Fixing Brexit

[IvanV]

What a surprise, the DUP are saying nooooooooo to the deal. Because the DUP's seven impossible-to-satisfy tests have not been satisfied. Well, impossible to satisfy by any plausible agreement that the UK and EU might come to on this matter in this generation.

Though the deal will go ahead nonetheless. They won't get to operate the brake unless they let Stormont reopen. And probably Westminster will occasionally force various things they don't like on them if they continue to keep Stormont closed.

[Brightonian]

Bonfire cancelled. Long live the EU.

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-governmen ... 3-12877854

[Sciolus]

That's slightly less terrible than they were originally intending (incidentally, the dashboard of laws that would have been guillotined has just gone up by another 1000), but still pretty terrible. In particular, ministers will still be able to arbitrarily repeal or rewrite any EU-era legislation without consultation and with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.

I haven't looked at the full list of 600 items still for the chop, but the ones I've looked at relate to (a) a requirement for the government to do a thing which seems fairly sensible but we could probably live without and (b) some regulations that tidy up and clarify a rather complex piece of legislation, but don't actually change it. So axing the first is of debatable value and axing the second is adding confusion for no discernable reason.

[IvanV]

Good sense prevailing still depends on the Brexiteers not knowing what to do with Brexit, (except in the high level sense of playing culture wars). Scrapping only identified (instead of unidentified) legislation and only when you know what you are going to do instead, sounds like a bit of good sense prevailing. But if you have a positive agenda for change, then in fact identifying legislation and saying what you will replace it with gives considerable scope for divergence. But if you don't have that strong agenda, and go through the usual procedures for modifying secondary legislation in this country of having consultations, talking about it, doing something sensible, etc, probably you end up not diverging much.

[bjn]

David Allen Green put it as the Tories finally getting serious about BREXIT as opposed to being the dog that caught the car and now has no idea what to do with it.

[Sciolus]

I haven't looked at the full list of 600 items still for the chop, but the ones I've looked at relate to (a) a requirement for the government to do a thing which seems fairly sensible but we could probably live without and (b) some regulations that tidy up and clarify a rather complex piece of legislation, but don't actually change it. So axing the first is of debatable value and axing the second is adding confusion for no discernable reason.

... and the accompanying notes for (b) lay it on thick that it was the UK that drove the EU regulation that it was implementing.