A serious problem for patients & advocacy in the UK?

[Sean]

Don't know enough about the UK's political system to understand the full implications, but it doesn't sound good.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-repeal-bill-henry-viii-britain-eu-government

The so-called great repeal bill, which would create temporary powers to let ministers amend thousands of laws,...

[snip]

Under normal circumstances, if the government of the day wants to repeal or change an act of parliament, it must win a vote in parliament. Those we elect have the definitive say in how the country is governed. This bill, however, will enable ministers to amend acts of parliament without a vote.

 

[Cheesus]

I can see this negatively impacting those of us in work. Much of the cabinet are rabidly "anti-regulation", particularly as those regulations relate to business. However many of those regulations - written into UK law by EU fiat - do things like protect workers rights, and are particularly important for people with illnesses/disabilities.

If the executive can bypass the legislature to enact or dismiss workers' rights, that is deeply problematic.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

So they can make a mockery of the law anytime they want...oh of course it's all safe in their hands!

Ye gods...catastrophe looms

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

I saw this on the news. It does make my heart sink when you hear these politicians talking about "what the country needs". They seem to have forgotten the idea of representation and democracy. I blame old Etonian elitism. I just wish there was an adequate opposition to challenge this more effectively.

Surely they don't think they can get away with amending laws willy nilly without passing it through parliament. What do they think they are doing.....running a dictatorship?

Rant over

 

[Cheesus]

They seem to have forgotten the idea of representation and democracy.

Or even sovereignty, apparently. One of the core arguments of the Leave vote was that parliament is sovereign, but apparently that is only applicable when it is convenient to your desired political goals.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

Or even sovereignty, apparently. One of the core arguments of the Leave vote was that parliament is sovereign, but apparently that is only applicable when it is convenient to your desired political goals.

The irony!!

I guess it's not the first time a politician has tried to bypass democracy.....this is a biggie though. perhaps they got fed up of having all their Brexit bills rejected? I suspect this is much bigger than Brexit though.

 

[Marco]

I don't see the problem. It's merely a technical device to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and simultaneously copying existing EU law across to UK domestic law as it is.

Yes future governments will have the option to amend, repeal etc as with any other UK law - subject to parliamentary approval.

Guardian scaremongering again.

 

[Cheesus]

I don't see the problem. It's merely a technical device to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and simultaneously copying existing EU law across to UK domestic law as it is.

Yes future governments will have the option to amend, repeal etc as with any other UK law - subject to parliamentary approval.

Did you read the article? From the pro-Brexit Telegraph:

However, there are concerns that under so-called Henry VIII clauses, the Government will have sweeping powers to repeal legislation without parliamentary approval [my bold].

What are Henry VIII clauses?
King Henry VIII published a 'Statute of Proclamations' in 1539, which gave him the power to legislate by proclamation.

So-called “Henry VIII clauses” today give the Government powers to change old laws that have already been passed by Parliament.

And they allow the Prime Minister to change existing laws without Parliament’s full approval [my bold]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/great-repeal-bill-explanation-need-read/

 

[Esther12]

Is it bad that I feel largely amused by the impending implosion of UK society? I think I've fallen into the 'nothing to lose' demographic.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

I don't see the problem. It's merely a technical device to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and simultaneously copying existing EU law across to UK domestic law as it is.

Yes future governments will have the option to amend, repeal etc as with any other UK law - subject to parliamentary approval.

Guardian scaremongering again.

I don't think this is scaremongering. The EU laws are pretty significant. If they just needed to copy them over without amending that wouldn't be a problem. They are talking about changing them as they are migrated. it's also been covered in the bbc news.

 

[AndyPR]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39266723

Simply transposing all EU law into UK legislation will not be enough, the government's white paper on the bill says.

Swathes of UK law "will no longer work" on exit, for example because they refer to EU institutions.

Not all of this can be done through the Great Repeal Bill, so the government plans to create powers to "correct the statute book where necessary" - without full Parliamentary scrutiny.

This is the one of the most controversial features of the bill (see below).
......
The government plans to enact its "corrections" to the statute book using what are known as Henry VIII powers, after the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which gave him the power to legislate by proclamation.

Given that this will not involve the usual Parliamentary scrutiny process, opposition parties have protested, with Labour claiming ministers were being handed "sweeping powers" to make hasty, ill thought-out legislation.

Ministers have attempted to reassure critics by saying such measures will be time limited and not be used to make policy changes.

In total, the government estimates that 800 to 1,000 measures called statutory instruments will be required to make sure the bill functions properly.

 

[Marco]

I don't think this is scaremongering. The EU laws are pretty significant. If they just needed to copy them over without amending that wouldn't be a problem. They are talking about changing them as they are migrated. it's also been covered in the bbc news.

They can't just copy them over as some/many will contain references to EU institutions so they have to be edited to remove this. It's a technical matter and something parliament wouldn't (and shouldn't) be interested in - hence the temporary use of so called Henry VIII powers.

Yes, theoretically, ministers could use these powers to amend (without parliamentary scrutiny) the legislation during the process but there is such a mountain of legislation to get through in the two years that they'll be lucky to meet the deadline just to copy (sic) into domestic legislation before even thinking about any changes which would impact on the policy intent (assuming they had any such desire which they've stated they don't).

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39266723

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

They can't just copy them over as some/many will contain references to EU institutions so they have to be edited to remove this. It's a technical matter and something parliament wouldn't (and shouldn't) be interested in - hence the temporary use of so called Henry VIII powers.

Yes, theoretically, ministers could use these powers to amend (without parliamentary scrutiny) the legislation during the process but there is such a mountain of legislation to get through in the two years that they'll be lucky to meet the deadline just to copy (sic) into domestic legislation before even thinking about any changes which would impact on the policy intent (assuming they had any such desire which they've stated they don't).

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39266723

The trouble is if nobody looks at the changes we won't know about them until it's a done deal. I think that's the issue. Allowing this sort of change without scrutiny is asking parliament to be suspended because things are a bit tricky. That's not a good enough reason from my point of view. They need to make it work and retain democracy, otherwise we might as well be ruled by a monarch.

 

[JohnCB]

Don't know enough about the UK's political system to understand the full implications, but it doesn't sound good.

It ain't good at all. I voted remain and I'm still in shock. Of course May will use her repeal bill to sneak in all sorts of things. She's the queen of the snoopers charter. She has been defended the spy services who have been using obscure law to eavesdrop on us for decades without anyone knowing, without parliamentary approval. She has been drumming up populist feeling against EU human rights law. The so called Henry VIII clauses are specifically to circumvent the need for parliamentary approval. Of course things will be slipped through. May's idea of the good of this country are quite at odds with my ideas and my fellow thinkers. The Tory party is not a fan of benefits for people like us. They aren't inclined to waste money on research for malingerers. NHS commitments are even now in the process of being scaled back. They have sat on their hands on the case for social care for the elderly. They have reduced inheritance tax for the healthy to pass on expensive houses while the ill have to sell their houses while still alive to fund care while they are dying.

Yes, human and personal rights are going to get mangled.

 

[Marco]

The trouble is if nobody looks at the changes we won't know about them until it's a done deal. I think that's the issue. Allowing this sort of change without scrutiny is asking parliament to be suspended because things are a bit tricky. That's not a good enough reason from my point of view. They need to make it work and retain democracy, otherwise we might as well be ruled by a monarch.

As I said they will be technical changes necessary to ensure that the legislation still 'hangs together'.

To take a hypothetical example - say it's a piece of environmental legislation that contains a requirement to report regularly to a EU overseeing body (the EU directorate general for the environment or whatever). Obviously out of the EU reporting to them would be inappropriate but you would want to keep the requirement to report so you might amend the legislation to substitute the UK's DEFRA for the EU directorate.

The intent of the legislation has not been changed or watered down.

Other changes are likely to be much less obvious and arcane relating to points of law which would only be of interest or understandable to lawyers.

Frankly I'd be horrified if I thought MP's were to spend their time on such relatively minor and uncontroversial issues which are also well outside their sphere of competence.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

As I said they will be technical changes necessary to ensure that the legislation still 'hangs together'.

To take a hypothetical example - say it's a piece of environmental legislation that contains a requirement to report regularly to a EU overseeing body (the EU directorate general for the environment or whatever). Obviously out of the EU reporting to them would be inappropriate but you would want to keep the requirement to report so you might amend the legislation to substitute the UK's DEFRA for the EU directorate.

The intent of the legislation has not been changed or watered down.

Other changes are likely to be much less obvious and arcane relating to points of law which would only be of interest or understandable to lawyers.

Frankly I'd be horrified if I thought MP's were to spend their time on such relatively minor and uncontroversial issues which are also well outside their sphere of competence.

Im not sure what MPs are supposed to be doing if they aren't looking at key pieces of legislation and representing the people that voted for them?

These are key pieces that affect all of us, not a few pieces of beuracratic red tape to do with the curvature of a cucumber. I for one want my mp scrutinising every line and insertion to check that nothing has been added or changed that infringes my rights as a citizen of the U.K. This is the nature of representation and a key part of their job.

I suppose I just want my mp to do what they were elected to do. I think it's naive to think that the government won't slip in a few key pieces that meet their party political agenda, particularly after recent defeats in the lords.

 

[Esther12]

Im not sure what MPs are supposed to be doing if they aren't looking at key pieces of legislation and representing the people that voted for them?

It's quite clear most MPs have no idea what they're voting for most of the time anyway.

 

[Marco]

It's quite clear most MPs have no idea what they're voting for most of the time anyway.

Maybe thinking more of the 'other place' Esther?