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

[turbobloke]

HM-2 said:

turbobloke said:

Meanwhile, all that rhetoric ^ may float your remainer boat

What rhetoric?

I wasn't referring to, and didn't mention, anything regarding scrutiny, so - as happens - you made up something about what you think someone else thinks.

Wrong.

There were no constraints on the ballit paper as to what either Remain or Leave would entail, beyond remaining or leaving, hence no constraints there.

[Vanden Saab]

Mortarboard said:

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.

Do you have a source for this?

[Mortarboard]

Vanden Saab said:

Mortarboard said:

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.

Do you have a source for this?

Industry. It's a resurgence following previous attempts 5-10 years ago. Some token efforts were already put into play.

But lobbyists tend not to put their plans in full public view

M.

[Vanden Saab]

Mortarboard said:

Vanden Saab said:

Mortarboard said:

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.

Do you have a source for this?

Industry. It's a resurgence following previous attempts 5-10 years ago. Some token efforts were already put into play.

But lobbyists tend not to put their plans in full public view

M.

No, would have been quicker to type.

[Mortarboard]

Vanden Saab said:

No, would have been quicker to type.

Yes you mean, just not a nice link for you to ignore

If you wanted, you could look up the Grayling or Loftsted reviews. Which led to the previous push

M.

[HM-2]

turbobloke said:

I wasn't referring to, and didn't mention, anything regarding scrutiny

You don't need to mention it, it's an implicit inference from your comments.

turbobloke said:

IThere were no constraints on the ballit paper

Because the ballot paper asked a binary yes or no question. It doesn't give government carte blanche to pass whatever primary legislation they want, without parliamentary oversight, under the pretext of "upholding the brexit vote".

[Vanden Saab]

HM-2 said:

turbobloke said:

I wasn't referring to, and didn't mention, anything regarding scrutiny

You don't need to mention it, it's an implicit inference from your comments.

turbobloke said:

IThere were no constraints on the ballit paper

Because the ballot paper asked a binary yes or no question. It doesn't give government carte blanche to pass whatever primary legislation they want, without parliamentary oversight, under the pretext of "upholding the brexit vote".

Strange how strong on Sovereignty remainers have become all of a sudden now they think the wrong people are avoiding it.

[TDK-C60]

turbobloke said:

There were no constraints on the ballit paper as to what either Remain or Leave would entail, beyond remaining or leaving, hence no constraints there.

Does that mean remainers and brexiters were both able to shape the outcome equally then - if there were no constraints on the ballot paper?

Or do you think "remainers" spoiled your brexit?

[HM-2]

Vanden Saab said:

Strange how strong on Sovereignty remainers have become all of a sudden now they think the wrong people are avoiding it.

Strange how you can only muster red herrings and whataboutism rather than a rebuttal.

[crankedup5]

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.

Going around in circles here, what you call proper Parliamentary scrutiny. I call it getting the job done. This circle cannot be closed until that work is complete.

[crankedup5]

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.

All I can say is that the U.K. has fundamentally changed its Global position in the trading World from an EU member to a i dependant, can’t see the advantage in prolonging yesteryear. That means adjusting our very foundation of trade, legislation and values to compete with ROW.

[Vanden Saab]

HM-2 said:

Vanden Saab said:

Strange how strong on Sovereignty remainers have become all of a sudden now they think the wrong people are avoiding it.

Strange how you can only muster red herrings and whataboutism rather than a rebuttal.

Kai su, teknon

[HM-2]

crankedup5 said:

Going around in circles here, what you call proper Parliamentary scrutiny. I call it getting the job done.

So the answer appears to be yes, you do approve of undermining the core values and functions of our democratic system...if it gets you the result you want.

[crankedup5]

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

Going around in circles here, what you call proper Parliamentary scrutiny. I call it getting the job done.

So the answer appears to be yes, you do approve of undermining the core values and functions of our democratic system...if it gets you the result you want.

The result I wanted was achieved back in 2016, what follows now is the adjustment from being a former EU member back to an independent Nation once again. I do not agree with your ‘undermining the core values and functions’ . Brass neck statement after the shenanigans following the referendum by remainers seeking ‘extra democracy’.

[HM-2]

crankedup5 said:

The result I wanted was achieved back in 2016, what follows now is the adjustment from being a former EU member back to an independent Nation once again.

Lovely rhetoric, but completely irrelevant to any point I've made.

crankedup5 said:

I do not agree with your ‘undermining the core values and functions’ .

Parliamentary supremacy is a core tenet of the UK's political system. If you advocate that the executive is able to pass into law primary legislation without the involvement of the legislature- which you have- then you are explicitly seeking to undermine this.

crankedup5 said:

by remainers seeking ‘extra democracy’.

I'm not seeking "extra democracy", I'm suggesting that allowing the executive to bypass the legislature when crafting and passing primary legislation is a violation of our current democratic process and sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

[Mortarboard]

crankedup5 said:

All I can say is that the U.K. has fundamentally changed its Global position in the trading World from an EU member to a i dependant, can’t see the advantage in prolonging yesteryear. That means adjusting our very foundation of trade, legislation and values to compete with ROW.

Fully agree with you.

Uk has to start doing stuff differently if it wants to gain any benefit from brexit. Doing the same old same old is going to lead to ruin in this new environment.

Uk needs to start taking it seriously, instead of looking to make political hay.

M.

[crankedup5]

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

The result I wanted was achieved back in 2016, what follows now is the adjustment from being a former EU member back to an independent Nation once again.

Lovely rhetoric, but completely irrelevant to any point I've made.

crankedup5 said:

I do not agree with your ‘undermining the core values and functions’ .

Parliamentary supremacy is a core tenet of the UK's political system. If you advocate that the executive is able to pass into law primary legislation without the involvement of the legislature- which you have- then you are explicitly seeking to undermine this.

crankedup5 said:

by remainers seeking ‘extra democracy’.

I'm not seeking "extra democracy", I'm suggesting that allowing the executive to bypass the legislature when crafting and passing primary legislation is a violation of our current democratic process and sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

Not enough MPs were supporting your cause, end of. It is as simple as that.

[crankedup5]

Mortarboard said:

crankedup5 said:

All I can say is that the U.K. has fundamentally changed its Global position in the trading World from an EU member to a i dependant, can’t see the advantage in prolonging yesteryear. That means adjusting our very foundation of trade, legislation and values to compete with ROW.

Fully agree with you.

Uk has to start doing stuff differently if it wants to gain any benefit from brexit. Doing the same old same old is going to lead to ruin in this new environment.

Uk needs to start taking it seriously, instead of looking to make political hay.

M.

Refreshing to read.

[HM-2]

crankedup5 said:

Not enough MPs were supporting your cause, end of. It is as simple as that.

And presumably on this basis you'd be fine with MPs giving themselves broad immunity from criminal prosecution? Or scrapping elections entirely?

[Vanden Saab]

HM-2 said:

I'm not seeking "extra democracy", I'm suggesting that allowing the executive to bypass the legislature when crafting and passing primary legislation is a violation of our current democratic process and sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

It did but we have sorted it now by leaving the EU. You seem to be unaware that we have been converting EU law into UK law without any Parliamentary oversight for almost 50 years mainly by the same process now being used to amend it to suit the UK better. It is amusing that you are now so upset that the same law is being altered by the same means as it was initially put on the statute books.
I really struggle with the amount of mental gymnastics that must be required to reach the view that it was ok to do it initially when the law was passed but is so shockingly wrong now they are being modified.