Withdrawal Agreement Act Clause 38

The minister referred to clause 5, which gives the withdrawal agreement primacy over the whole of national law. It will not allow parliamentary oversight of the resulting amendments. This vast and diverse power affects people. In particular, the removal of Article 31 of the initial Bill Withdrawal Agreement as a whole means that Parliament has no voice, influence or ability to define the conditions or objectives of future relations, which go far beyond any trade agreement. Such actions scare people from what is happening. Moreover, we have not heard a good argument from the government as to why Parliament is suddenly excluded in this way. The fly in the ointment, however, is included in Section 38 of the 2020 Act. The so-called “sovereignty” clause requires that paragraphs 7A-7C be read as if they did not depart from the sovereignty of Parliament. This could have been a source of concern for the EU, but it has always been true that all the legislation transposing the withdrawal agreement was contrary to the principle of Parliament`s sovereignty and that the law had not, in itself, complied with Article 4, provided that the agreement could be applied in practice and that inconsistent provisions could not be applied. The House of Commons could accept, refuse or propose alternatives (“changes” or “changes in the end”). If Members accept all amendments, the law can be prepared for royal approval and become law.

If there are outstanding areas, these issues must be left to the Lords for further consideration. This process (also known as ping-pong) continues until a full agreement is reached or the law is blocked. Together with the WAB, the House of Commons and the Lords are expected to settle their differences on Wednesday 22 January. In Amendment No 9, we are explicitly talking about an economic impact assessment. There hasn`t been one since 2018, and that was the Chequers agreement. Honestly, after reading the Chequers agreement, which many members on the government benches, including the Prime Minister, did not support, I can say that it was a complete agreement on the cake and eat it. Honestly, it was never an agreement; It was just a wish list that had no chance of happening. Since then, there has been no economic impact analysis or, certainly, an economic impact analysis on the impact of this bill.

The result is the dilemma that British constitutional rights defenders are familiar with and which has been the subject of much discussion during the UK`s lifetime membership of the EU.

atis