,
6 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
The effect a meaningful vote (if granted consistently for international agreements) has on procedure: a structure of parliamentary involvement evolves. Let me explain (thread)
In the UK Parliament does NOT get a vote on international agreements. Under CRaG, Parliament can delay, the House of Commons repeatedly so, they get a vote on implementation, but they cannot reject an agreement. I’ve explained that in more detail in a blogpost with @ConUnit_UCL
@ConUnit_UCL This is different in most systems with a written constitution. France, Italy, Portugal, Germany, in all of them Parliament gets a vote on some agreements. The EU is interesting, because here Parliament originally didn’t get a vote, but then started to have one. The effect?
@ConUnit_UCL At first the executive was slow to realise, but then the EP voted down ACTA. Result: structures evolved to make sure Parliament would be on board with agreements where they get a vote.
@ConUnit_UCL In the UK, the meaningful vote is the first time in living memory Parliament has that sort of vote. As in the EU, the executive was slow to realise what that meant (“we are the government, we have a majority, so of course Parliament will vote it through”)...
@ConUnit_UCL If a MV on (some) international agreements were to become a feature of UK law, you would assume that structures would evolve to include Parliament in treaty negotiations.
