Loz

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fasci > sm > > the 1.1 'in general use' just about sums up what > fascism is.....and the left are guilty of those > things just as much as the right I'm not talking about your use with the left wing - more your general use in applying it to everyone and anyone. You seem to overlook the definition's use of the word 'extreme'.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My question is can a new coalition govt put Brexit on hold without repealing the Act that gave the PM > authority to start Brexit talks and Parliament passing a new Act? In the meantime the Article 50 > March 30 2019 deadline is ticking away Absolutely, yes. The PM would still theoretically have the authority to trigger Brexit, so the legislation would still hold. Saying 'you can' do something is very different to saying 'you must' do something. There was nothing in that bill that said she had to trigger Brexit (which is why she, not parliament, decided the date A50 was triggered). So, stopping Brexit would not go against any UK legislation. (Though not repealing it in the longer term would leave that authority in place.) So, Theresa May could, quite legally, stop the Brexit process tomorrow. Though that would trigger a lot of legal debate about the A50 wording. A50 has a provision to extend the time limit, but there is nothing in there about abandoning the process altogether, so that is very unclear.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure about that Loz. Corbyn's fantasy coalition might need to repeal said Act above and > introduce a new Bill European Union (Notification of Changed Our Mind Please Let Us Stay) Bill 2017. You are forgetting you gave them the power to make and remove legislation without reference to Parliament. After all, Brexit would then be "no longer appropriate".

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My reference to the date 30 March 2019 refers to the cut off date for current Brexit talks at one > minute past midnight on the 30 March 2019 which were initiated under the European Union > (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Surely this Act would need to be repealed before > hypothetically a different government could agree with the EU to stop the clock? There is nothing in any legislation that ties the government to a particular date... or even ties them to actually do Brexit at all. The only impediment would be whether Article 50 itself is reversible - and that is open to debate as it does not actually say one way or the other.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not quite that simple Loz. > > I understand your point but I think I'm right in saying Corbyn's imaginary coalition government of > June 2018 would need to repeal the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. They > couldn't agree to put Brexit on hold with the EU until this had been done (can't stop clock). That bill is one paragraph that grants the PM power to notify the EU of the intention to withdraw the UK from the EU. Nothing more, nothing less.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I use 37% hydrocloric acid for the bog, bought from licensed premises. Have you thought of laying off the red meat a bit?

This is getting serious. The number of acid attacks in London alone this year has topped 450. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40604002 Surely high strength acid is only needed by a very very small number of people. Controls can be imposed.

OK, for the uncleglens of this world, let's consider a really-quite-possible scenario... Aug 2017 - Parliament passes the Great Repeal Bill, giving ministers wide ranging powers to make laws. Oct 2017 to Mar 2018 - A series of resignations, deaths and defections from the Tory party mean the country faces a number of by-election for Conservative seats. The Tories lose some of these and May loses her majority, even with DUP support. Other parties call a motion of no confidence and the country once again goes to the polls. May 2018 - Jeremy Corbyn wins enough seats that with the SNP, Greens in coalition and a confidence and supply agreement with the LibDems, he is able to form a government. June 2018 - Corbyn announces his new cabinet, made up of Labour, SNP and Green ministers. They announce that the will not repeal the powers in the Great Repeal Bill, as they feel they can make very good use of them. They also announce that, in agreement with the EU, Brexit will be put on hold, as negotiations must completely restart with the new government. This effectively nullifies the two year sunset clause, as it requires actual Brexit to start the clock ticking. Still happy to give ministers wide ranging powers to make law? Because they might not be the ministers you think they are...!

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, if you are totally paranoid and think that > Brexiteers are died -in -the -wool fascists then I > expect you would be scared Loz. Let's put that another way - do you actually trust politicians given wide ranging powers to use them responsibly? > But if you believe that the EU are a bunch of > died-in-the-wool lefty fascist dictators who don't > know the meaning of the word democracy and cannot > manage its own budget then you would be glad that > we are going to regain our self-determination. So, we are going to 'regain our self-determination' by side-stepping our democratic institutions? What kind of madness is that? I suggest that your understanding of the concept of democracy is pretty weak, UG. And you have a pretty poor grasp on the meaning of 'fascist', as well.

Precisely - that leaves a whole host of stuff that ministers can change at will. Instead of defining what they can't do, the act should have defined what they can do. This legislation is packed with loopholes - and the cynic in me says that is purposely so. You have only posted top level stuff and headings - the devil is in the (lack of) detail. Keano claims it will mainly be used for changing 'European Union' to 'United Kingdom'. If that is the case, then that's all this should say - Ministers are empowered to change laws via the simple replacement of that particular wording. But it doesn't - it gives them very wide ranging powers to change and remove laws. Like (but not restricted to) human rights laws (those not covered under the HRA) and safety laws. All they have to do is decide that the law in question is "no longer appropriate". It is REALLY BLOODY SCARY. Point taken about Sch 2 vs Sch 7 - my mistake. But Sch 7 is pretty weak in its scrutiny. It either says it has to be bought before parliament (remembering that the govt of the day controls most of that) or emergency scrutiny if bought up by a minister of the crown (fat chance, since they are the ones being scrutinised). The two years after Brexit day sunset clause is important, but a lot of damage can be done by giving ministers open season on laws for what is the best part of four years.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To forward this discussion: > > Identify the "Henry VIII" clauses. Erm... I just did. For the second part, all the badly defined words that allegedly 'restrict' the use of the clauses. Take the opener of s7... The following sub-section then outlines the 'restrictions' on the use of the clauses, most of which use the phrase 'no longer appropriate', which, like beauty, is most definitely in the eye of the beholder. The whole thing is very vaguely worded. And anything that confers the powers to make law without strongly worded restrictions is extraordinarily dangerous and, given the paper thin 'majority', opens up the very real possibility that it will be used to circumvent parliament.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think you've read the Bill: > > http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawal.html Not all of it (it is 61 pages and life's too short), but there are some terrifying parts - section 7 and Schedule 2, mainly.

I see that the Great Reform Bill seeks to "restore the sovereignty of parliament" via completely and utterly bypassing the sovereignty of parliament to pass thousands of laws. I'd be funny if it wasn't so stupid.

Was this a door-to-dorsals man??

I'll fall for this - hook, line and sinker.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But, fear not, post-Brexit we'll get rid of all > these pesky non-Celtic words from the English dictionary! We'll have no need for it anyway, as, post-Brexit, there will be no money to remunerate anyone, anyway. We can create a new word - say, repebulate - to reflect that everyone after then will be paid in pebbles.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, Rendel, Alan Medic > > Loz, given the hour of your post you cannot have been expected to appreciate the irony of my > mention of bananas given that DulwichLondoner raised the subject in an earlier reply to me > above. Anyway, you might be delighted to learn that > > Commission regulation 2257/94 decreed that bananas in general should be ?free from malformation or > abnormal curvature?. Those sold as ?extra class? must be perfect, ?class 1? can have ?slight > defects of shape? and ?class 2? can have full-scale ?defects of shape?. > > In short, bananas should be preferably straightish, shouldn't be too curvy but can be > bendy. Yes, the EU divides produce into Class 1 and Class 2, something that will almost certainly continue in the UK post-Brexit. Nice work disproving your own assertion that the EU is 'forcing straight bananas onto us'. You just saved me a bit of time looking it up.

I just read your ad - it didn't really read like you intended paying them.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re the ECJ. It has the power to overrule the British Parliament. Therefore, the British > Parliament is not supreme while we are in the EU (plus it forced straight bananas and tasteless > French Golden 'Delicious' on us). Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You really still believe that is true? The apple one is a new one on me, though. I bought some Jazz apples last week - could you explain how I managed to avoid the nasty EU forcing me to buy GDs?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "European Union officials are looking forward to a > massive eight-hour end of year party, which will > boast 700 bottles of wine and a dinner with 26 > different dishes at a cost of up to ?48,600. > > ... The bill will be paid from the council budget, > which is money from EU member states including > Britain..." I notice you snipped the bit that says it is for "about 1,200 to 1,400 civil servants". Sneaky. If you think UK government departments don't do much the same thing, you've never worked with a UK government department. Apart from everything else, the House of Commons has a permanently subsidised bar and restaurants costing millions per year (and damn nice they are, too!).

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbyn is still playing it smart but polite > > Ukip spokesman Gerard Batten: 'The UK does not owe the EU ?a penny?'. > Corbyn: ?pay what we are legally required to pay, but nothing beyond that". I actually have no idea what Labour's policy on Brexit is, apart from the completely meaningless mantra of "A Jobs First Brexit" (which was coined in response to May's equally meaningless 'Brexit Means Brexit'). You really do start to suspect none of them has a scooby of what they actually want to do and are too scared of the utterly split electorate to actually outline a solid position. Looks like we have two years (well, 20 months) of blathering and dithering before they push us off the cliff and into the abyss. Project Economic Suicide, indeed.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Solution? I do have an idea how we could wrap up > all negotiations and trade deal well before > Christmas but I suspect you wouldn't like it Oh, do tell us. Considering we're heading towards economic disaster we would do with a laugh. Does it involve invading Poland?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Okay, fair point JoeLeg but I think you'll agree > there are many people trying to undermine Brexit. It's a bloody stupid idea that has the country plummeting towards disaster. Trying to blame said disaster on people pointing this out is like blaming the sinking of the Titanic on the people who said "I'm not sure sailing the ship towards that ruddy great big iceberg is a good idea".

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > ???. Amazing what they teach at skool these days Quite. Insignificant events in foreign countries somehow get overlooked. Whodathunkit?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As you're not from these shores I think we can forgive you for trying to play down a Hunger March > of worldwide historic significance in such crude numerical terms. World-wide historic significance?? I think you are overplaying your hand there, keano. If it was that significant world-wide, I am from one of the countries that would be one of the most likely to be widely aware of it. And it's not.