Brexit negotiations

quikshop

Free Member
Oct 11, 2006
3,644
714
54
Wolves
You may think that is benign but when one minister can decide what the law of the country is without a vote in the Commons it makes a mockery of democracy.

I agree with you, the potential for abuse is there and no doubt the private sector lobbying has started already.

But given the volume of legislation to be nationalised there is no other way, unless the Chamber is to debate each 'normalisation' change from now until we re-enter the EU in 2045 after Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader at the sixth attempt.

I have confidence that a combination of opposition MPs and the press will highlight genuine abuses of power rather than merely the fear of it, unlike The Independent and John Snow's Channel 4 News that morphs a fear into fact and begins its embarrassingly biased wailing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simon field
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 59730

But given the volume of legislation to be nationalised there is no other way, unless the Chamber is to debate each 'normalisation' change from now until we re-enter the EU in 2045 after Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader at the sixth attempt.
There is another way. The Great Repeal Bill has a cut off date for Henry VIII amendments. Surely it would be more sensible to have it the other way round. Keep everything the same as now for at least 2 years. That would give Parliament time to consider things in much greater depth.

There are some very dangerous MPs and Ministers. Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggest that we drop all of our environmental safeguards and adopt those of India. They talk about a "Bonfire of Red tape". Public perceptions will change over that when they realise that Grenfell Tower was a consequence of not enough regulation.

Living in Cornwall I am aware of the UK government's disgracefully slow implementing EU directives on bathing water. Campaign groups are seriously concerned because the UK has such a bad reputation over the environment.
 
Upvote 0

quikshop

Free Member
Oct 11, 2006
3,644
714
54
Wolves
There is another way. The Great Repeal Bill has a cut off date for Henry VIII amendments. Surely it would be more sensible to have it the other way round. Keep everything the same as now for at least 2 years. That would give Parliament time to consider things in much greater depth.

Sadly the majority of MPs who would support your idea would do so as a delaying tactic to thwart Brexit, not as a sensible and pragmatic means of nationalising EU laws.

There are some very dangerous MPs and Ministers. Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggest that we drop all of our environmental safeguards and adopt those of India.

The Tories care not a jot for the environment but I wouldn't single out Jacob... he sounds like an horrendous toff but I've followed him for years and he frequently challenges his own parties' more extreme policies.

David Lammy on the other hand, now there's a dangerous man... vocally implying a cover-up after the tower block fire to garner personal support then repeating the claim in an interview without evidence, encouraging Parliament to ignore the referendum result as undemocratic... I could go on.
 
Upvote 0

Mr D

Free Member
Feb 12, 2017
28,915
3,627
Stirling
Quite likely he will be the next Prime Minister.

Remember you heard it here first ....

There are worse choices.
Jacob at least is intelligent. He's charming as well but that's pretty common trait in politicians. Intelligence isn't so much.

Sadly we pick our politicians based on popularity of the individual or party in an area, not for whether they'd be good as PM.
 
Upvote 0

Jeff FV

Free Member
Jan 10, 2009
3,891
1,861
Somerset
I was pondering, recently, Jacob Rees-Mogg's recent ascent and why his being tipped as a possible next leader of the Tory party. (sorry @KM-Tiger I heard it first elsewhere, a couple of weeks ago).

I don't agree with much of what he says, but his big strength is that he says something. Watching last week's Question Time it was interesting to note that he did answer every question that was asked of the panel. Compare that with the nameless Labour MP who - like so many MPs of all hues - spent much of the evening dodging the question and regurgitating party central's message.

People like JRM as he actually answers the question. A few weeks ago I remember turning on the radio to hear a Conservative MP be asked a question and then spending several minutes not answering it and saying nothing. I changed channels to Absolute 80's. JRM also has a brand - albeit "Victorian Father" - but he has brand, he is recognisable. However, I don't think (hope) that he is electable (as PM).

I think our Parliament benefits from and is stronger because of the likes of JRM and Jeremy Corbyn - who stick to their principles (even if I don't agree with them) and are willing to hold their own party, as well as the opposition, to account. However, I think they both best serve the nation from the back-benches.

As for Gove - please no. A horrible, odious little man, certainly not capable of building any form of consensus politics.

Boris is now a busted flush. A populist who has been rumbled. Put him out to pasture.

FWIW, I think either David Davis or Philip Hammond will be the next PM, following a bloodless transition of power (for all their faults, the Tories do do accession rather well, and they all know that a bloody coup would be disastrous for them.)
 
Upvote 0

KM-Tiger

Free Member
Aug 10, 2003
10,346
1
2,893
Bexley, Kent
I think our Parliament benefits from and is stronger because of the likes of JRM and Jeremy Corbyn - who stick to their principles (even if I don't agree with them) and are willing to hold their own party, as well as the opposition, to account. However, I think they both best serve the nation from the back-benches.
You have a point and it's significant that JRM did not get the Treasury SC chairmanship which could have given him an opportunity to shine.
 
Upvote 0

Clinton

Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,748
    1
    3,068
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    Continuing with my good news posts ... today's good news is so big, I've created a separate thread:

    EU concedes free trade agreement without requiring freedom of movement (or any financial contribution to EU exchequer!)

    Bad news: The pound has risen to $1.30 again ... and it is still going up :( It has clawed back more than half the fantastic Referendum drop!
     
    Upvote 0

    Scott-Copywriter

    Free Member
    May 11, 2006
    9,605
    2,673
    We must bear in mind that Corbyn was only elected as Labour leader because of the party's voting experiment, where they allowed anyone to join and have an equal vote for £3.

    It was the surge of new members, intentionally signing up for this purpose, that won him the leadership.

    The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a more traditional system, where this grassroots movement would be far less effective.

    Would the rebellious Rees-Mogg be able to gain that kind of support amongst his fellow MPs and the well-established Conservative party members? I'm not so sure.
     
    Upvote 0

    Clinton

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,748
    1
    3,068
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    Today's Good News:

    Ardent Remainer, Tony Blair, speaks to several EU leaders and suggests that there is the appetite in the EU to be flexible on Freedom of Movement in order to keep us in the single market.

    No kidding, Tony, me ol' mucker, you've been reading my posts? The EU will find a fudge on freedom of movement and give us market access (on close to the same terms we have now). ;) Ignore all the bluster. As impossible as it may sound, they need us more than we need them.

    The Guardian's homepage today does its usual job of finding the bad news: "'Brexit ... would be disastrous,' says Tony Blair". They are hilarious!
     
    Upvote 0

    Scott-Copywriter

    Free Member
    May 11, 2006
    9,605
    2,673
    Today's Good News:

    Ardent Remainer, Tony Blair, speaks to several EU leaders and suggests that there is the appetite in the EU to be flexible on Freedom of Movement in order to keep us in the single market.

    Brexit aside, I do think the EU would be better off reforming to allow free movement of labour.

    I completely get the concept of the four freedoms and why are they integral for a single market. For a set of countries to act as one in an economic sense, there must be an unfettered flow of goods, services, capital and people.

    But in my view, the free movement of people without a job and trying to find work does not apply here. That is not needed for a single market economy to function, and in some cases, can even be detrimental.

    It's also a lot more trouble than it's worth, considering that immigration is arguably the biggest factor that most Eurosceptic Europeans have an issue with.

    For a single market to function, the most important aspect in terms of personnel is that workers who are needed can move freely. Preventing those from claiming residency who don't arrive with a job already in place will do very little to impede the single market.

    If we can emphasis a cross-border labour market, where companies in the UK can reach out across Europe for job positions (and vise-versa), I think it would benefit everyone involved.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Clinton
    Upvote 0

    Clinton

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,748
    1
    3,068
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    The problem is that in their haste to build this utopia federal Europe, politicians and bureaucrats got carried away and failed, IMO, to fully account for disparity in economic wealth across the bloc.

    And in the comparatively generous social security benefits in some of the wealthier nations.

    That led to an immigration explosion from poor to rich countries ...to the detriment of both (poorer countries losing talent at a rapid rate and rich countries not having infrastructure to support fast rising population and thus causing natives to get restless about immigration).

    The Euro was their other major mistake i.e. locking the likes of Italy and Spain to give up their local currencies at a rate fixed a long, long time ago (which wasn't right even at that time)!

    As much as I'd have liked the Referendum result to have panned out differently, I blame the EU's inflexibility for the sorry state of affairs and only to a much lesser extent the Tories' internal squabbles. Lesser because, let's face it, if the Tories were united behind a pro-EU position, we'd have ended up with UKIP getting more and more popular. That 'fringe' party was becoming very mainstream very quickly and could have easily become the party of power or at least the party of opposition!

    No, the fault for Brexit lies with the EU and their inflexibility. They should have given Cameron what he asked for instead of being so precious about their Freedom of Movement. Now they are going to have to ditch that same FoM but at less favourable terms ie. at the price of losing Britain and Britain's financial and other contributions.
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    No, the fault for Brexit lies with the EU and their inflexibility. They should have given Cameron what he asked for instead of being so precious about their Freedom of Movement.
    Why should Cameron have asked for anything when the UK has been an equal partner in the EU for decades and could have influenced this a long time ago?
    Freedom of Movement has never been promoted in the UK as a huge benefit to UK citizens. Instead various governments have allowed the right wing press to demonise the EU and immigrants without putting the opposite view, which is now accepted that we need the workers.
    The EU doesn't really think of the population of Europe as subject people, as we do, but as citizens with rights and protections.
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    @Mr D, if you can't see why Cyndy is offended, you need to watch this.

    His video on how to become gluten intolerant is also worth checking out.
    Systemic and institutionalised bigotries (against all marginalized groups, women included) will continue as long as people like this continue to make it a joke.

    Making a false equivalence between women objecting to being referred to as property, and diet trends is a great example of this. "Look how silly you're being about expecting to be treated as an equal human being."

    Some other examples to look out for:
    "It's just banter"
    "It's locker room talk"
    "Oh you're just being too sensitive, you *know* what I mean"
    "Look at those snowflakes getting offended"
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    But given the volume of legislation to be nationalised there is no other way, unless the Chamber is to debate each 'normalisation' change from now until we re-enter the EU in 2045
    So, you want to get away from the undemocratic (but not really) nature of the EU to take back democratic control of the UK, and if it has to be done in an undemocratic way and result in an undemocratic government, that's fine because...democracy is your goal?


    I have confidence that a combination of opposition MPs and the press will highlight genuine abuses of power rather than merely the fear of it
    Really? Based on what? I have little confidence in MP's or the press to do anything outside their own self-interest, and the last four or five years has shown this to be the case.
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    I was pondering, recently, Jacob Rees-Mogg's recent ascent and why his being tipped as a possible next leader of the Tory party.

    I don't agree with much of what he says, but his big strength is that he says something. Watching last week's Question Time it was interesting to note that he did answer every question that was asked of the panel.
    He is incredibly intellectually dishonest and while smugly eloquent, rarely echoes anything that might damage the party line. He made some comment about voting on the economy for the benefit of the future generation and tried to validate it by saying, "I've just a child and how am I going to tell him that I took away his future", as if he or anyone in his family will ever be affected by the choices he or his party might make.

    A man, who basically owes his entire existence to a system of privilege dating back to eleventh century, has the audacity to imply poor peoples' problem is that they don't live within their means. It seems kind of fitting that he'd be the next leader of the party...


    As much as I'd have liked the Referendum result to have panned out differently...
    No, the fault for Brexit lies with the EU and their inflexibility. They should have given Cameron what he asked for instead of being so precious about their Freedom of Movement. Now they are going to have to ditch that same FoM but at less favourable terms ie. at the price of losing Britain and Britain's financial and other contributions.
    It's a rather insidious thing to see people who make nothing but vehemently anti-EU arguments try to convince people their opinion is balanced by claiming to be part of the movement which they oppose.
    I know this guy can't see this (he does like to go on about it), but it's worth highlighting this particular tactic as it happens quite a lot and most of the time you come across it they are much better at it and it can go unnoticed.
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    This is a left wing virtual rag soaked in Tory hatred and Brexit denial stating speculation as fact. Really Cobby, your references are as embarrassing as your unqualified pro-EU bias :D
    Might want to ensure you're reading things properly in the future, that wasn't me. ;)

    (And I'm not only pro-EU, I'm pro-Britain. It might come as a surprise to you but they aren't mutually exclusive ;) )
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,778
    8
    8,042
    Newcastle
    But in my view, the free movement of people without a job and trying to find work does not apply here. That is not needed for a single market economy to function, and in some cases, can even be detrimental.

    Everyone seems to ignore the fact that, under current EU rules, freedom of movement has controls. Anyone who moves to another country under these rules can be required to return home if they are dependent on state benefits after 3 months. For some reason that everyone seems to ignore, our governments have never bothered to use this power to remove EU immigrant benefit claimants. Does anyone know why?
     
    Upvote 0

    Clinton

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Jan 17, 2010
    5,748
    1
    3,068
    ukbusinessbrokers.com
    For some reason that everyone seems to ignore, our governments have never bothered to use this power to remove EU immigrant benefit claimants. Does anyone know why?
    Yes. Because we've no idea who's in the UK and who's not. As ridiculous as it sounds, we have no proper exit tracking and we don't know when people leave. It was Labour, under Tony Blair, that dismantled the fairly efficient exit checks system we had in place (1998). I could go into their ulterior motives for doing this ... but let's just say Labour are one shady lot when it comes to immigration (immigrants tend to vote Labour, especially illegal immigrants).

    The Coalition brought in exit checks for (some) rail and sea travellers (2015). And there is the API for air passengers, but how do you catch up on years of missing data, years during which millions of people left the UK but for which you have no records?

    And even now the exit checks we have in place don't cover everybody. For example not all EEA nationals are subject to exit checks (though I don't know whether it's because of some EU rule that prevents such checking).
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,778
    8
    8,042
    Newcastle
    Yes. Because we've no idea who's in the UK and who's not. As ridiculous as it sounds, we have no proper exit tracking and we don't know when people leave. It was Labour, under Tony Blair, that dismantled the fairly efficient exit checks system we had in place (1998). I could go into their ulterior motives for doing this ... but let's just say Labour are one shady lot when it comes to immigration (immigrants tend to vote Labour, especially illegal immigrants).

    The Coalition brought in exit checks for (some) rail and sea travellers (2015). And there is the API for air passengers, but how do you catch up on years of missing data, years during which millions of people left the UK but for which you have no records?

    And even now the exit checks we have in place don't cover everybody. For example not all EEA nationals are subject to exit checks (though I don't know whether it's because of some EU rule that prevents such checking).

    All of that is completely irrelevant. The test for removal from this country is claiming state benefits for more than 3 months (while not being a UK citizen). Are you suggesting that the DWP, despite the years of neglect under IDS, cannot do this?
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    For some reason that everyone seems to ignore, our governments have never bothered to use this power to remove EU immigrant benefit claimants. Does anyone know why?
    Its because our civil servants have some very odd ideas. A bit like the way Health Tourism is described as a problem when France and Germany think of it as a great money-making idea. France is even building hospitals near Calais for Brits who don't want to wait for their operations!
     
    Upvote 0

    Cobby

    Free Member
    Oct 28, 2009
    4,079
    857
    I could go into their ulterior motives for doing this ... but let's just say Labour are one shady lot when it comes to immigration (immigrants tend to vote Labour, especially illegal immigrants).

    The Coalition brought in exit checks for (some) rail and sea travellers (2015). And there is the API for air passengers, but how do you catch up on years of missing data, years during which millions of people left the UK but for which you have no records?
    Unregistered, untracked, illegal immigrants - the kind ukippers, The Cult of Trump, and apparently this guy seem to think are so pervasive - I'm genuinely curious how they are supposed to be able to vote and claim benefits while remaining anonymous, un-tracked and out of the system.
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    But given the volume of legislation to be nationalised there is no other way, unless the Chamber is to debate each 'normalisation' change from now until we re-enter the EU in 2045
    There is a paragraph in the current issue of Private Eye which is relevant to both this and the thread about Grenfell Tower.

    After the Great Fire of London the next year's "Rebuilding of London Act" outlawed flammable wooden exteriors of buildings. In 2012, using a Henry VIII clause Eric Pickles took out a protection regarding flammability which had lasted for over 300 years at the behest of Sajid Javid's so called "Bonfire of Red Tape." They got their bonfire but not the one they expected.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    • Like
    Reactions: The Byre
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    There is a paragraph in the current issue of Private Eye which is relevant to both this and the thread about Grenfell Tower.

    After the Great Fire of London the next year's "Rebuilding of London Act" outlawed flammable wooden exteriors of buildings. In 2012, using a Henry VIII clause Eric Pickles took out a protection regarding flammability which had lasted for over 300 years at the behest of Sajid Javid's so called "Bonfire of Red Tape." They got their bonfire but not the one they expected.

    You realise the cladding used on many of these tower blocks was not flammable wooden exteriors and a lot of them would have been fitted prior to 2012.
    How does the removal of that red tape affect current problems with buildings?
     
    Upvote 0

    quikshop

    Free Member
    Oct 11, 2006
    3,644
    714
    54
    Wolves

    Academic in Brexit scare-mongering one-eyed "briefing" report shock.

    He's taken what should have been a genuine discussion point and turned it into a Remainiac-refusnik page-turner of epic proportions. He did miss off the plague of locust heading our way in 2019.

    Why are you not linking to Tony Blair's latest unsubstantiated claim that the EU are willing to compromise on free movement to keep the UK inside the EU? Does this particular vested interest in your remain camp not speak for the rest of you?

    Cherry picking much :rolleyes:
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Clinton
    Upvote 0

    Scott-Copywriter

    Free Member
    May 11, 2006
    9,605
    2,673
    Academic in Brexit scare-mongering one-eyed "briefing" report shock.

    He's taken what should have been a genuine discussion point and turned it into a Remainiac-refusnik page-turner of epic proportions.

    It's true, though.

    Food is one of the sectors most heavily intertwined with the EU by far. Not just EU imports and migrant labour, but also farming subsidies and a mountain of safety regulations.

    The big problem is there's not a globalised standard when it comes to food. Sometimes they aren't even close. Some claim we can import food from countries outside the EU, but they have radically different ways of rearing cattle and many other animals.

    Other factors, such as feed, animal welfare and even genetic modification, are very difficult subjects.

    Any publication heavy on doom and gloom seems to be dismissed as scaremongering. Maybe, just maybe, things are actually that bad.
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 59730

    Some claim we can import food from countries outside the EU, but they have radically different ways of rearing cattle and many other animals.
    As an example I was talking to someone with a deep knowledge of farming. Almost no veal is eaten in the UK but a lot is produced. It goes to France and other countries and is often preferred over veal grown in France because of the big difference in animal welfare for veal calves.
     
    Upvote 0

    KM-Tiger

    Free Member
    Aug 10, 2003
    10,346
    1
    2,893
    Bexley, Kent
    Food is one of the sectors most heavily intertwined with the EU by far.
    Certainly is and the CAP not only costs us money* but sees food prices in the EU being circa 20% higher than world prices.

    Yes there would be quality issues but wouldn't Brexit be an opportunity to reduce our food bills?

    And wouldn't it be so much better to buy the agricultural produce of developing countries, without needing to impose EU tariffs to allow them to trade to prosperity rather than dolloping aid cash at them?

    * Tony Blair gave away half of our EU budget rebate on the promise of reform of the CAP. Needless to say that has never happened.
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles