The Great Repeal Bill

[quoonbeatz]

scraping the barrel of consolation there nil!

by the time of the next election it will be too late unfortunately. i suspect irreversible damage will have been done.

[Lancasterclaret]

And we will be out of the EU and more than likely having the economic experiments of JC and McDonnell.

Can't wait

[nil_desperandum]

scraping the barrel of consolation there nil!

by the time of the next election it will be too late unfortunately. i suspect irreversible damage will have been done.

Rather depends on your definition of reversible. I'm one of those who tends to think that most things can be reversed if there's a determination and will to do it.
Where I do agree with you however is that the damage will have already been done, and the cost to try to fix it, both economically and as a nation, is frightening.

[quoonbeatz]

Rather depends on your definition of reversible. I'm one of those who tends to think that most things can be reversed if there's a determination and will to do it.
Where I do agree with you however is that the damage will have already been done, and the cost to try to fix it, both economically and as a nation, is frightening.

agreed. i think its the cost that will make it irreversible, certainly in the medium term.

[aggi]

Rather depends on your definition of reversible. I'm one of those who tends to think that most things can be reversed if there's a determination and will to do it.

No party in power is going to be particularly determined to reverse a decision to give the party in power (even if it is a minority) a majority in committees.

[RingoMcCartney]

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.

I agree with you lancs!.

The UNELECTED president, Jean Claude Drunker announced that the EU the following -

An expansion of membership (imperialistic mission creep)

Making the Euro compulsory for new members.

Extending the Schengan Zone.

To APPOINT (not DEMOCRATICALLY ELECT) Pan European ministers. With unprecedented powers, that OVER RIDE national SOVEREIGNTY, Soviet style!!

The formation of an EU army by 2025. ( "The idea of an EU army is dangerous fantasy." Arch Remoaner Nick "tuition fees" Clegg June 2016)

Funding of political parties to be altered. This will favour the larger (therefore PRO-EU!!!!!) parties. And will choke off the smaller parties, and extinguish, totally, independents!

Recent opinion polls have shown that 60% of Europeans are concerned about the direction the EU is taking.

Despite that, the UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE president says this should happen:-

WITHOUT a mandate

WITHOUT any democratic elections

WITHOUT a treaty change

WITHOUT any national referendums (an army without democratic approval of the People! Jesus!)

To paraphrase you lancs he's abusing his unelected power. He's unaccountable to anything. And if he's not unelected and unaccountable, tell me the last time the EU president was elected and kicked out at via the ballot box

[nil_desperandum]

To paraphrase you lancs he's abusing his unelected power. He's unaccountable to anything. And if he's not unelected and unaccountable, tell me the last time the EU president was elected and kicked out at via the ballot box

So perhaps you'll tell us when David Davis was elected as Minister for Brexit via the ballot box, or Boris as Foreign Minister?

British Government not much different to the EU really:
EU Parliament: directly elected by EU citizens.

European Council: the EU28 leaders, elected by their home nation’s democratic process.

Council of the EU - EU28 government ministers, elected by their home nation’s democratic process.

European Commission - politically independent executive arm; leaders nominated by the EC & elected by the EUP

[SonofPog]

I do wish the EU wouldn't use President for the head of each body, makes people actually think they're the President, like a US president,

Worth noting we don't vote for our prime minister either, we vote for our local MP, but hey.... scary EU and it's undemocratic ways! We're leaving Right Whinger... time to chill a bit maybe?

Anyway, he's basically the head of the civil service, something we don't vote on in this country either, Oh, and his plans have been widely mocked and shot down by most countries leaders in the EU,

[Foshiznik]

Anyway, he's basically the head of the civil service, something we don't vote on in this country either, Oh, and his plans have been widely mocked and shot down by most countries leaders in the EU,

The Head of the Civil Service is Sir Jeremy Heywood. He doesn't report to the EU. He is the highest ranking civil servant, so of course is not elected as it's a 'normal' job like that of a CEO, etc.

[RingoMcCartney]

So perhaps you'll tell us when David Davis was elected as Minister for Brexit via the ballot box, or Boris as Foreign Minister?

British Government not much different to the EU really:
EU Parliament: directly elected by EU citizens.

European Council: the EU28 leaders, elected by their home nation’s democratic process.

Council of the EU - EU28 government ministers, elected by their home nation’s democratic process.

European Commission - politically independent executive arm; leaders nominated by the EC & elected by the EUP

European Commission - politically independent executive arm; leaders nominated by the EC & elected by the EUP" BUT NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE

Davies and Johnson - ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

Can you see the difference?

Now you've banged on about "a power grab" "sovereignty"
and the erosion of democracy. Stop deflecting and say what do you think about -

The UNELECTED president, Jean Claude Drunker announced that the EU the following -

An expansion of membership (imperialistic mission creep)

Making the Euro compulsory for new members.

Extending the Schengan Zone.

To APPOINT (not DEMOCRATICALLY ELECT) Pan European ministers. With unprecedented powers, that OVER RIDE national SOVEREIGNTY, Soviet style!!

The formation of an EU army by 2025. ( "The idea of an EU army is dangerous fantasy." Arch Remoaner Nick "tuition fees" Clegg June 2016)

Funding of political parties to be altered. This will favour the larger (therefore PRO-EU!!!!!) parties. And will choke off the smaller parties, and extinguish, totally, independents! 

Recent opinion polls have shown that 60% of Europeans are concerned about the direction the EU is taking.

Despite that, the UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE president says this should happen:-

WITHOUT a mandate

WITHOUT any democratic elections

WITHOUT a treaty change

WITHOUT any national referendums (an army without democratic approval of the People! Jesus!)

In your reply to my post you chose to entirely ignore all the points!

[RingoMcCartney]

I do wish the EU wouldn't use President for the head of each body, makes people actually think they're the President, like a US president,

Worth noting we don't vote for our prime minister either, we vote for our local MP, but hey.... scary EU and it's undemocratic ways! We're leaving Right Whinger... time to chill a bit maybe?

Anyway, he's basically the head of the civil service, something we don't vote on in this country either, Oh, and his plans have been widely mocked and shot down by most countries leaders in the EU,

"his plans have been widely mocked and shot down by most countries leaders in the EU,"

Just like when people used to say, 30 years ago, the EEC is the beginning of a super state.

They were called Little Englanders

Fast forward and the EU has it's own currency, flag, president, parliament, anthem foreign ministers etc eye.

The little Englanders have been proven right.

The only thing not on the list is an army.

Last year Nick Clegg said an EU army was a dangerous fantasy "happen to think that Jean-Claude Junker and Nigel Farage are both dangerous fantasists when it comes to this issue. It's not going to happen, it doesn't matter whether Nigel Farage says it's going to happen or Jean Claude Juncker...he [Juncker] can't create a European army," Mr Clegg told his phone-in on LBC radio.

Today, unelected, Drunker said it will be formed by 2025.

Let's see who was right!

[Damo]

I thought it was the leave voters who didn't understand what they were voting for?
Some remain said they were voting for the status quo.

Junkets speech today proves us leave voters were right.
Shengen extended. End of vetoes. Compulsory euro. Single EU president, and extending the EU into the Balkans?

Scary stuff indeed. Ironic given some people's concerns about power grabs following the repeal bill

[nil_desperandum]

European Commission - politically independent executive arm; leaders nominated by the EC & elected by the EUP" BUT NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE

Davies and Johnson - ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

Can you see the difference?

No because there isn't one really.
Davis and Johnson were elected as MPs.
They were appointed to their posts by the PM, who also wasn't elected PM. She is PM because she is leader of the governing party.
If she ceases to be leader of the Tory Party then we will get a new PM, but he / she won't be elected by us. (Only by their constituents, and by the Tory Party).
That new leader might choose to replace Davis and Johnson but it won't be our decision.
So pretty much like how it works in other countries and the EU then.

[claretspice]

European Commission - politically independent executive arm; leaders nominated by the EC & elected by the EUP" BUT NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE

Davies and Johnson - ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

Can you see the difference?

I suspect im wasting my time here Ringo, but you still arent comparing like with like. You're comparing two elected representatives who decide policy (the equivalent of the EU council of ministers, really) with civil servants who suggest policy options and then carry out whatever policy they are told to. Juncker is roughly the equivalent of Gus O'Donnell who was for many years the head of our civil service - and guess what, unelected.

If you dont get that distinction, then youve been misunderstanding the nature of the EU all this time, which would be unfortunate.

[RingoMcCartney]

No because there isn't one really.
Davis and Johnson were elected as MPs.
They were appointed to their posts by the PM, who also wasn't elected PM. She is PM because she is leader of the governing party.
If she ceases to be leader of the Tory Party then we will get a new PM, but he / she won't be elected by us. (Only by their constituents, and by the Tory Party).
That new leader might choose to replace Davis and Johnson but it won't be our decision.
So pretty much like how it works in other countries and the EU then.

And again you prefer to deflect.

The UNELECTED president, Jean Claude Drunker announced that the EU the following -

An expansion of membership (imperialistic mission creep)

Making the Euro compulsory for new members.

Extending the Schengan Zone.

To APPOINT (not DEMOCRATICALLY ELECT) Pan European ministers. With unprecedented powers, that OVER RIDE national SOVEREIGNTY, Soviet style!!

The formation of an EU army by 2025. ( "The idea of an EU army is dangerous fantasy." Arch Remoaner Nick "tuition fees" Clegg June 2016)

Funding of political parties to be altered. This will favour the larger (therefore PRO-EU!!!!!) parties. And will choke off the smaller parties, and extinguish, totally, independents! 

Recent opinion polls have shown that 60% of Europeans are concerned about the direction the EU is taking.

Despite that, the UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE president says this should happen:-

WITHOUT a mandate

WITHOUT any democratic elections

WITHOUT a treaty change

WITHOUT any national referendums (an army without democratic approval of the People! Jesus!)

So again, your views on an unelected president and his power grab.

Over to you.

[RingoMcCartney]

I suspect im wasting my time here Ringo, but you still arent comparing like with like. You're comparing two elected representatives who decide policy (the equivalent of the EU council of ministers, really) with civil servants who suggest policy options and then carry out whatever policy they are told to. Juncker is roughly the equivalent of Gus O'Donnell who was for many years the head of our civil service - and guess what, unelected.

If you dont get that distinction, then youve been misunderstanding the nature of the EU all this time, which would be unfortunate.

Yet again more defection.

Your views-

The UNELECTED president, Jean Claude Drunker announced that the EU the following -

An expansion of membership (imperialistic mission creep)

Making the Euro compulsory for new members.

Extending the Schengan Zone.

To APPOINT (not DEMOCRATICALLY ELECT) Pan European ministers. With unprecedented powers, that OVER RIDE national SOVEREIGNTY, Soviet style!!

The formation of an EU army by 2025. ( "The idea of an EU army is dangerous fantasy." Arch Remoaner Nick "tuition fees" Clegg June 2016)

Funding of political parties to be altered. This will favour the larger (therefore PRO-EU!!!!!) parties. And will choke off the smaller parties, and extinguish, totally, independents! 

Recent opinion polls have shown that 60% of Europeans are concerned about the direction the EU is taking.

Despite that, the UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE president says this should happen:-

WITHOUT a mandate

WITHOUT any democratic elections

WITHOUT a treaty change

WITHOUT any national referendums (an army without democratic approval of the People! Jesus!)

[RingoMcCartney]

The basic monthly salary of the President is fixed at 138% of the top civil service grade which, in 2013, amounted to €25,351 per month or €304,212 per year plus an allowance for a residence equal to 15% of salary as well as other allowances including for children's schooling and household expenses.

Jean-Claude Juncker blocked EU curbs on tax avoidance, cables show.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ables-show" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Drunker was the architect of one of the biggest tax avoidance schemes, ever seen.

[Imploding Turtle]

If only there were some kind of way that countries could elect people to some kind of European parliament perhaps then they could elect people who they agree with on things like an EU army.

Or if only those countries had their own internal elections, then perhaps the people could vote for leaders who agree with them on important European matters like, oh i don't know, an EU army.

The UK had veto power on an EU army until we made a stupid decision to leave. People like Ringo like to whine and bitch about an EU Army or Turkey joining but we literally could veto anything we didn't like. By leaving we lose that veto and have made those things we didn't like a lot more likely. So it's really ******* funny watching Ringo meltdown over these things when his stupid vote helped make them happen.

[RingoMcCartney]

If only there were some kind of way that countries could elect people to some kind of European parliament perhaps then they could elect people who they agree with on things like an EU army.

Or if only those countries had their own internal elections, then perhaps the people could vote for leaders who agree with them on important European matters like, oh i don't know, an EU army.

The UK had veto power on an EU army until we made a stupid decision to leave. People like Ringo like to whine and bitch about an EU Army or Turkey joining but we literally could veto anything we didn't like. By leaving we've made those things we didn't like a lot more likely. So it's really ******* funny watching Ringo meltdown over these things when his stupid vote helped make them happen.

[Damo]

If only there were some kind of way that countries could elect people to some kind of European parliament perhaps then they could elect people who they agree with on things like an EU army.

Or if only those countries had their own internal elections, then perhaps the people could vote for leaders who agree with them on important European matters like, oh i don't know, an EU army.

The UK had veto power on an EU army until we made a stupid decision to leave. People like Ringo like to whine and bitch about an EU Army or Turkey joining but we literally could veto anything we didn't like. By leaving we lose that veto and have made those things we didn't like a lot more likely. So it's really ******* funny watching Ringo meltdown over these things when his stupid vote helped make them happen.

We no longer need to veto them. It's no longer any of our business.

[charlyt]

Barnier and Junker are steeped in, and are paid by the EU, of which we are currently members, meaning we contribute to their well being.

Both are trying to stand up for, and fight for much money to be paid, by the UK to their corrupt outfit who are unable to satisfy their own auditors let alone their member nations.

The EU probably owe us, although the gnomes are not likely to admit this fact.

Mr Davies and Co should continue to stand against their bullying tactics, and in the final analysis, if all becomes unacceptable simply walk away without paying them even one old penny.

As in days of yore, our nation will prevail and still continue to attract overseas companies, investment and the brightest, the best individuals to our progress, rather than importing the unwanted dross of Europe who benefit no-one other than themselves, many of whom cost us.

[Damo]

If only there were some kind of way that countries could elect people to some kind of European parliament perhaps then they could elect people who they agree with on things like an EU army.

Or if only those countries had their own internal elections, then perhaps the people could vote for leaders who agree with them on important European matters like, oh i don't know, an EU army.

The UK had veto power on an EU army until we made a stupid decision to leave. People like Ringo like to whine and bitch about an EU Army or Turkey joining but we literally could veto anything we didn't like. By leaving we lose that veto and have made those things we didn't like a lot more likely. So it's really ******* funny watching Ringo meltdown over these things when his stupid vote helped make them happen.

Also that's a fantastic argument in favour of leave for most people.
Why vote for someone who elects someone who can vote on our international affairs, when you can directly vote on who gets to decide the way the country is run?

[Imploding Turtle]

We no longer need to veto them. It's no longer any of our business.

So why do you suppose people like Ringo are still crying about them?

[Imploding Turtle]

Also that's a fantastic argument in favour of leave for most people.
Why vote for someone who elects someone who can vote on our international affairs, when you can directly vote on who gets to decide the way the country is run?

You people need to make your mind up. Is the EU an unelected dictatorship or not? You can't simultaniously complain that there's no democracy and too much democracy.

[nil_desperandum]

Why vote for someone who elects someone who can vote on our international affairs, when you can directly vote on who gets to decide the way the country is run?

Bit ironic really isn't it.
We recently had a General Election. The governing party lost their majority - the people decided this. And yet now they've voted themselves powers to have a majority on all the Select Committees, and are trying to grab limitless executive powers in the Great Repeal Bill.
Don't you just love democracy - but at least, following the referendum, we're getting our country back - to be run by and for who?
Not by, or for anyone who posts on here, I'm willing to bet.

[Damo]

You people need to make your mind up. Is the EU an unelected dictatorship or not? You can't simultaniously complain that there's no democracy and too much democracy.

I suppose it depends on your idea of democracy Charlie.
Being part of the EU may give people more democracy in your terms, but it's extremely watered down.
I prefer the level of governance directly above me to be accountable for their decisions

[nil_desperandum]

I prefer the level of governance directly above me to be accountable for their decisions

Ironically, I just referenced this accountability in my previous post.

[Damo]

Bit ironic really isn't it.
We recently had a General Election. The governing party lost their majority - the people decided this. And yet now they've voted themselves powers to have a majority on all the Select Committees, and are trying to grab limitless executive powers in the Great Repeal Bill.
Don't you just love democracy - but at least, following the referendum, we're getting our country back - to be run by and for who?
Not by, or for anyone who posts on here, I'm willing to bet.

It doesn't matter who holds the cards. You can relieve them of power every 5 years. You won't get that oppertunity as a future member of the United States of Europe.
The eu is all a bit 1984 for me

[RingoMcCartney]

Barnier and Junker are steeped in, and are paid by the EU, of which we are currently members, meaning we contribute to their well being.

Both are trying to stand up for, and fight for much money to be paid, by the UK to their corrupt outfit who are unable to satisfy their own auditors let alone their member nations.

The EU probably owe us, although the gnomes are not likely to admit this fact.

Mr Davies and Co should continue to stand against their bullying tactics, and in the final analysis, if all becomes unacceptable simply walk away without paying them even one old penny.

As in days of yore, our nation will prevail and still continue to attract overseas companies, investment and the brightest, the best individuals to our progress, rather than importing the unwanted dross of Europe who benefit no-one other than themselves, many of whom cost us.

Post of the day!

Take a bow sir!

[Damo]

Ironically, I just referenced this accountability in my previous post.

Ironically, the repeal bill gives every voter a better percentage of the vote when it comes to who decides the direction the nation

[Imploding Turtle]

MEPs and MPs are accountable to their electorates. That's us.

Why do you think the accountability for MEPs is different to the accountability for MPs? We're the ones who put them in their positions and if we're dissatisfied with the job they do we're the people who decide to put someone else in the job. Just like we do with MPs.

[Damo]

MEPs and MPs are accountable to their electorates. That's us.

Why do you think the accountability for MEPs is different to the accountability for MP's? We're the ones who put them in their positions and if we're dissatisfied with the job they do we're the people who decide to put someone else in the job. Just like we do with MPs.

Yes, the accountability for MEP's is massively different to the accountability for MP's.
Of course you can remove an MEP from their job, but it won't make one iota of difference to the decisions the EU force upon us.
You vote an MP out of their role though, and it can have a massive sway upon the strength of the current government.
Surely the last election proved that?

[AndrewJB]

I never had a problem with the EU becoming a more federated "super state" - as it's the natural extension of a geographically contiguous trading bloc. With the membership rules being fairly strict about form of government (democracy), and rule of law; to me it seemed common sense that a group of democratic nations will bolster the individual democracies more than those nations could alone.

It wasn't at all perfect, and some of the Neo-liberal ideas that seemed to govern it were infuriating for me, but by the same token it wasn't all bad (surely even the staunchest brexiter would agree with this?).

But we're leaving, and that's not the end of the world, but this repeal bill - what we're discussing - is bonkers in the powers it gives to the cabinet.

Take back control to hand it over to a domestic dictatorship? That's nuts. Why don't they make plain in the legislation itself that no laws will be changed - if they mean to do as they say and not water down any rights? Their verbal promises are not good enough. We have no reason to trust them.

[Imploding Turtle]

Yes, the accountability for MEP's is massively different to the accountability for MP's.
Of course you can remove an MEP from their job, but it won't make one iota of difference to the decisions the EU force upon us.
You vote an MP out of their role though, and it can have a massive sway upon the strength of the current government.
Surely the last election proved that?

I guess this is shows how fundamentally we differ when it comes to government. You want a government ruled by a single party at a time that can force legislation on everyone even if a majority of the people didn't vote for that party - like the UK. I want a government with no single party control and so is forced to work with other parties to reach a majority for each piece of legislation - like the European parliament.

So when you think about it you want more people to be left unrepresented than I do. I'm sure you don't mean to want that but that's literally the effect of your preference for the UK system of government over the EU's.

The EU government is far more representative of its population than the UK government is of hers and I think you don't like that because you like the small-C conservative positions that are forced on the majority of us who oppose them.

[aggi]

I agree with you lancs!.

The UNELECTED president, Jean Claude Drunker announced that the EU the following -

An expansion of membership (imperialistic mission creep)

Making the Euro compulsory for new members.

Extending the Schengan Zone.

To APPOINT (not DEMOCRATICALLY ELECT) Pan European ministers. With unprecedented powers, that OVER RIDE national SOVEREIGNTY, Soviet style!!

The formation of an EU army by 2025. ( "The idea of an EU army is dangerous fantasy." Arch Remoaner Nick "tuition fees" Clegg June 2016)

Funding of political parties to be altered. This will favour the larger (therefore PRO-EU!!!!!) parties. And will choke off the smaller parties, and extinguish, totally, independents!

Recent opinion polls have shown that 60% of Europeans are concerned about the direction the EU is taking.

Despite that, the UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE president says this should happen:-

WITHOUT a mandate

WITHOUT any democratic elections

WITHOUT a treaty change

WITHOUT any national referendums (an army without democratic approval of the People! Jesus!)

To paraphrase you lancs he's abusing his unelected power. He's unaccountable to anything. And if he's not unelected and unaccountable, tell me the last time the EU president was elected and kicked out at via the ballot box

So what you're saying is moves by the EU to reduce democracy = bad.
Moves by the UK to reduce democracy = good.

To be fair, you certainly are consistent.

[RingoMcCartney]

I never had a problem with the EU becoming a more federated "super state" - as it's the natural extension of a geographically contiguous trading bloc. With the membership rules being fairly strict about form of government (democracy), and rule of law; to me it seemed common sense that a group of democratic nations will bolster the individual democracies more than those nations could alone.

It wasn't at all perfect, and some of the Neo-liberal ideas that seemed to govern it were infuriating for me, but by the same token it wasn't all bad (surely even the staunchest brexiter would agree with this?).

But we're leaving, and that's not the end of the world, but this repeal bill - what we're discussing - is bonkers in the powers it gives to the cabinet.

Take back control to hand it over to a domestic dictatorship? That's nuts. Why don't they make plain in the legislation itself that no laws will be changed - if they mean to do as they say and not water down any rights? Their verbal promises are not good enough. We have no reason to trust them.

"Their verbal promises are not good enough. We have no reason to trust them"

Andrew, if your worst fears come to pass, and they DO betray your (And my ) trust. We, both, can vote for a party that will reverse all the wrongs. The ballot box!

The EU president and Commision are, not vulnerable to the ballot box.

As Lancaster claret said very early on in this thread -
"abuse is sadly what politicians do when they are not accountable to anything."

(Apologies for paraphrasing slightly lancs)

[Damo]

I guess this is shows how fundamentally we differ when it comes to government. You want a government ruled by a single party at a time that can force legislation on everyone even if a majority of the people didn't vote for that party - like the UK. I want a government with no single party control and so is forced to work with other parties to reach a majority for each piece of legislation - like the European parliament.

So when you think about it you want more people to be left unrepresented than I do. I'm sure you don't mean to want that but that's literally the effect of your preference for the UK system of government over the EU's.

The EU government is far more representative of its population than the UK government is of hers and I think you don't like that because you like the small-C conservative positions that are forced on the majority of us who oppose them.

I want people to be represented locally.
It's certainly an issue for people like us who live in the north west of a small country.
The UK as an island, will suffer under an EU super state. We have nothing to offer globally in terms of raw materials. We can't offer cheap labour. We import more than we export. All of the things we do well, that strengthen our economy, will be swallowed up by Strasbourg. Our financial sector will be absolutely worthless under the EU. Engineering and manufacturing is being slowly transported abroad. The NHS (that's a biggie right?) Will be less sustainable than it currently is when it's open to everyone else in Europe. You can't have a welfare state without offering it to every other member of the EU. that leaves us with tourism(Ironic given that most remainers hate the monarchy)
All that considered, what do the people of Burnley and sourounding areas stand to gain from being part of the EU?
If you live in the south east of England then that's probably great but up here?
You must be mental

[RingoMcCartney]

So what you're saying is moves by the EU to reduce democracy = bad.
Moves by the UK to reduce democracy = good.

To be fair, you certainly are consistent.

I don't believe the repeal Bill is an attempt to reduce democracy.

I believe that's what Remoaners claim it is. And that their claim is simply a smoke screen to cover their blatant attempt at obstructing, undermining and bringing the brexit to a grinding halt.

But fair play to you. At least your acknowledging that what the unelected Junker is doing is undemocratic.

(Setting up an EU army without a referendum, mandate, treaty or any form of reference to the People. Is not just undemocratic, it's close to dictatorship)

[Damo]

I don't Want the EU to fail either btw. In the long run, that suits us and junker and co know it

[aggi]

I don't believe the repeal Bill is an attempt to reduce democracy.

I believe that's what Remoaners claim it is. And that their claim is simply a smoke screen to cover their blatant attempt at obstructing, undermining and bringing the brexit to a grinding halt.

But fair play to you. At least your acknowledging that what the unelected Junker is doing is undemocratic.

(Setting up an EU army without a referendum, mandate, treaty or any form of reference to the People. Is not just undemocratic, it's close to dictatorship)

So the wide range of people complaining about it, including Tories such as John Penrose who say we need to get on with Brexit, are all "remoaners" trying to delay Brexit?

If we'd remained in the EU we could have vetoed many of those proposals you're complaining about (EU army for instance, we had an absolute veto there). Would that have been democratic enough for you?

[aggi]

Oh, and when you refer to Juncker being unelected, you do realise that he was elected with 422 votes (out of 729).

[CrosspoolClarets]

I haven't added my thoughts to this thread yet, but today has prompted me too.

Juncker has made it clear the degree to which integration is coming, which it always was of course. The euro will be used to blackmail the countries wobbling about this, so that they end up integrating anyway for fear of being booted out of the single currency (I am currently reading Yanis Varoufakis's Adults In The Room, where the former Greek finance minister, a far leftie so a bit different to me, explains how this form of blackmail was used to persuade Greece's leaders to get bailed out, and in doing so save the German and French banks who were virtually insolvent after 2008, he suggests Merkel lied about that, and the Greek bailout was a trick to make it look like the banks were able to lend again and stay solvent. The book is unbelievable).

Varoufakis is a staunch Remainer, but believes we (and they) should stay in to reform it from the inside. That's where he and I start to differ. I don't think it can be done.

So, now that I have reaffirmed in my mind the 100% need for Brexit, whatever the cost, I think about the repeal bill.

Sounds like a perfect parliamentary process.

The MPs have a chance to add amendments, and it sounds some should be done to water down the powers, BUT there should still be the ability to make tweaks to laws without parliament intervening, because of the sheer scale of laws to be passed over, which may have weird lines in them irrelevant and unworkable to the UK. It's a fine balancing act.

The hysteria about this is overdone. People on this thread compare it to Hitler. The media are up in arms but Juncker's plans wouldn't make page 10 of a daily. Yes, it needs tinkering with, which will happen and would have even with a large Tory majority, but let's get real. Anybody who thinks May (a fairly central Tory) is comparable to Hitler really does need to go and get some therapy. Our democratic system, which we have built over centuries and wish to preserve, will ensure it ends up fine, worry not, that's what we pay MPs for.

[JohnMcGreal]

"Their verbal promises are not good enough. We have no reason to trust them"

Andrew, if your worst fears come to pass, and they DO betray your (And my ) trust. We, both, can vote for a party that will reverse all the wrongs. The ballot box!

The EU president and Commision are, not vulnerable to the ballot box.

When the House of Lords kicks this Great Repeal Bill back to the Commons to 'think again', how will your ballot box democracy help you there, Ringo? How will you remove those pesky unelected Lords who thwart 'the will of the people'?

[Imploding Turtle]

Oh, and when you refer to Juncker being unelected, you do realise that he was elected with 422 votes (out of 729).

More votes than May got to be her party's leader and thus our Prime Minister.

[Damo]

When was the junker vote again? I must of missed my local polling booth being open for that one

[Lancasterclaret]

To paraphrase you lancs he's abusing his unelected power. He's unaccountable to anything. And if he's not unelected and unaccountable, tell me the last time the EU president was elected and kicked out at via the ballot box

You do know that he's not a king, what he says does not automatically become law.

Its not surprising that the EU are looking at things post-Brexit. I mean, they could implode and collapse like people who have no idea what they are talking about think is going to happen.

They are going to do their thing, with a lot of debate and a lot of compromise, and we are going to do our thing, which at the moment looks suspiciously like a unique and dangerous combination of ambitious, unprincipled politicians with diminished parliamentary oversight.

Considering thats what a lot of leavers seemed determined to avoid, it does seem very weird that you are celebrating it.

[nil_desperandum]

So, now that I have reaffirmed in my mind the 100% need for Brexit, whatever the cost, I think about the repeal bill.

Sounds like a perfect parliamentary process.

The MPs have a chance to add amendments, and it sounds some should be done to water down the powers, BUT there should still be the ability to make tweaks to laws without parliament intervening, because of the sheer scale of laws to be passed over, which may have weird lines in them irrelevant and unworkable to the UK. It's a fine balancing act.
.

Ok. Let's just say for one moment that I agreed with you.
EU law is going to become UK law. Most of these laws have been operational for years or decades. They will all become law "at a stroke" when we leave the EU, and this will give us a seamless transition. (OK).
Now, can you give me an example of any law that then needs to be changed in such a hurry that it is vital or essential that powers be given to an unelected executive, rather than going through the safety net of our established Parliamentary process?
Now then. Why not think again, and imagine that on the day we leave the EU it is Mr Corbyn, Mr McDonnell and Ms. Abbott who are the executive?. Changing laws without scrutiny doesn't perhaps seem so attractive now does it?
That's why Parliament is sovereign, and that's why - as I understand it - many voted to leave the EU.

[UpTheBeehole]

When was the junker vote again? I must of missed my local polling booth being open for that one

Jean Claude Juncker was first elected to parliament in 1984, and rose to be Prime Minister of Luxembourg in 1995. He was then elected to be Luxembourg's European Commissioner in 2014, and was also elected as president of the European Commission.

How many elections have you won?

[aggi]

When was the junker vote again? I must of missed my local polling booth being open for that one

Understandable, the turnout for the European Parliament election was pretty low in 2014 was pretty low, about 35%. That's where the public voted for politicians to represent them in Europe and those elected politicians subsequently voted for Juncker.

If people weren't happy the President is ultimately accountable to the ballot box.

[AndrewJB]

[quote="RingoMcCartney"]"Their verbal promises are not good enough. We have no reason to trust them"

Andrew, if your worst fears come to pass, and they DO betray your (And my ) trust. We, both, can vote for a party that will reverse all the wrongs. The ballot box!

The EU president and Commision are, not vulnerable to the ballot box.

As Lancaster claret said very early on in this thread -
"abuse is sadly what politicians do when they are not accountable to anything."

(Apologies for paraphrasing slightly lancs)[/quote

I don't want to have to wait four and a half years to get my say at the ballot box. I might not live that long. There is no good reason for ministers to grab such sweeping powers, when they could have drafted the legislation more carefully to ensure our rights are protected. That's not a lot to ask, and anyone concerned about taking back control and not being ruled over by diktat should feel equally horrified. Aren't you at all curious as to why they've drafted this legislation this way, or do you not really care about your rights as a citizen?