Lower means he wants the UK government to have a similar level of control that it had before the Carmeron/Clegg Coalition with the addition of the powers returned from the EU.
Ah, so you're the type that gets lent a pencil every few years and then couldn't give a monkeys about what happens next...The bit where we all voted to choose a government where there is an existing structure to allow them an amount of scope to run the country without having to put every single thing they do to a parliamentary vote and i don't see the need to extend the scope of what needs to be voted on in parliament.
Thankfully for me, the government i voted for won the election. I certainly don't agree with everything they've done, but they're going in the right direction.Ah, so you're the type that gets lent a pencil every few years and then couldn't give a monkeys about what happens next...
No wonder governments can effectively do what they like when gifted with such a pool of ignorance!
Kinell boyo, where have you been? Have you not seen Yellowhammer? Looks like Bozza and his chums like nothing more than a bit of UK turmoil.you long for the days of the Brexit turmoil
Nope, the reason is that the government should be held to account over the promises that they made to the electorate, and whatever further proposals they make should be open to scrutiny...The reason you want a vote on everything is in the hope that what the elected government are trying to do will get blocked
As i said before, the need for equivalence (which is remarkably similar to compliance) that would prevent a number of existing food supplying countries and suppliers, including those in your beloved EU, supplying food to the UK is the problem.
Nothing in your quote changes that.
Also, as you raise it, i don't seed the need for government to put every proposed trade deal before parliament which was the other feature of the amendment. There seems to be a thing at the moment amongst certain MP's and people who don't like they current government where they want parliamentary oversight over everything, probably left over from when everything the government wanted to do had to go to a vote because there hadn't been a proper, stable majority for quite some time and the government had to constantly water stuff down to get anything done.
But I don't find any of the proposed amendment objectionable, that your sensationalism coming to the fore. The process of raising amendments that then get approved or not by a parliamentary vote has been followed and I think the right choice has been made. I think its due process, and there's nothing objectionable about that.
Kinell boyo, where have you been? Have you not seen Yellowhammer? Looks like Bozza and his chums like nothing more than a bit of UK turmoil.
So all of this means it's in the hands of the Ministers - which means they can decide whether to accept lower standards or not.
Which is where it should be.
And i don't subscribe to your view that it will result in automatically lowered standards. But we'll have to agree to disagree and i suspect that this argument will rumble on and on.
LMAO...Spot on..Lal and Gal have been crying into their beer and busting a gut over brexit for 4 years on here.and i suspect that this argument will rumble on and on.
And i don't subscribe to your view that it will result in automatically lowered standards
That is true, it won't automatically lead to lower standards.