,
10 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Interesting discussion today about the role of Queen's Consent in relation to the Cooper-Letwin Bill. There are, I think, two key questions that need to be addressed when deciding if/how this constitutional novelty is relevant. (1/x)
Firstly, we have to ask what Queen's Consent applies to. @RobertCraig3's piece in today' @ukcla discusses this. One context in which this requirement applies if a Bill would, as Erskine May (p. 165) says, "affect" the Royal prerogative. (2/x) ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/02/25/rob…
There's been little comment on what it means for a Bill to "affect" the prerogative. No court has ruled whether Gov'ts Article 50 negotiations/any extension request is done under the prerogative, or e.g. under implied authority of EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. (3/x)
Even if negotiations are conducted "under" the prerogative, that does not necessarily mean that the Cooper-Letwin Bill "affects" the prerogative. Someone has to make a decision about that. So who does this (the second important question)? (4/x)
Queen's Consent is understood to be a constitutional convention, and not a rule of law. It is one that is reflected in the rules and practice of the Houses of Commons and Lords. These passages from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee's report 2014 are helpful. (5/x) 
Consent is on this reading "a matter of Parliamentary procedure". This means that, even if the Government has a view on whether the prerogative is engaged, that view is not binding/determinative: it is a matter for House to determine. See this excerpt in the PCRC report. (6/x)
As @AdamJTucker's evidence in that 2013-14 inquiry suggests, the effect of consent not having been given is to prevent, *internally* the passage of a Bill through the Houses of Parliament. It is not a justiciable issue after the fact. (7/x)
So who makes the final decision about whether a Bill engages the question of Consent in the event of a dispute? Well according to an article in the Cambridge Law Journal by Rodney Brazier, it's the Clerk of Public Bills and then, ultimately, the Speaker. (8/x)
While I pass no view on the correctness or otherwise of that statement, it is consistent with what the Office of Parliamentary Counsel say in their pamphlet on Queen's Consent: it's not Government that decides this. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… (9/x)
So in the event Queen's Consent becomes an issue, the only theoretical possibility of veto arises if Parliament itself decides that the Cooper-Letwin Bill "affects" the prerogative. And as PCRC's report indicated, Parliament could dispense with Consent by mere resolution (10/10).
