There is one phrase that appears time and again in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2019. It is this:
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate
In other words, the Bill effectively passes most power to Ministers.
And I do not trust our Ministers.
Which is reason enough not to want this Bill passed and for the time to be taken for these issues to be considered properly instead.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
With an utterly dishonest PM leading a cabinet filled with the dregs of politics – what’s not to like?
But, but – Adolf, Benito and Josef all found it saved so much time………….
Have to agree with your assessment of the bill based on that part of it alone – our current crop of ministers make Delboy look a model of honesty and integrity.
“Get Brexit done” is the Categorical Imperative of Boris Johnson’s Government. It has now become the politically fashionable meme, the ‘go-to’ populist battlecry of hard Brexit. It has now been shortened to the militantly aggressive “Get it done”, and has become the standard public rebuttal of Brexiters, intended to sweep aside the reservations, interests and concerns of the 16m who voted Remain, without further debate. It is no longer an argument; it is beyond argument. It brooks no challenge and is used to terminate debate. Three days allowed by Government to discuss a 100+ page Bill that should take virtually a whole Parliamentary session properly to scrutinise, is merely the execution of “Get Brexit done”, no matter what, as the essence of Government policy.
I first heard the words “Get Brexit done” spoken by Dominic Cummings in Westminster (September, 2019), when spotted by the Labour MP Karl Turner, who called over to Cummings, referring to the tone of the language used by Boris Johnson “going down well” in his constituency. Turner said he had received death threats overnight, and should be dead. Dominic Cummings’ first response to Turner is “Get Brexit done”. The exchange can be found on YouTube.
This is British politics today. This is our reality.
It is seriously scary – and the detail makes it worse and worse. Any Parliamentarian who votes for this either cannot read or has no no self-respect. Hillary Benn has spotted the giant elephant of Clause 30 which leaves a sure route to a crash-out ‘no deal’ on the alleged FTA wide open and Peter Foster has a thread which exposes the long-running financial mayhem awaiting the faux triumphant post-Brexit government.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1186578158633570304.html
This Bill is – what a surprise given its progenitor and promoter’s past history of mendacity blended with cavalier disregard of financial and real-world facts – not only potentially dictatorial but seriously stupid. If it is not voted down the misery will be relentless and what used to pass for a parliamentary democracy will be slithering into oblivion – as popular anger and impotence rise on all sides. As for ‘attracting inward investment’…. sigh!
Strongly recommend that Foster thread
Are these not “Henry VIII” Powers?
This is not a blueprint for an orderly exit. It’s carte blanche to radically rewrite UK law at every level
Agreed
Yours is not an isolated view:
http://blog.spicker.uk/the-euwa-bill/
The Bill is worded/laced with its own future betrayal – literally that everything it apparently agrees to is actually at the Government’s discretion.
Who an earth would vote for a Bill or even a contract that was that weak??!!!!!
It should be called the EU Betrayal Bill. It’s so obvious – and some in Labour and even the Tory rebels would vote for it?
Unless of course they want to snag it meaningful amendments later. But that is such a high risk strategy given who we are dealing with. Incredible!
We were discussing fascism the other week, after Martin Wolf’s comparison with Goebbels. The process seems to be on track: the will of the people does not need to be discovered, it is embedded in the person of the leader and his acolytes.
Frightening
Clause 30, Rees-Mogg’s and Arron Banks’s baby adopted by our puppet government lead by Johnson-Cummings.
Abuse of power made legal.
We’re very far from the Mother of Democracies by now, and anyone doubting we’re heading for fascism needs to have a serious look in their Thesaurus.
Agreed
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”
Smells like a Fascist Brexit, talks like a Fascist Brexit, by golly it is a Fascist Brexit! Well done voter knumbskulls!
Yes, dozens of “A Minister of the Crown” (in some places, “an appropriate authority”, which generally amounts to the same thing) “may by regulations … make such provision … as the Minister” (or “authority”) “considers appropriate” in come connection.
As I read it, in many cases, it includes the ability to modify or repeal primary legislation (statue law) without first obtaining a resolution of Parliament under the “positive” procedure (see Schedule 5).
Yes, Henry VIII powers – what in Germany you might call an Enabling Act. The idea that this can be waved through in three days is laughable.
And Clause 36, explicitly recognising that Parliament is sovereign, is extraordinary.
But for light relief, see https://xkcd.com/2218/ (“Is Narnia in the EU?”)
Very good…
If anyone is looking for a short briefing on how the Withdrawal Agreement Bill is meant to work, there is a nice primer over here: https://brexittime.com/2019/10/22/reincarnation-and-resurrection-the-afterlife-of-the-european-communities-act-1972-in-the-withdrawal-bill/
In short: it’s complicated.
I have just listened to Frank Field saying that on the occasion of the referendum that we surrendered the basic tenet of our democracy which is one of representative democracy whereby we elect to parliament those who would consider the issues and make what they consider to be to the best for the totality of the community that they represent to one that is substituted by one of delegation whereby the wishes of the majority of the electorate of that constituency are carried out. Dangerous and extremely sad times indeed. As a person in my middle sixties who has admired the advocacy and views of Mr Field on the issues of poverty etc. I find his views reprehensible.
Frank sold out a very long time ago in my opinion
This is interesting, from a constitutional law perspective: I don’t know who Frank Field is and I don’t agree with the language, but it sounds like he is lamenting the change that was made in the constitutional norm. In England, the constitution was such that representative democracy was the only way for people to have their say (this is where Scottish constitution differs from that in England, where it is written into law that the people must agree to any sovreignity, which doesn’t say that we can’t have representative democracy, but does mean that any referendum fits well with already established constitutional precedent). Why lament such a progressive change, I don’t know, if you support democracy as opposed to a barely-better-than-a-feudal-system.
It seems that most people, including MPs, are not aware of the huge, massive, change in democratic precedent the referendum brought about (and its political promise of its implementation – this was no opinion poll) – the constitution such as it is, was effectively changed at this point, by creating precedent. It just means you have a legal leg to stand on if you ever want another referendum, not that the old school will allow it to happen again. Creaky, vague, democracy. It really needs to move on, progress, and provide better representation. First Past The Post is sold as the best way of choosing representatives because people are too thick to figure out anything else, the two party system is maintained to make it easy for thicko voters – that is how insulting the Westminster form of democracy is. STV (single transferrable vote) is meant to be the fairest method of divvying up people’s votes into representation, but I do admit it isn’t the easiest and does cause confusion, but other options are available and education an option.
Back to constitutional matters, this is the difficulty Scotland has with holding another referendum – yes legally we can have any referendum, but because an indyref is a constitutional matter, and the constitution is a Reserved matter (reserved to Westminster, that place of unrepresentative democracy), then it might need sanctioned by Westminster – it could be argued in court for either, (that is, that is doesn’t or does need Westminster approval for implementation) because one has already been held. Given how well the court case regarding the Sewell convention – where Westminster actually changed the law half way through the laborious court case and so to change its outcome, and where they spent days debating what ‘normally’ means – I understand why the Scottish government does not want to have to go through the courts. So, Scotland can always legally hold a referendum, but if the question is a constitutional (or other reserved matter) one, the outcome might not be respected.
(The Sewell convention is the political agreement between Scottish and uk parliaments that said the uk parliament would not Normally legislate in the devolved Scottish government area of competence without agreement from the Scottish government, and is effectively meaningless now)
I would recommend David Allen Green Twitter for any legal commentary on constitutional stuff (English law) etc.
Paul Mayor says:
“I have just listened to Frank Field saying that on the occasion of the referendum that we surrendered the basic tenet of our democracy…”
As I see it this is not quite so. The referendum itself was understood at the time to be advisory and the result non-binding.
The problem came in 2017 when both Labour and Tory campaigning succumbed to the nonsensical ‘will of the people’ soundbite and undertook to ‘honour’ the result.
That was the moment where dereliction of the representative duty was conceded. It was however still as woolly as all get out, because the actual terms of Brexit were unknown. At that stage politicians were no clearer about what they were agreeing to than was the electorate when it voted in the referendum.
I’ve just counted. The phrase appears 7 times, and not in a minor context. Usually at the head of a major section such as Residence Rights. We knew they were making it up as they went along but this at best enables them to carry on that way indefinitely and at worst opens the door to massive abuse of power.
Agreed
And as noted by others, there are other variations on it as well
Poor old Frank – still clueless after all these years as to why Labour has such trouble getting elected.