Hard Brexit or Hard Brexit

[pErvinalia]

Surely the Dutch fighter jets are better than F-16s

[Brian Peacock]

I think they've had problems with the pilots having to make emergency landings to take on more coal.

[Sean Hayden]

What's the point? Do fighters even have to engage each other with the incredible range of missiles? How many missiles can we build for every fighter?

[Animavore]

Yes. Very interesting.

[Sean Hayden]

Right, okay, my first plane ride was on some kind of small jet.

Sometime later I took a pilot lesson in a Cessna, and I was so little the instructor joked that I could sit on some phone books to reach the pedals.

Today I hate flying, I hate it.

[Animavore]

Lol. Wrote that in completely the wrong thread!

[Sean Hayden]

[JimC]

We still have F16's.

You use American planes??

Shit, don't let 42 know or we'll never hear the fucking end of it!

[Hermit]

We still have F16's.

You use American planes??

Shit, don't let 42 know or we'll never hear the fucking end of it!

PM sent.

[Brian Peacock]

So the UK government have not only been caught red-handed with their vote-grabbing Fortress Britain plans to close the border to everyone but the rich and the 'highly skilled' after Brexit, but they've also published the European Withdrawal Bill.

As well a bringing all current EU law onto the British Statute the Bill also gives ministeries the power to change the law (any law) during the transition period (as yet to be defined) by the so-called Henry VII powers and by the parliamentary process of 'negative assent'. Henry VII powers allow ministers, or their nominees, to revise, repeal, or implement law without reference to parliament, and negative assent allows laws and regulations to be revised, repealed and/or implemented quickly on the nod unless a debate is forced in the Commons.

Now while I accept that day-one-and-on of Brexit represents a pretty unique set of circumstances in UK legislative history it should not be forgotten that a primary driver of the Leave campaign was the apparent need to reclaim the UK's sovereignty and legislative independence from the EU, to 'take back control' as the slogan went.

In our ad hoc constitution it is Parliament which is sovereign, not the executive, and yet the Tories are publishing plans for sweeping measures which will, in effect, oversee the transfer of substantial powers and responsibilities from the legislature to the executive, powers which will, assuming the Bill is passed, allow the government (any government) to rewrite the British Statute book without parliamentary oversight or assent - according to their whim.

This is not a party-political issue, though of course the Tories will be claiming that these powers are necessary and that they are the only party that can be trusted to act responsibly. These simply are not the sort of power the executive branch of any nation should have, at least not if that nation wishes to maintain a credible claim to being a representative democracy. This is more than mere lazy law making, this is a potentially dangerous and regressive move which threatens to take our primary democratic institution back to the days of The Knights of the Shires and the 40 Shilling Franchise - a time when those in power granted themselves as much power as they needed to maintain their positions of power.

[pErvinalia]

Sure, but Corbyn wears cardigans.

[Brian Peacock]

And he rides a chairman Mao style bicycle.

[JimC]

Sure, but Corbyn wears cardigans.

Which demonstrates his excellent character...

[Scot Dutchy]

I agree Brian what tories are proposing is a pure dictatorship which has been their plan all along. A Little England for the 1%.

[Brian Peacock]

The silliness of the idea is exposed as soon as you consider the fact that once the Bill is on the books the government is likely to change. The Tories need to drop the arrogant assumption that they're going to be the only party to form a government across the Brexit transition period and consider if they'd be quite so glib about the possibilities if they were in opposition.