I was surprised not to see a thread on this on here.

The main issue seems to be the sweeping powers that will be given to amend the laws without having to go through parliament. A bit more detail here https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/0 ... -thoughts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd be interested to know the views of Brexit voters in particular. It's obviously possible to support Brexit without supporting every step of the process. Are people of the view that abandoning sovereignty to regain our sovereignty is a bit nonsensical, or agree with David Davis that going against this will be chaotic?

I don't think that the problem with this Bill has anything to do with Brexit at all. It's all to do with the Sovereignty of Parliament, and our democratic process.
There are 3 main elements to this bill.

1. Repealing the European Communities Act and thus returning all power to UK institutions

2. Converting EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into UK law before exiting the EU. This will allow businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed significantly overnight, and provides fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change.

3. Creating powers to make secondary legislation. This will allow ministers to make amends to laws that would not function appropriately once we have left the EU.

I don't think many people have an issue with points 1. or 2., since we need something in place when we jump over the cliff edge. However, it is the third point that is highly controversial, since it theoretically gives powers to ministers to amend laws without Parliamentary assent. If Corbyn tried to do this then the tabloids would justifiably be up in arms, and the Tory Party would stand united against it. As things stand, however, it appears that most Conservatives will vote for it despite some Senior figures such as Dominic Grieve expressing serious concerns about Parliament giving their powers away like this.
I expect the Bill to go through but with some amendments to ensure that the full Sovereignty of Parliament is protected.

Actually, the powers for ministers to make secondary legislation aren't new. They are powers that were granted (or taken) by ministers under the legislation that took us into the EU, and were the means by which EU law was officially brought into (and above) UK law without having to go through parliament. Basically, the laws which were brought in by ministerial fiat can be taken out again by ministerial fiat.

I presume that Parliament now, if they don't like a particular ministerial decision or set of decisions, can insist on them being brought into parliament for scrutiny. Under EU rules, there was no point doing that because EU law was not optional.

I get the need for the bill, but not for the sweeping powers.

Basically, it will get abused, because sadly that is what politicians do when they are not accountable to anything.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I get the need for the bill, but not for the sweeping powers.

Basically, it will get abused, because sadly that is what politicians do when they are not accountable to anything.

Which is one of the reasons I voted out anyway. You're right about politicians abusing their privileges - their special rules that means MP's pensions and redundancy pay are both taxed on far more favourable terms than everyone else's, are corruption in my view. But most MPs would be surprised to think there was anything wrong.

Going through.

If it didn't it would mean parliament grinding to a halt as every piece of legislation being transferred to UK law would individually need debate and a vote. Which of course is just what the Remainers want, to halt thee process; or what Labour/SNP want, to bring down the government. Political game playing, that's all.

I think most voters want to see a government that is accountable. It is good to see that every step of the Brexit process will be scrutinised very carefully.
The poorer end of society are already feeling the effects, the last thing they want, for example, is for any rights concerning work to be eroded.

HatfieldClaret wrote:Going through.

If it didn't it would mean parliament grinding to a halt as every piece of legislation being transferred to UK law would individually need debate and a vote. Which of course is just what the Remainers want, to halt thee process; or what Labour/SNP want, to bring down the government. Political game playing, that's all.

Your post is somewhat premature. It was passed last evening, but his is where the real battle begins.
There have already been a large number of amendments tabled since the vote took place. One of these is backed by a least 12 Tory MPS, including some fairly significant figures. If those who voted against the Bill last night support this amendment and it gains just a tiny bit of momentum, then it's highly likely that the bill will not go through in its current form.
May is making a mess of this as she did previously. if she took advice she would have no problem getting this legislation through, but she insists on including the part of the bill that transfers executive powers to herself and her inner sanctum, thus threatening our sovereignty and democratic process. It seems odd that anyone would support her in this.
If she gets this through the Commons then I see nothing but trouble ahead for her. Firstly the Lords will try to amend, because they are there to ensure that Parliamentary process is observed, and when / if she finally gets it through Parliament it's very likely that someone will make a legal challenge, which - as before - she might lose.
The third part of this Bill, (which I explained clearly in post 2), has nothing to do with Brexit. Points 1 & 2 cover this and they would go through Parliament virtually unopposed.
It's the third part -transferring powers from the elected Parliament to an executive - that is causing her all the trouble, and correctly so. As I pointed out in post 2, if a Labour administration tried to vote itself powers like this the Tory MPs would be absolutely outraged, and correctly so. Would you trust Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell just to change laws without Parliamentary scrutiny /assent?

HatfieldClaret wrote:Going through.

If it didn't it would mean parliament grinding to a halt as every piece of legislation being transferred to UK law would individually need debate and a vote. .

That's not the case - as surely you know. The first two elements of this Bill make it clear that "every piece of legislation" would be transferred from EU to UK law. This is what the bill is for, and it would be uncontroversial if this was all it said. It's what happens beyond this that you should be concerned about.

nil_desperandum wrote:I don't think that the problem with this Bill has anything to do with Brexit at all. It's all to do with the Sovereignty of Parliament, and our democratic process.
There are 3 main elements to this bill.

1. Repealing the European Communities Act and thus returning all power to UK institutions

2. Converting EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into UK law before exiting the EU. This will allow businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed significantly overnight, and provides fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change.

3. Creating powers to make secondary legislation. This will allow ministers to make amends to laws that would not function appropriately once we have left the EU.

I don't think many people have an issue with points 1. or 2., since we need something in place when we jump over the cliff edge. However, it is the third point that is highly controversial, since it theoretically gives powers to ministers to amend laws without Parliamentary assent. If Corbyn tried to do this then the tabloids would justifiably be up in arms, and the Tory Party would stand united against it. As things stand, however, it appears that most Conservatives will vote for it despite some Senior figures such as Dominic Grieve expressing serious concerns about Parliament giving their powers away like this.
I expect the Bill to go through but with some amendments to ensure that the full Sovereignty of Parliament is protected.

Hi nil_d, agree your points 1 and 2. I don't agree your point 3 in the way you describe it. A great number of UK laws include statutory instruments which enables the government to enact "secondary legislation" that can provide the "final detail" to the legislation. It's either disingenuous of the politicians - and the media that is reporting it - to pretend that there this doesn't happen. So long as this is what is happening with the "repeal bill" then there should be no objections - and it's not "highly controversial."

So far as "sovereignty" is concerned. Yes, we want Parliament to be sovereign - except when the UK electorate has exercised this sovereignty through a referendum. People - MPs - Government in that order. The political issue with the EU was that "Brussels" sat on top of this structure.

I wouldn't trust Corbyn and Abbott to run a bath..

Morning Paul,
Unfortunately former Tory Attorney General, Queen's Counsel, a Member of the Privy Council, and leading authority on the constitution Dominic Grieve disagrees with you.

Writing in last night’s Evening Standard Grieve said that “no sovereign Parliament” should support the legislation in its current form.
"Unfortunately, the Withdrawal Bill is not, at present, up to addressing these issues."

“Even more worryingly, it seeks to confer powers on the Government to carry out Brexit in breach of our constitutional principles, in a manner that no sovereign Parliament should allow.”

He said the Henry VII powers “should both be reduced and better defined in scope”, and be subject to “affirmative parliamentary scrutiny” to make sure they are not misused."

Among the other concerns the eminent lawyer raised is the fact that the Charter of Fundamental of Rights of the EU – the “bedrock of how EU law should be applied” – will no longer apply after Brexit.

That means British citizens will no longer have the “rights and remedies” that currently allow them to appeal against potentially unlawful legislation, he said.

Labour got millions of extra votes on the back of a manifesto commitment to "leaving the single market" and "ending free movement of people"

Once it had more MPs than it would have had. Out from the shadows came the odious Starmer, Benn and Kinnock.

If they were genuinely concerned about parliamentary sovereignty. Why have they been happy and compliant, in giving it away to unelected eurocrats for the last 40 odd years!?

And if you think they haven't done that. It's obvious that the whole process of disentangling our laws from the supremacy of the EU, would be ,potentially, grindingly complicated, without this great repeal Bill?

Concerns about sovereignty my backside.

Obstructors, underminers and democracy deniers.

Educate yourself Ringo

http://jackofkent.com/2017/09/brexit-ho ... awal-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ringo. I just knew you wouldn't get it.
Points 1 and 2 transfer all the laws from the EU to the UK at a stroke. That's what you wanted. Parliament would pass that tomorrow.
So - moving on to point 3. Why do you then want a small executive (indeed one that doesn't have a Parliamentary majority) to change these laws without reference to the elected members of Parliament?
Dominic Grieve explains it all very clearly in the comments that I quoted in post 12.
Once the laws have been returned from the EU to the UK, then they should be subject to the scrutiny and will of Parliament. Why don't you get that?

nil_desperandum wrote:Ringo. I just knew you wouldn't get it.
Points 1 and 2 transfer all the laws from the EU to the UK at a stroke. That's what you wanted. Parliament would pass that tomorrow.
So - moving on to point 3. Why do you then want a small executive (indeed one that doesn't have a Parliamentary majority) to change these laws without reference to the elected members of Parliament?
Dominic Grieve explains it all very clearly in the comments that I quoted in post 12.
Once the laws have been returned from the EU to the UK, then they should be subject to the scrutiny and will of Parliament. Why don't you get that?

What you really mean is. You knew I'd have a different opinion to you. Sorry about that.

No, what he means is you don't understand the dangers such a bill could potentially have.

If you don't understand the points he's making, then you really need to say so.

I fear that this could be misused. Not because I want to remain in the EU, but because I know bits about history and things like this are* the beginning.

*potentially

Lancasterclaret wrote:Educate yourself Ringo

http://jackofkent.com/2017/09/brexit-ho ... awal-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Enlighten yourself on Labour's glaring manifesto uturn and voter betrayal lancs!

Remoaners can huff n puff all they like. The general public can see an attempt to usurp the referendum result. A blind man on a galloping horse Could!.

They even went on a premature lap of honour when It was announced that the deadline for voter registration was to be extended for 48 hours!

The likes of LBCs James Obrian were crowing that "it's democracy in action, it's what Mr Farage has been banging on about for the last 20 years. And extending the deadline is just allowing even more people to join in the biggest expression of democracy the country will have seen!"

Well it didn't quite work out for the over confident Remoaner did It!!!?

The likes of the odious Starmer and Benn and the increasingly hysterical Kinnock and Clegg. Simply cannot accept that me, you, every adult in the UK and importantly every MP had the same number of votes in the referendum. ONE.!!!!

They lost. They need to decide whose side their on and stop trying to do anything they can to stop brexit. Especially on the back of their manifesto pledge to "LEAVE THE SINGLE MARKET" and "END FREE MOVEMENT".

Labour - the U-turn and betrayal Party!

Lancasterclaret wrote:No, what he means is you don't understand the dangers such a bill could potentially have.

If you don't understand the points he's making, then you really need to say so.

I fear that this could be misused. Not because I want to remain in the EU, but because I know bits about history and things like this are the beginning.

Smoke screen ALERT!

I think you've just proved my point Ringo old fruit

Out of interest would point 3 be better off if it was a cross party group?

We all know that wouldn't happen, but I'm curious.

So a Government without a majority changes how laws are made, so they can pass things through parliament without the need for a majority?

That's dangerous, and has echoes of Hitler in the 30s.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I think you've just proved my point Ringo old fruit

And you haven't denied that Labour have done a hand break turn, after getting millions of votes off the back of their binned manifesto pledges!

So we're all good fella!

UpTheBeehole wrote:So a Government without a majority changes how laws are made, so they can pass things through parliament without the need for a majority?

That's dangerous, and has echoes of Hitler in the 30s.

I was listening to the radio yesterday. They said, and it was not challenged. That Labour used the henry 8th in the 1970s when they were a minority government.

Also, these powers have , ironically, been used to incorporate EU law into British, while we've been in the EEC/ EU.

Now unless I missed something, perhaps I could have been on the turf. We haven't invaded Poland or the Sudatenland!

UpTheBeehole wrote: That's dangerous, and has echoes of Hitler in the 30s.

HOUSE!!!!

Sidney1st wrote:HOUSE!!!!

Read some history books

Lancasterclaret wrote:No, what he means is you don't understand the dangers such a bill could potentially have.

If you don't understand the points he's making, then you really need to say so.

I fear that this could be misused. Not because I want to remain in the EU, but because I know bits about history and things like this are* the beginning.

*potentially

Doesn't matter as long as it's not Johnny Foreigner telling us what to do.

UpTheBeehole wrote:So a Government without a majority changes how laws are made, so they can pass things through parliament without the need for a majority?

That's dangerous, and has echoes of Hitler in the 30s.

And much more recent echose of the EU, because that's how they've been doing it for years. I can understand why Brexiters are opposed to this idea, but I'd have thought Remainers would like the continuity.

Dead easy then Ringo.
Bill is passed as it stands.
Tories are forced to call a General election - for some reason - before March 2019 when the bill will come into effect.
Labour win election
We leave EU in March 2019 and Corbyn executive can do what they want?
Is this the consequence of the bill that you want?
(I know it's an unlikely scenario, but it's exactly the reason why ultimately this bill will most likely be amended).

The scale of what this minority government seek to do is way beyond anything previously undertaken. Unsurprising how some Leavers shouting about democracy are happy to see it neutered when it suits.

Post election studies indicate that more than 60% of Labour voters are remainers, which has made the leadership's position hitherto art odds with the members that Corbyn supposedly elevates. They are edging towards a position that recognises the catastrophe that any Brexit would create.

I've commented before: read Ian Dunt's book Brexit: What the Hell Happens Now? If you're capable of shivering, you will.

UpTheBeehole wrote:Read some history books

I know my history, thanks for the concern though.

nil_desperandum wrote:3. Creating powers to make secondary legislation. This will allow ministers to make amends to laws that would not function appropriately once we have left the EU.

Presumably this point applies to only those laws affected by EU laws.

Does it take longer to amend laws with full parliamentary consent?

How many laws are likely to be affected?

If there were a number of laws that were found not to function, would their amendment via Parliament clog up the working of Parliament generally?

If 'yes' to all these then point 3 of the legislation makes sense surely.

If it helps, the FT reported that the Department of the Environment is involved with 1200 laws of EU origin - which we voted on and accepted. That's one department. Really, folks, better to stay in.

ngsobob wrote:If it helps, the FT reported that the Department of the Environment is involved with 1200 laws of EU origin - which we voted on and accepted. That's one department. Really, folks, better to stay in.

Better to stay in so there's less work to do ?

Sidney1st wrote:Better to stay in so there's less work to do ?

Yeah, do something useful instead.

When we're attempting to sign away Parliamentary sovereignty in order to 'regain' sovereignty that we never really lost in the first place it should become apparent to all but the most slavishly devoted Brexiteers that we're on a fool's mission here.

When we democratically elect our governments they almost always end up with a majority in Parliament which allows them to run the country as they see fit. I thought selling off our Gold reserves way back when was dumb, but they had a majority. If we are as a majority unhappy with all of this then next time round it will be a Labour Government and so the merry go round continues. UTC

I'm totally against concentration camps, but they had a majority.

Paul Waine wrote:Hi nil_d, agree your points 1 and 2. I don't agree your point 3 in the way you describe it. A great number of UK laws include statutory instruments which enables the government to enact "secondary legislation" that can provide the "final detail" to the legislation. It's either disingenuous of the politicians - and the media that is reporting it - to pretend that there this doesn't happen. So long as this is what is happening with the "repeal bill" then there should be no objections - and it's not "highly controversial."

So far as "sovereignty" is concerned. Yes, we want Parliament to be sovereign - except when the UK electorate has exercised this sovereignty through a referendum. People - MPs - Government in that order. The political issue with the EU was that "Brussels" sat on top of this structure.

The comparison between the normal use of secondary legislation powers, and what is proposed here is absolutely invalid.

Normally, secondary legislation derives from a specific act of parliament granting the secretary of state particular powers in defined circumstances as described in the ultimate act of parliament that "enables" the right to make secondary legislation. The scope of the subject matter of that ultimate act of parliament defines the scope of the secondary legislation that can be made (so for example, a transport act might permit the secretary of state to make regulations relating to a particular transport scheme - HS2 being a good example of this).

What is being proposed here is far, far wider - its the ability to re-write every law which has derived from Brussels over the past 50 years. Which as every Brexiteer knows, is a lot of our laws. Indeed, the only precedent for this is itself the ability of the government to make regulations in relation to the domestic application of EU law, which is precisely what we are trying to reclaim in the name of parliamentary sovereignty.

We all know that Brexit is going to profoundly change the country, and we are going to try and differentiate ourselves from Europe after Brexit (whatever its form) takes effect. For the government to put forward legislation predicated on the assumption that it should have the right to determine this, without necessarily having to consult parliament, is a grotesque affront to democracy which ought to offend everyone in the land.

The number of people who think that selling our gold reserves would make any difference to things now is pretty ridiculous. How many years has it been now? 15? ish? And how much was the difference in value between when we sold and when we should have sold? About 0.3% of a single year's budget?

But keep flogging that horsey.

nil_desperandum wrote:Dead easy then Ringo.
Bill is passed as it stands.
Tories are forced to call a General election - for some reason - before March 2019 when the bill will come into effect.
Labour win election
We leave EU in March 2019 and Corbyn executive can do what they want?
Is this the consequence of the bill that you want?
(I know it's an unlikely scenario, but it's exactly the reason why ultimately this bill will most likely be amended).

But you haven't addressed my points nildesp.

1 That Labour used the henry 8th in the 1970s when they were a minority government.

2, these powers have , ironically, been used to incorporate EU law into British, while we've been in the EEC/ EU.

But let's say the above isn't true.

In the real world. Don't you think that were ANY GOVERNMENT, that abused it's position by by-passing parliamentary security. To such an extent that the claims of the disingenuous Remoaners claims of impending Genghis Khan style tyranny, actually came true.

Old Genghis would be out on his far right ear as soon as the next general election was called. Or are you going to say that a rampant Tory government will ban all opposition parties and end democratically held elections, if it gets it way on this Bill.

Can you really not see that all the fake, future concerns from Remoaners, in the real world, can all be addressed by the ballot box?

Let's agree to call a spade, a spade. Labour have duped it's millions of Leave voters and this is part of the establishment's attempt to usurp the referendum result.

At least the illiberal antidemocrats have been consistent!!

ringo remains the best parody account on here.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I get the need for the bill, but not for the sweeping powers.
Basically, it will get abused, because sadly that is what politicians do when they are not accountable to anything.

Sweeping powers. Somebody fetch a brush.

If only we had a form of democracy to hold these dastardly MPs to account.

Anyway, we've engaged enough Lancs. Have a nice day

quoonbeatz wrote:ringo remains the best parody account on here.

At least I try and contribute an opinion. Whether it's right or wrong and others agree or disagree.

Where as you? ........

I guess Ringo's answered my question about the views that a gung-ho Brexiter has on a potentially damaging piece of legislation; full steam ahead, I'm sure it will be fine. (I'm not entirely sure what the point is meant to be re: the Labour party, a fair number of Tories, academics and certainly the House of Lords aren't keen on the powers).

A good idea of how it will work is here http://brexit.doughtystreet.co.uk/post/ ... tive-power" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; under the Shaping the brave new world? section.

Some of the work will be straight-forward, amending oversight bodies, removing redundancies, etc but there is also a scope for a wide range of other powers. For instance Ministers will have the power to create new criminal offences, provided that they would not enable a sentence of longer than 2 years custody.

Interestingly this in parallel with the Conservatives also wanting to change the rules on the composition of committees to ensure that the conservatives still have a majority https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -condemned" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The current position is that seats are allocated in line with the election result (four members each for Labour and Conservatives and one SNP member), the proposal is that the Conservatives should get 5 seats to avoid delays.

RingoMcCartney wrote:
At least I try and contribute an opinion. Whether it's right or wrong and others agree or disagree.

Where as you? ........

still struggling with the concept of a messageboard eh?

quoonbeatz wrote:

still struggling with the concept of a messageboard eh?

This post suggests not!!!!

Fill me in Rowls

I've only been listening to political commentators and reading stuff on it. I have to admit not having considered the views of a barman from France, but I'm open to anything you may have to add to the debate.

Enjoy your day in the sun with the benefit of EU freedom of movement and employment.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Fill me in Rowls

woah, i know he claims he's liberal but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

No!

I possibly could be turned by the right chap, but I'm sure that chap isn't him!