An important thread. Which explains why (even if a EU/UK text of a revised Withdrawal Agreement is reached by Saturday 19th) the HoC should refuse to approve it.
As the thread explains, the Withdrawal Bill is a critical and controversial piece of legislation which will need thorough examination and scrutiny.
On 19 October, the HoC will not have the text of that Bill. And it will only just have had time to read the revised Withdrawal Agreement.
But if it approves that Agreement then (under s1(1)(a) of the Benn Act) the PM’s duty to seek an extension falls away.
Once that’s done, the only way of avoiding no deal is to pass the Withdrawal Agreement Bill (which the HoC will not have seen when it votes) by 31/10. Or to trust Johnson to seek a further extension of his own will.
Option 1 is buying a pig in a poke. A legislature that did that would be failing in its constitutional duty and exposing this country to bad and quite possibly undemocratic legislation.
Option 2 requires a faith in Johnson that many may feel he doesn’t deserve.
Note: the HoC could express its *conditional* approval of the Withdrawal Agreement in a way that maintains the duty to seek an extension while signalling that in principle (or subject to a condition) the HoC is content with it.
One way would be to amend the s1(1)(a) motion roughly as follows “This House, while not approving the Withdrawal Agreement for the purposes of s.1(1)(a), calls on the Government to put forward as soon as possible for consideration by this House a Bill implementing that agreement,
... and calls on the Council of the EU to agree an extension of the Article 50 period to at least 31/1/2020 so that proper consideration can be given to that Bill.”
That would signal to the EU that the HoC was minded to approve the Agreement but wanted time to do its job. In those circumstances I cannot believe that the EU would refuse an extension.
The draft could be tweaked by referring to a general election if that appeared to be a likelihood (which I guess it could be).
What about the possibility of a “second referendum” condition?
Technically, that could be an amended motion in the form “This House, while not approving the Withdrawal Agreement for the purposes of s.1(1)(a), considers that it would approve that Agreement if it were approved in a referendum under s101 of the Political Parties Elections and
Referendums Act with the alternative option being for the U.K. to revoke its notification under Article 50 TEU, and calls on the Council of the EU to agree an extension of the Article 50 period to at least 30/6/2020 so that a referendum can be held on that basis.”
That would leave the duty to trigger an extension in place (and makes it clear that the HoC would welcome, and would agree, a longer extension than the 31/1 extension that the PM is required to ask for).
But note: that motion would have no other legal effect in terms of getting a referendum. An Act of Parliament would still be required. The necessary Bill could be defeated or amended to death. And the Government could refuse to introduce a Bill at all.
And none of this would stop an election (if there were a VONC and no alternative government, or a 2/3 vote).
And after an election a new HoC and new government would have no obligation to hold a referendum if they didn’t want one.
