8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Lettuce demonstrated what worse damage can occur, the UK’s occupational pension schemes came within hours of collapse until to BoE stepped in to halt her madness.

 

Your argument seems to be 'let's go on doing more of the same which hasn't worked for the last 15 years and has got us into this mess.........and expect a different result'. The definition of madness I believe.

A post has been removed, please use MP correct names.

Just now, roquefort said:

Your argument seems to be 'let's go on doing more of the same which hasn't worked for the last 15 years and has got us into this mess.........and expect a different result'. The definition of madness I believe.

I’ve never argued that the UK should continue doing more or less the same as it’s been doing for past 15 years, and absolutely not for the course it’s been following for the past 12 years.

 

 

 

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Why would the UK veto laws and regulations that the UK had an active role in drafting?

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. 

1 hour ago, roquefort said:

 

Exactly what damage to the UK economy could be worse than 10% inflation, negative growth, strikes on a scale not seen since the 1970s and total collapse of the NHS?

Not worse but ongoing. The £100m - and rising - loss to the UK economy caused by Brexit.

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.

There's no mechanism for kicking member states out of the EU.

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

Not worse but ongoing. The £100m - and rising - loss to the UK economy caused by Brexit.

I assume you have supporting calculations and assumptions for that figure?

31 minutes ago, RayC said:

There's no mechanism for kicking member states out of 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.

30 minutes ago, roquefort said:

I assume you have supporting calculations and assumptions for that figure?

Numerous links detailing the cost of Brexit  have been posted countless times on other threads.

 

Here's one example

https://www.ft.com/content/e39d0315-fd5b-47c8-8560-04bb786f2c13

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

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. 

The repeal of laws has a centuries long history, it follows the democratic process in which Parliament is endowed with the power to make laws and, where necessary, repeal laws.

 

The process is subject to Parliamentary review, debate and approval.

 

The Retained EU Law Bill aims to hand these powers to Ministers (remove these power from Parliament), replacing the democratic processes of Parliament with executive edict.

 

Perhaps you are content to see the Sovereignty of Parliament and the Democratic process usurped.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The repeal of laws has a centuries long history, it follows the democratic process in which Parliament is endowed with the power to make laws and, where necessary, repeal laws.

 

The process is subject to Parliamentary review, debate and approval.

 

The Retained EU Law Bill aims to hand these powers to Ministers (remove these power from Parliament), replacing the democratic processes of Parliament with executive edict.

 

Perhaps you are content to see the Sovereignty of Parliament and the Democratic process usurped.

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.

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.

You haven’t addressed the point I have made.

 

The Bill transfers the powers of Parliament to the Executive.

 

This is a departure from the laws of the nation being deterred by Parliament to the laws of the nation being deterred by Executive edict.

 

Are you supportive of this?

 

Or should Parliament be Sovereign?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This is a departure from the laws of the nation being deterred by Parliament to the laws of the nation being deterred by Executive edict.

 

Are you supportive of this?

 

Or should Parliament be Sovereign?

Parliament has long ceased to be sovereign on many issues. The entire Covid response was managed by executive edict, as was signing up the UK to wholly unrealistic net zero targets.

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

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. 

The nerve of those new members wanting a say in the running of things????

29 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Parliament has long ceased to be sovereign on many issues. The entire Covid response was managed by executive edict, as was signing up the UK to wholly unrealistic net zero targets.

That is no excuse for Government by executive edict to continue.

34 minutes ago, RayC said:

The nerve of those new members wanting a say in the running of things????

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

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You haven’t addressed the point I have made.

 

The Bill transfers the powers of Parliament to the Executive.

 

This is a departure from the laws of the nation being deterred by Parliament to the laws of the nation being deterred by Executive edict.

 

Are you supportive of this?

 

Or should Parliament be Sovereign?

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. . 

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

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

Hardly deflection and hidden behind the sarcasm (apologies ????) is a serious point.

 

The EU doubled its' membership between 1995 - 2004. If it were to keep to a 'one state, one vote' system then, by definition, the UK's - and other individual states' - individual influence would be diluted. 

 

In a similar vein, the reduction of the areas where a veto could be used can be seen as pragmatic, if the organisation were to continue to function smoothly. There is - and always has been - the question of whether one member state should be able to hold all the others to ransom by (threatened) use of the veto?

 

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.

 

It should also be remembered that the 

'European Council' defines the strategic policy objectives of the EU.  If the UK had vehemently objected to an initiative, it's extremely unlikely - although not impossible - that the initiative would have been pursued.

 

It remains to be seen whether this forthcoming 'Bonfire of the Vanities' event has any meaningful effect, or whether it is simply an expensive house-keeping exercise where the participants' efforts would be better used elsewhere.

11 hours ago, nauseus said:

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. . 

Let’s have no more talk of BREXIT returning power and sovereignty to Parliament from you then.

5 hours ago, RayC said:

Hardly deflection and hidden behind the sarcasm (apologies ????) is a serious point.

 

The EU doubled its' membership between 1995 - 2004. If it were to keep to a 'one state, one vote' system then, by definition, the UK's - and other individual states' - individual influence would be diluted. 

 

In a similar vein, the reduction of the areas where a veto could be used can be seen as pragmatic, if the organisation were to continue to function smoothly. There is - and always has been - the question of whether one member state should be able to hold all the others to ransom by (threatened) use of the veto?

 

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.

 

It should also be remembered that the 

'European Council' defines the strategic policy objectives of the EU.  If the UK had vehemently objected to an initiative, it's extremely unlikely - although not impossible - that the initiative would have been pursued.

 

It remains to be seen whether this forthcoming 'Bonfire of the Vanities' event has any meaningful effect, or whether it is simply an expensive house-keeping exercise where the participants' efforts would be better used elsewhere.

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.

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s have no more talk of BREXIT returning power and sovereignty to Parliament from you then.

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.

 

 

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.

 

 

The Bill represents the power grab that motivated the rightwing political elite to back BREXIT.

 

Your eagerness to ditch Parliamentary sovereignty for reasons of expedience is noted.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Bill represents the power grab that motivated the rightwing political elite to back BREXIT.

 

Your eagerness to ditch Parliamentary sovereignty for reasons of expedience is noted.

 

 

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

 

Bye.

23 hours ago, nauseus said:

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. 

Especially the ones that protect workers. 

Tory MPs have been accused of “plotting to slash rights at work” after voting down a bid to stop employment protections expiring after Brexit.

A government bill is set to ‘sunset’ a raft of laws originally written into UK law from the EU in a ‘Brexit bonfire.’

But they include the right to paid holidays, daily and weekly rest breaks, limits on the working week and maternity rights.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-accused-workers-rights-plot-28568167

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

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.

Nothing you say disapproves my view.

 

Firstly, the European Council (the Heads of government) defines the political and strategic direction of the European Union. The Commission then proposes legislation based on these instructions. If, when it was a member, the UK had vehemently objected to a strategic approach, then it's very unlikely that it would have gone forward.

 

Secondly, legislation does not magically simply appear fully formed from the Commission in an instance. Drafts are subject to review and revision, often over many years. These reviews are an opportunity for member states to make their views known. This is also, incidentally, one of the reasons why relatively few proposals are rejected: The contents of the proposed legislation has effectively already been agreed to by the member states.

 

In the rare event that legislation is put forward which is unacceptable it can -  as you yourself acknowledge - be sent back by the Council of the EU and/or the European parliament.

 

An individual member state can effectively choose how much input it has on the various legislation.

 

That is the reality of the system.

 

(Note: I'm not suggesting that all member states are equal. I doubt that e.g. Cyprus or Malta would - individually - be able to exert much influence, but the 'big beasts' <France, Germany and - formally - the UK> certainly could).

 

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

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.

However:

- the Council sets the agenda on which the Commission will work. It is very unlikely it is done against the will of major countries,

- why are submitted regulation seldom rejected by the Council and EP? Because they are elaborated in collaboration with them, in particular the Councils.

That's the "reality of this system".

 

Of course, everything is not always agreed by each member, but most important issues are, and even when unanimity is not required, it is often achieved.

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Bill represents the power grab that motivated the rightwing political elite to back BREXIT.

 

Your eagerness to ditch Parliamentary sovereignty for reasons of expedience is noted.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, candide said:

However:

- the Council sets the agenda on which the Commission will work. It is very unlikely it is done against the will of major countries,

- why are submitted regulation seldom rejected by the Council and EP? Because they are elaborated in collaboration with them, in particular the Councils.

That's the "reality of this system".

 

Of course, everything is not always agreed by each member, but most important issues are, and even when unanimity is not required, it is often achieved.

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.

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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.

Yet the UK agreed to most of these regulations, and also sometimes opted out when it didn't. It wasn't forced on the UK.

It is also interesting to note that, when asked about which EU regulations were so unbearable, Brexiteers were unable to cite any significant ones.

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

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.

 

 

Your claim that a separate bill would would have to be enacted for each of the 2400 items is utter nonsense.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Your claim that a separate bill would would have to be enacted for each of the 2400 items is utter nonsense.

So what is the solution then?