British Politics

You've first got to demonstrate that they are excessive and that your fears have any grounding. I'm not defending the Government, or the Bill, I'm simply exploring your criticism of it to see if you have a valid point. So far, it doesn't looks as though your fears of abuse are credible.

 

The issue isn't whether either of us agrees or disagrees with a particular policy, it's whether the Executive can amend the Law without consulting Parliament. Arbitration isn't an issue because in all my scenarios the UK Government agrees with the EU position. It's the procedure for putting policy into law I am objecting to.

 

Who has a right? Who is able to do something?
Do I have a right to study in the UK? Can I just go to a university and demand to study there? No. I have to be accepted by the University.
Same as in the EU. If I apply to an EU university I have to be accepted and then I would be allowed to travel there to study.

 

I just read that as you being unable to find any real basis for your fears. You keep choosing to ignore the existing law and constitution that will also play a part. There are many checks and balances on Governments, and they cannot simply be overwritten by one piece of legislation, it's simply not how these things work.

 

I'll try to explain. I think it is better if the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary are independent of each other as far as possible. So I think any legislation that allows a Member of the Executive to change the Law has a high hurdle to jump. I can see why it is necessary in certain situations, but I can't see why it is in this one. Can you think of any good reasons why the Government needs such powers. As I said before the Government needs to be able to justify giving itself powers, not the other way around.

 

I generally agree with that, but why give the power if it can't be used? And you are not quite right on the last point. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act was effectively overwritten for the last election.

 

The Act doesn't have an impact on the current situation between the legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.

The (perceived) powers that are there are in place to enable smoother exchanges when negotiating aspects of the agreement. It puts the Government in a strong bargaining position if they can say 'yes' we can implement that, rather than saying that they can advocate for it, and hope it eventually gets through the whole Parliamentary process. As we have seen on other occasions, there is the option of legal (and other) challenges if the aspects the Government agree to, which are limited to those related to the agreement, are seen as harmful in other ways, or Ultra Vires.

 

But EU countries can now pass laws setting quotas (which could be zero) for UK employees whereas before that was forbidden. So now, being the best person for the job isn't sufficient, so your right to be employed has been diminished. That's a natural consequence of Brexit and pointing it out isn't a lie.

 

The fixed Term Parliament Act placed conditions on when elections must take place, but elements needed to be changed to accommodate situations like Covid, hence the Covid Act added additional measures for that.

As for your first part, see my reply above.

 

That's reciprocal, so the same applies here. There are going to be 'winners and losers' such is the nature of a deal. The key aspects are in line with the reasons I voted leave, so overall, I'm happy, even though I accept that there's going to be some aspects that may have a detrimental impact on me.

At the end of the day, it's academic, the deal is done as far as the UK is concerned, and it will have been scrutinised by lawyers and experts in the constitution.

 

But the wording makes it nearly impossible to claim that anything is ultra vires because it says
"Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act
of Parliament (including modifying this Act)". So the entire power of parliament is delegated to Ministers. This hasn't been required for any other trade agreement, so why this one?

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/thinktankcentral/2020/12/the-deal-in-detail-3-northern-ireland.html

 

So saying that rights have been lost isn't a lie then.

 

I've put a couple of the clauses that address that several times, and also raised the points relating to the wider legal and constitutional aspects. You cannot view one Act in total isolation, never mind one paragraph of one Act.

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/thinktankcentral/2020/12/the-deal-in-detail-3-northern-ireland.html

 

Why have we got a bunch of intersectionality advocating prem board spastic on here ?

I thought Kevin told them not to go on GC In case they get their fee fees and World view bruised ?

 

I don't recall saying they haven't, but rights have been gained too. C'est la vie.

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/thinktankcentral/2020/12/the-deal-in-detail-3-northern-ireland.html

 

"If you want to go off to the bingo halls and whatever"

Silly **** thinks we're all forty-something housewives in 1950s Lancashire

WRONG THREAD, ERIK

 

You didn't, but the post you replied to was my objecting to @petersaxton who said it was a lie.
Tell me about the rights that have been gained...