Thread by @sc_laws

As commentators seem to have been reluctant to access what we actually wrote in full, before reacting with incredulity to what they imagine my views to be, here’s a thread with the argument 1/11

The Royal Assent question is not about how that mechanism is supposed to operate under the
current dispensation - because what Letwin, Bercow & co are proposing is to rip that up 2/11

But it is worth saying that those who say that it is absolutely clear what the Govt should do and how HM should respond are quite wrong. It’s the subject of enormous academic controversy 3/11

It’s about the potential effect on the whole constitutional system - including the RA mechanism - of attempts to circumvent one of the system’s fundamental principles with a destructive & purely tactical change elsewhere in the system - just to secure a predetermined outcome 4/11

That principle is: the law shouldn’t be changed until the elected Govt and 2 Houses have reached a consensus on what the change should be. And Govt remains the “elected” Govt - & its democratic legitimacy is no less than that of MPs - so long as they keep it in office. 5/11

The principle in question is a good principle because it preserves cohesion & consistency in the management of public affairs. It also has special relevance for legislation imposing obligations on Govt itself, where implementation needs administrative level judgements 6/11

Just as it is foolish & results in bad law to impose obligations on members of the public without ensuring that the public are broadly willing to accept them as legitimate & to comply with them, it is constitutionally incoherent to do the same to Govt 7/11

Currently the principle in question is secured & supported by the fact that convention concedes that the Government should have the initiative in policy-making & legislating. This is all backed up by rules like SO 14 & is required by the practicalities of both processes 8/11

Dispensing with the current means of securing the principle must raise the question whether it will - or should - reassert itself elsewhere in the system eg in the revival or creation of a veto for Govt at the end of the process - as exists in many other constitutions 9/11

The argument for creating or reviving such a mechanism, and for using it, would be reinforced in circumstances where the passage of legislation lacks legitimacy, by being procured with departures from established process or by biased decision making 10/11

Much better not to tinker with the system at all. And to be clear: I’m not & never have advocated advice to refuse Royal Assent. But I am much against ill-considered & dubiously engineered reforms that might well raise a question whether such advice could or should be given 11/11