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amendments will be needed to enable retention of EU law under sections 2 and 4 of the EU(W)A if the ECA is to be repealed on exit day (at the beginning of the implementation / transition period) while the snapshot of EU law is to be taken on ‘retention day’ (at the end of the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 Hansard Society hosted two online hustings for the candidates in the 2021 Lord Speaker election. The first event, on 25 March, was chaired by the BBC’s parliamentary correspondent Mark D’Arcy; and the second, on 13 April, was chaired by Jackie Ashley, former political correspondent and broadcaster.
The Strategic Review of the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme has been published, after 10 months’ work – but political factors mean that implementation of the programme’s main conclusion, that there will be a ‘full decant’ from the building while work takes place, remains in doubt.
In order to raise income, the government needs to obtain approval from Parliament for its taxation plans. The Budget process is the means by which the House of Commons considers the government’s plans to impose ‘charges on the people’ and its assessment of the wider state of the economy.
The Finance Bill enacts the government’s Budget provisions – its income-raising proposals and detailed tax changes. Parliament’s scrutiny and authorisation of these taxation plans are crucial in holding the government to account – between elections – for the money it raises and spends.
Lord Frost’s appointment as Minister of State in the Cabinet Office to lead on UK-EU relations brings some welcome clarity about future government arrangements in this area. However, it also raises challenges for parliamentary scrutiny, above all with respect to his status as a Member of the House of Lords.
There was controversy on 9 February over whether the government had used procedural trickery to swerve a backbench rebellion in the House of Commons on a clause inserted in the Trade Bill by the House of Lords. Apparently, it was something to do with ‘packaging’. What does that mean, and was it true? The answer is all about ‘ping-pong’.