Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hitler Mein Kampf “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”" You mean like 15 minute cities  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hitler Mein Kampf “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” You mean like 15 minute cities "I do not know what that is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hitler Mein Kampf “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” You mean like 15 minute cities
I do not know what that is?"Not me I just see people going crazy over the concept on here and saying it’s an erosion of rights or summat  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"15 minute city is a concept, where everything you need, should be within a 15 minute walk. Therefore you wouldn't need to drive anywhere." What if it’s raining ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please read this whatever your political leaning. The new bill to abolish EU laws which have been written into our laws over decades is passing through parliament. The government is selling it as taking back control. So it’s being debated as a pro or anti Brexit argument by the government. There is something far more sinister going on with this bill. The bill contains new rules whereby the government itself will be replacing those laws. NOT parliament but the government. So in relation to our workers right, our environmental protections , our food standards etc etc etc The Tory party alone will decide what the new rules will be. Think about that. Couple this with the attempts to override our independent courts and Gary Linker’s comment's mentioning the language of 1930s Germany start to resonate The actions of this government are becoming remarkable similar. I don’t care if your pro or anti Brexit this law should never ever be allowed through. It’s not about the EU it’s about our freedom. An interesting comparison on twitter showing how our laws are matching up to the nazi party. https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FChargedQuark%2Fstatus%2F1634286682685034506&widget=Tweet " This is what people voted for. What can you do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is something far more sinister going on with this bill. The bill contains new rules whereby the government itself will be replacing those laws. NOT parliament but the government. So in relation to our workers right, our environmental protections , our food standards etc etc etc The Tory party alone will decide what the new rules will be." Here's the official copy of the bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/50225/documents/3104 (PDF) Would you like to point out the bits that give law making powers to the Tories? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is something far more sinister going on with this bill. The bill contains new rules whereby the government itself will be replacing those laws. NOT parliament but the government. So in relation to our workers right, our environmental protections , our food standards etc etc etc The Tory party alone will decide what the new rules will be. Here's the official copy of the bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/50225/documents/3104 (PDF) Would you like to point out the bits that give law making powers to the Tories?" I can do better than my amateur comments. I can give you the Hansard society’s specific concerns with the most worrying clauses of the bill. 
https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/publications/briefings/five-problems-with-the-retained-eu-law-revocation-and-reform-bill
Feel free to argue their findings . As with Linker you are entitled to your views.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is something far more sinister going on with this bill. The bill contains new rules whereby the government itself will be replacing those laws. NOT parliament but the government. So in relation to our workers right, our environmental protections , our food standards etc etc etc The Tory party alone will decide what the new rules will be. Here's the official copy of the bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/50225/documents/3104 (PDF) Would you like to point out the bits that give law making powers to the Tories? I can do better than my amateur comments. I can give you the Hansard society’s specific concerns with the most worrying clauses of the bill.
https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/publications/briefings/five-problems-with-the-retained-eu-law-revocation-and-reform-bill
Feel free to argue their findings . As with Linker you are entitled to your views.
" but don’t expect anyone to read it or if they do acknowledge they were wrong. They will just vanish and pop up in another thread trying to undermine posts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would you like to point out the bits that give law making powers to the Tories?" "I can do better than my amateur comments. I can give you the Hansard society’s specific concerns with the most worrying clauses of the bill. https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/publications/briefings/five-problems-with-the-retained-eu-law-revocation-and-reform-bill" Thanks for posting not just a link, but a properly researched and reputable link. It's always good when people can back up their opinions. Sadly I misread your original post, and thought you were claiming that the bill gave powers to ministers to make new law without scrutiny. Having re-read it, I can see that you are only talking about EURL. Clearly I should make sure I'm awake before posting in the morning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a question... Even before Lineker's comparisons to 1930's Germany comment, plenty on here have continued their nazi, Hitler remarks on many government policies and decisions. comments have appeared in this thread, as I expected. Is this fair, right or maybe misplaced? The nazi's and the Holocaust are a horrific points in time that show humans at their lowest point. How is that comparable to our government today?" I will quote myself from the language thread... “The WHOLE point is to take a stand and be clear that the use of that type of language by anyone, especially our public servants who supposedly represent us, is not acceptable. Few sane people would try to claim that any UK Govt would ever go as far as the Nazis (or Khmer Rouge or Stalin if we want balance). But even a step closer is unacceptable to me. People always jump to the final solution and the holocaust. That too is unhelpful as it is as extreme as it is possible to go. But the journey there took almost a decade and plenty of awful things happened along that path that would be unacceptable. But then again, let’s face it. Nobody would ever have assumed a repeat of anything remotely similar in Europe would or could ever happen again. But less than 50 years later we had Bosnia and Kosovo and the return of ethnic cleansing and concentration camps.” Nobody is claiming our current Government is at “step 10” or whatever but the journey has started and we are past “step 1”. Does it mean the destination is the same? No doubtful! But even a few steps further is too far from what I personally find acceptable from my Government. The current (and last two) UK Governments have definitely displayed some fascistic tendencies. That goes against my moral compass so I will call it out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a question... Even before Lineker's comparisons to 1930's Germany comment, plenty on here have continued their nazi, Hitler remarks on many government policies and decisions. comments have appeared in this thread, as I expected. Is this fair, right or maybe misplaced? The nazi's and the Holocaust are a horrific points in time that show humans at their lowest point. How is that comparable to our government today?" Heres some of the things Hitler did when he gained power. Brought out legislation to stop people criticising and protesting against the government. Attacked the judiciary, saying the were full of communists ( Lefties ). Same with other people in the bureaucracy, civil servants and of course the Jews. Some of that sound familiar..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Am I missing something, does the government not propose new laws to parliament and these are voted on by parliament or am I missing something " Parliament passes laws, not the Goverment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Am I missing something, does the government not propose new laws to parliament and these are voted on by parliament or am I missing something Parliament passes laws, not the Goverment." That is what is supposed to happen. Follow the Hansard link Jackel1 posted and see why there are concerns about the way they are proposing dealing with this rescinding of laws. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please read this whatever your political leaning. The new bill to abolish EU laws which have been written into our laws over decades is passing through parliament. The government is selling it as taking back control. So it’s being debated as a pro or anti Brexit argument by the government. There is something far more sinister going on with this bill. The bill contains new rules whereby the government itself will be replacing those laws. NOT parliament but the government. So in relation to our workers right, our environmental protections , our food standards etc etc etc The Tory party alone will decide what the new rules will be. Think about that. Couple this with the attempts to override our independent courts and Gary Linker’s comment's mentioning the language of 1930s Germany start to resonate The actions of this government are becoming remarkable similar. I don’t care if your pro or anti Brexit this law should never ever be allowed through. It’s not about the EU it’s about our freedom. An interesting comparison on twitter showing how our laws are matching up to the nazi party. https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FChargedQuark%2Fstatus%2F1634286682685034506&widget=Tweet " our goverment are slowly eroding our rights and like the boiling frog in the pan we are not noticing the heat slowly increasing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"3 days ago: "here’s an idea... We draw a line now, today, after which we continue for a week (maybe two) where none of us mention race or ethnicity or gender or sexuality even once" Today: "the return of ethnic cleansing and concentration camps" In between: 17 posts on race, ethnicity and gender. I don't know whether to file this under 'you could not invent this level of hypocrisy' or 'socialists posing as centrists always trip themselves up on a "do as I say, not as I do' posturing march "Whoah there cowboy hold your horses. Total lack of context in that there post. My point in saying to you “draw a line now, today, after which we continue for a week (maybe two) where none of us mention race or ethnicity or gender or sexuality even once" was totally and clearly in the context of being critical of politicians and their actions. It came about as a result of you repeatedly implying racism any time another poster(s) criticised Rushi Sunak. That simply is not the same as posting about completely different topics! Not sure what weird game you are trying to play but that is just a very odd take?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. " These do sound alarming indeed. If they end up in law before the GE, are they set in stone forever? Could a future government change them back? Could be another easy win for all opposition parties | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. These do sound alarming indeed. If they end up in law before the GE, are they set in stone forever? Could a future government change them back? Could be another easy win for all opposition parties" In theory yes you would think so but in reality no. The bill is relating itself to the Brexit process and allows tweaks for the government to interpret their own agenda, however to introduce contra legislation will take years and years of new bills. This is decades of laws that are being manipulated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. " do somethinv about it then jackal, start organising, start opening peoples eyes to the dark path we are heading down, call for overthrowing the facists our alternativley moan about it day after day on a swingers site, keep hearing that things have to change but no one does anything about it because everyone enjoys there comftable lives to much | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 12/03/23 16:26:04]" Don’t leave us suspense you tease!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. do somethinv about it then jackal, start organising, start opening peoples eyes to the dark path we are heading down, call for overthrowing the facists our alternativley moan about it day after day on a swingers site, keep hearing that things have to change but no one does anything about it because everyone enjoys there comftable lives to much" Interesting you say that as I financially support some independent organisations who fight for good governance and rights from the innocence project in the US to other rights organisations. I will now consider supporting the Hansard society as they are lifting the lid on these things. Opening eyes as you say. Non of my support goes to political parties. What do you do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. do somethinv about it then jackal, start organising, start opening peoples eyes to the dark path we are heading down, call for overthrowing the facists our alternativley moan about it day after day on a swingers site, keep hearing that things have to change but no one does anything about it because everyone enjoys there comftable lives to much Interesting you say that as I financially support some independent organisations who fight for good governance and rights from the innocence project in the US to other rights organisations. I will now consider supporting the Hansard society as they are lifting the lid on these things. Opening eyes as you say. Non of my support goes to political parties. What do you do? " Make sarcastic comments and bemoan the fact that nothing ever changes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. These do sound alarming indeed. If they end up in law before the GE, are they set in stone forever? Could a future government change them back? Could be another easy win for all opposition parties In theory yes you would think so but in reality no. The bill is relating itself to the Brexit process and allows tweaks for the government to interpret their own agenda, however to introduce contra legislation will take years and years of new bills. This is decades of laws that are being manipulated. " If they do get these changed before the next GE then I would expect the new Labour government to make political gains from it and make it a priority to reverse, especially if it takes as long as you say | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. These do sound alarming indeed. If they end up in law before the GE, are they set in stone forever? Could a future government change them back? Could be another easy win for all opposition parties In theory yes you would think so but in reality no. The bill is relating itself to the Brexit process and allows tweaks for the government to interpret their own agenda, however to introduce contra legislation will take years and years of new bills. This is decades of laws that are being manipulated. If they do get these changed before the next GE then I would expect the new Labour government to make political gains from it and make it a priority to reverse, especially if it takes as long as you say" I don’t have enough technical Knowledge to debate the detail, sorry . I just know new legislation is very slow to be processed and implemented. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Am I missing something, does the government not propose new laws to parliament and these are voted on by parliament or am I missing something Parliament passes laws, not the Goverment." Is that not what I said ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . " I haven't had a chance to read this but surely it can't get through parliament. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . I haven't had a chance to read this but surely it can't get through parliament." It can if you have a large majority who do not think beyond a short-term "win" or the opportunity for personal gain and don't expect to be in the next Parliament to deal with the consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . I haven't had a chance to read this but surely it can't get through parliament. It can if you have a large majority who do not think beyond a short-term "win" or the opportunity for personal gain and don't expect to be in the next Parliament to deal with the consequences. " Fair comment. I would hope that we have 34 Conservative MPs who are actually Conservatives to vote this down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . I haven't had a chance to read this but surely it can't get through parliament." It’s passed and is on its way into the lords. We can only hope they keep kicking it back . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . I haven't had a chance to read this but surely it can't get through parliament. It’s passed and is on its way into the lords. We can only hope they keep kicking it back . " Well there goes my hope  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . I haven't had a chance to read this but surely it can't get through parliament. It can if you have a large majority who do not think beyond a short-term "win" or the opportunity for personal gain and don't expect to be in the next Parliament to deal with the consequences. Fair comment. I would hope that we have 34 Conservative MPs who are actually Conservatives to vote this down." There are a couple, at least; Caroline Nokes. A former Immigration Minister and Chris Skidmore. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caroline-nokes-im-horrified-by-migrant-bill-and-will-vote-against-it-wr3zfpwzl https://uk.news.yahoo.com/senior-tory-mp-not-vote-145318287.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . " Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. " The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. " It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table?" The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. " I'm asking questions not playing anything down, not panicking is not playing it down. Back on subject.. I think the latter part of your post is the plan, when new laws are needed they will come through parliament as UK laws. On the REUL front you can search UK retained EU Law dashboard. Filter it on department and see what is they are thinking of changing to best fit the UK, might be good for you and the transport side of things. It does state it is welcome to the public to explore. On another note I don't think you have a lot to worry about, not playing it down... They are only 17% the way through what needs to be done, that is not going to fly when it comes to the deadline, however like all projects the deadline doesn't move until the last second. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. I'm asking questions not playing anything down, not panicking is not playing it down. Back on subject.. I think the latter part of your post is the plan, when new laws are needed they will come through parliament as UK laws. On the REUL front you can search UK retained EU Law dashboard. Filter it on department and see what is they are thinking of changing to best fit the UK, might be good for you and the transport side of things. It does state it is welcome to the public to explore. On another note I don't think you have a lot to worry about, not playing it down... They are only 17% the way through what needs to be done, that is not going to fly when it comes to the deadline, however like all projects the deadline doesn't move until the last second. " There is where you and I along with the Hansard society differ because you say you’re not panicking but I am . I don’t need to panic as I’m fine financially and if anything will benefit by a lot of the suspected changes to workers hours which will increase our chances of becoming Singapore on sea . I don’t want that as Singapore is a crap place if you’re an average worker. I want democracy. I’m highlighting as Hansard have done that this legislation gives this government the power to make law changes without any scrutiny if they so chose . The bold front facing statements on policy and their proposals count for nothing as the devil is in the actual wording of the changes detail. Would you believe a manifesto is good enough to write laws from or would you want it done professionally by civil servants under due scrutiny? It’s the principal of law changes without due scrutiny . The public are not qualified to scrutinise bills and their impact . Parliament and the slow wheels of due diligence do that job. Remember this party lied to the queen. They lied to parliament and they lied to the public . Why do you put so much faith in them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . I haven't had a chance to read this but surely it can't get through parliament. It can if you have a large majority who do not think beyond a short-term "win" or the opportunity for personal gain and don't expect to be in the next Parliament to deal with the consequences. Fair comment. I would hope that we have 34 Conservative MPs who are actually Conservatives to vote this down. There are a couple, at least; Caroline Nokes. A former Immigration Minister and Chris Skidmore. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caroline-nokes-im-horrified-by-migrant-bill-and-will-vote-against-it-wr3zfpwzl https://uk.news.yahoo.com/senior-tory-mp-not-vote-145318287.html" I clearly had something else in my head when I posted this  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. do somethinv about it then jackal, start organising, start opening peoples eyes to the dark path we are heading down, call for overthrowing the facists our alternativley moan about it day after day on a swingers site, keep hearing that things have to change but no one does anything about it because everyone enjoys there comftable lives to much Interesting you say that as I financially support some independent organisations who fight for good governance and rights from the innocence project in the US to other rights organisations. I will now consider supporting the Hansard society as they are lifting the lid on these things. Opening eyes as you say. Non of my support goes to political parties. What do you do? " i dont do nothing because i dont vote so dont care what bunch of shysters are in power at any given time, yourself you seem to think you have all the answers so do something about it if thats the case..... And who rattled your cage easy i was answering jackal not you though i know you cant resist ya snide little comments xxx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. I'm asking questions not playing anything down, not panicking is not playing it down. Back on subject.. I think the latter part of your post is the plan, when new laws are needed they will come through parliament as UK laws. On the REUL front you can search UK retained EU Law dashboard. Filter it on department and see what is they are thinking of changing to best fit the UK, might be good for you and the transport side of things. It does state it is welcome to the public to explore. On another note I don't think you have a lot to worry about, not playing it down... They are only 17% the way through what needs to be done, that is not going to fly when it comes to the deadline, however like all projects the deadline doesn't move until the last second. There is where you and I along with the Hansard society differ because you say you’re not panicking but I am . I don’t need to panic as I’m fine financially and if anything will benefit by a lot of the suspected changes to workers hours which will increase our chances of becoming Singapore on sea . I don’t want that as Singapore is a crap place if you’re an average worker. I want democracy. I’m highlighting as Hansard have done that this legislation gives this government the power to make law changes without any scrutiny if they so chose . The bold front facing statements on policy and their proposals count for nothing as the devil is in the actual wording of the changes detail. Would you believe a manifesto is good enough to write laws from or would you want it done professionally by civil servants under due scrutiny? It’s the principal of law changes without due scrutiny . The public are not qualified to scrutinise bills and their impact . Parliament and the slow wheels of due diligence do that job. Remember this party lied to the queen. They lied to parliament and they lied to the public . Why do you put so much faith in them? " The only faith I have is that they will not sail into 31st Dec 2023 with so many outstanding REUL changes to be made. If you took a moment to look into the info, those that need changing, a lot because they are referencing EU article XYZ and need to change to reference UK ABC are nowhere near being completed only 17%. You also made an assumption that I think there should be no scrutiny, I never indicated that, I have however said the big stuff is already being picked up outside this project. It doesn't mean scrutiny shouldn't be applied and the opposition have a a part to play in this. The report indicates clearly that the issue is they can't predict the outcome because of the lack of detail, they have so many questions. The final part of this whole saga.. If the sunset deadline of 31st December 2023 is not met Some REUL can be pushed back up to June 2026, again this brings ambiguity that those writing the report do not like, as in what parts of REUL, who, what and when. All in all it is part of Brexit so I'm not surprised. However the headlines of sailing into 2024 and throwing all the REUL's out the window is one we can both watch, my money is on it wont happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. do somethinv about it then jackal, start organising, start opening peoples eyes to the dark path we are heading down, call for overthrowing the facists our alternativley moan about it day after day on a swingers site, keep hearing that things have to change but no one does anything about it because everyone enjoys there comftable lives to much Interesting you say that as I financially support some independent organisations who fight for good governance and rights from the innocence project in the US to other rights organisations. I will now consider supporting the Hansard society as they are lifting the lid on these things. Opening eyes as you say. Non of my support goes to political parties. What do you do? i dont do nothing because i dont vote so dont care what bunch of shysters are in power at any given time, yourself you seem to think you have all the answers so do something about it if thats the case..... And who rattled your cage easy i was answering jackal not you though i know you cant resist ya snide little comments xxx" Anyone is free to comment on anything. You just confirmed what I wrote and responded with a snide little comment.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. I'm asking questions not playing anything down, not panicking is not playing it down. Back on subject.. I think the latter part of your post is the plan, when new laws are needed they will come through parliament as UK laws. On the REUL front you can search UK retained EU Law dashboard. Filter it on department and see what is they are thinking of changing to best fit the UK, might be good for you and the transport side of things. It does state it is welcome to the public to explore. On another note I don't think you have a lot to worry about, not playing it down... They are only 17% the way through what needs to be done, that is not going to fly when it comes to the deadline, however like all projects the deadline doesn't move until the last second. There is where you and I along with the Hansard society differ because you say you’re not panicking but I am . I don’t need to panic as I’m fine financially and if anything will benefit by a lot of the suspected changes to workers hours which will increase our chances of becoming Singapore on sea . I don’t want that as Singapore is a crap place if you’re an average worker. I want democracy. I’m highlighting as Hansard have done that this legislation gives this government the power to make law changes without any scrutiny if they so chose . The bold front facing statements on policy and their proposals count for nothing as the devil is in the actual wording of the changes detail. Would you believe a manifesto is good enough to write laws from or would you want it done professionally by civil servants under due scrutiny? It’s the principal of law changes without due scrutiny . The public are not qualified to scrutinise bills and their impact . Parliament and the slow wheels of due diligence do that job. Remember this party lied to the queen. They lied to parliament and they lied to the public . Why do you put so much faith in them? The only faith I have is that they will not sail into 31st Dec 2023 with so many outstanding REUL changes to be made. If you took a moment to look into the info, those that need changing, a lot because they are referencing EU article XYZ and need to change to reference UK ABC are nowhere near being completed only 17%. You also made an assumption that I think there should be no scrutiny, I never indicated that, I have however said the big stuff is already being picked up outside this project. It doesn't mean scrutiny shouldn't be applied and the opposition have a a part to play in this. The report indicates clearly that the issue is they can't predict the outcome because of the lack of detail, they have so many questions. The final part of this whole saga.. If the sunset deadline of 31st December 2023 is not met Some REUL can be pushed back up to June 2026, again this brings ambiguity that those writing the report do not like, as in what parts of REUL, who, what and when. All in all it is part of Brexit so I'm not surprised. However the headlines of sailing into 2024 and throwing all the REUL's out the window is one we can both watch, my money is on it wont happen." The point is that the executive (Government) is giving itself the discretion to modify or allow to lapse any EU law currently on the UK statutes without Parliamentary scrutiny. Effectively, existing laws can be removed or modified without any oversight. Regardless of what you speculate may or may not happen, that is the situation. Correct? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I started this thread because I’m genuinely concerned about the direction of this government. I’ve voted Tory in the past because I thought they will look after business but have realised that’s all bullshit. They look after the very rich and operate under the direction of Tufton street. I was also anti Brexit as I’ve repeated and stand by that, however this legislation along with the attempt to control the judiciary and restricting of protests should ring alarm bells for all of us whatever your political bias. It’s the action of an oligarchy or plutocracy. It is most definitely not democracy. The list of our protections alone in that vast swathe of legislation created over decades should be put to full scrutiny not handled quietly by the government. It’s totally wrong and we should shout very loudly against such behaviour. This bill is being called out by those independents who scrutinise our legislative process. The government are pushing it through quietly under a Brexit agenda and distracting us with boats and Lineker. We are all falling for it. Tory and Labour supporters alike. Dominic Raab wants to have control over the judiciary. Reece Mogg wants religious oversight in government. Tory paymasters want to continue to erode our rights and in doing so enable them to extract even more of this country’s wealth. These people are a serious threat to our way of life. It is way more serious than Brexit. do somethinv about it then jackal, start organising, start opening peoples eyes to the dark path we are heading down, call for overthrowing the facists our alternativley moan about it day after day on a swingers site, keep hearing that things have to change but no one does anything about it because everyone enjoys there comftable lives to much Interesting you say that as I financially support some independent organisations who fight for good governance and rights from the innocence project in the US to other rights organisations. I will now consider supporting the Hansard society as they are lifting the lid on these things. Opening eyes as you say. Non of my support goes to political parties. What do you do? i dont do nothing because i dont vote so dont care what bunch of shysters are in power at any given time, yourself you seem to think you have all the answers so do something about it if thats the case..... And who rattled your cage easy i was answering jackal not you though i know you cant resist ya snide little comments xxx" Please feel free to show me where I said I had all the answers? If your debate is going to just circle down into insults because you have nothing interesting to say then just don’t bother as you will look silly. If you can’t be arsed to vote I’m sure you can’t be arsed as you get poorer each year and your freedoms are taken away. Hey that’s your choice but when the country becomes an oligarchy don’t bother complaining then because remember you couldn’t be arsed. By then it will be too late anyway. As for you “don’t do nothing” that’s saying you do something .. I’m concluding you didn’t mean that as you’re contradicting yourself. Maybe its better if you don’t vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. I'm asking questions not playing anything down, not panicking is not playing it down. Back on subject.. I think the latter part of your post is the plan, when new laws are needed they will come through parliament as UK laws. On the REUL front you can search UK retained EU Law dashboard. Filter it on department and see what is they are thinking of changing to best fit the UK, might be good for you and the transport side of things. It does state it is welcome to the public to explore. On another note I don't think you have a lot to worry about, not playing it down... They are only 17% the way through what needs to be done, that is not going to fly when it comes to the deadline, however like all projects the deadline doesn't move until the last second. There is where you and I along with the Hansard society differ because you say you’re not panicking but I am . I don’t need to panic as I’m fine financially and if anything will benefit by a lot of the suspected changes to workers hours which will increase our chances of becoming Singapore on sea . I don’t want that as Singapore is a crap place if you’re an average worker. I want democracy. I’m highlighting as Hansard have done that this legislation gives this government the power to make law changes without any scrutiny if they so chose . The bold front facing statements on policy and their proposals count for nothing as the devil is in the actual wording of the changes detail. Would you believe a manifesto is good enough to write laws from or would you want it done professionally by civil servants under due scrutiny? It’s the principal of law changes without due scrutiny . The public are not qualified to scrutinise bills and their impact . Parliament and the slow wheels of due diligence do that job. Remember this party lied to the queen. They lied to parliament and they lied to the public . Why do you put so much faith in them? The only faith I have is that they will not sail into 31st Dec 2023 with so many outstanding REUL changes to be made. If you took a moment to look into the info, those that need changing, a lot because they are referencing EU article XYZ and need to change to reference UK ABC are nowhere near being completed only 17%. You also made an assumption that I think there should be no scrutiny, I never indicated that, I have however said the big stuff is already being picked up outside this project. It doesn't mean scrutiny shouldn't be applied and the opposition have a a part to play in this. The report indicates clearly that the issue is they can't predict the outcome because of the lack of detail, they have so many questions. The final part of this whole saga.. If the sunset deadline of 31st December 2023 is not met Some REUL can be pushed back up to June 2026, again this brings ambiguity that those writing the report do not like, as in what parts of REUL, who, what and when. All in all it is part of Brexit so I'm not surprised. However the headlines of sailing into 2024 and throwing all the REUL's out the window is one we can both watch, my money is on it wont happen." I wish I had your confidence. Taking the last 12 years as the basis for my view. I have no faith that the outcome will be a positive one for the citizens and workers of the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. I'm asking questions not playing anything down, not panicking is not playing it down. Back on subject.. I think the latter part of your post is the plan, when new laws are needed they will come through parliament as UK laws. On the REUL front you can search UK retained EU Law dashboard. Filter it on department and see what is they are thinking of changing to best fit the UK, might be good for you and the transport side of things. It does state it is welcome to the public to explore. On another note I don't think you have a lot to worry about, not playing it down... They are only 17% the way through what needs to be done, that is not going to fly when it comes to the deadline, however like all projects the deadline doesn't move until the last second. There is where you and I along with the Hansard society differ because you say you’re not panicking but I am . I don’t need to panic as I’m fine financially and if anything will benefit by a lot of the suspected changes to workers hours which will increase our chances of becoming Singapore on sea . I don’t want that as Singapore is a crap place if you’re an average worker. I want democracy. I’m highlighting as Hansard have done that this legislation gives this government the power to make law changes without any scrutiny if they so chose . The bold front facing statements on policy and their proposals count for nothing as the devil is in the actual wording of the changes detail. Would you believe a manifesto is good enough to write laws from or would you want it done professionally by civil servants under due scrutiny? It’s the principal of law changes without due scrutiny . The public are not qualified to scrutinise bills and their impact . Parliament and the slow wheels of due diligence do that job. Remember this party lied to the queen. They lied to parliament and they lied to the public . Why do you put so much faith in them? The only faith I have is that they will not sail into 31st Dec 2023 with so many outstanding REUL changes to be made. If you took a moment to look into the info, those that need changing, a lot because they are referencing EU article XYZ and need to change to reference UK ABC are nowhere near being completed only 17%. You also made an assumption that I think there should be no scrutiny, I never indicated that, I have however said the big stuff is already being picked up outside this project. It doesn't mean scrutiny shouldn't be applied and the opposition have a a part to play in this. The report indicates clearly that the issue is they can't predict the outcome because of the lack of detail, they have so many questions. The final part of this whole saga.. If the sunset deadline of 31st December 2023 is not met Some REUL can be pushed back up to June 2026, again this brings ambiguity that those writing the report do not like, as in what parts of REUL, who, what and when. All in all it is part of Brexit so I'm not surprised. However the headlines of sailing into 2024 and throwing all the REUL's out the window is one we can both watch, my money is on it wont happen. The point is that the executive (Government) is giving itself the discretion to modify or allow to lapse any EU law currently on the UK statutes without Parliamentary scrutiny. Effectively, existing laws can be removed or modified without any oversight. Regardless of what you speculate may or may not happen, that is the situation. Correct?" This is where the devil is in the detail. I did ask this question further up, in our ways of working today, do ministries amend / change or remove sections of legislation without going through a parliamentary review? Are they talking of laws that no longer exist because they’re specifically EU laws and need to be removed as a process of Brexit? I don’t know the answer to these questions do you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. The only faith I have is that they will not sail into 31st Dec 2023 with so many outstanding REUL changes to be made. If you took a moment to look into the info, those that need changing, a lot because they are referencing EU article XYZ and need to change to reference UK ABC are nowhere near being completed only 17%. You also made an assumption that I think there should be no scrutiny, I never indicated that, I have however said the big stuff is already being picked up outside this project. It doesn't mean scrutiny shouldn't be applied and the opposition have a a part to play in this. The report indicates clearly that the issue is they can't predict the outcome because of the lack of detail, they have so many questions. The final part of this whole saga.. If the sunset deadline of 31st December 2023 is not met Some REUL can be pushed back up to June 2026, again this brings ambiguity that those writing the report do not like, as in what parts of REUL, who, what and when. All in all it is part of Brexit so I'm not surprised. However the headlines of sailing into 2024 and throwing all the REUL's out the window is one we can both watch, my money is on it wont happen. The point is that the executive (Government) is giving itself the discretion to modify or allow to lapse any EU law currently on the UK statutes without Parliamentary scrutiny. Effectively, existing laws can be removed or modified without any oversight. Regardless of what you speculate may or may not happen, that is the situation. Correct? This is where the devil is in the detail. I did ask this question further up, in our ways of working today, do ministries amend / change or remove sections of legislation without going through a parliamentary review? Are they talking of laws that no longer exist because they’re specifically EU laws and need to be removed as a process of Brexit? I don’t know the answer to these questions do you?" This. Is an interesting link . When you get to the amendments section it’s a clear as mud . It says amendments have to be voted on but can be made without a vote but then says they subsequently have to go through a vote of both houses but also says a vote can sometimes be avoided if the opposition agree. I think this shows that in nearly all cases amendments have to be voted on either as an amendment in their own right or as part of the bill. It doesn’t say the government have carte Blanche to change everything. I’m say no it’s not the norm for government to amend bills without scrutiny or a vote at sone stage in the process. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/how-are-bills-amended-parliament | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. I'm asking questions not playing anything down, not panicking is not playing it down. Back on subject.. I think the latter part of your post is the plan, when new laws are needed they will come through parliament as UK laws. On the REUL front you can search UK retained EU Law dashboard. Filter it on department and see what is they are thinking of changing to best fit the UK, might be good for you and the transport side of things. It does state it is welcome to the public to explore. On another note I don't think you have a lot to worry about, not playing it down... They are only 17% the way through what needs to be done, that is not going to fly when it comes to the deadline, however like all projects the deadline doesn't move until the last second. There is where you and I along with the Hansard society differ because you say you’re not panicking but I am . I don’t need to panic as I’m fine financially and if anything will benefit by a lot of the suspected changes to workers hours which will increase our chances of becoming Singapore on sea . I don’t want that as Singapore is a crap place if you’re an average worker. I want democracy. I’m highlighting as Hansard have done that this legislation gives this government the power to make law changes without any scrutiny if they so chose . The bold front facing statements on policy and their proposals count for nothing as the devil is in the actual wording of the changes detail. Would you believe a manifesto is good enough to write laws from or would you want it done professionally by civil servants under due scrutiny? It’s the principal of law changes without due scrutiny . The public are not qualified to scrutinise bills and their impact . Parliament and the slow wheels of due diligence do that job. Remember this party lied to the queen. They lied to parliament and they lied to the public . Why do you put so much faith in them? The only faith I have is that they will not sail into 31st Dec 2023 with so many outstanding REUL changes to be made. If you took a moment to look into the info, those that need changing, a lot because they are referencing EU article XYZ and need to change to reference UK ABC are nowhere near being completed only 17%. You also made an assumption that I think there should be no scrutiny, I never indicated that, I have however said the big stuff is already being picked up outside this project. It doesn't mean scrutiny shouldn't be applied and the opposition have a a part to play in this. The report indicates clearly that the issue is they can't predict the outcome because of the lack of detail, they have so many questions. The final part of this whole saga.. If the sunset deadline of 31st December 2023 is not met Some REUL can be pushed back up to June 2026, again this brings ambiguity that those writing the report do not like, as in what parts of REUL, who, what and when. All in all it is part of Brexit so I'm not surprised. However the headlines of sailing into 2024 and throwing all the REUL's out the window is one we can both watch, my money is on it wont happen. The point is that the executive (Government) is giving itself the discretion to modify or allow to lapse any EU law currently on the UK statutes without Parliamentary scrutiny. Effectively, existing laws can be removed or modified without any oversight. Regardless of what you speculate may or may not happen, that is the situation. Correct? This is where the devil is in the detail. I did ask this question further up, in our ways of working today, do ministries amend / change or remove sections of legislation without going through a parliamentary review? Are they talking of laws that no longer exist because they’re specifically EU laws and need to be removed as a process of Brexit? I don’t know the answer to these questions do you?" If you don't know the answer, is that not a problem already? All of the laws exist and have formed part of UK legislation and case law. As I said, they can now be removed, altered or replaced without any Parliamentary oversight. Is that OK? Certain legislation can be modified without Parliament, but that is defined when the law is passed. That isn't happening here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. I'm asking questions not playing anything down, not panicking is not playing it down. Back on subject.. I think the latter part of your post is the plan, when new laws are needed they will come through parliament as UK laws. On the REUL front you can search UK retained EU Law dashboard. Filter it on department and see what is they are thinking of changing to best fit the UK, might be good for you and the transport side of things. It does state it is welcome to the public to explore. On another note I don't think you have a lot to worry about, not playing it down... They are only 17% the way through what needs to be done, that is not going to fly when it comes to the deadline, however like all projects the deadline doesn't move until the last second. There is where you and I along with the Hansard society differ because you say you’re not panicking but I am . I don’t need to panic as I’m fine financially and if anything will benefit by a lot of the suspected changes to workers hours which will increase our chances of becoming Singapore on sea . I don’t want that as Singapore is a crap place if you’re an average worker. I want democracy. I’m highlighting as Hansard have done that this legislation gives this government the power to make law changes without any scrutiny if they so chose . The bold front facing statements on policy and their proposals count for nothing as the devil is in the actual wording of the changes detail. Would you believe a manifesto is good enough to write laws from or would you want it done professionally by civil servants under due scrutiny? It’s the principal of law changes without due scrutiny . The public are not qualified to scrutinise bills and their impact . Parliament and the slow wheels of due diligence do that job. Remember this party lied to the queen. They lied to parliament and they lied to the public . Why do you put so much faith in them? The only faith I have is that they will not sail into 31st Dec 2023 with so many outstanding REUL changes to be made. If you took a moment to look into the info, those that need changing, a lot because they are referencing EU article XYZ and need to change to reference UK ABC are nowhere near being completed only 17%. You also made an assumption that I think there should be no scrutiny, I never indicated that, I have however said the big stuff is already being picked up outside this project. It doesn't mean scrutiny shouldn't be applied and the opposition have a a part to play in this. The report indicates clearly that the issue is they can't predict the outcome because of the lack of detail, they have so many questions. The final part of this whole saga.. If the sunset deadline of 31st December 2023 is not met Some REUL can be pushed back up to June 2026, again this brings ambiguity that those writing the report do not like, as in what parts of REUL, who, what and when. All in all it is part of Brexit so I'm not surprised. However the headlines of sailing into 2024 and throwing all the REUL's out the window is one we can both watch, my money is on it wont happen. The point is that the executive (Government) is giving itself the discretion to modify or allow to lapse any EU law currently on the UK statutes without Parliamentary scrutiny. Effectively, existing laws can be removed or modified without any oversight. Regardless of what you speculate may or may not happen, that is the situation. Correct? This is where the devil is in the detail. I did ask this question further up, in our ways of working today, do ministries amend / change or remove sections of legislation without going through a parliamentary review? Are they talking of laws that no longer exist because they’re specifically EU laws and need to be removed as a process of Brexit? I don’t know the answer to these questions do you? If you don't know the answer, is that not a problem already? All of the laws exist and have formed part of UK legislation and case law. As I said, they can now be removed, altered or replaced without any Parliamentary oversight. Is that OK? Certain legislation can be modified without Parliament, but that is defined when the law is passed. That isn't happening here." Where are the new laws, I only see existing. You have looked at the changes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So from the lack of posters running to defend this bill I think we can assume we all think this is a worrying development . Can I ask you what you expected the government to do in terms of REUL and going forward post Brexit? The report sates there are 2417 REUL, if you look at the REUL catalogue they have itemised 3700 pieces of legislation across 400 policy areas. I can see by the end of 2023 they intend to remove any REUL that has no fit or has not been asked to remain or saved. This exercise is authenticating all the EU laws and are they fit for purpose for the UK going forward under each ministerial department. I can see the report is jittery on the lack of detail surrounding the end date, which I understand but surely there is risk management in place that would be in place to indicate priority legislation and that would be taken care of outside this exercise, which has already happened with finance. So second question is on the 2417 RUEL. I have looked at 2 ministerial departments, justice and department for work and pensions. The ministry for justice has 23 REUL of which 11 are unchanged 10 amended and 2 repealed Department for work and pensions 212 REUL 206 unchanged 1 replaced and 5 repealed. What is the problem I have missed? I understand the ambiguity in the deadline but not in the worry around the other unknowns the report throws up. The issue is around changes made without scrutiny and voting in parliament . What is the point of having elections if you can’t rely on a democratic process. You are assuming risk management and public oversight. Do you genuinely believe that will happen with the ministers in power right now? Be honest with yourself . These are not Conservative ministers in the old sense of the word. Who will decide what is fit to stay what can be amended and what can go? Who will check that civil rights m, environmental rights, food safety and human rights etc etc are not tampered with? Do you know what those changes and repeals are and will you know before it’s made into law? Laws being altered without scrutiny is a dictatorship do you not agree? Genuinely this is not me being pro or anti conservative this is questioning if we still have a functioning democracy. Who voted to say one political party can change any laws at will? That is what this bill contains. It is at department level, do all amendments to legislation and repeals go to full parliamentary approval? The details are freely available for what has been amended and why, what hasn't changed and what has been repealed. Have you looked at the REUL catalogue and table? The bill hasn’t been passed yet . Out of the thousands of pieces of legislation I’m sure hundreds will be fine but how will I know until after the event if they are not open for scrutiny and amended without reference or scrutiny by opposition or vested interest. For example sewage companies recent being told then can continues to pump sewage and yet still pay dividends. Who thinks that’s ok? We have the authority to punish those companies but the government Minister has said it’s ok to continue polluting rivers under their existing powers. These powers being proposed are more extreme. What can I do as an MP if I don’t agree with the changes to our law if I’m not allowed to challenge or vote on said changes? You are playing down a critical point of our democracy which is being undermined if this legislation is passed. What if our government decided ok we are short of truck drivers so we need to get more out of each driver so we will permanently do away with driver hours restrictions and they can work 18 hours a day behind the wheel if they want, with just a minimum three hours sleep before they can start again. That is EU law that can be changed by this method without recourse. The opposition ( all parties) should be able to scrutinise all planned changes and have a veto on any changes they object to , as this is all of the U.K. being affected not one party or another. Those changes objected to should then go through a full parliamentary process. I'm asking questions not playing anything down, not panicking is not playing it down. Back on subject.. I think the latter part of your post is the plan, when new laws are needed they will come through parliament as UK laws. On the REUL front you can search UK retained EU Law dashboard. Filter it on department and see what is they are thinking of changing to best fit the UK, might be good for you and the transport side of things. It does state it is welcome to the public to explore. On another note I don't think you have a lot to worry about, not playing it down... They are only 17% the way through what needs to be done, that is not going to fly when it comes to the deadline, however like all projects the deadline doesn't move until the last second. There is where you and I along with the Hansard society differ because you say you’re not panicking but I am . I don’t need to panic as I’m fine financially and if anything will benefit by a lot of the suspected changes to workers hours which will increase our chances of becoming Singapore on sea . I don’t want that as Singapore is a crap place if you’re an average worker. I want democracy. I’m highlighting as Hansard have done that this legislation gives this government the power to make law changes without any scrutiny if they so chose . The bold front facing statements on policy and their proposals count for nothing as the devil is in the actual wording of the changes detail. Would you believe a manifesto is good enough to write laws from or would you want it done professionally by civil servants under due scrutiny? It’s the principal of law changes without due scrutiny . The public are not qualified to scrutinise bills and their impact . Parliament and the slow wheels of due diligence do that job. Remember this party lied to the queen. They lied to parliament and they lied to the public . Why do you put so much faith in them? The only faith I have is that they will not sail into 31st Dec 2023 with so many outstanding REUL changes to be made. If you took a moment to look into the info, those that need changing, a lot because they are referencing EU article XYZ and need to change to reference UK ABC are nowhere near being completed only 17%. You also made an assumption that I think there should be no scrutiny, I never indicated that, I have however said the big stuff is already being picked up outside this project. It doesn't mean scrutiny shouldn't be applied and the opposition have a a part to play in this. The report indicates clearly that the issue is they can't predict the outcome because of the lack of detail, they have so many questions. The final part of this whole saga.. If the sunset deadline of 31st December 2023 is not met Some REUL can be pushed back up to June 2026, again this brings ambiguity that those writing the report do not like, as in what parts of REUL, who, what and when. All in all it is part of Brexit so I'm not surprised. However the headlines of sailing into 2024 and throwing all the REUL's out the window is one we can both watch, my money is on it wont happen. The point is that the executive (Government) is giving itself the discretion to modify or allow to lapse any EU law currently on the UK statutes without Parliamentary scrutiny. Effectively, existing laws can be removed or modified without any oversight. Regardless of what you speculate may or may not happen, that is the situation. Correct? This is where the devil is in the detail. I did ask this question further up, in our ways of working today, do ministries amend / change or remove sections of legislation without going through a parliamentary review? Are they talking of laws that no longer exist because they’re specifically EU laws and need to be removed as a process of Brexit? I don’t know the answer to these questions do you? If you don't know the answer, is that not a problem already? All of the laws exist and have formed part of UK legislation and case law. As I said, they can now be removed, altered or replaced without any Parliamentary oversight. Is that OK? Certain legislation can be modified without Parliament, but that is defined when the law is passed. That isn't happening here. Where are the new laws, I only see existing. You have looked at the changes?" I no longer know what you're talking about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sadly I warned my Mum about this very issue when we had the vote on Brexit and the repercussions of coming out of the EU. The government are slowly eroding the rights that we once had and while people used to laugh over some of the EU legislation, much of it was introduced for our well-being and safety. The number of hours you work in a week, statutory breaks, health & safety, maternity leave, etc were all improved under the EU. Now being undone by the Tory government. They don’t want the unions to have a say in anything. The recent strikes about pay and working conditions show that unions are still essential. People with good jobs are struggling to pay bills due to high energy costs. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sadly I warned my Mum about this very issue when we had the vote on Brexit and the repercussions of coming out of the EU. The government are slowly eroding the rights that we once had and while people used to laugh over some of the EU legislation, much of it was introduced for our well-being and safety. The number of hours you work in a week, statutory breaks, health & safety, maternity leave, etc were all improved under the EU. Now being undone by the Tory government. They don’t want the unions to have a say in anything. The recent strikes about pay and working conditions show that unions are still essential. People with good jobs are struggling to pay bills due to high energy costs. " Funny thing was several people mentioned thison the brexit threads, not many seemed that bothered about it back then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
