Labour ?

JamieWednesday posted:
Eloise posted:
wenger2015 posted:
Eloise posted:
 

Let's hope.

After JC's surprising rise in popularity, reflected in his Nuremberg like appearance and posturing at Glasto, I feel he needs to be reigned in somewhat. He's starting to show he believes too firmly in his Messiah like properties and it's still the people behind and rising with him that worry me. Lots.

Maybe following his experience from the general election campaign during which the Tories and right-wing Press tried to crucify him, and he still came through stronger, he has grounds for that belief! 

It was a close result skewed by promises of 350m/day/week/month/bugger we'll finish the fire sale for the NHS, the "Great British Press" and an incompetent Camonan renegotiation. 28% didn't vote at all. In terms of winning, they lost and now we're all likely to lose.

I have just been listening to latest debate, with the Conservatives wanting to push through legislation to keep continuity after Brexit, appealing to all parties to get behind it.

Labour suspect something sinister is involved with the details,  but is it not reasonable to just get on with the leaving process ? 

Wenger - the suspicion is about the Bill's provision that allows ministers to change what the raft of imported EU legislation covers (with some exception like tax) by statutory instruments.  It's estimated that about 800 to 1000 statutory instruments (SIs) will be needed. SIs get little parliamentary scrutiny and Labour is mistrustful that the government will use these to remove or weaken many of the protections that citizens and workers current enjoy under EU legislation. 

MDS posted:

Wenger - the suspicion is about the Bill's provision that allows ministers to change what the raft of imported EU legislation covers (with some exception like tax) by statutory instruments.  It's estimated that about 800 to 1000 statutory instruments (SIs) will be needed. SIs get little parliamentary scrutiny and Labour is mistrustful that the government will use these to remove or weaken many of the protections that citizens and workers current enjoy under EU legislation. 

The PM is in no position to do anything other then what's best for the country,  she has such a slim mandate, if she trys not to play by the rules or to deceive,  her position will become untenable 

wenger2015 posted:

That said if everything gets debated, picked to pieces....tweaked ect ect ect.... the leaving process will take years...

It doesn't need to. I suspect that the Opposition will table a series of amendments that restrict the ability of ministers to undo certain protections using the SI route.  If these amendments are accepted they will probably support the Bill and the timetable for leaving is undisturbed (though the Bill needs to navigate the House of Lords too).

wenger2015 posted:
MDS posted:

Wenger - the suspicion is about the Bill's provision that allows ministers to change what the raft of imported EU legislation covers (with some exception like tax) by statutory instruments.  It's estimated that about 800 to 1000 statutory instruments (SIs) will be needed. SIs get little parliamentary scrutiny and Labour is mistrustful that the government will use these to remove or weaken many of the protections that citizens and workers current enjoy under EU legislation. 

The PM is in no position to do anything other then what's best for the country,  she has such a slim mandate, if she trys not to play by the rules or to deceive,  her position will become untenable 

Sorry Wenger. Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Yes, the government has no majority of its own in the House of Commons (relying on the DUP) so if primary legislation is needed, the parliamentary arithmetic means it will be very difficult to get anything controversial through.  But statutory instruments don't go through the full house. The scrutiny they do get, if any, is through the relevant select committee.  Broadly speaking, if no MP on the relevant select committee spots a problem in a SI it sails through and into law largely unnoticed.  

MDS posted:
wenger2015 posted:
MDS posted:

Wenger - the suspicion is about the Bill's provision that allows ministers to change what the raft of imported EU legislation covers (with some exception like tax) by statutory instruments.  It's estimated that about 800 to 1000 statutory instruments (SIs) will be needed. SIs get little parliamentary scrutiny and Labour is mistrustful that the government will use these to remove or weaken many of the protections that citizens and workers current enjoy under EU legislation. 

The PM is in no position to do anything other then what's best for the country,  she has such a slim mandate, if she trys not to play by the rules or to deceive,  her position will become untenable 

Sorry Wenger. Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Yes, the government has no majority of its own in the House of Commons (relying on the DUP) so if primary legislation is needed, the parliamentary arithmetic means it will be very difficult to get anything controversial through.  But statutory instruments don't go through the full house. The scrutiny they do get, if any, is through the relevant select committee.  Broadly speaking, if no MP on the relevant select committee spots a problem in a SI it sails through and into law largely unnoticed.  

Ok, that makes more sense....... It was after listening to the various soundbites on the radio, I had the feeling it was going to be anything but plain sailing 

If the final deal is unacceptable to a majority of MPs it's their duty to require another vote in parliament; to do otherwise would be an abject failure to carry out their legal duty.  What options are presented at that vote in the house are another matter.

Failure to take that vote in parliament or failure to present an alternative path to exit on unacceptable terms would precipitate a constitutional crisis when the inevitable Judicial Review was spawned.

To only way to move forward with this whole process, is to have cross party agreement, in order to achieve that then compromise is required.

I'm not sure if those involved will be familiar with these terms?  

It's going to be interesting to see who wants to do what's best for the country and who wants to score political points with their bag of spanners?

It's so easy to slag off politicians, let's all have a go, whilst conveniently forgetting that we are the people who elect them.  A first-past-the-post electoral system and a debating chamber with parties facing (and baying at) each other also militate against compromise.  Given the right framework MPs can collaborate effectively.  For example, you will often find the parties working together in select committee sessions, so they can do it.

As for Brexit negotiations, the final deal will affect the country for generations and  I agree that we should aim for cross-party agreement.  So what I would like to see is that the negotiations with the EU are conducted by a multi-party team staffed roughly in proportion to the number of MPs in the current Commons.  If Mrs May really wants what's best for the country rather than her party, I'm sure she would agree with something along these lines.  But, strangely, I have my doubts.

Roger

Likes (1)
Hungryhalibut
×
×
×
×