Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Talking of transport analogies, I quite liked the one used by Gus O'Donnell on R4 this morning.

He said "This is bigger than anything I did - coalition, wars - this affects all parts and all people in the country, so it's massive". "We are in a plane being flown by ...the EU and we are about to jump out and we have got a parachute designed by the people flying the plane, and they have designed it in a way to deter anybody else jumping out."

Scary times ahead.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Don you may well be right.. however I think you know the immigration point was a side show for me.. it was all about sovereignty of parliament... but I am probably in a minority..

Given the shape of your head, that’s no surprise.

I’m at the other end of the spectrum. Parliament may be a good concept in itself, but, unfortunately it’s ruined by political parties.

"all about the sovereignty of Parliament".

Hmm. The way the Great Repeal Bill ( a misnomer if ever I heard one) is shaping up, there seemingly won't be much power repatriated to Parliament. HMG seems intent on making the amendments to the imported EU legislation through secondary legislation where the ministers will make the decisions which usually slip through without much notice or debate.

Mike i think it's all repatriated, but just because its repatriated it doesn't need to be re written.. or I have missed a point somewhere..

decades of always being on the edge, rejecting the euro was the last straw ,it was on the cards from then.   GREAT

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Mike i think it's all repatriated, but just because its repatriated it doesn't need to be re written.. or I have missed a point somewhere..

Simon - it looks like the Bill will simply replicate all the current EU legislation, as is, into UK law. A pragmatic approach in my view.  Then, over time, HMG will set about deciding what it likes and doesn't like.  The issue is the Bill appears to give the executive the powers to make those changes by ministers exercising their powers, rather than committing to taking those changes through Parliament using primary legislation, which enables MPs to have a proper debate.  As I say, I can see the benefits of efficiency in this approach but it potentially gives ministers huge powers, which they don't currently have, rather than giving it to Parliament.  I can see this approach causing a bit of a stir in all camps, not least because it rather jars with the Brexiteers' mantra about taking back powers from 'those unelected bureaucrats' (sic) and returning them to Parliament.

Mike      

Sorry, should have added that if all the EU legislation was being written into UK law without the intention of changing a fair bit of it, that would rather undermine the Brexiteers' argument of 'taking back control'.  After all, what's the point in taking control if you don't intend to do anything with it? The whole costly exercise would have no more than symbolic value.    

I have read contributions to this thread from time to time, but declined to participate mainly because rather than a discussion it soon degenerated with many of the posts coming across as a series of rants (from both sides).  I found little evidence of anyone' mind being changed and I was not tempted to join in the shouting match.  However, I did notice one poster whose tone and ad hominem attacks seemed egregiously unpleasant.  I am sure I am too easily offended, but, dear Andarkian, I found the assertion in your recent post linking mass immigration (whatever that means) to the dreadful events on Westminster Bridge last week the most offensive post I have encountered on these forums.  I find the exploitation of the suffering of heartbroken families grieving for their loved ones, police grieving for their colleague and children grieving for their school friends to advance your, to my mind, poisonous agenda quite despicable.  I think none of the leading Brexiteers or even UKIP (though I may be wrong on that) have sunk that low.

For me, one of the most moving events of recent weeks was yesterday's vigil on Westminster Bridge.  To see children and adults of all faiths and countries as well as police holding hands across the bridge, many with pro-peace banners and many in tears, reminded me why, even with great difficulty at the moment, I still love this country.  Perhaps we should be reminded of the word's of her husband about the dreadfully missed Jo Cox:  "An act designed to drive communities apart has instead brought them together, an act designed to silence a voice has instead allowed millions of others to hear it. Although she is dead, the opinions and values she held so dear will live on."  Amen to that.

Roger

PS  Dear Andarkian, your history is wrong on King Canute, who was certainly not "in denial of the blatantly obvious".  The first mention of Cnut sticking his chair on the beach is in the Historia Anglorum of 1154 where the reason given is to show that he could not turn back the waves, perhaps to demonstrate his piety, perhaps to rebuke overly-sycophantic courtiers. 

MDS posted:

Sorry, should have added that if all the EU legislation was being written into UK law without the intention of changing a fair bit of it, that would rather undermine the Brexiteers' argument of 'taking back control'.  After all, what's the point in taking control if you don't intend to do anything with it? The whole costly exercise would have no more than symbolic value.    

Mike, sorry don't see that at all, the whole point is it will be down to HMG / Parliament to change if required by current or subsequent governments ... so by definition control is restored to HMG and Parliament... can't see how that can jar with most... certainly what I wanted.

At the end of all of this, financial economics will dictate what happens.  Whatever lead to the public voting to exit the EU, whether fears over immigration policy, threat of terrorism, or our right to consume curved banannas, none of this will be a factor in the decision making process for the end deal.  The UK will jump through all the hoops to ensure that the economy prevails as best it can under the circumstances.  The powers that be will spin the facts as best they can, showing that both the exiters, and the remainers have a better world, but ultimately it will come down to preserving the economy of the country, and mean that we effectivelly comply with the EU terms, near enough as we did before.  If that deal is at the expense of buying in to EU policy on free movement, trade blah blah, so be it. 

If you really want to take charge of how you interact with 27 other united (ish) nations, it will take a bit more than a letter saying, basically, fu.  

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

MDS posted:

Sorry, should have added that if all the EU legislation was being written into UK law without the intention of changing a fair bit of it, that would rather undermine the Brexiteers' argument of 'taking back control'.  After all, what's the point in taking control if you don't intend to do anything with it? The whole costly exercise would have no more than symbolic value.    

Mike, sorry don't see that at all, the whole point is it will be down to HMG / Parliament to change if required by current or subsequent governments ... so by definition control is restored to HMG and Parliament... can't see how that can jar with most... certainly what I wanted.

Simon, the Great Repeal Bill effectively moves the entire EU law into the UK, unchanged. It will be up to this generation and future generations to modify and change as they see fit. 

Normally such change would be approved by Parliament. However, the Gov has decided in the interest of "efficiency", that some issues could by-pass Parliament and be changed by hug without the safety of scrutiny. 

Of course, if you trust TM, Boris, Gove, Redwood and a few others, you have nothing to concern you.........

My understanding is that certain laws/regulations will need to be amended of necessity insofar as they refer to EU institutions or agencies to which the UK will no longer be subject.

Peakman posted:

I have read contributions to this thread from time to time, but declined to participate mainly because rather than a discussion it soon degenerated with many of the posts coming across as a series of rants (from both sides).  I found little evidence of anyone' mind being changed and I was not tempted to join in the shouting match.  However, I did notice one poster whose tone and ad hominem attacks seemed egregiously unpleasant.  I am sure I am too easily offended, but, dear Andarkian, I found the assertion in your recent post linking mass immigration (whatever that means) to the dreadful events on Westminster Bridge last week the most offensive post I have encountered on these forums.  I find the exploitation of the suffering of heartbroken families grieving for their loved ones, police grieving for their colleague and children grieving for their school friends to advance your, to my mind, poisonous agenda quite despicable.  I think none of the leading Brexiteers or even UKIP (though I may be wrong on that) have sunk that low.

For me, one of the most moving events of recent weeks was yesterday's vigil on Westminster Bridge.  To see children and adults of all faiths and countries as well as police holding hands across the bridge, many with pro-peace banners and many in tears, reminded me why, even with great difficulty at the moment, I still love this country.  Perhaps we should be reminded of the word's of her husband about the dreadfully missed Jo Cox:  "An act designed to drive communities apart has instead brought them together, an act designed to silence a voice has instead allowed millions of others to hear it. Although she is dead, the opinions and values she held so dear will live on."  Amen to that.

Roger

PS  Dear Andarkian, your history is wrong on King Canute, who was certainly not "in denial of the blatantly obvious".  The first mention of Cnut sticking his chair on the beach is in the Historia Anglorum of 1154 where the reason given is to show that he could not turn back the waves, perhaps to demonstrate his piety, perhaps to rebuke overly-sycophantic courtiers. 

Oh dear! What am I to say, other than of course I knew that Canute's gesture was purely symbolic? Still, nice of you to give us the full facts.

For the rest, am sure you reflect other people's' opinions of what I have had to say and am quite unapologetic. If it appears harsh then that is because harsh things are happening in many countries around the world and am afraid holding hands and lighting candles does not seem to deter those that wish to visit harm on us, our families and our societies. 

You may genuinely believe that the EU was our salvation from the world's evils and provided a warm security, but events seem to be at odds with that opinion. You may also believe that welcoming all comers from any or all parts of the world would ensure brotherly love in the new Nirvana here in the U.K., but events seem to contradict that as well. You may also believe we have riches enough for all to be welcomed, housed and succoured, but the facts that our elderly are being left uncared for, our own children cannot get accessible schooling, our hospitals and doctors surgeries are full to bursting and we, ourselves, cannot afford housing would also seem to contradict that aspiration.

Now, I assume that you own a Naim system of some form and there's a good chance that you are one of the 5% or so who live very comfortably and very cushioned from harsh reality in this country. I certainly know that I am and very thankful for it. Anything I do or say here is meant to challenge the assumptions that all my peers, my children or grandchildren have been or will be so privileged due to the abject carelessness and wilful destruction caused by Parliamentary and EU ideologues undertaking madcap social engineering schemes while  blindly ignoring the enemies at our bridges, or on our undergrounds, or in our theatres, or at our beaches. 

I am happy to be proved wrong. I may challenge you robustly but will bear no grudges if you do succeed. 

Was that ad hominem? Actually am amazed, but unconcerned, at how ad hominem some of your own remarks aimed at myself happen to be. 

ltaylor posted:

Eloise posted:

Yes; there may be a reduction in immigration (though the last announcements from the government suggests that is doubtful) but at what cost?

The difference which you invariably overlook is that inside the EU we cannot control immigration.

We we cannot (could not) control immigration from within the EU.  Non-EU immigration was eminently controllable yet was rising not falling.

Personally I believe immigration is out of control and has been for a decade or more.

Respectfully I disagree however the effects of immigration I will accept were out of control.

We constantly see news items about collapsing NHS and the need to build x thousand houses every week, but no one raises why this should be.

It is simple.  The NHS is in crisis and houseing market in crisis because of 7 years, likely 20 years and in probably 38 years of lack of investment.  UK governments have failed the people while being part of the EU has made the country economically strong.

The country was strong, but parts of it are no longer working for its citizens and the blame for that has been laid at the door of immigrants.

The figures on immigration from outside the EU are likely to be accurate since these people require a visa. EU migration is just a guess and the fact remains that we have no control over this.

If countries like Bulgaria and Romania paid out benefits on a par with the UK this would not be an issue, but they dont. Added to this mix will be Albania soon. Doubtless these people can already apply for an EU "accession state" visa to claim the car wash they run is a legitimate business. The result of this is we have hundreds of thousands of people coming from poor countries in search of a better standard of living. The upshot is the NHS is collapsing and they now want to build on farmland. You ask at what cost the reduction in immigration will come at? Well what are you going to do when the NHS collapses plant some magic money trees? Have you no conception of just what a Ponzi scheme is?

Benefits paid to EU citizens who are not in work are a very small proportion of the UK's welfare bill and it's my understanding of EU regulartions that "benefit holidays" could be mostly stopped had the UK Gov chosen to enforce the regulations.

Essentially though if you want a properly funded NHS, if you want investment in infrastructure, if you want funded schools ... then tax revenues need to rise.  We've had 7 years of austerity and cutbacks and zero effort in tackling tax evasion.

Ironically to get countries like Bulgaria and Romania to pay out benefits on par with UK would require GREATER political unity across the EU.

Milton Friedman wisely observed that you can either have open borders or a welfare state. You cant have both. One truly laughable bit of nonsense that the remainicas trot out all the time is who will pick put fruit and veg? Who the hell do you think picked it in 2003 before the A7 joined? We issued work permits and when the season was over these people by and large went home.

So you are happy to exploit forigen workers?

No one I know who voted leave expected to stop immigration. We just want the British governemnt to be in charge of who comes and who doesn't, not some foreign regime over which we have next to no control.

Some voters DO expect immigration to stop.  Perhaps not people you know, but read the newspapers, read the letters columns, people do expect immigration to stop.

PS. One thing that can be done post Brexit is looking at tax revenue especially at a corporate level and VAT / Sales tax.  Getting a proper tax revenue on sales made by companies registered off shore for tax purposes.

andarkian posted:

Peakman posted:

I have read contributions to this thread from time to time, but declined to participate mainly because rather than a discussion it soon degenerated with many of the posts coming across as a series of rants (from both sides).  I found little evidence of anyone' mind being changed and I was not tempted to join in the shouting match.  However, I did notice one poster whose tone and ad hominem attacks seemed egregiously unpleasant.  I am sure I am too easily offended, but, dear Andarkian, I found the assertion in your recent post linking mass immigration (whatever that means) to the dreadful events on Westminster Bridge last week the most offensive post I have encountered on these forums.  I find the exploitation of the suffering of heartbroken families grieving for their loved ones, police grieving for their colleague and children grieving for their school friends to advance your, to my mind, poisonous agenda quite despicable.  I think none of the leading Brexiteers or even UKIP (though I may be wrong on that) have sunk that low.

For me, one of the most moving events of recent weeks was yesterday's vigil on Westminster Bridge.  To see children and adults of all faiths and countries as well as police holding hands across the bridge, many with pro-peace banners and many in tears, reminded me why, even with great difficulty at the moment, I still love this country.  Perhaps we should be reminded of the word's of her husband about the dreadfully missed Jo Cox:  "An act designed to drive communities apart has instead brought them together, an act designed to silence a voice has instead allowed millions of others to hear it. Although she is dead, the opinions and values she held so dear will live on."  Amen to that.

Roger

PS  Dear Andarkian, your history is wrong on King Canute, who was certainly not "in denial of the blatantly obvious".  The first mention of Cnut sticking his chair on the beach is in the Historia Anglorum of 1154 where the reason given is to show that he could not turn back the waves, perhaps to demonstrate his piety, perhaps to rebuke overly-sycophantic courtiers. 

Oh dear! What am I to say, other than of course I knew that Canute's gesture was purely symbolic? Still, nice of you to give us the full facts.

For the rest, am sure you reflect other people's' opinions of what I have had to say and am quite unapologetic. If it appears harsh then that is because harsh things are happening in many countries around the world and am afraid holding hands and lighting candles does not seem to deter those that wish to visit harm on us, our families and our societies. 

You may genuinely believe that the EU was our salvation from the world's evils and provided a warm security, but events seem to be at odds with that opinion. You may also believe that welcoming all comers from any or all parts of the world would ensure brotherly love in the new Nirvana here in the U.K., but events seem to contradict that as well. You may also believe we have riches enough for all to be welcomed, housed and succoured, but the facts that our elderly are being left uncared for, our own children cannot get accessible schooling, our hospitals and doctors surgeries are full to bursting and we, ourselves, cannot afford housing would also seem to contradict that aspiration.

Now, I assume that you own a Naim system of some form and there's a good chance that you are one of the 5% or so who live very comfortably and very cushioned from harsh reality in this country. I certainly know that I am and very thankful for it. Anything I do or say here is meant to challenge the assumptions that all my peers, my children or grandchildren have been or will be so privileged due to the abject carelessness and wilful destruction caused by Parliamentary and EU ideologues undertaking madcap social engineering schemes while  blindly ignoring the enemies at our bridges, or on our undergrounds, or in our theatres, or at our beaches. 

I am happy to be proved wrong. I may challenge you robustly but will bear no grudges if you do succeed. 

Was that ad hominem? Actually am amazed, but unconcerned, at how ad hominem some of your own remarks aimed at myself happen to be. 

Andarkian

Could you withdraw your assertions and admit that the attack on Westminster Bridge and the murder of the policeman at the House of Commons were not carried out by an 'immigrant' and had nothing to do with membership of the EU or the open borders policy of the EU? 

If you could do that then perhaps you would demonstrate that there is some rationality to your position, and then continue from there with reasoned arguments with evidence rather than simply continuing to expose your rather unpleasant prejudices.

Clive

CDB,

Ha! Ha! Thanks for the advice. I'll leave it all intact, as everything I said is impacted by our conformity to EU rules, although I will admit that there are a few self inflicted examples that may have been intermingled.

Anyway, rather than focusing on my perceived prejudices it is much more pleasant to see that most other participants in this thread are actually discussing ways forward to ultimate Brexit rather than harking back to life pre-EU.

Don Atkinson posted:

DomTomLondon posted:

Being a Polish/Canadian who has lived in London for over 10 years. Has worked (payed my taxes) and raised two beautiful children here, butmight soon be kicked out of the country I've made my home. It's interesting to hear some people's views on here.  Kind of reminds me of another time in Europe, not too long ago actually, when outsiders where not welcome and blamed for that country's economy problems. 

BTW. House prices are sky high because of foreign buyers/investors from Russia, the far east and the middle east, nothing to do with a few Europeans coming here.

I wouldn't worry. The PM has made it abundantly clear that she intends to allow Europeans who are already established here, to remain as full members of our society..........provided the EU agrees to a reciprocal agreement with respect to UK citizens living in the EU. It would be the fault of the EU, if this were not to happen. I can't see the EU letting such an issue be seen as their fault. A couple of weeks ago, my MP assured me that this issue WILL be resolved sensibly and established EU citizens will be completely free to remain. Unfortunately, we are talking about politicians, not estate agents

FWIW, I would have much preferred if TM had made a unilateral declaration that established EU Citizens were welcome to remain in the UK.

Hi Don, thanks for the reassuring words. I also think that neither the UK or EU want to kick out anyone that have made another county their home, and destroy the life they have built. It was disappointing however to find that TM didn't feel that being the better person, and giving EU citizens a guarantee to stay, was the right thing to do. Especially that it's the UK that decided to leave, (well some of you anyway) not the other way around.

That's okay, I'll do as the slogan says: Keep calm, and carry on listening to my Naim system!

Demos have published a report on the likely impact and opportunities of Brexit, drawing on input from academics, business and policy makers.

I haven't read it yet myself, but it may be of interest, especially to those like Don. It's available here - https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-con...brexit-report-v2.pdf

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

MDS posted:

Sorry, should have added that if all the EU legislation was being written into UK law without the intention of changing a fair bit of it, that would rather undermine the Brexiteers' argument of 'taking back control'.  After all, what's the point in taking control if you don't intend to do anything with it? The whole costly exercise would have no more than symbolic value.    

Mike, sorry don't see that at all, the whole point is it will be down to HMG / Parliament to change if required by current or subsequent governments ... so by definition control is restored to HMG and Parliament... can't see how that can jar with most... certainly what I wanted.

Simon - please permit me to unpack this a little. And please forgive me if you already know what I'm about to describe.

Secondary legislation is implemented through Statutory Instruments which are signed by the relevant departmental minister.  The SI need to be scrutinised by Parliament but with SIs this is done through parliamentary committees of which there are quite a few, each empowered to cover certain topics like agriculture, social security etc.   As you probably know, these committees are made up of a small number of MPs and the membership given to the parties is meant to reflect the proportion of whole House. So currently, each committee will have a small majority of Conservative members.  

The measures in an SI can be enacted through one of two types:  'affirmative resolutions' and 'negative resolutions'. This determines how the relevant committee passes the measure.  Affirmative resolutions require the committee to actively and positively agree the measure, using a majority vote.  Negative resolutions, in contrast, will pass into law by a given date unless the committee acts to prevent it.  

Now this is the key bit, and why I raised the concern - affirmative resolutions make up a small proportion of the total and by convention apply to particular types of measures, for example, those that have a direct financial effect on people like the imposition of a fee or levy.  Most measures in SIs tend to be negative resolutions which rely on the interested and eagle-eyed MPs to spot them and act to ensure they are discussed in committee, which also tends to give them (the measures) wider public exposure.  The volume of legislation going through the House is always large - and will increase significantly because of Brexit - and MPs are very busy. So, put bluntly, there's a good chance that changes to EU law that ministers decide to make could slip through Parliament largely unnoticed, and the impact - if it is unpopular - will only be noticed later when it is executed.

In the light of the above description perhaps you will see why Don's question about the extent to which people are prepared to trust the individual ministers is pertinent.

Mike    

MDS posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

MDS posted:

Sorry, should have added that if all the EU legislation was being written into UK law without the intention of changing a fair bit of it, that would rather undermine the Brexiteers' argument of 'taking back control'.  After all, what's the point in taking control if you don't intend to do anything with it? The whole costly exercise would have no more than symbolic value.    

Mike, sorry don't see that at all, the whole point is it will be down to HMG / Parliament to change if required by current or subsequent governments ... so by definition control is restored to HMG and Parliament... can't see how that can jar with most... certainly what I wanted.

Simon - please permit me to unpack this a little. And please forgive me if you already know what I'm about to describe.

Secondary legislation is implemented through Statutory Instruments which are signed by the relevant departmental minister.  The SI need to be scrutinised by Parliament but with SIs this is done through parliamentary committees of which there are quite a few, each empowered to cover certain topics like agriculture, social security etc.   As you probably know, these committees are made up of a small number of MPs and the membership given to the parties is meant to reflect the proportion of whole House. So currently, each committee will have a small majority of Conservative members.  

The measures in an SI can be enacted through one of two types:  'affirmative resolutions' and 'negative resolutions'. This determines how the relevant committee passes the measure.  Affirmative resolutions require the committee to actively and positively agree the measure, using a majority vote.  Negative resolutions, in contrast, will pass into law by a given date unless the committee acts to prevent it.  

Now this is the key bit, and why I raised the concern - affirmative resolutions make up a small proportion of the total and by convention apply to particular types of measures, for example, those that have a direct financial effect on people like the imposition of a fee or levy.  Most measures in SIs tend to be negative resolutions which rely on the interested and eagle-eyed MPs to spot them and act to ensure they are discussed in committee, which also tends to give them (the measures) wider public exposure.  The volume of legislation going through the House is always large - and will increase significantly because of Brexit - and MPs are very busy. So, put bluntly, there's a good chance that changes to EU law that ministers decide to make could slip through Parliament largely unnoticed, and the impact - if it is unpopular - will only be noticed later when it is executed.

In the light of the above description perhaps you will see why Don's question about the extent to which people are prepared to trust the individual ministers is pertinent.

Mike    

Wow! I really do have to apologise in advance, but I have just watched the most undiluted load of tripe on the BBC, which was Evelyn Waugh's Decline And Fall. In its hey day it might have had some relevance to the narrow band of lower middle class, public school educated drones of that period, but it does not translate at all well into the 21st century.

Unfortunately neither does  whatever you describe above. To be very generous, the phenomenal Jacob Rees Mogg, for whom I have nothing but admiration, may understand and appreciate what you are saying, but I'll bet a pound to a penny our resident technocrat-in-chief, Simon in Suffolk, has not got a Scooby! As for 'interested and eagle eyed MPs', your faith in our Westminster Wonders is much stronger than mine. You rightly say that, due to the arcane and obscure procedures, which you describe in detail above, all sorts will fall through the hopeless and hapless sieve that is supposed to be scrutiny.

Whether any or all of this will result in disaster is unlikely to be noticed, resolved or even cursorily acknowledged by the intellectual dwarfs inhabiting Westminster today. In fact you might as well load a muck spreader with all EU laws and flush them through Parliament in one dynamic purge. 

Have I captured the gist of your thinking and concerns, albeit in more simplistic and less eloquent terms? Personally, due to my concerns for the quality of our Parliamentarians, I wiukd go for cross your fingers and flush the lot through. It won't make the blindest bit of difference to any perceived disaster. 

Andarkian, all that is being said is that the process following the Great Repeal Bill is open to abuse. If you trust the politicians that I mentioned, plus, of course JRM, then you have nothing to fear. 

Me . I wouldn't trust them With childrens' pocket money in a kindergarten !

Andarkian - I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that my explanation of how secondary legislation passes through Parliament is tripe or that the process I've described is tripe? Perhaps your knowledge of this stuff is better than mine.

In any event, my point here, unlike most in this thread, is not about the pros and cons of Brexit. It is about how existing EU legislation is being adopted into UK law and how the government appears to be giving itself powers to adapt that legislation. Perhaps you don't care what happens to workers rights, environmental standards, food standards, health & safety, etc etc.  Perhaps you would be happy for the government to have a bonfire of all the EU 'red-tape' and trust the 'market' to do the 'right thing'.  If so, I would still suggest to you that it is better for your elected MP to make a transparent and conscious decision that this was the right thing to do, or perhaps you would be happy for it to be done by stealth?      

Don Atkinson posted:

Andarkian, all that is being said is that the process following the Great Repeal Bill is open to abuse. If you trust the politicians that I mentioned, plus, of course JRM, then you have nothing to fear. 

Me . I wouldn't trust them With childrens' pocket money in a kindergarten !

Brilliant! Now that is the perfect retort.

MDS posted:

Andarkian - I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that my explanation of how secondary legislation passes through Parliament is tripe or that the process I've described is tripe? Perhaps your knowledge of this stuff is better than mine.

In any event, my point here, unlike most in this thread, is not about the pros and cons of Brexit. It is about how existing EU legislation is being adopted into UK law and how the government appears to be giving itself powers to adapt that legislation. Perhaps you don't care what happens to workers rights, environmental standards, food standards, health & safety, etc etc.  Perhaps you would be happy for the government to have a bonfire of all the EU 'red-tape' and trust the 'market' to do the 'right thing'.  If so, I would still suggest to you that it is better for your elected MP to make a transparent and conscious decision that this was the right thing to do, or perhaps you would be happy for it to be done by stealth?      

Apologies MDS, your detaiked description was flawless, but there were a couple of intended 'plants' in my own comment. The Decline and Fall reference was meant to show how something so anachronistic has no place in the 21st century as might the SI process.

The second was Jacob Rees Mogg who participated in a short discussion on College Green with a senior Labour MP and possibly a Liberal MP. Mogg was describing to them exactly what you detailed above and they were refusing to believe that was the process. TBH I came in part way through but your own comment aroused my thinking. Rees Mogg is the kindest, gentlest and most polite person you could ever meet. Although his manner never changed throughout the interview I could see his face getting redder and redder at the contemptuous disbelief  he was receiving from the other two interviewees. These are the very people expected to carry out the appropriate processes and procedures.

lastly, my allusion to muck spreaders was me being me. We have been inundated with statutory  effluent from Brussels over the years. Hoping to pick it apart line by line in committees would probably take longer than it took to create. Just an allusion and no criticism of yourself at all. 

andarkian posted:

MDS posted:

Andarkian - I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that my explanation of how secondary legislation passes through Parliament is tripe or that the process I've described is tripe? Perhaps your knowledge of this stuff is better than mine.

In any event, my point here, unlike most in this thread, is not about the pros and cons of Brexit. It is about how existing EU legislation is being adopted into UK law and how the government appears to be giving itself powers to adapt that legislation. Perhaps you don't care what happens to workers rights, environmental standards, food standards, health & safety, etc etc.  Perhaps you would be happy for the government to have a bonfire of all the EU 'red-tape' and trust the 'market' to do the 'right thing'.  If so, I would still suggest to you that it is better for your elected MP to make a transparent and conscious decision that this was the right thing to do, or perhaps you would be happy for it to be done by stealth?      

Apologies MDS, your detaiked description was flawless, but there were a couple of intended 'plants' in my own comment. The Decline and Fall reference was meant to show how something so anachronistic has no place in the 21st century as might the SI process.

The second was Jacob Rees Mogg who participated in a short discussion on College Green with a senior Labour MP and possibly a Liberal MP. Mogg was describing to them exactly what you detailed above and they were refusing to believe that was the process. TBH I came in part way through but your own comment aroused my thinking. Rees Mogg is the kindest, gentlest and most polite person you could ever meet. Although his manner never changed throughout the interview I could see his face getting redder and redder at the contemptuous disbelief  he was receiving from the other two interviewees. These are the very people expected to carry out the appropriate processes and procedures.

lastly, my allusion to muck spreaders was me being me. We have been inundated with statutory  effluent from Brussels over the years. Hoping to pick it apart line by line in committees would probably take longer than it took to create. Just an allusion and no criticism of yourself at all. 

Thanks, Andarkian. I understand where you're coming from now. I must also confess some admiration for JRM. He's a bit of an odd fellow but clearly very intelligent, diligent, and principled - qualities it's good to see in a parliamentarian.