From the Blog

Withdrawal Agreement Bill Commons Library

This has provoked outrage from both the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, both of whom have made reprehensible statements. Ursula von der Leyen tweeted: “Very concerned about the BRITISH government`s announcement of a breach of the withdrawal agreement. This would run counter to international law and undermine trust. Pacta sunt servanda – the basis of prosperous future relationships. Charles Michel tweeted. “The withdrawal agreement has been concluded and ratified by both parties, it must be fully implemented. A violation of international law is not acceptable and does not create the trust we need to establish our future relationships. A proven system of administrative cooperation forms the basis of regulation. The Uk has also concluded a number of bilateral mutual social security agreements with individual states, including some non-EEA countries, but they are very different in terms of scope and (with the exception of the UK Social Security Convention with Ireland in February 2019), none is as comprehensive as the EU framework. By introducing this amendment, Oliver Letwin also skilfully filled a gap in the Benn Act, which could have led to a situation where, if the HAD lower house had voted in favour of a withdrawal agreement before 19 October (which would have meant that it would not have been necessary to send a renewal letter), the risk would have been that a Brexit no would have taken place on 31 October if it had proved impossible to introduce all the different stages of the Enabling law – the EU law on the withdrawal agreement – in the books by 31 October, or, more cynically, if MPs who prefer a Brexit without a deal from the terms of the withdrawal agreement had decided to vote in favour of the withdrawal agreement, but whether it was the enabling legislation. , which means it would not be law until October 31. Former Conservative MP Stephen Hammond said: “It is the fear that someone will vote for [the deal] and want to respect the Benn Act and then do something, either by chance or by design, that frustrates the transposition law, and then it is possible that we will leave the European Union without a deal.” Such suspicions were further fuelled when Brexit MP John Baron hinted that he was ready for a “non-deal” after a transition.

Although he said in his speech: “I don`t want an election, you don`t want a choice,” the partial text of Boris Johnson`s announcement said that if such a bill were to become law, it would not stand idly by and would allow the October 31 deadline for Brexit to be missed, but would instead introduce a motion in the House of Commons to declare a general election. According to LE FT: “Government insiders have said that if MPs manage to take control of the common document, Mr Johnson will table a motion on Wednesday to dissolve Parliament. However, a possible “fly in ointment” is that the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 stipulates that there must be a two-thirds “super majority” in the House of Commons to call for the election of the extraordinary general election. Given that, according to the polls, Labour is about 11% behind the Conservative party, the question arises as to whether enough Labour MPs would support such a proposal.

Comments are closed.