Brexit View

[edhistory]

> I've not read it but I've heard about the Henry VIII clauses and not impressed with that.

Have a look at what the "Henry VIII clauses" are.

You might change your mind.

[rendelharris]

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > I've not read it but I've heard about the Henry

> VIII clauses and not impressed with that.

>

> Have a look at what the "Henry VIII clauses" are.

>

> You might change your mind.

Parliament website: The Government sometimes adds this provision to a Bill to enable the Government to repeal or amend it after it has become an Act of Parliament. The provision enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further parliamentary scrutiny. Such provisions are known as Henry VIII clauses, so named from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which gave King Henry VIII power to legislate by proclamation.

So the government can repeal or amend legislation without having to have it passed by parliament - in effect government by decree. Why would this be seen as desirable?

[edhistory]

Robin Oakley does not seem to have read the source document either.

I wouldn't rely on anything written by a "journalist".

[edhistory]

> So the government can repeal or amend legislation without having to have it passed by parliament - in effect government by decree. Why would this be seen as desirable?

So you too have not read the Bill?

[titch juicy]

Rather than just pointing out who hasn't read the bill, why not point out the relevant bit of the bill that no-one, except you has read?

[keano77]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edhistory Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > > I've not read it but I've heard about the

> Henry

> > VIII clauses and not impressed with that.

> >

> > Have a look at what the "Henry VIII clauses"

> are.

> >

> > You might change your mind.

>

> Parliament website: The Government sometimes adds

> this provision to a Bill to enable the Government

> to repeal or amend it after it has become an Act

> of Parliament. The provision enables primary

> legislation to be amended or repealed by

> subordinate legislation with or without further

> parliamentary scrutiny. Such provisions are known

> as Henry VIII clauses, so named from the Statute

> of Proclamations 1539 which gave King Henry VIII

> power to legislate by proclamation.

>

> So the government can repeal or amend legislation

> without having to have it passed by parliament -

> in effect government by decree. Why would this be

> seen as desirable?

The purpose of using so-called 'Henry VIII' clauses is so as not to trouble Parliament with minor or trivial amendments. For example, hundreds if not thousands of pieces of EU legislation, directives and regulations will have the words European Union in them. As these matters will now be Incorporated into British Law those words need removing.

However I can see why Remainers might want Parliament to do this as it would delay Brexit for several hundred years. Cue new court case from Gina Miller under the guise of 'Constitutional' concerns.

[rendelharris]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The purpose of using so-called 'Henry VIII'

> clauses is so as not to trouble Parliament with

> minor or trivial amendments. For example, hundreds

> if not thousands of pieces of EU legislation,

> directives and regulations will have the words

> European Union in them. As these matters will now

> be Incorporated into British Law those words need

> removing.

>

> However I can see why Remainers might want

> Parliament to do this as it would delay Brexit for

> several hundred years. Cue new court case from

> Gina Miller under the guise of 'Constitutional'

> concerns.

And I'm sure we can rely on politicians not to abuse the power to amend once it's been given to them, can't we? I haven't noticed anything in the clauses which says "this is only for the little things, all substantial changes must go back to parliament."

[Seabag]

I quite admire Gina Miller

[keano77]

No of course those powers ought only to be used for minor matters and I don't see why Parliament shouldn't be kept abreast of those changes in case there is anything that might be contentious for Parliament to vote on.

For example, if Henry VIII powers were used to try to rewrite EU regulations on bananas - that they should a) taste of bananas b) be as curly as possible and c) straight bananas should be re-classed as rejects - then as that is a matter of national importance Parliament should vote on it.

[rendelharris]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No of course those powers ought only to be used

> for minor matters and I don't see why Parliament

> shouldn't be kept abreast of those changes in case

> there is anything that might be contentious for

> Parliament to vote on.

And if there is anything contentious - in the many thousands of pages of legislation to which this applies - what is there to stop the government simply saying we have the power, get over it.

[Loz]

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think you've read the Bill:

>

> http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawal.html

Not all of it (it is 61 pages and life's too short), but there are some terrifying parts - section 7 and Schedule 2, mainly.

[edhistory]

To forward this discussion:

Identify the "Henry VIII" clauses.

Then write about the ones that cause you concern.

[JoeLeg]

Why don't you tell us why we shouldn't be concerned?

[Loz]

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To forward this discussion:

>

> Identify the "Henry VIII" clauses.

Erm... I just did.

For the second part, all the badly defined words that allegedly 'restrict' the use of the clauses. Take the opener of s7...

A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate?

(a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or

(b) any other deficiency in retained EU law,

arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

The following sub-section then outlines the 'restrictions' on the use of the clauses, most of which use the phrase 'no longer appropriate', which, like beauty, is most definitely in the eye of the beholder.

The whole thing is very vaguely worded. And anything that confers the powers to make law without strongly worded restrictions is extraordinarily dangerous and, given the paper thin 'majority', opens up the very real possibility that it will be used to circumvent parliament.

[edhistory]

7. Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal

7(6}. But regulations under this section may not?

(a) impose or increase taxation,

(b) make retrospective provision,

© create a relevant criminal offence,

(d) be made to implement the withdrawal agreement,

(e) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it

7(7). No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.

Schedule 7 ? Regulations

Part 1 ? Scrutiny of powers to deal with deficiencies

Part 2 ? Scrutiny of other powers under Act

Part 3 ? General provision about powers under Act

This Schedule deals mainly with Statutory Instruments.

Schedule 2 deals with protections for the Scottish and Welsh authorities.

[Loz]

Precisely - that leaves a whole host of stuff that ministers can change at will. Instead of defining what they can't do, the act should have defined what they can do. This legislation is packed with loopholes - and the cynic in me says that is purposely so. You have only posted top level stuff and headings - the devil is in the (lack of) detail.

Keano claims it will mainly be used for changing 'European Union' to 'United Kingdom'. If that is the case, then that's all this should say - Ministers are empowered to change laws via the simple replacement of that particular wording.

But it doesn't - it gives them very wide ranging powers to change and remove laws. Like (but not restricted to) human rights laws (those not covered under the HRA) and safety laws. All they have to do is decide that the law in question is "no longer appropriate". It is REALLY BLOODY SCARY.

Point taken about Sch 2 vs Sch 7 - my mistake. But Sch 7 is pretty weak in its scrutiny. It either says it has to be bought before parliament (remembering that the govt of the day controls most of that) or emergency scrutiny if bought up by a minister of the crown (fat chance, since they are the ones being scrutinised). The two years after Brexit day sunset clause is important, but a lot of damage can be done by giving ministers open season on laws for what is the best part of four years.

[keano77]

I take it edhistory that the evil looking emoticon above should be a reference to Section 7 Clause 6 rather than your disapproval of Clause 6?

I.e., is the emotion an accidental mistake?

[red devil]

open bracket 6 closed bracket gives you (6)...:)

[uncleglen]

Well, if you are totally paranoid and think that Brexiteers are died -in -the -wool fascists then I expect you would be scared Loz.

But if you believe that the EU are a bunch of died-in-the-wool lefty fascist dictators who don't know the meaning of the word democracy and cannot manage its own budget then you would be glad that we are going to regain our self-determination.

Don't forget - if it wasn't for Henry VIII we would still be in the grip of the insidious church of Rome

[keano77]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> open bracket 6 closed bracket gives you (6)...:)

Thanks, that explains it

[Loz]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, if you are totally paranoid and think that

> Brexiteers are died -in -the -wool fascists then I

> expect you would be scared Loz.

Let's put that another way - do you actually trust politicians given wide ranging powers to use them responsibly?

> But if you believe that the EU are a bunch of

> died-in-the-wool lefty fascist dictators who don't

> know the meaning of the word democracy and cannot

> manage its own budget then you would be glad that

> we are going to regain our self-determination.

So, we are going to 'regain our self-determination' by side-stepping our democratic institutions? What kind of madness is that?

I suggest that your understanding of the concept of democracy is pretty weak, UG. And you have a pretty poor grasp on the meaning of 'fascist', as well.

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, if you are totally paranoid and think that

> Brexiteers are died -in -the -wool fascists then I

> expect you would be scared Loz.

> But if you believe that the EU are a bunch of

> died-in-the-wool lefty fascist dictators who don't

> know the meaning of the word democracy and cannot

> manage its own budget then you would be glad that

> we are going to regain our self-determination.

> Don't forget - if it wasn't for Henry VIII we

> would still be in the grip of the insidious church

> of Rome

My God, lefties, Muslims, immigrants, feckless unemployed and now dem der bloody Catholics. It's a wonder we manage to function at all. Three cheers for syphilitic adulterous murderer Henry VIII!

[keano77]

rendelharris wrote

Three cheers for syphilitic adulterous murderer Henry VIII!

Careful Rendel, if you think about it anyone who was prepared to give away the authority of his kingdom to foreign powers would have ended up with his or her head on a spike

[rendelharris]

Well old 'Enry was quite keen on a united Europe - just united with him as king of it! Local boy too - born in South London...

[Loz]

OK, for the uncleglens of this world, let's consider a really-quite-possible scenario...

Aug 2017 - Parliament passes the Great Repeal Bill, giving ministers wide ranging powers to make laws.

Oct 2017 to Mar 2018 - A series of resignations, deaths and defections from the Tory party mean the country faces a number of by-election for Conservative seats. The Tories lose some of these and May loses her majority, even with DUP support. Other parties call a motion of no confidence and the country once again goes to the polls.

May 2018 - Jeremy Corbyn wins enough seats that with the SNP, Greens in coalition and a confidence and supply agreement with the LibDems, he is able to form a government.

June 2018 - Corbyn announces his new cabinet, made up of Labour, SNP and Green ministers. They announce that the will not repeal the powers in the Great Repeal Bill, as they feel they can make very good use of them. They also announce that, in agreement with the EU, Brexit will be put on hold, as negotiations must completely restart with the new government. This effectively nullifies the two year sunset clause, as it requires actual Brexit to start the clock ticking.

Still happy to give ministers wide ranging powers to make law? Because they might not be the ministers you think they are...!