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

[turbobloke]

HM-2 said:

Vanden Saab said:

Bloody hilarious bearing in mind very few of the laws involved had any UK Parliamentary scrutiny at all.

Why is this "hilarious"? They were subject to legislative scrutiny in the EU, to which the UK elected MEPs to represent our electorate. The UK also possessed the power to (and frequently did) interpret EU legislation and pass domestic laws to implement it how it saw fit, as well as possessing a veto in many legislative areas, and numerous opt-outs.

I can't help read this as anything other than a red herring, and one that misses the key contention here. EU law on the UK stature books was not forced through by the EC without the consent of the European Parliament, for instance.

That'll be the European Parliament which gets to consider what its boss eurocrats see fit to hand down. With such democracy they were spoiling us.

Essentially a series of rubber stamping exercises, with no opposition to hold the puppet muppet MEPs to account with any meaningful realism, more so when Farage & Co gladly helped to make themselves redundant. A joke by any other name, so yes hilarious.

[Vanden Saab]

HM-2 said:

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.

As i said...

myself said:

We therefore made a law bringing all those laws into effect in the UK as written for a limited time.

And the very next paragraph...

link said:

Retained EU Law was never intended to sit on the statute book indefinitely. The time is now right to end the special status of retained EU Law in the UK statute book on 31st December 2023.

anything else Mr Picky?

[Mortarboard]

Vanden Saab said:

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.

Educate yourself. It not the first time I've posted this link.

https://www.traverssmith.com/knowledge/knowledge-c...

Christ.

M.

[HM-2]

turbobloke said:

That'll be the European Parliament which gets to consider what its boss eurocrats see fit to hand down. With such democracy they were spoiling us.

Your personal opinions on the democratic integrity of the EU are nice and all (though what's described here really isn't that far from the UK's system when you think about it) but I don't think they're quite relevant to the point being made.

Vanden Saab said:

anything else Mr Picky?

I'm just trying to understand why you highlighted Mortarboard's comment saying "they're already UK laws" whilst claiming he "didn't have a clue", given that I don't think anything you posted or linked to actually disagreed with what he's said in this respect?

It rather came across as if you were suggesting that somehow EU retained law was somehow "different" to (or a different class of) domestic law when in reality it has no practical difference.

Also, I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 doesn't place any time limits on the retention of EU law as you seem to suggest in your post.

Edited by HM-2 on Saturday 21st January 15:46

[Vanden Saab]

Mortarboard said:

Vanden Saab said:

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.

Educate yourself. It not the first time I've posted this link.

https://www.traverssmith.com/knowledge/knowledge-c...

Christ.

M.

your link said:

However, following the end of the Brexit transition period, that snapshot was immediately altered by UK legislation (including hundreds of statutory instruments) so as to effectively subtract or amend certain parts of EU law

Oh...What education do i need, Can you point out any of what you have quoted from myself above as incorrect?

Once again, EU law had effect due to the 1972 treaty they were never UK law, when we left the treaty we bought the laws that had effect as a result of that treaty into UK law until they could be altered to suit the UK.

[crankedup5]

Must confess this thread was so much more interesting and fun when we talked about fish and shellfish. Skimming through ‘M’s travers link which contains some useful and interesting facts, but blimey it’s hard work and dull for me. No wonder Lawyers can earn big bucks

For me I can’t see where the argument is on the issue, Government decision taken and we simply need to get on with it. I’ve said before that it’s a perverse situation to have EU ,egislation governing us when we are no longer members of EU.

Edited by crankedup5 on Saturday 21st January 15:50

[Mortarboard]

Vanden Saab said:

Oh...What education do i need, Can you point out any of what you have quoted from myself above as incorrect?

Once again, EU law had effect due to the 1972 treaty they were never UK law, when we left the treaty we bought the laws that had effect as a result of that treaty into UK law until they could be altered to suit the UK.

English comprehension for a start.

There is no "European laws" any more in the UK.
The regs being scrapped are UK regs.

FFS.

M.

[Vanden Saab]

HM-2 said:

turbobloke said:

That'll be the European Parliament which gets to consider what its boss eurocrats see fit to hand down. With such democracy they were spoiling us.

Your personal opinions on the democratic integrity of the EU are nice and all (though what's described here really isn't that far from the UK's system when you think about it) but I don't think they're quite relevant to the point being made.

Vanden Saab said:

anything else Mr Picky?

I'm just trying to understand why you highlighted Mortarboard's comment saying "they're already UK laws" whilst claiming he "didn't have a clue", given that I don't think anything you posted or linked to actually disagreed with what he's said?

It rather came across as if you were suggesting that somehow EU retained law was somehow "different" to (or a different class of) domestic law when in reality it has no practical difference.

Once again you fail at reading and/or comprehension as I did not highlight anything...HTH.

[blueg33]

crankedup5 said:

Must confess this thread was so much more interesting and fun when we talked about fish and shellfish. Skimming through ‘M’s travers link which contains some useful and interesting facts, but blimey it’s hard work and dull for me. No wonder Lawyers can earn big bucks

For me I can’t see where the argument is on the issue, Government decision taken and we simply need to get on with it. I’ve said before that it’s a perverse situation to have EU ,egislation governing us when we are no longer members of EU.

Edited by crankedup5 on Saturday 21st January 15:50

Get on with what?

[Mortarboard]

crankedup5 said:

Must confess this thread was so much more interesting and fun when we talked about fish and shellfish. Skimming through ‘M’s travers link which contains some useful and interesting facts, but blimey it’s hard work and dull for me. No wonder Lawyers can earn big bucks

Can't disagree with you there

crankedup5 said:

For me I can’t see where the argument is on the issue, Government decision taken and we simply need to get on with it. I’ve said before that it’s a perverse situation to have EU ,egislation governing us when we are no longer members of EU.

Edited by crankedup5 on Saturday 21st January 15:50

No one is disagreeing with that. It's the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach that's the problem.

M.

[HM-2]

Vanden Saab said:

Once again you fail at reading and/or comprehension as I did not highlight anything...HTH.

My mistake, I hadn't noticed the bold was in the original post, thought the emphasis was yours.

Still, the rest of my point stands.

[Mrr T]

crankedup5 said:

Must confess this thread was so much more interesting and fun when we talked about fish and shellfish. Skimming through ‘M’s travers link which contains some useful and interesting facts, but blimey it’s hard work and dull for me. No wonder Lawyers can earn big bucks

For me I can’t see where the argument is on the issue, Government decision taken and we simply need to get on with it. I’ve said before that it’s a perverse situation to have EU ,egislation governing us when we are no longer members of EU.

Edited by crankedup5 on Saturday 21st January 15:50

I would agree its an excellent link. It also contains a link to a discussion on the current legislation.

Reading both it seems the link previously provided by VS is not a list of law to replace since it seems FS regulation are not covered. So ignore my previous comment on FS items.

What is clear is this is not some bonfire of EU derived legislation (and EU derived case law) to lead some sunny uplands. But a rather ill conceived attempt to look as if the government is doing something while actually just creating unnecessary confusion and deadlines.

Confusion in law is a bad thing for everyone except lawyers.

[Mortarboard]

And to add to that, there is heavy lobbying going on to use this as an opportunity to dump regulations the lobbyists don't like.

For example, there's a huge push to exempt self employed and firms with single digit numbers of employees from huge swathes of safety regulations.

So christ knows what other stuff is being done in other sectors.

M.

[crankedup5]

Mortarboard said:

crankedup5 said:

Must confess this thread was so much more interesting and fun when we talked about fish and shellfish. Skimming through ‘M’s travers link which contains some useful and interesting facts, but blimey it’s hard work and dull for me. No wonder Lawyers can earn big bucks

Can't disagree with you there

crankedup5 said:

For me I can’t see where the argument is on the issue, Government decision taken and we simply need to get on with it. I’ve said before that it’s a perverse situation to have EU ,egislation governing us when we are no longer members of EU.

Edited by crankedup5 on Saturday 21st January 15:50

No one is disagreeing with that. It's the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach that's the problem.

M.

I understand that, for me the approach is correct, get rid of the EU legislation opening up a more competitive market for, in particular, SME.

[crankedup5]

blueg33 said:

crankedup5 said:

Must confess this thread was so much more interesting and fun when we talked about fish and shellfish. Skimming through ‘M’s travers link which contains some useful and interesting facts, but blimey it’s hard work and dull for me. No wonder Lawyers can earn big bucks

For me I can’t see where the argument is on the issue, Government decision taken and we simply need to get on with it. I’ve said before that it’s a perverse situation to have EU ,egislation governing us when we are no longer members of EU.

Edited by crankedup5 on Saturday 21st January 15:50

Get on with what?

In context of the last few pages I would have thought that was obvious, clearly not.
Going through old outdated EU legislation and dumping what is not wanted / appropriate for the U.K.

[crankedup5]

Mrr T said:

crankedup5 said:

Must confess this thread was so much more interesting and fun when we talked about fish and shellfish. Skimming through ‘M’s travers link which contains some useful and interesting facts, but blimey it’s hard work and dull for me. No wonder Lawyers can earn big bucks

For me I can’t see where the argument is on the issue, Government decision taken and we simply need to get on with it. I’ve said before that it’s a perverse situation to have EU ,egislation governing us when we are no longer members of EU.

Edited by crankedup5 on Saturday 21st January 15:50

I would agree its an excellent link. It also contains a link to a discussion on the current legislation.

Reading both it seems the link previously provided by VS is not a list of law to replace since it seems FS regulation are not covered. So ignore my previous comment on FS items.

What is clear is this is not some bonfire of EU derived legislation (and EU derived case law) to lead some sunny uplands. But a rather ill conceived attempt to look as if the government is doing something while actually just creating unnecessary confusion and deadlines.

Confusion in law is a bad thing for everyone except lawyers.

Yup, it’s business as usual so far as politics is concerned, and that is what it is politics. However it is on the road to brexit and our Independance. Government, and the next Government will need to be seen to continue ‘on this road’ . Keep saying it, it will take many years to unwind our past EU membership and build new trade relationships with ROW and EU.

[HM-2]

crankedup5 said:

I understand that, for me the approach is correct, get rid of the EU legislation opening up a more competitive market for, in particular, SME.

This is where the second issue rears its ugly head. Even if the current government really did have a mandate to deregulate for a more competitive market (and it's highly questionable after PM number 3, a ministerial revolving door, wild divergence from their 2019 manifesto, and their lowest level of support in modern history that they do), surely you would want that legislation subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny?

It's one thing re-passing mildly tweaked pieces of existing legislation without legislative oversight, it's quite another seeking to fundamentally change the UK's regulatory environment.

[blueg33]

crankedup5 said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup5 said:

Must confess this thread was so much more interesting and fun when we talked about fish and shellfish. Skimming through ‘M’s travers link which contains some useful and interesting facts, but blimey it’s hard work and dull for me. No wonder Lawyers can earn big bucks

For me I can’t see where the argument is on the issue, Government decision taken and we simply need to get on with it. I’ve said before that it’s a perverse situation to have EU ,egislation governing us when we are no longer members of EU.

Edited by crankedup5 on Saturday 21st January 15:50

Get on with what?

In context of the last few pages I would have thought that was obvious, clearly not.
Going through old outdated EU legislation and dumping what is not wanted / appropriate for the U.K.

You mean all the legislation that we voted for?

[turbobloke]

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

I understand that, for me the approach is correct, get rid of the EU legislation opening up a more competitive market for, in particular, SME.

This is where the second issue rears its ugly head. Even if the current government really did have a mandate to deregulate for a more competitive market (and it's highly questionable after PM number 3, a ministerial revolving door, wild divergence from their 2019 manifesto, and their lowest level of support in modern history that they do), surely you would want that legislation subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny?

It's one thing re-passing mildly tweaked pieces of existing legislation without legislative oversight, it's quite another seeking to fundamentally change the UK's regulatory environment.

crankedup5 makes a good point.

Meanwhile, all that rhetoric ^ may float your remainer boat, however, an elected government dealing with the result of a referendum which set no constraints in the question on the ballot paper, certainly does have a mandate.

PM changes, opinion polls, it suits your position to mention sjch things, but they have nothing to offer beyond damp cardboard comfort to the disappointed who don't like the referendum outcome.

Wait and see what the exalted leader-in-waiting Starmer has to say. I'd change that to 'has to offer', but that implies too much action for a protest movement leader. If he gets in and keeps hiking the state pension for a few more years, that'll be nice for some people. If anyone thinks he could take the UK back into the EU, why not get over to Bill Hill and bet the farm.

[HM-2]

turbobloke said:

Meanwhile, all that rhetoric ^ may float your remainer boat

What rhetoric?

turbobloke said:

dealing with the result of a referendum which set no constraints in the question on the ballot paper

The "constraints in the question on the ballot paper" were simply whether the voter supported leaving or remaining in the EU. To try and insinuate a vote to leave meant support for the government to unilaterally and without legislative oversight change the UK regulatory environment is incomprehensible.

turbobloke said:

PM changes, opinion polls, it suits your position to mention sjch things

I really think you've missed the point here. You can't pick and choose whether you agree with the fundamental democratic processes that underpin the UK's political system based solely on whether the mood music is hostile to, or supportive of your personal ideology. By indicating that you support the current government bypassing the legislature to get rid of nasty EU retained law you neither like nor understand, you're essentially saying that you believe any government should be able to create primary legislation without parliamentary scrutiny, which renders the entire parliamentary system null and void.

Is that really what you believe? I can't for one moment think you would embrace, say, a Labour government passing legislation that picked your pocket to increase welfare spending without it ever getting a reading, debate or amendment. Or a future government deciding to rejoin the EU without putting it to Parliament.

Edited by HM-2 on Saturday 21st January 20:27