,
14 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ We need to talk about Brexit and "protecting workers' rights" (thread) bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
2/ It is being reported (and the govt have basically confirmed) that the govt will offer to accept @JohnMannMP and others' amendment to the Brexit deal bill. This is via @PippaCrerar who broke the story (mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…) 
3/ The amendment agrees with para 79 of the Political Declaration (the entirely non-legally binding 'wish list' document produced by the govt and EU to set the ... er... tone? parameters? hopes? of a future deal) - here is para 79 itself assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
4/ What is this an amendment *to*? Warning: boring. It's to the motion which is required for the House to approve the Withdrawal Agreement (thanks @Raphael_Hogarth @Bickerrecord). So not to the Withdrawal Agreement itself, and not to the (non-binding) Political Declaration
5/ What would the *effect* of the amendment and the impact on workers' rights be? Highlighted section is the important bit which doesn't just parrot the (non binding) political declaration. Parliament "determines" not to allow the UK leaving the EU result in lowering of standards
6/ It's a Parliamentary declaration - we "declare" not to do something. It binds no future Parliament. It doesn't bind the PM in future negotiations. Ultimately, any future treaty on the UK's permanent relationship would have to be approved and this motion would be irrelevant
7/ Let's zoom out. Why does EU provide strong protections for employment/environmental/health and safety? Because over decades it developed common standards e.g. anti-discrimination, maternity pay, air quality AND to be in EU you have to comply with the standards, no ifs or buts
8/ Difficult to overemphasise how *binding* those standards are. EU Directives are so strong in UK law that they are *directly effective* in your local court. This means if a UK law contradicts an EU Directive then it can be *struck down*. No other way of doing this in UK law
9/ Why does that matter to non-lawyers? Because it means we are locked in to the EU's progressive and citizen-focussed minimum standards (e.g. discrimination, air quality etc) whether the government is left or right wing, and whatever it believes about those issues
10/ The counter-argument to that is this gives the European Court of Justice too much say over our laws because it resolves disputes over what an EU law means. But overall if you want progressive protection of workers' rights, the EU is by far your best long term bet
11/ Here's the rub. Mann's amendment doesn't even suggest keeping pace with EU. It says govt will "invite House to consider any [EU] measure... which strengthens... protections". So whether we strengthen in future is in the hands of whoever has the Parliamentary balance of power
12/ As Mann (and the govt if it accepts this in any event non-legally binding statement) know, to compel UK to keep up with EU standards would mean being a rule taker not a rule maker, as we would have to accept ECJ judgments and Directives without being able to influence them
13/ In the final analysis, MPs need to realise that there is only one truly *legally binding* way of keeping up with progressive European standards on workers rights, climate change etc.
Staying. In. The. European. Union.
That's it. No motion or act of Parliament will do it.
Staying. In. The. European. Union.
That's it. No motion or act of Parliament will do it.
