nauseus

Rubbish as usual.

Surely an upstanding nation like the UK could not even consider rejoining this corrupt EU, now exposed again, with its Panzeris down?

trend of decline.

Of course it is.....just as the labor force participation rate continues its trend of decline. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

It will be truly amazing if these wonder products of debt truly do benefit the masses and I'm sure that after shaking new leaves off the magic money tree, the Dems won't be cutting any taxes. ????

Money spent on infrastructure will not necessarily benefit everyone. Tax breaks are not part of this latest mad spending, so no need to include them.

This ‘Welfare Queen’ State categorization is too simplistic and does not consider budgets, income inequalities, poverty and unemployment within each state. The recent excessive spending by Democratic regimes involves trillions more dollars not allocated to individual states.

Uncontrolled spending.

Well make your mind up.

That's what I thought. Anyway, it seems there are at least another 1400 similar laws to add to the 2400 previously quoted. This Bill abolishes the principle of supremacy of EU law in UK law, however, elements of (EU) law are expected be retained (restated) as UK law.

Looks like most of those red things got lost on Pattaya Nua instead? But my memory is not what it was!

So what is the solution then?

The reality of this 'system' is that a majority bloc of countries, allied by similar interests, hold the most influence in the EU Commission as well as the Council, plus a rather regular overall voting majority in the parliament. That is how the EU is and how it has always been.

As is your eagerness to ignore the biggest giveaway of Parliamentary sovereignty ever. Bye.

So you'd rather take another 20 years going through all these 2,400 items and having a vote one-by-one? Like I said, the bill is in process and has to pass through UK parliament first. It looks like the UK has far more important worries to deal with right now. This bill actually does demonstrate recent freedom from the EU and regained sovereignty. It is much less far-reaching than the European Communities Act of 1972, just another single bill, only passed weakly at the 3rd attempt but which allowed the simultaneous importation into the UK of thousands of EEC laws, rules, commitments and regulations in 1973, when we joined, without a having a referendum first. Major elements of national sovereignty were lost, with no further voting on it by parliament. Much bigger apples.

I disagree with most of your post but especially with this: How much or how little input the UK made during the initiation, definition and drafting of EU legislation during the time it was a member, was entirely up to the UK government/ representatives. Nothing stopped them from actively participating. The Commission proposes all EU legislation and that proposal can be offered after a simple majority vote of the Commissioners. Once EU legislation has been submitted to the Council and Parliament, then it rarely fails to pass into EU law. Therefore, a single member cannot necessarily choose its "level of input" or influence on this process. That is the reality of this system.

The bill is there to help deal with the ridiculously high volume of at least 2,400 items of REUL still on the books, in a reasonably timely manner. It is still a bill which needs to go through all the normal parliamentary processes of readings, votes, consideration for amendments and assent, just as any other in our own sovereign UK parliament. So as not to have this pile of RUEL festering around for decades, then yes, I support this bill. .

Not the point I was making, of course. One point deduction for deflection.

I am quite aware of RUEL thanks, I referenced to this on one of these Brexit threads a few weeks ago. But this bill only exists now because we have left the EU.

Hotel California, I know. However, I think that refusing to honour treaty law and refusing to accept EU legislation into UK law would gave given the EU little choice but to find a way to expel a member state.

Active role, or passive participation? You try to make it sound like all EU law and regulation was proposed and wanted by the UK, which actually had decreasing overall sway over the EU as it expanded to 28 countries. The UK's right to veto and overall influence was eroded more and more during the last two or three decades by the EU ramping up the use of QMV. In any event, the residual (originally EU) laws that do not suit the UK now, should be binned.

I wish we had tried to veto them - then we would have been kicked out decades ago and a referendum would have not been necessary.

nuff said

There haven't been any more presidential elections either.

Two years on but no desire to learn lessons from this. Hopeless.