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

B941 - British Federalization etc. Bill 2016 (Second Reading) Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Nay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    No, I did not support this bill during its first reading, nor do not support this bill in its second reading: this bill tries to solve a problem that does not exist. I support integration of British Overseas Territories, but the integration needs to be done in line with how the Netherlands dissolved the Netherlands Antilles.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    UK over seas territory's, nations which we foot the bill for their defence are generally tax havens (all of BOT are and so are at least the caymans) this means that we are defending nations which help tax evaders.

    Also I would argue the uk is broke. There are ever increasing divides between country's in the uk making the break up of the Union ever more likely. By creating a senate we stabilise the uk by making it clear that everyone gets an equal voice in the nation.
    Alot of the problems regarding tax havens is an economic, not a constitutional problem. What is happening here is just deferring the problem until another scheme can be formulated. It can only really be solved on a domestic level in a budget.

    I think a further seperation of powers would be counter-productive, causing deadlock. I think devolved powers to local authorities would be far more productive.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Quite conservative coming from a Labourite

    I jest of course.
    I'm a confused troubled yoof . I need to install some left-leaning constitutional feelings... I'll go watch a fabian society video - that should ease the pain.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Bravo for putting the work in to this. But putting so much in to one bill almost guarantees it will never pass.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Republic1)
    Bravo for putting the work in to this. But putting so much in to one bill almost guarantees it will never pass.
    How?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    How?
    Most people will be radically opposed to at least one policy, and the UKIP and Tory whips will seize on it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    I'm a confused troubled yoof . I need to install some left-leaning constitutional feelings... I'll go watch a fabian society video - that should ease the pain.

    Or you could see sense and join the Liberal Democrats, the true Opposition #Labstain
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Or you could see sense and join the Liberal Democrats, the true Opposition #Labstain
    I said I'm troubled, not deluded
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nay
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    I said I'm troubled, not deluded
    Wow! Meanie!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    mmmMm. I'm all for federalisation but I'm not convinced by the proposals laid out here.

    What I would do:

    - 11 standard states (or 'regions' as I would probably call them): Scotland, Wales, 9 regions of England (although I would consider merging North East with Yorkshire and Humber; all my research points at the ideal population of a state being between 5 and 10 million people)

    - 1 state categorised as politically divided: Northern Ireland. Basically the categorisation is for when there is turmoil politically in a state and allows the national government to impose a different form of governance and a different set of powers compared to the standard in other states. In practice, it means things there would stay as they are now as per the Good Friday Agreement. To transition into a standard state, Stormont would have to want to do it and be able to convince national government that it can be done peacefully.

    - 1 state categorised as geographically divided. This state would encompass all overseas territories and crown dependencies etc, and although the state would have some powers, the islands would maintain a lot of the autonomy they have now. The main reasons for doing this is to bring them into the national system, allowing them representation in the national upper and lower chamber, but also making them follow rules and requirements placed on the other states which would prevent them becoming tax havens. The state assembly itself would be as much about being a forum to discuss the difficulties (and solutions) they share as islands as it would be about legislating.

    National Elections, (Standard) State Elections and City/County Council Elections would be done by STV without party lists.

    I'm not too fussed about how big the HoC is but I've seen a sensible looking proposal for 500 seats with STV with mostly 4 or 5 seats per constituency.
    Elections would be every 4 years, basically coinciding with leap years).

    I'd probably say that State Assemblies should be between 70 and 140 seats.
    Elections would every 4 years, 2 years before/after national elections.

    City/County Councils would roughly be the same size they are now.
    Elections would be every 2 years, on odd years.

    So:
    2020: National Election
    2021: Council Elections
    2022: State Elections (and HoL nominations, see below)
    2023: Council Elections
    2024: National Elections
    etc...

    Political parties would either be national parties, state parties or local parties. I.e. they would not be allowed to run in both national and state elections etc. Whilst of course there would be links as this is impossible to stop, state parties would be autonomous from national parties.

    The House of Lords would have 20 members from each of the 13 states (260 in total). These would be nominated by the state parties based on how many seats they have in their state assemblies. E.g. if Party A gets 50% of seats in State B, they would nominate 10 people to the HoL. Parties would list their nominees prior to state election, so it is essentially an indirect party list PR.

    Nominees can not have previously stood for election in national or state elections and there would be a 2 term limit. I think doing this and by separating national and state parties, it can stop the upper chamber becoming too political and reduce the risk of deadlock.

    I'd want the House of Lords to remain basically as it is now, as a scrutinising body, although I'd also want it to play a sort of supreme court role, where it can rule on the constitutional legality of the actions of the HoC and of state assemblies.

    I'd also consider possibly having similar upper chambers for state assemblies, where the city/county council parties nominate the members of it. But I dunno.

    Where I'm stuck with federalisation atm and what I'm still working on is defining exactly what powers are devolved to state level and how the relationship between national and state level works. What I currently envision (although it changes all the time) is something along the lines of the national government just having a large land value tax, some of which it keeps, the rest is split up between the states based on population (and possibly some other factors such as area but I dunno) as the main form of redistribution between states and ensuring poorer states aren't left behind.

    All other taxes (income, corporation, carbon) are set and collected by states but must be within limits placed by the national government. E.g. "income above £50,000 must be taxed at between 20% and 30%". Just occurred to me now though that collecting corporation tax at state level is probably really impractical.

    Most spending would be done by the states, again with certain requirements decided by national government on things like health, education, welfare, etc. National government spending would mostly be responsible for military, some large scale infrastructure projects, research, and probably a load of things which would be done better at national level (exam boards are the first thing that come to mind as a random example, probably prisons too).

    Oh and if we somehow managed to get rid of the Queen, I wouldn't have a directly elected president. The House of Lords would elect one of their members as President who would basically have the combined current roles of the speaker of the HoC and her highness the Queen. He/she would of course have deputy speakers for when he is off doing presidential/queenie stuff. The runner up would be Vice President and speaker of the HoL. The parties they came from would of course get to replace them in the HoL.

    And really this is all just part of my imperialistic plan to reignite the British Empire. Once the other commonwealth realms ditch the queen, they too would be invited to join our superior system of governance. Canada and Australia would get multiple states each, New Zealand and a few others would each be one state, and the little diddy islands would join the geographically divided state. Soon the rest of the former british empire would follow suit (not India though, too big). In the small print of the original legislation is a line that allows England to reunite as a single state and assert its dominance over all others!
    tehehhehehe, say goodbye to your freedom mother vuckers.

    Geez this is longer than I expected. Still not as long as the OP though. I suppose federalisation is just no short topic. Yea, I've thought about this a lot.

    tl;dr i like federalisation but my version of it is different. Also, world domination.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Section 1 - Aye although it needs greatly expanding (what rights and laws apply ect..)

    Section 2 - Somewhat pointless since this is TSR, get rid of it.

    Section 3 - Fine but delete the humanitarian aid.

    Section 4 - Nay, i don't support federalisation nor another layer of bureaucracy.

    Section 5 - Already exists in RL, pointless section.

    Sections 6 and 7 - Needs expansion and repeal of RL legislation relating the councils these presumably replace but at any rate Nay.

    Section 8 - Pointless section based on my comments so far.

    Section 9 - Canon amendment already exists here, i don't like duality.

    There's no commencement, extent or short title either. Also York should be subsumed into West Yorkshire and power given to Leeds.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nope.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    How about no? It's factually incorrect anyway, crown dependencies are not the same as BOTs
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This has entered cessation.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    This has been withdrawn
 
 
 
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 29, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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