Great repeal bill - white paper.

[erol]

As far as I understand this proposal it concerns me to a massive degree, far more than the fact the UK is leaving the EU does in general terms.

The idea that vast swathes of of UK legislation, as it exits today, can and will be amended or even removed entirely at the whim of ministers and outside of all normal parliamentary process and scrutiny such legislative changes or removal would normally have to pass through, concerns me.

I can understand and accept the need to be able to change existing legislation in such a manner in terms of things like references to the EU and EU bodies that will no longer apply post Brexit but to me any changes to existing legislation that changes (or remove) existing legislation in terms of it's current intent and practical effect on people, outside of the normal parliamentary process for such legislative change, is to me unacceptable and extremely worrying.

[turtle]

Erol, I think you mean the "Repeal Bill" the Great has had to be dropped. 
There are thousands of laws that have been made over the years that will simply not be of any relevance to the UK when we leave so surely even you would agree a purge on these without the 2 houses sitting on each and every amendment at a cost of who knows what ? 
I am sure our MP's have much more important things to be getting on with that worrying about bent bananas & cucumbers or certain size turnips....Jam is jam not fruit spread and we buy our eggs by the dozen not the Kg so for me let them get on with it. 
 

[erol]

Erol, I think you mean the "Repeal Bill" the Great has had to be dropped. 
There are thousands of laws that have been made over the years that will simply not be of any relevance to the UK when we leave so surely even you would agree a purge on these without the 2 houses sitting on each and every amendment at a cost of who knows what ? 
I am sure our MP's have much more important things to be getting on with that worrying about bent bananas & cucumbers or certain size turnips....Jam is jam not fruit spread and we buy our eggs by the dozen not the Kg so for me let them get on with it. 
 

As far as changes to existing law do not change the intent or practical effect of such laws as they exist today and is indeed just a 'technical' exercise of making such existing laws, and the practical effect of them on people as they exist today, compatible with a UK no longer within the EU. then no I do not mind such changes being made outside of the normal parliamentary procedures.

However the idea that Ministers and or faceless civil servants will be pre invested with the power to be able to amend or remove entirely existing laws, outside of all normal parliamentary procedure, not because they will no longer be relevant post brexit but because they do not fit the political world view of the current government is something that concerns me greatly.

Take for example the current laws that prohibit the sale of incandescent light bulbs. Do I think that because we have voted to leave the EU a 'faceless' civil servant, or Minister should be granted the the power to simply decide such a law is 'silly' in their personal view and as a result alter the existing law without any parliamentary procedure ? No I do not and I think such powers would be dangerous and would represent a loss of parliamentary sovereignty the like of which has not been seen in the UK for hundreds of years.

I simply do not trust any government and especially this particular Tory government with it's five seat majority and headed by a leader not elected by the people of the UK, to not seek to abuse and exploit such powers to change and remove existing legislation outside of all modern norms of parliamentary sovereignty to simply suit their political ideology and dogma, under the guise of 'necessity'. This is not how we pass laws in the UK and has not been the way we pass laws in the UK since we placed parliament above Kings and Queens.

Brexit does present many potential opportunities, as well as dangers, but if this current UK Government thinks one of those opportunities is to allow for them to amend and remove UK law outside of and without any norms of parliamentary process and scrutiny, I sincerely hope they are wrong.

[turtle]

So you are not happy for this Tory government to change the laws as they see fit but you are happy for the non elected faceless EU parliament to unleash hideous laws onto us without question ? Is that what you are saying ?

[erol]

So you are not happy for this Tory government to change the laws as they see fit

No I am not, for this is not the way laws have been passed in the UK for the last 500 years and for good reason. The executive (the government) in the UK has never had the right or ability to pass laws 'as they see fit'. They propose legislative changes and instruct the (faceless) bureaucrats to draft laws and then parliament (commons and lords) votes to either pass the law, amend it or not pass it.

but you are happy for the non elected faceless EU parliament to unleash hideous laws onto us without question ?

EU laws are proposed and drafted by the un elected commission. The EU council, made up of the elected leaders of the members states and who set the over all political direction and priorities of the EU that the commission works to, can then amend or decide to not adopt such legislation and in many cases a single member can do so unilateraly via rights to veto. Then the elected EU parliament can also decided to amend or not adopt the legislation. If the law is in the form of a 'directive' then it also goes through the normal legislative process in each member state, which is free to decide how to implement a particular directive in domestic legislation. This idea that EU legislation was and is passed without any scrutiny or process, by either the EU Council, made up of elected leaders of the members states, or the elected EU parliament, is I am afraid just more rhetoric as far as I am concerned. The powers that the repeal bill seeks to grant to UK ministers is fundamentally different from how legislation is passed in the UK historically AND how it is passed in the EU itself, in terms of 'who' has such power and what checks and balances exist before legislation can be passed.

Are you saying that you are so enamoured of the idea of Brexit, that you are willing to throw away 500 years of UK parliamentary sovereignty and are happy to grant the right to amend and remove UK legislation to Ministers in order to make implementing Brexit quicker and easier than not doing so ? Is this really what you mean when you talked of 'returning sovereignty to the UK' ?

[geroff]

Turtle, its rubbish what erol is getting in a flap about, think these people want us to accept all the EU daft rules, maybe they dont realise how flipping restricting these rules are to businesses ! ... I cant wait to have my grand children free of cumbersome laws ..

[turtle]

Are you saying that you are so enamoured of the idea of Brexit, that you are willing to throw away 500 years of UK parliamentary sovereignty and are happy to grant the right to amend and remove UK legislation to Ministers in order to make implementing Brexit quicker and easier than not doing so ? Is this really what you mean when you talked of 'returning sovereignty to the UK' ?

No I am not saying this at all,...this is something that is all very new and untried ever so I would have thought that making it easier to bring these laws into line with our "new" way of life then Im sure we should welcome it.

If I read into this correctly your argument is about Theresa May being unelected should not have this privilege .. the same privilege given to the unelected Gordon Brown when he signed the damned Lisbon Treaty in the first place ?

[erol]

Turtle, its rubbish what erol is getting in a flap about, think these people want us to accept all the EU daft rules, maybe they dont realise how flipping restricting these rules are to businesses ! ... I cant wait to have my grand children free of cumbersome laws ..

I have no problem with the UK amending, or removing existing laws or introducing new laws, if done by normal processes that have been used for the last 500 years and where sovereignty to do so rest with the UK parliament. I do have an issue with such being done at the whim of Ministers and civil servants as if they were some kind of feudal monarch. Call me 'conservative' in this regard if you want.

All those rules restricting businesses. Yeah let's scrap the minimum wage cause that restricts business, but let's not do it via parliament cause that is so burdensome, let's just allow the current Minister to decide to scrap it, if he or she wants. Holiday entitlement for employee's ? Yeah scrap it, no discussion, no process. Maternity and paternity leave ? Yeah let's free out grandchildren of that burden. Burdens on employers to accommodate the needs of disabled employees, that another one to free our grand children of for none us could have grandchildren with disabilities. Requirements that employers take reasonable regard and responsibility for the safety of their workers ?

If I was concerned about the repeal bill white paper before I started this thread, then the responses so far are doing little to allay such fears.

[erol]

If I read into this correctly your argument is about Theresa May being unelected should not have this privilege .. the same privilege given to the unelected Gordon Brown when he signed the damned Lisbon Treaty in the first place ?

No you do not read into it correctly at all. No UK Government has ever had the pre approved use of these kinds of powers on the scale that the repeal bill white paper proposes. The last time such a degree of legislative power was invested in an 'executive' in the UK was the age of Kings, when they passed laws without any say from parliament. The Lisbon treaty was ratified by vote in the House of Commons (346 for 206 against) and then passed by the House of Lords. That is, it was passed democratically, something you are a fan of I am given to understand ?

I fully accept that Brexit is unprecedented and thus some form of unprecedented process is necessary. However when you tell me you think the government should be granted the powers to change law on it's own so these laws are compatible with 'our new way of life' I get extremely worried about who is going to decide what that 'new way of life' means in legislative terms and what checks and balances there will be for such choices. Unprecedented means to remove in existing laws reference to the EU itself and EU bodies, without changing the intent or effect of such laws on people is one things. Unilateral powers given to government to decide alone what existing laws and changes to existing laws are 'compatible with our new way of life' is another thing entirely. Change the intent of existing laws and how they affect people by all means but do it the right way, the way we have done it for over 500 years. Do not throw out parliamentary sovereignty that has served the UK for 500 years just because you are in a rush.

[turtle]

Turtle, its rubbish what erol is getting in a flap about, think these people want us to accept all the EU daft rules, maybe they dont realise how flipping restricting these rules are to businesses ! ... I cant wait to have my grand children free of cumbersome laws ..

I have no problem with the UK amending, or removing existing laws or introducing new laws, if done by normal processes that have been used for the last 500 years and where sovereignty to do so rest with the UK parliament. I do have an issue with such being done at the whim of Ministers and civil servants as if they were some kind of feudal monarch. Call me 'conservative' in this regard if you want.

All those rules restricting businesses. Yeah let's scrap the minimum wage cause that restricts business, but let's not do it via parliament cause that is so burdensome, let's just allow the current Minister to decide to scrap it, if he or she wants. Holiday entitlement for employee's ? Yeah scrap it, no discussion, no process. Maternity and paternity leave ? Yeah let's free out grandchildren of that burden. Burdens on employers to accommodate the needs of disabled employees, that another one to free our grand children of for none us could have grandchildren with disabilities. Requirements that employers take reasonable regard and responsibility for the safety of their workers ?

If I was concerned about the repeal bill white paper before I started this thread, then the responses so far are doing little to allay such fears.

The minimum wage was introduced by British government in the 70's and nothing to do with the EU. 
Holiday entitlement was again introduced by the British government in 1938 again nothing to do with the EU. 
And if you want to talk H&S then the UK is light years ahead of any EU country with a record that puts the EU to shame.  

[turtle]

Erol 
You appear to have caught the Waz Syndrome ? 
They are not looking to change all British law that they do not like just the bilge thrust upon us by the EU...now you are getting hysterical. 

[jofra]

From what I have read, I have gained the impression that the repeal bill ("great" or otherwise) is intended to modify various EU legislation prior to subsequent incorporation/transfer into British laws and statutes - in some instances, some of these EU legislations may (probably will) be scrapped and not incorporated. However, some of these EU legislations will be incorporated, so we will not be rid of "laws created by them in Brussels" - we will only be rid of those laws that suit those currently in government (and that would apply to whichever party is/was in power).
BUT - if these changes are not closely examined and approved by Parliament as a whole, then we may be heading the way that Erdogan desires - enforced changes by decree....

[waz-24-7]

The task to prepare UK NEW legislation is immense. Understandably there is proposal to a deal of cut and paste of EU law.
As the UK intends to continue to trade with the Union then it will surely be obliged to meet regulations and legislation allowing UK products to be sold and used within the Union. As for UK legislative law. I envisage a great deal of lobbying and opposition to government proposals, particularly for legislation that will effect business, employment law, working hour directives, and a multitude of others.

Of course Brexiteers want exactly this liberty to change and write laws that are governed by UK law makers. The mandate awarded to UK government
is rather concerning as is the mandate to secure a deal. Are we heading for a totalitarian government who are capitalising on the Brexit mandate to ensure they remain in power ongoing. Certainly the government can do no wrong by public Brexit support. Bizarre situation given that almost all were against divorce from the Union..

[kerry 6138]

Only UKIP can claim to be a Brexit party, so not sure the Tories can rely on leave voters turning out for them.
Mrs May will have to keep in mind a future election, in my opinion Brexit was a working class revolt against the establishment hence the problems within the Labour party and unions.

[erol]

The task to prepare UK NEW legislation is immense. Understandably there is proposal to a deal of cut and paste of EU law.
As the UK intends to continue to trade with the Union then it will surely be obliged to meet regulations and legislation allowing UK products to be sold and used within the Union. As for UK legislative law. I envisage a great deal of lobbying and opposition to government proposals, particularly for legislation that will effect business, employment law, working hour directives, and a multitude of others.

Of course Brexiteers want exactly this liberty to change and write laws that are governed by UK law makers. The mandate awarded to UK government
is rather concerning as is the mandate to secure a deal. Are we heading for a totalitarian government who are capitalising on the Brexit mandate to ensure they remain in power ongoing. Certainly the government can do no wrong by public Brexit support. Bizarre situation given that almost all were against divorce from the Union..

The body that amends laws, repeals laws or passes new laws in the UK is parliament, not government. That is the way it has been since parliament took over that sovereignty from our Kings and Queens some 500 odd years ago. The mandate given to governments in general elections is not a mandate to pass, repeal or amend any laws they see fit, It is a mandate to draft laws or amendments to laws or repeal of laws and present these to parliament, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. who then vote on such things, democratically. Such is the fundamental core of British parliamentary democracy. Certainly a government with a large majority in both houses, something this current government does not have, can be expected to be able to get the majority of it's laws, amendments and repeals passed by parliament but even then there is an inherent 'check and balance' in terms of the practical limit in time as too how many such laws, amendments and repeals can be pushed through parliament before said government has to again put itself up to the people for election.

We can not just repeal all laws made since the UK joined the EU, for that would leave an untenable gaping hole in UK legislation.

Nor can we just 'copy and paste' the current laws made in the last 40 years and then amend them later at our leisure and in the normal way. If we could then that would be an easy solution to the problem but we can not do this because these laws explicitly make reference to EU and the primacy of EU bodies, laws and directives in specific areas and under specific circumstances.

To take just one example of one section of one act passed in the last 40 years, that I happen to have some prior knowledge of, the section that details how the regulator OFCOM determines if a telecoms company has or does not have SMP (significant market power), of the Communications Act 2003. This section of this act details how it is to be determined if an entity does or does not have SMP (significant market power) - it is to be determined "in accordance with any applicable provisions of Article 14 of the (EU) Framework Directive". It then goes on to state that if OFCOM make a market power determination and the EU Commission, in accordance with Article 7(4) of the Framework Directive, consider that "giving effect to the proposal would create a barrier in relation to the single European market, or that the Commission has serious doubts as to whether giving effect to the proposal would be compatible with the requirements of any Community obligations," then OFCOM "must withdraw it; and shall not be entitled to give effect to it."

To just 'copy and paste' this law as it exists now would simply render it meaningless in an environment where the UK has left the EU. It HAS to be changed for it to have any meaning or legal validity and enforceability. It can not simply be 'copied and pasted'.

So one way this law could be amended would be to maintain the 'intent' of it as it exists currently, to maintain the principal that certain markets are by their nature susceptible to 'natural monopolies' and that there should therefore be defined criteria for how OFCOM determines if a telecoms entity has SMP that is not dependent on EU directives and to remove the section giving the EU Commission the right to 'over rule' such a determination. Such an amendment would make the legislation compatible with and valid in a post Brexit UK but maintain its original intent and purpose and by extension the effect it has on people.

Another way to amend it, if the Repeal Act as it is currently written were passed, would be for the relevant Minister, or in practical reality a faceless unelected civil servant, to simply decide that the very idea of SMP was 'silly' and just remove sections of this law that deal with SMP within telecoms entirely and in the process fundamentally change the intent of this part of this law and the effect it has on the lives of ordinary people.

You may think that the law is 'silly' and removing it would not have any effect on the lives of ordinary people in the UK but you would be wrong in that regard in my opinion. OFCOM has just recently forced BT to separate its 'network infrastructure' operations (BT Openreach) from its retail services operations (BT Retail) into separate companies, with the hope and intention that such will in turn lead to a more competitive broadband provision market and cheaper broadband prices for millions of ordinary UK citizens and business. OFCOM was only able to do this because of the laws that first allowed it to determine that BT had SMP in this area. Without these laws with regard to determining SMP they would not be able to require this of BT.

The Repeal Bill, as it is currently laid out, is asking Parliament to pre approve the granting of this power to change such legislation, not just for this one act, but for 100's if not 1000's of acts passed over the last 40 years, without any specification as to which acts are covered or any defining limits on why changes are to be made and simply trust that the Minister (which in practical terms will means in most cases faceless un elected civil servants) will not choose the second option as laid out above (deciding that the very concept of SMP in telecoms is 'silly' and removing it entirely).

To me in essence it is saying that in order to 'most quickly' reverse 40 years of partial loss of sovereignty to the EU that membership of it entailed, and that was originally granted to the EU via normal Parliamentary process and democratic vote, we should scrap 500 years of the fundamental sovereignty of Parliament in regards to 40 years worth of legislation and instead vest such power in 'here today gone tomorrow' Ministers or in 'here for life' un elected civil servants. That to me is beyond cutting of our nose to spite our face or throwing the baby out with the bath water.

So what do I think should be done ? What kind of Repeal Bill would I like to see instead ? I think the Repeal Bill has to state within it that any amendment or removal of existing legislation that is to be done outside of all parliamentary norms must be done with the sole intention and aim of, as far as is possible, maintaining the the original intent and purpose of the legislation and the effect it has on people whilst making it compatible with the UK being outside of the EU. As far as this current government seeks to use the 'opportunity' of Brexit to change the intent and purpose and effect of it on people's lives of specific current legislation or parts of it, as it exist today, then they must gain explicit Parliamentary approval for such, either by detailing which laws will be so affected within the repeal bill itself or wait a bit until they can subsequently change such laws via normal Parliamentary process, after they have first been amended using the 'no change in intent' criteria.

Even then the task will be herculean, will require larger numbers of 'new' Civil Servants (maybe on zero hour contracts perhaps ?), may well require an additional 'transition period' beyond the initial two years and possibly, heaven forbid, require MP's and Lords to work harder and longer for a period of time than they are used too (reduction or even removal of the various parliamentary 'recess' periods perhaps ?) Yes such an approach would probably take 'longer' but to me taking slightly longer or even significantly longer is way less of a 'cost' and compromise than just granting current Ministers unprecedented (in 500 years of precedent) legislative powers over 40 years worth of UK legislation and 'trusting' they will not abuse or exploit such unprecedented powers.

As they say, well kind of, 'power corrupts, unprecedented power corrupts to an unprecedented degree'.

[erol]

in my opinion Brexit was a working class revolt

Nigel Farage, son of a stockbroker, ex City commodities trader, Conservative party defector and unlikely modern day British working class person's Che Guevara, or should that be Citizen Smith ?

[kerry 6138]

in my opinion Brexit was a working class revolt

Nigel Farage, son of a stockbroker, ex City commodities trader, Conservative party defector and unlikely modern day British working class person's Che Guevara, or should that be Citizen Smith ?

Nigel_Farage-3.jpg

Not unlike Churchill, right place right time considered a hero during the war still lost the election 1945.