Is an 'enshrining' compatible with the Withdrawal Agreement?
tl;dr Yes
1/
tl;dr Yes
1/
The gvt's plan to enshrine a conclusion of the negotiations on a future relationship with the EU by the end of 2020 has raised various legal queries, mostly about the scope of Parliament to limit itself (spoiler: it can't, in this case), but there's also the EU side
2/
2/
Have been asked whether this idea would be compatible with Withdrawal Agt, which provides for an extension (Art.132): surely it negates the meaning of that provision, and thus renders WA void?
3/
3/
Not really, no
Let's look at what Art.132 says first
4/
Let's look at what Art.132 says first
4/
(an aside here, but this has been the text since Nov 18, since it wasn't changed by Johnson's renegotiation)
5/
5/
The text on says that an extension 'may' be agreed.
Not 'must', nor any language that compels other parties to accept requests by a party to extend
6/
Not 'must', nor any language that compels other parties to accept requests by a party to extend
6/
Thus, an enshrining would simply be saying that one of the parties (UK) would not seek to use 132, nor would it agree to a request from another party (EU)
That's entirely within the scope of the WA
7/
That's entirely within the scope of the WA
7/
It also raises an important note
If enshrining only says the first part of that (not asking), then door is left wide open for extension following an EU request, without need for amending legislation
8/
If enshrining only says the first part of that (not asking), then door is left wide open for extension following an EU request, without need for amending legislation
8/
Last note: once enshrining happens, moot point as to whether HMG can agree (rather than just discuss) an extension while that's in force, so sequencing will matter
9/
9/
In short: WA doesn't stop enshrining, as much as it matters at all
/end
/end
