BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Coincidentally, evey Cake Stoppers favourite Conservative MP was in the Torygraph today talking about the upcoming bonfire of EU laws. Read and enjoy...surrey_commuter said:
Nope, Brexit means the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Look it up it is in the dictionary.kingstongraham said:
Yes, but the meaning of Brexit is that Brexit means Brexit.surrey_commuter said:
This is so wrong - the question on the ballot paper was literally “should the UK leave the EU”rjsterry said:
Quite selective, no? I think the nub of the argument is that for the literalists, Brexit = leaving the EU, whereas for those more ideologically invested (on either side) leaving the EU was only part of a larger and as yet unfulfilled idea. There is of course no official definition of what Brexit is, allowing it to be all things to all people, which was used to the Leave campaign's advantage.surrey_commuter said:
I am focussing on the public face of Brexit leadership (so original ERG) and for them it was always about the primacy of the HoP which is what they meant by sovereignty.rick_chasey said:
Is it not just that their belief in being stronger out of the EU has been proved demonstrably wrong?surrey_commuter said:I will try to explain my thinking.
For the “swivel eyed loons” the EU has dominated their entire adult lives to such an extent that they can not celebrate the successful culmination of their life’s work. They have become remarkably bad winners but as with their 40 year campaign to leave they have been allowed to dictate the terms of the post-Brexit debate.
They argue that our future relationship with the EU is all part of Brexit because the EU is all consuming for them and are defined by their opposition to it.
Most people would agree that WW1 ended with the signing of the Versailles Agreement as most people would agree that we have left the EU and Brexit was completed with the signing of whatever Theresa May signed.
The argument that Brexit is not complete because ongoing stuff is a consequence of Brexit is like arguing WW1 has not ended because the shape of the war in Ukraine is a consequence of it.
Alternatively, every time you speak or think this nonsense imagine JRM laughing (in latin) at you.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/09/bonfire-eu-laws-easily-achieved/
In case it's behind a paywall:
Nearly 4,000 laws passed by the European Union remain on the statute book. More than 2,400 are listed on the Government’s Dashboard, with which we made it easy for Rishi Sunak to deliver on his leadership promise. Since then another 1,400 have apparently been found by the National Archives hiding on dusty shelves.
These rules and regulations, spewed out by a great bureaucratic machine, became UK law without any ability to amend them or, if based on EU regulations, even debate them. Some were passed on the basis of qualified majority vote and were opposed by British governments. The Retained EU Law Bill, which recently had its second reading in the House of Commons, will either repeal them or bring them into domestic law.
The former process, with laws at times brought in simply by the fiat of ministers (although even that was sometimes overridden by the EU) will be replaced with the conscious assent of Parliament. This will revoke the remaining supremacy of EU law, which is an absurdity six years after we voted to leave.
Not surprisingly, those who wish we had never left the EU are squealing about this Bill. Even though the Government has committed to maintain all the environmental protections that currently exist and met a number of the environmental lobby groups to confirm this, they immediately responded by calling for the Bill to be dropped because they prefer EU to UK law. They idealise bureaucracy over democracy.
In Whitehall, the objection is the volume of work and the number of people that would be required to carry it out. As much of the Civil Service is still not physically coming into work, this rather reinforces an unfortunate image of a workshy Civil Service which is in many cases unfair.
Ludicrously, when I served in the Business Department, I was told that to deal with 318 EU rules, 370 officials would be required for a year. This meant more than one person for a full year on every individual regulation. How could that be? Surely every department keeps its stock of rules under constant review as the ordinary routine business of a ministry.
Perhaps 50 years of EU membership addled government departments’ ability to think independently. In the Bill the proposal is either to keep the rules if necessary, but rewrite them in domestic legal terms, or to repeal them altogether. That is not an unduly complex task, indeed as the default is repeal, nothing needs to be done to allow unnecessary rules to wither.
In part, how regulation develops will be about the type of economy we choose. Should it be one where consumers and producers make decisions and are free from detailed regulations, or should it follow the EU pattern of prescriptive rules on every producer? This will affect the workload at the Business Department as there are about 40 energy labelling requirements covering dishwashers, washing machines, ovens and tumble driers.
Beyond that there are eco design rules for directional lamps and solid fuel boilers among many others. Assuming consumers are naturally intelligent, will they not decide to buy the most efficient equipment for themselves? Can they not be trusted?
Even if these rules are required, they could be combined. This would allow dozens of regulations to be simplified and reduce the administrative burden on the Government, Parliament and the British people. It is not just that swathes of peculiar laws could be removed, the Bill will restore, from the end of 2023, the usual principles of the British constitution, and fulfil the referendum promise to take back control. There will be no special EU hierarchy – law passed at whatever date will take its place in the firmament as equal British legislation and it will be easier for domestic courts to depart from EU legal judgments.
Indeed the Retained EU Law Bill will be the cornerstone of the restored constitutional settlement. As at the Restoration itself, the laws of the Interregnum were publicly burned in a symbolic rejection of illegitimacy, so this Bill will restore legitimacy.
The critics have stood logic on its head. Laws that had no mandate will be replaced or repealed by a parliamentary act with scrutiny in both Houses. The uncertainty of two competing legal systems will be replaced with certainty, and the illegitimate supremacy and alien legal system will be excised.
It is an essential completion of Brexit without which we would be an EU fellow traveller."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
surrey_commuter said:
This is so wrong - the question on the ballot paper was literally “should the UK leave the EU”rjsterry said:
Quite selective, no? I think the nub of the argument is that for the literalists, Brexit = leaving the EU, whereas for those more ideologically invested (on either side) leaving the EU was only part of a larger and as yet unfulfilled idea. There is of course no official definition of what Brexit is, allowing it to be all things to all people, which was used to the Leave campaign's advantage.surrey_commuter said:
I am focussing on the public face of Brexit leadership (so original ERG) and for them it was always about the primacy of the HoP which is what they meant by sovereignty.rick_chasey said:
Is it not just that their belief in being stronger out of the EU has been proved demonstrably wrong?surrey_commuter said:I will try to explain my thinking.
For the “swivel eyed loons” the EU has dominated their entire adult lives to such an extent that they can not celebrate the successful culmination of their life’s work. They have become remarkably bad winners but as with their 40 year campaign to leave they have been allowed to dictate the terms of the post-Brexit debate.
They argue that our future relationship with the EU is all part of Brexit because the EU is all consuming for them and are defined by their opposition to it.
Most people would agree that WW1 ended with the signing of the Versailles Agreement as most people would agree that we have left the EU and Brexit was completed with the signing of whatever Theresa May signed.
The argument that Brexit is not complete because ongoing stuff is a consequence of Brexit is like arguing WW1 has not ended because the shape of the war in Ukraine is a consequence of it.
I'm not arguing with your view. I'm explaining why others see it differently. You can post as many elaborate metaphors as you like, but they're unlikely to change the diehards view and unfortunately some of those diehards are running the country.surrey_commuter said:
This is so wrong - the question on the ballot paper was literally “should the UK leave the EU”rjsterry said:
Quite selective, no? I think the nub of the argument is that for the literalists, Brexit = leaving the EU, whereas for those more ideologically invested (on either side) leaving the EU was only part of a larger and as yet unfulfilled idea. There is of course no official definition of what Brexit is, allowing it to be all things to all people, which was used to the Leave campaign's advantage.surrey_commuter said:
I am focussing on the public face of Brexit leadership (so original ERG) and for them it was always about the primacy of the HoP which is what they meant by sovereignty.rick_chasey said:
Is it not just that their belief in being stronger out of the EU has been proved demonstrably wrong?surrey_commuter said:I will try to explain my thinking.
For the “swivel eyed loons” the EU has dominated their entire adult lives to such an extent that they can not celebrate the successful culmination of their life’s work. They have become remarkably bad winners but as with their 40 year campaign to leave they have been allowed to dictate the terms of the post-Brexit debate.
They argue that our future relationship with the EU is all part of Brexit because the EU is all consuming for them and are defined by their opposition to it.
Most people would agree that WW1 ended with the signing of the Versailles Agreement as most people would agree that we have left the EU and Brexit was completed with the signing of whatever Theresa May signed.
The argument that Brexit is not complete because ongoing stuff is a consequence of Brexit is like arguing WW1 has not ended because the shape of the war in Ukraine is a consequence of it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's boIIocks, obviously.Stevo_666 said:
Coincidentally, evey Cake Stoppers favourite Conservative MP was in the Torygraph today talking about the upcoming bonfire of EU laws. Read and enjoy...surrey_commuter said:
Nope, Brexit means the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Look it up it is in the dictionary.kingstongraham said:
Yes, but the meaning of Brexit is that Brexit means Brexit.surrey_commuter said:
This is so wrong - the question on the ballot paper was literally “should the UK leave the EU”rjsterry said:
Quite selective, no? I think the nub of the argument is that for the literalists, Brexit = leaving the EU, whereas for those more ideologically invested (on either side) leaving the EU was only part of a larger and as yet unfulfilled idea. There is of course no official definition of what Brexit is, allowing it to be all things to all people, which was used to the Leave campaign's advantage.surrey_commuter said:
I am focussing on the public face of Brexit leadership (so original ERG) and for them it was always about the primacy of the HoP which is what they meant by sovereignty.rick_chasey said:
Is it not just that their belief in being stronger out of the EU has been proved demonstrably wrong?surrey_commuter said:I will try to explain my thinking.
For the “swivel eyed loons” the EU has dominated their entire adult lives to such an extent that they can not celebrate the successful culmination of their life’s work. They have become remarkably bad winners but as with their 40 year campaign to leave they have been allowed to dictate the terms of the post-Brexit debate.
They argue that our future relationship with the EU is all part of Brexit because the EU is all consuming for them and are defined by their opposition to it.
Most people would agree that WW1 ended with the signing of the Versailles Agreement as most people would agree that we have left the EU and Brexit was completed with the signing of whatever Theresa May signed.
The argument that Brexit is not complete because ongoing stuff is a consequence of Brexit is like arguing WW1 has not ended because the shape of the war in Ukraine is a consequence of it.
Alternatively, every time you speak or think this nonsense imagine JRM laughing (in latin) at you.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/09/bonfire-eu-laws-easily-achieved/
In case it's behind a paywall:
Nearly 4,000 laws passed by the European Union remain on the statute book. More than 2,400 are listed on the Government’s Dashboard, with which we made it easy for Rishi Sunak to deliver on his leadership promise. Since then another 1,400 have apparently been found by the National Archives hiding on dusty shelves.
These rules and regulations, spewed out by a great bureaucratic machine, became UK law without any ability to amend them or, if based on EU regulations, even debate them. Some were passed on the basis of qualified majority vote and were opposed by British governments. The Retained EU Law Bill, which recently had its second reading in the House of Commons, will either repeal them or bring them into domestic law.
The former process, with laws at times brought in simply by the fiat of ministers (although even that was sometimes overridden by the EU) will be replaced with the conscious assent of Parliament. This will revoke the remaining supremacy of EU law, which is an absurdity six years after we voted to leave.
Not surprisingly, those who wish we had never left the EU are squealing about this Bill. Even though the Government has committed to maintain all the environmental protections that currently exist and met a number of the environmental lobby groups to confirm this, they immediately responded by calling for the Bill to be dropped because they prefer EU to UK law. They idealise bureaucracy over democracy.
In Whitehall, the objection is the volume of work and the number of people that would be required to carry it out. As much of the Civil Service is still not physically coming into work, this rather reinforces an unfortunate image of a workshy Civil Service which is in many cases unfair.
Ludicrously, when I served in the Business Department, I was told that to deal with 318 EU rules, 370 officials would be required for a year. This meant more than one person for a full year on every individual regulation. How could that be? Surely every department keeps its stock of rules under constant review as the ordinary routine business of a ministry.
Perhaps 50 years of EU membership addled government departments’ ability to think independently. In the Bill the proposal is either to keep the rules if necessary, but rewrite them in domestic legal terms, or to repeal them altogether. That is not an unduly complex task, indeed as the default is repeal, nothing needs to be done to allow unnecessary rules to wither.
In part, how regulation develops will be about the type of economy we choose. Should it be one where consumers and producers make decisions and are free from detailed regulations, or should it follow the EU pattern of prescriptive rules on every producer? This will affect the workload at the Business Department as there are about 40 energy labelling requirements covering dishwashers, washing machines, ovens and tumble driers.
Beyond that there are eco design rules for directional lamps and solid fuel boilers among many others. Assuming consumers are naturally intelligent, will they not decide to buy the most efficient equipment for themselves? Can they not be trusted?
Even if these rules are required, they could be combined. This would allow dozens of regulations to be simplified and reduce the administrative burden on the Government, Parliament and the British people. It is not just that swathes of peculiar laws could be removed, the Bill will restore, from the end of 2023, the usual principles of the British constitution, and fulfil the referendum promise to take back control. There will be no special EU hierarchy – law passed at whatever date will take its place in the firmament as equal British legislation and it will be easier for domestic courts to depart from EU legal judgments.
Indeed the Retained EU Law Bill will be the cornerstone of the restored constitutional settlement. As at the Restoration itself, the laws of the Interregnum were publicly burned in a symbolic rejection of illegitimacy, so this Bill will restore legitimacy.
The critics have stood logic on its head. Laws that had no mandate will be replaced or repealed by a parliamentary act with scrutiny in both Houses. The uncertainty of two competing legal systems will be replaced with certainty, and the illegitimate supremacy and alien legal system will be excised.
It is an essential completion of Brexit without which we would be an EU fellow traveller.0 -
Well, for one, he's suggesting Brexit hasn't been completed, so maybe SC needs to have a word with him.Stevo_666 said:
It is an essential completion of Brexit without which we would be an EU fellow traveller.
Secondly, his utter tosh can be easily dismissed, as a law which would sweep away laws with which we coped while we had them, and many of which are consumer protections, *without any assessment of the impact of the automatic nullifying of those laws* is the epitome of irresponsibility. It just proves that JRM doesn't give a flying fig about protecting anyone but himself.
Sure, scrutinise all those laws, and see if there is ridiculous stuff in there, but you can't pretend to be responsible by saying you're not even going to bother to scrutinise the impacts of actions you intend to take. It's as bad as my great grandmother, who was so scared of cars (we're talking at the beginning of the 20th century) that she just shut her eyes and crossed the road.0 -
Two parts are particularly obvious boIIocks.
1. "It is an essential completion of Brexit" - it isn't.
2. "Laws that had no mandate will be replaced or repealed by a parliamentary act with scrutiny in both Houses." - laws will be replaced or repealed without scrutiny in either house.0 -
I think JRM is being just a little bit economical with the truth here. Mainstream "remainerist" thought on the matter from what I've read is that the "Sunset Clause" is the issue, not the removal on "EU laws" per se.Stevo_666 said:
Coincidentally, evey Cake Stoppers favourite Conservative MP was in the Torygraph today talking about the upcoming bonfire of EU laws. Read and enjoy...surrey_commuter said:
Nope, Brexit means the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Look it up it is in the dictionary.kingstongraham said:
Yes, but the meaning of Brexit is that Brexit means Brexit.surrey_commuter said:
This is so wrong - the question on the ballot paper was literally “should the UK leave the EU”rjsterry said:
Quite selective, no? I think the nub of the argument is that for the literalists, Brexit = leaving the EU, whereas for those more ideologically invested (on either side) leaving the EU was only part of a larger and as yet unfulfilled idea. There is of course no official definition of what Brexit is, allowing it to be all things to all people, which was used to the Leave campaign's advantage.surrey_commuter said:
I am focussing on the public face of Brexit leadership (so original ERG) and for them it was always about the primacy of the HoP which is what they meant by sovereignty.rick_chasey said:
Is it not just that their belief in being stronger out of the EU has been proved demonstrably wrong?surrey_commuter said:I will try to explain my thinking.
For the “swivel eyed loons” the EU has dominated their entire adult lives to such an extent that they can not celebrate the successful culmination of their life’s work. They have become remarkably bad winners but as with their 40 year campaign to leave they have been allowed to dictate the terms of the post-Brexit debate.
They argue that our future relationship with the EU is all part of Brexit because the EU is all consuming for them and are defined by their opposition to it.
Most people would agree that WW1 ended with the signing of the Versailles Agreement as most people would agree that we have left the EU and Brexit was completed with the signing of whatever Theresa May signed.
The argument that Brexit is not complete because ongoing stuff is a consequence of Brexit is like arguing WW1 has not ended because the shape of the war in Ukraine is a consequence of it.
Alternatively, every time you speak or think this nonsense imagine JRM laughing (in latin) at you.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/09/bonfire-eu-laws-easily-achieved/
In case it's behind a paywall:
Nearly 4,000 laws passed by the European Union remain on the statute book. More than 2,400 are listed on the Government’s Dashboard, with which we made it easy for Rishi Sunak to deliver on his leadership promise. Since then another 1,400 have apparently been found by the National Archives hiding on dusty shelves.
These rules and regulations, spewed out by a great bureaucratic machine, became UK law without any ability to amend them or, if based on EU regulations, even debate them. Some were passed on the basis of qualified majority vote and were opposed by British governments. The Retained EU Law Bill, which recently had its second reading in the House of Commons, will either repeal them or bring them into domestic law.
The former process, with laws at times brought in simply by the fiat of ministers (although even that was sometimes overridden by the EU) will be replaced with the conscious assent of Parliament. This will revoke the remaining supremacy of EU law, which is an absurdity six years after we voted to leave.
Not surprisingly, those who wish we had never left the EU are squealing about this Bill. Even though the Government has committed to maintain all the environmental protections that currently exist and met a number of the environmental lobby groups to confirm this, they immediately responded by calling for the Bill to be dropped because they prefer EU to UK law. They idealise bureaucracy over democracy.
In Whitehall, the objection is the volume of work and the number of people that would be required to carry it out. As much of the Civil Service is still not physically coming into work, this rather reinforces an unfortunate image of a workshy Civil Service which is in many cases unfair.
Ludicrously, when I served in the Business Department, I was told that to deal with 318 EU rules, 370 officials would be required for a year. This meant more than one person for a full year on every individual regulation. How could that be? Surely every department keeps its stock of rules under constant review as the ordinary routine business of a ministry.
Perhaps 50 years of EU membership addled government departments’ ability to think independently. In the Bill the proposal is either to keep the rules if necessary, but rewrite them in domestic legal terms, or to repeal them altogether. That is not an unduly complex task, indeed as the default is repeal, nothing needs to be done to allow unnecessary rules to wither.
In part, how regulation develops will be about the type of economy we choose. Should it be one where consumers and producers make decisions and are free from detailed regulations, or should it follow the EU pattern of prescriptive rules on every producer? This will affect the workload at the Business Department as there are about 40 energy labelling requirements covering dishwashers, washing machines, ovens and tumble driers.
Beyond that there are eco design rules for directional lamps and solid fuel boilers among many others. Assuming consumers are naturally intelligent, will they not decide to buy the most efficient equipment for themselves? Can they not be trusted?
Even if these rules are required, they could be combined. This would allow dozens of regulations to be simplified and reduce the administrative burden on the Government, Parliament and the British people. It is not just that swathes of peculiar laws could be removed, the Bill will restore, from the end of 2023, the usual principles of the British constitution, and fulfil the referendum promise to take back control. There will be no special EU hierarchy – law passed at whatever date will take its place in the firmament as equal British legislation and it will be easier for domestic courts to depart from EU legal judgments.
Indeed the Retained EU Law Bill will be the cornerstone of the restored constitutional settlement. As at the Restoration itself, the laws of the Interregnum were publicly burned in a symbolic rejection of illegitimacy, so this Bill will restore legitimacy.
The critics have stood logic on its head. Laws that had no mandate will be replaced or repealed by a parliamentary act with scrutiny in both Houses. The uncertainty of two competing legal systems will be replaced with certainty, and the illegitimate supremacy and alien legal system will be excised.
It is an essential completion of Brexit without which we would be an EU fellow traveller.
Going through all 4,000 laws in an orderly manner, deciding what legislation is necessary in the required area, and then implementing such legislation via the usual Parliamentary processes is OK, as for better or worse, we all (well most of us) accept properly implemented laws, however much we may disagree with them.
But it's a big task and it will take a long time to do properly. Imposing the Sunset Clause introduces the risk of either rushed / bad legislation to replace an EU law that covers an essential area, or worse, seriously adverse consequences for the masses from the repeal of a law that no-one has considered, other than those who might seek to benefit from its removal.
And further, there has been a little scope creep re the definition of "EU legal supremacy". Not so long ago, this referred to the ECJ being the ultimate court in the UK legal issues. Now it appears to mean any law implemented following an EU directive / regulation, even though post-Brexit, cases relating to such laws will only be subject to the UK Supreme Court as the ultimate court. (Other than NIP-related stuff.)0 -
This could be one for the helpful thread I started recently about sundry on-going UK/European issues now that we've left the EU?briantrumpet said:
Well, for one, he's suggesting Brexit hasn't been completed, so maybe SC needs to have a word with him.Stevo_666 said:
It is an essential completion of Brexit without which we would be an EU fellow traveller.
Secondly, his utter tosh can be easily dismissed, as a law which would sweep away laws with which we coped while we had them, and many of which are consumer protections, *without any assessment of the impact of the automatic nullifying of those laws* is the epitome of irresponsibility. It just proves that JRM doesn't give a flying fig about protecting anyone but himself.
Sure, scrutinise all those laws, and see if there is ridiculous stuff in there, but you can't pretend to be responsible by saying you're not even going to bother to scrutinise the impacts of actions you intend to take. It's as bad as my great grandmother, who was so scared of cars (we're talking at the beginning of the 20th century) that she just shut her eyes and crossed the road.
I don't disagree with the principle of looking at these laws and either keeping, amending or scrapping as needed. Although I suspect it will take longer than expected for the civil service to get through it all."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Does this mean that literally everyone agrees that the JRM route is a bad idea?Stevo_666 said:
This could be one for the helpful thread I started recently about sundry on-going UK/European issues now that we've left the EU?briantrumpet said:
Well, for one, he's suggesting Brexit hasn't been completed, so maybe SC needs to have a word with him.Stevo_666 said:
It is an essential completion of Brexit without which we would be an EU fellow traveller.
Secondly, his utter tosh can be easily dismissed, as a law which would sweep away laws with which we coped while we had them, and many of which are consumer protections, *without any assessment of the impact of the automatic nullifying of those laws* is the epitome of irresponsibility. It just proves that JRM doesn't give a flying fig about protecting anyone but himself.
Sure, scrutinise all those laws, and see if there is ridiculous stuff in there, but you can't pretend to be responsible by saying you're not even going to bother to scrutinise the impacts of actions you intend to take. It's as bad as my great grandmother, who was so scared of cars (we're talking at the beginning of the 20th century) that she just shut her eyes and crossed the road.
I don't disagree with the principle of looking at these laws and either keeping, amending or scrapping as needed. Although I suspect it will take longer than expected for the civil service to get through it all.0 -
The 1313 law prohibiting the wearing of a suit of armour in Parliament never went before the house of commons, but I don't see any rush to repeal that.0
-
It’s a big load of expensive, beaurocratic b0ll0cks that is completely unnecessary at this time.
They’ll take the sensible laws and rewrite them in JRM style? Great use of time. Brexit Boom.0 -
Pretty sure that Parliament amends or repeals laws, not the Civil Service.Stevo_666 said:
This could be one for the helpful thread I started recently about sundry on-going UK/European issues now that we've left the EU?briantrumpet said:
Well, for one, he's suggesting Brexit hasn't been completed, so maybe SC needs to have a word with him.Stevo_666 said:
It is an essential completion of Brexit without which we would be an EU fellow traveller.
Secondly, his utter tosh can be easily dismissed, as a law which would sweep away laws with which we coped while we had them, and many of which are consumer protections, *without any assessment of the impact of the automatic nullifying of those laws* is the epitome of irresponsibility. It just proves that JRM doesn't give a flying fig about protecting anyone but himself.
Sure, scrutinise all those laws, and see if there is ridiculous stuff in there, but you can't pretend to be responsible by saying you're not even going to bother to scrutinise the impacts of actions you intend to take. It's as bad as my great grandmother, who was so scared of cars (we're talking at the beginning of the 20th century) that she just shut her eyes and crossed the road.
I don't disagree with the principle of looking at these laws and either keeping, amending or scrapping as needed. Although I suspect it will take longer than expected for the civil service to get through it all.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The primacy of HoP was only relevant because they genuinely felt Britain was able to make better decisions for itself (and thus be more successful) outside of the EU.surrey_commuter said:
I am focussing on the public face of Brexit leadership (so original ERG) and for them it was always about the primacy of the HoP which is what they meant by sovereignty.rick_chasey said:
Is it not just that their belief in being stronger out of the EU has been proved demonstrably wrong?surrey_commuter said:I will try to explain my thinking.
For the “swivel eyed loons” the EU has dominated their entire adult lives to such an extent that they can not celebrate the successful culmination of their life’s work. They have become remarkably bad winners but as with their 40 year campaign to leave they have been allowed to dictate the terms of the post-Brexit debate.
They argue that our future relationship with the EU is all part of Brexit because the EU is all consuming for them and are defined by their opposition to it.
Most people would agree that WW1 ended with the signing of the Versailles Agreement as most people would agree that we have left the EU and Brexit was completed with the signing of whatever Theresa May signed.
The argument that Brexit is not complete because ongoing stuff is a consequence of Brexit is like arguing WW1 has not ended because the shape of the war in Ukraine is a consequence of it.
Problem is, as we're all realising, all that nonsense that they didn't like, with Brussels dictating things, was the price for being part of the biggest single market in the world.0 -
In Cake Stop, quite possibly. But its a small sample.kingstongraham said:
Does this mean that literally everyone agrees that the JRM route is a bad idea?Stevo_666 said:
This could be one for the helpful thread I started recently about sundry on-going UK/European issues now that we've left the EU?briantrumpet said:
Well, for one, he's suggesting Brexit hasn't been completed, so maybe SC needs to have a word with him.Stevo_666 said:
It is an essential completion of Brexit without which we would be an EU fellow traveller.
Secondly, his utter tosh can be easily dismissed, as a law which would sweep away laws with which we coped while we had them, and many of which are consumer protections, *without any assessment of the impact of the automatic nullifying of those laws* is the epitome of irresponsibility. It just proves that JRM doesn't give a flying fig about protecting anyone but himself.
Sure, scrutinise all those laws, and see if there is ridiculous stuff in there, but you can't pretend to be responsible by saying you're not even going to bother to scrutinise the impacts of actions you intend to take. It's as bad as my great grandmother, who was so scared of cars (we're talking at the beginning of the 20th century) that she just shut her eyes and crossed the road.
I don't disagree with the principle of looking at these laws and either keeping, amending or scrapping as needed. Although I suspect it will take longer than expected for the civil service to get through it all.
Depends if you're looking at the overall aim or the details of how to achieve. I've already commented on that above."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I know...but they do a lot of the groundwork for this sort of thing.rjsterry said:
Pretty sure that Parliament amends or repeals laws, not the Civil Service.Stevo_666 said:
This could be one for the helpful thread I started recently about sundry on-going UK/European issues now that we've left the EU?briantrumpet said:
Well, for one, he's suggesting Brexit hasn't been completed, so maybe SC needs to have a word with him.Stevo_666 said:
It is an essential completion of Brexit without which we would be an EU fellow traveller.
Secondly, his utter tosh can be easily dismissed, as a law which would sweep away laws with which we coped while we had them, and many of which are consumer protections, *without any assessment of the impact of the automatic nullifying of those laws* is the epitome of irresponsibility. It just proves that JRM doesn't give a flying fig about protecting anyone but himself.
Sure, scrutinise all those laws, and see if there is ridiculous stuff in there, but you can't pretend to be responsible by saying you're not even going to bother to scrutinise the impacts of actions you intend to take. It's as bad as my great grandmother, who was so scared of cars (we're talking at the beginning of the 20th century) that she just shut her eyes and crossed the road.
I don't disagree with the principle of looking at these laws and either keeping, amending or scrapping as needed. Although I suspect it will take longer than expected for the civil service to get through it all."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I don' think we should restrict it to just EU laws, but there are a lot more EU derived regs than those concerning suits of armour. Priorities etc...kingstongraham said:The 1313 law prohibiting the wearing of a suit of armour in Parliament never went before the house of commons, but I don't see any rush to repeal that.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They both make about as much sense to prioritise.Stevo_666 said:
I don' think we should restrict it to just EU laws, but there are a lot more EU derived regs than those concerning suits of armour. Priorities etc...kingstongraham said:The 1313 law prohibiting the wearing of a suit of armour in Parliament never went before the house of commons, but I don't see any rush to repeal that.
0 -
Oh I dunno, cleaning up and simplifying regs & red tape is generally a good thing to do. If one them also helps to own the Libs, then that's a bonus. Hence the priority abovekingstongraham said:
They both make about as much sense to prioritise.Stevo_666 said:
I don' think we should restrict it to just EU laws, but there are a lot more EU derived regs than those concerning suits of armour. Priorities etc...kingstongraham said:The 1313 law prohibiting the wearing of a suit of armour in Parliament never went before the house of commons, but I don't see any rush to repeal that.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Have you still not realised this isn't what this bill does?Stevo_666 said:
Oh I dunno, cleaning up and simplifying regs & red tape is generally a good thing to do. If one them also helps to own the Libs, then that's a bonus. Hence the priority abovekingstongraham said:
They both make about as much sense to prioritise.Stevo_666 said:
I don' think we should restrict it to just EU laws, but there are a lot more EU derived regs than those concerning suits of armour. Priorities etc...kingstongraham said:The 1313 law prohibiting the wearing of a suit of armour in Parliament never went before the house of commons, but I don't see any rush to repeal that.
0 -
In the Bill the proposal is either to keep the rules if necessary, but rewrite them in domestic legal terms’
Sounds like unnecessary beaurocratic nonsense to me.
When are we going to be Singapore on Thames with low taxes…………Oh.0 -
But if the executive decides not to create a new law, that law changes without anyone being able to do anything about it.skyblueamateur said:In the Bill the proposal is either to keep the rules if necessary, but rewrite them in domestic legal terms’
Sounds like unnecessary beaurocratic nonsense to me.
When are we going to be Singapore on Thames with low taxes…………Oh.
If the government decides not to rewrite the working time directive, it would just vanish, despite it currently being law.0 -
kingstongraham said:
But if the executive decides not to create a new law, that law changes without anyone being able to do anything about it.skyblueamateur said:In the Bill the proposal is either to keep the rules if necessary, but rewrite them in domestic legal terms’
Sounds like unnecessary beaurocratic nonsense to me.
When are we going to be Singapore on Thames with low taxes…………Oh.
If the government decides not to rewrite the working time directive, it would just vanish, despite it currently being law.
It's a win-win for the Brexit loon wing of the party: not only telling the EU where to shove a pile of EU (though now UK) regulations (and thus making re-entry into EU markets even more problematic should closer co-operation be desired) it gets rid of a lot of 'petty' red tape that offers all sorts of protections for people who they don't care about, without any scrutiny. What's not to like?0 -
-
It's a bill that will slip quietly away
Hobby politics for cranks“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Was it originally voted on or did it become law by a statutory instrument?kingstongraham said:
But if the executive decides not to create a new law, that law changes without anyone being able to do anything about it.skyblueamateur said:In the Bill the proposal is either to keep the rules if necessary, but rewrite them in domestic legal terms’
Sounds like unnecessary beaurocratic nonsense to me.
When are we going to be Singapore on Thames with low taxes…………Oh.
If the government decides not to rewrite the working time directive, it would just vanish, despite it currently being law.
0 -
Please explain.kingstongraham said:
Have you still not realised this isn't what this bill does?Stevo_666 said:
Oh I dunno, cleaning up and simplifying regs & red tape is generally a good thing to do. If one them also helps to own the Libs, then that's a bonus. Hence the priority abovekingstongraham said:
They both make about as much sense to prioritise.Stevo_666 said:
I don' think we should restrict it to just EU laws, but there are a lot more EU derived regs than those concerning suits of armour. Priorities etc...kingstongraham said:The 1313 law prohibiting the wearing of a suit of armour in Parliament never went before the house of commons, but I don't see any rush to repeal that.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's not simplifying anything. JRM is no longer a minister and the Idea has already been ditched. He's just writing softcore fiction for Europhobes.Stevo_666 said:
Please explain.kingstongraham said:
Have you still not realised this isn't what this bill does?Stevo_666 said:
Oh I dunno, cleaning up and simplifying regs & red tape is generally a good thing to do. If one them also helps to own the Libs, then that's a bonus. Hence the priority abovekingstongraham said:
They both make about as much sense to prioritise.Stevo_666 said:
I don' think we should restrict it to just EU laws, but there are a lot more EU derived regs than those concerning suits of armour. Priorities etc...kingstongraham said:The 1313 law prohibiting the wearing of a suit of armour in Parliament never went before the house of commons, but I don't see any rush to repeal that.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Interesting what flags were raised in Kherson today.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
0
-
Thanks - confirms what we already know I guess.TheBigBean said:A detailed look at Mark Carney's GDP figures.
https://archive.ph/sJAmi"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
https://www.facebook.com/ukinfrance/posts/pfbid036Ts7RnhnYBRWLUJhbjgzMvRu63rYvjnxfgfwfJE5srGsWH9MU5gdnjj21X74Rwrrl
If you're not on Farcebook, that's the British Embassy in Paris showing Cleverly in Paris at an event at the Arc de Triomphe marking Armistice Day, shaking hands warmly with Macron. That seems significant, given the tone under Johnson and Truss. They've also announced a £60m scheme of co-operation on the French side regarding stopping migrants crossing the Channel.
It's a start, anyway.0
