Vivtaylorgee wrote:I don't think that I mentioned the single market actually.
There are literally thousands of issues to be decided on leaving the EU. The position of other EU citizens is just one, but there will be trade tariffs, environmental protection, university funding, security, patents, drug testing, wages and conditions. Plus the entire content of the last 40 years legislation will have to be revisited. Many of these issues may be in the negotiations. It seems however that parliament will not get much of a look in.
The 3,000 page review produced by the government before the referendum and largely ignored by the media, The Competencies Review, the largest ever consultation consisting of 32 separate reports on whether the balance between UK and EU law-making was about right, concluded that it was. I am not confused but concerned. The UK's future and that of all of us is surely preoccupying all of us and needs debate, not hostile put-downs.
sorry, but I stand by initial statement. between confusion and 1/2 truths I don't follow how you can say that.
firstly, Brexit was mandated with explicit assumptions about what that meant, and the objective of best available terms within those assumptions. this was explicit, there is no ambiguity. Unrestricted free movement is out, from there the government is mandated to seek the best possible deal having set that red line. the meaning of this was loudly and explicitly stated by Leave, by Remain, and by leading EU representatives. claiming this was not understood is not a reasonable position.
in terms of those of those thousands of issues, all of which were introduced without mandate, this is easily and again explicitly dealt with, by the proposed legislation freezing all EU law into UK law creating no regulatory confusion or arbitrage from day 1.
the government of the day, then has the competence to review each of these areas as they fit, in their own time, to decide whether to maintain, amend or repeal. at worst, there is status quo not the thinly implied chaos.
In terms of competency review, I am unconvinced you have honestly and accurately described it.
it was commenced in 2012 prior to even the announcement of a referendum, to audit EU law making competence and whether this was appropriate. It was completed in 2014.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/review-of-t ... ompetences
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fina ... -published
the first paragraph from the conclusion of the review:
Today’s publication marks the conclusion of the most extensive analysis ever undertaken of the UK’s relationship with the EU. The 32 reports draw on nearly 2300 pieces of written evidence which together demonstrate why the EU needs ambitious reform to make it more open, competitive, flexible and democratically accountable, for the benefit of everyone in Europe.
consider the introduction from arch remainer Phillip Hammond:
Welcoming the conclusion of the review, the Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, said:
This two-year review to examine the impact of EU membership on the UK is unprecedented in its size and scale. Many themes that have emerged chime with priorities that the UK and European partners have pressed the Commission to pursue. In particular, they underline the need for the EU to focus on those areas where it genuinely adds value, alongside pursuing an ambitious reform agenda for the benefit of all 28 Member States. There are many areas where action can and should be taken in Member States rather than at the EU level.
The review provides a wealth of material that anyone interested in reform can draw upon and the 32 reports provide evidence about every area of EU activity, allowing people to judge for themselves how the current arrangements are working. These reports provide further evidence of the need for a change in Britain’s relationship with the EU.
that does
not seem chime with how you have represented it.
further - even if it concluded as you incorrectly claim, there are 2 things to remember:
1. any EU competence in UK law making was democratically rejected. not about how much, or what balance, but any at all. the clear mandate was that the EU should not have ANY competence to compel law upon the UK
2. it wasn't buried. the remain campaign could have promoted it at any point, but chose not to? why? because it didn't help their argument.
consider the first 2 themes cited by the parliamentary review (available in the links for anyone to read themselves"
[*]Subsidiarity and proportionality underpins the application of EU competence in all areas.
However, many contributors believed these principles have been insufficiently implemented, pointing to EU action which they considered unnecessary, overly harmonising or resulting in disproportionate costs to business or governments. Many felt that this had contributed to undermining the EU’s legitimacy in some Member States.
[*]
Respondents highlighted the need for greater democratic accountability of EU institutions with some arguing that the ECJ had too wide a margin over interpretation of competence. They thought accountability could be improved by giving national parliaments a greater role.
[/i]
now why would a remain campaign even want to highlight such themes?
anyway, back on topic. feel free to sign whatever petition you like. neither the legal, moral, political or democratic authority supports your position however.
[quote="Vivtaylorgee"]I don't think that I mentioned the single market actually.
There are literally thousands of issues to be decided on leaving the EU. The position of other EU citizens is just one, but there will be trade tariffs, environmental protection, university funding, security, patents, drug testing, wages and conditions. Plus the entire content of the last 40 years legislation will have to be revisited. Many of these issues may be in the negotiations. It seems however that parliament will not get much of a look in.
The 3,000 page review produced by the government before the referendum and largely ignored by the media, The Competencies Review, the largest ever consultation consisting of 32 separate reports on whether the balance between UK and EU law-making was about right, concluded that it was. I am not confused but concerned. The UK's future and that of all of us is surely preoccupying all of us and needs debate, not hostile put-downs.[/quote]
sorry, but I stand by initial statement. between confusion and 1/2 truths I don't follow how you can say that.
firstly, Brexit was mandated with explicit assumptions about what that meant, and the objective of best available terms within those assumptions. this was explicit, there is no ambiguity. Unrestricted free movement is out, from there the government is mandated to seek the best possible deal having set that red line. the meaning of this was loudly and explicitly stated by Leave, by Remain, and by leading EU representatives. claiming this was not understood is not a reasonable position.
in terms of those of those thousands of issues, all of which were introduced without mandate, this is easily and again explicitly dealt with, by the proposed legislation freezing all EU law into UK law creating no regulatory confusion or arbitrage from day 1.
the government of the day, then has the competence to review each of these areas as they fit, in their own time, to decide whether to maintain, amend or repeal. at worst, there is status quo not the thinly implied chaos.
In terms of competency review, I am unconvinced you have honestly and accurately described it.
it was commenced in 2012 prior to even the announcement of a referendum, to audit EU law making competence and whether this was appropriate. It was completed in 2014.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/review-of-the-balance-of-competences
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/final-reports-in-review-of-eu-balance-of-competences-published
the first paragraph from the conclusion of the review:
[quote]Today’s publication marks the conclusion of the most extensive analysis ever undertaken of the UK’s relationship with the EU. The 32 reports draw on nearly 2300 pieces of written evidence [b][u]which together demonstrate why the EU needs ambitious reform to make it more open, competitive, flexible and democratically accountable[/u][/b], for the benefit of everyone in Europe.[/quote]
consider the introduction from arch remainer Phillip Hammond:
Welcoming the conclusion of the review, the Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, said:
[quote]This two-year review to examine the impact of EU membership on the UK is unprecedented in its size and scale. Many themes that have emerged chime with priorities that the UK and European partners have pressed the Commission to pursue. [b]In particular, they underline the need for the EU to focus on those areas where it genuinely adds value, alongside pursuing an ambitious reform agenda for the benefit of all 28 Member States. There are many areas where action can and should be taken in Member States rather than at the EU level.[/b]
The review provides a wealth of material that anyone interested in reform can draw upon and the 32 reports provide evidence about every area of EU activity, allowing people to judge for themselves how the current arrangements are working. [b]These reports provide further evidence of the need for a change in Britain’s relationship with the EU.[/b]
[/quote]
that does [u]not[/u] seem chime with how you have represented it.
further - even if it concluded as you incorrectly claim, there are 2 things to remember:
1. any EU competence in UK law making was democratically rejected. not about how much, or what balance, but any at all. the clear mandate was that the EU should not have ANY competence to compel law upon the UK
2. it wasn't buried. the remain campaign could have promoted it at any point, but chose not to? why? because it didn't help their argument.
consider the first 2 themes cited by the parliamentary review (available in the links for anyone to read themselves"
[i][*]Subsidiarity and proportionality underpins the application of EU competence in all areas. [b]However, many contributors believed these principles have been insufficiently implemented, pointing to EU action which they considered unnecessary, overly harmonising or resulting in disproportionate costs to business or governments. Many felt that this had contributed to undermining the EU’s legitimacy in some Member States.[/b]
[*][b]Respondents highlighted the need for greater democratic accountability of EU institutions with some arguing that the ECJ had too wide a margin over interpretation of competence. [/b]They thought accountability could be improved by giving national parliaments a greater role.
[/i]
now why would a remain campaign even want to highlight such themes?
anyway, back on topic. feel free to sign whatever petition you like. neither the legal, moral, political or democratic authority supports your position however.
