This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/13/the-guardian-view-on-the-repeal-bill-bad-for-brexit-bad-for-democracy
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on the repeal bill: bad for Brexit, bad for democracy | The Guardian view on the repeal bill: bad for Brexit, bad for democracy |
| (7 months later) | |
| Thu 13 Jul 2017 18.55 BST | |
| Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 15.36 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| “I don’t hear whistling, just the clock ticking,” Michel Barnier, the European commission’s lead Brexit negotiator, said this week. It was a riposte to Boris Johnson’s crass contribution to the debate over the UK’s financial liabilities to Brussels with the suggestion that the EU could “go whistle”. | “I don’t hear whistling, just the clock ticking,” Michel Barnier, the European commission’s lead Brexit negotiator, said this week. It was a riposte to Boris Johnson’s crass contribution to the debate over the UK’s financial liabilities to Brussels with the suggestion that the EU could “go whistle”. |
| Mr Barnier is right. Article 50 is activated. The UK’s EU membership expires on 29 March 2019. Time is tight on two fronts – in Brussels, where a deal must be agreed, and in parliament, where foundations must be laid for life after Brexit. There is innate tension between the need for scrutiny of Brexit’s legal basis and the need to have it in place before the departure date. That tension runs through the EU withdrawal bill (or “great repeal bill”) published on Thursday. It is not a long text but it represents a huge task: putting into UK statute all EU law accrued since the European Communities Act 1972. | Mr Barnier is right. Article 50 is activated. The UK’s EU membership expires on 29 March 2019. Time is tight on two fronts – in Brussels, where a deal must be agreed, and in parliament, where foundations must be laid for life after Brexit. There is innate tension between the need for scrutiny of Brexit’s legal basis and the need to have it in place before the departure date. That tension runs through the EU withdrawal bill (or “great repeal bill”) published on Thursday. It is not a long text but it represents a huge task: putting into UK statute all EU law accrued since the European Communities Act 1972. |
| It thus allows for that act to be repealed – definitive severance from the EU. The bill also builds a device by which ministers might then dispense with any aspects of the European legacy they deem surplus to requirements. Those “delegated powers” for easy pruning are loosely defined and limited by a two-year “sunset clause”. So there is a trade-off: the government is asking for a very free licence to purge the statute book of European clutter, but pledging to surrender that licence relatively promptly. | It thus allows for that act to be repealed – definitive severance from the EU. The bill also builds a device by which ministers might then dispense with any aspects of the European legacy they deem surplus to requirements. Those “delegated powers” for easy pruning are loosely defined and limited by a two-year “sunset clause”. So there is a trade-off: the government is asking for a very free licence to purge the statute book of European clutter, but pledging to surrender that licence relatively promptly. |
| That principle is not intrinsically unsound. There has to be some streamlining if parliament is not to be bogged down in re-legislating old EU matters for years. But the devil is in the lack of detail. There are some explicit limits, but mostly the so-called “Henry VIII powers” (named after that monarch’s appetite for rule by fiat) are sweeping. The danger is that a formidable weapon of executive control will be wielded by ministers (and, effectively, their officials) without accountability. Chunks of law might be carved to pieces in Whitehall, out of MPs’ sight. That should offend all democrats, regardless of their views on Brexit. The bill proposes equivalent powers for the devolved nations, but arranges them in a way that reinforces Westminster’s primacy. The Scottish and Welsh first ministers have condemned this as a retreat from commitments made by Theresa May that powers “repatriated” from Brussels would go to Edinburgh and Cardiff. That disappointment looks justified. | That principle is not intrinsically unsound. There has to be some streamlining if parliament is not to be bogged down in re-legislating old EU matters for years. But the devil is in the lack of detail. There are some explicit limits, but mostly the so-called “Henry VIII powers” (named after that monarch’s appetite for rule by fiat) are sweeping. The danger is that a formidable weapon of executive control will be wielded by ministers (and, effectively, their officials) without accountability. Chunks of law might be carved to pieces in Whitehall, out of MPs’ sight. That should offend all democrats, regardless of their views on Brexit. The bill proposes equivalent powers for the devolved nations, but arranges them in a way that reinforces Westminster’s primacy. The Scottish and Welsh first ministers have condemned this as a retreat from commitments made by Theresa May that powers “repatriated” from Brussels would go to Edinburgh and Cardiff. That disappointment looks justified. |
| So numerous are the withdrawal bill’s flaws, it is hard to know what part is incompetence and what expresses a more sinister agenda. Explicit repudiation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights looks wilfully provocative. The section on implementation of the final Brexit package diminishes parliament’s role – as if its contribution will, by that stage, be irrelevant. | So numerous are the withdrawal bill’s flaws, it is hard to know what part is incompetence and what expresses a more sinister agenda. Explicit repudiation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights looks wilfully provocative. The section on implementation of the final Brexit package diminishes parliament’s role – as if its contribution will, by that stage, be irrelevant. |
| But MPs must be given a meaningful opportunity to pass their verdict on the deal. Mrs May was dismissive of parliament when she had a majority and is fearful of it now. The EU withdrawal bill seems designed to bypass the legislature and shrink the available space for scrutiny of Brexit. If MPs defend their role, they will no doubt be accused by radical Brexiteers of thwarting “the will of the people”. The opposite is true. The national interest is not served by a Brexit law smuggled into statute without adequate debate, nor by constitutional vandalism perpetrated to make life easier for a weak prime minister lacking a sturdy Commons majority. The tightness of the timetable is no excuse to cut legal corners. It must instead be a spur to MPs of all parties to be rigorous, cooperative and focused on fixing this bodge-job of a bill. | But MPs must be given a meaningful opportunity to pass their verdict on the deal. Mrs May was dismissive of parliament when she had a majority and is fearful of it now. The EU withdrawal bill seems designed to bypass the legislature and shrink the available space for scrutiny of Brexit. If MPs defend their role, they will no doubt be accused by radical Brexiteers of thwarting “the will of the people”. The opposite is true. The national interest is not served by a Brexit law smuggled into statute without adequate debate, nor by constitutional vandalism perpetrated to make life easier for a weak prime minister lacking a sturdy Commons majority. The tightness of the timetable is no excuse to cut legal corners. It must instead be a spur to MPs of all parties to be rigorous, cooperative and focused on fixing this bodge-job of a bill. |
| Brexit | |
| Opinion | |
| European Union | |
| Foreign policy | |
| Article 50 | |
| Michel Barnier | |
| Theresa May | |
| editorials | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |