The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Ah yes. The sound of Pandora moaning upon discovering the contents of the box had a mind of their own.

 

[ml1dch]

17 hours ago, Awol said:

Jap Ambo to UK on Radio 4 suggested all they have agreed (in 4 years and 3 months) with the EU is a framework for more detailed discussions that will take years of negotiation to complete. Also said a post Brexit bilateral FTA between UK & Japan may even happen first given how long the EU takes over such deals.  

Maybe, maybe not. The same interview used the example of the Swiss - Japanese deal for how it could be done much quicker.

And it's correct to say that the formal talks began in January 2007 and the agreement was signed in February 2009.

So maybe we could get one done in a couple of years too? 

Nothing is impossible, but the two years that the Swiss and Japanese took was effectively codifying "bilateral economic consultations between the Japanese and Swiss governments" which have been held "on a regular basis" since 1995.

Which as you're probably aware, isn't really the same as our situation.

Edited July 10, 2017 by ml1dch

[Awol]

3 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Maybe, maybe not. The same interview used the example of the Swiss - Japanese deal for how it could be done much quicker.

And it's correct to say that the formal talks began in January 2007 and the agreement was signed in February 2009.

So maybe we could get one done in a couple of years too? 

Nothing is impossible, but the two years that the Swiss and Japanese took was effectively codifying "bilateral economic consultations between the Japanese and Swiss governments" which have been held "on a regular basis" since 1995.

Which as you're probably aware, isn't really the same as our situation.

True, but the same Ambo stated that the U.K. had played a key role in driving this particular negotiation forward and that a bilateral deal on similar terms shouldn't be a problem. 

The advantage of a bilateral deal is that when it comes to the detail (still to be negotiated in the EU-Japan deal) the UK wouldn't have to account for the wishes of 27 other member states. 

[villaglint]

Lots of ways to look at this Brexit malarkey and here is another 

 

[PompeyVillan]

31 minutes ago, villaglint said:

Lots of ways to look at this Brexit malarkey and here is another 

 

Oh hai United Statues of Libertines, sorry but we've noticed that rampant free market dogma thing has got us into a bit of a mess. We've made a significant amount of people quite angry by making them poor and then encouraging them to be angry at foreigners and each other. Some of the angry people still read our newspapers but since we stopped putting boobs in them they're less popular. And yannow, the internet.

Probably best that we do this thing without you. We like our NHS and we don't like your umpa lumpa overlord. He's more angry at brown people than is openly acceptable here.

 

[chrisp65]

Brexit dream Brexit reality

[snowychap]

 

[ml1dch]

On 10/07/2017 at 19:59, Awol said:

True, but the same Ambo stated that the U.K. had played a key role in driving this particular negotiation forward and that a bilateral deal on similar terms shouldn't be a problem. 

The advantage of a bilateral deal is that when it comes to the detail (still to be negotiated in the EU-Japan deal) the UK wouldn't have to account for the wishes of 27 other member states. 

Oh, absolutely. More time to concentrate on the stuff that is important to us, less time spent on the stuff that matters to the Portuguese and the Belgians. All good. 

So, we've cobbled together a rag-tag bunch of civil servants and management consultants, led by a demonstrable ignoramus with no idea of what can and cannot be achieved. And they will spend the next 18 months or so putting every sinew into making sure that we get the Best Possible Deal For Britain ® 

So all that extra time will then come in handy, as then, they'll start on the 853 bilateral agreements and 258 multilateral agreements that we currently use which will cease from April 2019*. Which we'll be desperate to sort as quickly as possible, so we can move onto the real success stories, like our new agreement with the Phillipines. Or Eritrea. And as everybody knows, the time to get the best deal as possible is when you go in desperate. 

 

*or they would, were it not that a mutually agreed, UK financed "extension period" at this point is the most inevitable thing since the sun rising this morning.

Edited July 12, 2017 by ml1dch

[tonyh29]

16 hours ago, snowychap said:

 

9 months into a target of between 12 to 24 months   .. isn't it a bit early to suggest it's failed ?

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

9 months into a target of between 12 to 24 months   .. isn't it a bit early to suggest it's failed ?

No, not really. If you're claiming (ludicrously) that you will complete something that takes years anyway, in between 1 and 2 years, and after 9 months it's not even started (and won't do for a good while yet - another 15 months) then not only are you clearly failing, but you're also found out lying (again).

[Chindie]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

No, not really. If you're claiming (ludicrously) that you will complete something that takes years anyway, in between 1 and 2 years, and after 9 months it's not even started (and won't do for a good while yet - another 15 months) then not only are you clearly failing, but you're also found out lying (again).

No need to worry.

Everyone knows all these things get done in the last few days. All the months before are just bluster!

[bobzy]

I loves me some Brexit.  We're already seeing less of them foreign folk what are trying to ruin Britain and take our jobs.  It's fantastic.

What do you mean uncertain future?  As long as we're not being told what to do by them pesky foreigners we'll be just fine.  Those politicians said so after all, and they're never wrong!

[darrenm]

I said before the referendum that I was voting remain because I believe the EU protects us against a government which sees our human rights as an inconvenience to multinationals and corporates who want to fully exploit us.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/13/great-repeal-bill-human-rights-clause-sets-up-brexit-clash-with-labour

“The charter of fundamental rights is not part of domestic law on or after exit day.”

sigh

[villaglint]

6 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I said before the referendum that I was voting remain because I believe the EU protects us against a government which sees our human rights as an inconvenience to multinationals and corporates who want to fully exploit us.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/13/great-repeal-bill-human-rights-clause-sets-up-brexit-clash-with-labour

 

 

sigh

Don't worry Labour will use their unexpectedly good result to pressure the government on issues exactly like this.

 

Sigh. 

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, villaglint said:

Don't worry Labour will use their unexpectedly good result to pressure the government on issues exactly like this.

 

Sigh. 

They will. They have no choice. Starmer has said the bill has to pass the tests and it doesn't so they only need 5ish Tory rebels to vote it down

[Chindie]

Relying in 5 Tory rebels should send a shiver down your spine. Labour's Brexit position also wouldn't lend me to assume they'll all oppose things either.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Relying in 5 Tory rebels should send a shiver down your spine. Labour's Brexit position also wouldn't lend me to assume they'll all oppose things either.

Absolutely.

Like I said, entertaining times at least.

[snowychap]

Repeal Bill excerpt:

Quote

7    Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal

(1)

A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate—

(a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or

(b) any other deficiency in retained EU law, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

...

(4)

Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament.

...

(6)

But regulations under this section may not—

(a) impose or increase taxation,

(b) make retrospective provision,

(c) create a relevant criminal offence,

(d) be made to implement the withdrawal agreement,

(e) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it, or

(f) amend or repeal the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (unless the regulations are made by virtue of paragraph 13(b) of Schedule 7 to this Act or are amending or repealing paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or any provision of that Act which modifies another enactment).

(7)

No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.

The explanatory notes also say:

Quote

The law is not deficient merely because a minister considers that EU law was flawed prior to exit.

I can't immediately see that in the wording of the Bill. I may have missed it.

Edited July 13, 2017 by snowychap

[Xann]

Quote

Small print of repeal bill creates unprecedented new powers for Brexit ministers

On the face of it, the repeal bill addresses many of the concerns of its critics. But once you dig in a little further, the full scale of the executive power grab becomes clear. There has never been a piece of legislation like this in modern British history. We have never handed the government so much power. 

Ministers have a useful argument for why they are doing this: They have to. Pretty much everyone accepts that. In order to avoid a legislative black hole on the day we leave the EU, we need to copy and paste all the EU law into British law. That's a given. But when you do that, things quickly get a bit weird. The EU law will refer to EU member states, for instance, which we will no longer be. And it will refer to EU regulators which we will no longer be part of. Plus – and here's the kicker – we won't know which regulators we need, or what powers they'll have, or which standards we're mandated to stick to, until the negotiations are over.

Ministers therefore need wide-ranging powers to tinker with the law without meaningful and lengthy parliamentary scrutiny. it;s the only way they can get everything into place in time for Brexit day. To do that, they will use Henry VIII clauses - mechanisms allowing them to implement legislation without going through the usual parliamentary shenanigans. No-one questions that the government needs these. What critics have demanded is that there are sufficient safeguards on when and why and how they are used.

You can't trust governments with the power to sidestep parliament. Back in the day, for instance, ministers secured powers to proscribe terror groups and freeze their assets. Then in 2008 it used that power to secure UK assets in Icelandic banks. Perfectly sensible, you might think, but a world away from what they said they were going to use that power for. In the same way, powers which they currently say they need to transfer functions between public bodies for Brexit could be used in a few years time to dismantle an environmental regulator. Once you've got a serious little bit of executive power lying around, it's tempting to use it. That's why the safeguards are key.

Politics.co.uk

Oh Joy

[Chindie]

There's a shocker.

This whole thing is absurd and always has been. And like clockwork, as everyone could see, the repeal bill is designed to allow a executive power grab.

Oh and Euratom? Davis is peddling some line about doing a separate deal to join back in to it. Already there's a story doing the rounds that such a deal would be significantly more expensive.

Brexit. A nation increasingly losing it's senses and solemnly clapping them off as they go.