Doc Law Profile picture
Mar 15, 2018 20 tweets 9 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
a. The HoLs Constitution Committee stated the EUW Bill ‘risks fundamentally undermining legal certainty’. The statement echoes concerns that are reverberating through the UK legal system whilst being overlooked in the Brexit debate. Here are the issues:
b. The Committee’s view echoes mine: crucial sections of the Bill are ‘conceptually flawed’ & that ‘retained EU law’ should form part of an Act of Parliament on Brexit day in order to safeguard legal certainty.
c. There is an insidious fallacy from Brexiteers that we are returning sovereignty to Parliament and 'taking back control' of our laws. The harsh legal and constitutional reality of the Bill demonstrates this to be nothing but a fetish. We will be doing nothing of the sort. #FBR
d. The legal nature of EU-derived domestic legislation is simple: it is ‘already either domestic primary legislation or domestic secondary legislation; and under the Bill, it will have the same status post-exit as it had pre-exit’. So, NO CHANGE there, none.
e. The problems arise from 'retained direct EU law': the Bill is 'silent' regarding the post-exit position concerning such law. Essentially, it does not correspond to any pre-Brexit law that currently has an established domestic status. See Clause 3 EUW Bill.
f. According to the Govt, retained direct EU legislation ‘was not made by UK legislators’ and will ‘have a unique status within the domestic hierarchy’ and it should be treated as neither domestic primary nor secondary legislation. This assessment can be confidently rejected.
g. The Committee points out ‘Retained direct EU law will be domestic law’, and there is ‘no reason why Parliament cannot or should not assign to [such] law a recognisable domestic legal status’. It has been recognised as having domestic legal status, so should continue to do so.
h. Clause 17 is a major concern as the legal status of individual pieces of retained direct EU law will be determined at ministerial discretion. It is 'constitutionally unacceptable' for ministers to decide whether such law should be regarded as primary or secondary legislation.
i. ‘A recipe for confusion and legal uncertainty’ will be created by the Bill assigning domestic statuses to retained direct EU law for LIMITED purposes. It will have a status for some purposes, a different status for other purposes & yet no status at all for further purposes!!!
j. Cl. 5 seeks to ascribe a ‘supremacy principle’ to retained EU law but will not operate in relation to legislation enacted after exit day (but will for legislation enacted prior); this STOPS pre-exit domestic law prevailing over retained EU law. Not taking back control then...
k. In the Committee’s view, the notion of the supremacy of retained EU law is ‘conceptually flawed, sits uncomfortably with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty & is a potential source of legal confusion’. Regardless EU law will still be given precedence domestic law.
l. There is no clarity about the intended scope of the supremacy principle. Retained EU law will benefit from the principle if it corresponds to pre-exit EU law that itself benefitted from it; it's not clear when the principle is intended to effect other forms of domestic law.
m. The Solicitor General rightly suggests that the EU law ‘supremacy principle’ applies to both legislation and the common law; they don't function in a vacuum. The construction of the common law post-Brexit also requires an amendment of the Bill to find legal certainty.
n. This is where the fantasy of 'taking back control' is revealed: the EUW Bill will, in its present form, enshrine a principle of EU law that only has meaning and application in relation to EU law into domestic law. This is a fundamental flaw in the Bill and the Leave rhetoric.
o. At present, the EUW Bill is inconsistent with UK constitutional principle, in particular parliamentary sovereignty. If retained EU law was made into an Act, EU law would prevail over earlier inconsistent legislation, while subsequent legislation would prevail over it.
p. An Act of Parliament (enacted on Brexit Day) would also remove uncertainty regarding the operation of the ‘supremacy principle’ within the common law; thus would operate according to constitutional principles that govern the relationship between Acts and the common law.
q. The incoherent manner in which the Bill will operate is consistent with the rush job that forced the Govt to cut and paste 40+ years of legislation. It has served to increase legal confusion in the definition, effects and constitutional status of retained EU law.
r. The Bill will not excise EU law from domestic law. Retained direct EU law, after exit day, will not only function contrary to the doctrines of the UK constitution but will be dependent upon the externally-derived doctrines of the EU. It will be an interpretative nightmare.
s. If Leavers only knew the reality of the Bill they would be protesting in the streets. Instead of taking back control and returning our sovereignty, the Bill enshrines EU legal principles, flouts parliamentary sovereignty and sends the legal system into utter disarray. Ironic?
please unroll, many thanks.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Doc Law

Doc Law Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @doclaw13

Apr 4, 2018
1. It is time it is made clear that one limb of our constitution - the judicary - will be thrown into legal chaos on exit day. No ifs, no buts, no coconuts! We all know civilised society depends on a functioning legal system; we're unlikely to have that. #FBPE #lawlessBrexit #FBR
2. Brexit has created divisions in Parliament and the public domain. Regardless of whether someone is Pro-EU or Pro-Brexit, there are far-reaching aftereffects relevant to the UK’s exit that must be addressed to ensure continuity and legal certainty on and after exit day.
3. The UK leaving the EU poses a significant challenge not simply for the Government and Parliament but also for the legal systems in the four Nations; it is a legal undertaking of a type and scale that is unique and unprecedented. Its a nightmare. #ABTV #WATON
Read 10 tweets
Mar 31, 2018
1. Do you want to HURT the Tories for Brexit?

Well, here's how in a short thread:

The Govt’s proposal to delegate primary law making powers away from the scrutinising gaze of Parliament (thro the EUW Bill) relies heavily on local councils.

#FBR @nickreeves9876 #ABTV #FBPE
2. The legislative task presents at a national level offers an opportunity for Local Government to stake some claims. The local elections give US the opportunity to scuttle that plan. Put simply, Local Councilors have an eye on a bit of a power grab of their own here. #ABTV
3. Local authorities will have to take powers from Brussels (well, London) if Brexit plans are to be successful - the Govt doesn't have many options to implement the legislative power grab from our sovereign parliament - the task is just too vast. #ABTV
Read 8 tweets
Mar 12, 2018
1. The EU (Withdrawal) Bill the most important bill Parliament has deliberated for decades; its a constitutional and legal minefield. At present, my job is to amend several modules on an LLB Law course to prepare for Brexit. This thread highlights some issues.

2. The EUW Bill does 3 things: repeals the ECA 1972; turns existing EU law into UK law; and gives govt Ministers the power to amend, discard and replace 'retained EU law' (EU laws converted into domestic law by the Bill). The latter equates to unprecedented Executive power.
3. The Bill's crucial for Brexit to happen, not least because the ECA 1972 has acted as a conduit for EU laws to be enshrined in domestic law for over 40 years. We've not the time to replace them with new legislation between now & March; a cut-and-paste approach has been adopted.
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!