Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 12-09-2017 06:31AM

Good morning!

As expected the EU Withdrawal Bill passed its second reading comfortably last night with 326 to 290 votes in the Commons.

It'll be back after the committee stage in October with various amendments tabled so it's by no means done. One can expect ping pong with the House of Lords. But it's an important signal. 7 Labour MPs (the typical mostly) voted for the legislation and it looks like some abstained also.

This is a good test as to how difficult it will be for the Government to get the Brexit legislation through the house. My view would be not very.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 12-09-2017 07:02AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

As expected the EU Withdrawal Bill passed it's second reading comfortably last night with 326 to 290 votes in the Commons.

It'll be back after the committee stage in October with various amendments tabled so it's by no means done. One can expect ping pong with the House of Lords. But it's an important signal. 7 Labour MPs (the typical mostly) voted for the legislation and it looks like some abstained also.

This is a good test as to how difficult it will be for the Government to get the Brexit legislation through the house. My view would be not very.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think the government will be pleased with this outcome.

It's not over yet. The second-reading vote is an in-principle approval; the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill comes later. Eight sitting days have been set aside for this (which is a lot; two half-days is the norm for most Bills). So, plenty of scope for rí-rá agus ruaile-buaile yet.

But increasingly the argument is focussing on the so-called Henry VIII powers, and the division here is over whether legislative authority taken back from the Union should be vested in Ministers, or in Parliament. Even to frame the argument in those terms is to accept that Brexit is going to happen, and there's plenty of room for the government to make concessions on this issue without affecting the fundamentals of Brexit.

A bigger problem for the government will be the amendment that somebody will certainly put down providing for a public vote on the terms of the Brexit deal, once negotiated. Opinion polls suggest that this is popular with the public, and arguments from insiders explaining out that it's pointless don't seem to find much traction. Remainers who understand that it's pointless may nevertheless still support it as a spoiling tactic, and/or in the hope of embarrassing the government. A government with a majority as precarious as the present one is generally very easy to embarrass.

solodeogloria · 12-09-2017 09:04AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the government will be pleased with this outcome.

It's not over yet. The second-reading vote is an in-principle approval; the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill comes later. Eight sitting days have been set aside for this (which is a lot; two half-days is the norm for most Bills). So, plenty of scope for rí-rá agus ruaile-buaile yet.

But increasingly the argument is focussing on the so-called Henry VIII powers, and the division here is over whether legislative authority taken back from the Union should be vested in Ministers, or in Parliament. Even to frame the argument in those terms is to accept that Brexit is going to happen, and there's plenty of room for the government to make concessions on this issue without affecting the fundamentals of Brexit.

A bigger problem for the government will be the amendment that somebody will certainly put down providing for a public vote on the terms of the Brexit deal, once negotiated. Opinion polls suggest that this is popular with the public, and arguments from insiders explaining out that it's pointless don't seem to find much traction. Remainers who understand that it's pointless may nevertheless still support it as a spoiling tactic, and/or in the hope of embarrassing the government. A government with a majority as precarious as the present one is generally very easy to embarrass.

Good morning!

I'm personally in agreement with the principle of moderating the Henry VIII powers in the bill. It seems like a lot of Conservative MPs are as well judging by the chatter last night. I'd expect most of the amendments to chip away at these powers.

I'm not convinced of the case of another referendum. On the polls that I've seen only a third of the public support this. There's a lot of people who just want the parliamentarians to act on the outcome of the referendum. Any vote at the end would be simply accept the deal or reject the deal. There's no assurance that the EU would accept a stay or leave vote again.

I reckon the typical "stay in the single market and customs union" amendment will be attempted and voted down yet again like it was during the Article 50 vote.

The only amendments I can see actually succeeding are those which are about parliamentary procedure and I think those are genuinely very important.

It seems like the Government have more buffer than we thought. If the 7 Labour MPs or even some of them stay on side that gives additional insulation to the Government even if Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry or Nicky Morgan vote against the Government. The DUP are proving to be rock solid support for the Conservatives.

Yes, the election was a disastrous result for the Conservatives but I'm pretty confident that the legislative agenda for Brexit will make it through parliament. The Tories are looking unbelievably united in comparison to the opposition benches at the moment.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali · 12-09-2017 09:24AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

People just want Brexit to be done and dusted. That includes a lot of remain voters.

It includes most of Europe at this stage, too.

Personally, I would prefer not to see the UK do this to themselves, even at this late stage. Partly because they will hurt us in the process of harming themselves, but mainly because it is going to be very painful for them, our neighbours.

Peregrinus · 12-09-2017 09:42AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . I'm not convinced of the case of another referendum. On the polls that I've seen only a third of the public support this . . .

I think it depends on the question you ask.

If you ask people if they want a rerun of the Brexit referendum, the answer is 'no'. Even those who opposed Brexit in the last referendum accept the outcome, and don't want to fight the battle again. (Or, at least, enough of them take that view to give "no rerun of the Brexit referendum" a clear majority).

But if you ask people if they would like a vote on the Brexit deal, when negotiated, the majority answer is 'yes'. Rightly or wrongly, they don't see this a rerun of the Brexit referendum. The question at this referendum would not be "should the UK leave the EU?", but "should the UK leave the EU on these terms?"

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seems like the Government have more buffer than we thought. If the 7 Labour MPs or even some of them stay on side that gives additional insulation to the Government even if Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry or Nicky Morgan vote against the Government. The DUP are proving to be rock solid support for the Conservatives.

It seems like the Government have more buffer than they feared but, honestly, their position is still very weak. They're a minority government, dependent on the DUP for support, and the only thing that's rock solid about the DUP is what's between their ears. The bookies are favouring 2018 for the next election, and Teresa May is publicly proclaiming her expectation that she will lead her party into the next election, which is not something a sitting prime minister should ever have to say out loud. It all looks quite shaky.

My point is that the progress of the Brexit legislation is threatened from two directions. One is the substantial group within the Tory party who are unhappy about Brexit, and particularly unhappy about the hard Brexit that May is targetting. The referendum result binds them to Brexit but not necessarily to hard Brexit. The other is the substantial group within the Tory party who want shot of May, and on to a new leader who can hopefully do something to revive the party's electoral fortunes. A defeat for the government on the Brexit strategy identified with her would likely bring about a change of leadership in the party. And of course the Labour MPs who voted with the government at second reading can't be relied upon to do so in Committee.

So, yeah, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

oppenheimer1 · 12-09-2017 10:39AM

I'm wondering would a bill like that be able to get through the Dail? Surely because of the powers it confers, it would be unconstitutional?

So this was a big win now for the brexiteers last night. Though had the bill failed the UK would most certainly have been gearing up for another election. The threat of an election and deselection is a powerful motivator for any cause.

Peregrinus · 12-09-2017 10:48AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm wondering would a bill like that be able to get through the Dail? Surely because of the powers it confers, it would be unconstitutional?

Yes, there'd be a big issue here, because we have a constitutional separation of powers, and the courts interpret the Consitution as limiting the degree of legislative power which the Oireachtas can delegate to the government.

Having said that, we joined the EU by way of Constitutional amendment, and to leave it would require another constitutional amendment. If the government of the day felt that some reallocation of legislative powers was was necessary to make Irexit possible or practicable, they could deal with that reallocation in the referendum.

There's no possibility that a constitutional referendum on Irexit could be conducted in such a catastrophically incompetent fashion as the UK referendum was. Under the Irish system, a proposal for how to leave the EU would have to be developed before the referendum, so that the government could work out what constitutional provisions would be needed to implement the exit, so that all that would be put before the people at the referendum; they wouldn't get to find out about it afterwards.

Jim2007 · 12-09-2017 11:15AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm wondering would a bill like that be able to get through the Dail? Surely because of the powers it confers, it would be unconstitutional?

You have already answered the question! You recognise the importance of the constitution and it's supremacy over parliament etc... This is the kind of thinking that is absent among voters the UK.

Voters in Ireland and Switzerland (where I live) have grown up dealing with these kinds of issues and have developed a different toolset to make the decisions. They ask a different set of questions and have a different expectations about the kind of information they expect to receive. It is not a coincidence that both countries have a requirement for the provision of independent information on referenda etc...

Calina · 12-09-2017 11:50AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm personally in agreement with the principle of moderating the Henry VIII powers in the bill. It seems like a lot of Conservative MPs are as well judging by the chatter last night. I'd expect most of the amendments to chip away at these powers.

I'm absolutely disgusted that the Henry VIII powers are even in consideration and if a consideration for being in favour of Brexit was "getting back power" and "sovereignty", the only way to describe the inclusion of the Henry VIII powergrab is as total and utter treason against parliament. Brexit, or no Brexit, that reflects appallingly on the Tory party and they should be tossed out for that.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not convinced of the case of another referendum. On the polls that I've seen only a third of the public support this. There's a lot of people who just want the parliamentarians to act on the outcome of the referendum. Any vote at the end would be simply accept the deal or reject the deal. There's no assurance that the EU would accept a stay or leave vote again.

Discussions on another referendum are based in complete and utter delusion. Any referendum, absent negotiations with the EU to agree it, does not stop Brexit. It is the different between completely and totally and utterly stupid Brexit and somewhat mitigated less stupid Brexit. It doesn't prevent Brexit because the Article 50 notification has already been made.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I reckon the typical "stay in the single market and customs union" amendment will be attempted and voted down yet again like it was during the Article 50 vote.

I imagine you're right, mainly because the UK parliamentarians have already, in not throwing out this bill because of the Henry VIII provisions, demonstrated that they are not dealing with this effectively.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The only amendments I can see actually succeeding are those which are about parliamentary procedure and I think those are genuinely very important.

These amendments should not be necessary and unlike you, I fear they won't succeed. Both Labour and the Tories might quite like not having to consult Parliament to get legislation through.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seems like the Government have more buffer than we thought. If the 7 Labour MPs or even some of them stay on side that gives additional insulation to the Government even if Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry or Nicky Morgan vote against the Government. The DUP are proving to be rock solid support for the Conservatives.

Cowards, those Labour MPs. I hope they are severely punished by their constituents when the time comes.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes, the election was a disastrous result for the Conservatives but I'm pretty confident that the legislative agenda for Brexit will make it through parliament. The Tories are looking unbelievably united in comparison to the opposition benches at the moment.

The fact that they look united does not mean that their policy is correct or that they are doing the right thing. I'd argue that in fact, they are engaging in an incredible power grab from parliament in a country which is a parliamentary representative democracy, the ramifications of which will echo through years, Brexit or no Brexit.

I feel very sorry for the average British person. I know it can be argued that some of them/ enough of them clearly voted for this mess but it is deeply cynical what the Tories are doing with this bill.

Whether you are for or against Brexit, you should be deeply disturbed that the Henry VIII provisions even got as far as being considered never mind being included. I would not be naive enough to assume they will get amended out. They should have been rejected on principle.

Zubeneschamali · 12-09-2017 11:55AM

Calina wrote: »

Whether you are for or against Brexit, you should be deeply disturbed that the Henry VIII provisions even got as far as being considered never mind being included.

Tie those powers to May's long-standing drive to get out from under the International Courts, and protections for a UK citizen from their Government could be severely weakened after Brexit.

Calina · 12-09-2017 12:01PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tie those powers to May's long-standing drive to get out from under the International Courts, and protections for a UK citizen from their Government could be severely weakened after Brexit.

They have already been severely damaged by cuts to legal aid amongst other things.

Fratton Fred · 12-09-2017 12:15PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tie those powers to May's long-standing drive to get out from under the International Courts, and protections for a UK citizen from their Government could be severely weakened after Brexit.

TM wants to leave the ICJ and ICC?

are you sure about that?

ambro25 · 12-09-2017 12:34PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

TM wants to leave the ICJ and ICC?

are you sure about that?

The CJEU and the ECtHR certainly answer the plain definition of "International Courts".

As for the ICJ and ICC, cut her some slack: she's only just starting!

demfad · 12-09-2017 12:35PM

This act removes the checks and balances to authoritanarianism by sidelining parliament and allowing Ministers unprecedented powers to enact and change laws without parliamentary approval. Clause 9 actually allows a minister to modify the repeal act itself.

As a low tax low regulation hard Brexit would encourage the dismantling of society by corporations, the potential for authoritarians in the pocket of these powerful (US and UK) corporations and US style 'think tanks' to rise to power is greatly increased, as would be his ability to remove the remaining checks and balances to his power.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09/12/this-is-the-just-the-start-of-the-brexit-attack-on-democracy

Of particular concern are clauses seven, eight, nine and 17, which effectively turn ministers into mini-parliaments, able to change law at will or, as the bill puts it, enact regulations which "may make any provision that could be made by an Act of parliament". Clause nine includes the ability to amend the withdrawal bill itself in this manner, meaning that any of its safeguards against improper use can themselves be magicked out of existence by ministerial fiat.

Fratton Fred · 12-09-2017 12:36PM

ambro25 wrote: »

The CJEU and the ECtHR certainly answer the plain definition of "International Courts".

As for the ICJ and ICC, cut her some slack: she's only just starting!

so european courts then, not international ones.

Human rights must be in tatters outside of europe without those courst being able to protect people.:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred · 12-09-2017 12:39PM

demfad wrote: »

This act removes the checks and balances to authoritanarianism by sidelining parliament and allowing Ministers unprecedented powers to enact and change laws without parliamentary approval. Clause 9 actually allows a minister to modify the repeal act itself.

As a low tax low regulation hard Brexit would encourage the dismantling of society by corporations, the potential for authoritarians in the pocket of these powerful (US and UK) corporations and US style 'think tanks' to rise to power is greatly increased, as would be his ability to remove the remaining checks and balances to his power.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09/12/this-is-the-just-the-start-of-the-brexit-attack-on-democracy

is there anything in there that stops these laws being amended or abolished at a later stage, or major amendments to the Human Rights Act without Parliamentary approval?

ambro25 · 12-09-2017 12:44PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so european courts then, not international ones.

Human rights must be in tatters outside of europe without those courst being able to protect people.:rolleyes:

I was going to reply and invite you consider e.g. the current human rights plight of Rohingyas, but then that would only invite opprobrium from the moderating team, moreover without progressing this Brexit debate much, considering where you're trying to drag it with the above.

But I don't ever report posts, because I believe in the intelligence of the thread readership, whereby it is better for the evidence of posters' thoughts and behaviour to remain plain on here and in the clear.

Just so you know my mindset here. toodeloo

Fratton Fred · 12-09-2017 12:52PM

ambro25 wrote: »

I was going to reply and invite you consider e.g. the current HR plight of Rohingyas, but then that would only invite opprobrium from the moderating team, moreover without progressing this Brexit debate much, considering where you're trying to drag it with the above.

But I don't ever report posts, because I believe in the intelligence of the thread readership, whereby it is better for the evidence of posters' thoughts and behaviour to remain plain on here and in the clear.

Just so you know my mindset here. toodeloo

drag it how?

A poster clearly stated that the UK will be leaving international courts. It was a post that was written for dramatic effect and was not factually correct.

The UK is leaving the eu, not the Council of Europe, so it will still be bound by the ECHR (which if course you knew anyway) and (unless you know otherwise) the UK has no plans to change its stance on the Un declaration of Human rights.

So this talk of workers in the UK suddenly becoming chattels to major corporations and tyranical tory masters is all a bit daft, is it not?

Calina · 12-09-2017 01:34PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

drag it how?

A poster clearly stated that the UK will be leaving international courts. It was a post that was written for dramatic effect and was not factually correct.

The UK is leaving the eu, not the Council of Europe, so it will still be bound by the ECHR (which if course you knew anyway) and (unless you know otherwise) the UK has no plans to change its stance on the Un declaration of Human rights.

So this talk of workers in the UK suddenly becoming chattels to major corporations and tyranical tory masters is all a bit daft, is it not?

I'm missing the explanation as to why European courts are not international courts. Can you clarify that please?

oppenheimer1 · 12-09-2017 01:42PM

Interesting data out of the UK this morning. Inflation is now pushing ahead of wage growth again so real incomes are now falling. I wonder how many people voted to make themselves poorer?

It looks like the UK is going to get caught in an wage growth trap, where interest rates will have to rise to moderate inflation but such moves will increase loan repayment to already heavily indebted households.

The interest rate rise will help the pound stabilise though giving needed respite to our exporters.

ambro25 · 12-09-2017 01:44PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

drag it how?

A poster clearly stated that the UK will be leaving international courts. It was a post that was written for dramatic effect and was not factually correct.

An "international court" is, by definition, the law arbiter in the new supranational jurisdiction established by an international agreement.

The TEU is an international agreement, from which Ms May and consorts are currently busying trying to extricate the UK.

The ECHR is another international agreement, about which Ms May has long publicly confessed her aim to extricate the UK from.

How are the CJEU and the ECtHR not "international courts"?

Zubeneschamali's post made perfect sense, semantically. You're just trying to make an argument for the sake of it.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So this talk of workers in the UK suddenly becoming chattels to major corporations and tyranical tory masters is all a bit daft, is it not?

Not in the least, since the hardline Leavers' end game is clear as a nose on a face. But I don't intend to stay over and find out regardless, so more power to British workers, major corporations, tyrannical tory masters, tyrannical socialist masters, entitled this-that-and the other: they're all welcome to fight over whatever's left when the negotiating dust eventually settles.

The only thing which would surprise me, is if the little people don't end up shat on from a great height when that time eventually comes. Because, going by historical records, that just wouldn't be the British way.

jm08 · 12-09-2017 01:55PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

drag it how?

A poster clearly stated that the UK will be leaving international courts. It was a post that was written for dramatic effect and was not factually correct.

The UK is leaving the eu, not the Council of Europe, so it will still be bound by the ECHR (which if course you knew anyway) and (unless you know otherwise) the UK has no plans to change its stance on the Un declaration of Human rights.

So this talk of workers in the UK suddenly becoming chattels to major corporations and tyranical tory masters is all a bit daft, is it not?

May did have plans to leave ECHR:

UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May

“The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she [May] said.

“So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

Zubeneschamali · 12-09-2017 02:15PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so european courts then, not international ones.

So Europe is a single nation, and the UK is currently part of it?

demfad · 12-09-2017 02:17PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

is there anything in there that stops these laws being amended or abolished at a later stage, or major amendments to the Human Rights Act without Parliamentary approval?

Here is the Bill and here is a guide how to read it.

Clause 7(4): "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament"
Clause 8(2): "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament"
Clause 9(2) "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)."

Section 8 in full:

8 Complying with international obligations
(1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the
Minister considers appropriate to prevent or remedy any breach, arising from
the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, of the international
obligations of the United Kingdom.
(2) Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act
of Parliament.
(3) But regulations under this section may not—
(a) make retrospective provision,
(b) create a relevant criminal offence,
(c) be made to implement the withdrawal agreement, or
(d) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any
subordinate legislation made under it.
(4) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of
two years beginning with exit day.

But any of these safeguards can be wiped out or dissapeared by a minister using article 9(2) without parliamentary approval.

There's your answer, the Human Rights Act (and any law) can be amended, abolished etc. without parliamentary approval.

This is from Mark Elliott. One of the UK’s leading experts on constitutional law and is legal adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/09/07/article-for-prospect-magazine-on-the-repeal-bill/

the Bill, in its present form, is profoundly problematic in legal and constitutional terms. It is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty. It eviscerates the separation of powers principle. And it risks destabilising the UK’s increasingly fragile territorial constitution.

Edit: To understand the dangers of this Bill ask yourself: What would someone like Donald Trump do with it? Or (more pertinently with Brexit) what would the people behind Donald Trump like to see done with this Bill?

Fratton Fred · 12-09-2017 02:36PM

Calina wrote: »

I'm missing the explanation as to why European courts are not international courts. Can you clarify that please?

They are. The Poster was being deliberately dramatic (admittedly, that is the general theme of this thread, take a point and over dramatise it to the extreme).

The UK is leaving the EU. There are no plans to leave any other courts or conventions or otherwise. The UK is not leaving the council of europe and will therefore still be subject to the European Human Rights convention.

Correct?

ambro25 wrote: »

An "international court" is, by definition, the law arbiter in the new supranational jurisdiction established by an international agreement.

The TEU is an international agreement, from which Ms May and consorts are currently busying trying to extricate the UK.

The ECHR is another international agreement, about which Ms May has long publicly confessed her aim to extricate the UK from.

How are the CJEU and the ECtHR not "international courts"?

Zubeneschamali's post made perfect sense, semantically. You're just trying to make an argument for the sake of it.
Not in the least, since the hardline Leavers' end game is clear as a nose on a face. But I don't intend to stay over and find out regardless, so more power to British workers, major corporations, tyrannical tory masters, tyrannical socialist masters, entitled this-that-and the other: they're all welcome to fight over whatever's left when the negotiating dust eventually settles.

The only thing which would surprise me, is if the little people don't end up shat on from a great height when that time eventually comes. Because, going by historical records, that just wouldn't be the British way.

nice little dig at the end there. Well done sir. I know you don't like people disagreeing with you, but there is really no need to play dirty. :rolleyes:

The UK is not amending its own Human rights act, correct? the UK is not leaving the council of europe, correct? The UK is not changing its political system and becoming a dictatorship, correct?

This is just more of the same echo chamber stuff about the UK turning in to some sort of North Korea. The UK is a democracy, it elects representatives that can change laws. If a government introduces legislation the people don't like, they get voted out.

I really do worry that people are not able to see this.

jm08 wrote: »

May did have plans to leave ECHR:

UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

you are confusing plans with aspirations.

the UK will not be leaving the Council of Europe this parliament. What happens for the next one is any one's guess. I don't think anyone really wants to think about that at the moment, the prospects are still to frightening to think about.

Fratton Fred · 12-09-2017 02:42PM

demfad wrote: »

But any of these safeguards can be wiped out or dissapeared by a minister using article 9(2) without parliamentary approval.

There's your answer, the Human Rights Act (and any law) can be amended, abolished etc. without parliamentary approval.

Edit: To understand the dangers of this Bill ask yourself: What would someone like Donald Trump do with it? Or (more pertinently with Brexit) what would the people behind Donald Trump like to see done with this Bill?

Did you not read your own links?

Clause 9(3) that you claim can amend of wipe out any of the safeguards, specifically states this:

9 Implementing the withdrawal agreement
-
-
-
(3) But regulations under this section may not—
(a) impose or increase taxation,
(b) make retrospective provision,
(c) create a relevant criminal offence, or
(d) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any
subordinate legislation made under it.
(4) No regulations may be made under this section after exit day.

So the Human rights act is ring fenced. It can not be changed.

jm08 · 12-09-2017 02:48PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you are confusing plans with aspirations.

the UK will not be leaving the Council of Europe this parliament. What happens for the next one is any one's guess. I don't think anyone really wants to think about that at the moment, the prospects are still to frightening to think about.

Whats that meant to mean? No one should be shocked if the UK leaves the Council of Europe.

Fratton Fred · 12-09-2017 02:55PM

jm08 wrote: »

Whats that meant to mean? No one should be shocked if the UK leaves the Council of Europe.

what is it meant to mean? it means that the UK isn't pulling out of the Council of Europe during this parliament.

That position may or may not change after that date, but after that date, the decision will be put before parliament by whoever is the government of the day.

demfad · 12-09-2017 03:06PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did you not read your own links?

Clause 9(3) that you claim can amend of wipe out any of the safeguards, specifically states this:

So the Human rights act is ring fenced. It can not be changed.

demfad wrote: »

Clause 9(2) "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)."

Clause 9 (2) means that there is no ring fencing as the Act (any part of it) can be modified without an act of parliament.

For example Clause 9(3) and 9 (4) or any other clause can be removed by the minister without consent of parliament.

Fratton Fred · 12-09-2017 03:19PM

demfad wrote: »

Clause 9 (2) means that there is no ring fencing as the Act (any part of it) can be modified without an act of parliament.

For example Clause 9(3) and 9 (4) or any other clause can be removed by the minister without consent of parliament.

no they can't, because section 9(3) specifically states:

(3) But regulations under this section may not—
(a) impose or increase taxation,
(b) make retrospective provision,
(c) create a relevant criminal offence, or
(d) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any
subordinate legislation made under it.

I get where you are coming from, it is poor drafting, but I would hazard s guess and say that if a minister deleted those clauses, they
Would be doing so to amend those issues and this would be overturned by a court

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments