Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
12,000 EU regulations imposed without the involvement of the UK Parliament. That is not trivial.
It is totally irrelevant what they are and even if 100% of the UK population agrees with something. The point is that if 100% of the UK population disagreed with something, then nothing could be done.
|
Most of those relate to things like environmental policies, harmonisation of standards, operation of shared regulatory bodies, etc, and make for a functional internal market. Without a number of things being harmonised the internal / single market can't work, and without other things being in place the four freedoms couldn't work.
The EU can't produce regulations on anything member states haven't agreed to delegate competency on. A number of regulations don't apply to the UK as we have opt-outs in those areas.
Those that are imposed were done so with the agreement of the UK Parliament when it agreed to delegate the competency and again when it didn't legislate to reverse them; many would've had the agreement of the UK's representative in the Council of Ministers, the UK's Commissioner would've been involved with the creation of the regulation and the UK's MEPs would've voted on it.
The UK was never under any obligation to obey them and could always have rejected them. It would've carried consequences but Parliament was always able to pass Acts to overrule anything from the EU.
Quote:
|
These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/w...s.html?mcubz=3
Shall we leave the UN? It's impinging on our sovereignty?
The WTO might rule against us and will definitely forbid us from enacting certain policies. We will trade according to their rules not our own, again impinging on our sovereignty.
Any bilateral trade agreement of any depth will require binding dispute resolution mechanisms that will overrule Parliament.
The UK's representatives at least had votes, if not veto power, over many regulations. The Repeal Bill as it stands leaves no scrutiny at any level outside of the executive, no votes at any level for implementation.
Flipping it the other way around if people were upset with directives being able to bypass Parliament and wanted their sovereignty back it seems strange they'd be fine with a Minister being able to bypass Parliament not just on anything the EU did but
anything they, at their sole discretion, feel is necessary for Brexit.
From my POV this feels more like HMG saying: 'You thought the EU was anti-democratic watch this!'.
It's simply not necessary for it to be done in this form. There are 18 months to get this done, there's absolutely no need for such a rush, it should be done properly to ensure we don't spend years afterwards fixing mistakes.
---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveeb
I notice the way you constantly reply to well articulated and informative posts with dismissive empty ridicule. Why bother  |
His vote is worth the same as yours. Isn't democracy great?
