UK government scraps plan to replace all EU laws by the end of 2023

[nauseus]

23 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s an outrage that the Government believe they can bypass parliament on hundreds of laws.

 

Brexit has delivered Government by executive edict.

These hundreds/thousands of EU laws basically bypassed the British Government on the way in - so why not on the way out?

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

These hundreds/thousands of EU laws basically bypassed the British Government on the way in - so why not on the way out?

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by placeholder

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

These hundreds/thousands of EU laws basically bypassed the British Government on the way in - so why not on the way out?

No there are not.

No EU law ever made its way on the the UK statute books without first being debated and approved by vote in the British Parliament.

After all this time you still have no idea what you are talking about on matters of EU law applied in the UK

[RuamRudy]

45 minutes ago, nauseus said:

A no vote could mean anything. But one thing that it does mean is that that voter didn't care enough to be moaning about it now.  

But what is does not give anyone is the right to say that the UK electorate wanted brexit. Clearly only a minority were rallied by the Russians in 2016, but sadly the majority were not sufficiently enthused to prevent the disaster that unfolded.

 

As for now, I think most people (the lying spivs who sold you the pig on the poke excluded) are experiencing the folly of brexit. Whether they were engaged enough in 2016 is irrelevant. The disaster affects most of us.

[transam]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

But what is does not give anyone is the right to say that the UK electorate wanted brexit. Clearly only a minority were rallied by the Russians in 2016, but sadly the majority were not sufficiently enthused to prevent the disaster that unfolded.

 

As for now, I think most people (the lying spivs who sold you the pig on the poke excluded) are experiencing the folly of brexit. Whether they were engaged enough in 2016 is irrelevant. The disaster affects most of us.

????............Every UK national knew about the Brexit vote, Brexit won the vote, end of....

 

Why you Scot nationalists keep harping on and twisting the facts is beyond me...

[RayC]

2 hours ago, puchooay said:

Those who don't vote, then are disappointed with the result, only have themselves to blame.

 

I said nothing about approval. I said happy with what happens. Not bothered either way. We're they bothered, they would vote.

 

I would think the country should  wait at least another 5 years to see and comment about whether Brexit was a good or a bad idea.

 

 

 

 

There is another category.

 

In 2016, I had been resident in Belgium for 17 years. I was therefore ineligible to vote in the referendum despite it (potentially) directly affecting my day-to-day life more than 99% of the electorate. Am I bitter? Absolutely; especially as this issue would have been simple to fix.

[candide]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No there are not.

No EU law ever made its way on the the UK statute books without first being debated and approved by vote in the British Parliament.

After all this time you still have no idea what you are talking about on matters of EU law applied in the UK

And after the British government voted most of them at the EU Council.

[RuamRudy]

17 minutes ago, transam said:

????............Every UK national knew about the Brexit vote, Brexit won the vote, end of....

 

Why you Scot nationalists keep harping on and twisting the facts is beyond me...

Which facts have I twisted?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No there are not.

No EU law ever made its way on the the UK statute books without first being debated and approved by vote in the British Parliament.

After all this time you still have no idea what you are talking about on matters of EU law applied in the UK

The usual erroneous pomposity of the arch remainer.

 

From: 

https://hum.port.ac.uk/europeanstudieshub/learning/module-3-governance-in-a-multi-level-europe/direct-effect-and-direct-applicability/#:~:text=Direct applicability talks about whether,EU regulations are directly applicable.

 

EU treaties and EU regulations are directly applicable. They do not need any other acts of parliament in the member state to make them into law. Therefore, once a treaty is signed or a regulation is passed in Brussels by the Council of Ministers, it instantly becomes applicable in all member states.

[candide]

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The usual erroneous pomposity of the arch remainer.

 

From: 

https://hum.port.ac.uk/europeanstudieshub/learning/module-3-governance-in-a-multi-level-europe/direct-effect-and-direct-applicability/#:~:text=Direct applicability talks about whether,EU regulations are directly applicable.

 

EU treaties and EU regulations are directly applicable. They do not need any other acts of parliament in the member state to make them into law. Therefore, once a treaty is signed or a regulation is passed in Brussels by the Council of Ministers, it instantly becomes applicable in all member states.

It's true. Only Directives need to be transposed into national laws. 

However, treaties and regulations require the agreement of the Council of the EU, and the British government approved most of them. So it wasn't "bypassed."

On top of it, as concerns the role of the House, even in the case of regulation, there was still a 'scrutiny reserve':

"A Resolution of the House of Commons of 17 November 19981 constrained Ministers from giving agreement in the Council or the European Council to any proposals which had not received parliamentary scrutiny clearance (see below). A similar Resolution of the House of Lords was updated (taking into account the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty) on 30 March 2010"

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5673/the-scrutiny-reserve-resolutions/

 

[Chomper Higgot]

54 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The usual erroneous pomposity of the arch remainer.

 

From: 

https://hum.port.ac.uk/europeanstudieshub/learning/module-3-governance-in-a-multi-level-europe/direct-effect-and-direct-applicability/#:~:text=Direct applicability talks about whether,EU regulations are directly applicable.

 

EU treaties and EU regulations are directly applicable. They do not need any other acts of parliament in the member state to make them into law. Therefore, once a treaty is signed or a regulation is passed in Brussels by the Council of Ministers, it instantly becomes applicable in all member states.

Guess what.

 

The UK signed up to the treaties and took part in their negotiation.

[transam]

13 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Which facts have I twisted?

People like you don't accept the Brexit vote because those who didn't vote might have voted remain...........????

 

 

[RuamRudy]

32 minutes ago, transam said:

People like you don't accept the Brexit vote because those who didn't vote might have voted remain...........????

 

 

I don't understand. You stated that I was twisting facts. What are the facts that you think I have twisted?

[transam]

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I don't understand. You stated that I was twisting facts. What are the facts that you think I have twisted?

Did the UK electorate vote to leave the EU..........? 

[placeholder]

22 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Your notion that people want to return is inane. No doubt based on polls of 1000 Islington lefties or bitter Scots.

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_Kingdom_rejoining_the_European_Union_(2020–present)

There's a table below the graph that gives the source of each poll. 

 

As for people who thought it was a mistake to leave in the first place:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/#:~:text=Share of people who think,or wrong decision 2020-2023&text=As of April 2023%2C 53,it was the right decision.

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by placeholder

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, transam said:

Did the UK electorate vote to leave the EU..........? 

They did.

 

And many on the basis that they wanted the British Parliament to be sovereign.

 

This attempt to bypass Parliament is nothing at all to do with Brexit.

 

It is however an example of the anti democratic objectives of the extreme rightwing that was political driving force of Brexit.

 

There is no excuse to remove from parliament the authority to make and or replete laws.

 

This move is an attempt to replace parliamentary scrutiny and authority with executive edict.

 

And here we have Brexiteers baying to surrender parliament to the executive.

 

Quite remarkable really.

[nauseus]

13 hours ago, candide said:

It's true. Only Directives need to be transposed into national laws. 

However, treaties and regulations require the agreement of the Council of the EU, and the British government approved most of them. So it wasn't "bypassed."

On top of it, as concerns the role of the House, even in the case of regulation, there was still a 'scrutiny reserve':

"A Resolution of the House of Commons of 17 November 19981 constrained Ministers from giving agreement in the Council or the European Council to any proposals which had not received parliamentary scrutiny clearance (see below). A similar Resolution of the House of Lords was updated (taking into account the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty) on 30 March 2010"

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5673/the-scrutiny-reserve-resolutions/

 

Bypassed more and more in recent years by QMV. Why not dig up something useful?

[nauseus]

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Guess what.

 

The UK signed up to the treaties and took part in their negotiation.

Yes....and now we can see the detritus. There was no referendum before Heath signed us in and there's a good reason for that.

[transam]

38 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They did.

 

And many on the basis that they wanted the British Parliament to be sovereign.

 

This attempt to bypass Parliament is nothing at all to do with Brexit.

 

It is however an example of the anti democratic objectives of the extreme rightwing that was political driving force of Brexit.

 

There is no excuse to remove from parliament the authority to make and or replete laws.

 

This move is an attempt to replace parliamentary scrutiny and authority with executive edict.

 

And here we have Brexiteers baying to surrender parliament to the executive.

 

Quite remarkable really.

I think you are talking about the present government and its present leader, Brexit is over........????

You just wait and see what happens if your lot get it.............????

[josephbloggs]

On 5/12/2023 at 6:03 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

That is probably the reason why I haven't been able to buy straight bananas in my UK Supermarket .

   There are still E.U laws banning them 

There have never been EU Laws banning bendy bananas. If you honestly believe they were banned then you are clearly gullible enough to believe without question the £350m a week to the NHS and all the other lies of the campaign.

[josephbloggs]

On 5/12/2023 at 8:53 PM, JonnyF said:

It doesn’t matter if we remove them this year or next year. Or 2030.

 

The fact is, since the people spoke via the democratic vote in 2016, WE CAN. It’s up to us. The British answer to nobody and certainly not unelected EU technocrats.

 

Democracy. Self determination. Sovereignty. Marvelous.

A gold star for being the first in this thread to trot out the "unelected EU technocrats/bureaucrats" cliche.  (You would have got another gold star for adding in "faceless" - you can do better next time).

You do know that unelected bureaucrats are also known as civil servants and are part of every government. You obviously know that that the UK has almost half a million of them as apposed to less than 40,000 in the EU. That means the UK has over ten times the amount of unelected bureaucrats than the EU despite having less than 15% of the population.

No doubt you are horrified by this and will be voting to leave the UK. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Yes....and now we can see the detritus. There was no referendum before Heath signed us in and there's a good reason for that.

What’s that got to do with this executive power grab?

 

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Did the UK electorate vote to leave the EU..........? 

A minority of the UK electorate did. 

[transam]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

A minority of the UK electorate did. 

Thank you, you're twisting, that you deny...????

 

The whole country was given the chance to vote to leave the EU, the leave percentage won........

You really must get over it, I know you are under pressure with the SNP being found out as crooks, just be thankful they were found out and move on.....????

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, transam said:

Thank you, you're twisting, that you deny...????

 

The whole country was given the chance to vote to leave the EU, the leave percentage won........

You really must get over it, I know you are under pressure with the SNP being found out as crooks, just be thankful they were found out and move on.....????

You are correct, representation of the public through voting is important.

 

So why support the executive bypassing parliament, the elected representatives of the people?

 

[RuamRudy]

28 minutes ago, transam said:

Thank you, you're twisting, that you deny...????

 

The whole country was given the chance to vote to leave the EU, the leave percentage won........

You really must get over it, I know you are under pressure with the SNP being found out as crooks, just be thankful they were found out and move on.....????

I am the one stating fact. You seem intent on creating a false narrative. I appreciate it must be difficult to accept, but it is an undeniable truth - a minority of the electorate voted in favour of brexit.

[candide]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Bypassed more and more in recent years by QMV. Why not dig up something useful?

 

"Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%."

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

 

So It's not true that "These hundreds/thousands of EU laws basically bypassed the British Government on the way in - so why not on the way out?"

 

Why not post something accurate?

 

[transam]

41 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I am the one stating fact. You seem intent on creating a false narrative. I appreciate it must be difficult to accept, but it is an undeniable truth - a minority of the electorate voted in favour of brexit.

Twisting and dodging the facts is your narrative, 100% of the UK were given the chance to vote, leave won.

You tell me what abstention means....?

[James105]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I am the one stating fact. You seem intent on creating a false narrative. I appreciate it must be difficult to accept, but it is an undeniable truth - a minority of the electorate voted in favour of brexit.

An undeniable truth is that a smaller minority of the electorate voted in favour of staying in the EU.   What is the point you are trying to make here? 

[Chomper Higgot]

Perhaps someone in favour of getting rid of these so called ‘EU Laws’ can give us an example of which particular laws they want to get rid of and why