[Politics] Brexit

[Baldseagull]

That's not true.

Some UK law is constructed to meet EU regulatory requirements, but most EU law in never written into UK law.

EU law has supremacy, it's not codified or passed in the UK as a rule.

The European Communities act incorporates all EU law into UK law.
If UK parliament voting upon each and every piece of UK legislation is a principle that you cannot shift on, no matter how much simpler and harmless it would be to be pragmatic and accept a law once passed in the EU parliament, the repeal bill must be sticking in your craw.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Tory Eurosceptic group and pro-EU MP's welcomed the speech, Institute of directors supportive even Barnier had positive things to say. Better than expected with more clarity and detail seems to be the consensus.

 

[Baldseagull]

I think you have quite savagely simplified how a trade arrangement works.

I think you are also massively underestimating the pragmatism which exists around trade negotiations (as distinct from politics).

We would have no interest in breaking any pre-agreed terms on which our boarder arrangements practically depend, and the EU would have no interest in requiring us to abide by any terms which are unreasonable or unnecessary to maintain our boarder arrangements. Anything which does relate to boarder arrangements will not be made dependent on something which in practical terms, is unrelated.

What is most likely to happen in practice is that if there was a proposed regulation which the EU intended to ask us to abide by, and on which they intended to make our boarder arrangements conditional, they would speak to us through back channels first. If we had an objection or an issue we would work together to make sure that those issues are overcome, so that when the regulation is proposed, we have already signaled that we can agree to it.

It makes me laugh, you likened this approach to Federal Russia and Putin when I posted a similar way of doing things is what happens in the EU parliament, and Commission.

 

[dingodan]

The European Communities act incorporates all EU law into UK law.
If UK parliament voting upon each and every piece of UK legislation is a principle that you cannot shift on, no matter how much simpler and harmless it would be to be pragmatic and accept a law once passed in the EU parliament, the repeal bill must be sticking in your craw.

The 1972 European Communities Act was the piece of legislation that brought the UK into the Europe Union: it gives EU law supremacy over UK national law. A large amount of EU law effective in the UK currently relies on the 1972 Act.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/1972-european-communities-act

EU Law is not incorporated into UK law, it has supremacy over UK Law, what you said about EU Law being written into UK Law is just wrong.

Yes, the UK parliament voting upon each and every piece of UK legislation is a pretty important principle for me, since it is the difference between democratic accountability or not.

The repeal bill is not a problem for me, because even though the laws now being placed on the books (because they are not already there), were never passed by our parliament, once they are on the books they will be subject to the decisions of our parliament. They can be amended or repealed or kept. At the discretion of our parliament.

 

[Baldseagull]

No, the EU will tell the Swiss that they will no longer receive this or that benefit if they are no longer meeting this or that obligation. They can choose what is more important, receiving the benefit, or no longer meeting the obligation. That's up to them to decide. That's how a mutually respectful relationship works, and it works both ways by the way.

When did the Swiss last sanction the EU?

 

[dingodan]

It makes me laugh, you likened this approach to Federal Russia and Putin when I posted a similar way of doing things is what happens in the EU parliament, and Commission.

Actually I asked you to consider the way the EU Parliament works if you thought of it as Russia instead of the EU. I was trying to encourage you to be more objective.

You also seem to be confusing the negotiations between two parties in a trade deal with the passing of laws in a parliament.

This conversation is way too tribal to be productive. I've remained respectful and tried to be really clear, I've even answered some pretty silly questions, I just think you guys aren't capable or willing to honestly evaluate a perspective which is different from your own.

 

[Baldseagull]

The 1972 European Communities Act was the piece of legislation that brought the UK into the Europe Union: it gives EU law supremacy over UK national law. A large amount of EU law effective in the UK currently relies on the 1972 Act.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/1972-european-communities-act

EU Law is not incorporated into UK law, it has supremacy over UK Law, what you said about EU Law being written into UK Law is just wrong.

Yes, the UK parliament voting upon each and every piece of UK legislation is a pretty important principle for me, since it is the difference between democratic accountability or not.

The repeal bill is not a problem for me, because even though the laws now being placed on the books (because they are not already there), were never passed by our parliament, once they are on the books they will be subject to the decisions of our parliament. They can be amended or repealed or kept. At the discretion of our parliament.

It seems my use of the word incorporated is the issue, shall I say the act makes all EU law effective in the UK, and is applied by UK courts. The effect is the same, without the waste of time the Swiss go through.
It also seems you can accept a pragmatic approach to EU law being effective UK law, without a vote on each piece when it suits you.

 

[dingodan]

It seems my use of the word incorporated is the issue, shall I say the act makes all EU law effective in the UK, and is applied by UK courts. The effect is the same, without the waste of time the Swiss go through.
It also seems you can accept a pragmatic approach to EU law being effective UK law, without a vote on each piece when it suits you.

We can't retrospectively vote on all of it now though can we? I accept all past EU law being effective UK law, because from day zero of it passing into UK law it is also subject to amendment or repeal by parliament. This isn't difficult to understand, I've also already said it.

And it wasn't the word incorporated which was the problem. What you said, which I objected to, was actually: "All EU law is written up as UK law", which is both precise and not true.

 

[Baldseagull]

Actually I asked you to consider the way the EU Parliament works if you thought of it as Russia instead of the EU. I was trying to encourage you to be more objective.

You also seem to be confusing the negotiations between two parties in a trade deal with the passing of laws in a parliament.

This conversation is way too tribal to be productive. I've remained respectful and tried to be really clear, I've even answered some pretty silly questions, I just think you guys aren't capable or willing to honestly evaluate a perspective which is different from your own.

I get your ideas, but they are rigid. I hope I have not come across as disrespectful to you, not my intention.
As for the passing of laws and negotiations on trade, you mentioned that a change of rules, i.e. a law, coming into force that would affect the status quo of trade operations, would be talked discussed and formulated in an acceptable way ahead of it coming into force, so that we could agree to it, i.e, legislate for it.
This is not so different from how laws are formulated in the EU, they talk them out, amend, and sometimes bin them off without a vote, only putting a proposal forward to a vote once known to be acceptable.

 

[Baldseagull]

We can't retrospectively vote on all of it now though can we? I accept all past EU law being effective UK law, because from day zero of it passing into UK law it is also subject to amendment or repeal by parliament. This isn't difficult to understand, I've also already said it.

And it wasn't the word incorporated which was the problem. What you said, which I objected to, was actually: "All EU law is written up as UK law", which is both precise and not true.

We can vote on each piece, one at a time, but it would be a monumental waste of time, much as like trying to replicate the single market and customs union with a trade deal is to me.
But if the point of it all for you is not to be necessarily different to the EU, but to have our parliament debate and decide on each and every law that enters UK law, the repeal bill is surely a massive blow to your principles?

 

[ManOfSussex]

What about this do you not understand?

If we choose the adopt an EU law, as UK law, then that's fine. If the need or will ever arises we can change or repeal that law.

If we are directly and automatically subject to EU law and the jurisdiction of the ECJ we have no power to repeal or change that law.

The former is independent and autonomous, the latter is dependent and heteronomous. The former is good, the latter is bad.

Which you see as full sovereignty and wonderful and not merely indirectly following ECJ rulings in anyway - as I already said, got it now, thanks.

 

[dingodan]

We can vote on each piece, one at a time, but it would be a monumental waste of time, much as like trying to replicate the single market and customs union with a trade deal is to me.
But if the point of it all for you is not to be necessarily different to the EU, but to have our parliament debate and decide on each and every law that enters UK law, the repeal bill is surely a massive blow to your principles?

We can't feasibly vote on each piece of legislation. It's also true that not all EU legislation is bad. I think we can amend or repeal any pieces which as we go forward prove to be problematic, and I think that's more reasonable than expecting every past piece of legislation to be voted on retrospectively.

Does this go against my principles? Not really I want all UK Laws to be passed by a vote in our parliament, because I want parliament to decide matters of law in the UK. Amending or repealing an existing piece of legislation isn't far worse than voting on it in the first place.

It isn't perfect, ideally I would have liked our parliament to vote on all Laws governing the UK, but since we cannot go back in time this is the obvious solution.

It seems like you want to try to box me into being either unreasonable, or unprincipled. I can be both principled and reasonable. Sorry about that.

 

[WATFORD zero]

We can't feasibly vote on each piece of legislation. It's also true that not all EU legislation is bad. I think we can amend or repeal any pieces which as we go forward prove to be problematic, and I think that's more reasonable than expecting every past piece of legislation to be voted on retrospectively.

Does this go against my principles? Not really I want all UK Laws to be passed by a vote in our parliament, because I want parliament to decide matters of law in the UK. Amending or repealing an existing piece of legislation isn't far worse than voting on it in the first place.

It isn't perfect, ideally I would have liked us to vote on the Laws governing the UK, but since we cannot go back in time this is the obvious solution.

It seems like you want to try to box me into being either unreasonable, or unprincipled. I can be both principled and reasonable. Sorry about that.

Congratulations, I have never met someone with such a capacity for words and so little capacity for meaning. Welcome to Sussex Sunday league junior division 13. I'm sure the other members will make you welcome

You may recognise some of the other usernames (and maybe one or two of the passwords)

 

[dingodan]

Congratulations, I have never met someone with such a capacity for words and so little capacity for meaning. Welcome to Sussex Sunday league junior division 13. I'm sure the other members will make you welcome

Well I certainly can't match your capacity for irony, I'll give you that.

 

[Baldseagull]

We can't feasibly vote on each piece of legislation. It's also true that not all EU legislation is bad. I think we can amend or repeal any pieces which as we go forward prove to be problematic, and I think that's more reasonable than expecting every past piece of legislation to be voted on retrospectively.

Does this go against my principles? Not really I want all UK Laws to be passed by a vote in our parliament, because I want parliament to decide matters of law in the UK. Amending or repealing an existing piece of legislation isn't far worse than voting on it in the first place.

It isn't perfect, ideally I would have liked our parliament to vote on all Laws governing the UK, but since we cannot go back in time this is the obvious solution.

It seems like you want to try to box me into being either unreasonable, or unprincipled. I can be both principled and reasonable. Sorry about that.

Not really trying to box you in, though I hoped you would admit that sometimes a pragmatic approach is more sensible than sticking rigidly to principals. I would then have asked you to consider if working out our issues within the EU would be a pragmatic and more sensible approach to the problems caused by the odd law/directive, than throwing it all in and negotiating a trade deal to try and replicate 99% of what we had.

 

[dingodan]

Not really trying to box you in, though I hoped you would admit that sometimes a pragmatic approach is more sensible than sticking rigidly to principals. I would then have asked you to consider if working out our issues within the EU would be a pragmatic and more sensible approach to the problems caused by the odd law/directive, than throwing it all in and negotiating a trade deal to try and replicate 99% of what we had.

The problem isn't this or that law, I must have said that 20 times.

The problem is who decides, us or someone else.

If we could negotiate a situation with the EU where we remain members but we decide our own laws that would be acceptable to me. It wouldn't be acceptable to the EU though, since the EU is based on opposite.

We did also try to work out our issues, you want to talk about rigidity and stubbornness, there is no greater example than the EU.

 

[Baldseagull]

The problem isn't this or that law, I must have said that 20 times.

The problem is who decides, us or someone else.

If we could negotiate a situation with the EU where we remain members but we decide our own laws that would be acceptable to me. It wouldn't be acceptable to the EU though, since the EU is based on opposite.

We did also try to work out our issues, you want to talk about rigidity and stubbornness, there is no greater example than the EU.

The problem for me is why you see the EU as someone else and not us.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

The problem for me is why you see the EU as someone else and not us.

Some people just don't get the idea of 'pooling sovereignty' and would see it as a contradiction in terms. I'd be more sympathetic to their idea if it weren't for the fact that we hardly live in the perfect democracy - minority governments, low turnouts and basically a country run by Oxbridge graduates.

 

[dingodan]

The problem for me is why you see the EU as someone else and not us.

Our parliament which we elect making laws vs the EU Commission making laws.

"Us" means we have democratic accountability, "someone else" means we don't.

You are being a little obtuse to be honest.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Congratulations, I have never met someone with such a capacity for words and so little capacity for meaning. Welcome to Sussex Sunday league junior division 13. I'm sure the other members will make you welcome

You may recognise some of the other usernames (and maybe one or two of the passwords)

Oi!!!! I played in div 13 for 5 years with amer athletic. Yes we were rubbish, but no need to compare us to some loudmouth on a forum!