Eloise Todd @eloisetodd
BREAKING: We’re taking David Davis to court!
We may already have the right to a people’s vote on the terms of Brexit. +we definitely need a meaningful vote in Parliament
Please support+RT
Steve Bullock @GuitarMoog
This is potentially very important indeed.
@Andrew_Adonis said last week that the Govt. is keen for the Withdrawal Bill to allow repeal of the 2011 Act (requiring a ref on treaty amendments) as early as possible, not on Brexit day as with the other EU Acts. Is this perhaps why?
It seems insane that a referendum would have been legally required to slightly change EU voting rules, but that it would not be necessary for an entire replacement of the EU treaties with a new one.
In case you aren't following, David Cameron changed the law, after pressure from Eurosceptics to prevent changes to our relationship with the EU without a referendum.
Background (from Wikipedia:
The Bill was introduced before parliament as a reaction to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which had in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar instituted the Treaty of Lisbon with no participation by the Labour Prime Minister of the day, Gordon Brown and with no referendum, although one had been promised in 2005 in the Labour manifesto.
The Conservative - Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement pledged in 2010:
to "ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament";
to "amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty"; and
to "examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament".
The Queen's speech reaffirmed that legislation would be introduced "to ensure that in future this Parliament and the British people have their say on any proposed transfer of powers to the European Union".
Now I think there is definitely a case here. Especially if in leaving the EU we effectively are handing our power to make decides to the EU during a transition period in the short term.
The thing here now, whether the government could repeal it now, if there is a legal case in action using the clause? If they did they risk looking like they are trying to fix the rules and go against the law. Plus if the Lords opposed or delayed the change to the law, then repealing it couldn't happen anyway.
The actual act can be found here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/part/1
It states:
Treaties amending or replacing Treaty on European Union (TEU) or Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
(1) A treaty which amends or replaces TEU or TFEU is not to be ratified unless—
(a) a statement relating to the treaty was laid before Parliament in accordance with section 5,
(b) the treaty is approved by Act of Parliament, and
(c) the referendum condition or the exemption condition is met.
(2)The referendum condition is that—
(a) the Act providing for the approval of the treaty provides that the provision approving the treaty is not to come into force until a referendum about whether the treaty should be ratified has been held throughout the United Kingdom or, where the treaty also affects Gibraltar, throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar,
(b) the referendum has been held, and
(c) the majority of those voting in the referendum are in favour of the ratification of the treaty.
(3) The exemption condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the treaty states that the treaty does not fall within section
4 Cases where treaty or Article 48(6) decision attracts a referendum
(1) Subject to subsection (4), a treaty or an Article 48(6) decision falls within this section if it involves one or more of the following—
(a) the extension of the objectives of the EU as set out in Article 3 of TEU;
(b) the conferring on the EU of a new exclusive competence;
(c) the extension of an exclusive competence of the EU;
(d)the conferring on the EU of a new competence shared with the member States;
(e) the extension of any competence of the EU that is shared with the member States;
(f) the extension of the competence of the EU in relation to—
(i) the co-ordination of economic and employment policies, or
(ii) common foreign and security policy;
(g) the conferring on the EU of a new competence to carry out actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement the actions of member States;
(h) the extension of a supporting, co-ordinating or supplementing competence of the EU;
(i) the conferring on an EU institution or body of power to impose a requirement or obligation on the United Kingdom, or the removal of any limitation on any such power of an EU institution or body;
(j) the conferring on an EU institution or body of new or extended power to impose sanctions on the United Kingdom;
(k) any amendment of a provision listed in Schedule 1 that removes a requirement that anything should be done unanimously, by consensus or by common accord;
(l) any amendment of Article 31(2) of TEU (decisions relating to common foreign and security policy to which qualified majority voting applies) that removes or amends the provision enabling a member of the Council to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority voting;
(m) any amendment of any of the provisions specified in subsection (3) that removes or amends the provision enabling a member of the Council, in relation to a draft legislative act, to ensure the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure.
This indeed, does pose some very interesting questions...
I think the word 'BOOM' is the one springing to my mind.