The Turnip Ghost found fame in 1946 through A J P Taylor.

He used it to describe Bismark's irrational fear of a small political organisation.

The history of the 'Turnip Ghost' stretches back to the 1800's and the general consensus is that it is meant to be a term of abuse. So who decided to exercise this 'back to the future insult’; why none other than The Right Honorable Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson MP, Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs?

Why was the Secretary of State engaged in this interesting rant; because he was upset at the requirement to insure off-road quad bikes following an European Court of Justice ruling? It appears that Boris clearly feels the EU suffers from 'undemocratic law-making'! Oh dear, the Foreign Secretary really does not appear to understand that as a Minister, like his fellow Ministerial colleagues, he is responsible for making EU Law when he sits in the Council of Ministers; what does he think he is there for? He should also realise that the Law, which he is jointly responsible for creating, is open to Judicial challenge, both in Europe on European Law and here in the UK on European and Domestic Law!

Reflecting on our own law-making, I started to think about the impending arrival of The Great Repeal Bill; this is the Act of Parliament that will formally take us out of the EU and import all existing EU Directives and Regulations onto the UK Statute book, so making them exclusively ‘our’ laws and not the laws of the EU to which we already subscribe.

Once the 'law' is passed we are then told that these laws will then become subject to scrutiny and aspects of law which is deemed not to be helpful or unnecessary will be lost through repeal of provisions through Secondary or Delegated Legislation.

I suspect that most of those voting in the Referendum held a vision that such Legislative scrutiny would be held in the open court of Parliament, but it appears that changes to the laws that we have come to accept in our daily lives, are quite possibly going to be subject to change by prerogative or a defined delegated legislation.

The most sweeping power that could be deployed within The Great Repeal Bill can be found by the insertion of a Henry VIII Clause. As the name implies, a government can introduce this clause during the creation of the Bill to allow the primary legislation to be amended or repealed with or without parliamentary scrutiny! There is a great deal of controversy about this measure, providing its wide powers through Delegated Legislation. Lord Judge claimed that such a clause should only be used in a ‘national emergency’ and that each use of the power not only increases the power of the executive but also produces a ‘self inflicted blow’. Such is the concern about the introduction of these powers and their affect on Rights, Mark Durkan MP (SDLP) stated (Hansard 7/11/16):

“The right hon. Gentleman refers to the great repeal Bill, which is in essence the great download and save Bill for day one of Brexit. Who controls the delete key thereafter as far as these rights and key standards are concerned? Is it, as he implies, this House? Would any removal of rights have to be done by primary legislation, or could it be done by ministerial direction?”

Such powers apparently have some limitations following an outcry on the introduction of ‘reforming legislation’ under the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill. Following objections from both Houses who complained of the erosion of parliamentary power, the following amendments were added:

“(a) the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision could not be satisfactorily secured by non-legislative means; 

(b) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective; 

(c) the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it; 

(d) the provision does not remove any necessary protection; 

(e) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise; 

(f) the provision is not of constitutional significance”.

The key phrases or objectives here are: Standards (Can a standard be used in place of a law?); Policy (The Policy of the Government of the day); Public Interest (Will it be in the Public Interest to trim Laws to make Life and Industry work after Brexit without legislative burdens?); Continuing to exercise any right or freedom (Can a Citizen simply go to Court and exercise their Rights in Common or Contractual Law instead of a specific stated Right?) and Not of Constitutional Significance (Are Consumer Rights constitutionally significant?).

The most common form of delegated legislation is found through Statutory Instruments. This is where a Minister or Ministers are empowered to make an additional Law or Statutory Instrument (SI’s), through an Act of Parliament (The Great Repeal Bill) or by a Henry VII Clause within the Bill. SI’s can be structured by:

1. The SI is laid in draft form under a ‘negative resolution procedure’, meaning that there is 40 days in which parliamentarians can object, if there are no objections, it becomes law;
2. The SI is laid under an ‘affirmative resolution procedure’. It has to be either approved by both Houses, or, it is laid after it was made and cannot come into force unless approved, or, it can come immediately into force but cannot remain in force unless it is approved within a statutory time period;
3. The SI can be laid after it is made and does not require parliamentary scrutiny, and
4. The SI is not required to be laid and therefore is not subject to scrutiny and approval.

Of all the current SI’s made, only 10% follow the ‘affirmative resolution procedure’, and one of the pressures on parliamentary time is the fact that SI’s are likely to be labour intensive and therefore the current parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms are unlikely to be fit for purpose for changing over 40 years of law!

This is an important point, because whether you voted to Remain or Leave, the very laws that you take for granted, hard-fought laws, with all of their protections be they on the environment, employment, consumer or other issues stand a serious chance of being watered down for the benefit of the victors of this Referendum debacle.

For many months I heard all sorts of opinion expressed about how EU law is made, much of it incorrect, and how the clamour grew to restore our sovereignty. Some argue that 'sovereignty' may be restored, however it seems that UK voters are to be cheated of their rights by the sleight of hand of a parliamentary process; is this the 'liberation' that voters thought they were going to get? As the rhetoric grows fiercer and insults fly it looks as if this power-clique think they have it in the bag and a new serfdom will be born. I may be a Turnip Ghost in some eyes but with good reason; Consumers are going to have to live for a very long time with this nightmare from Downing Street unless they confront these purveyors of spin and insult!

(First Published on 5 March 2017)