Ship of Fools: Withdrawal From EU Bill

Thread: Withdrawal From EU Bill Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020244

Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :

Working through Withdrawal From EU Bill - Read through Section 7; Sub-Section 3 half-a-dozen times, and still can't get a grasp of it: "But retained EU law is not deficient merely because it does not contain any
modification of EU law which is adopted or notified, comes into force or only
applies on or after exit day." ANYONE???

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0005/cbill_2017-20190005_en_2.htm

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

It's simply freezing EU law translated into UK law at the date of withdrawal, surely?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I thought it was saying that extra stuff enacted by the EU after Brexit, will not be added to UK law, and UK law will not be deficient thereby.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It seems to me that this is all a bit pointless anyway. Presumably to continue trading with the EU as the UK has been doing, then UK law needs to be following EU law even if the UK isn't in the EU.

If the EU law is inserted into British law but there is no mechanism to continue introducing EU laws going forward, then I can't see how there can be the level playing field that the EU requires.

It feels like some think that introducing EU law into UK law will be sufficient. I can't see how it can be.

Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :

The 'freezing' thing would make sense .. But then seems to conflict with S5 ss3, whereby it "does not prevent the principle of the supremacy of EU law from applying to a modification made on or after exit day of any enactment or rule of law passed or made before exit day if the application is consistent with the intention of the modification" (!!)

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think that just means the EU law still works until Brexit day.

Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :

It can't mean that, or it wouldn't make any allowances for EU-made 'modifications' ..

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Mr cheesy has spotted the big flaw, in that 'frictionless' trade, which is supposed to be our ardent desire, will still require harmonization of regulations. That's what frictionless means, isn't it? So if the EU decides after Brexit, that cheese must have a large red flag on it, showing the country of origin, are we going to say no to that?

Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :

Bill in its current form gives scope to ministers to make tweaks for two years after exit day ... But either I'm really thick, or some of this is terrible grammar - and the thorniest parliamentary arguments are going to be over how all this tweaking will work ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I will also bet that there will be extensive camouflage and subterfuge, whereby an EU regulation is quietly slipped into UK trade regulations, on a quiet day, or on a day when there is a large squirrel leaping around in the Commons. This is so as not to frighten the headcases.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Working through Withdrawal From EU Bill - Read through Section 7; Sub-Section 3 half-a-dozen times, and still can't get a grasp of it: "But retained EU law is not deficient merely because it does not contain any
modification of EU law which is adopted or notified, comes into force or only
applies on or after exit day." ANYONE???

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0005/cbill_2017-20190005_en_2.htm

It is a very peculiar caveat. It seems to be guarding against the possibility of somebody declaring that a piece of European law is deficient because it does not contain things that have happened after exit day, and thus having potentially cart Blanche to modify it.

I think.

Um.

Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Working through Withdrawal From EU Bill - Read through Section 7; Sub-Section 3 half-a-dozen times, and still can't get a grasp of it: "But retained EU law is not deficient merely because it does not contain any
modification of EU law which is adopted or notified, comes into force or only
applies on or after exit day." ANYONE???

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0005/cbill_2017-20190005_en_2.htm
It is a very peculiar caveat. It seems to be guarding against the possibility of somebody declaring that a piece of European law is deficient because it does not contain things that have happened after exit day, and thus having potentially cart Blanche to modify it.

I think.

Um.

Thank you, dyfrig .. So on your reading its placing a limit on circumstances where minister can drop or amend things he just doesn't like the look of ... In which case it's very difficult to see what he COULD do under S7 ss1(b), which speaks of preventing, remedying or mitigating "any other defiency in retained EU law, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU" ... Surely the only thing that could 'arise' would be the thing that is ruled out as being a 'deficiency' at all later on in the same section?! .. DID THE DRAFTERS PULL AN ALL-NIGHTER WITH THIS ONE ???

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

Buggered if I know. These are the people who drafted the Data Protection Act and the Legal Aid acts - i've always suspected that most legislative drafting happens after a liquid linch.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Shouldn't that be 'lynch'? [Biased]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I will also bet that there will be extensive camouflage and subterfuge, whereby an EU regulation is quietly slipped into UK trade regulations, on a quiet day, or on a day when there is a large squirrel leaping around in the Commons. This is so as not to frighten the headcases.

Or with a big fanfare about how great and forward thinking the government is for bringing in this rule [coff credit card charges]
without crediting the source

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
It can't mean that, or it wouldn't make any allowances for EU-made 'modifications' ..

Why do you think the modifications referred to would be "EU-made"?

I suspect that in phrases like "retained EU law which has been modified on or after exit day" the modifications are meant to be actions by the UK Parliament and/or courts.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:
Surely the only thing that could 'arise' would be the thing that is ruled out as being a 'deficiency' at all later on in the same section?!

Not really, a non-exhaustive list of possible deficiencies is given in subsection 2.

As I read it (and I'm not a lawyer):

Say there was an EU rule that all cheese sold to Canada under the CETA agreement has to be labelled with a red flag. This rule would be incorporated into UK law, but it isn't relevant, because the UK would no longer be a party to CETA. So the minister would have the power to strike this rule out.

EU animal welfare rules are also incorporated into UK law. But if the EU changed the rules post-Brexit, the minister doesn't have the power under the Repeal Act (whatever it's called) to change British rules to match. The UK may well for pragmatic reasons want to align British rules to EU rules, but the government would have to do this by whatever means animal welfare standards are normally set, not by a Henry VIII clause in the Repeal Act.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

I found a copy of European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Explanatory Notes published by the Department for Exiting the European Union.

On page 30, there's this about Section 7, subsection 3:

quote:
Subsection (3) provides that the retained EU law in the UK is not deficient just because the EU subsequently makes changes to the law in the EU after the UK has left, or planned changes come into effect after exit. The law is being preserved and converted as it was immediately before exit day. The EU might go on to make changes to its law but those subsequent changes and the consequent divergence between UK and EU law do not by themselves automatically make the UK law deficient.

So this is clearly talking about subsequent modifications originating from the EU (contrary to what I thought).

On page 27 there's this about Section 5, subsection 3:

quote:
Finally, subsection (3) sets out that the principle of supremacy can continue to apply to pre‐exit law which is amended on or after exit day where that accords with the intention of the modifications.

Here they don't say whether they're referring to amendments originating from the EU or the UK; I'd have thought that only UK modifications would be of concern (but that's what I thought about the other passage, too...)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yep. Honest Ron has it right as Dave W has now confirmed. All very logical given the Brexit intention.

I wonder how well it will survive the passage through the House?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'm quite possibly completely wrong, but I thought the point of the Repeal Bill was that there were a bunch of things we didn't have laws about because they were things covered under EU legislation (and our domestic law in those areas just amounted to "we'll do what we agree to as the EU in this area", so we need to have a law which brings back the detail of those things the EU has decided into the UK domestic law. Otherwise when we leave we've got gaps where we have no laws and we can't be bothered to create our own so we'll just copy and paste them in.

But then this does seem to play into Brexiteers paranoia that there was a lack of sovereignty and that we need to "take back control" from the EU.

In reality, I suspect a very large proportion of these laws are only relevant to EU states. Which we'd need to follow anyway if we want frictionless trading with the EU..

What a mess.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Ricardus:

quote:
The UK may well for pragmatic reasons want to align British rules to EU rules...

And there you have it: the reason why Brexit will lead to a *loss* of control. If we want 'frictionless' trading with the EU we have to have products that conform to EU regulations *and we won't have any say in what those regulations will be*. [brick wall]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Presumably Canada doesn't have to meet EU regulations, but then it can hardly be said to be frictionless trade. Plus the EU-Canada deal took a long time to negotiate.

The unspoken truth is that if we get a deal like Canada, we're basically screwed.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Presumably Canada doesn't have to meet EU regulations, but then it can hardly be said to be frictionless trade. Plus the EU-Canada deal took a long time to negotiate.

The unspoken truth is that if we get a deal like Canada, we're basically screwed.

And i) it took seven years to get there and ii) the Canadians are a lot more polite than thee British.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Also Canada has a) massive raw resources (their management isn't always great, but they do have a lot more than we do) and b) other markets.

We basically have the EU. And not much else.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

...except for all these fabulous deals that the rest of the world is busy lining up to make with us...

<pauses to scan horizon for mob of trade negotiators from non-EU nations>

Jam tomorrow, everyone!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

And good Brexit jam, with no hint of foreign fruit in it.

A recent report by 'The UK in a Changing Europe' is so bleak about no deal, that it becomes comical. Air travel impossible, problems with nuclear material being transported, drugs unable to be checked for safety, food shortages, transport hold-ups, blah blah blah.

It only hurts when I laugh.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/no-deal-brexit-would-spawn-legal-morass-and-economic-disaster

One more optimistic view kicking around, is that a transitional period is inevitable, since it's not possible to process thousands of EU regs in two years. However, how long will the transition last? Maybe, forever.

[ 20. July 2017, 10:46: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

No fruit at all, probably - it seems that 90% of the fruit we use in this country is imported.

Sioni Sais:

quote:
...the Canadians are a lot more polite than thee British.

Most people are more polite than Boris Johnson.

[ 20. July 2017, 10:52: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Brexit jam will be unique. No fruit, but a shed load of nuts.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I can assure everyone that a light concoction of mangel wurzel is not unwholesome, and leads to frequency of habit in the bowel region, and a generally temperate and cheerful disposition. I am talking about cows, of course. British cows, that is.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Apparently the EU wants EU citizens in the UK to be protected by EU law post-Brexit. How's that going to work, then?

[ 20. July 2017, 11:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And there you have it: the reason why Brexit will lead to a *loss* of control. If we want 'frictionless' trading with the EU we have to have products that conform to EU regulations

If this is done via mirroring EU regulation as UK regulation, then mechanism to avoid regulatory divergence must also exist (other trade agreements that the EU has describes them).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Just reading the comments under a BBC item about Barnier, plenty of Brexiteers still saying 'no deal!', the EU is totalitarian, Barnier can get lost and so on.

These people seem to have shut their eyes and ears. Do they really think that with no deal, that we can lose a big chunk of our trade, and not suffer economically? I don't get it. It's as if the Titanic captain was shouting, go for it, icebergs are exciting!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40662740

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Perhaps they think everything in the shops appears on the shelves by magic, like the food at Hogwarts...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

All the Brexiteers I know (quite a few) remain utterly convinced that things will be better once we are out of the EU and trading on WTO terms.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A recent report by 'The UK in a Changing Europe' is so bleak about no deal, that it becomes comical. Air travel impossible, problems with nuclear material being transported, drugs unable to be checked for safety, food shortages, transport hold-ups, blah blah blah.

Is this the report that contains the gem of a line: “The analysis that follows is necessarily speculative… [there are] no facts about the future… [the analysis] requires a significant amount of speculation”?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I honestly don't think people really appreciate how good they've got it. OK, there is an issue at the moment with the £ vs Euro (but is that really going to significantly change for the better post Brexit? Why would it?) but I don't think there is much evidence that British food prices are artificially high due to the EU. Indeed, it seems that prices in British supermarkets are often much lower than in many neighbouring countries. Sometimes it seems that the prices are actually lower in British supermarkets than the prices in supermarkets in the countries where the produce is grown.

[ 20. July 2017, 12:36: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Food is certainly cheaper here than in the Rep. of Ireland, whose agricultural and food-product exports in this direction are very substantial indeed and a cause of some consternation in Dublin, as the details of Brexit are worked out. (That last bit is the voice of optimism, don't you know).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is this the report that contains the gem of a line: “The analysis that follows is necessarily speculative… [there are] no facts about the future… [the analysis] requires a significant amount of speculation”?

Which sounds very witty, if you are in the habit of getting your talking points directly from Guido.

OTOH, in this case 'speculation' may not mean what you think it should mean.

For every agreement the UK rips up, something is lost. If one knows how much preparation the UK government has done in a particular area it is then possible to estimate the maximum downside and some kind of median figure based on an idea of how long it takes to draft up and agree each set of regulations.

There are critiques to such an approach, but just blithely re-stating the caveats it contains are not among them - it does however bear more than a passing resemblance to the breezy insouciance affected by the cabinet ministers in charge.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

Whatever one thinks of Brexit, I can't see any advantage for Labour in opposing the Repeal Bill or hanging amendments on it "like a Christmas Tree" because it doesn't affect the Article 50 timetable. All that will happen if the parties in the Commons or the Lords scupper it, is that we'll leave the EU with a big hole in our national law affecting trade. How can that be good for anyone?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There are several reasons why Labour should be seeking amendments.

1. A general point. They are the Opposition, so they should be seeking to amend anything proposed by the Government with the intent of getting something better.

2. Specifically, there are some deficiencies in the Bill as currently written (at least, Labour think so). The main one is that the Bill allows ministers to make changes to the laws which Parliament has already accepted (including through the UK input to their drafting) without recourse to Parliament. It's bizarre that the claim of regaining Parliamentary sovereignty is being put aside, such that it could be possible for there to have been less Parliamentary input to repealing or redrafting EU law into UK law than there was in drafting the original EU laws.

3. Some of the reasoning behind the Bill, or at least how it will be implemented, is going to depend on the (as yet undefined by our government) form of Brexit. So, if Labour is seeking a softer Brexit (eg: remaining in the Single Market) then they would want to make sure that retention of correspondence between EU and UK laws in regard to trade will be written in. The government's stupidity in seeking the hardest of hard Brexits would leave that as an irrelevance.

4. It's possible that sufficient debate about the various issues relating to Brexit within the UK, including within Parliament, could put a stop to Brexit entirely.

The whole thing is yet another example of what we needed to discuss and get sorted before triggering Article 50. Even better, to have had that discussion before calling a referendum on EU membership.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Point 2 is correct - although presumably that's necessary if the laws need changing to keep up with EU regulations and keep trading with the EU..?

I think this is almost impossible to amend. If the ability for the minister to make changes is taken away, then that's the trade with the EU gone (otherwise it'd need debates every time there is a minor change). If it stays, then that gives the minister the ability to change almost anything on a whim.

We're screwed both ways around.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Point 2 is correct - although presumably that's necessary if the laws need changing to keep up with EU regulations and keep trading with the EU..?

You can punt it to some kind of civil service run body which is allowed to - at most - mirror EU regulations in their entirety.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You can punt it to some kind of civil service run body which is allowed to - at most - mirror EU regulations in their entirety.

So in what sense have we gained sovereignty? If the Tory handbangers say that they want to get rid of H&S legislation (or whatever) because whoeverwantedthatstupidEUclaptrapandredtape but then it turns out we need to have it to trade with the EU, then we'll have to mirror the EU regulations whether we like it or not.

Tonight my gut feeling is that the Tories are pushing us out from a trade agreement with the EU because they'll never accept that they have to do what the EU says. Wasn't there a principled Tory politican who resigned and stood in a byelection because of the erosion of civil liberties and the supremacy of the British parliament? Whatever happened to him?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

So in what sense have we gained sovereignty? If the Tory handbangers say that they want to get rid of H&S legislation (or whatever) because whoeverwantedthatstupidEUclaptrapandredtape but then it turns out we need to have it to trade with the EU, then we'll have to mirror the EU regulations whether we like it or not.

Well, that's an entirely different (and valid) question isn't it?

As above, the given reason for ministers to have that power is to mirror legislation so that the UK can continue trading, so the narrow way of solving that problem is removing the power to make arbitrary changes from ministers, and punting it to a body that has a very narrow remit - with some oversight.

but yes .. ultimately any trade deal that is worth anything and that doesn't immiserate the majority of people in this country will involve accepting regulation that is set elsewhere. The other option is a threatened 'bonfire of regulations' and a feudal state, with the UK basing trade on regulatory and tax arbitration as it races to the bottom.

[ 20. July 2017, 21:26: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The Brexiteers claim that we had surrendered sovereignty to the EU, and therefore would regain it if we left, has always been almost as illusory as the £350m.

Brexit gives a chance to change the exercise of sovereignty from our representatives in the European Parliament to our representatives in the UK and devolved Parliaments (the sovereignty expressed through Government in the European Council will, presumably, remain with Government - though in theory that could be handed to our Parliaments). But, the UK will, at best, be no more sovereign following Brexit - and, probably less if we surrender our say in EU laws that we then accept anyway.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wasn't there a principled Tory politican who resigned and stood in a byelection because of the erosion of civil liberties and the supremacy of the British parliament? Whatever happened to him?

In retrospect, I suspect this was a case of even a stopped clock being right twice a day.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Newspapers reporting that free movement will go on after Brexit, for up to 3 years.

So here is your starter for ten. If that is the case, why not join EEA for five years, as a transition?

Perhaps because it has the dreaded word 'Europe' in the title, which turns Brexiteers' blood to iron filings and renders them unable to speak or walk.

Any other reason?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'm sorry if I've said this repeatedly before, but the real problem is not when or if EU workers leave the UK (which they're very likely to, whatever happens), but when all those unemployed and retired people in Europe are forced to return home.

Outside of the EU and without reciprocal healthcare systems, there is no incentive to allow them to stay.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A typical article on EEA, as far as I can see. I'm not sure that calling it the Norway option is politic, but never mind.

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/norway-model-offers-britain-a-solution-on-brexit-20170616

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

mr cheesy:

quote:
I'm sorry if I've said this repeatedly before, but the real problem is not when or if EU workers leave the UK (which they're very likely to, whatever happens), but when all those unemployed and retired people in Europe are forced to return home.

No, I can't understand it either. In which alternative reality is it a good idea to exchange large numbers of young, fit, well-qualified people of working age for a bunch of (only moderately well-off) pensioners?

Mind you, Brexit will be a good thing for the rest of Europe. Their brain drains will go into reverse.

[ 21. July 2017, 12:07: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Another point which has been drawn to my attention by Gove's speech today. Clause 11 of the bill seems to suggest that powers retained from the EU will be held in Westminster, even when they are in areas that are otherwise devolved.

So, for example, agriculture. Gove said some things about agriculture and the environment in Wales - which ordinarily he has no powers over as they're devolved issues. But according to this bill, he'd - personally - take back the powers to make these kinds of decision.

Quite what those powers would include is anyone's guess; however it appears that if a decision is made (for example) to allow fracking, to have free reign for GM crops, to cut environmental red tape, then those things can be enforced by the Westminster government over the heads of any decisions in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, it appears that if the government was to get into a trade discussion with some large international partners which had different attitudes to some issues than we're used to with the EU, then the UK government can make decisions on behalf of everyone without even discussing it with the devolved assemblies.

So imagine if Trump's America wants a trade deal, but one of the conditions is that large US medical insurance companies must be able to bid for NHS contracts. If the Welsh government said "woo, hang on a second, we're not selling off the NHS", the Westminster government can just say "psh, who cares what you think, we're doing this from now on".

Marvellous. Bye bye devolution.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A typical article on EEA, as far as I can see. I'm not sure that calling it the Norway option is politic, but never mind.

Well, it was politic at one point. In that there was a contingent of people (middle aged pub bores) who delighted in pointing out that the EEC that was the subject of the original referendum was more of a pure trading area at the time - and were often fond of pointing to Norway as a possible model.

Pre the referendum both Farage and Hannan were fond of pointing to Norway as post-Brexit future (Hannan in a characteristic flight of sophistry thought that the UK could do even better than the EFTA model).

Of course, reality now dictates otherwise in the minds of the Brexiters, Largely - it seems - because of the stance of the right-wing press.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There was a UKIP woman on Newsnight last night, (Suzanne Evans), who was ranting and raving that a transition was a way of stopping Brexit altogether. This may be true, of course, for some people.

But she kept saying that we should just leave now. They should have had a business person on who exports to the EU, and would be faced with border checks immediately, including origin of manufacture checks, if we left now. Plus tariffs.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

If we have to leave -I hope we become Norway... and stay in the EEA for a long time.. cos it may be possible with a change in Govt - that we return...

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So, for example, agriculture. Gove said some things about agriculture and the environment in Wales - which ordinarily he has no powers over as they're devolved issues. But according to this bill, he'd - personally - take back the powers to make these kinds of decision.

Quite what those powers would include is anyone's guess; however it appears that if a decision is made (for example) to allow fracking, to have free reign for GM crops, to cut environmental red tape, then those things can be enforced by the Westminster government over the heads of any decisions in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Private Eye had an interesting article a few months ago that claimed the Welsh and Scottish assemblies have the right to determine agricultural subsidies. This right is currently merely theoretical because subsidies are decided by the EU, but post-Brexit they could create a sort of internal trade war between English, Welsh and Scottish farmers.

I'm not sure how sound the basis of this claim was, though.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...except for all these fabulous deals that the rest of the world is busy lining up to make with us...

<pauses to scan horizon for mob of trade negotiators from non-EU nations>

Jam tomorrow, everyone!

They can't because the EU warned them to
back off.

However, I'm sure you won't starve, despite Brussels' machinations.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Private Eye had an interesting article a few months ago that claimed the Welsh and Scottish assemblies have the right to determine agricultural subsidies. This right is currently merely theoretical because subsidies are decided by the EU, but post-Brexit they could create a sort of internal trade war between English, Welsh and Scottish farmers.

I'm not sure how sound the basis of this claim was, though.

I talked to a knowledgeable Welsh politician about this. The way that he explained it is that (a) recent court cases have underlined that the devolved assemblies are only able to function at the behest of Westminster, so the powers can be taken back if Westminster decides and (b) the current wording of the EU bill states that powers which are currently determined in the EU would be taken back into the Westminster government even where the devolved assemblies currently exercise those powers.

So, for example, the EU determines agricultural subsidies, which are administered by the Welsh Government for Welsh farmers. According to this bill, at Brexit it will be for Westminster to determine how much British farmers get in subsidies and for what, not for the Welsh Government. Which is a problem, given that the Welsh Government currently has devolved powers for agriculture, albeit within the framework of EU directives.

If I understand correctly the comment about PI, that report would have been written before this bill was published. This bill might even have been written in this was as a response to the report in PI..

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

So the Brexiteers were right: someone IS taking back control.

It would have been nice if they'd explained in advance just *who* would be taking back control. I think the Scots noticed all on their own...

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Cod:

quote:
They can't because the EU warned them to back off.

Britain is still a member of the EU at the moment and not entitled to conduct trade negotiations on its own. The (rest of the) EU is within its rights.

You think we won't starve? That's nice. What justification do you have for this rose-tinted view of our future, because this guy thinks we might. And whatever you may think of his politics, he is well-qualified to talk about the security of our food supply.

[ 24. July 2017, 11:05: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Britain can't conclude trade deals. But there is no reason at all why it can't negotiate deals to put in place once Brexit happens. But the EU doesn't want that to happen. Now, I am not a Brexiteer, but as there is no legal impediment, it is possible to speculate that the EU is playing dirty tricks.

As regards your link: Jay Rayner is a restaurant critic. While I can understand his concerns that the supply of truffles might be interrupted, this in no way qualifies him as an expert in the view he expresses. This is pure hyperbole and discredits the cause of those who wish to see the UK remain in the single market, let alone the EU as a whole.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

He's a journalist and has written a book (pre-Brexit) on the subject of food security. He was asked to contribute to the DEFRA consultation.

I ask again: what qualifications do you have to show that your opinion on this issue is more valuable than his?

[ 24. July 2017, 11:26: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

To prevent a proliferation of Brexit threads, please keep the conversation on this thread confined to the specifics of the Withdrawal From EU Bill.

Thanks.

/hosting

(I'll be answering q's post above in a non-hostly capacity on the other thread when I get a minute)

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Eutychus: sorry.

However, the food security/agriculture tangent is somewhat relevant to the Withdrawal from EU Bill, as the Welsh farming industry is beginning to realise.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

fwiw, I think the Wales point is relevant to a discussion about the EU bill (as I said, it is explicitly mentioned in the text of the bill) but the general trade-with-australia point isn't.

I've continued with a discussion of that point on the Brexit thread.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

To clarify: the OP was about understanding the wording of the bill. The thread's drifted a bit since then, so reining it in a bit was overdue - sorry about that.

I think it's probably best to corral it back to discussing the actual wording by the Ship's resident I-Am-Not-A-Lawyers, and have discussion of the implications back on the other thread.

If you want to argue for further Brexit threads, let's do it in the Styx.

/hosting

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
He's a journalist and has written a book (pre-Brexit) on the subject of food security. He was asked to contribute to the DEFRA consultation.

I ask again: what qualifications do you have to show that your opinion on this issue is more valuable than his?

Big wow. There are plenty of journalists writing books on subjects they know a bit about. We have rather too many of such books.

As for me: I have no qualifications at all, and even if I did, why should you believe some random name on the Internet? I simply note the fact that the average developed nation outside the EU has pretty decent food security. To state that one needs to be an "expert" (ie, make a living writing for the papers and publishing the odd book) to point this out is as ridiculous as stating that the UK will face food shortages after Brexit. It's in the same league as the rather different claims made by the likes of Boris.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0