BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
surely finding more aws to repeal proves that Brexit was the ight thing to do?kingstongraham said:
Apparently this is a "Brexit blow", and "Brexiteer backbenchers" are very unhappy. They (and the Telegraph) haven't heard that there's nothing brexit related dragging on, and need to be told the good news.kingstongraham said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/08/brexit-blow-ministers-find-1400-extra-eu-laws-repeal/
They've found another 1400 laws that would be automatically repealed in a year.
If you looked around and found none you might wonder why you bothered0 -
This is 3,800 laws that they might want to repeal or might not want to. Under the bill currently being considered, at the end of next year, they all just disappear unless they have been replaced with Good British Laws saying the same thing.surrey_commuter said:
surely finding more aws to repeal proves that Brexit was the ight thing to do?kingstongraham said:
Apparently this is a "Brexit blow", and "Brexiteer backbenchers" are very unhappy. They (and the Telegraph) haven't heard that there's nothing brexit related dragging on, and need to be told the good news.kingstongraham said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/08/brexit-blow-ministers-find-1400-extra-eu-laws-repeal/
They've found another 1400 laws that would be automatically repealed in a year.
If you looked around and found none you might wonder why you bothered
I'm all in favour of repealing the laws that no longer make sense, but not just randomly.0 -
It's distinctly undemocratic, and is taking powers away from parliament.0
-
Didn't that bloke from Liverpool Uni predict this but various people on here said he was wrongkingstongraham said:
This is 3,800 laws that they might want to repeal or might not want to. Under the bill currently being considered, at the end of next year, they all just disappear unless they have been replaced with Good British Laws saying the same thing.surrey_commuter said:
surely finding more aws to repeal proves that Brexit was the ight thing to do?kingstongraham said:
Apparently this is a "Brexit blow", and "Brexiteer backbenchers" are very unhappy. They (and the Telegraph) haven't heard that there's nothing brexit related dragging on, and need to be told the good news.kingstongraham said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/08/brexit-blow-ministers-find-1400-extra-eu-laws-repeal/
They've found another 1400 laws that would be automatically repealed in a year.
If you looked around and found none you might wonder why you bothered
I'm all in favour of repealing the laws that no longer make sense, but not just randomly.1 -
Quick search, and from what I can see, he (Michael Dougan) suggested that all the laws would need to be reviewed, but the proposed pragmatic solution was just to adopt them all, with only changes to those that needed changing at the time of withdrawal because they don't make sense for a non-EU member state.surrey_commuter said:
Didn't that bloke from Liverpool Uni predict this but various people on here said he was wrongkingstongraham said:
This is 3,800 laws that they might want to repeal or might not want to. Under the bill currently being considered, at the end of next year, they all just disappear unless they have been replaced with Good British Laws saying the same thing.surrey_commuter said:
surely finding more aws to repeal proves that Brexit was the ight thing to do?kingstongraham said:
Apparently this is a "Brexit blow", and "Brexiteer backbenchers" are very unhappy. They (and the Telegraph) haven't heard that there's nothing brexit related dragging on, and need to be told the good news.kingstongraham said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/08/brexit-blow-ministers-find-1400-extra-eu-laws-repeal/
They've found another 1400 laws that would be automatically repealed in a year.
If you looked around and found none you might wonder why you bothered
I'm all in favour of repealing the laws that no longer make sense, but not just randomly.
I don't think anyone predicted they would actively repeal them all without scrutiny before they proposed it.0 -
kingstongraham said:
Quick search, and from what I can see, he (Michael Dougan) suggested that all the laws would need to be reviewed, but the proposed pragmatic solution was just to adopt them all, with only changes to those that needed changing at the time of withdrawal because they don't make sense for a non-EU member state.surrey_commuter said:
Didn't that bloke from Liverpool Uni predict this but various people on here said he was wrongkingstongraham said:
This is 3,800 laws that they might want to repeal or might not want to. Under the bill currently being considered, at the end of next year, they all just disappear unless they have been replaced with Good British Laws saying the same thing.surrey_commuter said:
surely finding more aws to repeal proves that Brexit was the ight thing to do?kingstongraham said:
Apparently this is a "Brexit blow", and "Brexiteer backbenchers" are very unhappy. They (and the Telegraph) haven't heard that there's nothing brexit related dragging on, and need to be told the good news.kingstongraham said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/08/brexit-blow-ministers-find-1400-extra-eu-laws-repeal/
They've found another 1400 laws that would be automatically repealed in a year.
If you looked around and found none you might wonder why you bothered
I'm all in favour of repealing the laws that no longer make sense, but not just randomly.
I don't think anyone predicted they would actively repeal them all without scrutiny before they proposed it.
Yup, Michael Dougan it was, at Liverpool. He remains cross about the whole thing and absurdities like this.0 -
Just had a look through Dougan's Twitter feed, and he makes this thread seem like the epitome of calm and restraint. He's definitely still very angry... in fact, so angry, he's not even tweeted about the latest "Oh, we didn't realise it would be so complicated to undo forty years of EU-derived legislation!" fiascothon. I remember that being a theme of his for quite a long time... a pity they didn't listen to an expert.0
-
Hahaha, I do believe the Telegraph is gently trolling the Brexit loons, in listing some of the retained EU regulations, as most of the ones they list sound sensible.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/08/brexit-blow-ministers-find-1400-extra-eu-laws-repeal/Among the inherited rules are laws for the energy efficiency labelling of washing machines, harmonised standards for railway products, conditions for the import and sale of irradiated food, rules for pensions and statutory maternity pay, and regulations on “dangerous substances and explosive atmospheres” in the workplace.
Other rules include safety regulation for oil and gas boreholes, security at ports, capital gains tax, rules making it illegal for the under 14’s not to wear an adult seatbelt in a car and regulations over sulphur discharges from certain fuels used in shipping.
There are also rules guaranteeing disabled people access to passenger aircraft, ensuring that drinking water is clean and healthy, regulations that mean producers must pay a proportion of the cost of recycling their packaging and a UK version of the EU’s Sewage Sludge Directive.
EU laws for the control of alien species in aquaculture, African Horse Sickness, the sale of seal products, medicines for humans and credit rating agencies and financial conglomerates will also need to be revised by British officials.
Other regulations include EU common rules for technical requirements for electronic road tolling systems, laws making it illegal to refill a faulty vehicle air conditioning system, regulations to minimise noise pollution at airports, minimum rest periods for lorry drivers, and health and safety rules to protect seamen from electromagnetic fields on board ships.
British officials will also need to scrutinise EU rules for silage construction to prevent water pollution, recycling rules for spent batteries, regulations defining what a “fishing vessel” is and a multi-annual plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Labelling rules and standards for wine, exotic diseases in pigs, measures for the recovery of the European eel and rules for the accidental catch of whales, dolphins and porpoises during fishing will also have to come under the microscope.
British goat-keepers will be interested to know if EU rules for the tagging and traceability of the horned animals will survive the scrutiny of the army of UK bureaucrats porting over the lawbooks. So will importers of Turkish seafood, where live bivalve molluscs are subject to additional EU safeguards, which were transposed into British law wholesale.
Officials will also have to look over the list of non-EU countries authorised to supply the UK with edible insects and snails, as well as rules obliging broadcasters of digital television to do so in a widescreen format, footwear labelling and holiday timeshares.0 -
It's been suggested that this is a scorched earth policy to make a return to the EU impossible“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
tailwindhome said:
It's been suggested that this is a scorched earth policy to make a return to the EU impossible
Mixture of that and just scrapping pesky regs that protect workers, the environment, investments, privacy, and other stuff that stops growth-enducing exploitation.0 -
So the suggestion is we're putting ourselves through a process of massive upheaval and wasted effort, in order to demonstrate that we can't rejoin because it would be a process of massive upheaval and... not wasted effort.tailwindhome said:It's been suggested that this is a scorched earth policy to make a return to the EU impossible
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
My recollection is that he said it wouldn't be possible to leave the EU without considering each law and its impact. On that he was wrong, because they were all transferred to UK law in a single bill. It being a bad idea to abolish them all in one go doesn't make him right.kingstongraham said:
Quick search, and from what I can see, he (Michael Dougan) suggested that all the laws would need to be reviewed, but the proposed pragmatic solution was just to adopt them all, with only changes to those that needed changing at the time of withdrawal because they don't make sense for a non-EU member state.surrey_commuter said:
Didn't that bloke from Liverpool Uni predict this but various people on here said he was wrongkingstongraham said:
This is 3,800 laws that they might want to repeal or might not want to. Under the bill currently being considered, at the end of next year, they all just disappear unless they have been replaced with Good British Laws saying the same thing.surrey_commuter said:
surely finding more aws to repeal proves that Brexit was the ight thing to do?kingstongraham said:
Apparently this is a "Brexit blow", and "Brexiteer backbenchers" are very unhappy. They (and the Telegraph) haven't heard that there's nothing brexit related dragging on, and need to be told the good news.kingstongraham said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/08/brexit-blow-ministers-find-1400-extra-eu-laws-repeal/
They've found another 1400 laws that would be automatically repealed in a year.
If you looked around and found none you might wonder why you bothered
I'm all in favour of repealing the laws that no longer make sense, but not just randomly.
I don't think anyone predicted they would actively repeal them all without scrutiny before they proposed it.0 -
Agreed.TheBigBean said:
My recollection is that he said it wouldn't be possible to leave the EU without considering each law and its impact. On that he was wrong, because they were all transferred to UK law in a single bill. It being a bad idea to abolish them all in one go doesn't make him right.kingstongraham said:
Quick search, and from what I can see, he (Michael Dougan) suggested that all the laws would need to be reviewed, but the proposed pragmatic solution was just to adopt them all, with only changes to those that needed changing at the time of withdrawal because they don't make sense for a non-EU member state.surrey_commuter said:
Didn't that bloke from Liverpool Uni predict this but various people on here said he was wrongkingstongraham said:
This is 3,800 laws that they might want to repeal or might not want to. Under the bill currently being considered, at the end of next year, they all just disappear unless they have been replaced with Good British Laws saying the same thing.surrey_commuter said:
surely finding more aws to repeal proves that Brexit was the ight thing to do?kingstongraham said:
Apparently this is a "Brexit blow", and "Brexiteer backbenchers" are very unhappy. They (and the Telegraph) haven't heard that there's nothing brexit related dragging on, and need to be told the good news.kingstongraham said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/08/brexit-blow-ministers-find-1400-extra-eu-laws-repeal/
They've found another 1400 laws that would be automatically repealed in a year.
If you looked around and found none you might wonder why you bothered
I'm all in favour of repealing the laws that no longer make sense, but not just randomly.
I don't think anyone predicted they would actively repeal them all without scrutiny before they proposed it.0 -
0
-
Not sure what relevance what someone said six years ago has to this Rees-Mogg inspired fuck up.0
-
kingstongraham said:
Not sure what relevance what someone said six years ago has to this Rees-Mogg inspired censored up.
Because I think it demonstrates that not even a dispassionate Dougan envisaged back then that it would be proposed just to allow ministers to jettison inherited law without some sort of impact assessment, even if he did foresee that ministers could do it without parliamentary scrutiny. The Ress-Smug gambit just reeks of blinkered legally ignorant dogma winning over basic competence.0 -
I’ve read and re-read this one and I’m struggling to understand it, possibly due to the double (or triple?) negative
“rules making it illegal for the under 14’s not to wear an adult seatbelt in a car”
Is that saying under 14s have to wear an adult seatbelt or shouldn’t wear and adult seatbelt? Maybe it is a bit of shorthand and the actual law allows for baby seats being fasten in with an adult seatbelt.0 -
I was a bit confused by that one too. I'm pretty sure that my kids' previous car seats were isofix with no seatbelt attachment, same for the baby seat.0
-
That would credit JRM et al with strategic planning capabilities, which feels rather generous. I think it's just something that sounds good to people who can't think beyond the end of their noses.tailwindhome said:It's been suggested that this is a scorched earth policy to make a return to the EU impossible
0 -
Isn't it that under 14s have to have a booster seat?Pross said:I’ve read and re-read this one and I’m struggling to understand it, possibly due to the double (or triple?) negative
“rules making it illegal for the under 14’s not to wear an adult seatbelt in a car”
Is that saying under 14s have to wear an adult seatbelt or shouldn’t wear and adult seatbelt? Maybe it is a bit of shorthand and the actual law allows for baby seats being fasten in with an adult seatbelt.0 -
That would only be from, what, 3 or 4 though wouldn't it and isn't what the quote says.rick_chasey said:
Isn't it that under 14s have to have a booster seat?Pross said:I’ve read and re-read this one and I’m struggling to understand it, possibly due to the double (or triple?) negative
“rules making it illegal for the under 14’s not to wear an adult seatbelt in a car”
Is that saying under 14s have to wear an adult seatbelt or shouldn’t wear and adult seatbelt? Maybe it is a bit of shorthand and the actual law allows for baby seats being fasten in with an adult seatbelt.0 -
IIRC #1 the booster seat thing is height related, to avoid being garrotted by a belt across the neck which is designed to go across the chest.
IIRC #2, 14 was widely quoted in the media at the time, but this was actually the oldest age likely at which a very short child would need such a seat. My pair - both 5'10" adults ladies now - were off booster seats at much less than 14. (8 or 9 rings a bell.)0 -
-
True!rick_chasey said:Not everyone has tall genes
My guess is that the media channels reporting "age 14" wanted to make the evil EU's imposed legislation sound really bad i.e. forcing everyone up to 14 to use a booster seat. The reality of most kids being off booster seats before they leave primary school sounds much less of an issue!0 -
So should it have said over 14s in the article rather than under 14s?wallace_and_gromit said:IIRC #1 the booster seat thing is height related, to avoid being garrotted by a belt across the neck which is designed to go across the chest.
IIRC #2, 14 was widely quoted in the media at the time, but this was actually the oldest age likely at which a very short child would need such a seat. My pair - both 5'10" adults ladies now - were off booster seats at much less than 14. (8 or 9 rings a bell.)0 -
I got told up to 12 in John Lewis by the car seat salesperson.wallace_and_gromit said:
True!rick_chasey said:Not everyone has tall genes
My guess is that the media channels reporting "age 14" wanted to make the evil EU's imposed legislation sound really bad i.e. forcing everyone up to 14 to use a booster seat. The reality of most kids being off booster seats before they leave primary school sounds much less of an issue!0 -
If you have an approved booster seat then you're fine. When Chasey Junior starts looking a bit on the large side, you just remove the booster (car stationary, obviously!) and use your judgement as to whether the seatbelt is dangerously high.rick_chasey said:
I got told up to 12 in John Lewis by the car seat salesperson.wallace_and_gromit said:
True!rick_chasey said:Not everyone has tall genes
My guess is that the media channels reporting "age 14" wanted to make the evil EU's imposed legislation sound really bad i.e. forcing everyone up to 14 to use a booster seat. The reality of most kids being off booster seats before they leave primary school sounds much less of an issue!
Add BabyBio to the diet to speed up the graduation process!0 -
TBF I think Chasey senior still has to use a booster seat let alone junior.wallace_and_gromit said:
If you have an approved booster seat then you're fine. When Chasey Junior starts looking a bit on the large side, you just remove the booster (car stationary, obviously!) and use your judgement as to whether the seatbelt is dangerously high.rick_chasey said:
I got told up to 12 in John Lewis by the car seat salesperson.wallace_and_gromit said:
True!rick_chasey said:Not everyone has tall genes
My guess is that the media channels reporting "age 14" wanted to make the evil EU's imposed legislation sound really bad i.e. forcing everyone up to 14 to use a booster seat. The reality of most kids being off booster seats before they leave primary school sounds much less of an issue!
Add BabyBio to the diet to speed up the graduation process!2 -
Pross said:
TBF I think Chasey senior still has to use a booster seat let alone junior.wallace_and_gromit said:
If you have an approved booster seat then you're fine. When Chasey Junior starts looking a bit on the large side, you just remove the booster (car stationary, obviously!) and use your judgement as to whether the seatbelt is dangerously high.rick_chasey said:
I got told up to 12 in John Lewis by the car seat salesperson.wallace_and_gromit said:
True!rick_chasey said:Not everyone has tall genes
My guess is that the media channels reporting "age 14" wanted to make the evil EU's imposed legislation sound really bad i.e. forcing everyone up to 14 to use a booster seat. The reality of most kids being off booster seats before they leave primary school sounds much less of an issue!
Add BabyBio to the diet to speed up the graduation process!
0 -
My wife is 5'2 and refuses to move the driver's seat back when she's done, so even I regularly smack my knees when I get in.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpgtRMspFvU
