
Yes, but the British ones have a reputation for being the nastiest and worst.
I assume you have a link to that, just like you can prove that Mogg said prosperity only after 50 years, which after all is a matter of record. :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
You're right, I was getting my Universes mixed up! :blush:
this should help ...

e3c.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom