Hard Brexit or Hard Brexit

[Scot Dutchy]

It is the same arrogance that is shown during negotiations and they wonder why no progress is being made. They seem to forget the EU does not have to discuss anything. It could just lay its demands and the vision of a future relationship on the table and leave it at that. Take it or leave it. The EU could not care one iota. The Brexit station has been passed and it is now looking to the future without the UK when at long last progress can finally be made.

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

[Scot Dutchy]

Yep she has been found out. The tory dictatorship. 1984 is just round the corner.

[Brian Peacock]

"We’re wandering around the continent wondering who’s with us - that’s the strategy of a stag do, not a negotiation."
-- Alex Norris MP

[JimC]

There will be tears before bed-time, mark my words!

[Brian Peacock]

Dominic Greive MP (CON), former Conservative Attorney General under Cameron, writing in the Evening Standard...

The Government has correctly recognised that this EU law cannot all be changed into domestic law at once. This is why the bill seeks to incorporate this law into our own statute book to ensure continuity, except where there is an immediate intention to bring in something different, such as in respect of immigration.

Unfortunately, the withdrawal bill is not, at present, up to addressing these issues. Even more worryingly, it seeks to confer powers on the Government to carry out Brexit in breach of our constitutional principles, in a manner that no sovereign Parliament should allow.

The first objection lies in the way in which the Government is seeking to maintain legal continuity while bringing the current subordination of our legal system to the supremacy of EU law to an end. Once EU law ceases to be supreme it is unclear how this vast body of law, which will then be incorporated into our own domestic law, will be interpreted by our own courts. Some clauses of the bill seek to confirm that all direct EU legislation operating before exit day survives and that all rights and remedies available under EU law persist, unless specifically abolished. The bill then seeks elsewhere to restrict the ability to enforce these rights, preventing our domestic courts from limiting or quashing the incorporated EU law on the basis that it is incompatible with the general principles on which EU law is based. In particular, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, whose principles form the bedrock of how EU law should be applied, ceases to apply after exit day.

The Charter has been criticised because of a tendency of the Court of Justice of the EU to interpret it in ways that are considered to wrongly expand its scope. But it and the general principles of EU law it reflects are essential safeguards for individuals and businesses that might be adversely affected by the application of EU law and they cannot and should not be removed in this fashion.

We are thus creating uncertainty as to how EU law will apply after incorporation. This is not a satisfactory position and it needs to be addressed during the passage of the legislation, as a lack of legal certainty is contrary to one of the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. It was, I believe, the reason why the president of our own Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, recently expressed concern at the way the bill was drafted and at the difficult burden that this lack of clarity would place on our judiciary.

Second, in order to try to address uncertainties in the legislation, the Government is seeking the power to remedy any deficiency in the bill by statutory instrument, a “Henry VIII” clause allowing for ministerial rule by decree on any matter that can be connected to a failure of the incorporation of EU law to operate effectively. The judge of the effectiveness of the operation of the law will be the minister himself. Even before the bill was published, the House of Lords select committee on the constitution highlighted its concern at the creation of sweeping powers of this kind. As published in this bill, it allows for the possibility of vast areas of law being changed without full parliamentary process. It is essential that these powers should both be reduced and better defined in scope and made subject to a credible system of affirmative parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that they are only used where legitimately needed.

It is the final oddity of the withdrawal bill that it seeks to provide a legal framework for a complete severance of our country from the EU, when the Government is also committed to trying to negotiate a continuing relationship with the EU after Brexit. It is therefore unclear what further legislation might be needed before we leave the EU to provide for this, or how it might impact on the withdrawal bill itself. As presently drafted, no further reference to Parliament will in theory be needed before the final ending of our EU membership. Parliament should ensure that the withdrawal bill cannot be brought into force until the final agreement being negotiated by the Government has become crystallised. Otherwise we are simply leaving it to the executive to decide what is best. This is an abdication of our responsibility.

Scrutinising detail is not obstructing the referendum result. The electorate did not vote to “take back control” to see our domestic constitution and liberties vandalised. If the Government listens on this, we can all work together to effect this major constitutional change properly.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comm ... 28376.html

The Commons will vote on the Bill in 10 minutes. Currently a junior minister has been put up to close the debate for the government and to fend off last minute interjections while ignoring the entire focus and point of the foreshortened debate: the granting of legislative powers to minister which avoid Parliamentary scrutiny.

[Brian Peacock]

The division has been called. Definitely more abstainers remaining on the opposition benches than the government benches. That any member should abstain on such a momentous point in UK constitutional history is pretty amazing really.

[Brian Peacock]

The Brexit Bulldog is back in his seat and smiling like a teenager at a rave. But is that bravado or a shit-eating Cheshire cat 'I told yo so' grin...?

[Brian Peacock]

The Bill progresses to the committee stage by 22 votes.

[Brian Peacock]

Now waiting for the vote on the opposition amendment...

That this House respects the EU referendum result and recognises that the UK will leave the EU, believes that insisting on proper scrutiny of this bill and its proposed powers is the responsibility of this sovereign parliament, recognises the need for considered and effective legislation to preserve EU-derived rights, protections and regulations in UK law as the UK leaves the EU but declines to give a second reading to the European Union (withdrawal) bill because the bill fails to protect and reassert the principle of parliamentary sovereignty by handing sweeping powers to government ministers allowing them to bypass parliament on key decisions, allows for rights and protections to be reduced or removed through secondary legislation without any meaningful or guaranteed parliamentary scrutiny, fails to include a presumption of devolution which would allow effective transfer of devolved competencies coming back from the EU to the devolved administrations and makes unnecessary and unjustified alterations to the devolution settlements, fails to provide certainty that rights and protections will be enforced as effectively in the future as they are at present, risks weakening human rights protections by failing to transpose the EU charter of fundamental rights into UK law, provides no mechanism for ensuring that the UK does not lag behind the EU in workplace protections and environmental standards in the future and prevents the UK implementing strong transitional arrangements on the same basic terms we currently enjoy, including remaining within a customs union and within the single market.

[Brian Peacock]

36 votes against the amendment. The Bill goes to committee and second reading as-is.

[JimC]

You should get a job as a parliamentary reporter, Brian...

[Brian Peacock]

I was watching the live chat on the YouTube stream - it was mostly trolls lolling it up with faux 'eat my Brexit' bravura. But regardless of how many times politicians from all sides said in the debate that the wholesale integration of all standing EU laws should be, and indeed had to be, bound to the UK statute books, the ministers, the right-lean press, and the gullible YouTube trolls etc continued to paint this opposition to the Bill in its present form as an unpatriotic attempt to subvert the will of the people's referendum decision. That was not the point at all - not even close. Every party voted to enact Article 50 - Brexit will happen - but the vaguely drafted yet sweeping executive powers inserted into this Bill are a real concern: particularly that a minister could, if the Bill becomes law, use a statutory instrument to revise, repeal, or enact laws and regulations, including this very Bill, without reference to Parliament, is something that everyone should be very, very wary about, regardless of one's political persuasion.

[Brian Peacock]

Senior Tories warn May over Brexit bill after MPs vote for second reading

Conservative MPs have warned Theresa May that their support for her government’s Brexit legislation is not unconditional, as they demanded significant changes to the EU withdrawal bill within minutes of backing it.

Parliament’s post-midnight vote resulted in the prime minister facing no rebellion from within her party, as the government secured a victory of 326 to 290.

The result handed May an effective “Brexit majority” of 36 after seven Labour MPs – Ronnie Campbell, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, John Mann, Dennis Skinner and Graham Stringer – defied their own party whip to support the government, arguing that the referendum demanded the legislation be passed.

The prime minister called it a “historic decision to back the will of the British people” and said the vote would give clarity and certainty through the Brexit process.

“Although there is more to do, this decision means we can move on with negotiations with solid foundations and we continue to encourage MPs from all parts of the UK to work together in support of this vital piece of legislation,” she said.

However, senior Tory backbenchers were among those racing to lay down critical amendments immediately after the vote, as a big queue formed in which MPs jostled to table their suggestions first....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... servatives

So far the Tories have managed to avoid out-and-out open warfare between the recalcitrant hardliners and the centre of the party. I wonder if this will finally push the ongoing internecine conflict out into the open?

I reckon the knives will be out by Xmas.