Good to see her paymasters getting their money's worth out of her. "Some people are taking their moment in the sun, to try and get the maximum in relation to the negotiations" Yes, you and your cronies.
perditus - MemberJust as well there was a leave majority in NI..
An interview broadcast from a parallel universe.
Then a couple of days ago, as discussed in that thread, Michael Gove along with the rest of the Tory party voted unanimously that article 13 of the Lisbon treaty should NOT be part of the repeal Bill.
It is always sensible to look at the debate rather than the vote so that you understand why the Government may reject an amendment, the crux of the argument is summarised in this passage from Hansard
To tack on to the Bill the hon. Lady’s new clause, which simply refers to article 13, would add nothing, however, and she was fairly honest in her speech about the limited practical impact it would have. Given that it is ultimately fairly superfluous, it risks creating legal confusion. Obviously, if she wants to propose improvements to wider UK legislation—I am sure she will, knowing her tenacity—she is free to do so, but this new clause is unnecessary, and it is liable only to generate legal uncertainty. Having addressed some of her concerns, I hope that she will withdraw the new clause, having powerfully and eloquently made her point.
If you want to read the arguments around the point you can [url= https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-11-15/debates/7A700C0E-8BA2-4EEC-B53D-997028C06900/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)Bill ]here[/url]
You’ll be right Mefty, but you’ve been reduced to defending Gove.
You’ll feel dirty in the morning. Morally correct, but hollow inside. 😉
I have no qualms in admitting I have quite a lot of time for Michael Gove.
😯
mefty - Member
I have no qualms in admitting I have quite a lot of time for Michael Gove.
and the last 50 pages of the thread now make sense! 😆
Most people would make the time to punch him a lot, I don't think I could spend much time close to him without his views making me feel quite ill. He certainly has't given much confidence in trusting anything he says.
Gove is a devious, dissembling, disingenuous, lying, opportunistic, untrustworthy wordsmith.
Apart from that he's probably ok.
That was rather generous Frank, a description of Gove that avoids the swear filter is increasingly difficult. See also Boris, May, Davies....
It is always sensible to look at the debate
Already covered in great great depth in the other thread which I don't want to repeat here.
In summary the main thrust of Dominic Raab's argument was "we'd love to do that but it would create legal confusion because AWA legislation already defines them as sentient "
The reference to animals as sentient beings is, effectively, a statement of fact in article 13, but even though it is, in effect, declaratory, I can reassure Caroline Lucas that it is already recognised as a matter of domestic law, primarily in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. If an animal is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, it is sentient and therefore afforded protection under that Act.
Except that is blatantly untrue as Caroline Lucas points out:
It is not good enough to claim that animal sentience is already covered by UK law by virtue of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 since the protocol is not even explicitly included or referred to in that Act and the word “sentience” does not appear anywhere in it. The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals
The text of the act is available here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents
mefty - Member
I have no qualms in admitting I have quite a lot of time for Michael Gove.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/21/vote-leave-prejudice-turkey-eu-security-threat
From his King James Bible ego trip, to his legacy in UK prisons to the delightful way he stabbed Johnson in the back...
I can see why you'd admire someone so honest & principled!
I have no qualms in admitting I have quite a lot of time for Michael Gove.
A bare faced liar - he & Bojo are peas in a pod.
What is remotely likeable about someone so odious?
Stephen Collins perfectly nailed the yawning chasm between Gove's perception of his own talents and the reality.....
[img] 
[/img]
Yesterday it was medicine, today it really is rocket science...
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42065836
In summary the main thrust of Dominic Raab's argument was "we'd love to do that but it would create legal confusion because AWA legislation already defines them as sentient "
No, you missed out the fact that Gove is going to promulgate further measures in the new year which will also address these matters. Letwin's speech, who is a back bencher now, gives a preview of these. It is quite clear that there is a strong measure of agreement on what should be achieved, but disagreement on how it should be done and hence the amendment was voted down.
No, you missed out the fact that Gove is going to promulgate further measures in the new year which will also address these matters.
[img]
[/img]
No, you missed out the fact that Gove is going to wait until the new year to see if everyone's forgotten about it by then.
FTFY.
zokes - Still not a customer
Yesterday it was medicine, today it really is rocket science...
its ok , blue passports, just think of the blue passports
Re: animal sentience and its implications.
The worry for me in all this is that the suggested changes to legislation will bring us very close to the US view on this. The EU are further forward, ethically anyway, than the US are.
So to me, this just reads like another attempt to pre-bake the US-UK trade agreements cake.
Brexit
£3bn to be set aside over next two years to prepare UK for every possible outcome as it leaves EU
Coming over from the budget thread, by prepare we know that is only thinking and planning not actually doing stuff??
None of this was in the brochure was it?
How many lorry parks in Kent and customs officials does £3Bn get you? HMRC will probably sub-con the work out to G4S and in March 2019 there'll be a big no-show like the Olympics because they failed to get past immigration?
HMRC will probably sub-con the work out to G4S and in March 2019 there'll be a big no-show like the Olympics because they failed to get past immigration?
does that mean the army will have to step in again,
Thatll actually please some brexies will - having soldiers there to keep those scary immigrants out
The £3bn is just in there as a political signal… it isn't lower, as a signal Leaving prep won't be close to neutral cost wise, and isn't higher, as a signal that the government don't see a No Deal as likely or desirable. It doesn't represent the real cost of preparing for whatever replaces EU membership, for obvious reasons.
Brexiteer Border Patrol reporting for duty, sah!
[img] 
[/img]
None of this was in the brochure was it?
page 5
No, you missed out the fact that Gove is going to promulgate further measures in the new year which will also address these matters.
I'd like to believe that mefty, but I was under the impression that parliament might be a bit busy over the next year or two.
Why didn't the debate go like this:
Caroline Lucas: I want to see the Withdrawal Bill recognising the text in Title II, Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty relating to animal sentience.
Government: Yeah that sounds good babe. We all like animals and that. But our lawyers have advised that directly referencing the Lisbon Treaty would cause a bit of legal head scratching.
So instead how about the Withdrawal Bill just contains a copy of that text, modified for our requirements as follows: [i]"In formulating and implementing the UK's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, parliament shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage."[/i]. That sound good? It's basically the same thing.
Caroline Lucas: Yeah, that sounds fine actually.
Government: Great. All those in favour... aye... cool. Next item...
I'd like to believe that mefty, but I was under the impression that parliament might be a bit busy over the next year or two.
Well it has been announced that the Government is planning to bring further bills before parliament to implement Brexit including one by Gove's department so your impression is wrong.
There is no place in the law for expressing good intentions, it is to achieve a purpose. The whole furore is pretty dishonest.
I thought the entire purpose of the Withdrawal Bill was to copy-paste EU legislation into domestic legislation to ensure there were no holes on the day we leave?
So isn't this an example of that? I'm not sure why this gets the "We'll do it later" treatment while other stuff gets copied across. All the existing animal welfare directives from the EU are scheduled to be copied so why not this?
There is no place in the law for expressing good intentions, it is to achieve a purpose.
Not really sure what you mean by this. Are you saying you object to having principles like this recorded in legislation?
Kimbers - Army? What Army.
Binners has it ^^^^
Isn't there a whole separate thread on this animal stuff? Why duplicate?
Yeah there is. And I did say I didn't want to duplicate here so I'll shut up.
I will answer your outstanding questions, but try to broaden out it out so it is more generally relevant.
I thought the entire purpose of the Withdrawal Bill was to copy-paste EU legislation into domestic legislation to ensure there were no holes on the day we leave?
It is, but the Article in question has no legal effect, it just informed future policy, so technically it is not EU law. This is outlined in the debate and I may have oversimplified but the gist is right. There is quite alot of debate on technical issues like this where most participants are looking to achieve the same goal but are arguing about how to achieve it. Another example is the Human Rights stuff that was debated yesterday. This is incredibly technical and I am sure some the subtleties have eluded me when reading the very high quality debate, but essentially there is a shared goal. Reading debates like this restores one's faith in the parliamentary process as they are very far removed from the knockabout stuff that is on TV. I was saddened to see David Lammy, who contributed to debate, tweeting the government voted against human rights last night. This is just a cheap shot.
There will be plenty of areas where there will be disagreement on matters of substance but it is important to identify which they are, and Article 13 in my view ain't one of them.
Not really sure what you mean by this. Are you saying you object to having principles like this recorded in legislation?
Yes.
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?
How come I can take people to court for violating mine ?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?
