George Monbiot is right to highlight the threat posed by the so-called “great repeal bill” because the UK government plans to use it to get rid of substantial social rights that previous UK governments had agreed to at EU level decades ago (Let’s stop fake Conservatives from destroying Britain, 3 May). Now Theresa May and David Davis are doing away with what is in effect our legal heritage. Another key point: in the EU, these are fundamental constitutional social rights that cannot be abolished. Brexit allows any British government to do away with them partially or completely because an act of parliament only requires a one-vote majority in the Commons to be passed or rejected. We need higher-order rights protected by super-majorities, so that we can enjoy them in peace and security.
Dr Monica Threlfall
Global Policy Institute, London
• George Monbiot, Lord Judge (Report, 4 May), and your leader writer (Holding May to account needs MPs who have tools for the job, 4 May) are all right about the risks of transposing EU legislation into British law through the use of secondary legislation. But they should take some comfort from the work of the House of Lords secondary legislation scrutiny committee and its long-serving and experienced staff.
This committee meets weekly to scrutinise every statutory instrument or similar legislation proposed by the government to judge whether it achieves its aims and purposes. In addition it scrutinises whether appropriate consultation has been carried out and if it is sufficiently well explained so that parliament and the public can judge its effectiveness in meeting its purpose. This enables it to decide and comment on whether the proposal is suitable for secondary legislation.
In the 2015-16 session the committee scrutinised 1,200 instruments and, as a result, some were modified to better and more clearly achieve their objectives and the public and parliament were better informed and reassured.
With the great repeal bill the committee anticipates a doubling of its workload and steps are being taken to provide additional resources.
But it is not only a matter of resources. By using best practice in planning and preparing its instruments and providing full explanations and impact assessments of what is being done and why, the committee can carry out its work. The government should be clear about what part of the acquis is being domesticated, so that parliament can judge whether the resulting legislation is equivalent to the effect of the EU-derived legislation.
Simon Haskel
Labour, House of Lords
• You report (May declares war on Brussels, 4 May) Mrs May repeating her mantra “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal”. This could have one of two meanings.
One is that if, at some point in the negotiations, it becomes clear that the promised benefits of Brexit are not there, then “no deal” means we retain the status quo, rescind our article 50 notice and, if necessary, fight our corner in the courts to establish that we can do so and remain members of the EU. Given the closeness of the 48-52 vote this could make sense. It would require parliamentary approval, would provoke arguments for another referendum, but above all would demand boldness from the prime minister, a quality she evidently values.
The other meaning is that, having failed in one set of negotiations and walked away, we start again on another set to resolve all the untidy issues that are left: a border in Ireland? Jurisdiction over continuing relationships with Europe (Helena Kennedy, 3 May)? Status of EU citizens in this country and vice versa? Existing financial commitment including access to European research funds with an agreed timetable stretching beyond 2019? Agreed European structures for air traffic control and much more?
All these and more would still need to be resolved and it is difficult to see how a second set of negotiations would produce a better result than the first. Nor could they be brushed away with a repeal bill, even if it were, like colonial independence legislation, more properly renamed a continuation bill.
Dr Hilary Perraton
Cambridge
• Yanis Varoufakis (G2, 4 May) criticises the undemocratic Brussels establishment. He is right but some explanation as to why it is like this is needed. Most regulations passed into British law stem from statutory instruments agreed by technocrats to support commerce, public safety and consumer rights. The EU has similarly evolved into a regulatory system of delegated legislation where the council and the parliament have instructed the commission to draw up statutes following consultation with technocrats, experts in matters the public never think about. We do not vote on regulations regarding engine noise, the composition of paints, food additives, banking regulations, air quality, dyes used in clothing, safety of medicines, fertilisers, insecticides, and every commodity used on a daily basis without a moment’s thought.
Life is complicated and we depend on experts to protect us from harm. It’s not democracy but it is how society works. The commission cannot consult on everything, not even on the Greek bailout. As Varoufakis knows, Greece has little choice but to remain part of the bloc. He also knows that Federica Mogherini is right: the EU consists of two kinds of state, small ones and others yet to realise they’re small. The world is a harsh place. There is little sovereignty and no taking back control, as the UK will discover with a hard Brexit and trade under WTO rules.
Dr Simon Sweeney
University of York
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
