Brexit discussion
New thread to discuss Brexit.
Guidelines The constant baiting, belittling of either side of the vote needs to end. The new thread must be a reasonable and a frank debate, it's impossible to agree on this topic but none of this "he/she is thick" or "you're a snowflake". This is not Facebook or twitter. |
Re: Brexit discussion
For those of a legalistic mind here's a dissection of the Withdrawal Bill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4OZS_HMQ2o Government are trying to play games with standing committees to ensure they get their way - offer some compromise on the Bill, render it pointless by trying to rig committees. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...aafcf68a04?9fg Robert Peston of ITV looks into these here: https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/p...13633722294697 Ending with this: Quote:
One thought: under the Bill there is nothing stopping a member of the House of Lords from being placed into the cabinet and bypassing Parliament entirely. Another thought: would those who think all this is necessary and support the Conservatives in this trust Jeremy Corbyn and Labour with these powers? There is zero guarantee that the Conservatives will still be a minority government by 2019. |
Re: Brexit discussion
So leaving all those thousands of regulations in the hands of the EU is grabbing back sovereignty? That is the alternative.
Love to know what other way it can be done. Nothing is actually changing other than transfer of control to the UK Parliament. With transfer of powers within the UK, eg Scottish devolution, it is a lot simpler. There are 12,000 EU imposed regulations. The obvious simple solution is to say as the EU no longer has any say, that those are all scrapped. That would be just silly. People might agree with a lot of those regulations. Grabbing back control of those is simple. Any amendments, additions, or removal can be done later by the normal Parliamentary process. The problem with the EU regulations is they are not specified in UK law, only in general that EU rules have to be followed. It is the EU that has set those rules, and will almost certainly specify that they only apply to EU(+other specified) countries, If those rules no longer apply, then what apply does instead of them? It would be an unsatisfactory free-for-all on those issues. |
Re: Brexit discussion
Quote:
Any safeguards built into the Bill are meaningless as Ministers can, at their discretion, amend it and remove them. The future Conservative leader might build that straw man that it's that way or nothing but it's just wrong. This is a wholesale power grab made all the worse by that the electorate refused to give the Conservatives a majority at the last election. If HMG didn't need this level of delegated power during either World War or during the Great Depression they don't need it now. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-doesn-t-have What all this does prove is that we desperately need a written constitution to avoid this happening again. Right now the government of the day can, literally, re-write the rules as they go. ---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ---------- Hat tip David Allen Green / @davidallengreen Quote:
|
Re: Brexit discussion
Something that came to mind earlier: if the government is serious about all this they should be preparing to leave the customs union.
By this I mean the IT, the acquisition of sites for trucks awaiting customs clearance, hiring of staff, etc should already be in progress. That's just for customs / trade borders. Then there's all the other stuff we have to do ourselves as we can no longer use shared EU systems. We will become a third nation so will have many things that were previously dependent on EU systems. Where is all this preparation? We can't simply copy/paste unless we plan on trying to remain in the EEA. As of right now we've made very little preparation for the WTO scenario and, indeed, thanks to the wonders of Leave.EU, etc, some people want us to leave right now and have no idea what that would entail. Campaign groups have no reason to be honest. HMG do. What are they up to? A transition deal requires agreement of the EU-27 and, with the current demands the government are making, no deal can be struck involving customs. Whatever your opinion on this HMG are either being incredibly cavalier over this or are misleading the UK for political reasons and will massively backtrack, likely trying to blame others when they themselves haven't even tried to prepare for the scenario they've tried to sell us. |
Re: Brexit discussion
So how on earth are 12,000 EU imposed regulations meant to make their way through Parliament? Just absurd. Just because something could be amended along the way, DOESN'T mean it will. If it does and in a major way, that would be the time to raise objections to that specific matter, and NOT the whole process.
It is rather perverse to argue that the UK Parliament isn't being allowed to consider matters, when it can't currently consider them anyway as they are purely under EU control. Quote:
|
Re: Brexit discussion
Read my post again. You are disagreeing with something I didn't say, right from the first paragraph where I remarked that delegated Henry VIII powers are necessary.
Given we are supposedly taking back control and reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament it's not perverse in the slightest to expect Parliament, not the executive, to control the process where feasible. That's a pretty strong 'what about...'. If you object to the EU sidelining Parliament it's far more perverse to not object to the executive doing so. If one is considered wrong both are as neither group were directly elected and given their power by the UK electorate. Ministers, the same as European Union Commissioners, are appointed. Even more exacerbated by that the electorate explicitly denied any one party a majority, there is no coalition in place, the Conservatives want to ignore recommendations and convention with regards to committees and are avoiding any Queens Speech for two years to provide fewer tests of their authority and fewer opportunities for them to be brought down. I consider the EU to be a flawed democracy. To replace that with the model the Conservatives set on pursuing, especially given their conduct to date, is crazy. If we must do this it should be done right, bringing as much of the population as possible along, not leaving it beholden to the internal politics of one party and at best ignoring, at worst demonising, dissent. |
Re: Brexit discussion
I think Theresa May seems to be reverting to type, ie keep maximum control over everything with minimal involvement of others. This is a character flaw and the removal of her two advisers Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy hasn't altered.
Parliament not Theresa May and her close inner circle should control the Brexit process. |
Re: Brexit discussion
Parliament is involved in brexit process, there is a major repeal bill, 2nd reading tomorrow.
|
Re: Brexit discussion
If it was just half a dozen things to be considered then Parliament would be involved. As it is 12,000 or more, that just isn't remotely practical in the time frame. How many DECADES would it take? The intention is introduce the SAME regulations. The whinges are not about doing that, but about the POSSIBILITY of changing something at the same time. It is NOT meant to be an ongoing "power grab" by the executive, but a one-off interim measure. So many of the regulations are likely to be the sort of things that can be introduced by statutory instrument and not involve Parliament anyway.
EU directives have to be passed at national level. Therefore UK laws already exist and have been passed by UK Parliament. An area where there are a lot of EU regulations is food safety. If no equivalents are set out in UK law, then there would be a free-for-all on food safety. Is that what people want? |
Re: Brexit discussion
Quote:
Perhaps this article puts it better than I am. 5 paragraphs from it: Quote:
---------- Post added at 19:31 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ---------- Quote:
A Bill that gives powers so open ended that the executive could, without recourse to Parliament at all, in theory cancel Brexit and take us into the Eurozone and Schengen, or take the UK into EEA/EFTA is not necessary. |
Re: Brexit discussion
And how do you specify and oversee 12,000 NEW regulations?
If any untoward changes are indeed made, that is the time whinge and complain. If Scotland had voted yes to independence, how would the Scots have dealt with the SAME situation. If anything their situation would have been worse as UK laws would also have to be transferred. From an article about the split up of Czechoslovakia and it's relevance to Brexit. Quote:
|
Re: Brexit discussion
Part of the irony here is that many of the workers rights that Labour are worrying about would be continued and confirmed by this bill. Curious that they would oppose it and lose those rights?
Of course this has nothing to do with that and is just a cycnical ploy to try and defeat the government and get a re-run of the election. Would anybody really trust Labour when they have proved to be even more duplicitous than the Lib-Dems in abandoning their promises, particularly to the young, that were fooled into voting for them the last time? |
Re: Brexit discussion
Quote:
Maybe Labour would still object if this bill were only concerned with confirming those rights but it's rather typically disingenuous to pretend it's that that they're objecting too in this massive bill. |
Re: Brexit discussion
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ---------- Quote:
As I've already highlighted with regards to the split up of Czechoslovakia, the procedure is standard and accepted practice in international law. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.