Brexit: Article 50 Has Been Triggered !

Originally Posted by Mick

Kudos to Frank Field and other principled Labour MPs, respecting the democratic decision that was taken.

Perhaps they will follow Jeremy Corbyn's example, of voting against the Party Whip (he did 617 times...).

http://revolts.co.uk/?p=932

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Perhaps they will follow Jeremy Corbyn's example, of voting against the Party Whip (he did 617 times...).

http://revolts.co.uk/?p=932

wouldn't that be a kick in the bolshevik's

[Ignitionnet]

I note that the Repeal Bill is so wide in its scope that a Minister could use the powers granted by the Bill to modify the Bill.

This section really seem a good idea? Section 2 means the restrictions in sections 3 and 4 may be removed, section 1 ensures this is at the sole discretion of the Government.

I'm sure there'll be some junk amendment attempts that should be thrown away but this needs work. It's an affront to democracy, not respecting it, to sideline Parliament entirely in this manner.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Perhaps they will follow Jeremy Corbyn's example, of voting against the Party Whip (he did 617 times...).

http://revolts.co.uk/?p=932

It's ironic that if the Labour party had employed Momentum's tactics towards dissenters back then, Corbyn would have been long gone years ago. He's a class 1, grade A hypocrite.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I note that the Repeal Bill is so wide in its scope that a Minister could use the powers granted by the Bill to modify the Bill

Seems you are not alone:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...-a3628376.html

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, has used an article in the Evening Standard to declare that no proper “sovereign parliament” would pass the EU (withdrawal) bill in its current form. He said:

The government has correctly recognised that this EU law cannot all be changed into domestic law at once. This is why the bill seeks to incorporate this law into our own statute book to ensure continuity, except where there is an immediate intention to bring in something different, such as in respect of immigration.

Unfortunately, the withdrawal bill is not, at present, up to addressing these issues. Even more worryingly, it seeks to confer powers on the government to carry out Brexit in breach of our constitutional principles, in a manner that no sovereign parliament should allow.

What I find sad but unsurprising is that the Leave campaign went on and on about "taking back control" and Parliamentary sovereignty and yet when this flawed Bill is put forward they are quiet.

Maybe they hate the EU so much they are prepared to accommodate Leaving at any cost

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What I find sad but unsurprising is that the Leave campaign went on and on about "taking back control" and Parliamentary sovereignty and yet when this flawed Bill is put forward they are quiet.

Maybe they hate the EU so much they are prepared to accommodate Leaving at any cost

I think it's because the whole leave process is so rushed. The Government should have published its position papers then invoked Article 50. As it is, it invoked Article 50 for a year, faffed around with an election and then started to worry when the egg timer began to run out of salt, knowing that no deal was worse than even a deal negotiated when time was not on its side. You couldn't make it up but that's what our negotiators are having to do in the absence of a full set of positioning papers.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:58 ----------

Meanwhile, this looks like the kind of crazy idea the Darling Buds of May (Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill) would have dreamt up back in the day. No wonder the business community is not rushing to sign it! It's lifted from the playbook of China or Russia.

FTSE 100 chiefs’ fury at No 10 letter backing ministers on Brexit
Downing Street officials have asked Britain’s top bosses to sign a letter backing Theresa May’s Brexit strategy, Sky News learns...
Sources at some of the UK's biggest businesses expressed incredulity at the request from No 10, which comes at a time when Theresa May's relationship with the private sector is already under strain...
Several FTSE 100 executives expressed incredulity at the approach from Downing Street, with one saying: "There is no way we could sign this given the current state of chaos surrounding the (Brexit) talks."

http://news.sky.com/story/ftse-100-c...rexit-11023229

[1andrew1]

Didn't have long to wait till the repercussions of that leaked document start to hit home!

Theresa May’s Brexit plans in disarray as Amber Rudd and Damian Green refuse to back 'toxic' plan to curb EU migration
Theresa May’s Brexit plans were in disarray on Wednesday night as two of her most senior ministers distanced themselves from leaked immigration policies amid a backlash from Brussels and business leaders.
Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, and Damian Green, the First Secretary of State, both have misgivings about radical plans to curb migration, which include a two-year maximum stay for low-skilled workers, whose overall numbers could also be capped.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-green-refuse/

[Ignitionnet]

I don't get how anyone claiming that Brexit will bring sovereignty and democracy can support that bill without amendments.

It does something the EU doesn't, it makes Parliament no longer sovereign. Ministers none of the population voted into their roles can amend legal acts with no Parliamentary scrutiny, debate or vote.

If you support the bill as it stands you don't support Parliamentary sovereignty or Parliamentary democracy. It's agreed something along those lines is needed, but most definitely not what's proposed.

If, as we keep hearing, the people voted for democracy and Parliamentary sovereignty respecting their votes is rejecting executive power grab and ensuring Ministers have the bare minimum they need, that they will be heavily scrutinised and that the final say on the end product is taken by Parliament, if not the people, though it should probably be Parliament. We are a representative Parliamentary democracy, not a direct or delegation one after all.

In its current form the Government could make a complete and utter cock up of Brexit. They could either leave us the EU's bitch, paying huge amounts into the budget forever, or they could leave us unable to fly planes due to no Open Skies agreement with no access to nuclear materials due to not replacing Euratom and massive queues at borders for freight, crippling JiT split chains. We could do nothing over this. Our MPs would get no vote and no opportunity for debate.

Whatever side of the wider debate you are on I can't see how this can be supported without beign obsessed with leaving the EU at any cost - even your and your elected representative's ability to scrutinise and vote on the end result.

You like this bill there's got to be something higher up your priority list than either sovereignty or democracy. This curls a great big one out all over both of them.

Incidentally when the PM claimed the Lords were in favour she lied. They are absolutely not in favour of what she has put forward, just the concept that some use of Prerogative powers is needed, not their use subject to vague and worthless restrictions, as Ministers get to interpret the restrictions and can remove them at their discretion.

[papa smurf]

i wish the remoans would bring out a new record something no so repetitive would be nice .

[nomadking]

At the moment there is so much that can't be done by the UK parliament because the EU has grabbed control. The complexity of it all, just shows how much control the EU has. The priority to change all legislation that is controlled by the EU to be brought under sole UK control instead. No major initial amendments are going to be made. Any further amendments can come later and be set by the UK parliament in the normal way of things.

[Bircho]

Originally Posted by nomadking

At the moment there is so much that can't be done by the UK parliament because the EU has grabbed control.

For example?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Bircho

For example?

Let's put it this way, if there is little the EU has control over, there is little to be done.

The government says that up to 1,000 statutory instruments will be needed to modify EU laws that become obsolete or do not operate as they should after Brexit but any corrections will be largely technical in nature.

The main aim of this legislation is to incorporate, rather than repeal, 40 years of relevant EU law onto the UK statute book. It is intended to ensure there is no legal chaos on the day Britain leaves the EU in March 2019.

All existing EU legislation will be copied across into domestic UK law to ensure a smooth transition on the day after Brexit.
The government says it wants to avoid a "black hole in our statute book" and avoid disruption to businesses and individual citizens as the UK leaves the EU.
The UK Parliament can then "amend, repeal and improve" the laws as necessary.

The government's White Paper says there is "no single figure" for this, but that there are believed to be 12,000 EU regulations (one type of EU law) in force, while Parliament has passed 7,900 statutory instruments implementing EU legislation and 186 acts which incorporate a degree of EU influence.

And how have those 12,000 EU regulations come about?

Regulations normally become law in all the EU member states immediately after they come into force (Snyder 2000). They normally do not require any implementing measures and they override conflicting domestic provision in each member state.

Not by the UK Parliament. So any whines about the lack of democratic process with Brexit are total nonsense.

[Bircho]

So you say: "At the moment there is so much that can't be done by the UK parliament because the EU has grabbed control"

I say "For example"

You say that there are a number of EU regulations etc. But where have they "grabbed control". Or to be specific, please could you detail me any single one of them where the EU have "grabbed control" over us.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Bircho

So you say: "At the moment there is so much that can't be done by the UK parliament because the EU has grabbed control"

I say "For example"

You say that there are a number of EU regulations etc. But where have they "grabbed control". Or to be specific, please could you detail me any single one of them where the EU have "grabbed control" over us.

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.

[Osem]

Of course certain of our own governments have effectively ceded powers to the EU in the past. Whilst those powers can't be said to have been 'grabbed' by anyone, they're no longer within parliament's sole control, the effect on the UK's sovereignty is exactly the same and that is what led to the referendum result. We were asked whether we wanted to stay or leave the EU and gave our answer. Blair signed the Treaty of Rome having promised that there'd be a referendum on it but reneged on that promise. So no the EU didn't grab those powers from the UK, they were effectively donated by a PM whose love of the EU is very well known and who is still today trying to undermine the referendum result. Yet another politician who only respects democracy when it yields the required outcome. Quelle surprise.