TOT: Not for EU

It was the same people. The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so overlapping. Those in the Supreme Court were unable to sit in the House of Lords while in office. Some of them, on retirement fromm the SC, went back to the Lords

None of their business.

It was when we were members

Well, now we are out of the EU you are free to revert to the old system.

Off you go now.

The old system worked well and was quiet and effective.

But it will take more than that. Two articles in yesterday's Times with analysis of why government is suffereing from furring of the arteries - an inability to do anything about the country's ills, noting that it will affect this government just as much as the previous one. As a cabinet minister said to one of the authors, we can't go any faster (in this instance regarding measures to reduce the number of people on sick benefits) because we'll be stopped by the courts. The legal system, IOW, interferes at all levels.

The judges response to this is that they are simply exercising powers given to them by Parliament. So the article was recommending to Starmer that Parliament needs to return to those elected, all these powers of blocking and interfering that it has handed over to those who are unelected.

Otherwise Starmer will find out just what Tory ministers discovered - that they're in office but not in power, and that the promises they made before the election remain unfulfilled at the next election.

Any chance of a link please, sounds interesting!

Try and get hold of a copy.

Arguably, even then, it wasn't.

Of course it wasn't.

There used to be a group of people who looked at proposed legislation to see that there weren't any unintended consuences. (I've forgotten their title). The posts were abolished quite some time ago. So that's why the courts get involved.

The House of Lords. that is - or was - its job.

Stuffed with cronies by Blair, who destroyed it.

no, these were specialist staff. "Parliamantary Counsel". They are still about, I find, but don't seem very good at the job anymore.

Then it would also apply to all their member states as well.

Which is the whole point. At a stroke 27 countries have new standards. Presumably at 1/27th the cost of each member state having to draft their own.

Given how standards are integral to business, it seems a snip to me.

But that also means that an 'improvement' in a standard, 'requested' by a large EU business, or possibly a few together, can damage tens of thousands of small businesses in 27 countries at once, to no actual benefit to anyone.

And don't say it can't happen: the EU has a department to handle lobbying* efficiently.

"Today lobbying in the European Union is an integral and important part of decision-making in the EU. From year to year lobbying regulation in the EU is constantly improving and the number of lobbyists is increasing."

• polite euphemism for bribery and corruption

The UK doesn't have any moral high ground over bribery and corruption itself. Also it's really inefficient to have to grease 2 sets of palms instead of 1.

Interesting that you're so comfortable with palm-greasing.

Note that none of the palm-greasers are elected - and nor are the palm-greasees. In fact no one in the EU decision process is elected. Which is one of the reasons I voted Leave.

I didn't say I was. However much I may disapprove it still goes on.

So you prefer elected British corruption to supposed unelected foreign corruption ? Not quite sure that's a rational stance. Unless you only speak English.

And it cost little to adopt the same standard if it makes sense to do so. The true cost of changing any standard is not the cost to the state but the cost to the individual companies that have to conform be it in Germany, France, the UK, Korea or Mexico.

Why do so many think because of Brexit that the UK has to deliberately go a different way with regards standards? Many (non-food) standards we all used to in our daily lives didn't originate in the EU or UK.