,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
If HMG and the DUP want to use domestic law to "underline" the UK's interpretation of the backstop, I think there are three ways of doing it: (1) the completely pointless way, (2) the slightly unnerving way, and (3) the downright reckless way.
The first, pointless option is to use the Withdrawal Agreement Bill to give the Government powers under statute that it already has by Royal Prerogative. Eg, give a minister the power to open a dispute with the EU re bad faith if she thinks UK is trapped in the backstop.
And/or, give a minister power to table legislation to suspend the operation of the backstop, if the arbitration panel has ruled that the EU is acting in bad faith, and that the EU failed to comply with its first ruling. (These are the circs in which the deal allows suspension.)
The second, slightly unnerving option is to make provision for Parliament to vote on whether the EU is acting in god faith, if the backstop is still in force by a certain time. Slightly unnerving because "good faith" is a legal standard, as well as a political judgement.
The third, downright reckless option is to make legislative provision for the UK to withdraw from the backstop in circumstances where the deal does *not* authorise us to do so. This is an utterly, utterly awful idea for the reasons below.
/ends
/ends
