Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B941 - British Federalization, Devolution, Integration and Fair Electoral Bill 2016 watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Aph, Carlisle the capital of the North, are you taking the piss?
    lol, didn't notice that, PRSOM
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Aph, Carlisle the capital of the North, are you taking the piss?
    This made me chuckle.

    Ftr, it's a nay to this bill though it's clear that there's been a lot of effort put into it so I commend the author
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    No, I do not support the relaxed voting requirements, the compulsory appointments of people of all religions to a legislative body, the creating of states, and the technical errors in this bill from poor research; it is unsupportable.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aph I have a few issues with section 2, following what Nigel said.


    2) There shall be 100 Lords Spiritual who;
    .....a) Will be appointed every 5 years after the Census,
    .....b) Will be appointed by the head of each respective qualifying religious organization in this country, and;
    .....on the number of people reporting to belong to given religions in the UK.
    .....d) Seats That would be taken by Atheists will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Religious Affairs to prominent British Atheists
    ..........i) These may include up to 25% Buddhists and no Scientologists.


    1) we don't actually recognise scientology in the UK anyway
    2) As an anglican country, should there not be a greater number on CoE representatives?
    3) Are Buddhists Athiests? (not an issue, a genuine question)
    4) The point of having a HoL is that these peers have dedicated a lifetime of experience to their fields in which they are experts in, and as such, changing them around every five years kind of defeats the object.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, Aph has to be commended for the enormous amount of work that has clearly gone into this; it shows a level of commitment to the House that I think we can all envy. Onto the bill itself. The retention of the House of Lords I don't like but I respect the fact that an elected Lords has been rejected by the House, and the proposed reforms are better than the Lords as it currently stands. I also like the addition of a Senate, because the more scrutiny of legislation, the better. The federalisation I think is something that's inevitable and we're moving, albeit haltingly, in that direction irl. I think we have to realise that the UK is a place where there are and always have been enormous regional differences, and in my opinion, those differences are growing, not getting smaller. If the UK is to survive, it's going to have to adapt its format and structure to that reality, and I think a federal system such as the one proposed by this bill does the job nicely. As a side note, there is some spelling and grammar that needs to be fixed and I think 8 (1) c. may need to be amended to include Irish citizens, but neither of those are major issues. Overall, aye.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    Page 1 replies
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Is the UK inherently unstable as is, given that seems to be the main argument?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The main point of this is to get rid of BOT & CP and make them part of the UK proper. The rest of the bill is making sure that happens mainly.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Section 1 - Aye

    Section 2 - Nay

    Section 3 - Abstain.

    Section 4 - Nay (somewhat pointless given section 3).

    Section 5 - Aye

    Section 6 - Nay

    Section 7 - Nay

    Section 8 - Nay

    Section 9 - Nay

    Section 10 - Abstain

    Nay for the bill as a whole.
    can you explain?
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    First, the standard formatting is much better than whatever you're doing, please revert to it next time.

    Fine with s1 but I really don't care.
    Thank you for going into such great detail. I will attempt to respond to each point in turn.

    No to s2, proportional representation is a bad idea for the primary electoral chamber of the UK because division into a large number of parties results in regulatory matters being used as political pawns. If you delegate a lot more law-making responsibility (read: most of it) to courts and to defined bodies of appointed experts, I could be convinced.
    I'm not sure that unelected judges should be making laws. I would also argue that in politics everything is a pawn. I personally favour PR as it represents the majority more.

    As for s3, the Lords Spiritual should be abolished altogether, and this is not an improvement - there should be no people with legislative capacity appointed according to religious beliefs. No to the rest of it as well - review of proposed legislation should be done primarily by academics and the good fortune to succeed in business or industry does not qualify one to assess legislation. Certainly, at the very least, it should be required that they all be given a rigorous legal training. You also need to establish an independent body responsible for these appointments (lol at the Privy Council being remotely qualified to do so) and set out their constitutional status in greater detail - e.g. under what conditions may they be removed? Does this remove the previous settlement under which judicial members of the Supreme Court could not sit in the House of Lords politically? Does the power of the House of Lords change under this Bill? I suspect not, but a subsection to that effect would be useful.
    I hoped that the green bill to ban LS would pass, but unfortunately it failed so I can't ban Lords spiritual. as for the rest although I agree that being lucky shouldn't entitle you to sit there I would argue that some of the most successful should get a small part to play. Although I might be willing to remove them in favour of economists. and I completely respect the view of an independent body being better but then who appoints the people in the independent body?

    s4(3)(a) - this should be after a comma, not in a subsection. Absolutely not to s4(4), supermajorities are a terrible idea. And what exactly is the legislative power of the Senate? Can it initiate legislation? If you're going to set up a new legislative body, you need to create a whole new legislative process. Does a power exist in the Commons equivalent to that provided by the Parliament Acts?
    The super-majority is barely one (60/108) and I made it a super-majority because that is the point where it is likely that the 3 'types' of senator are all likely to have passed the legislation with a majority. The only reason there is a super-majority here is to stop small places being screwed-over.

    S5 makes it clearer what you're trying to do, and absolutely not, federalisation wouldn't work in the UK.
    section one won't happen without federalisation. and also what exactly do you mean it won't work?
    Trying to exhaustively list the powers of the supreme body, where the supreme body is sovereign over a state, is ridiculous - rather, you should reserve some powers to the states and give Parliament the rest - if you insist on federalisation, I recommend looking to the EU rules on competency and adopt something similar to those.
    I did think about doing just that but I thought it would be hard considering that if you just say 'everything else' it doesn't look good in a bill. I will however re-write this.
    S5(2) is a cluster**** that you should just get rid of. First, a presumption of supremacy in terms of normative content is insane and leads to restrictive constitutionalism like the messes in the US and Germany. Furthermore, it's completely daft to think that 'civil rights' is nearly well enough defined to adopt such a huge definitional burden in the constitution of a state - especially given that most claims to 'civil rights' tend to be when two or more persons' purported rights are in conflict, so one would need to develop a method of commensuration between things which are essentially incommensurable at the moment - this, accordingly, delegates a huge legislative power to courts on matters which are fundamentally political (presuming the rights to property and education are both deemed 'civil rights', which is more important? A reduction in any given tax would increase civil rights in terms of the former but decrease them in terms of the latter).
    I completely agree, and I considered giving straight supremacy to Parliament but I though that states should, for instance be able to raise their minimum wage compared to the Nation as a whole. I would appreciate advice on future wording.

    S6 - the powers reserved to councils are, in numerous places, contrary to EU law (consumer protection is under the near-exclusive domain of Europe at the moment, for instance).
    I'm not sure how accurate that is, for instance in the UK we have distance selling regulations which isn't EU law.
    You also don't define suffrage in council elections - what qualifies one to vote in a council election? E.g. does one need to be ordinarily resident in that state, or born in that state? Will we develop different passports? Can one be eligible to vote in multiple states?
    This is dealt with later on in the bill.
    S6(6) is a fiscally-limiting handicap for states, which is silly considering how wide those states' powers are defined.
    I agree but I also don't think that a single state should be able to borrow the entire county into massive debt. I envisaged a system of if states needed more they would ask the treasury for more or up taxes.

    S8 - I don't support the reduction of the voting age. 16 year olds, even those who are 'politically aware', simply haven't had capability of intelligent thought for sufficiently long to wisely use political agency. It's good that you offer definitions, but I don't think allowing states to define suffrage in their own elections is a good idea.
    the move to 16 was mainly because that is the age in the channel islands already and I'm not sure that I support just taking suffrage away from people. Also at 16 you can work and pay tax so why shouldn't you be able to vote? The States would still be bound by the equality act so I can't see too many issues.

    S9 is largely pointless - it was obvious from the Bill as a whole and thus the removal was implicit. You do need to provide transitional provisions though. I also suggest that it's probably politically necessary for Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland to also ratify this Bill before it comes into force as regards them.
    Referendums for NI/Wales/Scotland can be added for second reading. and I will work out transitional governments.

    S10 creates a lot of pointless work for the government. I suggest this simply has no effect on MHoC - I don't believe a Bill is capable of having that effect in any event.
    It is only a suggestion in S10, also with changes like this you either have to specify the effects or give it a GD amendment at the same time.

    Ultimately, while this looks impressive because it's long, has extensive notes and is factually correct as far as I can tell, the actual policy of many of the provisions of this Bill simply hasn't been considered in enough depth to avoid this being a mess. It needs a lot of work to be worth considering in the least, and even then, I personally wouldn't vote in favour due to being opposed to much of the Bill's core policy.
    I appreciate that there is a lot more to do and fully anticipate using up all my readings. Although I'm in favour of the core policy.

    (Original post by United1892)
    Aph, Carlisle the capital of the North, are you taking the piss?
    Where would you suggest?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Aph I have a few issues with section 2, following what Nigel said.


    [/size]

    1) we don't actually recognise scientology in the UK anyway
    2) As an anglican country, should there not be a greater number on CoE representatives?
    3) Are Buddhists Athiests? (not an issue, a genuine question)
    4) The point of having a HoL is that these peers have dedicated a lifetime of experience to their fields in which they are experts in, and as such, changing them around every five years kind of defeats the object.
    2) I don't support the premise that we are anglican. I personally would prefer to see no religions in the HoL but that failed already so this is the next best option IMO
    3)yes they are.
    4) the 5 year switch is only religious leaders and not everyone.
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Firstly, Aph has to be commended for the enormous amount of work that has clearly gone into this; it shows a level of commitment to the House that I think we can all envy. Onto the bill itself. The retention of the House of Lords I don't like but I respect the fact that an elected Lords has been rejected by the House, and the proposed reforms are better than the Lords as it currently stands. I also like the addition of a Senate, because the more scrutiny of legislation, the better. The federalisation I think is something that's inevitable and we're moving, albeit haltingly, in that direction irl. I think we have to realise that the UK is a place where there are and always have been enormous regional differences, and in my opinion, those differences are growing, not getting smaller. If the UK is to survive, it's going to have to adapt its format and structure to that reality, and I think a federal system such as the one proposed by this bill does the job nicely. As a side note, there is some spelling and grammar that needs to be fixed and I think 8 (1) c. may need to be amended to include Irish citizens, but neither of those are major issues. Overall, aye.
    I thank the honorable Gentleman for his support.

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, I do not support the relaxed voting requirements, the compulsory appointments of people of all religions to a legislative body, the creating of states, and the technical errors in this bill from poor research; it is unsupportable.
    Not that I expect to ever please you especially given your dramatic tone but I would ask
    A) relaxed voting requirements?
    B) Why should the Anglican Church have the monopoly especially when it is falling out of favour with the general populous?
    C) Do you honestly believe that any of the BOT or CD would agree to just be merged with us without a greater degree of independence????]
    D) The point of a first reading is to address errors, none of as are as perfect as you seem to think we should be.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    2) I don't support the premise that we are anglican. I personally would prefer to see no religions in the HoL but that failed already so this is the next best option IMO
    3)yes they are.
    4) the 5 year switch is only religious leaders and not everyone.
    Whether or not you support the premise that we are Anglican we, as a matter of fact, are. Also, why is there a 5 year switch for the lords spiritual and not everyone else? Why the inconsistency?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Page 1 replies

    The main point of this is to get rid of BOT & CP and make them part of the UK proper. The rest of the bill is making sure that happens mainly.

    But do those in the CDs and BOTs actually want this, or are you just talking on their behalf because really hot want to federalised GB? For a start, the Falklands don't want this, remember that referendum they had three years ago? Only 3 people who voted didn't want to remain a BOT. Even if we suppose all non voters are opposed that still leaves only 135 in a voting population at the time of 1,650.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Not that I expect to ever please you especially given your dramatic tone but I would ask
    A) relaxed voting requirements?
    B) Why should the Anglican Church have the monopoly especially when it is falling out of favour with the general populous?
    C) Do you honestly believe that any of the BOT or CD would agree to just be merged with us without a greater degree of independence????]
    D) The point of a first reading is to address errors, none of as are as perfect as you seem to think we should be.
    We approach things from different angles so it will be unlikely we find things we agree on, and where I support inequalities that exist in the world, an individual who wants a fairer world where all are seen as equal is not going to to be a common ally. But I do commend you for the work you do by spending time to push your unique agenda, you have a commitment to the MHoC I wish more MPs would have.

    a)I do not support residents in Britain being given the vote if the individual is not a British citizen, a citizen of the Commonwealth, or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. I do not support allowing foreigners who have lived in the UK for short amounts of time to have an influence on a country they have no right to live in; foreign individuals should be seen as quests with no influence.
    b) The Anglican Church is still the largest Church in the UK, while I support the moves to give atheists a greater say, I do not support moves to give any other religions a say because I view Christianity, or branches of Christianity to be the most suitable religion.
    c) I believe incorporating British Overseas Territories is the right move, however, an incorporation should be done in the same way the abolition of the former Netherlands Antilles took place to form a larger Kingdom of the Netherlands. Imposing a bill on British Overseas Territories to incorporate them is a contradiction to the aim which is to give some independent powers to the countries.
    d) The biggest error is the call for federalisation because the UK is already federalised; federalisation is a broad term that simply means central government with regional governments making up a country.

    Jammy Duel In Aph's defence, the voters in the Falkland Islands interpreted the no option as rejecting Britain for independence, or Argentine rule, I doubt voters on the Falkland Islands associated voting no as a vote to join the UK. The referendum was surrounded by rhetoric giving British rule, or Argentine rule as the alternatives available, if there was a third option where people could vote to join the UK I would not be surprised if it was the more popular option.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Whether or not you support the premise that we are Anglican we, as a matter of fact, are. Also, why is there a 5 year switch for the lords spiritual and not everyone else? Why the inconsistency?
    I disagree, we are fundamentally secular. and because the section for lords spiritual was to reflect the nature of religions at the time. the nature of the other lords is just scrutiny.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But do those in the CDs and BOTs actually want this, or are you just talking on their behalf because really hot want to federalised GB? For a start, the Falklands don't want this, remember that referendum they had three years ago? Only 3 people who voted didn't want to remain a BOT. Even if we suppose all non voters are opposed that still leaves only 135 in a voting population at the time of 1,650.
    I would argue that the falklands aren't a good example because this wasn't on the table. This bill doesn't change massively the nature of our relationship with them, all it does is gives them a voice on our policies which affect them and then also having their sovereignty beyond repute.

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    We approach things from different angles so it will be unlikely we find things we agree on, and where I support inequalities that exist in the world, an individual who wants a fairer world where all are seen as equal is not going to to be a common ally. But I do commend you for the work you do by spending time to push your unique agenda, you have a commitment to the MHoC I wish more MPs would have.
    Thank you I think.
    a)I do not support residents in Britain being given the vote if the individual is not a British citizen, a citizen of the Commonwealth, or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. I do not support allowing foreigners who have lived in the UK for short amounts of time to have an influence on a country they have no right to live in; foreign individuals should be seen as quests with no influence.b) The Anglican Church is still the largest Church in the UK, while I support the moves to give atheists a greater say, I do not support moves to give any other religions a say because I view Christianity, or branches of Christianity to be the most suitable religion.c) I believe incorporating British Overseas Territories is the right move, however, an incorporation should be done in the same way the abolition of the former Netherlands Antilles took place to form a larger Kingdom of the Netherlands. Imposing a bill on British Overseas Territories to incorporate them is a contradiction to the aim which is to give some independent powers to the countries.d) The biggest error is the call for federalisation because the UK is already federalised; federalisation is a broad term that simply means central government with regional governments making up a country.
    a) 5 years is not a short amount of time, and IIRC that is already the law in the MHoCb) I personally believe that all religions should get a say equal to their following if they are to have a say at all.c) I sorta understand what you mean. however I feel like you would have to devolve the powers everywhere because otherwise you get EVAL again. The UK is very politically diverse and I feel like a state system with lots of devolved powers will keep ut together for much longer then we would otherwise. I did consider just having 'england', 'Northern Ireland'. 'Scotland', 'Wales', 'Caribbean' and 'Atlantic' States but I felt like that would result in people in england complaining that their voice is too small...d) federalisation is however only mentioned in the title.
    Jammy Duel In Aph's defence, the voters in the Falkland Islands interpreted the no option as rejecting Britain for independence, or Argentine rule, I doubt voters on the Falkland Islands associated voting no as a vote to join the UK. The referendum was surrounded by rhetoric giving British rule, or Argentine rule as the alternatives available, if there was a third option where people could vote to join the UK I would not be surprised if it was the more popular option.
    I completely agree.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I disagree, we are fundamentally secular. and because the section for lords spiritual was to reflect the nature of religions at the time. the nature of the other lords is just scrutiny.
    The nature of all lords is scrutiny from their own areas of expertise, including the lords spiritual.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    The nature of all lords is scrutiny from their own areas of expertise, including the lords spiritual.
    I agree, but the rationale behind appointing Lords to represent the religous make-up of the UK is the same rationale behind changing them every so often.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Thank you for going into such great detail. I will attempt to respond to each point in turn.

    I'm not sure that unelected judges should be making laws. I would also argue that in politics everything is a pawn. I personally favour PR as it represents the majority more.
    Go on to legislation.gov.uk and read two or three of the most recent Acts (not statutory instruments). The content of a lot of those will largely be procedural/regulatory - and thus the problem arises that in a political system which rarely yields majority, parties are more capable of using things which everyone knows need to be done really in order to get their way - essentially apolitical matters which I'd suggest ought to be delegated to apolitical bodies. Also, judges 'make', either through development of the common law or interpretation of statute, a huge amount of the law already, and there hasn't been any problems so far except in the bitter, bitter reign of Lord Halsbury, but really I was suggesting primarily the delegation of greater legislative powers to the executive.

    I hoped that the green bill to ban LS would pass, but unfortunately it failed so I can't ban Lords spiritual. as for the rest although I agree that being lucky shouldn't entitle you to sit there I would argue that some of the most successful should get a small part to play. Although I might be willing to remove them in favour of economists. and I completely respect the view of an independent body being better but then who appoints the people in the independent body?
    I'd suggest that the removal of LS was a sufficiently minor point within the Bill that it could legitimately be re-submitted under the rules of the MHoC - but it might be politically controversial so I can see why you might not want to. The problem with using a body like the PC stems from the fact that the PC ultimately have political allegiances - ones which are well-known - as do many of the potential candidates. This applies especially with economists, where adherence to certain theories or not is largely dogmatic rather than anything else, but also especially with business leaders (mostly due to their interest in advocating policies which support their own businesses - maybe I could support admitting former business leaders to the chamber but I don't think there are many of those who aren't essentially senile). Hence the independent committee. As for how it would be constructed, I suggest prominent members of academia (maybe the VCs of the Russell Group universities?), but there really are many ways you can go - after all, since 2007 (I think, don't quote me on that date), the UK has delegated judicial appointments to an independent judicial appointments commission.

    The super-majority is barely one (60/108) and I made it a super-majority because that is the point where it is likely that the 3 'types' of senator are all likely to have passed the legislation with a majority. The only reason there is a super-majority here is to stop small places being screwed-over.
    We've had the supermajority argument elsewhere; needless to say I do not agree that requiring one for the protection of smaller places is necessary. If you are really concerned about that, I think it'd be better to add a judicial review process and set out a more defined set of powers for states vis-a-vis allocation among their counties.

    section one won't happen without federalisation. and also what exactly do you mean it won't work?
    Section 1 could happen with devolution settlements similar to those granted to one of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. As for why it wouldn't work, I don't believe that there are sufficient cultural divides, or indeed geographical divides, between the states set out in Schedule <whichever it was, I can't be bothered checking>, to justify federalism. Compare the difference between Yorkshire and the North, with that between, say, Texas and Arizona, or indeed Bavaria and Bayern. I could just about see federalism with states of the North, the South, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and BOTs.

    I did think about doing just that but I thought it would be hard considering that if you just say 'everything else' it doesn't look good in a bill. I will however re-write this.
    That's because you're using sloppy, non-legalistic language. Consider something like "any power not reserved to the states shall be considered to remain vested in Parliament".

    I completely agree, and I considered giving straight supremacy to Parliament but I though that states should, for instance be able to raise their minimum wage compared to the Nation as a whole. I would appreciate advice on future wording.
    The problem is I don't understand what you consider as 'civil rights' so I can't really help you without more guidance. I think it's sufficient if you say that Parliament can only change certain things by primary legislation - after all, this doesn't affect how likely that is to happen, since this Bill could just be repealed (in part) if they wanted to legislate contrary to it anyway.

    I'm not sure how accurate that is, for instance in the UK we have distance selling regulations which isn't EU law.
    The distance selling regulations are part of the implementation of the EU's Consumer Rights Directive. Basically, anything which affects the sale of anything anywhere in the EU (including labour) comes under EU law, due to the EU's power to legislate for the establishment and maintenance of the internal market. I refer you to Art 114(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union: "Save where otherwise provided in the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 26. The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market."

    I agree but I also don't think that a single state should be able to borrow the entire county into massive debt. I envisaged a system of if states needed more they would ask the treasury for more or up taxes.
    Hm, okay, I'd recommend writing that into the Bill.

    the move to 16 was mainly because that is the age in the channel islands already and I'm not sure that I support just taking suffrage away from people. Also at 16 you can work and pay tax so why shouldn't you be able to vote? The States would still be bound by the equality act so I can't see too many issues.
    Eh, you should know me well enough to know that these kind of 'tit for tat' rights-based arguments aren't really going to convince me. As for the Channel Islands, how about a simple provision to the effect of "For the avoidance of doubt, this Act does not affect the extent of voting rights in any area."?

    Referendums for NI/Wales/Scotland can be added for second reading. and I will work out transitional governments.
    Good.

    It is only a suggestion in S10, also with changes like this you either have to specify the effects or give it a GD amendment at the same time.
    If it's just a suggestion it shouldn't form part of the enacted text of a Bill.

    I appreciate that there is a lot more to do and fully anticipate using up all my readings. Although I'm in favour of the core policy.
    Yes. I should say that I feel that I was a little harsh in my first comment, and I really do applaud you and intend on nominating you for MotM for this herculean effort.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Proportional representation gives a key to the loons.

    The BNP would have got about 15 MP's in 2010 under PR.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Nay sorry. The Lords should be reformed but should be done in a separate bill or with a committee of MPs from all houses getting together. Good effort though well done.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Aph Liverpool, Newcastle, Preston, Lancaster all better than Carlisle.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    Firstly sorry for the late reply, for long posts I need a stable internet connection.
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Go on to legislation.gov.uk and read two or three of the most recent Acts (not statutory instruments). The content of a lot of those will largely be procedural/regulatory - and thus the problem arises that in a political system which rarely yields majority, parties are more capable of using things which everyone knows need to be done really in order to get their way - essentially apolitical matters which I'd suggest ought to be delegated to apolitical bodies. Also, judges 'make', either through development of the common law or interpretation of statute, a huge amount of the law already, and there hasn't been any problems so far except in the bitter, bitter reign of Lord Halsbury, but really I was suggesting primarily the delegation of greater legislative powers to the executive.
    The executive as in the queen? and I can see what you mean, However surely an exhaustive list of what parliament can and cannot do makes regulatory matters less of an issue? Also I'm not sure how comfortable I am giving unelected officials the power to change or reinterpret the law.


    I'd suggest that the removal of LS was a sufficiently minor point within the Bill that it could legitimately be re-submitted under the rules of the MHoC - but it might be politically controversial so I can see why you might not want to. The problem with using a body like the PC stems from the fact that the PC ultimately have political allegiances - ones which are well-known - as do many of the potential candidates. This applies especially with economists, where adherence to certain theories or not is largely dogmatic rather than anything else, but also especially with business leaders (mostly due to their interest in advocating policies which support their own businesses - maybe I could support admitting former business leaders to the chamber but I don't think there are many of those who aren't essentially senile). Hence the independent committee. As for how it would be constructed, I suggest prominent members of academia (maybe the VCs of the Russell Group universities?), but there really are many ways you can go - after all, since 2007 (I think, don't quote me on that date), the UK has delegated judicial appointments to an independent judicial appointments commission.
    I felt like LS was the main point of that bill but either way although I would like to see them removed I feel as if removing them would damage this bill. I personally would prefer to see a later amendment to remove them should this bill pass.

    and as for the creation of an independent body I will look into it and create a system. My issue with just using RG would be people would appoint people who work for them to make their uni look good but I will work out how to create an appointing pannel.



    We've had the supermajority argument elsewhere; needless to say I do not agree that requiring one for the protection of smaller places is necessary. If you are really concerned about that, I think it'd be better to add a judicial review process and set out a more defined set of powers for states vis-a-vis allocation among their counties.
    an interesting suggestion, however things like defence which should be the reserve of central government could still leave places unprotected. but again I will consider your comments and see what I can do to make this bill more palatable to everyone.



    Section 1 could happen with devolution settlements similar to those granted to one of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. As for why it wouldn't work, I don't believe that there are sufficient cultural divides, or indeed geographical divides, between the states set out in Schedule <whichever it was, I can't be bothered checking>, to justify federalism. Compare the difference between Yorkshire and the North, with that between, say, Texas and Arizona, or indeed Bavaria and Bayern. I could just about see federalism with states of the North, the South, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and BOTs.
    but that gets rid of 'The Belt of Scotland' I love that name. but I do see your point, however I do think that the highlands and islands of scotland are very different in culture and geography to the lowlands of edinburgh and glasgow. and North wales is very different to south wales. However I was very un-sure of splitting NI so that will be un-done in the second reading.



    That's because you're using sloppy, non-legalistic language. Consider something like "any power not reserved to the states shall be considered to remain vested in Parliament".
    good idea, I will again try and incorporate this into the second reading.



    The problem is I don't understand what you consider as 'civil rights' so I can't really help you without more guidance. I think it's sufficient if you say that Parliament can only change certain things by primary legislation - after all, this doesn't affect how likely that is to happen, since this Bill could just be repealed (in part) if they wanted to legislate contrary to it anyway.
    I think i will re-word to say that parliament can only dictate minimums and maximums and states can then legislate within those bounds.



    The distance selling regulations are part of the implementation of the EU's Consumer Rights Directive. Basically, anything which affects the sale of anything anywhere in the EU (including labour) comes under EU law, due to the EU's power to legislate for the establishment and maintenance of the internal market. I refer you to Art 114(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union: "Save where otherwise provided in the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 26. The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market."
    That is very informative and helpful, I thank you again for your knowledge and will make the adjustments in second reading.




    Eh, you should know me well enough to know that these kind of 'tit for tat' rights-based arguments aren't really going to convince me. As for the Channel Islands, how about a simple provision to the effect of "For the avoidance of doubt, this Act does not affect the extent of voting rights in any area."?
    considered that, but then you get the issue of suffrage for general elections being different in different areas. However I will likely change GE's to 18 and make it so that state set the age that they want.

    If it's just a suggestion it shouldn't form part of the enacted text of a Bill.



    Yes. I should say that I feel that I was a little harsh in my first comment, and I really do applaud you and intend on nominating you for MotM for this herculean effort.
    I agree and will amend.

    Thank you, but the effort isn't over.
    (Original post by United1892;63154g915)
    Aph Liverpool, Newcastle, Preston, Lancaster all better than Carlisle.
    I chose carlisle because of its centeral-ness however I will change this is the second reading.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This has entered cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 17, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.