The Bill to approve the Brexit deal has been published. Included is this wonderful clause, which basically says a Minister may enact anything they wish if they can claim it is a part of the process of implementing the deal, however they might interpret that:
So, what's the point of parliament?
And what's the point of an Opposition that votes for this?
I despair of Labout if they think that supporting this casting away of the rights of scrutiny constitutes Opposition. It's as if they agree that Parliament has not got time to do its job, and so really does not need to sit again until 11 January, or at any time thereafter, apparently.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Till the next general elections there is neither opposition nor options. The mantra of making England Great will run for four years. Best to keep quite and try to survive with minimum income.
Again, Charter Cities https://www.chartercitiesinstitute.org/post/charter-cities-are-not-an-exit-strategy
I thought I’d pop this in here so various of the readers get familiar with the concept. Certainly an alarming amount of thought seems to have gone into this whole idea and they’ve kept it very quiet, haven’t they?
Agreed…
On which subject, it seems others are concerned too https://blog.politics.ox.ac.uk/is-the-charter-cities-moment-here/
It will also allow a minister to overrule the Scottish government on any matter relating to the deal, with no debate anywhere.
At least we Scots will get the chance to get outta this place.
One could be forgiven for thinking that Article 31(2) indicates that the the entire Parliament would be involved in the making of any “provision (including modifying this Act)” and not just a sort of dictatorial decision of a minister. In other words, that a vote of Parliament would be involved.
Scary, isn’t it?
Depends what is meant by a “relevant national authority” – Boris and his “chumocracy” or Parliament. Vague phrase which needs defining! Shouldn’t that be the opposition’s job? Don’t have much confidence in “Kowed Keir” doing it but we’ll see.
If it was parliament this would not be needed, so it isn’t parlaiament
This Section 31 seems very badly drafted. What happened to the “Plain English” campaign?
Obfuscation pays….
Perhaps a constituent of Starmer, or a Labour Party member (perhaps drawn from among the readership of Tax Research UK?), would care to write to Starmer and demand of him that he at least ask the question of the PM whether “relevant national authority” exclusively means Parliament before giving the Conservatives the Labour vote free gratis on the cheap – and make it easier for the ERG to vote against the Government, risk free and with no real politica l consequences; and if not, why? If not, what is the point of a ‘ritual dance’ debate? What is the point of Parliament? What is the point of politics?
It is the very least Starmer can do as Leader of the Official Opposition, especially as he has thrown in the towel, even before the debate opens in Parliament. Why is it politicians think they can substitute the need for political courage by following the latest opinion steer from focus groups?
I am an unreconciled Scottish Remainer; nothing – nothing short of continued membership of the Single Market is acceptable to me, as the absolute, red-line minimum requirement from absolutely any Brexit deal. I expect MPs who wish to represent people like me should note my position. The consequences of the deal not being passed remains the responsibility of this Government. They created this mess. They require to fix it, live with it, and take all the consequences; no ifs, no buts, no maybes.
“So, what’s the point of parliament?”
It’s a fig-leaf. Welcome to the ‘Wild West’………………..
Interesting. Can I ask where you got this interpretation from? A legal or constitutional friend perhaps
I have been doing tax for forty years
That means I have to be able to read law
I have also written Bills that have been presented to Parliament
I know how these things work
What are your qualifications.
My legal qualifications are the same as yours.
But there was no need to get accusatory; I wasn’t asking if you were legally qualified. I was asking where your interpretation came from. It’s quite possible it came from yourself, and that you check draft bills regularly and read the 80 pages of it. It’s also possible that you have a legal or constitutional friend or service that highlighted it to you thinking you would be interested.
It was me, from scanning the Bill and looking for problems in the first 30 minutes after getting it
With maybe more acumen than many MPs have as they have not legislation for as long as I have
In addition to the problems you highlight it’s also seen outside England as a strong threat to our existing devolution settlements.
Agreed
Labour has to vote for this to counter the possibility that the ERG will vote against (though apparently their ‘Star Chamber’ have decided that it is compatible with UK Sovereignty). We do not want No Deal by accident. Or at all, but particularly not in a preventable fashion.
That does not mean that Labour cannot try to amend the Bill to remove the offensive clauses, along with a motion of regret that the deal does not meet what was promised. Those will probably be voted down, but Labour can be seen to have tried.
In five hours very much doubt amendments will be taken
It seems the ERG will support the Brexit deal. The Labour Party is voting for a deal that even matches the practical expectations of the ERG. This is the picture of Britain that the political representatives of Remainer Scotland are supposed to find acceptable, and approve; and people actually wonder why Scotland is contemplating independence?
It is no surprise Scotland has turned its back on Labour
Starmer’s position (announced in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/29/labour-will-not-seek-major-changes-to-uks-relationship-with-eu-keir-starmer?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other) would appear to be a staggering blunder. It’s as if he is only capable of focussing on one element of a several-sided dilemma. His one obsession is the red wall vote, but he forgets that pursuing Leave voters (who will probably not be impressed anyway) will destroy any Labour recovery in Scotland. He forgets that Remain-minded voters will bitterly resent his giving up on them and will turn against him. Most galling of all is the complete lack of political wit. Why commit to a position now just as the Brexit disaster is about to unfold?
I wish I could answer these questions
I think his strategy completely wrong
The Tories have brought Parliament into disrepute.
Labour is damned if they do or don’t back it.
And this Bill is ad hoc law. So how can Labour contest it effectively? They will be forever on the back foot.
What we’ve seen since 2010 is a master class in ‘dual statism’ as defined by Ernst Fraenkel – a state that says on one hand that it upholds the law (the ‘normative’ state) whilst at the same time also practices as a ‘prerogative’ state (is prepared to break its own laws and sees itself as above the law or a ‘jurisdiction over a jurisdiction’ in order that Johnson can meet the whims of the ERG and his financial backers).
At least Trump was more honest – he never hid his contempt or what he intended to do.
Johnson though and the ERG – have practiced nothing but subterfuge – Cameron and May before him.
And how quintessentially English of them – eh?
“Johnson though and the ERG — have practiced nothing but subterfuge — Cameron and May before him. And how quintessentially English of them — eh?” No, NOT “how quintessentially English of them”! ‘How quintessentially one type/breed of English of them’ I will accept…
“relevant national authority” is defined in clause 37(1) – see page 29 – and “means
(a) a Minister of the Crown,
(b) a devolved authority, or
(c) a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with one or more devolved authorities;”
Schedule 5 contains procedural requirements for making regulations under that and other clauses.
From a brief look, it seems to me that regulations made under clause 31 would usually have to be laid before Parliament in draft under paragraph 6 and subject to the affirmative procedure or negative procedure in the usual way, but paragraph 14 circumvents that if the minister says it is an emergency. (The way coronavirus regulations have left to the last minute, and then published and brought into force immediately, but only formally approved weeks later, shows how well this works in practice.)
Starmer needs to check whether this deal meets his conditions. If it does not, he should not vote for it.
I agree
Andrew,
Despite the apparent “checks and balances”, it sounds suspiciously and worryingly close to Johnson’s version (pace Godwin’s Law) of the 1938 Enabling Act!!
In principle, the power is limited to implementation of the relevant agreements, or matters relating thereto (or rather, things that a minister thinks are “appropriate” in relation to implementation and matters relating thereto).
But that is an awfully wide and vague definition. So we are reliant on the government and its ministers only using that power for proper purposes, and for example not manufacturing an “emergency” by leaving a situation until it becomes so urgent that there is no time for the normal procedures. And we know how much respect this government pays to the “usual” conventions (for example, in relation to proroguing Parliament; or sacking ministers who break the Ministerial Code; or respecting the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission). Although, at the moment, it does not matter, as the in-built majority in Parliament would approve almost anything anyway. Elective dictatorship indeed.
On its face, the 1933 Enabling Act was time limited and subject to limits, and we know how that worked out. (Which is not to dismiss your concerns, but for example the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 are already on the statute books, so in a sense we are always reliant upon a government not abusing its powers.)
We are legislating in haste; let us hope we do not repent at leisure.
You are sharing my concern
Interesting article.
There’s an article on SkwawkBox today which points out that the Brexit bill contains provisions to lock in privatisations and prevent the possibility of reversing them.
“The new treaty sets in stone the mis-named ‘competition law’ that prevents the UK government giving contracts to the intrinsically most competitive publicly-run services — intrinsically because they don’t take profit out and can pay the best wages that boost national and local economies to the best effect. And it renders illegal attempts to re-nationalise services by giving preference to public providers.”
Forgot to paste the link
Forensic’? Starmer said he’d support EU trade bill that rules out any decent future Labour manifesto — when he hadn’t even read it
https://skwawkbox.org/2020/12/26/forensic-starmer-said-hed-support-eu-trade-bill-that-rules-out-any-decent-future-labour-manifesto-when-he-hadnt-even-read-it/
Can you eat trust? Starmer just did!
Pleased Clive Lewis abstained.
OOhh……back to the feudal state type of government.
I suppose we constitute the “peasantry”, while the “nobility” is constituted by the “political” class. Which would be why Steir Karmer has decided that opposition is below him, and has become one with the force (farce).
The Dog whistle was blown by Liam Fox.
In the parliamentary debate today he made it clear that the contradiction is between the constitutional arguement and the economic arguement.
He asserts the primacy of the constitutional position.
In this he follows the classic neo-liberal view that the constitution trumps democracy.
In other words the rights of the rich over the rights of democrats who might act against their interests.
It is also a classic neo-liberal position that the executive needs to be freed of democratic or legal constraint to achieve its goals , which will be to cut the role of regulation and constraints on the rights of landowners and wealth holders and to erect further constitutional checks and opportunities for further privatisation (e.g. by agreeing Trade deals which do so by stealth e.g. TTIP international tribunals preventing nationalisations and opening public contracts to one way privatisation).
If this seems conspiratorial read Nancy Mclean and this about the secret negotiations with the US on a trade deal
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-accused-of-caving-to-us-trade-demands_uk_5eb16d59c5b60a9277823f3e
This Bill also bypasses section 20 the Constitutional Reform and Governance 2010 Bill. That section of the CRAG requires the minister to bring the treaty to parliament. And that there should be 21 sitting days between the presentation of the treaty and its ratification.
So this treaty by Boris Johnson means he can ratify anything whenever he wants.
Tom Kibasi, in the Guardian today ‘The threat of a no-deal Brexit was nothing more than a hoax’; very acutely identifies the techniques that have been used to sell this virtually no-deal ‘deal’ to the British public:
“The threat of a no-deal Brexit has always been a hoax — and it has been one of the most successful deceptions in British political history. It was never a real option but has systematically lowered domestic expectations for a deal and allowed the government to avoid any serious scrutiny. Boris Johnson played the role of no-deal madman with aplomb, as if he had been born for it. Which of course he believes he was.”
Put that together with the way Britain spun out this ludicrous game-playing to the very, bitter end; the last moment result, just in time for the long Christmas to New Year holiday, in order to ensure the total elimination of all serious scrutiny of the deal – in Britain. Everything is closed, the Government never offers ministers for interrogation, the media staffs in post in the newsrooms are thin on the ground, Parliament is not sitting (save for five hours to pass the deal in short order!), the academics are off, the lawyers are at home. Britain is closed, and Covid-19 has done the rest; nobody in Britian knows anything, and that is just the way the Government wants it.
Leaving no grubby smear unused, the EU is blamed for for the last minute nature of the denouement; claiming the EU’s alleged tendency to stretch things out to the last minute before concessions are made, a double benefit to the British chancers, because this trick also makes it look as if concessions of substance were actually made by the EU. They weren’t. In any case, the whole farrago of supposed late-night, last minute deals as the standard fare in Europe, are actually functions of deals between EU members, not necessarily for trade negotiations between the EU and 3rd party trading partners. Such deals typically end when they end. It was the British who wanted it over by the 31st December deadline, from the beginning. And so it was; just-in-time to keep the British public in the dark until the deal was done.
The Britain-EU deal we have, was available to Britain almost any time Britain was ready to sign it over the last four years; it is as thin and and limited as that. It was easy for the EU to make this offer, because there isn’t enough in it of real substance from an EU perspective to warrant all the drama, unless the British were deliberatley stalling. It certainly didn’t need four years, and last minute theatrical drama to produce something that in terms of any good news for Britain’s economy is 1,200 pages of smoke. All of these late-night pizzas were no more than puffed-up TV spectacle, sold by the British, ahem ‘media’ (the PR arm of British government) to their own people. This was just more Johnson high-wire British flag, theatrical guff: to ensure that the result finally produced and oversold, would arrive too late to be examined by anyone outside government before it was signed; to guarantee the complete elimination of all scrutiny of the deal by everyone – in Britain. This deal is so bad it required to be signed on behalf of Britain, while the public was still blind to its content and consequences. We will find out slowly what it really means, and how bad it is; like the old Chinese water torture, drip, by drip.
This deal is the next-to-no-deal deal. After all, even no deal needs a deal. Even WTO terms would still have required some form of agreement with the EU simply to regularise the processes of trade. And then we will go on negotiating with the EU, for years to come. It is how trade works. You have just been scammed, by your own Government.
May had the best telling story to tell yesterday
She put a better deal on the table and Johnson rejected it
Absolutely spot on. The whole charade was done with such contempt. Johnson’s meeting with Von de Leyen was pure theatre. The media nodded along, never once questioning. As a side issue, I wonder how much money was made on insider knowledge of media statements?
Polly Toynbee, to her credit, wrote consistently on the real story, but lone voices were easily drowned out by the likes of Peston and Kuenssberg. Most depressing of all was the role played by the opposition. They at least could have raised the alarm. Instead they preferred to keep quiet. Best not to offend anyone.