Withdrawal Agreement Bill Clause 38
Villaking, There is no „transcription“ of the bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU, unless the EU tries to abuse immediately and credibly provisions within the VA to dissolve the UK from Great Britain and Northern Ireland. UK officials say the EU has made such threats. The British government uses only the precautionary principle to protect us from such a blatant breach of the spirit and letter of the VA by the EU. I am surprised that even a remain can claim that the UK`s reaction is paramount. The October MDM contained a provision (paragraph 31) that would have created a structure for Parliament to monitor negotiations on future EU relations. This provision could, in turn, have led Members to seek, for example, the agreement of Members on the government`s negotiating mandate, which could have led to a strengthening of control by parliamentary committees. The decision not to include section 31 in the BMS shows that the government does not want to be bound by legal requirements to obtain the agreement of the Commons at certain stages of the negotiations. From the point of view of the rule of law, this seems to be short-sighted. Article 31 provided a way to increase the transparency and accessibility of the British government`s role in shaping future relations, an international agreement that will have a profound impact on the British people. In the absence of such a provision, Parliament and the Government must find alternative mechanisms to ensure that parliamentarians and public opinion can be involved in the monitoring of international agreements. Section 38 deals with parliamentary sovereignty.
Independent audits of the clause, including by the library and the Government Institute, show how completely meaningless it is. It just says something without giving him any power. It has no legal power, but in this bill, broad delegated powers are transferred from that Parliament to the executive. The government has just voted against limiting these powers in the usual way that they were limited in the Withdrawal Act 2018 to protect things like the Human Rights Act, the Government of Wales Act, the Scotland Act and the Northern Ireland Act. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was at the dispatch box for the previous group of amendments, could not explain why the government felt it could not accept such restrictions. That is where the concern comes from, particularly in section 21. There is no sunset clause – there is no limit. This plan to rebalance powers between executive, parliamentary and judicial clout was part of the Conservative manifesto, and we literally see it come to life in this bill. It agreed with the Turks to mitigate some of the damage it had caused: they would take in millions of Syrians and we would pay. She took a large sum from David Cameron and refused to pay the Turks the full amount agreed. The WAB contains a mixture of constitutional messages.
The WAB provides an orderly Brexit through the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, but it also wants to allow Parliament and the courts to engage in the government`s approach to Brexit. This is also stipulated in Article 33, which prohibits the government from agreeing to an extension of the transposition period. It is difficult to reconcile this with Article 132 of the withdrawal agreement, which explicitly provides for the potential for a single extension of up to two years. The government rightly wants to avoid unnecessary delays and uncertainties. The previous MDM gave Parliament the right to veto a proposal for an extension (Article 30). This provision may have found a better balance. However, article 33 shows that the government wants to give priority to sending a clear political message: that this government will give priority to the provision of differences as soon as possible.