The amendment referred to here by @tnewtondunn has been published. You can find it on today's amendment paper here. publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill…

There follows a short thread explaining what this amendment does and what it does not do.
The default rule about "commencement regulations" is that they are made by a Minister without any form of Parliamentary approval. By default, that is what would happen with clauses 42, 43 and 45 (the ones that break, and enable the Government further to break, international law).
This amendment would mean that the commencement regulations for each of those sections is subject to a further vote by the @HouseofCommons. A motion would have to specify which sections were coming into force and on what date.
This provides an additional "hurdle" before the regulations can made made that breach the Northern Ireland Protocol.

However, it doesn't stop the Internal Market Act, in and of itself, breaching Article 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement.
If MPs voted to allow the Government to bring these provisions into force, moreover, we would return to the position we were in before. For six months, the Government would be able to make regulations:
(a) without prior approval
(b) repeatedly
(c) which break international law
Only six months later would the Government start having to lay regulations in draft, and get the approval of both Houses, before they could come into force.

In practice it seems like the Government would try to commence these powers just before transition ends.
So for the first half of 2021, the Government would have a power to breach its international commitments, and Parliament would have no guaranteed ability to stop those regulations from being made. It would let the Government "set the agenda" for how these powers are to be used.
Given the statement yesterday by the European Commission, a compromise like this is unlikely to be accepted: it still involves a prima facie breach of the Withdrawal Agreement treaty, and requires the Government simply to win one Commons vote to start breaching the Protocol.
I should probably add, that this amendment's "lock" doesn't give any greater a role to the @UKHouseofLords in overseeing whether or not regulations can be made to breach international law. The commencement vote is confined to the @HouseofCommons.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Graeme Cowie

Graeme Cowie Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @woodstockjag

12 Sep
Both the Advocate General for Scotland and the Attorney General have argued in recent days, that section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides a precedent for the UK legislating contrary to its international obligations.

[THREAD] [1/15] ImageImage
The Government's argument seems to be that this illustrates both how:

(a) domestic law and international law sometimes come into conflict; and
(b) this sometimes justifies Ministers acting contrary to international law and/or Parliament legislating contrary to it. [2/15]
Specifically, they point to section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This provision imposed a new obligation on Ministers when introducing a Bill before Parliament.

A Minister has to make one of two statements, in writing, when they are introducing a Bill. [3/15] Image
Read 15 tweets
10 May
I got something wrong in a couple of Tweets about 15 minutes ago, but useful to explain what I got wrong and why.

Latest press briefing is that people will soon be allowed to exercise outside with one person from another household (if socially distanced). (1)
Contrary to what I originally said, it's not clear that you could do this at the moment. Why?

(a) you can be outside the house for exercise

and

(b) only some gatherings of more than 2 people are prohibited

But from that it doesn't follow two people can exercise together. (2)
This is because you need a "reasonable excuse" to be outside. There's a list of reasonable excuses and it includes exercise, but it's a bit more specific. It says you can be out "to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household". (3)
Read 9 tweets
19 Mar
Sunset clauses are an important safeguard against the use of unusually broad or general executive powers. They also take different forms: (a) time limiting provisions in an Act (b) time limiting the power to make regulations or (c) time limiting the effect of regulations. (1/8)
The purpose is to ensure e.g. that emergency powers are not used beyond what is needed to deal with genuine conditions of emergency. In the UK it gives Parliament a safety valve in case it thinks an emergency no longer pertains or Gov't measures are no long appropriate. (2/8)
Our existing emergency legislation already tries to strike that balance. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004, for example, provides two key time limits. Regs lapse after:
(a) 7 days from the point they are LAID; and
(b) no more than 30 days after they are MADE. (3/8)
Read 8 tweets
6 Feb
Since you didn't ask.

Section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 says something is outwith competence if it is "incompatible with EU law".

Section 126(9) of the 1998 Act defines "EU law" but with reference to "EU Treaties".

The 1998 Act doesn't define "EU Treaties". (1/x)
So off you go to Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978.

It does define "EU Treaties". But it just says "what EU Treaties means in the European Communities Act 1972".

(2/x)
So you go to section 1 and Schedule 1 of the European Communities Act 1972.

They define the "EU Treaties" by reference to a list.

But then you find out that the ECA was repealed by section 1 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 "on exit day" (31/01/20). You think you're stuck. (3/x)
Read 7 tweets
19 Dec 19
Here is the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2019-20.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill…

First impressions.

Three clauses removed.

Clause 30 on MPs' veto over extension? Gone.
Clause 31 on Parliament's role re future relationship? Gone.
Clause 34 and Schedule 4 on workers' rights? Gone.
5 new clauses:

Clause 30 on Joint Committee dispute resolution reporting
Clause 33 banning Ministers from agreeing to an extension
Clause 35 banning the use of written procedure in the Joint Committee
Clause 36 repealing spent enactments
Clause 37 changing stuff re Dubs children
The much briefed stories about letting lower courts depart from CJEU judgments, rather than just the Supreme Court and High Court of Justiciary? That seems to be a new subsection in clause 26(1) of the Bill. It gives Ministers a power to decide when lower courts can do this.
Read 7 tweets
5 Nov 19
In before the #Dissolution lock, the Lords Constitution Committee have published their interim report into the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. Click the link to have a gander. parliament.uk/business/commi…
Firstly, it provides some useful context. Although we don't know for certain whether/when this Bill (or something similar to it) will be presented in the new Parliament it is useful to assess the WAB "as is". It will inform the basis for scrutinising any departure "with a deal".
It notes the WAB proposes (as required by the Withdrawal Agreement) to give legal persons the same recourse to the CJEU and for the same purposes as a Member State during transition. This, as with vast swathes of the WAB, would override rules in the Withdrawal Act on this point.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!