Merged Now What?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

According to the Whitehall mandarin chappie they interviewed last week on Radio 4, very quickly and simply. Little more than "All EU directives (etc) in force in the UK at X date are hereby enshrined into the law of the UK"......in lawyer-speak, of course. Why would you think that unsafe, or unlikely to be quick and simple?

I would imagine some of the legislation would relate specifically to things we do as members of the EU and would need to be done away with quickly. Other things might actually tie us in to future changes and would need to be reviewed.

I think it would be potentially risky to accept everything as is without at least reviewing everything first.

There might also be questions of legality of whether it actually is that simple constitutionally - these I'm not qualified to even bring up competently

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As would other countries. Japanese "Scotch" anyone?

Scotland will still be in the EU so we'll be fine, thanks

 

[catsmate]

That's true, but I am sure the guy who draughts legislation for a living who suggested this the other day probably knows more about the difficulties or otherwise than you or I. Or Darat. Wouldn't you say so?

One of those draughtspersons is a friend of mine, hence I have a rather better idea of the effort involved. Plus several member of my family have been senior civil servants.

 

[Lothian]

According to the Whitehall mandarin chappie they interviewed last week on Radio 4, very quickly and simply. Little more than "All EU directives (etc) in force in the UK at X date are hereby enshrined into the law of the UK"......in lawyer-speak, of course. Why would you think that unsafe, or unlikely to be quick and simple?

That sounds like a very strange thing for a government employee to say. Of course it may be your paraphrasing or it may be an ex-mandarin. When you can get a civil servant to speak they will normally trot out a very bland line.

Either way it appears very simplistic. I don't doubt that something could be done, but the question would be the effect.

As an example banks established in the UK can trade in the EU under passporting arrangments. If we import EU law that would mean that Santander can still trade here (something you previously said was not allowed to happen- oh how we all laughed at that one) but UK banks could not trade in the EU without some new agreement.

 

[Lothian]

Scotland will still be in the EU so we'll be fine, thanks

 

[Lothian]

That's true, but I am sure the guy who draughts legislation for a living who suggested this the other day probably knows more about the difficulties or otherwise than you or I. Or Darat. Wouldn't you say so?

Obviously it is not that I don't trust you but you do have a history of being wrong. Any chance of a link?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

It would also put us at a disadvantage. Using Don's example above, UK business could not sell Parma Ham or Champagne unless it comes from those areas but Europe would be free to sell/make and sell their own substandard products labelled as Stilton or Scotch whisky. We can bring the directives in to UK law but we would no longer be in the EU version.

Surely UK businesses could make and sell what they like in the UK. Which would mean the possible return of Emva Cream and QC British Sherry, the best argument for Brexit I've heard yet

Exactly. Most people have no comprehension of the difficulties involved in draughting legislation.

That's true, but I am sure the guy who draughts legislation for a living who suggested this the other day probably knows more about the difficulties or otherwise than you or I. Or Darat. Wouldn't you say so?

I'll go with the first guy who knows that you draft legislation.

 

[MikeG]

One of those draughtspersons is a friend of mine.....

Completely neutral non-snidey comment this, but I would be interested in hearing some feedback from you about his/ her thoughts regarding the suggestion we are talking about, and also on any other possible ways of getting through the absolute mountain of civil service work that Brexit will entail. The guy I listed to on R4 the other day said there was 5 years work for the civil service in doing this, assuming they gave no time to any other work at all....unless they went for the option of enshrining everything into UK law first, and then weeding out the stuff the politicians didn't want retained.

 

[Belz...]

I did, you said Serbia and I addressed Serbia.

I could've said Latveria and it wouldn't change my point even though it's a fictional country.

What's so ghastly different between UK and Poland that you guys are unable to come to terms to?

Gee, I really wish you could have an actual discussion, here. "Ghastly"? That's entirely your invention. And who is "you guys"? I'm not even British, or conservative. Or anti-EU for that matter.

Poland and the UK have vastly different cultures. I wouldn't trust one to make decisions for the other. I don't want the US to make legislation for Canada, for instance.

It's not, but you repeatedly implied certain foreign-born groups bother you.

Again, you keep framing the discussion in terms that allow you to dismiss opinions other than your own. It makes your veiled accusations rather ironic and hypocritical.

It's not about groups, or foreigners or races or Muslims. It's about individuals who are incompatible with whatever culture and country they seek to immigrate into, and the ability of that country to say 'no' without outside interference.

 

[MikeG]

.....I'll go with the first guy who knows that you draft legislation.

It's windy, all right?

 

[Lothian]

Surely UK businesses could make and sell what they like in the UK. Which would mean the possible return of Emva Cream and QC British Sherry, the best argument for Brexit I've heard yet

Not if as Mike Suggest's we just import EU law in wholesale. We could post Brexit withdraw from that directive (regulation?) but I suspect like 99% of other regulations we would like to keep them as they have a reciprocal effect. We will just have to renegotiate something with the EU.

 

[Lothian]

The guy I listed to on R4 the other day said there was 5 years work for the civil service in doing this, assuming they gave no time to any other work at all

Glad to see you are leaning towards our thinking that brexit is a bad idea.

 

[Belz...]

Given that 48% of the population who bothered to vote voted to Lemain and that at least some of those who voted to Leave want to remain in the EEA it would seem that a Norway type solution is on the cards.

I'd like to point out that the reverse is probably also true: people who voted to "Lemain" (sic ) but now regret their decision.

OK, lets take Poland. I'm in Ireland, we have a lot of Polish immigrants here and I'm really, really struggling to think of a significant cultural difference that makes it hard for us to live together.

The difference is Polish people living in Ireland and Polish people in Poland. If I lived in Japan since a young age, I would be far more aligned with the Japanese way of thinking than the Canadian one.

I also can't think of a political difference between Ireland and Poland, which is qualitatively different than between Ireland and France or the UK.

Any suggestions?

What are you talking about? They are different countries with different histories and cultures and outlooks and needs and goals.

How do we determine who such people are, in advance of their doing anything to infringe the law?

An excellent question; one for which the answer varies from one country to the next. I'm satisfied with the one in place in my own country so far, but it seems many British people are not satisfied of theirs. Are you suggesting, however, that we just let everyone come in and wait for them to do something before kicking them out?

Anyway, how will leaving the EU make any difference to this situation?

I've answered this already.

 

[Belz...]

Neither can you change the UK civil service. You can change the commissioner in exactly the same way as you can change the chancellor or home secretary. There really is very little difference.

Seriously, arguing that the EU is undemocratic compared to the UK is going to get you into lots of trouble. Do some research before repeating the memes of leavers.

And perhaps you can read what I actually write before posting. I never said it was undemocratic. I said it was less democratic because the elected representatives did not propose laws. That it doesn't bother you doesn't mean that it's not a good point.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

The difference is Polish people living in Ireland and Polish people in Poland. If I lived in Japan since a young age, I would be far more aligned with the Japanese way of thinking than the Canadian one.

You should probably stick to talking about things you know even a tiny amount about.
The vast bulk of the Polish people living here in Ireland came here as adults to work, using the EU freedom of movement rules. They grew up in Polish culture, they speak Polish, their English is strongly accented and not always perfect.
There still isn't a huge cultural divide between us.

 

[Belz...]

Good thing one doesn't decide for the other then. That's not the EU works.

Of course it does.

I didn't say it was a lie. I said it was a smokescreen.

You are accusing me of dishonesty. Do you even know what the term means?

Your assertion that the EU is undemocratic was supported by a statement.

You make the same mistake as Lothian. I said it was LESS democratic than I want.

I took the statement and showed that the UK is equally undemocratic by the same measures.

You did no such thing.

So unless you can counter that your opinion is not a legitimate argument.

No I'm asking you to support your arguments with specifics. For example, you could say 'terrorists' or 'murderers' or 'people who have commited a crime' or 'Muslims' or 'people called Pierre' or 'right wing racists' - whatever it is that concerns you. Not some vague 'undesirables' labels that doesn't actually explain or add any credibility to your point.

That's because you want to pin me on a specific thing when I'm discussing principles and ideas. You simply don't understand my argument.

Incidentally Americans can enter the UK freely right now. Nothing to do with the EU. Should we remove that right too?

This shows that you have no clue what the discussion is about. The UK decided to allow them to enter the UK freely, which is exactly what I am arguing for.

Equally relevant to the point that you repeatedly made

No, it's entirely irrelevant.

I ASK. And they repeatedly fail to provide straight answers or give ones which are xenophobic.

I'm now going to have to ask you for your definition of "xenophobic" because I have the nagging impression that it's going to be very idiotic.

It's pretty reckless to come up with a plan to buy a parachute after you've jumped out of the plane, no?

They have NOT INVOKED article 50 yet, Archie. They have conducted a public opinion poll. That is a stupid analogy.

Can you name 5 important incompatibilities between Polish people and Brits?

Addressed in a previous post.

Because you refuse to say who does bother you and cast aspersions at the entire EU population in doing so.

Yeah, this is because, once again, you have no clue what I'm discussing.

 

[Belz...]

You should probably stick to talking about things you know even a tiny amount about.

I was. I wasn't saying that they didn't come to Ireland as adults. I was giving an example.

It really seems that this topic is striking an emotional chord with a lot of people here, so much so that any hint of disagreement is treated with disdain and, dare I say, bigotry.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't think the UK can put off triggering Article 50 very long, for one thing the Brexiters heads will explode if they don't, for another I can't see the rest of the EU putting up with the spoilt petulant child member continuously holding it's hand over the Article 50 button and claiming that this time they really are going to press it unless the EU does what they want.

One thing I would like to say in response to that is that, while the Brexiteers may feel justifiably upset if things don't go their way (and whatever happens things won't go their way), the rest of the EU has no choice but to put up with Britain's internal wrangling. The rules that the EU has itself set up states that the UK has to invoke article 50 before the process of leaving becomes an official reality. If they try to bully or harangue the UK into leaving then I think they are intruding in our internal *adopting a solemn tone* sovereign decisions.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... The difference is Polish people living in Ireland and Polish people in Poland. If I lived in Japan since a young age, I would be far more aligned with the Japanese way of thinking than the Canadian one.

Are you arguing for ethnically-based politics?

What are you talking about? They are different countries with different histories and cultures and outlooks and needs and goals.

Are you arguing for ethnically-based politics?

***

Not sure what your comments are driving at or your main point. Perhaps you could clarify, thanks.

 

[Lothian]

And perhaps you can read what I actually write before posting. I never said it was undemocratic. I said it was less democratic because the elected representatives did not propose laws. That it doesn't bother you doesn't mean that it's not a good point.

Except they do. The members elected by the government of Each country propose laws just as the officials appointed by the PM do it in the UK. All my points as to why the Uk parliament is less democratic stand.