What Is Actually Wrong With The Eu Repeal Act?

[cassa333]

As far as I can tell it is basicly saying all Europe law gets to be UK law and the UK government then decides law by law to keep, chuck out or amend.

So what's wrong?

[cassa333]

Sorry forgot to put the link in...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40589510

[ToraToraTora]

nothing is wrong but the anti British want to try and derail it. That's why the PM did the deal with the Irish Cons so she can push this through.

[fiction-factory]

I think it is just that the title is misleading given that it may take 10 years to finalise decisions about which will be kept, adapted or scrapped

[Old_Geezer]

One should keep all (translated to still make sense) and modify as desired afterwards.

Heard claims of opportunistic changes, but unsure I believe it.

Parliament must ultimately see they can't throw it out anyway, or they'd be responsible for having nothing in place at the critical time. Must be a limit on how much one can complain about.

[jno]

Heard claims of opportunistic changes, but unsure I believe it

the way prices stayed the same after decimal currency was introduced?

May is nothing if not an opportunist. Just not a particularly successful one so far.

[Old_Geezer]

Prices changed due to commercial opportunists plus inevitable rounding issues. This is just a political shift of legislation.

[albaqwerty]

'the way prices stayed the same after decimal currency was introduced? '

I remember as a young child, being with my mum in supermarket and she was converting the so called new prices back to 'real money' and felt she was getting ripped off.

I think we're going to be feeling ripped off whichever/whatever happens.

[Flonska]

Alba . . . you think we're going to be feeling ripped off?

If that is the case, that will make a change!

[jourdain2]

Firstly, I don't see the point of arguing against a bill which incorporates all present laws into British law. You have to be contrary and to argue with this. Makes good sense to me.

Re: introduction of decimal currency. I found which I had made as a very young housewife a few months ago (bottom of ancient handbag - don't ask) and I bought a punnet of cress, which cost me 6 new pence. My pencilled comment was that last week it cost me 6d - well over 100% inflation.

[jourdain2]

^^^ it must have jumped again. 'You have to be contrary and anti- Brexit to argue etc.' should be there.

[jim360]

I don't think the objections are to the principle of incorporating EU law into UK law as part of leaving the EU. The objection is about what happens afterwards, ie who has the power to change the laws. Unfortunately, the bill is 66 pages long and I'm lost in the technical language, so I can't really comment beyond what I've heard, but it's been suggested that the Bill offers too much power to ministers to make significant changes to laws without necessarily obtaining the consent of Parliament. There's also questions about how the Bill affects the devolved governments, etc etc etc.

In short, to characterise blocking this bill as "anti-Brexit" ignores the real criticism, even if there's some grain of truth to it. Anyone who cares to read the Bill and tell me if the points above have substance can find the text at

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0005/18005.pdf

[jim360]

As I said earlier I can't hope to make much sense of the technical aspects of the bill, but I loved the cover page:

"EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Secretary David Davis has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:

'In my view the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.'"

I'm sure there's some irony in there somewhere.

[jourdain2]

Errr Jim - I may be wrong, but I think the whole point of Brexit is that the UK may amend its laws, so we can pick and choose which we accept and which we discard, in other words acting as a sovereign state. Firms dealing directly with the EU (I believe it is about 7%) will continue to abide by their rules, I suppose. Firms such as my sister's garage will be heartily glad to be rid them(she voted Leave)and happy to do our own thing). Again, it is a case of the shouters against the ones who are just getting on with it. I do wish the former would shut up and find a grain of patriotism.

[jim360]

You're still missing the point, jourdain. The UK may of course amend its laws on leaving the EU (although I think it still had that right before, so...) -- but the Repeal Bill appears to imply that it's Ministers rather than Parliament who will have that right -- albeit with certain restrictions, and for a limited period of two years after "exit day" (and maybe a few months before then). That may flirt with the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Not in the same way that Article 50 notification was deemed to have, because if passed in its current form this would be Parliament giving permission to Ministers to exercise such power. But that still leaves the question as to whether they should have such powers. Perhaps there's some cold logic to it, because there's a lot of legislation that may need some modification or other, and it might take a lot of time to sort through if Parliament were to be fully involved in each and every such change.

That's where the debate is. The principle that EU law should be implemented into UK law on withdrawal was never, ever, ever in question. Only the manner in which that's to be achieved.

As I say, I'm not sure I have the technical knowledge to understand myself what the Bill says, although I have been reading the text. Others who matter do have such concerns, though, and it's them you'd have to persuade to set aside such concerns, or to recognise them as mistaken, depending.

[jourdain2]

I don't have the technical knowledge myself, Jim. But I do know that we had the parliamentary process to make and administer our own laws and I would like to return to that system, whereby those who make the laws are directly accountable to the electorate.

[jim360]

We don't need to "return" to a system that we already had... the Supremacy of EU law over UK law only lasted as long as Parliament deemed it fit to be so.

[New Judge]

But that supremacy must continue for so long as we remain members, Jim. The UK cannot end that supremacy and remain an EU member. The Lisbon Treaty does not permit it. It's true that the UK Parliament can end that supremacy but only by facilitating the UK's departure from the EU.

[jourdain2]

Thank you, NJ

[Old_Geezer]

We already have a working system to change law. I don't see that, that need change after the EU laws have been incorporated, so that we carry on (more or less) as usual. Something about this isn't clear.

[cassa333]

If you take the EU out of the equation, who makes and amends our laws?

What is different about that and what is implied in the repeal act?