Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Also, petrol head question here; how come British police don't use Jaguars more often? Why are BMWs chosen over them? They're pretty much the equal of a Beamer give or take a few minor points. They're cheaper than Beamers, they're way cooler than Beamers, and since they're built here in Britain the money sent on them will remain in the county and funds jobs here.

It's all down to fleet prices and re-sale values, and it usually results in the police buying inferior vehicles. BMW offer better bulk sales, which higher garuanteed sales values when they get retired (after 6 years or so).

It's a shame, I remember years ago, when MG was still on the go, that the police testers favorite car to use was the ZTT-190, but Ford undercut them on the Mondeo estates, so that's what they got.

Also police cars, they do not have it easy, allr of miles.

There gonna go for most reliable, at the best prices.

Plus bmws have loads of parts lying around for east repair.



However, I saw this this morning.


Brexit: May to introduce EU repeal bill in Queen's Speech
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37532364

Looks like the wheels are actually beginning to move.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Plus bmws have loads of parts lying around for east repair.



However, I saw this this morning.


Brexit: May to introduce EU repeal bill in Queen's Speech
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37532364

Looks like the wheels are actually beginning to move.

The wheels are beginning to move, but there are two giant icebergs heading towards the good ship HMS Conservative party:

1) Scottish Parliament. EU law is enshrined in the Scottish Parliament, and if Westminster decides to scrap EU law, and Edinburgh refuses, then what?

2) The Good Friday Agreement. EU law is front and center in this as well...

Interesting times, because you cannot have the farcical situation of EU law in some parts of the UK, and not have it in other parts of the UK.

Well the article does say that all the current EU law will be kept as it is. But we shall have to wait for the conference to find out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Interesting times, because you cannot have the farcical situation of EU law in some parts of the UK, and not have it in other parts of the UK.

There is a precedent of sorts in Scots Law.

At long last, there is a timeframe for BREXIT!

You can't stop the signal baby!!!

Any reason why March has been set as a deadline? German elections? French Election?

Bojo's birthday?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Interesting times, because you cannot have the farcical situation of EU law in some parts of the UK, and not have it in other parts of the UK.

There is a precedent of sorts in Scots Law.

Scot's law is not on the same scale as EU law, which is almost industrial in comparison.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Scot's law is not on the same scale as EU law,

It is an example of 2 distinct legal systems within a single country.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At long last, there is a timeframe for BREXIT!

You can't stop the signal baby!!!

Any reason why March has been set as a deadline? German elections? French Election?

Bojo's birthday?

You shouldn't be happy about her comments, anyone with any sense should be scared of what May is doing. She's not removing any EU legislation (so all that much maligned red tape is staying ) exceptfor removing the power from ECJ. At the same time they intend to bring in a UK bill of rights which will reduce the power of the courts and give overriding power to the government and at the same time they want to reduce the number of MPs that can actually challenge government decisions. This is just authoritarianism at its worst, they are removing the protection of the U.K. Populace and handing it to the few. You shouldn't be happy with what she said you should be scared we're going back to the days of peons and masters.

Still at least people in Sunderland will be happy as they get what they want, low immigration, but then that's what happens when you have areas of mass increasing unemployment.

If Scotland has any sense they will leave the uk, they can't expect to get anything from Westminster at the moment, they will just be used to get people more angry and frustrated effectively blocking labour from growing.

Well we can't exactly simultaneously remove all the intergrated EU laws. That's a lot of parliamentary debate.

I'm not that concerned about a bill of rights, seeing as the government already has overriding power over the courts. The only one it didn't was the European Courts, but we are leaving anyway.

And there isn't much that the Conservatives can do to stop Labour from growing that they haven't already done to themselves.

It's kinda weird saying this but, I think I have faith in May. It might be the only time in my adult life I've actually thought that about a politician. Though there are others that might approach it, Vince Cable, David Mulligans, Philip Hammond too, maybe and one or two others

 Compel wrote:
It's kinda weird saying this but, I think I have faith in May. It might be the only time in my adult life I've actually thought that about a politician. Though there are others that might approach it, Vince Cable, David Mulligans, Philip Hammond too, maybe and one or two others

That's just you falling to the dark side.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well we can't exactly simultaneously remove all the intergrated EU laws. That's a lot of parliamentary debate.

I'm not that concerned about a bill of rights, seeing as the government already has overriding power over the courts. The only one it didn't was the European Courts, but we are leaving anyway.

And there isn't much that the Conservatives can do to stop Labour from growing that they haven't already done to themselves.

The ECHR isn't part of the EU. You don't have to leave that just becase you're leaving the EU.

It's always nice to have official stats to back up what you expected from the outset...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/30/its-official-economy-doing-fine-after-brexit/

The Office for National Statistics believes that output in the dominant services sector rose 0.4pc month-on-month and 2.9pc year-on-year in July.

It confirms not just that there was no immediate economic collapse after the referendum vote, despite the political vacuum and financial market turmoil, but that the economy continued to grow at a very decent rate. All the business surveys that pointed to the opposite outcome were wrong, and should from now on be treated as far less useful by the financial establishment.

 SirDonlad wrote:

Lets see if your still laughing 3 years post Brexit, especially if there is no passporting.

Are they triggering article 50 in March? Good, let's get this show on the road.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well we can't exactly simultaneously remove all the intergrated EU laws. That's a lot of parliamentary debate.

I'm not that concerned about a bill of rights, seeing as the government already has overriding power over the courts. The only one it didn't was the European Courts, but we are leaving anyway.

And there isn't much that the Conservatives can do to stop Labour from growing that they haven't already done to themselves.

But it's the principle; the first thing they want to scrap is protection of the populace and something you could still be part of even outside the EU which protects all of us.

Also I'm not sure you entirely understand how the legal system works. The courts have the overriding power in interpreting legislation (otherwise the high court challenge on whether article 50 can be invoked by one dictator May or the parliament would be moot.). Parliament sets legislation usually on things brought forward by the governments cabinet. However they have no power to interpret the legislation. That's what the courts do. The government can change things if they aren't happy with the interpretation but I reiterate they can't say what happens in individual cases. As such if you think you are being treated unfairly or illegally then you can take your case to our courts or then the ECJ. What the government are proposing is removing your protections and allowing individuals in the government to have the final say.

Take as a possible example. You go on holiday to the imaginary country Bulami and once you leave the country you get accused of a murder you didn't commit (you were just nearby at the time). However you don't want to go back to face your accusers because the country is renowned for torturing people to extract confessions. Bulami then ask for you to be extradited. The whole thing becomes a big political issue in Bulami. At the same time however the government is negotiating with Bulami a trade deal for a wonderful material unobtainium that will make some of the governments sponsors very rich and guarantee jobs. The deal then becomes political with your extradition then becoming a requirement to seal the deal. So you are arrested. At the current time you can challenge by going to court or the ECJ and you'd probably win on the basis that your basic human rights can't be guaranteed. However under the proposed system the final say becomes what the government want and your fate is determined by the politics of the situation and what the government wants, if they think the deal is worth more than your life then you become a pawn. Say the government wants the trade deal you get extradited, as feared you are tortured to extract a confession and you spend the rest of your life rotting in some god forsaken hell hole for something you never committed (the uk government probably happily pointing out you confessed). That's why you don't want individuals in governments to have the final say. The example is a bit extreme but the point is sound.

A less extreme example would be the government putting people under house arrest indefinitely without trial if they think they may be a danger to society despite no crime actually being committed. It may start on the back of protecting against terrorism but there would be no court oversight to stop individuals stretching the interpretation as anyone is likely to do. One little step at a time the power will extend until you find its not just covering the potential terrorist but it's covering things like the student who is rallying a march in London because last time things got out of hand etc.

You never want to give ultimate jurisdiction of a persons fate to another individual without appropriate challenge. That just leads to a fearful population because they don't want to step out of line. V for Vendetta is a good example of where this type of thinking heads towards and the scary thing is that we are heading in that direction at the moment

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At long last, there is a timeframe for BREXIT!

You can't stop the signal baby!!!

Any reason why March has been set as a deadline? German elections? French Election?

Bojo's birthday?

You shouldn't be happy about her comments, anyone with any sense should be scared of what May is doing. She's not removing any EU legislation (so all that much maligned red tape is staying ) exceptfor removing the power from ECJ. At the same time they intend to bring in a UK bill of rights which will reduce the power of the courts and give overriding power to the government and at the same time they want to reduce the number of MPs that can actually challenge government decisions. This is just authoritarianism at its worst, they are removing the protection of the U.K. Populace and handing it to the few. You shouldn't be happy with what she said you should be scared we're going back to the days of peons and masters.

Still at least people in Sunderland will be happy as they get what they want, low immigration, but then that's what happens when you have areas of mass increasing unemployment.

If Scotland has any sense they will leave the uk, they can't expect to get anything from Westminster at the moment, they will just be used to get people more angry and frustrated effectively blocking labour from growing.

I think this is a good move. Enshrining existing EU law into British law, and drawing a line under further EU law being incorporated into Britain, allows Parliament, and the British people, to decide which bits we want to keep, and which bits should go.

We're sovereign again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Scot's law is not on the same scale as EU law,

It is an example of 2 distinct legal systems within a single country.

A not proven verdict and an extra person on a jury is not in the same league as hundreds of pages of EU laws and diktats.

Two things of note to be extracted from this announcement.

The first is that May thinks that with a 'general deadline' given, it will encourage the EU to open dialogue and planning early. With the French elections spread across April-June, I suspect they will conveniently push it back a month or two due to 'unforseeable delays/complications', and since the EU will have begun discussing matters with us early, it will effectively buy us a good six months of extra negotiation time, should it be pulled off effectively.

The second is that she's implying what everyone agreed would be the most sensible option for an ordered legislative withdrawal from Europe. There's far, far too many pieces of law to effectively debate each and every one prior to leaving. So instead there will most likely simply be a general instituting of all European law into British law upon leaving, followed by Parliament picking at/modifying it over the course of the next decade in line with what we want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:
What the government are proposing is removing your protections and allowing individuals in the government to have the final say. ....

Like every other country in the world who isn't part of the EU? Funny that, I haven't noticed Japan or Canada descending into human rights hellholes. Must not be reading the right papers.

This is just authoritarianism at its worst, they are removing the protection of the U.K. Populace and handing it to the few. You shouldn't be happy with what she said you should be scared we're going back to the days of peons and masters.

Damn straight. If the EU hadn't come along in the 1850's and removed the class systems, instituted workers rights, and so forth, we'd all still be down the mines! Er, wait a minute...

You're going ever so slightly for the hyperbole old bean. This country has been a beacon of democracy since long before the EU was around, and we're not going to suddenly have the Stazi running the joint because we've withdrawn from Europe.

 SirDonlad wrote:
It's always nice to have official stats to back up what you expected from the outset...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/30/its-official-economy-doing-fine-after-brexit/

The Office for National Statistics believes that output in the dominant services sector rose 0.4pc month-on-month and 2.9pc year-on-year in July.

It confirms not just that there was no immediate economic collapse after the referendum vote, despite the political vacuum and financial market turmoil, but that the economy continued to grow at a very decent rate. All the business surveys that pointed to the opposite outcome were wrong, and should from now on be treated as far less useful by the financial establishment.

So we had a vote and for three months afterwards, where nothing has actually changed, the economy is still ok. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked the major repercussions will not happen until we start leaving the EU. There has been some impacts for the niche businesses, for example I'm also an amateur astronomer and prices have jumped 20-30%, because it's a small service set of businesses I do expect some of them to go out of business because there will simply be less money to be shared between them. But these a small effects not seen in the larger statistics. The real impact will come when we leave. For example when farmers no longer get subsidies and access to mobile seasonal dependent labour then food prices will increase (and more so if trade tariffs appear on EU imports). That means less money for other discretionary products especially as wage increases stagnate as businesses hold them back to maintain profits. The surveys show that businesses have less confidence in the future medium term, not tomorrow as nothing has yet changed. It means they are planning for hard times to come.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I think this is a good move. Enshrining existing EU law into British law, and drawing a line under further EU law being incorporated into Britain, allows Parliament, and the British people, to decide which bits we want to keep, and which bits should go.

We're sovereign again.

So let me get this straight we've now gone from we want to leave as we don't want EU regulations because they weren't written in the UK; to they are fine now because these same laws will be written into uk law by a British government. So we are now happy with current EU law...But not future EU law despite the fact that everything that has come before we are now suddenly ok with.

At the same time we are happy to remove the uk populations rights and hand it over to the government to do with as they deem fit which is not even part of EU law (in the same sense). So Wrexit is only eroding people's rights...

But that's alright because because we are sovereign again!

The way I see it, if you're chancellor of the exchequer is going to have a nickname, Spreadsheet Phil isn't a bad one to have.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A not proven verdict and an extra person on a jury is not in the same league as hundreds of pages of EU laws and diktats.

You mean those same 'diktats' that we will still need to abide by if we trade with the EU?

There is more to Scots law than that and its the principle that's important anyway.

@ Whirlwind

Your point about "Bulami" is moot because we can always set up our own bill of rights enforced by our own Supreme Court outside of government control, which can state that UK citizens will not be extradited to any country were they will be mistreated.

As for the EU regulations being written into British law; his now means that we're only going to be keeping the laws that we're satisfied with, and the ones we aren't satisfied with will be ditched. Sensible laws on fire safety etc can stay but those bs regulations on fishing and light bulbs and vacuum cleaners will be scrapped. Meanwhile future laws are going to passed by our own elected representatives who will have to answer to us, instead of by remote unaccountable EU officials. It's elementary.

Countries like Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand, Japan etc all do perfectly well outside of the EU. They're not totalitarian hellholes or economic basket cases. And just like them we'll do fine too.

 Ketara wrote:


Like every other country in the world who isn't part of the EU? Funny that, I haven't noticed Japan or Canada descending into human rights hellholes. Must not be reading the right papers.

Although I'm not an expert in Japanese or Canadian law a quick look on Wikipedia shows that interpretation of law is left with courts, not individuals in the governments which is what is currently on the cards for the UK. Fairer comparisons to countries that do that would be places like Zimbabwe though I don't expect to the UK to get that bad in the short term (long term who knows?). We already know May has tried to make individual decisions (extradition and illegal house arrests) and these have been turned over by the courts. She is now, with leaving the EU, implementing a system where this can't happen in the future and that she has full decision making powers. This leads to lives being decided upon by political judgments. It's why we have a court system in the first place.

Damn straight. If the EU hadn't come along in the 1850's and removed the class systems, instituted workers rights, and so forth, we'd all still be down the mines! Er, wait a minute...

You think the class system has gone? It's still there just in a different form. The middle and lower classes have gone we just now have the political and super rich elite and everyone else. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say though. If you are just pointing out the UK in the last 150 years has improved workers rights then yes it has improved but that doesn't mean that we can't slide backwards. I'm also not sure how this has got anything to do with the current issue of removing the populaces ability to appeal against what they consider unjust decisions and consolidating more power to a few people in the government especially when we know May has tried to attempt similar things in the past but knocked back. The argument being that the first thing they are trying to do after leaving the EU is reducing people's rights rather than leaving that be (which they can do) and spending that time on dealing with some of the alledged 'red tape' issues like fisheries?


You're going ever so slightly for the hyperbole old bean. This country has been a beacon of democracy since long before the EU was around, and we're not going to suddenly have the Stazi running the joint because we've withdrawn from Europe.

Sure, our former Colonies hated our idea of democracy so much that they modelled their own systems of law and government on ours.

 Whirlwind wrote:
[
Although I'm not an expert in Japanese or Canadian law a quick look on Wikipedia shows that interpretation of law is left with courts, not individuals in the governments which is what is currently on the cards for the UK. Fairer comparisons to countries that do that would be places like Zimbabwe though I don't expect to the UK to get that bad in the short term (long term who knows?). We already know May has tried to make individual decisions (extradition and illegal house arrests) and these have been turned over by the courts. She is now, with leaving the EU, implementing a system where this can't happen in the future and that she has full decision making powers. This leads to lives being decided upon by political judgments. It's why we have a court system in the first place.

The Home Secretary has had relevant powers over matters such as extradition for the longest time. There's been a push and pull dynamic over the powers of the State, the powers of Cabinet/individual ministerial posts, the powers of the Prime Minister, the judicial system and more ongoing since we've had them. From Blair's abolition of the Law Lords and the post of Lord Chancellor back to the overruling of the legal system in WW2. You're a bit late to that party. Lives and judicial matters have always been decided by political judgements, both prior to and during our membership of Europe. Not to mention that Europe is as susceptible to political judgements as the UK system, it's just a different kind of politics.

You think the class system has gone? It's still there just in a different form.

In its classical incarnation? Yes.

The middle and lower classes have gone we just now have the political and super rich elite and everyone else.

A poor and overly simplistic view of society in modern day Britain. Even the BBC came up with seven groups.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

If you really want to debate that one, there's a few dozen sociologists in leading journals who would welcome your contribution breaking it down in the 'political and super rich elite and everyone else' though.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say though. If you are just pointing out the UK in the last 150 years has improved workers rights then yes it has improved but that doesn't mean that we can't slide backwards.

My point was that the EU did not grant the British people the vote or workers rights, and wouldn't ever effectively stop it/them being taken away unless we made them our effective government. We got where we are today by our own efforts, and will go wherever it is we will go in our future likewise.

I'm also not sure how this has got anything to do with the current issue of removing the populaces ability to appeal against what they consider unjust decisions and consolidating more power to a few people in the government especially when we know May has tried to attempt similar things in the past but knocked back. The argument being that the first thing they are trying to do after leaving the EU is reducing people's rights rather than leaving that be (which they can do) and spending that time on dealing with some of the alledged 'red tape' issues like fisheries?

Now she'll get knocked back at the general election and through domestic political pressure if she screws up. Like every government pre-EU membership. The EU has only ever been the first line of recourse and a thin one at that.

Ah the typical 'British arrogance'.

No. Historical perspective. That's a borderline ad hominem though. Might want to tone it down a bit.

I'm sure lots of people in the former British empire were really impressed with our form of democracy when they had no say in what we were doing.

Sorry, I'm afraid you just shifted those goalposts so far and fast, I blinked and missed it. Where did you put them again?

Of course the British populace were still happy to vote for governments that pillaged these other countries to maintain the wealth of the U.K., so a beacon of democracy, yes?

I'm not sure if you're attacking British people of a past period, and if so, which one? Are we going back to the 18th century here? The Edwardian period? When the British working class first got access to that vote? If so, what incarnation? You really need to be more specific.

Yes we invented modern democracy (although Greece probably has a fair claim to in a different form) but we are hardly a paragon of virtue as you make out especially given the outdated fptp system that the government has no intent to change leading to a significant minority producing a majority government.

Paragon of virtue?

Mate, I'm pointing out that the class struggle and acquisition of rights/democratic power by the British populace is an extensive one that stretches over hundreds of years, and the EU more or less came in at the tail end of it. You can believe that Brexit is all doom and gloom and the end of democracy or the rise of our enslavement by the rich (you've effectively just said that in other words twice more or less), but don't be surprised if when you communicate it here, some other people just hear it as hyperbole.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Whirlwind

Your point about "Bulami" is moot because we can always set up our own bill of rights enforced by our own Supreme Court outside of government control, which can state that UK citizens will not be extradited to any country were they will be mistreated.

So the rights of the U.K. Citizen are now more important than anyone else who isn't? That a person who, is fundamentally the same as you or me, should not have the same rights because of simply they were delivered on a different piece of rock, which they had no control over, and should be considered second class? Would this not be called bigotry where you are disadvantaged simply because of your race?

Also I'd point out this is not how the government states the uk bill of rights will work. Truss has already said that they will implement a system that does not jepordise the hands of national security or tie the hands of parliament. Effectively they are giving the government a veto on court decisions.

As for the EU regulations being written into British law; this now means that we're only going to be keeping the laws that we're satisfied with, and the ones we aren't satisfied with will be ditched. Sensible laws on fire safety etc can stay but those bs regulations on fishing and light bulbs and vacuum cleaners will be scrapped. Meanwhile future laws are going to passed by our own elected representatives who will have to answer to us, instead of by remote unaccountable EU officials.

And yet those 'bs' laws are better 'laws' than the UK would implement. Fisheries is there to protect fishing stocks and wildlife or would you prefer to just massacre everything and cause a Grand Banks fiasco (and leaving the UK to do it on its own lacks evidence it works http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37511263). The way it is implemented in the UK is a farce because they give the 90% of the fishing rights to 5-6 large multinational fishing companies, yet we've obviously held the government to account over this already . The light bulbs and vacuum cleaner is to reduce carbon emissions so that our grand children don't wonder why we trashed the planet so badly (although it might be getting too late) and drive forward more efficient designs that use energy more wisely rather than outdated incandescent bulbs that convert just 2.5% of the energy they use into light etc. Obviously the UK though are very carbon aware after all we are part of the Paris agreement that even China and the US has ratified, oh wait we haven't done that yet whilst at the same time allowing fracking in national parks. Yet again we really have taken these politicians up on their actions haven't we?

And for the bazillionth time the EU representatives are accountable, you have an EU election. You can't complain about people not answering to us when NF was on the fisheries commission and we have obviously have failed to take him to task for his failure to ever turn up - then we have the temerity as a nation to complain that it doesn't work.

 Whirlwind wrote:

And yet those 'bs' laws are better 'laws' than the UK would implement. Fisheries is there to protect fishing stocks and wildlife or would you prefer to just massacre everything and cause a Grand Banks fiasco (and leaving the UK to do it on its own lacks evidence it works http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37511263). The way it is implemented in the UK is a farce because they give the 90% of the fishing rights to 5-6 large multinational fishing companies, yet we've obviously held the government to account over this already . The light bulbs and vacuum cleaner is to reduce carbon emissions so that our grand children don't wonder why we trashed the planet so badly (although it might be getting too late) and drive forward more efficient designs that use energy more wisely rather than outdated incandescent bulbs that convert just 2.5% of the energy they use into light etc. Obviously the UK though are very carbon aware after all we are part of the Paris agreement that even China and the US has ratified, oh wait we haven't done that yet whilst at the same time allowing fracking in national parks. Yet again we really have taken these politicians up on their actions haven't we?

All I'm reading here is ' The British Government doesn't enact laws I like or consider important and the EU does so I prefer them to make my laws', and 'The British people don't pressure their politicians in the manner I would like'.

I can totally understand why in that light you'd prefer to remove responsibility for these things to a body you think takes actions more in line with what you like, but that's no reason to be derogatory to others who might prefer to have powers vested in a body closer to home. There's nothing intrinsically preventing that body from enacting exactly the same legislation as you enjoy Europe passing. Your issue appears to be more that you don't think it will do so, because both it and the people who elect it think differently to you.

Which sucks for you, I'll concede, and I can totally empathise, but y'know, democracy? Sadly, we don't always get what we want out of the political system.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well we can't exactly simultaneously remove all the intergrated EU laws. That's a lot of parliamentary debate.

I'm not that concerned about a bill of rights, seeing as the government already has overriding power over the courts. The only one it didn't was the European Courts, but we are leaving anyway.

And there isn't much that the Conservatives can do to stop Labour from growing that they haven't already done to themselves.

But it's the principle; the first thing they want to scrap is protection of the populace and something you could still be part of even outside the EU which protects all of us.

Also I'm not sure you entirely understand how the legal system works. The courts have the overriding power in interpreting legislation (otherwise the high court challenge on whether article 50 can be invoked by one dictator May or the parliament would be moot.). Parliament sets legislation usually on things brought forward by the governments cabinet. However they have no power to interpret the legislation. That's what the courts do. The government can change things if they aren't happy with the interpretation but I reiterate they can't say what happens in individual cases. As such if you think you are being treated unfairly or illegally then you can take your case to our courts or then the ECJ. What the government are proposing is removing your protections and allowing individuals in the government to have the final say.

Take as a possible example. You go on holiday to the imaginary country Bulami and once you leave the country you get accused of a murder you didn't commit (you were just nearby at the time). However you don't want to go back to face your accusers because the country is renowned for torturing people to extract confessions. Bulami then ask for you to be extradited. The whole thing becomes a big political issue in Bulami. At the same time however the government is negotiating with Bulami a trade deal for a wonderful material unobtainium that will make some of the governments sponsors very rich and guarantee jobs. The deal then becomes political with your extradition then becoming a requirement to seal the deal. So you are arrested. At the current time you can challenge by going to court or the ECJ and you'd probably win on the basis that your basic human rights can't be guaranteed. However under the proposed system the final say becomes what the government want and your fate is determined by the politics of the situation and what the government wants, if they think the deal is worth more than your life then you become a pawn. Say the government wants the trade deal you get extradited, as feared you are tortured to extract a confession and you spend the rest of your life rotting in some god forsaken hell hole for something you never committed (the uk government probably happily pointing out you confessed). That's why you don't want individuals in governments to have the final say. The example is a bit extreme but the point is sound.

A less extreme example would be the government putting people under house arrest indefinitely without trial if they think they may be a danger to society despite no crime actually being committed. It may start on the back of protecting against terrorism but there would be no court oversight to stop individuals stretching the interpretation as anyone is likely to do. One little step at a time the power will extend until you find its not just covering the potential terrorist but it's covering things like the student who is rallying a march in London because last time things got out of hand etc.

You never want to give ultimate jurisdiction of a persons fate to another individual without appropriate challenge. That just leads to a fearful population because they don't want to step out of line. V for Vendetta is a good example of where this type of thinking heads towards and the scary thing is that we are heading in that direction at the moment

Yeah..... No, I know exactly how the law system works. I didn't get a degree in Law by not doing any research.

The courts have the power to interpret the laws laid down by parliament, but they have no overriding power over them. And it is very easy to put what the government intends into the laws, otherwise they would have hundreds of different interpretations leading all the way up to Supreme Court.

Also, you are using some very slippery slopes arguements.

Also, you have to put at least a little bit of faith in a system that has survived for the last few hundred years without us turning into the nazis. And the EU has done very little to prevent the spread of far right movements over the last 40 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well we can't exactly simultaneously remove all the intergrated EU laws. That's a lot of parliamentary debate.

I'm not that concerned about a bill of rights, seeing as the government already has overriding power over the courts. The only one it didn't was the European Courts, but we are leaving anyway.

And there isn't much that the Conservatives can do to stop Labour from growing that they haven't already done to themselves.

The ECHR isn't part of the EU. You don't have to leave that just becase you're leaving the EU.

I know, from what I've heard the bill of rights idea would be seperate to the regular article 50 nonsense. But that would still have to go through parliament.

So it looks like you begin to exit stage left in March then?


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/may-says-uk-to-start-eu-exit-process-by-end-march/ar-BBwTIYg?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP