Westminstenders: Another day of fear and toil

[RedToothBrush]

In a move that surprised no one paying attention, Bercow refused to let Johnson put the WA back to the house today after it had already been presented to the house on Saturday.

This move upset the government but was entirely predictable.

This means that the only way the deal can move forward is through the WA's implementation bill (the WAB). It was published for the first time tonight (all 100 pages of it) and it will be presented to the house tomorrow.

In a lightning fast timetable parliament will be asked to scruntise it. This of course is reckless in the extreme for such an important piece of legislation. The speed at which it is being forced through is the thing that looks most likely to ruffle feathers.

The government is still trying to pretend it can make the 31st October deadline and leave by then. The reality is there isn't enough time for parliament to pass the necessary legislation and the EU will need to also ratify the deal, which in a best case scenario won't happen until next week with an extraordinary EU meeting to do so. This is much more likely to occur the week after at the earliest.

The reality is the EU need an extension themselves which is why we are very likely to get at least a short technical one and remain in the EU beyond next Thursday. It's in the UK and EU's interest if we do want to get a deal done.

Everything that Johnson does though is about optics ahead of a GE. It has to play it all as if he has been prevented from leaving as he promised.

We wait to see the pieces of a deal fall into place. It is in progress now finally it seems. For better or worse.

"Withdrawal Agreement Bill appears to give ECJ jurisdiction in the UK during the transition period. "

Well of course it does.
During the transition period, the Uk retains the benefits & responsibilities of an EU member - except that we don't have MEPs, nor a seat at EUCO.

Obviously for as long as we retain the trading benefits and the FOM benefits etc, the ECJ retains jurisdiction

Also, iirc the relevant WA clause:
in the case of the E27 expats in the UK, the ECJ retains some jurisdiction for several years after Brexit

Stewart Wood @stewartwood
Here's a nugget the ERG will welcome: the EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill just published makes clear all EU law will continue to apply in the transition period, including new EU law made after Exit Day. Add that to the v high chance the transition period will have to be extended...

I love your handle, satan

I gather - due to his past SInn Fein connections - that Corbyn is even more of a bogeyman for the DUP than he is to British Tories, so that report is v interesting

Hilary Benn @hilarybennmp
Clause 30 of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. What happens if the Government doesn’t propose an extension? Parliament would have no say and we would exit the transition period on the 31 Dec 2020 even if a trade agreement hadn’t been reached by then with the EU; ie no deal.

Sam Gymiah @samgymiah
As currently drafted in the Bill, Parliament would be unable to stop no deal in 2020. This risk is real. The decision would have to be made in the next 8 mths (end of June), and Johnson has ruled out asking for an extension to the transition. This deal does not stop no deal.

If Sir William bloody Cash votes for this WIB after all the noise he's been making, banging on about the European Communities Act 1972 and its end-times, he's a massive hypocrite.

Paul Waugh @paulwaugh
This could be a real prob for govt if ERG kicks off. There's nothing much in the new Withdrawal Agreement Bill about parl accountability of the UK/EU Joint Committee. This is the body that some Brexiteers really loathed when it was part of May's deal.

ERG's Mark Francois had an Urgent Q about it in March.
He said then "very fewMembers of Parliamentin this House are even aware of the extensive powers of the EU-UKJoint Committeecontained within the withdrawal agreement"

"It is very important that those powers are brought to the attention of the House...TheJoint Committeeis designed to oversee all aspects of the operation of the agreement and, crucially, managing and supervising the implementation and operation of the future relationship."

Yep, same as in May's old WA, EU law had to apply for the entire transition period
and if any law is updated / added, then they have to apply to the UK, or we'd have had to drop all the relevant benfits - which would be too complicated to administer in practice

Didn't they realise this for May's WA ?
It was pretty obvious

I'm interested in musicians and FOM/visas for creative workers.

The creative industry is second or third largest sector & all of it relies on hiring specialists - sometimes at quite low rates of pay - for short periods.

It's a success because the EU provides a large, accessible group of specialists.

What's the future going to be for that sector?

Is that all going to be fine during transition?

Anyway that's a 10min trawl through twitter on what's been said about the WAB so far. But I'm off to bed as I am not reading the damn thing tonight myself.

The UK/EU Joint Committee would be needed to monitor any WA - not that unusual to have a monitoring body afaik for a complicated international treaty that will take place over years

It would have a lot to do, more than under May's WA,
since so much hasn't been fully worked out - especially how the Irish Sea border works in practice

I would not be at all surprised if that man on Newsnight is dead right. Anyone know who it was?

I've read that Barnier has been asked to lead negotiations after Brexit for the future trade deal

I've also heard that he may be rocking silently in a quiet corner of the Berlaymont

What did Mewsmight man say?

👍
Denis Staunton@denisstaunton

NI Secretary Julian Smith tells MPs the first same-sex marriages in Northern Ireland will be in the week of Valentine’s Day next year

pmk

Govt as confused as anyone about WA terms for NI, maybe more so:

Sam Coates Skyy@SamCoatesSky*

How did this confusion by Steve Barclay happen today?

I understand HMT pointed out inside Govt that Universal Customs Code required it

Sounds like Treasury had to correct DexEU on fundamentals, embarrassingly

Eleni Courea**@EleniCourea
·
Initially Barclay said he didn't think customs declarations would be required but that he would write to the committee clarifying.

A few minutes later he read out a correction saying:
"The exit summary declarations will be required in terms of NI to GB."

Tuesday papers

.

Mewsnight? Now that programme would go down well with Westminsterenders people cat

According to Dusty he said that the bill is deliberately rubbish so that it doesn't go through and he calls a general election.

He would, of course, have to rely on getting the numbers to trigger election and avoid FTPA or lose VONC surely? Otherwise he can call for one until he's blue in the face.

Interesting man on Newsnight - called Stephen Bush, Political Editor of The New Statesman.

Ah! Wondering so to try to work out possible/probable bias!

Stephen Bush said (I've missed a few bits out):

"It's hard to squint at this (WA) for a long time. The chances are people will start to say actually ... actually ... (realising all these things are not right with it)

It feels as though we're looking at a government that is looking for a dissolution by parliament. It wants to bring on a general election. Any excuse. Anyone knows that no speaker was going to accept that. Why would you do it? Because you want this election in which you can say "Look I'm big and tough, I've secured a Brexit deal". I think if you look at the detail of the WA bill there are lots of little niggling things in there - that you'd think 'did you need to do this, or is this about picking this fine?"

Emily Maitlis- So it's all about saying 'Thunderclap now. Stop. We can have a general election."

This is right at the end of Newsnight that was shown this evening. Immediately before the credits/music.

Raphael Hogarth @Raphael_Hogarth

This is interesting. The gvt can only conduct negotiations on the future relationship in accordance with a mandate approved by Parliament - and that mandate must be consistent with the current political declaration. I.e., a trade deal, not a customs union.

So when government ministers say ‘any discussions on the future relationship are for after we leave’, that’s not actually true.

.....