I’m grateful to @thetimes for referring to my comments on the EU (Future Relationship) Bill. /1
In my comments, I focussed on the very unusual technique adopted in clause 29, which requires UK law to be read and applied as if it has been modified in line with the future relationship Agreements even if it has not actually been modified. /2
That approach, although it’s not wholly unprecedented and shares something in common with the direct effect provisions in the ECA 1972 and the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, creates significant concerns regarding clarity and legal certainty - ie establishing what the law is. /3
But the constitutional concerns regarding the Bill are not confined to clause 29. In addition, very extensive Henry VIII powers, enabling Ministers to make law and override Acts of Parliament, are also conferred by the Bill. /4
More generally, it’s very concerning that parliamentary consideration of both the future relationship Agreements and the Bill is being rushed through in one day. As the @HLConstitution Committee has noted, this precludes any adequate form of scrutiny. /5 committees.parliament.uk/publications/4…
It is far from clear why it is necessary to legislate on a permanent, as distinct from a temporary or emergency basis, in such haste, as @jeff_a_king has very cogently pointed out. /6
Taken in the round, what is happening today in Parliament is very difficult to square with the notion of ‘restoring’ parliamentary sovereignty - a notion that, as I pointed out yesterday, is fetishised and misunderstood in equal measure by some Brexiteers. /7
Today’s proceedings are a microcosm of the approach to Brexit that has been pursued throughout: namely, the hoarding of power by the UK Government at the expense of respect for any part of the constitution - devolved, parliamentary or judicial - that threatens its hegemony. /8
This undoubtedly amounts to a form of ‘taking back control’, but hardly in the sense that was taken to have been intended by those who peddled that notion four and a half years ago. /ends

• • •

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

Keep Current with Mark Elliott

Mark Elliott 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 @ProfMarkElliott

29 Dec 20
This, from the so called ERG star chamber, exhibits impressive levels of cognitive dissonance. /1 lawyersforbritain.org/wp-content/upl…
Their position appears to be that EU membership was incompatible with UK sovereignty (it wasn’t) but that the future relationship agreement is fine because the UK can is bound either to amend domestic law or accept tariffs in relevant circumstances. /2
Their fundamental error is to assume that sovereignty is a binary concept that is either possessed or not. In reality it is a resource that each State can deploy as it chooses, balancing the cost of limiting freedom of action against the benefits that accrue from doing so. /3
Read 4 tweets
29 Dec 20
Cl 29 of the Future Relationship Bill is certainly interesting. If I’ve understood correctly, it is, in effect, an automatic Henry VIII clause that requires existing domestic law to be treated as subject to the Agreements to the extent that they have not been implemented.
By automatic Henry VIII clause, I mean that cl 29 has the effect of requiring us to proceed as if domestic law had been amended via a Henry VIII power in circumstances where it has not been amended but where amendment is needed to implement the Agreements.
That does not strike me as ideal from a legal certainty perspective. But I guess it’s an acknowledgment that there may not be time to make all necessary changes to domestic law by more conventional means.
Read 7 tweets
17 Sep 20
A second short thread on the Government’s proposed amendments to the Internal Market Bill — this time looking at what is said about judicial review. /…
Clause 45 contains what has widely been taken to be an ouster clause, i.e. ousting the courts’ capacity to judicially review regulations made under clauses 42 & 43. They are given effect ‘notwithstanding’ incompatibility with a wide variety of forms of law. /…
In particular, the reference in clause 45(4) to ‘any rule of domestic law whatsoever’ seems, on the face of it, to rule out judicial review on normal grounds. /…
Read 14 tweets
17 Sep 20
The Government has published its proposed amendments to the Internal Market Bill in order to give effect to the so-called climb down that is intended to placate sufficient Conservative MPs.

Here is the first of two short threads on this. /…
Here’s the amendment that’s intended to provide reassurance to MPs about breaching international law. /…
The effect of this amendment is very limited. It simply means that the Ministerial powers to breach the Withdrawal Agreement & NI Protocol don’t become legally exercisable until they are triggered by a vote in the House of Commons. /…
Read 9 tweets
15 Sep 20
By my reckoning, the Government has so far attempted in five ways to justify clauses 42 and 43 of the Internal Market Bill, which, if enacted, would allow Ministers to make regulations in breach of the Withdrawal Agreement /…
1. The powers would breach international law but only in a ‘limited and specific’ manner (Brandon Lewis, Northern Ireland Secretary) — but this is not a distinction the law draws: a breach of international law is a breach of international law /…
2. The powers are needed in case the Government needs rapidly to implement safeguards under Art 16 NI Protocol (Lord Keen, Advocate General) — but the clause 42–3 powers bear little relation to the matters with which Article 16 is concerned /…
Read 7 tweets
15 Sep 20
This preposterous.

A short thread on why — and what the fact that the Government is advancing this argument might tell us. /…
The Salisbury convention can only conceivably bite on Bills that *give effect to* the governing party’s manifesto commitments, as distinct from Bills that *renege* on such commitments. /… lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…
There was a clear commitment in the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto to ‘get Brexit done’ by implementing the Prime Minister’s ‘great new deal’ as set out in the Withdrawal Agreement & the Northern Ireland Protocol. /… assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd…
Read 11 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!