When the Great Repeal Bill was announced it was happily assumed by the press that all the adjustments needed to convert legislation which referenced the EU into purely British legislation would be done through parliamentary scrutiny.
These opinions from lawyers suggest that that a) It is far too complex (so not enough parliamentary time and b) the use of the 'Henry VII' clause would put too much power into the hands of the Executive. It would, of course, suit the Executive very well to have a free rein in amending legislation but this hardly accords with Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Finally there has already been fears expressed by members of the House of Lords, including Helena Kennedy, about how this process will be carried out. A number of senior Tories have already hinted that the process could be done largely by executive means. This will allow Ministers, rather than Parliament, to repeal or amend domesticated EU legislation, ironically marginalising ‘the mother of all Parliaments’ even further in the Brexit process.
thejusticegap.com/2016/10/just-great-theresa-mays-great-repeal-bill/
The overarching message that has emerged from the speeches at the Conservative Party conference is that the Government is single-mindedly committed to an executive-led withdrawal process, and is unprepared to tolerate interference in that process by either Parliament or the devolved institutions. Of course, there is one institution — the UK Supreme Court — whose interference the Government may have to tolerate whether it likes it or not. By the end of this year, the Court is likely to have ruled on the question whether the Government has the power to trigger Article 50 without parliamentary authorisation. If the Court rules that Parliament must be involved, then the constitutional landscape envisioned in the Prime Minister’s speech will alter significantly, and the Government’s plans will have to be revisited accordingly. But if the Government is permitted to go ahead and trigger Article 50 without reference to Parliament, then the Prime Minister’s speech will have served to make the broad outline of what lies ahead — at least as far as the mechanics are concerned — a little clearer.
publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/10/02/theresa-mays-great-repeal-bill-some-preliminary-thoughts/
Daniel Greenberg, a former Parliamentary draftsman, has described this as “the largest scale legislation and policy exercise that has ever been carried out”. The exercise will be even more complex (and accelerated) because it is likely that uncertainty as to the precise arrangements between the EU and UK after Brexit will persist until quite late in the day, so that detailed regulation will not be able to be finalised until that point.
There is no way in which parliament will be able deal with this by primary legislation, within the two-year time limits imposed by Article 50. Once that time limit expires, the EU provisions will no longer apply, leaving the UK with a legal vacuum. To reduce the length of uncertainty, the Great Repeal Bill will necessarily have to give power to ministers to make new laws in all these fields by statutory instrument.
But that raises profound issues for parliament. When section 2(2) of the 1972 Act has been employed as a basis for secondary legislation, it has been used to implement EU legislation that has already undergone considerable scrutiny at EU level (by member states and the European Parliament). In contrast, parliament’s scrutiny of UK statutory instruments is already widely regarded as seriously deficient, not least because there is no power to propose amendments).
www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/opinion/theresa-mays-great-repeal-bill-must-not-lead-rushed-and-incoherent-legislation
As to 'confidentiality' over the Brexit negotiations, as May has been talking to other countries and giving 'assurances' to companies she must have something concrete in mind and you can bet your life that what she has been saying to interested parties has not been kept confidential (Nissan is part owned by Renualt, don't say the French govt. at least don't know what she promised). So why the secrecy in the UK?
