Retained EU law bill

[roverstillidie91]

MSM have kept this quiet.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/countdown-starts-vital-rights

If the Retained EU Law Bill passes, on Jan 1st, 2024 we could lose:

If the Retained EU Law Bill passes, on Jan 1st, 2024 we could lose:

Holiday pay
Agency worker rights
Rights to maternity and parental leave
Protection of part-time and fixed-trm workers
Protection from discrimination

and many more.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Why would the MSM report it? Everybody knew what they were voting for!

[SydneyRover]

Remainer's predicted it, those that access a cross section of the news read about it last November, let's hear from brexit defenders.

[wilts rover]

Been plenty of reporting about it.

Sunak announced it as one of the main aims of his leadership campaign. Now he says he can't do it (because it is too complex and there is not enough time). Annoucing soundbite policies with no idea of how to achieve them. Sounds about right.

[SydneyRover]

As time appears to be the only constraint, another term should do it?

[phil old leake]

I’m not for 1 minute playing down the significance of this but there’s one word in the report that is very important when it refers to what could be changed.  Could ’ not ‘Will’
This is written as if everything referred within will happen as soon as the Bill is passed if it is

[roverstillidie91]

I’m not for 1 minute playing down the significance of this but there’s one word in the report that is very important when it refers to what could be changed.  Could ’ not ‘Will’
This is written as if everything referred within will happen as soon as the Bill is passed if it is

the tories will stop at nothing to ensure this is implemented

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I’m not for 1 minute playing down the significance of this but there’s one word in the report that is very important when it refers to what could be changed.  Could ’ not ‘Will’
This is written as if everything referred within will happen as soon as the Bill is passed if it is

the tories will stop at nothing to ensure this is implemented

Frankly that's b*llocks, it'd be like the turkies voting for Christmas, they'd get zero votes and I doubt even one mp would vote to cut those things.

[phil old leake]

The exact point I was making pudding
Political rhetoric trying to create an issue.  The points raised are some of the things that could happen not will happen. 

[danumdon]

The exact point I was making pudding
Political rhetoric trying to create an issue.  The points raised are some of the things that could happen not will happen. 

I think you will find plenty on here who will not agree to that.

I always thought this was the whole idea of having a Brexit. The possibility of being able to do things the way we want to do them without reference or interference from a "higher power" now in no way does this mean that you would just for arguments sake throw away any and all legislation, but you can now take time to look at what suits and what does not, if it works and is the best way of doing something then fine keep it, but if it does not suit and is not the best way of doing things then why not have the possibility of being able to decide what you do and how you do it.

The OP paraphrased his post to scaremonger what could happen, what it fails to mention is that most of the points listed were enacted in law in this country before they became something the EU decided should be standardised EU wide so in effect the EU was behind the curve in many cases and it was the UK that actually instigated movements in those directions. So why would we as a nation now decide to row back on them, no government elected would last if that was the case.

Typical of elements on here to try to use political rhetoric to create something from nothing. In the meantime now that we have Brexit we need to have a proper audit of what serves us well and what was never a thing that was to our advantage, was this not the whole point of the Brexit principle, decide our destiny by our rules, if we want something that others have better than us then we can either alter our system to suit or pay for the privilege. In some cases it will cost us, in others not so.

But at the end of the day we decide, which ever way that suits us.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yep, we are certainly taking back control from those Brussels busybodies.

Take the EU directive to reduce pollution in rivers to acceptable standards  by 2027.

Well WE have shown them what taking back control means. Just before Xmas, the Govt quietly announced that we were going to have a new deadline.

2063.

Bloody Eurocrats eh? Trying to stop us dumping our shite wherever we want. We are BRITISH! If we want to pour raw shite into our rivers, we bloody well will do.

Anyway, one relief. I always worried that after Brexit, the Tories would take us into a race to the bottom. Instead our rivers will be full of stuff floating up to the surface.

[wilts rover]

Yep, we are certainly taking back control from those Brussels busybodies.

Take the EU directive to reduce pollution in rivers to acceptable standards  by 2027.

Well WE have shown them what taking back control means. Just before Xmas, the Govt quietly announced that we were going to have a new deadline.

2063.

Bloody Eurocrats eh? Trying to stop us dumping our shite wherever we want. We are BRITISH! If we want to pour raw shite into our rivers, we bloody well will do.

Anyway, one relief. I always worried that after Brexit, the Tories would take us into a race to the bottom. Instead our rivers will be full of stuff floating up to the surface.

It was illegal to discharge raw sewage into waterways & off UK beaches before August 2022 when the government changed the law to benefit water companies & their shareholders above the public & environment.

Can the people who now say we can do want we want confirm this is what they wanted? Because its what they got.

[danumdon]

I stated in my earlier post that there now existed a possibility to decide what we wanted to do as a country under rules created for our own benefit, not regression of standards.

I was under the impression that our current rules allowed some discharge of sewage into waterways under certain specific conditions? if this is not the case then i certainly don't agree with any changing to that effect.

If this is now the case as Wilts states then i'm sure an incoming Labour government will make this an early priority for change back to the status quo or to a standard that improves this.

Nobody voted for reduced river and sea environmental standards.

[wilts rover]

I stated in my earlier post that there now existed a possibility to decide what we wanted to do as a country under rules created for our own benefit, not regression of standards.

I was under the impression that our current rules allowed some discharge of sewage into waterways under certain specific conditions? if this is not the case then i certainly don't agree with any changing to that effect.

If this is now the case as Wilts states then i'm sure an incoming Labour government will make this an early priority for change back to the status quo or to a standard that improves this.

Nobody voted for reduced river and sea environmental standards.

Oh but they did - because that's what we have all got.

Are you on twitter DD because here is a thread that explains the law change in August? If not let me know and I will copy it out:

https://twitter.com/Feargal_Sharkey/status/1561268615600562177

[drfchound]

I voted to remain but have to say that I never heard anyone talking about whether or not we could allow sewage to be discarded into rivers.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The (privatised) water companies have lobbied extensively to get the Govt to use Brexit to reduce the burden of legal requirement on sewage going into water courses.

Let me tell you a little story about the Kitsons who manage water companies.

Someone I know well bought a new build house a decade ago.

Since then, the builder wound up his company.

A year ago, totally out of the blue, the house owner was contacted by the local water company, informing him that his sewage pipe from his house was connected into the surface water drain, and was polluting a local water course. He was told it was his legal responsibility to pay for this to be out right, or he faced a large fine and possible imprisonment.

The work to put it right was estimated to run well into 5 figures.

I helped the homeowner look into the matter. He'd had searches done by his conveyancing solicitor when he bought the house. They'd shown no problem. We bought a plan of the drainage system from the local water company. That showed (incorrectly) that the sewer was connected into the correct, foul drain. We paid the water company for THEM to check their records, which came back with the same (incorrect) information.

We found out that the original builder had (correctly) informed the water company that he was making the connection and asked them to come to check and sign off the connection. They didn't attend, so never noticed that the builder had made an error. But they recorded all the work as being completed correctly.

So, when the householder went through all the due diligence checks, he was given the wrong information by the water company.

Open and shut case, right?

The water company is at fault and it is their job to put it right?

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

Except the water company is insistent that, by the letter of the law, it is the householder's responsibility. The fact that the householder made his purchase based on wrong information held by the water company apparently holds no weight in law. And they are currently sticking to that line.

While at the same time, lobbying this disgusting excuse for a Government, to be let off for choosing dump sewage into water courses themselves.

It's what we would call out and out corruption if it was going on in a third world country.

[Not Now Kato]