What I like about being British.

[jendan]

Claptrap, whoever has explained the Bill to you has, no doubt, had an agenda.

I started by saying "i thought",not "i know". So please explain,what will they revert to?,and who made them?

 

[jendan]

A very good idea for a thread, but I think it probably impossible for anybody to respond to well. Briefly...

Well, I suppose this can't be a nationalistic response, because I am sure a Frenchman or a Japanese would find himself in a similar position regarding his country; it is like looking at a woodland across a valley and being asked to describe every single shade of green in the leaves, never-ending and perhaps beyond the power of words to convey.

And there are many, many contradictory elements; for example, I loathe the way we put-up with the sneering from the likes of the usual suspects above, but I have a deep love for our national tolerance that allows all forms of dissent and disagreement to be expressed and would never see their or other voices silenced.

@Billhook has mentioned the law, really the Common Law, which is an historically unique system and it is an expression of the common sense of the country - and not something placed upon the country. After a fair amount of study there is a real beauty to be found in this law, that politicians and kings could neither contain nor destroy, but it is not perfect and will always be a work in progress.

No, can't do it, there are simply too many things to enumerate.

Just read your post.A bit "mutually exclusive",loathing at Ashtree,s "sneering",but loving tolerance.How much of the "common law" has been made by hereditary Kings etc,and how much by real commoners? Your summing up of it is a bit vague.

 

[Ashtree]

To answer the original question, I like the fact that for a thousand years our laws were formed from the bottom up, not from the top down by a bunch of unelected failed politicians.

On the other question of trade. Everyone keeps talking about trade in numbers of people not in profitability. We have a 70 billion pound trade deficit with the EU. Does that not mean anything?

If I buy my chemicals and fertilser from Ashtree for £170 and he buys my wheat for £100 I will have made a £70 loss.

If I buy my chemicals and fertiliser from Clever Dic for £170 and he buys my potatoes for £400 it would certainly make me want to deal more with Clever Dic than Ashtree

Not surprising that our national debt is nearly two trillion and our borrowing is up again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277

So what you are saying is that 1,000 years ago, you had county council elections

And there was I thinking that you were in fact bossed about by a bunch of Eurocrats from Denmark
Somethings never change I guess

 

[Danllan]

I started by saying "i thought",not "i know". So please explain,what will they revert to?,and who made them?

Just read your post.A bit "mutually exclusive",loathing at Ashtree,s "sneering",but loving tolerance.How much of the "common law" has been made by hereditary Kings etc,and how much by real commoners? Your summing up of it is a bit vague.

Which laws, give names, dates etc. and which are still good law and haven't been implicitly or expressly replaced? Bit of a vague question. No mutual exclusivity in feelings because they are reciprocals... and no summing up attempted, brief explanation given only. How much Common Law has been made by hereditary kings? That must be tongue in cheek, more, please... Mrs Danllan always finds it funny when I have tea coming out of my nose!

 

[czechmate]

Actually, the C of E

 

[czechmate]

The fact I can go to the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and speak in my mother tongue (kind of)

 

[czechmate]

Wimbledon- the UK does a tennis tournament better than anywhere else in the world.
Village cricket.

 

[Clever Dic]

Cream tea . Scones,clotted cream and jam.

 

[czechmate]

Cream tea . Scones,clotted cream and jam.

Yup, at a good old fashioned village fete

 

[Woolgatherer]

The weather. It might not be lovely and sunny in the summer and it can be frustrating but it doesn't usually kill us.
Language. I haven't been far but I've talked to a lot of "foreigners". It never ceases to amaze me that I can talk to most of them without difficulty. (To their merit, not mine! But if it wasn't for Britain having the English language it probably wouldn't be possible)
The countryside. Due to the temperate weather, we have beautiful, productive countryside.
History. When you think about it, we have a great history, not always a glorious one but still fascinating. And a lot of it is still around us to see.
Sense of humour. As said. We have some of the best comedy in the world, and as for amateur humour, spend any time in Glasgow and you'll be rolling on the floor!
There's lots more but a big one to finish is safety. This is one of the safest places in the world to be.

 

[jendan]

Which laws, give names, dates etc. and which are still good law and haven't been implicitly or expressly replaced? Bit of a vague question. No mutual exclusivity in feelings because they are reciprocals... and no summing up attempted, brief explanation given only. How much Common Law has been made by hereditary kings? That must be tongue in cheek, more, please... Mrs Danllan always finds it funny when I have tea coming out of my nose!

You can mockingly sneer at me all you like,i think most folks on here would understand what i meant about how much common law evolved from "the common people" or from the priveledged.You are not talking on here amongst your barrister friends,but mostly ordinary folk with limited knowledge of some wider aspects of the law.I asked you genuinely which laws,and how they will change,or not,in relation to the Repeal Bill(what will just be copied and pasted),because you are the barrister,and you have studied it,not i.I also thought it may draw out some of your views on the hereditary monarchy system and their involvement in english law over the centuries.(Or is this just the "lefty remainers" citing "we are going back to HenryV111 laws").You have often expressed your loathing and derision for it on here.Not sure i agree with "no mutual exclusivity in feelings".How can you either love or hate something at the same time?

 

[alex04w]

You can mockingly sneer at me all you like,i think most folks on here would understand what i meant about how much common law evolved from "the common people" or from the priveledged.You are not talking on here amongst your barrister friends,but mostly ordinary folk with limited knowledge of some wider aspects of the law.I asked you genuinely which laws,and how they will change,or not,in relation to the Repeal Bill(what will just be copied and pasted),because you are the barrister,and you have studied it,not i.I also thought it may draw out some of your views on the hereditary monarchy system and their involvement in english law over the centuries.(Or is this just the "lefty remainers" citing "we are going back to HenryV111 laws").You have often expressed your loathing and derision for it on here.Not sure i agree with "no mutual exclusivity in feelings".How can you either love or hate something at the same time?

My understanding is that only one law will change as a result of the so called Great Repeal Bill and that is the law that took us into Europe.

The other thing that the Repeal Bill will do is to incorporate all EU law from the last 40 years into UK law. The theory is that on the day after we leave there will be no effective change in the law - it will continue as it was. This gives Parliament time to go through all the EU laws and start to amend them to whatever suits the UK best.

The comments about Henry VIII laws / powers comes from one technical aspect of the idea of incorporating all EU law into UK law. Think about it - most EU laws leave the last Court of appeal as the EU Court. So if we leave the EU and incorporate all existing EU law into UK law, then we are incorporating the supremacy of the EU Courts into UK law - something that leaving was meant to end.

So Ministers have reserved to themselves the power to amend the wording of the EU laws incorporated into UK law so that a ridiculous situation like this does not occur. However, pro Remain have whipped up this storm claiming that the Conservatives (and not Ministers) are usurping the power of Parliament to changes laws without debate or a vote in Parliament.

If the first thing on day one of an independent UK the order of business was debating and voting on changing the odd word here or there in 40 years of EU laws, Parliament would grind to a halt and the country would fall apart.

Then again, maybe that is what Remain want to see so that they can say - I told you so.

Maybe some of the fine legal minds on here can say if I am correct in my thinking or not on this issue.

 

[czechmate]

Good grief, can we not keep a simple topic "on topic "!?

 

[jendan]

My understanding is that only one law will change as a result of the so called Great Repeal Bill and that is the law that took us into Europe.

The other thing that the Repeal Bill will do is to incorporate all EU law from the last 40 years into UK law. The theory is that on the day after we leave there will be no effective change in the law - it will continue as it was. This gives Parliament time to go through all the EU laws and start to amend them to whatever suits the UK best.

The comments about Henry VIII laws / powers comes from one technical aspect of the idea of incorporating all EU law into UK law. Think about it - most EU laws leave the last Court of appeal as the EU Court. So if we leave the EU and incorporate all existing EU law into UK law, then we are incorporating the supremacy of the EU Courts into UK law - something that leaving was meant to end.

So Ministers have reserved to themselves the power to amend the wording of the EU laws incorporated into UK law so that a ridiculous situation like this does not occur. However, pro Remain have whipped up this storm claiming that the Conservatives (and not Ministers) are usurping the power of Parliament to changes laws without debate or a vote in Parliament.

If the first thing on day one of an independent UK the order of business was debating and voting on changing the odd word here or there in 40 years of EU laws, Parliament would grind to a halt and the country would fall apart.

Then again, maybe that is what Remain want to see so that they can say - I told you so.

Maybe some of the fine legal minds on here can say if I am correct in my thinking or not on this issue.

Thankyou very much indeed.At last a decent explanation.

 

[rob1]

The way we just muddle through in an understated way, no hysterical wailing or big headed boasting but just get the job done, sadly I feel we are changing from that position now ala X factor type shite where the worse singers think they are the next stars etc and much public grief ala princess Di, why cant people be dignified

 

[jendan]

Good grief, can we not keep a simple topic "on topic "!?

Agreed,easy to get side tracked with a bit of needle.

 

[manhill]

Laugh at ourselves but with a sophisticated wit not found in many corners of the world.

 

[linga]

I thought following The Great Repeal Bill,many of our laws will revert to the ones HenryV111 made? How can that be from the bottom up?

I have heard that he developed quite a large bottom !

 

[Danllan]

You can mockingly sneer at me all you like,i think most folks on here would understand what i meant about how much common law evolved from "the common people" or from the priveledged.You are not talking on here amongst your barrister friends,but mostly ordinary folk with limited knowledge of some wider aspects of the law.I asked you genuinely which laws,and how they will change,or not,in relation to the Repeal Bill(what will just be copied and pasted),because you are the barrister,and you have studied it,not i.I also thought it may draw out some of your views on the hereditary monarchy system and their involvement in english law over the centuries.(Or is this just the "lefty remainers" citing "we are going back to HenryV111 laws").You have often expressed your loathing and derision for it on here.Not sure i agree with "no mutual exclusivity in feelings".How can you either love or hate something at the same time?

Well alright, but it may stretch... no sneer, none at all, I can honestly write that I thought you were turning the key in a wind-up and that it saddens me to read that such was not the case. If your question was / is genuine then @alex04w has given a fair answer, if you need more detail and a technical explanation I will be happy to provide as necessary. I have taken you to be a reasonably intelligent fellow well-able to do a google search on x, y, or z, so hadn't realised you were seriously asking for an explanation from me.

But... the 'Common' Law is a self explanatory thing and, remarkably, it stems from the pre-Norman days. Very few judges who are known for making law have been other than decent people. Some were from highly privileged backgrounds, a surprising number from modest backgrounds but, having great gifts, they made it to the top - the Common Law Jurisdiction was, from its inception, historically unique in this among all other Western countries, China has several historical examples of the same due to its Confucian meritocratic selection (when it was correctly done...).

The reference made by detractors of the Bill to Henry VIII is simply an attempt for an analogy to be made between his diktats and the current situation, Henry was a dictator, he is still famous, it carries a strong mental image, what with beheadings, many wives and so forth. But it is a daft one for many, many reasons, primarily that of the key to our Parliamentary Sovereignty, that no Parliament can bind its successors, which itself leads to the doctrine of implied repeal, put simply this means that whenever a law is passed by a legally elected Parliament it is the law on that given matter, and that where earlier laws differ from it, the newest law prevails. Without all this we would still be bound by centuries old laws. It also means that even if the Bill did not provide the current Ministers with only a limited period in which to exercise their new-found discretion, which its 'Sunset' clause clearly does, their replacements after the next General Election could keep, alter or reverse all they do.

My thoughts regarding the monarchy - and religion - are no secret to any here on TFF or elsewhere; I am a rational atheist and a republican. Religion is for discussion elsewhere, but you raise a valid question in re' monarchy and the law. I find it absurd that, at law in the UK now in the 21st Century, the Queen in Parliament is Sovereign, it is manifestly and demonstrably untrue. The people are sovereign, and their will as expressed in democratic votes must be what Government, Parliament and the Civil Service execute. My preferred form of election is Proportional Representation, but not with caveats like the Liberals. I believe that whatever percentage of the votes in a national poll equates to a single seat in Parliament, should mean than anyone attaining that number of votes receives a seat in Parliament, or more, accordingly. And I believe that this should be so be they a Tory, from Sinn Fein, the Greens or an Islamo-Fascist party, but don't equate my belief that votes should be respected with acceptance or approval of what or who people may vote for. But I digress...

The monarchy was checked by Magna Carta and trumped by the Parliamentary victory in 1651. Since that point, there has not once been any question of the monarchy factually being 'sovereign'; Parliament took all power to itself and claimed itself sovereign 'in the name of the people'... and many in Parliament still think that they have sovereignty. Much acclaim is made by many MPs of Edmund Burke's argument that MPs are representatives not delegates, and so are not bound by their constituents' wishes, but by what they - the MPs - believe is in their constituents' best interest, which translates as 'We'll do what we think not what you want'. I think this is outdated, three hundred years ago there was neither the widespread education nor the universal access to information that we all now have; we have grown up as a nation and our democracy should reflect this when matters of vital national interest are in question.

It would now be very hard indeed for a Government to pass a law that the country was generally against, this is progress but only of a sort, for such a thing should, in fact, be impossible and unthinkable. Equally, it would be very hard and very unwise, politically suicidal even, for any in Parliament to oppose the will of a majority of the population as clearly and indisputably expressed, this is why many in Parliament who are not stupid or, at least, are honest, have chosen to support the process of our leaving the EU with good grace and in a spirit of best-endeavour, even if they opposed the original decision to leave, and because the common will of the people requires it.

The Common Law is so good because you or I, or anyone else with a grievance, can go to Court and, if our argument makes sense, set a new precedent in the law. This can't be done in other types of jurisdiction and it is why the Common Law was and is the people's law.

I don't have very many 'Barrister' friends because I found them, as a whole, to be something like a cross between actors, politicians and journalists with the worst qualities of all three coming to the fore. Of course there are many good and decent people at the Bar, but many are there for far from the best of reasons.

 

[7610 super q]