Coming on top of the controversial introduction of the concept of ‘retained EU law’ in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the provisions for an implementation / transition period in the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement pose challenges for UK law that the promised Withdrawal Agreement Bill will need to address, including through amendments to the 2018 Act.
In this May 2019 paper, Swee Leng Harris – Head of Policy and Public Affairs at The Legal Education Foundation, and a member of the Bingham Centre’s Expert Working Group on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill and the Rule of Law – first considers ‘retained EU law’ as a new category of UK law in terms of legal and constitutional status. The paper then makes observations about the constitutional and legal significance of implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement treaty in the promised Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB). Finally, the paper identifies necessary amendments to the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A) to accommodate an implementation / transition period and to ensure legal certainty on retained EU law in UK law.
The paper draws a number of conclusions regarding retained EU law and legislative changes needed to accommodate an implementation / transition period and promote legal certainty:
- Retained EU law needs to be understood in the round, including the constitutional provisions for retained EU law in the EU(W)A, changes made to retained EU law through secondary (or delegated) legislation, and other primary Brexit-related legislation affecting retained EU law.
- The WAB will likely replicate the effect of the European Communities Act 1972 to apply EU law in the UK for the implementation / transition period.
- EU law will develop and change during the implementation / transition period, and the WAB will need to enable those changes in EU law to be reflected in UK law.
- The WAB should also amend the EU(W)A so that new or modified EU laws that apply in the UK through the WAB during implementation / transition form part of retained EU law.
- Consequential amendments will be needed to enable retention of EU law under sections 2 and 4 of the EU(W)A if the ECA is to be repealed on exit day (at the beginning of the implementation / transition period) while the snapshot of EU law is to be taken on ‘retention day’ (at the end of the implementation / transition period).
The paper builds on the author’s April 2018 paper ‘Legislating for transition / implementation: implications for the EU (Withdrawal) Bill’, also published by the Hansard Society, and develops the issues/arguments raised therein.
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The end of the transition period is likely to expose even more fully the scope of the policy-making that the government can carry out via Statutory Instruments, as it uses its new powers to develop post-Brexit law. However, there are few signs yet of a wish to reform delegated legislation scrutiny, on the part of government or the necessary coalition of MPs.
Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law. As the UK moves to do things differently after 1 January, MPs must do more to ensure they can better discharge their responsibilities regarding the making of UK treaties.
The EU (Future Relationship) Bill is to be considered by both Houses in just one sitting day. How unusual is such an expedited timetable and how much time will parliamentarians really have to look at the Bill? How will MPs participate in proceedings given Covid-19 restrictions? And how will proceedings, particularly the amendment process, work on the day?
The Coronavirus pandemic has added to the questions surrounding the nature of the Parliament that should emerge from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme. But, with concerns over the programme’s governance and public engagement rising, the report arising from the current review of the programme will not now be published this year.
The debate about remote participation in House of Commons proceedings raises critical questions about what constitutes a ‘good parliamentarian’, what ‘fair’ participation looks like, and who gets to decide. As things stand, the exclusion from much parliamentary business of pregnant women, among others, undermines equality of political representation.
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve – were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?