Thread by @Brigid_Fowler

OK, I've now read the transcript of today's debate & since the Constitutional Reform & Governance Act 2010 (CRaG Act) seems to have hit the headlines & there's a degree of confusion around, a thread just to clarify (I hope): 1/

The CRaG Act says that a treaty that needs ratifying must be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days, without the House of Commons resolving against its ratification, before the gov may ratify it. 2/

The Act is primarily a vehicle to ensure the gov publishes, & tells Parliament about, treaties at least 21 sitting days before it ratifies them. 3/

The CRaG Act does *not* require Parliament to vote on whether the gov may ratify (so if the Withdrawal Agreement [WA] ends up exempted from the Act, the gov is *not* dodging a parliamentary vote). 4/

Parliament does not normally get a vote at all on a treaty, as such. We wrote about the origins & purpose of the CRaG Act here: 5/
hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/parliamen…

The CRaG Act is also nothing directly to do with any legislation that may need to be passed to implement a treaty before it's ratified (in this case, the Withdrawal Agreement Bill - WAB) (the PM was among those who seemed to mis-speak on this point in today's debate). 6/

It's at the legislative stage that Parliament normally gets involved in treaties, but votes then are, strictly speaking, on the legislation not the treaty itself. 7/

EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 s13 established a special pre-ratification process for the WA, which requires its approval in a HoC motion *&* passage of an Act (the prospective Withdrawal Agreement Act) before the UK may ratify it. The CRaG Act process would have been a 3rd element. 8/

We wrote in December about how unusual the process for the WA is, in terms of normal UK treaty-making practice. 9/
hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/https:/ww…

To meet its EU(W)A s13 obligations, the gov already laid the draft WA before Parliament, on 26/11/18 - considerably longer than 21 sitting days before 29/3/19 (the WA was laid with the Political Declaration on the future UK-EU relationship [PD]). 10/

In theory, the CRaG Act gives the HoC the right, during the 21-day period, to pass a motion that a treaty should not be ratified. 11/

While it would have been fascinating (OK, fascinating for constitutional/procedural nerds) to see if any MPs tried to block the WA this way, given the EU(W)A s13 requirements MPs are going to have had plenty of opportunity to prevent the WA's ratification if they want to. 12/

As I've said before on here, I'm thus *relatively* relaxed about potentially exempting the WA from the CRaG Act. The Act's s22 allows the gov to exempt a treaty as a 'exceptional' case & I'd assumed the gov would use this, but it's never been used before. 13/

PM's words today suggest the gov will instead exempt the WA through a provision in the WAB. There *is* precedent for exempting treaties from the CRaG Act in primary legislation (namely the CRaG Act itself), so I guess from gov's POV this route may be safer. 14/

The real significance of today's news is confirming that vote on the WA approval motion (#meaningfulvote2) pretty-much-certainly won't happen by 20/2 (the pre-29/3 deadline to lay the WA under the CRaG Act, assuming current no. of sitting days) & could take place much later. 15/

Compared to the CRaG Act, I'm more bothered re: ensuring Parliament has time before #meaningfulvote2 to look at any significant changes to the WA+PD; & most of all, if the WA+PD are approved, about the pre-29/3 time then left to pass the WAB... 16/

... which, as folks (& partners in nerdery) like @jasimsoncaird @DrAlanWager @SweeLengHarris @Raphael_Hogarth @woodstockjag @pauldalyesq - have been saying *ad infinitum* will be a highly complex & consequential bit of legislation. /ends