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

[mike9009]

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. 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’.

We are not an 'independent' nation in the notion you dearly wish for.

[Mrr T]

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.

So what should the UK be doing to achieve the benefits of brexit?

[Gecko1978]

Mrr T said:

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.

So what should the UK be doing to achieve the benefits of brexit?

We would need to become more free market a la Singapore it's not going to happen of course but if you want to be independent you have to act like it an make the UK an attractive proposition. Lower tax to start with (not popular it seems) reducd regulations (so allow chlorine chicken but maybe label it as such), subsidise UK industry as other nations do (not popular). An well likely reduce burden of the state.....which likely means selling off part of the NHS.

[HM-2]

I think you've somewhat misunderstood my contention here.

Vanden Saab said:

You seem to be unaware that we have been converting EU law into UK law without any Parliamentary oversight for almost 50 years

I'm perfectly aware of it, but again this speaks to the difference between primary legislation and secondary legislation such statutory instruments.

Successive UK governments could pass secondary legislation such as SI into UK law that kept the UK's acts/statutes aligned with that of the EU because the executive has power to create delegated legislation without oversight. In instances when EU derived laws were passed as primarily legislation, this saw them drafted as acts of parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. EU law that was directly applicable to the UK but which was not passed as primary or delegated legislation was applied to the UK because EU law had legal primacy over UK law.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 passed EU retained law into UK law as primary, not secondary, legislation. As per the Act, c.16, Clause 1 "Retention of Existing UK Law", Section 7, all three classes of retained EU law (Direct, Principal, and Other according to Section 4) are primary legislation (e.g., "(b)any other primary legislation (so far as it has the power to make such a modification), or"). Generally speaking primary legislation can be amended or modified by Statutory Instruments and other forms of delegated legislation without a new Act being drafted, but Acts cannot be repealed, created in law, or substantively changed- which seems to be what the government intends on doing here.


Now personally speaking I have misgivings about the constitutionality of the government's approach here in the round, but that's not my primary contention. I'm happy to have people with a far deeper understanding British constitutional law than myself argue the toss on that.



My contention is, and always has been, with the suggestion that the UK government should be able to completely rewrite key elements of our regulatory framework without parliamentary oversight via abuse of delegated authority relating to EU retained law. That's not me saying that the government are "going" to do it, or taking issue with the general right of the executive to pass minor legislation. It is simply addressing crankedup5's repeated insistence that the government doing so would be "a good thing" just because he favours the outcomes, which has obvious and explicit chilling effects on democratic integrity.

If this government is able to abuse its parliamentary majority to grant itself the authority to create, substantially amend, or repeal primary legislation without the agreement of the legislature, in this specific instance, then it creates a precedent for future governments to do so in other circumstances.

Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 22 January 09:37

[Mrr T]

Gecko1978 said:

Mrr T said:

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.

So what should the UK be doing to achieve the benefits of brexit?

We would need to become more free market a la Singapore it's not going to happen of course but if you want to be independent you have to act like it an make the UK an attractive proposition. Lower tax to start with (not popular it seems) reducd regulations (so allow chlorine chicken but maybe label it as such), subsidise UK industry as other nations do (not popular). An well likely reduce burden of the state.....which likely means selling off part of the NHS.

Do you know much about Singapore? Its development was largely due to very high levels of immigration. Currently about 25% of the work force is immigrants and immigration remains at about 5.5% per year.

I can only speak for FS but it one of the most highly regulated markets I have ever had to deal with.

Income taxes maybe low but the sin taxes are extortionate.

Singapore also has the benefit of being at the centre of the SE tigers.

I have no issue with chlorinated chicken but will it make up for the affects on UK trade of introducing costs when dealing with our largest trading area?

As for state aid. I remember a time when the UK government spent a lot of money on subsidies. The result the Alergo and the DeLorean.

As for selling of parts of the NHS that was entirely possible when in the EU.

Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 22 January 09:44

[HM-2]

I rather feel that the Brexiteers who extol the virtues of Singapore in a ridiculously idealised way and claim the UK would benefit and prosper by being "more like it" really don't know very much about the city state at all.

Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 22 January 09:51

[PurplePangolin]

HM-2 said:

I rather feel that remainers who extol the virtues of the EU in a ridiculously idealised way and claim the UK would benefit and prosper by being "more like it" really don't know very much about the federal state at all.

Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 22 January 09:51

FTFY

[HM-2]

PurplePangolin said:

HM-2 said:

I rather feel that remainers who extol the virtues of the EU in a ridiculously idealised way and claim the UK would benefit and prosper by being "more like it" really don't know very much about the federal state at all.

Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 22 January 09:51

FTFY

Very good, but the EU isn't a state, it's a political and economic union. The clue is sort of in the name.

[PurplePangolin]

HM-2 said:

PurplePangolin said:

HM-2 said:

I rather feel that remainers who extol the virtues of the EU in a ridiculously idealised way and claim the UK would benefit and prosper by being "more like it" really don't know very much about the federal political and economic union at all.

Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 22 January 09:51

FTFY

Very good, but the EU isn't a state, it's a political and economic union. The clue is sort of in the name.

Well the EU does a very good impression of being a federal state whilst pretending to be a benevolent “union” - some countries in the “union” are more equal than others

[turbobloke]

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.

Almost as strange as remainer irony.

[Gecko1978]

Mrr T said:

Gecko1978 said:

Mrr T said:

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.

So what should the UK be doing to achieve the benefits of brexit?

We would need to become more free market a la Singapore it's not going to happen of course but if you want to be independent you have to act like it an make the UK an attractive proposition. Lower tax to start with (not popular it seems) reducd regulations (so allow chlorine chicken but maybe label it as such), subsidise UK industry as other nations do (not popular). An well likely reduce burden of the state.....which likely means selling off part of the NHS.

Do you know much about Singapore? Its development was largely due to very high levels of immigration. Currently about 25% of the work force is immigrants and immigration remains at about 5.5% per year.

I can only speak for FS but it one of the most highly regulated markets I have ever had to deal with.

Income taxes maybe low but the sin taxes are extortionate.

Singapore also has the benefit of being at the centre of the SE tigers.

I have no issue with chlorinated chicken but will it make up for the affects on UK trade of introducing costs when dealing with our largest trading area?

As for state aid. I remember a time when the UK government spent a lot of money on subsidies. The result the Alergo and the DeLorean.

As for selling of parts of the NHS that was entirely possible when in the EU.

Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 22 January 09:44

Worked in FS in SG for 2 years. Sin tax is not an issue you can simply not sin. What SG does is as you say allow you to work there but there is no state aid. So don't work don't get a safety net. Allegro etc yes but given the high quality of uk engineering we could support EV tech, AI development, alternative energy (fusion) we would invest in infrastructure like 5G (why do we need to buy in the tech etc)

[turbobloke]

PurplePangolin said:

HM-2 said:

PurplePangolin said:

HM-2 said:

I rather feel that remainers who extol the virtues of the EU in a ridiculously idealised way and claim the UK would benefit and prosper by being "more like it" really don't know very much about the federal political and economic union at all.

Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 22 January 09:51

FTFY

Very good, but the EU isn't a state, it's a political and economic union. The clue is sort of in the name.

Well the EU does a very good impression of being a federal state whilst pretending to be a benevolent “union” - some countries in the “union” are more equal than others

After all, what's in an EU name - beyond spin and the willingness to kick a can of worms down the road.

The EU has been part of its own adaptation of the Scottish Play for so long some people have forgotten, or choose to forget....look like the innocent flower but be the serpent under it..

[crankedup5]

blueg33 said:

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?

It’s a review of the legislation introduced in conjunction with our EU membership. We are no longer in the EU therefore that legislation needs to be considered for continued suitability and enforcement. Seems reasonable and sensible.

[Mrr T]

Gecko1978 said:

Mrr T said:

Gecko1978 said:

Mrr T said:

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.

So what should the UK be doing to achieve the benefits of brexit?

We would need to become more free market a la Singapore it's not going to happen of course but if you want to be independent you have to act like it an make the UK an attractive proposition. Lower tax to start with (not popular it seems) reducd regulations (so allow chlorine chicken but maybe label it as such), subsidise UK industry as other nations do (not popular). An well likely reduce burden of the state.....which likely means selling off part of the NHS.

Do you know much about Singapore? Its development was largely due to very high levels of immigration. Currently about 25% of the work force is immigrants and immigration remains at about 5.5% per year.

I can only speak for FS but it one of the most highly regulated markets I have ever had to deal with.

Income taxes maybe low but the sin taxes are extortionate.

Singapore also has the benefit of being at the centre of the SE tigers.

I have no issue with chlorinated chicken but will it make up for the affects on UK trade of introducing costs when dealing with our largest trading area?

As for state aid. I remember a time when the UK government spent a lot of money on subsidies. The result the Alergo and the DeLorean.

As for selling of parts of the NHS that was entirely possible when in the EU.

Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 22 January 09:44

Worked in FS in SG for 2 years. Sin tax is not an issue you can simply not sin. What SG does is as you say allow you to work there but there is no state aid. So don't work don't get a safety net. Allegro etc yes but given the high quality of uk engineering we could support EV tech, AI development, alternative energy (fusion) we would invest in infrastructure like 5G (why do we need to buy in the tech etc)

Your correct but some of us find its hard to not sin and enjoy life. I am sure there are good schemes in the UK which would benefit from state aid. The problem is state aid is political. Say 2 schemes, one high tech in Scotland the other to build a new Alegro in a marginal constituece. Guess which gets funded by the current government. To be fair this applies to both parties.

[Mrr T]

crankedup5 said:

It’s a review of the legislation introduced in conjunction with our EU membership. We are no longer in the EU therefore that legislation needs to be considered for continued suitability and enforcement. Seems reasonable and sensible.

If you read the links its not just legislation it's also case law. There is no reason why such a review should not take place. However, placing an arbitrary time limit which every one agrees cannot be met is stupid. We know brexit has failed to deliver the promised sunny upland promised. Abandoning large amounts of law with no review in the hope something might work is not the best answer.

The fact is there are many hangovers from brexit which will be a part of UK life, maybe in perpetuity.

[HM-2]

PurplePangolin said:

Well the EU does a very good impression of being a federal state

Well not really, given that it fails to meet most of the basic criteria. It has the power to enact legislation but not enforce it, and it has no lawful monopoly in the use of force within its governed territory. In technical terms the EU fits the definition of a "confederation" far better.

turbobloke said:

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.

Almost as strange as remainer irony.

Where's the "irony"? When have I said or suggested anything that makes this "ironic"? Or is this a case of you invoking straw men again?

You really should spend less time throwing stones from your glass house and more actually engaging in discussion.

[TDK-C60]

Brexit architect Farage moans about brain drain.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/16168389...

Interested to hear how that was the fault of remainers too.

No explanations yet on how the deal would have been better if it were not for pesky remainers yet.

[HM-2]

A good question is how to stop the brain drain, given the demographics it typically represents. We've had maybe 5% of those on working in our UK Security team transition to Security functions elsewhere in Europe, and from what I've seen it's not because of their low taxes and minimal regulation.

I suspect the chances of the current government pursuing policies designed to appeal to the disenfranchised, younger, highly educated folk are at or near nil.

[crankedup5]

Mrr T said:

crankedup5 said:

It’s a review of the legislation introduced in conjunction with our EU membership. We are no longer in the EU therefore that legislation needs to be considered for continued suitability and enforcement. Seems reasonable and sensible.

If you read the links its not just legislation it's also case law. There is no reason why such a review should not take place. However, placing an arbitrary time limit which every one agrees cannot be met is stupid. We know brexit has failed to deliver the promised sunny upland promised. Abandoning large amounts of law with no review in the hope something might work is not the best answer.

The fact is there are many hangovers from brexit which will be a part of UK life, maybe in perpetuity.

Getting stuck into the legislation review is not suggesting the bin size being used for the rejected Bills.
We know that brexit revisions are required to enable the U.K. to be in the best position to compete with ROW.
Sure some of the old EU legislation will certainly remain within U.K. on the ‘books’, especially if that is advantageous to the U.K.

Edited by crankedup5 on Sunday 22 January 14:35

[Killboy]

TDK-C60 said:

Brexit architect Farage moans about brain drain.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/16168389...

Interested to hear how that was the fault of remainers too.

No explanations yet on how the deal would have been better if it were not for pesky remainers yet.

Lol. As I said a couple hundred pages back.