Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 3)

[HM-2]

crankedup5 said:

Whichever way it’s cut the U.K. cannot and will not be Governed via outdated EU legislation

First it was "ponderous" and "expensive", now it's "outdated"? At this rate you're going to run out of adjectives long before people run out of arguments against them

One wonders how obsolete EU retained legislation really is given quite a lot of it seems to be being re-passed in almost unamended form, but then again I suspect your contention here isn't really with the legislation at all, and merely with it's association with the EU.

crankedup5 said:

some wag suggesting that leaving the EU was ¥§<€}[<.

Wag?
¥§<€}[<?

Er, what?

[crankedup5]

TDK-C60 said:

crankedup5 said:

A ‘real brexiteers brexit’ ? when are you going to stop posting such nonsense?

Andy is clear he thinks “his” brexit was spoiled by remainers.

He should be able to explain how it would have been better if it weren’t for those pesky remainers.

Who can forget the ‘brexit war’ following the referendum, in here I had one poster aim his post at me writing ‘I hope you die soon’. I didn’t report it but really I should have done so. That’s how toxic exchanges were in public between the two factions, have to say it’s mellowed down somewhat now , thankfully.
The ‘brexit war’ was also fiery in the upper echelons of Parliament. That’s died down now and we have both Starmer and Sunak (a brexiteer) on the road to brexit deliverance

[TDK-C60]

crankedup5 said:

TDK-C60 said:

crankedup5 said:

A ‘real brexiteers brexit’ ? when are you going to stop posting such nonsense?

Andy is clear he thinks “his” brexit was spoiled by remainers.

He should be able to explain how it would have been better if it weren’t for those pesky remainers.

Who can forget the ‘brexit war’ following the referendum, in here I had one poster aim his post at me writing ‘I hope you die soon’. I didn’t report it but really I should have done so. That’s how toxic exchanges were in public between the two factions, have to say it’s mellowed down somewhat now , thankfully.
The ‘brexit war’ was also fiery in the upper echelons of Parliament. That’s died down now and we have both Starmer and Sunak (a brexiteer) on the road to brexit deliverance

That doesn't answer the question as to "how his brexit would have been better if not for the pesky remainers".

I'd be interested to see what he thinks would have been different and why.

May be you think it would have been better too. Can you explain why/how?

[crankedup5]

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

Whichever way it’s cut the U.K. cannot and will not be Governed via outdated EU legislation

First it was "ponderous" and "expensive", now it's "outdated"? At this rate you're going to run out of adjectives long before people run out of arguments against them

One wonders how obsolete EU retained legislation really is given quite a lot of it seems to be being re-passed in almost unamended form, but then again I suspect your contention here isn't really with the legislation at all, and merely with it's association with the EU.

crankedup5 said:

some wag suggesting that leaving the EU was ¥§<€}[<.

Wag?
¥§<€}[<?

Er, what?

I have said all along that much of the legislative stuff will be kept in place, but U.K. has to re-process this legislation ensuring it’s appropriate use now we are a non EU member.
Posters are wavering between your ‘almost in amended form’ to the hyperbolic doomsday scenario. It’s simply a revision process.

[crankedup5]

TDK-C60 said:

crankedup5 said:

TDK-C60 said:

crankedup5 said:

A ‘real brexiteers brexit’ ? when are you going to stop posting such nonsense?

Andy is clear he thinks “his” brexit was spoiled by remainers.

He should be able to explain how it would have been better if it weren’t for those pesky remainers.

Who can forget the ‘brexit war’ following the referendum, in here I had one poster aim his post at me writing ‘I hope you die soon’. I didn’t report it but really I should have done so. That’s how toxic exchanges were in public between the two factions, have to say it’s mellowed down somewhat now , thankfully.
The ‘brexit war’ was also fiery in the upper echelons of Parliament. That’s died down now and we have both Starmer and Sunak (a brexiteer) on the road to brexit deliverance

That doesn't answer the question as to "how his brexit would have been better if not for the pesky remainers".

I'd be interested to see what he thinks would have been different and why.

May be you think it would have been better too. Can you explain why/how?

Each person will have their own opinions, I’m not about to enter into your problem solving game.

[HM-2]

crankedup5 said:

I have said all along that much of the legislative stuff will be kept in place, but U.K. has to re-process this legislation ensuring it’s appropriate use now we are a non EU member.

If this is the case, then why the arbitrary time limit? Surely the rational process, if your primary intent was maximising the integrity and efficacy of ensuing legislation would be:

1) Identify all relevant legislation
2) Make a determination of what can be retained in UK law, versus what needs repeal, replacement or modification
3) THEN set a sensible time limit to complete this process in.

Setting the arbitrary time limit before you even know what you're dealing with is a patently absurd approach for a government seeking to maximise the efficacy or law. It can only be explained by a desire to be seem to "do something" about retained EU law before they're booted out at the next election, in the hope they can claim it as a victory before the Tories are roundly annihilated.

crankedup5 said:

Posters are wavering between your ‘almost in amended form’ to the hyperbolic doomsday scenario.

The concerns around the lack of legislature oversight and the sheer amount that needs to be done in 11 months aren't unfounded. They're also coming from almost all of those actually involved in the process, Brexiteer or Remainer alike.

The government is vanishingly unlikely to address all EU retained legislation before the cut off and I think people are quite reasonable to be worried about the repercussions if that. It's not like our current administration (or it's predecessors) has a track record of working in the best interests of the majority of citizens, is it?

[TDK-C60]

crankedup5 said:

Each person will have their own opinions, I’m not about to enter into your problem solving game.

I take it that either means you don't think "remainers spoiled your brexit", or you can't explain.

Andy seems to. Maybe he will explain on how he thought it would have been "better".

I'm not hopeful the theory will be convincing but you never know.

[Killboy]

We're nearly at volume 4! I'm sure it will be worth it soon!

[crankedup5]

TDK-C60 said:

crankedup5 said:

TDK-C60 said:

crankedup5 said:

A ‘real brexiteers brexit’ ? when are you going to stop posting such nonsense?

Andy is clear he thinks “his” brexit was spoiled by remainers.

He should be able to explain how it would have been better if it weren’t for those pesky remainers.

Who can forget the ‘brexit war’ following the referendum, in here I had one poster aim his post at me writing ‘I hope you die soon’. I didn’t report it but really I should have done so. That’s how toxic exchanges were in public between the two factions, have to say it’s mellowed down somewhat now , thankfully.
The ‘brexit war’ was also fiery in the upper echelons of Parliament. That’s died down now and we have both Starmer and Sunak (a brexiteer) on the road to brexit deliverance

That doesn't answer the question as to "how his brexit would have been better if not for the pesky remainers".

I'd be interested to see what he thinks would have been different and why.

May be you think it would have been better too. Can you explain why/how?

You need to pester Andy perhaps. And I’m not going to be drawn into your question.

[Mortarboard]

Vanden Saab said:

Some of this law has UK equivalence already and can be safely removed, some needs to be transcribed into UK law with the EU references removed and the rest can be removed as it no longer has any relevance now we have left. The whole they are going to bin all workers rights thing is just more scaremongering from the usual suspects as shown by the two examples they have quoted.

Knew you hadn't a scooby.

The laws being scrapped are already uk laws. The legislation has been passed to scrap them in their entirety on Dec 31st this year

If we want to avoid the stupidity, then between now and then, the UK government has to review, ammend and re-write all those laws it wants to keep in whole or in part.
On top of that, legal firms reckon it'll also take about 1,000 pieces of completely new new legislation.

So that ammend 2,500 pieces, come up with 1,000 new ones, and all in (checks calendar) 344 days.
For reference, HMG averages 100 per year.

You say "oh but they won't scrap it!"

They already bloody have set it in motion. The only saving grace is (1)the scrapping might/probably be repealed when the penny drops or (2) those pieces of legislation get to be some of the lucky ones that actually get reviewed & retained by the end of the year.

M.

[TDK-C60]

crankedup5 said:

You need to pester Andy perhaps. And I’m not going to be drawn into your question.

I don't blame you. Have a nice day.

[crankedup5]

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

I have said all along that much of the legislative stuff will be kept in place, but U.K. has to re-process this legislation ensuring it’s appropriate use now we are a non EU member.

If this is the case, then why the arbitrary time limit? Surely the rational process, if your primary intent was maximising the integrity and efficacy of ensuing legislation would be:

1) Identify all relevant legislation
2) Make a determination of what can be retained in UK law, versus what needs repeal, replacement or modification
3) THEN set a sensible time limit to complete this process in.

Setting the arbitrary time limit before you even know what you're dealing with is a patently absurd approach for a government seeking to maximise the efficacy or law. It can only be explained by a desire to be seem to "do something" about retained EU law before they're booted out at the next election, in the hope they can claim it as a victory before the Tories are roundly annihilated.

crankedup5 said:

Posters are wavering between your ‘almost in amended form’ to the hyperbolic doomsday scenario.

The concerns around the lack of legislature oversight and the sheer amount that needs to be done in 11 months aren't unfounded. They're also coming from almost all of those actually involved in the process, Brexiteer or Remainer alike.

The government is vanishingly unlikely to address all EU retained legislation before the cut off and I think people are quite reasonable to be worried about the repercussions if that. It's not like our current administration (or it's predecessors) has a track record of working in the best interests of the majority of citizens, is it?

I have no further argument either way tbh, Government has announced its intentions and getting on with it. As always differences of opinion abound both within Parliament and the wider public. My thoughts I have already expressed, other opinions may differ.

[Mortarboard]

blueg33 said:

My son is currently working on the Damien Hirst Demon at Greenwich. His PPE includes: oxygen fed mask, ear protection, had, gloves , fireproof trousers, fireproof top, harness for fall arrest etc. how could he afford to pay for that stuff himself?

If he's a direct employee, i.e. his daily work instructions come from the same entity that issues his pay, then he's good.

If he's employed via an intermediary, then tough tittay.
If he's an independent contractor, he's already responsible for his own PPE anyway.

But hey, VS reckons it'll all be fine, innit. This government is just the smartest evar.

(the 1974 act will survive though, so the PPE will still be a legal requirement. Might be more lead & asbestos about in the future though, so make sure he keeps his respirator in good nick)

Personally, I find when reading some of the excuses for the stupidity around brexit, if you look through a "pro-tory" lens the arguments make much more sense

M.

[Mortarboard]

HM-2 said:

1) Identify all relevant legislation
2) Make a determination of what can be retained in UK law, versus what needs repeal, replacement or modification
3) THEN set a sensible time limit to complete this process in.

Probably might want to consider adding a few resources to do so - it's the equivalent of 35 years of legislative work.

Perhaps a specific visa category might help recruitment is bodies are hard to come by?

M.

[blueg33]

Mortarboard said:

blueg33 said:

My son is currently working on the Damien Hirst Demon at Greenwich. His PPE includes: oxygen fed mask, ear protection, had, gloves , fireproof trousers, fireproof top, harness for fall arrest etc. how could he afford to pay for that stuff himself?

If he's a direct employee, i.e. his daily work instructions come from the same entity that issues his pay, then he's good.

If he's employed via an intermediary, then tough tittay.
If he's an independent contractor, he's already responsible for his own PPE anyway.

But hey, VS reckons it'll all be fine, innit. This government is just the smartest evar.

(the 1974 act will survive though, so the PPE will still be a legal requirement. Might be more lead & asbestos about in the future though, so make sure he keeps his respirator in good nick)

Personally, I find when reading some of the excuses for the stupidity around brexit, if you look through a "pro-tory" lens the arguments make much more sense

M.

He is directly employed.

[Mortarboard]

Bingo!

As if on queue, it's the remainers fault again!
https://twitter.com/TiceRichard/status/16163248547...

M.

[Mortarboard]

blueg33 said:

He is directly employed.

He's good then

M.

[Vanden Saab]

Mortarboard said:

Vanden Saab said:

Some of this law has UK equivalence already and can be safely removed, some needs to be transcribed into UK law with the EU references removed and the rest can be removed as it no longer has any relevance now we have left. The whole they are going to bin all workers rights thing is just more scaremongering from the usual suspects as shown by the two examples they have quoted.

Knew you hadn't a scooby.

The laws being scrapped are already uk laws. The legislation has been passed to scrap them in their entirety on Dec 31st this year

If we want to avoid the stupidity, then between now and then, the UK government has to review, ammend and re-write all those laws it wants to keep in whole or in part.
On top of that, legal firms reckon it'll also take about 1,000 pieces of completely new new legislation.

So that ammend 2,500 pieces, come up with 1,000 new ones, and all in (checks calendar) 344 days.
For reference, HMG averages 100 per year.

You say "oh but they won't scrap it!"

They already bloody have set it in motion. The only saving grace is (1)the scrapping might/probably be repealed when the penny drops or (2) those pieces of legislation get to be some of the lucky ones that actually get reviewed & retained by the end of the year.

M.

Oh how embarrassing for you, saying I do not have a scooby when it is you that does not understand.

Here read this then You might understand.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eu-legislation-and-...
and also this
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-retained-eu...

TLDR
EU law ran separately to UK law, the 1972 treaty meant it had effect in the UK. Regulations and decisions had direct effect while directives had to have UK laws passed to enact them.
It is the direct effect laws we are talking about.
When we left all the EU law would have no longer been valid as the treaty was repealed.
We therefore made a law bringing all those laws into effect in the UK as written for a limited time.
We are now going through those laws and leaving some as is, changing some to suit the UK or binning them altogether.
2023 is not a hard deadline as the bill provides for some law to remain as late as 2026 if needed.
Any EU law that is not 'sorted' will become assimilated law at the end of 2023 and will be dealt with later.
No existing laws will 'fall off the grid' and just be scrapped without review.
HTH.

[HM-2]

Vanden Saab said:

Oh how embarrassing for you, saying I do not have a scooby when it is you that does not understand.

Second paragraph:

"Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law created at the end of the transition period and consists of EU-derived legislation that was preserved in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018."

So the link you provided affirms that retained law is, indeed, domestic UK law.

[crankedup5]

Vanden Saab said:

Mortarboard said:

Vanden Saab said:

Some of this law has UK equivalence already and can be safely removed, some needs to be transcribed into UK law with the EU references removed and the rest can be removed as it no longer has any relevance now we have left. The whole they are going to bin all workers rights thing is just more scaremongering from the usual suspects as shown by the two examples they have quoted.

Knew you hadn't a scooby.

The laws being scrapped are already uk laws. The legislation has been passed to scrap them in their entirety on Dec 31st this year

If we want to avoid the stupidity, then between now and then, the UK government has to review, ammend and re-write all those laws it wants to keep in whole or in part.
On top of that, legal firms reckon it'll also take about 1,000 pieces of completely new new legislation.

So that ammend 2,500 pieces, come up with 1,000 new ones, and all in (checks calendar) 344 days.
For reference, HMG averages 100 per year.

You say "oh but they won't scrap it!"

They already bloody have set it in motion. The only saving grace is (1)the scrapping might/probably be repealed when the penny drops or (2) those pieces of legislation get to be some of the lucky ones that actually get reviewed & retained by the end of the year.

M.

Oh how embarrassing for you, saying I do not have a scooby when it is you that does not understand.

Here read this then You might understand.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eu-legislation-and-...
and also this
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-retained-eu...

TLDR
EU law ran separately to UK law, the 1972 treaty meant it had effect in the UK. Regulations and decisions had direct effect while directives had to have UK laws passed to enact them.
It is the direct effect laws we are talking about.
When we left all the EU law would have no longer been valid as the treaty was repealed.
We therefore made a law bringing all those laws into effect in the UK as written for a limited time.
We are now going through those laws and leaving some as is, changing some to suit the UK or binning them altogether.
2023 is not a hard deadline as the bill provides for some law to remain as late as 2026 if needed.
Any EU law that is not 'sorted' will become assimilated law at the end of 2023 and will be dealt with later.
No existing laws will 'fall off the grid' and just be scrapped without review.
HTH.

That really should clear up the misgivings raised by posters in here regarding the legislation sieving.The thing is of course some people did not want to leave the EU and will need to find faults anddownsides with everything and anything related to brexit.
This ‘debate’ could end up lasting forever. That’s fair enough if it keeps those who represent us in Parliament on their toes, whichever side of the debate one falls.