Thread by @woodstockjag

So the Cooper Bill became the Cooper Act last night. But what practical difference will it make?

The motion tabled by the Prime Minister for debate today seeks Commons approval for asking for something she has already asked for. (1/x)

If this motion is approved unamended, the Act therefore has no impact at all on what happens in the talks with the European Council on Wednesday about extension (2/x)

Two amendments tabled (one from the SNP; one from Peter Bone).

SNP amendment simply calls for extension ending “no earlier than 30 June”. This might present political difficulties if Council offers a shorter extension, but nothing in the Act would stop PM agreeing to it. (3/x)

Conversely, Peter Bone’s amendment calls for the shortest of further extensions (from Friday to Monday). If his amendment passed and the Council offered an extension beyond 22 May *anyway* the PM could still agree to it. (4/x)

The amendments to today’s motion (thus far tabled) therefore don’t really do anything of note in legal terms at all even if adopted.

Of far greater importance is what key amendments to the Cooper Bill have done to the process. (5/x)

Firstly, the Pannick amendment seems to rule out (or at least place doubt on whether) the Prime Minister is legally permitted in domestic law to agree to a short extension (one ending before 22 May) unless Parliament has authorised that extension today (6/x)

Secondly, the Goldsmith amendment removed the requirement for PM to go back to MPs if the Council made a counteroffer. Key here was not that Council would listen to a counter counter offer, but that MPs could effectively have told an unwilling PM to accept Council’s offer (7/x)

That those provisions are not in the final Act means that - if the PM and the Council simply cannot agree on a precise extension date - the legal default in EU law remains (as before) that no extension is granted. (8/x)

So it’s not actually clear what practical difference this Act will make to the PM’s interactions with the Council. All it seems to do is make it harder to formally agree to an extension much shorter than the one she’s already asked for. (9/x)

Even if MPs had specified today (for the sake of illustration) a desired extension date of 31 December 2019, it would have made no difference in legal terms beyond what the PM must formally ask for at first instance. (10/x)

Once the Council has made an offer (and assuming the offered extension in question is beyond 22 May as many expect it would be) the PM is not constrained by Parliament in any material way she was not before. (11/x)

The only real practical difference will be that, instead of Parliament having to approve the domestic consequences of an extension (like it did last time), thanks to the Barclay amendment domestic law’s exit day will update without further active approval by MPs/Peers. (12/x)

This is not to comment on the political significance of the Cooper Bill, but simply to observe that it has not, in legal terms, fundamentally changed the decision-making process as far as how the UK goes about seeking and agreeing to any likely extension. (13/x)