RugbyRebels

Stones of granite wrote:

Banquo wrote:

bruce wrote:See this is what gets me, I may be wrong (often am), but I don't believe it was stated anywhere by Vote Leave that they would give £350 mill a week to the NHS.

It was the Vote Leave bus that had the words below


But Farage denied saying it, as he wasn't part of the official Vote Leave campaign. So Johnson, Leadsom are pinned with that, as they actually are still in government.

The bus was the most visible, but they also had posters and leaflets printed with the same message.


I have had people tell me that the phrasing is such that it is obviously merely a suggestion of how the money could be spent, but I have 2 problems with that.
1. The £350million figure was a lie in the first place as it gross of the rebate
2. Even if a English Language Professor can show that the phrasing doesn't guarantee that the money would be spent on the NHS, it is clearly intended to strongly suggest to the ordinary voter that that would be the intention.

Yeah I was basing my initial query/post on the bus, which I don't particularly see a problem with. The poster on the other hand, which I hadn't seen before, is very much more implicit.

bruce wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Banquo wrote: It was the Vote Leave bus that had the words below


But Farage denied saying it, as he wasn't part of the official Vote Leave campaign. So Johnson, Leadsom are pinned with that, as they actually are still in government.

The bus was the most visible, but they also had posters and leaflets printed with the same message.


I have had people tell me that the phrasing is such that it is obviously merely a suggestion of how the money could be spent, but I have 2 problems with that.
1. The £350million figure was a lie in the first place as it gross of the rebate
2. Even if a English Language Professor can show that the phrasing doesn't guarantee that the money would be spent on the NHS, it is clearly intended to strongly suggest to the ordinary voter that that would be the intention.

Yeah I was basing my initial query/post on the bus, which I don't particularly see a problem with. The poster on the other hand, which I hadn't seen before, is very much more implicit.

I think you are being far too generous. The poster is pretty explicit, and the bus was written in a way that was highly suggestive of the idea that leaving the Eu would lead to that figure going to the nhs. The fact that it could be argued by the leave campaign that they never explicitly stated that this was the case is more an indictment of their tactics than anything else.

The idea that the UK is following through on the results of a close to 50-50 vote won through these sort of tactics shows why a referendum is a dangerous way of making important decisions.

Mellsblue wrote:It doesn't explicitly state that a full £350 mil a week would be spent on the NHS but they knew how it would be read and how the masses who'd done no research would read it.
It's bloody underhand and deceitful but it's a clever tactic.

It's right alongside adverts like "new cornflakes, contains no cyanide!"

We now have details starting to come out or the Great Repeal Bill, in which the government are seeking power for the PM to act as a dictator, i.e. without having to get parliament to ratify certain details.

Now they're only going to ask for that in small areas, or so they say, but tbh I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole. I'm not against looking to save some parliamentary time, though in part those who wanted Breixt are at some point going to have to face up to the fact it really is a lot of work and get on with it rather than trying to bypass parliament. What I think would be reasonable is rather than grant PM power to have instead a cross party committee recommend what would likely be an extensive list of the minor changes, that such list should be subject to an almost perfunctory approval from parliament, and that there should be strong sunset clauses so we can revisit any changes which have an impact beyond that initially considered

Digby wrote:We now have details starting to come out or the Great Repeal Bill, in which the government are seeking power for the PM to act as a dictator, i.e. without having to get parliament to ratify certain details.

Now they're only going to ask for that in small areas, or so they say, but tbh I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole. I'm not against looking to save some parliamentary time, though in part those who wanted Breixt are at some point going to have to face up to the fact it really is a lot of work and get on with it rather than trying to bypass parliament. What I think would be reasonable is rather than grant PM power to have instead a cross party committee recommend what would likely be an extensive list of the minor changes, that such list should be subject to an almost perfunctory approval from parliament, and that there should be strong sunset clauses so we can revisit any changes which have an impact beyond that initially considered

The scope will be consulted and voted on.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:We now have details starting to come out or the Great Repeal Bill, in which the government are seeking power for the PM to act as a dictator, i.e. without having to get parliament to ratify certain details.

Now they're only going to ask for that in small areas, or so they say, but tbh I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole. I'm not against looking to save some parliamentary time, though in part those who wanted Breixt are at some point going to have to face up to the fact it really is a lot of work and get on with it rather than trying to bypass parliament. What I think would be reasonable is rather than grant PM power to have instead a cross party committee recommend what would likely be an extensive list of the minor changes, that such list should be subject to an almost perfunctory approval from parliament, and that there should be strong sunset clauses so we can revisit any changes which have an impact beyond that initially considered

The scope will be consulted and voted on.

I don't honestly see why they're asking for such licence in the first place, well I do but it doesn't scream class, democracy, or even basic decency. And this isn't the first time they've sought something of a sovereign approach now we're free of the shackles of Europe.Simply there's no sane argument imo that we should leave the clutches of the EU to adopt sovereign powers in its place, whilst I don't support Brexit I can see why people would want to leave to EU to run our own show, it's just that doesn't include behaviour that Erdogan would approve of for me

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:We now have details starting to come out or the Great Repeal Bill, in which the government are seeking power for the PM to act as a dictator, i.e. without having to get parliament to ratify certain details.

Now they're only going to ask for that in small areas, or so they say, but tbh I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole. I'm not against looking to save some parliamentary time, though in part those who wanted Breixt are at some point going to have to face up to the fact it really is a lot of work and get on with it rather than trying to bypass parliament. What I think would be reasonable is rather than grant PM power to have instead a cross party committee recommend what would likely be an extensive list of the minor changes, that such list should be subject to an almost perfunctory approval from parliament, and that there should be strong sunset clauses so we can revisit any changes which have an impact beyond that initially considered

The scope will be consulted and voted on.

I don't honestly see why they're asking for such licence in the first place, well I do but it doesn't scream class, democracy, or even basic decency. And this isn't the first time they've sought something of a sovereign approach now we're free of the shackles of Europe.Simply there's no sane argument imo that we should leave the clutches of the EU to adopt sovereign powers in its place, whilst I don't support Brexit I can see why people would want to leave to EU to run our own show, it's just that doesn't include behaviour that Erdogan would approve of for me

at face value, its about removing bureaucracy and not wasting time in parliament that could be better spent on other substantive stuff. I assume you've seen something I haven't by your reaction to what I heard was the proposal.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: The scope will be consulted and voted on.

I don't honestly see why they're asking for such licence in the first place, well I do but it doesn't scream class, democracy, or even basic decency. And this isn't the first time they've sought something of a sovereign approach now we're free of the shackles of Europe.Simply there's no sane argument imo that we should leave the clutches of the EU to adopt sovereign powers in its place, whilst I don't support Brexit I can see why people would want to leave to EU to run our own show, it's just that doesn't include behaviour that Erdogan would approve of for me

at face value, its about removing bureaucracy and not wasting time in parliament that could be better spent on other substantive stuff. I assume you've seen something I haven't by your reaction to what I heard was the proposal.

I object in principle to removing parliamentary oversight, however as noted if there's a case for it I'd do it by cross party committee with strong revision built in, that seems reasonable to me or at least acceptable. Mainly for Breixters saying there's a shit load of work and they need to circumvent parliament, they should have thought about the sheer volume of work ahead of the referendum and made much clearer what the demands on the civil service and government would be (and what the costs will be), they've got what the wanted with the vote, now do the work rather than whine about it as it's work they wanted and asked for

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: The scope will be consulted and voted on.

I don't honestly see why they're asking for such licence in the first place, well I do but it doesn't scream class, democracy, or even basic decency. And this isn't the first time they've sought something of a sovereign approach now we're free of the shackles of Europe.Simply there's no sane argument imo that we should leave the clutches of the EU to adopt sovereign powers in its place, whilst I don't support Brexit I can see why people would want to leave to EU to run our own show, it's just that doesn't include behaviour that Erdogan would approve of for me

at face value, its about removing bureaucracy and not wasting time in parliament that could be better spent on other substantive stuff. I assume you've seen something I haven't by your reaction to what I heard was the proposal.

Not even slightly. Well except to the degree that democracy is bureaucratic and dictatorship is marvellously efficient.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't honestly see why they're asking for such licence in the first place, well I do but it doesn't scream class, democracy, or even basic decency. And this isn't the first time they've sought something of a sovereign approach now we're free of the shackles of Europe.Simply there's no sane argument imo that we should leave the clutches of the EU to adopt sovereign powers in its place, whilst I don't support Brexit I can see why people would want to leave to EU to run our own show, it's just that doesn't include behaviour that Erdogan would approve of for me

at face value, its about removing bureaucracy and not wasting time in parliament that could be better spent on other substantive stuff. I assume you've seen something I haven't by your reaction to what I heard was the proposal.

Not even slightly. Well except to the degree that democracy is bureaucratic and dictatorship is marvellously efficient.

Pretty much. It's always going to be easier for the executive if they can have more power to act unilaterally, but that's just not how many of us see a democracy as working.

Though I'd again add seeing as we are in giant hole I'd go for a cross party committee making a long list of recommendations to parliament that get cleared in a very quick vote, and anything the committee can't agree on should go before a fuller parliamentary review. I'm not happy about such, but we are sadly where we are

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't honestly see why they're asking for such licence in the first place, well I do but it doesn't scream class, democracy, or even basic decency. And this isn't the first time they've sought something of a sovereign approach now we're free of the shackles of Europe.Simply there's no sane argument imo that we should leave the clutches of the EU to adopt sovereign powers in its place, whilst I don't support Brexit I can see why people would want to leave to EU to run our own show, it's just that doesn't include behaviour that Erdogan would approve of for me

at face value, its about removing bureaucracy and not wasting time in parliament that could be better spent on other substantive stuff. I assume you've seen something I haven't by your reaction to what I heard was the proposal.

Not even slightly. Well except to the degree that democracy is bureaucratic and dictatorship is marvellously efficient.

well you've read something I haven't then. Fair enough, better read up- can you point me to the proposal.

Yes, she is an autocratic fanatic, really. I loathe her.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't honestly see why they're asking for such licence in the first place, well I do but it doesn't scream class, democracy, or even basic decency. And this isn't the first time they've sought something of a sovereign approach now we're free of the shackles of Europe.Simply there's no sane argument imo that we should leave the clutches of the EU to adopt sovereign powers in its place, whilst I don't support Brexit I can see why people would want to leave to EU to run our own show, it's just that doesn't include behaviour that Erdogan would approve of for me

at face value, its about removing bureaucracy and not wasting time in parliament that could be better spent on other substantive stuff. I assume you've seen something I haven't by your reaction to what I heard was the proposal.

Not even slightly. Well except to the degree that democracy is bureaucratic and dictatorship is marvellously efficient.

Looks like a white paper on this tomorrow, if I'm reading the 'letter' properly. That'll make interesting reading- letter implies most EU legislation will become UK law, though caveated!

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote: at face value, its about removing bureaucracy and not wasting time in parliament that could be better spent on other substantive stuff. I assume you've seen something I haven't by your reaction to what I heard was the proposal.

Not even slightly. Well except to the degree that democracy is bureaucratic and dictatorship is marvellously efficient.

Looks like a white paper on this tomorrow, if I'm reading the 'letter' properly. That'll make interesting reading- letter implies most EU legislation will become UK law, though caveated!

In the shorter term they don't possibly have a choice as there just isn't remotely the time to do anything else

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Not even slightly. Well except to the degree that democracy is bureaucratic and dictatorship is marvellously efficient.

Looks like a white paper on this tomorrow, if I'm reading the 'letter' properly. That'll make interesting reading- letter implies most EU legislation will become UK law, though caveated!

In the shorter term they don't possibly have a choice as there just isn't remotely the time to do anything else

10's of thousands of bits of legisalation I hear, cost a bloody fortune I suspect; hence Eugene's keenness on scrutiny

that's the dead stupid thing imo (amongst all the other stupidity), we will spend years and 100's of millions if not billions to work through a process that at best will leave us at best slightly worse off in terms of trade deals (and could be a whole lot worse off, and have lost a lot of cash in the meantime), probably the same legislation that people have spuriously objected to, and not be any further forward as a country in terms of 'integration' (because we sure as shyte will have immigration same as now). Gravy train for consultants and lawyers, root causes of discontent not remotely addressed and the discontented likely worse off. Plus no more UK. Happy days.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Looks like a white paper on this tomorrow, if I'm reading the 'letter' properly. That'll make interesting reading- letter implies most EU legislation will become UK law, though caveated!

In the shorter term they don't possibly have a choice as there just isn't remotely the time to do anything else

10's of thousands of bits of legisalation I hear, cost a bloody fortune I suspect; hence Eugene's keenness on scrutiny

that's the dead stupid thing imo (amongst all the other stupidity), we will spend years and 100's of millions if not billions to work through a process that at best will leave us at best slightly worse off in terms of trade deals (and could be a whole lot worse off, and have lost a lot of cash in the meantime), probably the same legislation that people have spuriously objected to, and not be any further forward as a country in terms of 'integration' (because we sure as shyte will have immigration same as now). Gravy train for consultants and lawyers, root causes of discontent not remotely addressed and the discontented likely worse off. Plus no more UK. Happy days.

I suspect Eugene's point the other day was more the executive would often want to simply be able to enact their plans without the mess of having to get votes/support, and that one should be wary in the extreme of giving up a little democracy even if it looks harmless in the moment. We will of course have some recourse to empower the PM to act without recourse to parliament in the event of emergency, say for instance France invades tomorrow then May will be able to respond rather quickly and simply update parliament at some later point as to her actions (assuming it's still standing). But in the case of leaving the EU much of the case for that was the supposed democratic deficit of being in the EU rather than making our own way, and it's beyond daft to rescue a democratic deficit by establishing sovereign powers when this is something we want politically and isn't close to an emergency

This will though be a gravy train for the consultants and lawyers involved, it's going to take decades most likely, it will cost into the billions, and all that to venture into the unknown, hurrah. It also means the civil service and government are going to be swamped with work and unable to address lord only knows how many other issues

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
In the shorter term they don't possibly have a choice as there just isn't remotely the time to do anything else

10's of thousands of bits of legisalation I hear, cost a bloody fortune I suspect; hence Eugene's keenness on scrutiny

that's the dead stupid thing imo (amongst all the other stupidity), we will spend years and 100's of millions if not billions to work through a process that at best will leave us at best slightly worse off in terms of trade deals (and could be a whole lot worse off, and have lost a lot of cash in the meantime), probably the same legislation that people have spuriously objected to, and not be any further forward as a country in terms of 'integration' (because we sure as shyte will have immigration same as now). Gravy train for consultants and lawyers, root causes of discontent not remotely addressed and the discontented likely worse off. Plus no more UK. Happy days.

I suspect Eugene's point the other day was more the executive would often want to simply be able to enact their plans without the mess of having to get votes/support, and that one should be wary in the extreme of giving up a little democracy even if it looks harmless in the moment. We will of course have some recourse to empower the PM to act without recourse to parliament in the event of emergency, say for instance France invades tomorrow then May will be able to respond rather quickly and simply update parliament at some later point as to her actions (assuming it's still standing). But in the case of leaving the EU much of the case for that was the supposed democratic deficit of being in the EU rather than making our own way, and it's beyond daft to rescue a democratic deficit by establishing sovereign powers when this is something we want politically and isn't close to an emergency

This will though be a gravy train for the consultants and lawyers involved, it's going to take decades most likely, it will cost into the billions, and all that to venture into the unknown, hurrah. It also means the civil service and government are going to be swamped with work and unable to address lord only knows how many other issues

It was a lawyerly, fees based joke; but thanks for the discourse

Is this why Theresa doesn't want an independent Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-39406131

Lots of lovely tax.

The EU should have built a wall around Ebbw Vale. Creatures.

canta_brian wrote:Is this why Theresa doesn't want an independent Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-39406131

Lots of lovely tax.

Were it about money Brexit wouldn't mean Brexit, it has to be ideological to no small degree

My view on powers is that you should consider what the worst possible government would be able to do with them without any restraint. Giving the executive the power to enact laws across the gamut of what was once European law is basically dictatorship. There's a very easy alternative. You pass a law which says that the law after Brexit is the same as the law before Brexit unless and until it is changed through ordinary legislative process. Done. That wasn't hard was it?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:My view on powers is that you should consider what the worst possible government would be able to do with them without any restraint. Giving the executive the power to enact laws across the gamut of what was once European law is basically dictatorship. There's a very easy alternative. You pass a law which says that the law after Brexit is the same as the law before Brexit unless and until it is changed through ordinary legislative process. Done. That wasn't hard was it?

Be interesting to see what the white paper actually says.

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote: at face value, its about removing bureaucracy and not wasting time in parliament that could be better spent on other substantive stuff. I assume you've seen something I haven't by your reaction to what I heard was the proposal.

Not even slightly. Well except to the degree that democracy is bureaucratic and dictatorship is marvellously efficient.

Looks like a white paper on this tomorrow, if I'm reading the 'letter' properly. That'll make interesting reading- letter implies most EU legislation will become UK law, though caveated!

Its the safest and only practical way to go isn't it?

Transfer most to minimise disruption and then decide afterwards which ones you don't really want or want to change. My missus has a similar approach to spring cleaning her wardrobe

BBD wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Not even slightly. Well except to the degree that democracy is bureaucratic and dictatorship is marvellously efficient.

Looks like a white paper on this tomorrow, if I'm reading the 'letter' properly. That'll make interesting reading- letter implies most EU legislation will become UK law, though caveated!

Its the safest and only practical way to go isn't it?

Transfer most to minimise disruption and then decide afterwards which ones you don't really want or want to change. My missus has a similar approach to spring cleaning her wardrobe

The reality will bite in around 5 years time when we find that our trade with Europe is becoming increasingly blocked because of claimed non-compliance with European regulations, despite the GRB making them part of UK law. The French in particular will point to every amendment in EU law, however minor, and point out that UK law has not kept up.
This means that our Parliamentarians with all their repatriated sovereignty will increasingly spend their time trying to follow what is happening in Europe, debating the changes and updating UK law. Not forgetting, of course, that these changes were effectively decided in Europe, and no longer with any UK involvement or influence.

But at least we'll have regained our sovereignty....