Key point from my interview: the #WAB that passed its 2nd reading on Tuesday and was then “paused” by the Government does not just cover old ground. It presents brand new issues of vast potential importance, requiring proper parliamentary scrutiny (long thread) /1
First, WHERE ARE WE GOING? It’s true that page for page, the new Withdrawal Agreement mostly looks like Theresa May’s version. But the differences are extremely significant. /2
Notably, the new WA puts a customs and regulatory border down the Irish Sea - dividing the UK’s single market with possible long-term consequences for our Union (I mean the Union of GB and NI, not the EU). /3
The more regulation diverges between GB and the EU, the thicker that internal border will become. /4
The Joint Committee (whose composition and oversight remain unknown) will have to decide when goods being moved from GB to NI are at risk of entry into the EU, do that tariffs are imposed. /5
Not only export declarations but physical checks are also liable to be required on goods moving from NI to GB, since higher tariffs or regulatory requirements in GB will incentivise eastward smuggling across the Irish Sea. /6
No one thought any of this would happen until PMs Johnson and Varadkar met just two weeks ago in the Wirral. Indeed it was said that no British PM could ever agree to it. The WA contains very little detail. That’s why scrutiny is vitally important. /7
With no functioning Assembly in Stormont, parliamentary committees have a duty to probe how the new system will work, and take the evidence of likely effects on business, the economy, community identity and medium-term prospects for a bolder poll in NI. /8
Not to mention any readover that there might be to a Scotland musing on independence ... /9
Also highly significant for where we are going is another new development: the relegation of the level playing field on employment and environmental protection to the Political Declaration. /10
Now I see no reason of principle (though Labour don’t like the idea) why a future Parliament of a sovereign state should not be able to make its own judgements on the appropriate level of protection. /11
But the exercise of such autonomy come with heavy costs for the closeness of our future relationship with the EU. /12
Without Treaty guarantees of a level playing field, the FTA offered by the EU will inevitably be a thinner one. They are understandably nervous of allowing their businesses to be undercut by Singapore on the Thames? /13
This will mean more permits, quotas, licences, registrations, restrictions and checks on trade with the EU - precisely the stuff that the bus stop ads tell us is necessary to “get ready for Brexit”. /14
In other words - and this point really needs to be grasped - the recent decision to put the LPF in the PD - lauded by some as taking back control - will lead to more trade-related red tape. /15
In the absence of an Impact Assessment for the WA, Parliament will need to question people here and abroad to try and work out how much more red tape, and whether it is worth it. /16
Secondly, HOW DO WE GET WHERE WE ARE GOING? Here, the principal issues in the #WAB are constitutional, and involve the proper allocation of power as between Parliament and the Executive. /17
The arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of these powers are similar to those originally advanced in the 2018 Withdrawal Bill, which were rejected by numerous Parliamentary committees and by Parliament itself as inadequate. /19
We surely need, at the very least, a sifting mechanism that allows Parliament to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a particular set of regulations needs additional scrutiny. /20
The way in which government proposed to allocate these vital powers was revealed only on Monday of this week, when the #WAB was published. It’s a great shame that it was not published earlier in draft. /21
Parliamentary scrutiny, by select committees and by the tabling and debating of amendments, is not some unnecessary luxury: it is what makes the difference between authoritarian rule and rule by consent. /23
Scrutiny of similar bills in the past has taken up months of parliamentary time: dozens of sitting days, but also time in between for taking evidence, committee reports, discussion, drafting of amendments and negotiation. /24
Working intensively on this, with due regard to the urgency of the situation, Parliament might hope to do a decent job in four weeks. /25
By seeking to condense parliamentary scrutiny into a few days and implying that it is a luxury within his gift, @BorisJohnson Is engaging in high-pressure sales techniques, and showing his disregard for Parliament. /26
Were @EmmanuelMacron to do the same, he would be showing his disregard for the United Kingdom. /27 ENDS
