Thread by @uk_domain_names

MPs are having to wade through not 1 but 6 new documents today when considering the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. All in, these 6 documents come to over 400 pages. And they are supposed to analyse the lot and find all the hidden mines before tomorrow!
gov.uk/government/pub…

These documents include a criminally negligent impact assessment of the costs of the bill, which pegs them at -£167 million over 10 years. No mention of the £7.5 billion/year in red tape HMRC expects Brexit to cost businesses after we've left CU+SM.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

Gotcha number 1: the transition period can only be extended once, for up to 24 months. So it's not a movable feast like Article 50. If the ERG manage to push for no extension or a very short one, that's used up the extension rights and we're then stuck with the end date.

ECHR alert: "It should *not* be assumed that every EEA or Swiss national
who is resident in the UK at the end of the IP has an Article 8 ECHR right to remain in the UK or to be joined by their family members." (emphasis mine)
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

"[EEA and Swiss nationals] will also have more favourable rights to family reunification than UK nationals (in particular, UK nationals must usually meet an income threshold before they can be joined in the UK by a third country national family member)." (from same document)

"Being deprived of reciprocal healthcare rights might also be within the ambit of Article 3 (for the purposes of engaging Article 14), given that in extreme cases an inability to obtain UK-funded treatment abroad might amount to inhumane treatment." (same document) Any lawyers?

In fact there's a whole section about how the loss of reciprocal healthcare arrangements may infringe on human rights under the ECHR. Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer, but there may be fertile feasting for those who are. See section 27.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

(Now to pick out interesting stuff from the explanatory notes.)
Paragraph 19: New EU law brought in during the transition period will apply to the UK and have to be implemented in domestic law (anti tax avoidance stuff for instance?)
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

Paragraph 27: "During the implementation period, the UK will maintain the same recourse to the EU’s judicial review structures as a Member State." Nearby paragraphs suggest the CJEU will continue to affect UK law until the transition period ends.

Paragraph 32: "For example, Article 159 of the Withdrawal Agreement creates an obligation to establish an independent authority to monitor the implementation and application of the citizens'ʹ rights part of the agreement in the UK." Helps avoid Windrush 2?

Paragraph 46: financial settlement doesn't cover any new admin stuff created by our departure, or any costs that relate to our eventual future relationship with the EU. (Attentive people already knew this but good to see it restated.)

Paragraph 52: The Bill only gives permission to pay the money we owe under the financial settlement. It doesn't authorise the Government to pay any costs relating to the future relationship (I assume the HOC would have to give authority for those separately if/when they arise).

🚨Danger danger danger. Paragraph 63 means the Government can hold Parliament hostage over the future negotiations. If Parliament doesn't agree to the Government's strategy, "the negotiations for the second phase cannot begin." But the clock will still be ticking.

Paragraph 72: Aha. Parliament will be allowed to "consider" whenever the Government wants to strip away rights. But of course if Tories are in a majority then they will be able to strip away like they're defoliating a forest, since they'll have the votes to approve the changes.

P138: "Once free movement has ended, beneficiaries of the citizens’ rights part of the Agreements who have not yet secured leave to enter or remain in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme would no longer have a lawful basis to reside in the UK unless further provision is made."

Para 147: "Under the Common Travel Area (CTA), UK and Irish citizens will have the right to move freely and work across the Irish border, and so will not need to rely on these frontier worker rights." Rare sensible provision.

Para 160: EU and EEA citizens will have more protection against deportation than third country nationals do for so long as the implementation period lasts. Implicitly, that means they won't have that extra protection once the IP ends.

Para 254 (relates to NI): "Subsection (1) of new section 8C confers a power on a Minister of the Crown to make legislative changes that they consider are appropriate for the purposes of implementing the Protocol" Henry VIII powers reference?

Para 308: the Government gets the power to "fix" deficiencies in retained EU law for up to two years after the transition period ends. Logic given is that problems may not rear their ugly head immediately, so they need to play whack-a-mole down the line. (Heavily paraphrased!)

Clause 30 (paras 319 and 320) is about the extension of the transition period. The Government gets to propose if/whether to have one. Parliament must agree. However, there's no mechanism for Parliament itself to decide on if/whether to have an extension or not.

Para 324 is key. Negotiations on future relationship must be consistent with the political declaration. But the PD has been heavily watered down from May's version. So this is the "look, we're heading for a pretty hard Brexit" paragraph it seems to me.

Para 325 builds on something I flagged earlier, namely that Parliament has to approve the negotiating objectives. If it doesn't, the negotiations don't proceed. But then we're just running down the clock towards no deal. Puts massive pressure on Parliament to say "yes yes, ok".

Para 329: The Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and NI if appropriate get a copy of the progress reports on the future relationship negotiations. That seems to be the limit of their input on the matter i.e. they have zero say in shaping that future relationship.

Para 331: the HOC has to approve the final negotiated future relationship. But there's no explanation of what happens if it doesn't. Because we'll still be on a conveyor belt straight to no deal at that point.

Para 337: normally key bills have to be laid 21 sitting days ahead. This allows Government to thumb their noses at the requirement and dump everything on MPs the night before, as they've just done.

Clause 39: that whole section seems to be more Henry VIII powers.

Paras 493-500 suggest there may be cases in which the EU makes new law affecting workers' rights, but the UK declines to adopt it.

There then follows a bewildering laundry list of other Acts that this Bill will amend. It's like a weed sending its tangled roots shooting everywhere. In other words, for MPs to *fully* understand the Bill, they have to understand the dozens and dozens of Acts it amends.

That's about it. I skipped a tonne of stuff that would send lawyers into paroxysms of joy but which was just too dense for an educated layman i.e. me. Hopefully the above gives a flavour of some of the complexities buried in this massive cache of documents.

Disclaimer: errors and omissions excepted. I am not a lawyer. Sarcasm provided at no extra cost.

On my way out, can I be a tad cheeky and suggest you check out my Brexit book if you've not done so already? It busts two dozen Brexit myths & digs into the truth of no deal and trade on WTO terms. (It also includes 45 pages of Brexit's existing impacts.)
amazon.co.uk/dp/B07Z1FTRQW/…

(Probably helps if you know exactly what's included in my book, so here's a peek at the Table of Contents...)