[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

Fair enough. I disagree. I think having guiding principles written into legislation helps to inform and guide debate. If someone proposes a law or policy that violates that principle then you can point it out. Without the recorded principle all you can do is argue that it doesn't seem right.

Human Rights is a good example.

The [url= http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html ]Universal Declaration of Human Rights[/url] is just a statement of fairly coarse principles, rather than exacting laws, such as [i]"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"[/i] but those principles help keep us safe.

Fair enough. I disagree. I think having guiding principles written into legislation helps to inform and guide debate. If someone proposes a law or policy that violates that principle then you can point it out. Without the recorded principle all you can do is argue that it doesn't seem right.

This really is poppycock, legislation isn't there to inform debates, it is there is have legal effect. We have enough of it as it is without every good intention being included.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just a statement of fairly coarse principles, rather than exacting laws

And it has very little, if any, legal effect.

'This really is poppycock, legislation isn't there to inform debates, it is there is have legal effect. We have enough of it as it is without every good intention being included.'

What a stupid statement. Check out the Human Rights Act for example.

and the OBR are saying austerity will last until 2030 at least with real term cuts every year.

Throw Brexit into the mix, the UK is screwed.

We have enough of it as it is without every good intention being included.

We have 'enough' legislation do we? Right. I bet you've had enough of experts too haven't you?

And it has very little, if any, legal effect.

[ edit - let's not get into how productivity/investment/growth is/isn't effected by Brexit ]

Check out the Human Rights Act for example

Which has legal effect it does specific things, it is not a general statement of principles.

How come I can take people to court for violating mine ?

You can't - not under the UNCHR, but you can under the above act and the ECHR.

We have 'enough' legislation do we? Right. I bet you've had enough of experts too haven't you?

How much were you betting, I will send you my bank details.

We have 'enough' legislation do we?

Richard Heaton, then Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, now Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice said this of our law a few years back when he was in charge of the Parliamentary Draftsmen.

The volume of legislation, its piecemeal structure, its level of detail and frequent amendments, and the interaction with common law and European law, mean that even professional users can find law complex, hard to understand and difficult to comply with," he says.

"Excessive complexity hinders economic activity, creating burdens for individuals, businesses and communities. It obstructs good government. It undermines the rule of law."

So because law is complex, we don't need any more? What, ever? Any new stuff that humans come up with from now until forever should be a free-for-all? Are you trolling or what?

I said we shouldn't include provisions which don't have legal effect - probably better if you improve your comprehension skills before accusing people of trolling.

Or in this case done what was promenade brought it across as is and then debated any new version with all of he other bits gove wants to add when he presents them.
The idea that we should change something on the basis that in a few months we will make it more robust is close to collecting your own firewood when they are accusing you of witchcraft. You may be on the very short list of people who trust govey but noboyelse does.

It's now very likely the entire brexit agenda is being propped up by blackmail, sex tapes and bribery.

I would call this a statement of principle..

Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Which is not in the Human Rights Act, it is in the ECHR. The ECHR is not statute which is what we are discussing.

No but it [i]has[/i] framed debate in the manner I suggested.

The principles of the ECHR informs and guides other legislation and policies. Legal rulings are made in our courts on the basis of those principles and their interpreted meaning.

We're staying in the ECHR (for now) but even if we do come out we'll still be signed up for the UN version so those principles will/should still influence our debate and law.

However, regarding Article 13 and any other principles like it that informed EU law: we plan to copy across those laws but lose the principles they are founded on? That doesn't seem right to me.

Surely it makes sense to copy them across to where we lack an equivalent.

Richard Heaton, then Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, now Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice said this of our law a few years back when he was in charge of the Parliamentary Draftsmen.

The digital age has made it easier for people to find the law of the land, but once they have found it, they may be baffled," Heaton says in the study, When Laws Become Too Complex. "The law is regarded by its users as intricate and intimidating."

I dont know what his views are on the Human rights but i do know he was not talking about them in your quote nor the number of laws either

Given that i am not sure why you cited it .
The report is here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/when-laws-become-too-complex/when-laws-become-too-complex
House of lords is here

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-06-19/debates/13061995000069/LegislationComplexity

GS - There is a fundamental difference between how you interpret treaty law and statute under English law, but the UNCHR is neither, it will have no impact. Treaties are essentially contracts between countries and therefore it is a principle of interpretation that you take into account the purpose that is intended. In that context expression of principles have a purpose This is generally not the rule of interpretation when you look at statute, which should be precise. There are limited circumstances when a purposive interpretation is allowed. When I was practicing those circumstances were limited to cases of ambiguity and Pepper v Hart was the case that established the principle of looking at Hansard in those circumstances, the last time I needed to look at judgements, which discussed this area, which is a few years ago, this principle had not really changed and I doubt it has moved on much since.

Junkyard - he also refers to volume and the government link you provided has a whole section on volume - that is quantity. And it has nothing to do with Human Rights, it was in response to Molgrips, the clue was I quoted him.

Aaand getting back to Brexit..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/22/gibraltar-heading-for-abrupt-exit-from-single-market-says-spain?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Gibraltar looks well and truly shafted.

In concrete examples what do the government hope to gain? I venture:

Long term internment with no legal recours.

Mistreatment of foreigners, immigrants, asylum seekers, enemise of the government and probably the Irish too with impunity.

I may be being over pedantic but each human right is set out thusly within the Human Rights Act1998:-

Article 11
Freedom of assembly and association

1Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
"
See Schedule 1 of the act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

statute, which should be precise

As folk on here may know, I’m an electrical engineer. The statue in the area of electricity is stunningly bad in its precision. It’s generality is fine, but if interpreted as written every electricity company in the country breaks the law 50 times (arguably 100 times) a second.
Clearly what it says is not what was meant.

Laws almost always need to be interpreted in my (non-lawyer) experience. Something which encapsulates the spirit, the general intention of the law can be useful.

Where it sits is another question.

[quote=Leku ]Aaand getting back to Brexit..
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/22/gibraltar-heading-for-abrupt-exit-from-single-market-says-spain?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Gibraltar looks well and truly shafted.

I am imagining the rEU 27 sat round a table discussing the future free trade agreement with the UK

Barnier... OK so in principle we are happy to go ahead and offer a free trade deal, the Germans are very keen to maintain their sales of cars and engineering equipment into the UK in return for their services and a bit of welsh lamb (they love that shit!). So how about the rest of you. What do you want out of the deal? Remeber you all have a veto, so fire away....

Poland and Romania... well we're happy not to veto the idea if we can have free and unlimited access to the UK labour market for our citizens and their families. Can you fix that?

Greece. Yep, we're fine in principle, but would really like to get our Marbles back....

Spain. Yep, go for it. Though our vote is dependent on them giving us back Gibraltar of course 🙂

Ireland. Hmmm, well I think the time may be ripe for a united Ireland.

Wallonia.... Well we're going to veto it whatever, unless you can agree to get the Queen to abdicate tomorrow and for her to retire to Wallonia and establish a Unicorn farm....

Barnier. Hmmm this may be more difficult than I thought

Liam Fox, July this year: "The free trade agreement we will have to come to with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history."

Apparently, this was unless politics got in the way. No-one could possibly have predicted this very outcome in a trading bloc of 27 partners with widely differing political priorities.

The whole Leave movement is a classic example of politics sabotaging free trade arrangements.

Has anyone heard from [s]disgraced former minister[/s] Liam Fox recently?

Off negotiating a trade deal with Papua New Guinea, to take up for the trade we presently do with Germany

Has anyone heard from disgraced former minister Liam Fox recently?

Maybe he's taken the bus to get repainted.

[img] [/img]

" The nature of the EU means trade deals are slow to agree and implement, so we must Leave to take control of trade deals ourselves… the rEU will then agree and implement a trade deal and a transition arrangement in the 12 months left after we finally do what we knew from the start was necessary to sort out the exit deal, obviously. "

The £3.7 Billion is just a political statement, it in no way reflects the costs ahead of us.

The £3.7 Billion is just a political statement, it in no way reflects the costs ahead of us.

austerity until 2030, and the likely-hood of not having a recession in the next 12-13 years?

On the basis that the UK has already been hammered harder that most countries in Europe and no end in sight. looking good for Brexit and the long term outlook, decades before the slightest chance of improvement.

Decades before we return to the growth rates we could/should be having now, and even then, we'll be 30% behind where we would have been without Brexit, and unlikely to make that up during our lifetimes… but still… fewer bilingual people on our trains… no court above the national ones to appeal to if our government goes all crack pot on us… all worth it.

Call it project fear if you want.

> shrugs <

Clueless - do you think the Commission just said enough and no more....the European Capital of Culture is an EU backed project - who could possibly have guessed. And so the flight from civilisation continues.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42097692

"The prime minister has been clear that while we are leaving the EU, we are not leaving Europe and this has been welcomed by EU leaders."

Were they expecting that we were going to be towed off somewhere else.

Several key clues in that article:

In December 2016, the UK government said the competition would "run as normal", but did warn bidders that it "may be subject to" the Brexit negotiations.
..
Cities from non-EU countries have held the title before - but if a country isn't in the EU, it must be a candidate to join or must be in the European Free Trade Association or European Economic Area.
..
"According to the rules .. [this] is not open to third countries except candidate countries and European Free Trade Association/European Economic Area countries."

So entirely expected then, despite Hilary Benn saying it "has come completely out of the blue".

No doubt certain parts of the media will happily cover this as those nasty Europeans "punishing" us. 🙄

I suppose ruling out becoming a candidate country for EEA/EFTA, or similar, or even 'just" limited customs union like Turkey, wasn't a forgone conclusion for all involved for a while… waiting for "the grownups" to step in and suggest a compromise new "non EU member" relationship with Europe has to be abandoned at some point. Should probably have been sooner to save UK candidate cities the time and money, and probably would have been if it wasn't for an election, and the slim hope of a new PM and negotiating team being in the air ever since the result of that.

Canada doesn’t get to have a turn at European city of culture either...

Draw your own conclusions.

So this ‘The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive’ thing then anyone heard when we’re adopting it ?

Might be me but haven’t heard much bout it in the news.

this one?
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en
Says Jan 1 2019 but I assume that will be wiped from the UK laws by not actually including it as it's exactly what they want the UK to be.

Yep that’s the puppy , very good diagrams(tax avoidence for dummies.)

I could cynically see that be being a bit of an incentive for Brexit for a few people.

Were they expecting that we were going to be towed off somewhere else.

OMG you’ve got the solution to the NI issue.

All we’ve got to do is chip it off and float it back over !!!

(BTW No offence meant to any NI members)

The whole Capital of culture stuff just sorta defys belief IMHO...

Did I slip into an alternate reality when I went to sleep last night or am I still dreaming.

Says Jan 1 2019 but I assume that will be wiped from the UK laws by not actually including it as it's exactly what they want the UK to be.

Well you would be wrong, legislation in line with the directive is already in place, in some cases for many years. We have been one of the prime movers on tax avoidance measures.

Well there you go, every day is a school day, though it is a stated aim of plenty of Brexiters to make the UK a great destination for tax avoiders in the future 😉

We have been one of the prime movers on tax avoidance measures.

Laughable. Various crown dependencies are the major tax avoidence machines. We could have stopped it years ago

If we decided to keep UK corporation tax let's say, at least 3pp below the EU levels wouldn't that be good for jobs, business and ultimately gov tax revenues?

Well there you go, every day is a school day, though it is a stated aim of plenty of Brexiters to make the UK a great destination for tax avoiders in the future

Yep it’s why I’d sorta jokingly raised it as I know we have some anti tax avoidence but did wonder if an eu directive on it would be firmer than ours and the whole threat of going as a tax haven thing.

(Which the common man will need after he’s filled his boots with the unlimited treasures from the Brexit)

Brtain has been shifting the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor over the last frw budgets.

If we decided to keep UK corporation tax let's say, at least 3pp below the EU levels wouldn't that be good for jobs, business and ultimately gov tax revenues?

So this would continue the trend and continue making the poor poorer.

In an equitbale tax system corporation tax should always be at least as high as tax on the poor people's work (NI etc.). Corporation tax should pay for the welfare state - business benefit from a healthy educated work force and should pay for that.

This inter-country rivalry over corporation tax levels was one of the unfair things going on in the EU that I pointed out on the first pagers of this thread. I'm pleased to see something being done about it

If we decided to keep UK corporation tax let's say, at least 3pp below the EU levels wouldn't that be good for jobs, business and ultimately gov tax revenues?

What if Ireland want to go 3pp below us, and then we want to go 3pp below Ireland, and then Ireland want to go 3pp below us, and then…

(I chose Ireland as they are going to have to be as "competitive" as us chasing a way out of the Brexit slowdown, and they have past form.)

The EU needs to stop the race to the bottom that some of its members get caught up in as regard corp tax (not so much us really, up to now, well, not in the bits of the UK in the EU). In doing so it also needs to be careful to find ways to stop close partners from starting the race up again… tough negotiations to come…

If we decided to keep UK corporation tax let's say, at least 3pp below the EU levels wouldn't that be good for jobs, business and ultimately gov tax revenues?

I reject both the economic and moral argument for such a scenario but its inevitable with our tory overlords in charge.

He'll bring up the Laffer curve in a minute...

On the contrary, I was merely quoting the policies of the Scottish gNats that were supported at the time by the same people who now deride them because they are perceived as being Tory policy!

The polite conclusion is that remoaners are inconsistent in their views, the less polite conslusion would be that they are being hypocritical. You decide...

Funny old world isn't it?

Funny old world, with far too much trolling.

gNats

Oh, my poor sides 🙁

The polite conclusion is that remoaners are inconsistent in their views, the less polite conclusion would be that they are being hypocritical. You decide...

It's almost as if there is more than one of us, with differing viewpoints...

Totally unlike Leavers. Every single one of them voted for full off the cliff WTO exit.

I'm glad we're leaving the lumbering,failing Europeans behind and striding forwards as a reinvigorated global powerhouse.

[IMG] [/IMG]

remoaners are inconsistent in their views

You always do this, attacks others for your weaknesses.

I like this consistency from the government just now

journo 'will NI be staying in the customs union'

No10 'possibly, were negotiating'

journo 'so the UK smight stay in, coz NI is part of UK'

No10 'erm no were still leaving'

journo '??!??!'

@bails wow love the Napoleonic era quote. i doubt even the hardest Brexiters expected to be that successful winding the clock back, they asked for a mere 40 years.

He'll bring up the Laffer curve in a minute...

I won’t but ask yourself which government and party recently rejected the idea of raising income tax as it would lead to lower tax revenues?

Hint: their supporters who eject the ladder curve of the underlying principle of TIE. Funny that...

You just did bring it up - why do you"debate" in such a passive aggressive manner?
Just say what you think without all the pretence/cryptic BS.

eject the ladder

Clearly - makes perfect sense!

<scratches head>

Dr - excuse fat fingers and typing on iPhone with autocorrect on

I am merely pointing out that supporters of Scottish independence and the SNP are very happy to argue for competitive corporate tax policies when it suits them and also to reject raising income tax rises due to fears that this will reduce the tax take (the concept behind the Laffer curve) and yet reject the same ideas in a different context (when it suits their agenda) and try to pretend that such views are excluding to those of a RW persuasion and/or Tories!!

As before you can decide whether that is inconsistent, hypocritical or merely demonstrating a lack of basic understanding. Either way the irony is as amusing as ever.

And someone mentioned trolling 😀

Dr - excuse fat fingers and typing on iPhone with autocorrect on

Yes, I was just teasing 🙂

I am merely pointing out that [b]some [/b]supporters of Scottish independence and the SNP

FTFY

the SNP are very happy to argue for competitive corporate tax policies

The SNP has no relevance to this debate except to show how long and childishly you bear a grudge irrespective of the facts.

The polite conclusion is that remoaners are inconsistent in their views,

Have you consulted the fishermen of grimsby recently? Haha!

You won we lost get over it and get on with it.

😆

and project fear becoming project fact moves on.

https://www.ft.com/content/e7674638-d078-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/e7674638-d078-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

In the area of aviation in particular, the European Commission sees little room for creativity or “bespoke” arrangement that the UK is hoping to negotiate, according to a presentation to the EU member states seen by the Financial Times. 

If Britain left the single market, the paper states, UK-owned airlines would automatically lose existing flying rights in Europe’s “fully liberalised” aviation market, and would no longer be entitled to EU recognition of approvals for parts or certificates for airworthiness.

Yes there are options, but none of them are particularly good for UK airlines, and ultimately consumers. deregulation brought fares down, wonder what the reverse will do....

After three everyone ........

If Britain left the single market, the paper states, UK-owned airlines would automatically lose existing flying rights in Europe’s “fully liberalised” aviation market, and would no longer be entitled to EU recognition of approvals for parts or certificates for airworthiness.

It’s another unthought thru consequence of leaving ... “death by a thousand cuts”

When your in the club you can pretty much make the rules up to suit yourself for people not in the club.

You've got it all wrong, they are really green activists. They realise that we'll never give up our cheap flights willingly so have hatched a plan to decimate the flights to/from the uk and slash our carbon emissions.

And solves the new airport/runway conundrum they were struggling with.

It's genius really....

Who’s in control of the narrative again?

Coordinate pressure / EU bullying on May over next two weeks to make her acquiesce. Mostly in themselves non stories - but hey, no flights to Europe makes a good headline - but all a coordinated ramping up of pressure.

It’s rare to see Europe in harmony but when it comes to picking on their own they know how to do that well

Who decided to leave without having a plan?

Failure to plan is planning to fail.

Suck it up princess snowflake. TNUMTWNT...

You are always so charming

Obviously, the EU are. Primarily because the tories haven't got close to agreeing their own preferred narrative yet. We have the likes of Owen Patterson airily insisting that WTO terms are great (while not apparently aware of the fact that there's so much more to sort out than trade tariffs). So no need for May to acquiesce to anything, right?

Indeed.

They should start with hard and then soften from there. Not the other way round

Isn't that how grown ups run businesses, getting the best deal, using leverage, maximising profits?

Start with the hard problems like the NI border and sorting out their existing liabilities, before moving on to the "easiest trade deal in history"? Great idea.

No but nice twist

Those SHOULD come after the nature of the deal. But we know that!!

Well I thought DD and the the rest of the Three ****witeers all agreed on the scheduling. They won we lost get over it.

I have. Even had Frankfurt, Geneva and Paris this week. Getting on with business with EU friends as per...

The germans have their own concerns as do the French with the Eu frowning on their deficit plans. The Eu don’t get economics but hey ho..no wonder the gNats see eye to eye with them

teamhurtmore - Member
The Eu don’t get economics but hey ho....

"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists"