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

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Fisheries

Worth looking into the wider findings of that investigation. Such as the glorified dinghy that accounts for a fifth of the South West fishing take but never leaves a marina to help the company that owns it dodge fines on the boats that actually do the work.

Reminds me a little of the way we 'recycle' using Dutch incinerators.

[snowychap]

All this talk of fish and the EU has put me in the mood for some kippers.

[colhint]

what Farage and his mob

[darrenm]

Interesting interpretation

 

[ml1dch]

22 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Interesting interpretation

 

It's a nonsense interpretation with no grounding in reality.

[HanoiVillan]

Yeah, my main reaction to that is 'huh?'

[snowychap]

9 hours ago, colhint said:

what Farage and his mob

There's no way I'd swallow the shit they peddle.

[snowychap]

From Mark Elliot on the Repeal Bill (it's a long read but well worth it - and well worth following what he might have to say after more thought on the matter):

Quote

Few pieces of legislation have been as keenly awaited in the recent past as the “Great Repeal Bill” — or, as it is now more soberly known, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. A great deal will be written and said about the Bill as it progresses through Parliament. The modest aims of this post are to draw attention to (what seem to me to be) the key elements of the Bill, and to note some of the difficult questions — and likely political and constitutional controversies — to which it will give rise. These are early days. What follows does not seek to be comprehensive. And the views I express are preliminary; I am likely to return to a number of the issues set out below in separate posts over the coming weeks.

...

Commentary

The EU (Withdrawal) Bill is technical, dense and complex. What follows are no more than preliminary thoughts about what seem to me to be some (and only some) of the most sensitive and interesting constitutional issues that the Bill is likely to raise.

Delegated powers: Henry VIII

The powers conferred on Ministers by the Bill are extraordinarily substantial. That follows for two interlocking reasons. The first is that they constitute Henry VIII powers of the most ample type. As clause 7(4) puts it, the power granted by clause 7(1) can be used to enact regulations that make “any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”. Clauses 8(2) and 9(2) make equivalent provision in respect of the powers conferred by clauses 8(1) and 9(1). On the face of it, this implies a plenary legislative power — a power to legislate for any purpose. However, clauses 7(4), 8(2) and 9(2) cannot properly be read that broadly, for the powers granted by clauses 7(1), 8(1) and 9(1) are in the first place granted only for certain purposes and are subject to certain restrictions. The point about clauses 7(4), 8(2) and 9(2), therefore, is that they do not relate to the scope of the powers; rather, they relate to their constitutional potency. And they are certainly potent: if it is possible for regulations made under clauses 7(1), 8(1) and 9(1) to do anything that could be done by Act of Parliament, then that must extend to amending or repealing any kind of law, including provisions in other Acts of Parliament.

Delegated powers: Scope

The second point concerning delegated powers is that their constitutional potency is matched by their extraordinary scope. That scope is not infinite: there are restrictions concerning such matters as imposing taxes, creating more-serious criminal offences, amending the Human Rights Act 1998, and making provision that is itself retrospective in effect. Nevertheless, what can be done using these powers is very broad indeed — a point that applies with particular force to clause 7(1).

It allows Ministers to make such regulations as they consider appropriate for the purpose of preventing, remedying or mitigating “any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively” or “any other deficiency in retained EU law” arising from exit. What is meant by a failure to “operate effectively” is left entirely open; meanwhile, clause 7(2) gives merely non-exhaustive (and wide ranging) examples of things that can be considered “deficiencies”.

...

Delegated powers: Judicial review

A question inevitably arises about how courts are likely to respond to challenges to things done under these powers. The language is so broad that successful challenges may appear to be a very distant prospect. However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in R (Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor [2016] UKSC 39 suggests that we cannot assume that extremely broadly framed powers will be taken by the courts to be as wide as their language suggests. Lord Neuberger, delivering the sole judgment, noted what he considered to be the tension between Henry VIII powers and parliamentary sovereignty:

When a court is considering the validity of a statutory instrument made under a Henry VIII power, its role in upholding Parliamentary supremacy is particularly striking, as the statutory instrument will be purporting to vary primary legislation passed into law by Parliament.

He then went on to quote (with approval) the following passage from Craies on Legislation:

[A]s with all delegated powers the only rule for construction is to test each proposed exercise by reference to whether or not it is within the class of action that Parliament must have contemplated when delegating. Although Henry VIII powers are often cast in very wide terms, the more general the words used by Parliament to delegate a power, the more likely it is that an exercise within the literal meaning of the words will nevertheless be outside the legislature’s contemplation.

The application of these principles to clause 7(1) is likely to make for some interesting litigation.

...

Parliamentary control: General

It was always inevitable that wide ministerial powers would have to be conferred by the Bill. And for all that this might be considered an affront to constitutional principle, little is to be gained by making that observation given the hard legislative realities that must be faced between now and exit day. The key constitutional issue in this regard was therefore always going to concern the degree of oversight and control exercisable by Parliament over the exercise of these powers. In approaching these issues, it is important to remember how limited is the scrutiny normally received by delegated legislation in Parliament — and, in particular, in the House of Commons. Subject to very rare exceptions, statutory instruments cannot be amended, and must therefore simply be given the green light or not. It is sobering to recall that the last time the House of Commons rejected a statutory instrument was in 1979.

The scrutiny arrangements for use of delegated powers under the Withdrawal Bill are set out in schedule 7. Broadly speaking, it draws a distinction between two categories of regulations. By default, the negative procedure will apply, meaning that regulations take effect until one or other of the Houses of Parliament passes a resolution annulling them. Such annulment is extremely rare. But some regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that they only enter into force if positively approved by both Houses. This entails a greater degree of parliamentary oversight and control than the negative or annulment procedure. Channelling some regulations in the affirmative and some into the annulment procedure is clearly sensible. Trivial, purely technical amendments to retained EU law need not detain Parliament by being routed through the affirmative procedure; but more substantial matters clearly should attract more by way of scrutiny and control. So far so good. But there are two fundamental problems with the way in which the Bill approaches this matter.

Parliamentary control: Problems

The first problem is that the category of regulations that attract the affirmative procedure is very narrow. It extends only to regulations that establish new domestic public authorities, transfer EU functions to UK public authorities, impose certain fees, create or widen the scope of criminal offences, or create or amend legislative powers. The likelihood — indeed, the certainty — thus arises that regulations that entail the making of highly significant policy choices and that have potentially serious or far-reaching implications will be subject only to annulment by Parliament, thereby shielding them from effective scrutiny.

The second problem is a related one. Given the vast range of issues that regulations made under clause 7(1) will have to deal with, attempting to lay down in advance abstract criteria that set the appropriate scrutiny level was always doomed to failure. It is for that reason that the House of Lords Constitution Committee, in its preliminary report on the “Great Repeal Bill”, raised the possibility of a sifting or triage process in Parliament, whereby an initial judgement would be made by a joint committee of both Houses about the appropriate level of scrutiny for a given set of regulations. The triage process would then have directed the regulations into a scrutiny procedure that was proportionate to the regulations’ significance and policy implications. There is, however, no hint of such an approach in the Bill. Nor is there any facility for directing regulations into an enhanced process entailing scrutiny beyond that inherent in the standard affirmative model. Such enhanced processes exist under a number of other pieces of primary legislation, but the Government pleads that enhanced scrutiny would cause too many delays to the amendment of retained EU law. Parliament, when it begins to consider the Bill, will have to decide whether that argument is good enough.

The need for extraordinary delegated powers is obvious in current circumstances. But it is regrettable that the Bill signally fails to acknowledge that the conferral of such extraordinary powers — judged by metrics including their breadth, their constitutional potency, and the unprecedented volume of regulations they will generate within a highly constricted timeframe — calls for something other than a bog-standard model of scrutiny. It is to hoped that this is a point that will not be lost on parliamentarians when their scrutiny of the Bill commences.

...

Sunset clauses: Circumvention?

There are, however, some caveats that must be entered, and that potentially undercut the efficacy of the sunset clauses as constitutional safeguards. The first relates to “exit day” which, as noted at the beginning of the post, is not fixed by the Bill but is to be designated by ministerial order. If exit day turns out not to be on 29 March 2019 but some time later than that, then that of course will extend the time period during which the delegated powers granted by the Bill can be exercised. This follows because the two-year clock in the sunset clauses begins to run only on exit day. If, for instance, exit day were designated as falling at the end of a potentially long transitional period, then the sunset clauses’ efficacy would look very different.

Could the sunset clauses be circumvented in some other way? Here, clause 17(1) is potentially significant. It provides that a Minister “may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act”. The Government’s Delegated Powers Memorandum emphasises that this permits the making of regulations in consequence of the Bill, as distinct from regulations in consequence of withdrawal. However, that distinction is a fine one, and it is further eroded by related provisions in the Bill. Schedule 7, paragraph 13 says that any power granted by the Bill to make regulations “may be exercised so as to modify retained EU law”. And schedule 7, paragraph 14 provides that: “The fact that a power to make regulations is conferred by this Act does not affect the extent of any other power to make regulations under this Act.” Meanwhile, clause 17(2) and (3) confirm that the clause 17(1) power can be used (among other things) to make regulations modifying Acts of Parliament (except Acts enacted after the current parliamentary session). And schedule 7, paragraph 9 provides that clause 17(1) regulations are subject only to annulment.

Ultimately, it seems to me highly unlikely that a court would permit clause 17(1) to be used so as to wholly circumvent the sunset provision that constrains the clause 7(1) power. But questions will certainly arise about the extent to which clause 17(1) permits the ongoing modification of retained EU law once the two-year period for the exercise of clause 7(1) has expired.

...more, yes more, on link

 

 

[magnkarl]

On 7/14/2017 at 11:46, darrenm said:

Interesting interpretation

 

Ha! Catherine needs to do some more studying. That is almost as hyperbole as what Farage has been peddling since the vote was called.

The EU could do a lot more to become a bit more palatable during this process and win over some more people though. The posturing that both sides are doing now rather than looking into the problems in both our houses will just further deteriorate things.

The EU needs to consider that its richer members are getting a bit tired of carrying the load and having very little input on policy (Sweden, Denmark, Holland) and that a lot of the populism that has sprouted around Europe is heavily down to the way that people at the top of the EU system behaves. The way that Brussels is set up makes it almost devoid of the feelings that a lot of people in Eastern Germany for example feel about the way that things have gone over the last couple of years. The immigrant crisis was handled horribly wrong - and the people of rural Germany and rural Sweden are the ones paying for it. 

For someone who grew up in a staunchly anti populist Europe the below map is just sad. Light blue is countries that have right wing populists in parliament, dark blue is countries that have right wing populists in government. This map would have only a couple of countries in light blue in 1973.

Edited July 15, 2017 by magnkarl

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

This map would have only a couple of countries in light blue in 1973.

What shade of blue would fascist Spain have been in '73?

What colour would the various military dictators and coups of Portugal have been coloured?

As for the military junta in Greece, not sure that was better?

Then there was the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

Oh, and a couple of those countries were slightly under the rule of Soviet Russia.

 

So I'm not absolutely sure what the point is? Should people be going back to the good old days before the evil EU stopped war and oppression?

[magnkarl]

15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

What shade of blue would fascist Spain have been in '73?

What colour would the various military dictators and coups of Portugal have been coloured?

As for the military junta in Greece, not sure that was better?

Then there was the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

Oh, and a couple of those countries were slightly under the rule of Soviet Russia.

 

So I'm not absolutely sure what the point is? Should people be going back to the good old days before the evil EU stopped war and oppression?

Woah, less aggro please. I'm talking about right wing populism in Western Europe. Not Soviet Union or occupation of someone else's land. Compared to the state of politics in countries like Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, etc there has been a major shift to populist right parties.

PVV(Holland), NF(France), AFD(Germany), FP(Norway), SD(Sweden), DF(Denmark) and so on are increasing in popularity and some are even in power. If that isn't a shift to populism in countries hailed as liberal social democracies I don't know what is.

What shade of blue would a fascist country be? Brown. It has nothing to do with right wing populism parties in Western Europe.

Saying that EU stopped war and oppression when they've never been involved in conflict is just a sound bite that a lot of people who like the EU keeps repeating. NATO is the only entity who have stopped any sort of oppression in Europe in the whole time EU has existed. EU has some political pressure to apply but in reality it's not effective at all (see Ukraine, Croatia, Bosnia).

You can say many positive things about EU - but dealing with strife and conflict has not been one of those. The last three year's worth of immigrants fleeing war is perfect proof of that.

Also what does a junta, dictators etc have to do with populism? Enforced government is not the same as populism, and the army taking over a country is probably the furthest away from populism that you can get.

Edited July 15, 2017 by magnkarl

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

37 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Should people be going back to the good old days before the evil EU stopped making it obvious that there were involved in war and oppression?

Fixed the last line for you Sorry. I'm still hungover and think I'm funny....

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The EU could do a lot more to become a bit more palpable

What?

[Chindie]

The founding organisation that became what we now call the EU, the European Coal and Steel Community, was established to assist the continent get back on its feet after 2 generations of horrific war, and to foster a relationship of trade and diplomacy in the ashes of destruction, between mortal enemies.

So to say the EU hasn't had an effect on peace, given the history of Europe, is silly. It established a relationship of everyone being in each others pockets, rather than everyone being at each others throats.

[NurembergVillan]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The founding organisation that became what we now call the EU, the European Coal and Steel Community, was established to assist the continent get back on its feet after 2 generations of horrific war

Both of which we won, and that's why we don't need them!!!11!1!

[Chindie]

Just now, NurembergVillan said:

Both of which we won, and that's why we don't need them!!!11!1!

Indeed.

Great British victories. And then a bunch of smelly European hangers on telling us what to do. The sheer gall of it! Or Gaul if you will sir, hahaha.

It's better when Europe is on fire.

[magnkarl]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The founding organisation that became what we now call the EU, the European Coal and Steel Community, was established to assist the continent get back on its feet after 2 generations of horrific war, and to foster a relationship of trade and diplomacy in the ashes of destruction, between mortal enemies.

So to say the EU hasn't had an effect on peace, given the history of Europe, is silly. It established a relationship of everyone being in each others pockets, rather than everyone being at each others throats.

What it's done is push conflict out of Europe and into areas on our borders instead. A lot better isn't it?

Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Turkey dictatorship, Morocco civil strife etc etc etc. 

It's fine though - the EU is the solution to end all wars. 

I'm not anti EU at all, though I don't buy the whole "EU stops war" crap - because there's still war all over and the EU does very little about it. It takes countries like Holland to stand alone in opposing the way Turkey ran their elections - Junker et all shuts up as soon as push comes to shove.

Edited July 15, 2017 by magnkarl

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

What it's done is push conflict out of Europe and into areas on our borders instead. A lot better isn't it?

Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Turkey dictatorship, Morocco civil strife etc etc etc. 

It's fine though - the EU is the solution to end all wars. 

I'm not anti EU at all, though I don't buy the whole "EU stops war" crap - because there's still war all over and the EU does very little about it.

The completely sensible and patently obvious position is that the EU has had a hand in preventing Europe collapsing into conflict again. 

Nobody is arguing it's stopped war full stop. That's obscenely stupid. 

The EU isn't the cause of conflicts in the Middle East, or elsewhere. It may well not help in some cases, I'm not going to waste my time jogging truth every conflict outside the EU, but it's not the cause at all.

This response is a head shaker. Has anyone ever said on this site the EU is the antidote to war full stop? I struggle to believe something that daft was said.

[magnkarl]

18 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The completely sensible and patently obvious position is that the EU has had a hand in preventing Europe collapsing into conflict again. 

Nobody is arguing it's stopped war full stop. That's obscenely stupid. 

The EU isn't the cause of conflicts in the Middle East, or elsewhere. It may well not help in some cases, I'm not going to waste my time jogging truth every conflict outside the EU, but it's not the cause at all.

This response is a head shaker. Has anyone ever said on this site the EU is the antidote to war full stop? I struggle to believe something that daft was said.

I'd say that the EU is one of the direct causes for the Ukraine war with what they did before that conflict began even though they were warned several times by Russia to stop meddling.

Okay, so let's change the argument to "EU created peace". If you think that the EU is the sole reason why there's no war in Europe then surely that should only be something that happened since ww2 on our continent right? Look at the "triangle" in Asia that always used to be at war up until the Korean War. After that there hasn't been a single war between China, Japan and Korea. Is that also because of EU or because we are evolving as a species and a world economy?

Stating that the EU is the only reason why there's been no war within EU is totally off. There's simply no interest in war in Western Europe just like in almost all the other developed countries in the world. The EU has very little to do with that in my opinion.

The frequency of war on EU's borders has on the other hand gone up, it just shows that we've pushed the problem out of sight. I don't feel like that is much to celebrate as people are just dying slightly further away than in Somme or Normandy.

Edited July 15, 2017 by magnkarl

[chrisp65]

44 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Woah, less aggro please. I'm talking about right wing populism in Western Europe

Aggro? That's not aggro.

You did not make any point about Western Europe in the original quote - you actually named Eastern Germany and showed a map of all of Europe.

You made a point about right wing light blue in 1973. Well, thirteen of the countries coloured blue on that map didn't exist as real independent entities in 1973, and three of them were right wing dictatorships. So it was a fairly poorly framed question, similar to your usual m.o. of stating one thing, receiving feedback and then arguing over something slightly different that you didn't actually offer in the original post. In my humble opinion. 

Happy for you to put me right though...