,
9 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
A quick thought on parliamentary scrutiny and treaties - in addition to my forthcoming @ConUnit_UCL blogpost (thread)
@ConUnit_UCL The UK is an outlier in that it does NOT require a parliamentary up and down vote for the ratification of treaties. What’s the UK procedure for treaty scrutiny (excluding EU treaties)?
@ConUnit_UCL If implementing legislation is needed it is FCO practice to put that to parliament before ratification, so there’s a vote there, but not on the treaty. And then there’s CRaG 2010 scrutiny with the power to delay ratification.
@ConUnit_UCL Other countries have an up or down vote on ratification. But not for all treaties. France lists treaties that can only be ratified after a parliamentary vote in Art. 53 of its constitution www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/decouvrir-l-as…
@ConUnit_UCL Italy lists them in Art. 80 of its constitution senato.it/documenti/repo…
@ConUnit_UCL Germany in Art. 59 (2) of the Grundgesetz gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/en…
@ConUnit_UCL The US is an outlier in that it demands advice and consent of the Senate (with a supermajority!) for all treaties under Art. II of its Constitution. But as I explain in my plogpost, reality has passed this rule by...
@ConUnit_UCL The addition I have for today is Switzerland. In Switzerland under Art. 184 BV a parliamentary up and down vote is required as a rule for treaty ratification. However, many statutory provisions as well as some treaties (with parliamentary consent) allow the Bundesrat to go solo
@ConUnit_UCL On Swiss treaty practice: eda.admin.ch/dam/eda/de/doc…
