,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This point from the Government is not without merit. Absent the Bill, the Government could (on the 10th) agree or negotiate any counter-proposal by the Council. The Bill requires this to happen on the 11th so we lose a day and negotiating flexibility. 1/3 
A big picture effect of the Bill is to transfer power from the UK to the EU. The EU could come back and say eg 'you can have a two year extension to sort yourselves out' and in reality our choices on 11 April would then be: accept that counter-offer or No Deal. 2/3
The argument for the Bill is that it creates a legal imperative - for a Parliament that has lost trust in Govt - to seek an extension. And that argument also has value. But there is a real loss of flexibility which carries with it very real risks. 2 and a half/3
Better (imo) to have created a *political* imperative for an extension - a course chosen here waitingfortax.com/2019/04/02/the… (and which could still be achieved via amendments) which leaves the Government with flexibility - but I fear I have lost that argument. 2 and three quarters/3
If you envisage the Bill becoming law it seems to me still to be open to the Government entirely to sidestep the Bill by making an application for an extension of time *now* - before the Bill takes effect - which application would not be caught by the Act. 2 and seven eighths/3
In effect you'd briefly have two applications for an extension in parallel - one launched by the Executive and one mandated by statute. The first could be agreed by the PM on the 10th of April and so bind the UK in international law. The second would be redundant. 3/3 *cough*
