,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
As simply as possible, why won't legislation along the lines of the first Cooper-Letwin Bill that became the European Union Withdrawal Act 2019 work to stop no deal Brexit, and what is the alternative?
/1
/1
What that Act did *not* do was compel the government to agree to an extension of art 50.
This is because when the government asks "please can we have and extension" the EU27 didn't and won't respond "fine".
/2
This is because when the government asks "please can we have and extension" the EU27 didn't and won't respond "fine".
/2
The EU27 respond "yes if..." One condition on the previous extension, for example, was that the UK would not seek to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement.
It could say "yes if you pay £50bn extra" or "yes if it is for 3 years".
/3
It could say "yes if you pay £50bn extra" or "yes if it is for 3 years".
/3
What Cooper-Letwin I did was compel the government to seek (ie ask for) an extension, and the legislation expressly distinguishes this from agreeing an extension.
/4
/4
It was for that reason Cooper-Letwin I didn't fall foul of the the government's monopoly power over legislation that requires expenditure in Commons SO 48: it didn't compel the government to agree.
/5
/5
So, if you want to compel a Johnson government to agree, you'll need an Act saying so or Johnson just says "no thanks" to whatever the EU27 offer, and we leave without a deal.
/6
/6
but that, of course, is fiendish to draft. We have no idea what the EU27's terms would be, and even I would be reluctant to compel Johnson to agree to anything at all (eg an extra £100bn for a 3 month extension).
/7
/7
An alternative piece of legislation is to change the default result of failing to agree an extension to revocation of art 50. Unfortunately, I doubt there is a Parliamentary majority for that.
spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2019/01/18/cha…
/8
spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2019/01/18/cha…
/8
Cooper-Letwin I is giving people false hope that there is a viable legislative option to control Johnson here.
Our constitutional arrangements (indeed those of any state) are not supposed to work in the way any such legislation contemplates.
/9
Our constitutional arrangements (indeed those of any state) are not supposed to work in the way any such legislation contemplates.
/9
What is supposed to happen is that the government carries out negotiations with the outside world, not the legislature which is in no position to guess what the proffered terms might be.
/10
/10
The way our constitution is supposed to work is that if the Commons has no confidence in the government's central policy (as now) it removes it and replaces it with one that it does have confidence in.
/11
/11
What we need is a temporary Government pending an election as soon as possible with only one policy: extend art 50.
In order for that to obtain cross party support it needs to be headed by a bipartisan figure.
/12
In order for that to obtain cross party support it needs to be headed by a bipartisan figure.
/12
By definition, the Leader of the Opposition is not bipartisan. Nor is the Leader of the Lib Dems, or Greens.
We need someone who obtains no electoral advantage by so acting, and who then retires. that maximises support.
/13
We need someone who obtains no electoral advantage by so acting, and who then retires. that maximises support.
/13
That politicians and commentators are childishly invoking Ramsey Mcdonald (sic) is deeply depressing.
Do you want to stop no deal? or not?
/end
Do you want to stop no deal? or not?
/end
