UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
s2art said:
Mr Snap said:
This means that the UK parliament could pass legislation to leave the EU but our very own UK courts would be forced to repeal it because our courts are bound to find according to EU law not UK law. This is not a moot point about referring to EU law, it happens regularly in UK courts.
Wrong. Parliament is still sovereign. The first thing it would do is repeal the 1972 european community act. That is the bedrock to the concept that the courts must find according to EU law (and in fact that is too simple a view, it doesnt always, common law can trump EU law in some cases). Once the act is repealed the courts must obey UK law. Of course there would be some tidying up to do where reference is made to EU directives and the like, but the contention that UK courts would be forced to repeal Parliament made law is wrong.The other thing which hasn't been mentioned is something that has been covered several times when discussing the % of influence the EU has over UK laws and regulations.
In the early days the process was that the EU would pass a law which then had to be formally enshrined and ratified into the laws of the member states.
In recent years this model has changed where arguably the majority of influences come via soft laws. In other words not law at all but regulations or even simply expressed opinions that it would desirable to have this or that policy.
It may well be that we decide some of these soft laws or policies are actually a good thing and decide to continue with them. If it suits the country.
Which obviously will have to be dealt with but quite possible to be done in sensible manner without earthquake upheavals. Each area to be responsible for their remit.
On a completely separate matter on the much maligned issue of local referendums that UKIP have been ridiculed over, unjustly I feel, seems that just up the road in Chaddesley Corbett there is likely to be a referendum on the local planning direction. Referendum which isn't going to be expensive is being quietly sponsored by Eric Pickles Dept of Communities etc.
In the early days the process was that the EU would pass a law which then had to be formally enshrined and ratified into the laws of the member states.
In recent years this model has changed where arguably the majority of influences come via soft laws. In other words not law at all but regulations or even simply expressed opinions that it would desirable to have this or that policy.
It may well be that we decide some of these soft laws or policies are actually a good thing and decide to continue with them. If it suits the country.
Which obviously will have to be dealt with but quite possible to be done in sensible manner without earthquake upheavals. Each area to be responsible for their remit.
On a completely separate matter on the much maligned issue of local referendums that UKIP have been ridiculed over, unjustly I feel, seems that just up the road in Chaddesley Corbett there is likely to be a referendum on the local planning direction. Referendum which isn't going to be expensive is being quietly sponsored by Eric Pickles Dept of Communities etc.
steveT350C said:
The master of hanging the carrot out....Scuffers said:
steveT350C said:
The master of hanging the carrot out....Channel 4 is following up Benefit street with Immigration Street.
To be aired just before the general elections...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv...
To be aired just before the general elections...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv...
FiF said:
The other thing which hasn't been mentioned is something that has been covered several times when discussing the % of influence the EU has over UK laws and regulations.
In the early days the process was that the EU would pass a law which then had to be formally enshrined and ratified into the laws of the member states.
In recent years this model has changed where arguably the majority of influences come via soft laws. In other words not law at all but regulations or even simply expressed opinions that it would desirable to have this or that policy.
It may well be that we decide some of these soft laws or policies are actually a good thing and decide to continue with them. If it suits the country.
Which obviously will have to be dealt with but quite possible to be done in sensible manner without earthquake upheavals. Each area to be responsible for their remit. .
You are correct in that most EU law is introduced via regulation. You are wrong in terming these "soft" regulations since they will all pass into UK Law via Statutory Instruments.In the early days the process was that the EU would pass a law which then had to be formally enshrined and ratified into the laws of the member states.
In recent years this model has changed where arguably the majority of influences come via soft laws. In other words not law at all but regulations or even simply expressed opinions that it would desirable to have this or that policy.
It may well be that we decide some of these soft laws or policies are actually a good thing and decide to continue with them. If it suits the country.
Which obviously will have to be dealt with but quite possible to be done in sensible manner without earthquake upheavals. Each area to be responsible for their remit. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_...
Mrr T said:
You are correct in that most EU law is introduced via regulation. You are wrong in terming these "soft" regulations since they will all pass into UK Law via Statutory Instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_...
Actually not correct. It's true that the majority of EU laws please note the emphasis are dealt with by statutory instruments, with a small % being dealt with by primary legislation, i.e statutes. However we are talking the Open Method of Communication which from 2000 has been a change to the way of working.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_...
It's a common misconception on PH and more widely that all EU influence has to be passed into UK legislation.
See House of Commons report linked and discussed earlier this thread. But to save you searching back through the thread link
This report was where the 7% (specifically 6.8%)came from that Clegg quoted in the debates, completely ignoring both the stautory instrumentation bit, 14.1% and the soft laws which don't have to be enacted. Some clearly are, some clearly are not and are simply adopted in working practices or internal department regulations.
Also note the 6.8% and 14.1% figures come from a very quiet period in activity legislatively speaking, principally in the run up to the Lisbon treaty.
Anyway back to your point that all regulations for these soft laws end up in statutory instruments is incorrect as the HoC pointed out below, they were excluded from the figures as it's pretty much impossible to measure them. Clearly specifically mentioned is that it's a move from legislative integration to straightforward cooperation.
As before, we may as a nation decide to continue some of these where it suits and is good practice. But they aren't law.
report said:
2 The impact of non-legislative EU action
This section looks at instruments of EU policy that may shape domestic law but are not easily
counted or their impact readily assessed.
2.1 Soft law and the Open Method of Coordination
EU “soft law” includes the communications, declarations, recommendations, resolutions,
statements, guidelines and special reports of the EU institutions. These are not legally
binding and are often taken forward informally through dialogue and negotiation among the
Member States or between the EU institutions and Member States. The “Open Method of
Coordination” or OMC, which was defined as an instrument of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth
and Jobs by the Lisbon European Council in 2000,23 encourages co-operation, the exchange
of best practice, voluntary harmonisation and the agreement of common targets and
guidelines among Member States.24 In a contribution to the Commission White Paper on
European governance and better law-making in 2001, a Commission Working Group
described the OMC as standing “half way between pure legislative integration and
straightforward cooperation”, adding that “recent experience has shown that the instruments
it offers can be effective in furthering European integration”.25
The OMC may have an impact, but it has to be excluded from any calculations. While there
is evidence of a slight decrease in EU legislative output in recent years, there has been an
increase, particularly since 2000, in EU soft law measures, particularly through the use of the
OMC. Christensen’s graph below shows from 1996 a gradual, small increase in EU
directives, a decrease in EU regulations and a significant increase in EU soft law measures
until 2000, followed by a decline until 2003, albeit at levels still well above average levels
from the 1960s until 1995.26
This section looks at instruments of EU policy that may shape domestic law but are not easily
counted or their impact readily assessed.
2.1 Soft law and the Open Method of Coordination
EU “soft law” includes the communications, declarations, recommendations, resolutions,
statements, guidelines and special reports of the EU institutions. These are not legally
binding and are often taken forward informally through dialogue and negotiation among the
Member States or between the EU institutions and Member States. The “Open Method of
Coordination” or OMC, which was defined as an instrument of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth
and Jobs by the Lisbon European Council in 2000,23 encourages co-operation, the exchange
of best practice, voluntary harmonisation and the agreement of common targets and
guidelines among Member States.24 In a contribution to the Commission White Paper on
European governance and better law-making in 2001, a Commission Working Group
described the OMC as standing “half way between pure legislative integration and
straightforward cooperation”, adding that “recent experience has shown that the instruments
it offers can be effective in furthering European integration”.25
The OMC may have an impact, but it has to be excluded from any calculations. While there
is evidence of a slight decrease in EU legislative output in recent years, there has been an
increase, particularly since 2000, in EU soft law measures, particularly through the use of the
OMC. Christensen’s graph below shows from 1996 a gradual, small increase in EU
directives, a decrease in EU regulations and a significant increase in EU soft law measures
until 2000, followed by a decline until 2003, albeit at levels still well above average levels
from the 1960s until 1995.26
FiF said:
Mrr T said:
You are correct in that most EU law is introduced via regulation. You are wrong in terming these "soft" regulations since they will all pass into UK Law via Statutory Instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_...
Actually not correct. It's true that the majority of EU laws please note the emphasis are dealt with by statutory instruments, with a small % being dealt with by primary legislation, i.e statutes. However we are talking the Open Method of Communication which from 2000 has been a change to the way of working.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_...
It's a common misconception on PH and more widely that all EU influence has to be passed into UK legislation.
See House of Commons report linked and discussed earlier this thread. But to save you searching back through the thread link
This report was where the 7% (specifically 6.8%)came from that Clegg quoted in the debates, completely ignoring both the stautory instrumentation bit, 14.1% and the soft laws which don't have to be enacted. Some clearly are, some clearly are not and are simply adopted in working practices or internal department regulations.
Also note the 6.8% and 14.1% figures come from a very quiet period in activity legislatively speaking, principally in the run up to the Lisbon treaty.
Anyway back to your point that all regulations for these soft laws end up in statutory instruments is incorrect as the HoC pointed out below, they were excluded from the figures as it's pretty much impossible to measure them. Clearly specifically mentioned is that it's a move from legislative integration to straightforward cooperation.
As before, we may as a nation decide to continue some of these where it suits and is good practice. But they aren't law.
report said:
2 The impact of non-legislative EU action
This section looks at instruments of EU policy that may shape domestic law but are not easily
counted or their impact readily assessed.
2.1 Soft law and the Open Method of Coordination
EU “soft law” includes the communications, declarations, recommendations, resolutions,
statements, guidelines and special reports of the EU institutions. These are not legally
binding and are often taken forward informally through dialogue and negotiation among the
Member States or between the EU institutions and Member States. The “Open Method of
Coordination” or OMC, which was defined as an instrument of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth
and Jobs by the Lisbon European Council in 2000,23 encourages co-operation, the exchange
of best practice, voluntary harmonisation and the agreement of common targets and
guidelines among Member States.24 In a contribution to the Commission White Paper on
European governance and better law-making in 2001, a Commission Working Group
described the OMC as standing “half way between pure legislative integration and
straightforward cooperation”, adding that “recent experience has shown that the instruments
it offers can be effective in furthering European integration”.25
The OMC may have an impact, but it has to be excluded from any calculations. While there
is evidence of a slight decrease in EU legislative output in recent years, there has been an
increase, particularly since 2000, in EU soft law measures, particularly through the use of the
OMC. Christensen’s graph below shows from 1996 a gradual, small increase in EU
directives, a decrease in EU regulations and a significant increase in EU soft law measures
until 2000, followed by a decline until 2003, albeit at levels still well above average levels
from the 1960s until 1995.26
This section looks at instruments of EU policy that may shape domestic law but are not easily
counted or their impact readily assessed.
2.1 Soft law and the Open Method of Coordination
EU “soft law” includes the communications, declarations, recommendations, resolutions,
statements, guidelines and special reports of the EU institutions. These are not legally
binding and are often taken forward informally through dialogue and negotiation among the
Member States or between the EU institutions and Member States. The “Open Method of
Coordination” or OMC, which was defined as an instrument of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth
and Jobs by the Lisbon European Council in 2000,23 encourages co-operation, the exchange
of best practice, voluntary harmonisation and the agreement of common targets and
guidelines among Member States.24 In a contribution to the Commission White Paper on
European governance and better law-making in 2001, a Commission Working Group
described the OMC as standing “half way between pure legislative integration and
straightforward cooperation”, adding that “recent experience has shown that the instruments
it offers can be effective in furthering European integration”.25
The OMC may have an impact, but it has to be excluded from any calculations. While there
is evidence of a slight decrease in EU legislative output in recent years, there has been an
increase, particularly since 2000, in EU soft law measures, particularly through the use of the
OMC. Christensen’s graph below shows from 1996 a gradual, small increase in EU
directives, a decrease in EU regulations and a significant increase in EU soft law measures
until 2000, followed by a decline until 2003, albeit at levels still well above average levels
from the 1960s until 1995.26
FiF said:
Mrr T said:
You are correct in that most EU law is introduced via regulation. You are wrong in terming these "soft" regulations since they will all pass into UK Law via Statutory Instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_...
Actually not correct. It's true that the majority of EU laws please note the emphasis are dealt with by statutory instruments, with a small % being dealt with by primary legislation, i.e statutes. However we are talking the Open Method of Communication which from 2000 has been a change to the way of working.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_...
It's a common misconception on PH and more widely that all EU influence has to be passed into UK legislation.
Edited by Mrr T on Monday 14th July 12:33
Point spectacularly missed by both of you.
We are generally talking about what has to be done if UK exits the EU.
EU law either in the formof directives or regulations which have been enacted either through statutes or statutory instruments have to be dealt with. Agreed.
It is suggested by people who have studied this that significant influence recently has been through OMC which is not compulsory that it has to be enacted. Some may have been. Some may not.
To deal with that side of things in the event of Brexit is a completely different kettle of fish to dealing with enacted legislation, but the point I am raising is that these 'soft' issues still have to be considered and a decision made. It may be that in some or even many cases we decide that as a nation it makes sense to continue in other cases not.
But it's a mistake in my opinion only considering actual laws. There's a wider picture to be considered.
That is all.
We are generally talking about what has to be done if UK exits the EU.
EU law either in the formof directives or regulations which have been enacted either through statutes or statutory instruments have to be dealt with. Agreed.
It is suggested by people who have studied this that significant influence recently has been through OMC which is not compulsory that it has to be enacted. Some may have been. Some may not.
To deal with that side of things in the event of Brexit is a completely different kettle of fish to dealing with enacted legislation, but the point I am raising is that these 'soft' issues still have to be considered and a decision made. It may be that in some or even many cases we decide that as a nation it makes sense to continue in other cases not.
But it's a mistake in my opinion only considering actual laws. There's a wider picture to be considered.
That is all.
Yes, Guam, but Labour and the Conservatives have had to cope with the Liberals for decades, as you know well, having been a LibDem activist. The Liberals are a worse menace than ever, given that they have less support than ever, but a very good chance of holding the balance of power and remaining in government, despite their diminished support.
None of that changes the fact that more Conservative voters than Labour voters incline towards UKIP, so that there is a real danger that sufficient marginals tip to Labour because of a squeeze in the Conservative vote.
I know you don't care and think the parties are all the same, but not everyone shares your views.
None of that changes the fact that more Conservative voters than Labour voters incline towards UKIP, so that there is a real danger that sufficient marginals tip to Labour because of a squeeze in the Conservative vote.
I know you don't care and think the parties are all the same, but not everyone shares your views.
Zod said:
Yes, Guam, but Labour and the Conservatives have had to cope with the Liberals for decades, as you know well, having been a LibDem activist. The Liberals are a worse menace than ever, given that they have less support than ever, but a very good chance of holding the balance of power and remaining in government, despite their diminished support.
None of that changes the fact that more Conservative voters than Labour voters incline towards UKIP, so that there is a real danger that sufficient marginals tip to Labour because of a squeeze in the Conservative vote.
I know you don't care and think the parties are all the same, but not everyone shares your views.
According to the latest Guardian/ICM poll the Lib-Dems have climbed two points to 12%.None of that changes the fact that more Conservative voters than Labour voters incline towards UKIP, so that there is a real danger that sufficient marginals tip to Labour because of a squeeze in the Conservative vote.
I know you don't care and think the parties are all the same, but not everyone shares your views.
Yeah, that's what I thought. The decimated party on the rise?
They'd tell you anything today, especially if they have an agenda.
And the same poll says UKIP has plummeted? Strange, no one I talk to has changed their voting intentions.
Guam said:
Zod said:
Oh, so you.are in favour of the ECHR. UKIP most definitely is not.
Nice sidestep, I have no feelings either way on the Court, the point is that the Tory party seem about to be riven by this according to Oborne. Where it is pertinent, is in your and others argument that it is UKIP doing the Tories chances down whereas as Many have stated (including me) its about the Tories no one else.If CMD loses it will be down to him and no one else.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff