This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
Originally posted by Badger11
What next post Brexit. Hopefully by the end of January we can lock this thread but constitutionally what will a post Brexit politics look like over the next few years. My hope is that Boris embarks on a series of changes to bring Parliament into the 21st century. We need: Repeal the fixed term Parliament act it hasn't worked. Extension of the recall vote to include MPs who leave a party e.g. switch from Labour to Tory. Let the public decide via a by election. Excellent. With safeguards...excellent. Originally posted by Badger11
Abolish the House of Lords and replace with a Senate based on region and PR. At the very least limit the number of peers in the house e.g. 350 and not 800. I haven't thought about it enough but the implication that we limit the numbers....what is clearly a political favours and status circle jerk is very much agreed with. Originally posted by Badger11
Scrap the Human Rights act and replace with a UK bill of rights and responsibilities. Excellent times ten. Originally posted by Badger11
That should keep Parliament busy for the next few years. Edited by Badger11 (27 Dec 2019 8.07am) I can imagine the internationalists screeching now......especially with that last one.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
What next post Brexit. Hopefully by the end of January we can lock this thread but constitutionally what will a post Brexit politics look like over the next few years. My hope is that Boris embarks on a series of changes to bring Parliament into the 21st century. We need: Repeal the fixed term Parliament act it hasn't worked. Extension of the recall vote to include MPs who leave a party e.g. switch from Labour to Tory. Let the public decide via a by election. Modernise the voting system so MPs can vote from home. Abolish the House of Lords and replace with a Senate based on region and PR. At the very least limit the number of peers in the house e.g. 350 and not 800. Scrap the Human Rights act and replace with a UK bill of rights and responsibilities. That should keep Parliament busy for the next few years. Edited by Badger11 (27 Dec 2019 8.07am) I sense a disturbance in the Force in Truro. Brace yourself for a broadside.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
I sense a disturbance in the Force in Truro. Brace yourself for a broadside. LOL I think that's the Brussels Sprouts or should I now call them Yorkshire sprouts.
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
LOL I think that's the Brussels Sprouts or should I now call them Yorkshire sprouts. They’re always causing trouble. When the above happened there were reports of people carting off carrier bags full of them. Which they then tried to sell.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Modernise the voting system so MPs can vote from home. Not sure that I agree with that as MPs should be attending the House to hear the arguments. I did get rather cross a couple of months ago when the MPs were moaning that there wasn't sufficient time to debate the Queen's Speech yet when I looked it on the Parliament Channel there were only a dozen MPs who bothered to listen and join in the debate We already have the pairing system for MPs that need to be elsewhere
|
|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Not sure that I agree with that as MPs should be attending the House to hear the arguments. I did get rather cross a couple of months ago when the MPs were moaning that there wasn't sufficient time to debate the Queen's Speech yet when I looked it on the Parliament Channel there were only a dozen MPs who bothered to listen and join in the debate We already have the pairing system for MPs that need to be elsewhere It was a bullet point I should have expanded it. I agree normally they should be in the house I mean in cases where they were ill or on maternity leave. This could be managed by the MP asking permission from the Speakers office we shouldn't have ambulances turning up at Parliament just so a sick MP can vote. They should also look at the working hours why do they start mid morning or even afternoon. They should also introduce video technology in the commons to the MPS constituency office so that MPs can hold surgeries back home. In short a bit of common-sense and technology. Edited by Badger11 (27 Dec 2019 9.40am)
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Not sure that I agree with that as MPs should be attending the House to hear the arguments. I did get rather cross a couple of months ago when the MPs were moaning that there wasn't sufficient time to debate the Queen's Speech yet when I looked it on the Parliament Channel there were only a dozen MPs who bothered to listen and join in the debate We already have the pairing system for MPs that need to be elsewhere Video conferencing made that unnecessary ten years ago. There is a lot of money spent on the political class that isn't strictly required. They are going to streamline the train drivers and truckers out of jobs.....We don't need to pay for a lot of the expenses of Westminister bound politicians.....second homes and all the rest of it.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
So Eurocrat Frans Timmermans has written us a love letter that if we change our mind and come crawling back all will be forgiven. They still don't get it, if they want us back then start making concrete proposals to address the issues that made people vote leave in the first place. I doubt I would change my mind but I'm sure there are a lot of middle of the road voters who would switch if the EU made concessions. Until then roll on 31 Jan. I personally believe the Eurocrats are more concerned that Brexit will be the tipping point for the whole of the EU and this is why the olive branch is being dangled. Spain, France could both leave which would just about finish it as I’m sure that Germany are not prepared to fund the entire EU.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Eaglecoops
I personally believe the Eurocrats are more concerned that Brexit will be the tipping point for the whole of the EU and this is why the olive branch is being dangled. Spain, France could both leave which would just about finish it as I’m sure that Germany are not prepared to fund the entire EU. I think you're right about funding the 6/7 new countries going through the accession process will all be takers rather than givers so that just adds to their problems. However it wasn't much of an olive branch if I was Merkel I would be telling the negotiators to try and get their hands on our money. Now if we got a good deal out of it within reason I would be okay paying for access it depends what we got for our money.
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
What next post Brexit. Hopefully by the end of January we can lock this thread but constitutionally what will a post Brexit politics look like over the next few years. My hope is that Boris embarks on a series of changes to bring Parliament into the 21st century. We need: Repeal the fixed term Parliament act it hasn't worked. Extension of the recall vote to include MPs who leave a party e.g. switch from Labour to Tory. Let the public decide via a by election. Modernise the voting system so MPs can vote from home. Abolish the House of Lords and replace with a Senate based on region and PR. At the very least limit the number of peers in the house e.g. 350 and not 800. Scrap the Human Rights act and replace with a UK bill of rights and responsibilities. That should keep Parliament busy for the next few years. Edited by Badger11 (27 Dec 2019 8.07am) Congratulations on winning the general ignorance round on the supreme court. They only make law to fill lacuna left by the legislature or interpret law to clarify poorly drafted legislation. Otherwise primary legislation is paramount and the supreme court cannot rule against it. And if the government doesn't like a supreme court decision they bring in legislation after the house has properly debated and voted on it. This is one major concern I have about the current government. With it's big majority it will seek to "reform " the supreme court not because it needs it but through pure vindictiveness given it arrived at a high profile decision the user its schemes. Checks and balances are there for a healthy democracy.
|
|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
Congratulations on winning the general ignorance round on the supreme court. They only make law to fill lacuna left by the legislature or interpret law to clarify poorly drafted legislation. Otherwise primary legislation is paramount and the supreme court cannot rule against it. And if the government doesn't like a supreme court decision they bring in legislation after the house has properly debated and voted on it. This is one major concern I have about the current government. With it's big majority it will seek to "reform " the supreme court not because it needs it but through pure vindictiveness given it arrived at a high profile decision the user its schemes. Checks and balances are there for a healthy democracy. I understand how the court works and that is my point the powers of the PM are not clearly defined so Parliament rather than the SP should decide what they are. I disagreed with the SP's decision not because Johnson wasn't try to pull a fast one, he was, but because Parliament had other remedies and recourse but the opposition chose not to use them but let others take the PM to court. Anyway that is done and now with the dust settling Parliament should codify what the PM can and can't then the SP can make judgements based on that. Personally I think it is time we had a written constitution.
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
Congratulations on winning the general ignorance round on the supreme court. They only make law to fill lacuna left by the legislature or interpret law to clarify poorly drafted legislation. Otherwise primary legislation is paramount and the supreme court cannot rule against it. And if the government doesn't like a supreme court decision they bring in legislation after the house has properly debated and voted on it. This is one major concern I have about the current government. With it's big majority it will seek to "reform " the supreme court not because it needs it but through pure vindictiveness given it arrived at a high profile decision the user its schemes. Checks and balances are there for a healthy democracy. What's the check and balance against the unelected 'supreme court' exactly if not this? Ultimately I wasn't comfortable with this invasion of the lawyer class into Brexit politics.....the ruling they laid down was without realistic precedent. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Dec 2019 2.40pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I understand how the court works and that is my point the powers of the PM are not clearly defined so Parliament rather than the SP should decide what they are. I disagreed with the SP's decision not because Johnson wasn't try to pull a fast one, he was, but because Parliament had other remedies and recourse but the opposition chose not to use them but let others take the PM to court. Anyway that is done and now with the dust settling Parliament should codify what the PM can and can't then the SP can make judgements based on that. Personally I think it is time we had a written constitution. So your problem is with the opposition and not the forum they channelled their tactics through. I hope the PM shares your view and doesn't seek petty revenge. Time will tell if he is the bigger man worthy of respect. On hour main point this debate will rage range between codified certainty and fluid and adaptable unwritten.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
What next post Brexit. Hopefully by the end of January we can lock this thread but constitutionally what will a post Brexit politics look like over the next few years. Post Brexit? This is but a step along the Brexit road. The next crisis will be in around 6 months when the pressure to extend reaches it's peak. If we don't, as is threatened, then another even bigger one comes in 12 months as we once again stagger to the cliff edge of a no deal exit or some kind of fudge. By then I think the Brexit buzzword might be morphing into Rejoin. This is a long way from over. My hope is that Boris embarks on a series of changes to bring Parliament into the 21st century. Many of these were in the manifesto! Though I doubt whether many actually noticed anything beyond the catch phrase. We need: Be careful what you wish for! If you heard Lady Hale on Radio 4 today she was unequivocal that the SC only interprets the law as and when requested to do so. The SC have not "got themselves into politics" at all and those who were unhappy at their decision are shooting at the messenger. What the Tories are now proposing is to limit people's ability to request judicial reviews, seemingly in revenge for the judgement. If passed this could easily backfire in the future. Ensuring that we all have the law available to us at all times is a fundamental aspect of our democracy and it's limitation a step towards authoritarianism. Repeal the fixed term Parliament act it hasn't worked. In what way? Giving the power to decide when it's politically expedient to hold an election to a PM is profoundly undemocratic. Extension of the recall vote to include MPs who leave a party e.g. switch from Labour to Tory. Let the public decide via a by election. Would be a huge backward step towards turning our MPs into delegated voting machines. Modernise the voting system so MPs can vote from home. From anywhere, securely and in secret. All three together would transform our system and ensure MP's really voted for what they believe is right and not as they have been told to vote. Abolish the House of Lords and replace with a Senate based on region and PR. At the very least limit the number of peers in the house e.g. 350 and not 800. Remove hereditary Peers from the Lords for sure but keep the collective wisdom of those with long service and valuable experience. Making more Life Peers if needed. A Senate is not appropriate in our system. Scrap the Human Rights act and replace with a UK bill of rights and responsibilities. So long as it extends protections and doesn't limit them, why not? That should keep Parliament busy for the next few years. Edited by Badger11 (27 Dec 2019 8.07am)
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
What's the check and balance against the unelected 'supreme court' exactly if not this? Ultimately I wasn't comfortable with this invasion of the lawyer class into Brexit politics.....the ruling they laid down was without realistic precedent. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Dec 2019 2.40pm) They are more than aware that they are unelected which is why they always defer to the supremacy of primary legislation. The supreme court regularly checks the behaviour of government. This one got exposure because it is Brexit. However one thing that those who leaped aboard the "unelected" right wing backlash is the impact of court decisions. All they can do is declare a decision unlawful. It then goes back to government to have another go but this time do it lawfully. For that reason an effective check and balance.
|
|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
So your problem is with the opposition and not the forum they channelled their tactics through. I hope the PM shares your view and doesn't seek petty revenge. Time will tell if he is the bigger man worthy of respect. On hour main point this debate will rage range between codified certainty and fluid and adaptable unwritten. Ugh spelling on a mobile
|
|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
They are more than aware that they are unelected which is why they always defer to the supremacy of primary legislation. The supreme court regularly checks the behaviour of government. This one got exposure because it is Brexit. However one thing that those who leaped aboard the "unelected" right wing backlash is the impact of court decisions. All they can do is declare a decision unlawful. It then goes back to government to have another go but this time do it lawfully. For that reason an effective check and balance. 'Right wing backlash'
|
|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
'Right wing backlash' Ha the irony. Most analysts on the politics of the judiciary identify its right wing bias. However your criticism is correct but wrongly grounded. It was a pro leave backlash
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.