Jump to content


tobyjugg2

The Great Repeal Bill – which does the opposite of what it says

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 710 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

The Great Repeal Bill – which does the opposite of what it says

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-great-repeal-bill-parliament-brexit-negotations-deal-a7837616.html

One of the key points in the Brexit referendum and since has been the returning of power to the elected British Parliament

 

YET the great repeal bill - includes a part which effectively gives absolute power to the PM and a handful of her senior ministers COMPLETELY bypassing the British democratic process.

 

 

"The Great Repeal Bill proposes to delegate power to Government in the form of a Henry VIII clause which will enable Government to change all EU-derived primary and secondary law by means of a secondary act (usually a statutory instrument) with limited or no Parliamentary scrutiny or oversight. In the second of her two posts on the Bill, Joelle Grogan argues that this runs counter to democracy, legal certainty, the rule of law and the ultimate supremacy of Parliament itself."

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/06/05/the-not-so-great-repeal-bill-part-2-how-henry-viii-clauses-undermine-parliament/

 

 

This should be opposed with your every breath whatever your beliefs on Brexit or ANY other subject.

 

 

I have no real issue with the main part - bringing required EU legislation into British Law, ONLY with the complete negating of British democracy which May has bolted on to it - Which I unequivocally oppose.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

The stupid thing is they have already had a year to start the process, but didnt - too busy setting up legislation to beat up the poor.

Now saying - we dont have time.

 

So all they have to do is not do their jobs, and then they can just - not do their jobs using royal prerogative.

 

Tough, shut the subsidised bars and food and cancel all external meeting expenses until they have caught up with their actual duties.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

treaties are made by governments, not parliament and most eu legislation is actually a bunch of treaties that are then tweaked to introduce them into UK legislation and make them compatible. Theoretically if the 1972 EEC entry Act was repealed all of these bits of legislation suddenly arent applicable and then we would have somehting to worry about. No H&S laws, no WTD, all EU citizens then illegal aliens subject to the Immigration Act etc.

All this is in the Supreme Court judgement on Miller and another so I cant see why people are getting their knickers in a twist and now claiming that this is all new.

As for claiming that it should be opposed regardless of your views on Brexit they should ahve said regardless of your views on the Bill of Rights, the Parliament Act, democracy and the rule of law.

It is the system we have so get over it. ( do I think it is the best we could have? no but the thought of the Civil Service being allowed to write out the constitution for a new form of government fills me with dread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
treaties are made by governments, not parliament and most eu legislation is actually a bunch of treaties that are then tweaked to introduce them into UK legislation and make them compatible. Theoretically if the 1972 EEC entry Act was repealed all of these bits of legislation suddenly arent applicable and then we would have somehting to worry about. No H&S laws, no WTD, all EU citizens then illegal aliens subject to the Immigration Act etc.

All this is in the Supreme Court judgement on Miller and another so I cant see why people are getting their knickers in a twist and now claiming that this is all new.

As for claiming that it should be opposed regardless of your views on Brexit they should ahve said regardless of your views on the Bill of Rights, the Parliament Act, democracy and the rule of law.

It is the system we have so get over it. ( do I think it is the best we could have? no but the thought of the Civil Service being allowed to write out the constitution for a new form of government fills me with dread)

 

 

 

 

"Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires the Government to lay before Parliament most treaties it wishes to ratify, along with an Explanatory Memorandum. This gave statutory form to part of a previous constitutional convention on parliamentary involvement with treaties (the Ponsonby Rule)"

 

 

You also need to perhaps make yourself aware of the mechanisms which occur before those treaties you refer are even discussed - it certainly isnt by PM decree.

 

 

 

These Henry VIII mechanisms were created to be a dictatorial bypass and over-rule of parliamentary democracy and have no place whatsoever in a modern democracy,

and certainly not for use by a weak and unpopular Minister with very unpopular policies to bypass the rest of parliament.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a question on how can the Government try and include this Henry VIII clause in this great repeal bill?

 

This was introduced in 1539 and rightly repealed in 1547 being a despotic tyrannical law. Now move forward 100 years Parliament becomes the supreme legislature

 

So my question being is how it is still in the Parliamentary system, even though a law by Royal proclamation, Parliament being the supreme legislature?

 

Honest question this

Edited by obiter dictum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have a question on how can the Government try and include this Henry VIII clause in this great repeal bill?

 

This was introduced in 1539 and rightly repealed in 1547 being a despotic tyrannical law. Now move forward 100 years Parliament becomes the supreme legislature

 

So my question being is how it is still in the Parliamentary system, even though a law by Royal proclamation, Parliament being the supreme legislature?

 

Honest question this

 

+1

I would also add to that question:

Why would any person or party who truly believed in democracy try?

 

I genuinely believe we have the most undemocratic, deceitful political 'leadership' in my lifetime - and I include Corbyn and McDonnel in that


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starmer (best thing he's ever said - wonder who wrote it)

 

"That this House respects the EU referendum result and recognises that the UK will leave the EU, believes that insisting on proper scrutiny of this bill and its proposed powers is the responsibility of this sovereign parliament, recognises the need for considered and effective legislation to preserve EU-derived rights, protections and regulations in UK law as the UK leaves the EU

 

but declines to give a second reading to the European Union (withdrawal) bill because the bill :

 

* fails to protect and reassert the principle of parliamentary sovereignty by handing sweeping powers to government ministers allowing them to bypass parliament on key decisions,

 

* allows for rights and protections to be reduced or removed through secondary legislation without any meaningful or guaranteed parliamentary scrutiny,

 

* fails to include a presumption of devolution which would allow effective transfer of devolved competencies coming back from the EU to the devolved administrations and makes unnecessary and unjustified alterations to the devolution settlements,

 

* risks weakening human rights protections by failing to transpose the EU charter of fundamental rights into UK law

 

plus some other important stuff - but not as important.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The details coming out from all sides inc EU are dynamite

 

Clause 6 effectively completely precludes an EU transition deal - which for the EU would require ecj oversight

 

Barnier has said no chance of open Irish border in clearest terms yet

 

EU minutes state that they believe Davies does not seem to think negotiation with EU is his priority

 

 

 

If this is all UK brinksmanship - well they better hope they've got Jack Sparrow at the wheel

 

imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia2.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2F3o7TKo04SPMnTaWjNC%2F200_s.gif&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fgiphy.com%2Fsearch%2Fboat&docid=JOl3Su6_lp0qgM&tbnid=mBAg6_4jLhlpwM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjc6fyVtpPWAhWFIMAKHVpZCK8QMwgrKAAwAA..i&w=356&h=200&client=firefox-b&bih=599&biw=1152&q=small%20boat%20on%20brink%20gif&ved=0ahUKEwjc6fyVtpPWAhWFIMAKHVpZCK8QMwgrKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling it "May does another Trump" really doesnt do the lying justice

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-misquoted_uk_59b10658e4b0b5e53103ba69

 

Theresa May ‘Misquoted’ Peers And Ignored ‘Profound Concerns’ About Her Brexit Bill

 

May told PMQs a Lords committee backed her Brexit approach, but it really didn’t.

 

"Theresa May has been ticked off by an influential peer for wrongly claiming a Lords committee “endorsed” her Brexit approach when in fact it raised “profound concerns”.

 

Baroness Taylor, chair of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, said not only had the Prime Minister “misquoted” the group’s report in the House of Commons, but key recommendations to limit the so-called Henry VIII powers were “ignored”. "

 

 

Are the government apologetic for their 'misrepresentation' of the facts?

“The Government looked at that report and has reflected it in the appeal bill.”


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davies shoots himself and May in the backside regarding the entire justification for the Henry VIII powers in the bill

 

 

  • Mr Davis
     
     
    The first thing I would say is that eight days is quite a long time for this sort of thing. Perhaps the most relevant comparison is with the Lisbon treaty, which recreated—[interruption.] Yes, it is, because it recreated the European law on a major basis. This Bill does not do that. It does not aim to change law, with a tiny exception that I will come back to; it aims to maintain the laws that we currently have—it is primarily technical in that respect. If the hon. Gentleman sees it as being any different, then I will give way to him again.

 

  • Mr Davis
     
     
    In essence, remember, the aim of the Bill is to translate European Union into UK law and to make sure that no problems arise, whether that means references to bodies that we are no longer subordinate to, whether it means that the language is different, or whether it applies to reciprocal rights. Much of this will be very straightforward and relatively simple. The point that the hon. Gentleman should look at is that the Bill seeks to make the type of secondary legislation, whether under affirmative or negative resolution, proportionate to that. If he wants to talk about the issue further, I am happy to talk to him. As I have said before, I am not going to reinvent the constitution at the Dispatch Box.

 

 

So only some 'tiny exceptions' of changes and "Much of this will be very straightforward and relatively simple"

which should be entirely doable within normal properly debated and scrutinised parliamentary process, and certainly NO justification for dictatorial powers.

 

Completely at odds with the 'massive amount of work' claimed as justification for the implementation of the anti-democratic dictatorial Henry VIII powers.

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-09-07/debates/DA3CC146-F8AB-40FF-812B-FE2CADDEA2F4/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)Bill


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have a question on how can the Government try and include this Henry VIII clause in this great repeal bill?

 

This was introduced in 1539 and rightly repealed in 1547 being a despotic tyrannical law. Now move forward 100 years Parliament becomes the supreme legislature

 

So my question being is how it is still in the Parliamentary system, even though a law by Royal proclamation, Parliament being the supreme legislature?

 

Honest question this

 

 

http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/data/resources/220/WHY-HENRY-VIII-CLAUSES-SHOULD-BE-CONSIGNED-TO-THE-DUSTBIN-OF-HISTORY.pdf


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isnt ratlfying them, it is undoing them, which is different. Or in the case of many of the 20,000 or so laws and edicts from the EU that bypassed parliament, actually move them to a status of being made UK law on the nod. All of this is just another bit of squealing by the remoaners. who until havent given any cuase to complain about how our parliament has been castrated by a bunch of unelected Cmmissioners who actually have the power over the european parliament anyway.

People's colours are clearly nailed to the mast on this one and this current moaning has little to do with the mechanics of leaving the EU, it is all aboutspite against a governamnt that was elected by 2 million more votes than the next party got despite the narrowness of the majority of parliamentary seats. In a huge majority of the seats held by labour the populace voted to leave the EU so this new campaign to stall our exit doesnt even have a mandate in ther constituencies.

Whilst we are at it when are the |EU accounts ever going to eb signed off? It is a government of the richest group of nations in the world yet is it more currupt than your average Carribean sporting federation

"Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires the Government to lay before Parliament most treaties it wishes to ratify, along with an Explanatory Memorandum. This gave statutory form to part of a previous constitutional convention on parliamentary involvement with treaties (the Ponsonby Rule)"

 

 

You also need to perhaps make yourself aware of the mechanisms which occur before those treaties you refer are even discussed - it certainly isnt by PM decree.

 

 

 

These Henry VIII mechanisms were created to be a dictatorial bypass and over-rule of parliamentary democracy and have no place whatsoever in a modern democracy,

and certainly not for use by a weak and unpopular Minister with very unpopular policies to bypass the rest of parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it isnt ratlfying them, it is undoing them, which is different.

 

The Henry VIII clauses are for amending, deleting or creating and implementing new laws (creating amending and ratifying) loosely based on the areas affected (pretty much everything) by the EU laws nominally transitioning into UK statute (+ IMNSHO implementing rafts of policies by the back door that even a goodly number of blue blood Torys would vote against if they were proposed through normal routes).

 

 

The repeal bit is really little more than a one liner. Hard Brexiters should know that.

 

 

So wrong again.

 

Hope you dont work in the legal profession - well maybe except on behalf of bailiffs.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, the supreme court made the mistake then, I was just using their decision to comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the real world

 

Worth a quick peruse for a US opinion (and a few good points):

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/world/europe/britain-brexit-conservatvies.html?emc=edit_mbe_20170908&nl=morning-briefing-europe&nlid=80833938&te=1

 

(possibly should be in the article 50 thread, but relevant)


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...