Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extensionWhat are the UK's “constitutional requirements” for Article 50 notification of withdrawal from EU?When the UK parliament passed the 2016 EU referendum, did MPs support a 50% threshold?What is the significance of holding a vote before UK Parliament to invoke Article 50 in comparison to Royal Prerogative?How can European Union influence political decisions in a member country?On what basis is Theresa May triggering Article 50 (Brexit) if the Supreme Court said she couldn't?Is there a date (before 29 Mar 2019) when a hard Brexit is inevitable?“The Treaties” in article 50 of the Lisbon TreatyWhat's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?Top-level understanding of the Brexit processWhy are the 2019 elections an objection to extending Article 50?
Create all possible words using a set or letters
Customize circled numbers
Can a Necromancer Reuse the corpses left behind from slain Undead?
Diode in opposite direction?
Do the concepts of IP address and network interface not belong to the same layer?
Is there a name for this algorithm to calculate the concentration of a mixture of two solutions containing the same solute?
A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?
Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?
How do I nest cases?
Why did the HMS Bounty go back to a time when whales are already rare?
Is there an efficient solution to the travelling salesman problem with binary edge weights?
What is the grammatical term for “‑ed” words like these?
Difference between -| and |- in TikZ
How is flyblackbird.com operating under Part 91K?
Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?
Engineer refusing to file/disclose patents
Extending the spectral theorem for bounded self adjoint operators to bounded normal operators
Does a 'pending' US visa application constitute a denial?
Schmidt decomposition - example
anything or something to eat
Offered money to buy a house, seller is asking for more to cover gap between their listing and mortgage owed
why `nmap 192.168.1.97` returns less services than `nmap 127.0.0.1`?
Journal losing indexing services
Why is it that I can sometimes guess the next note?
Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extension
What are the UK's “constitutional requirements” for Article 50 notification of withdrawal from EU?When the UK parliament passed the 2016 EU referendum, did MPs support a 50% threshold?What is the significance of holding a vote before UK Parliament to invoke Article 50 in comparison to Royal Prerogative?How can European Union influence political decisions in a member country?On what basis is Theresa May triggering Article 50 (Brexit) if the Supreme Court said she couldn't?Is there a date (before 29 Mar 2019) when a hard Brexit is inevitable?“The Treaties” in article 50 of the Lisbon TreatyWhat's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?Top-level understanding of the Brexit processWhy are the 2019 elections an objection to extending Article 50?
Given the following
The Miller Case established the need for Primary legislation to be passed within parliament to trigger the Article 50 notification. Which it did in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
It stands to reason that parliament would need to pass secondary legislation to change the exit date.
My thought on this was that, it would need to for the same reasons the Supreme court decided that legislation was need in the first place.
However further reading has suggested that this is not required because the change was made using the mechanisms of Article 50, which is part of the EU treaty which will (ironically) take precedent due to the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972
This seems wrong though because in effect the EU could have offered a date that was unacceptable to the UK, without the UK being able to reject it. The UK has to as I see it, accept the date(s) offered and the Miller case established that this has to be done with legislation.
So it short, is legislation required to change the "exit date", or does the treaty/1972 act not require it?
united-kingdom european-union brexit legislation
New contributor
add a comment |
Given the following
The Miller Case established the need for Primary legislation to be passed within parliament to trigger the Article 50 notification. Which it did in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
It stands to reason that parliament would need to pass secondary legislation to change the exit date.
My thought on this was that, it would need to for the same reasons the Supreme court decided that legislation was need in the first place.
However further reading has suggested that this is not required because the change was made using the mechanisms of Article 50, which is part of the EU treaty which will (ironically) take precedent due to the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972
This seems wrong though because in effect the EU could have offered a date that was unacceptable to the UK, without the UK being able to reject it. The UK has to as I see it, accept the date(s) offered and the Miller case established that this has to be done with legislation.
So it short, is legislation required to change the "exit date", or does the treaty/1972 act not require it?
united-kingdom european-union brexit legislation
New contributor
1
Theresa May has accepted it. She (presumably) would not have accepted a date ten years into the future.
– chirlu
2 days ago
1
@chirlu 10 years may be an extreme example. The issue is, does she need to accept it (treaty v uk law) can she accept (milller case). I've made an edit
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
Technically Theresa May offered date(s), and the EU (conditionally) accepted them.
– Caleth
2 days ago
add a comment |
Given the following
The Miller Case established the need for Primary legislation to be passed within parliament to trigger the Article 50 notification. Which it did in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
It stands to reason that parliament would need to pass secondary legislation to change the exit date.
My thought on this was that, it would need to for the same reasons the Supreme court decided that legislation was need in the first place.
However further reading has suggested that this is not required because the change was made using the mechanisms of Article 50, which is part of the EU treaty which will (ironically) take precedent due to the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972
This seems wrong though because in effect the EU could have offered a date that was unacceptable to the UK, without the UK being able to reject it. The UK has to as I see it, accept the date(s) offered and the Miller case established that this has to be done with legislation.
So it short, is legislation required to change the "exit date", or does the treaty/1972 act not require it?
united-kingdom european-union brexit legislation
New contributor
Given the following
The Miller Case established the need for Primary legislation to be passed within parliament to trigger the Article 50 notification. Which it did in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
It stands to reason that parliament would need to pass secondary legislation to change the exit date.
My thought on this was that, it would need to for the same reasons the Supreme court decided that legislation was need in the first place.
However further reading has suggested that this is not required because the change was made using the mechanisms of Article 50, which is part of the EU treaty which will (ironically) take precedent due to the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972
This seems wrong though because in effect the EU could have offered a date that was unacceptable to the UK, without the UK being able to reject it. The UK has to as I see it, accept the date(s) offered and the Miller case established that this has to be done with legislation.
So it short, is legislation required to change the "exit date", or does the treaty/1972 act not require it?
united-kingdom european-union brexit legislation
united-kingdom european-union brexit legislation
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Drifter104
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
Drifter104Drifter104
1485
1485
New contributor
New contributor
1
Theresa May has accepted it. She (presumably) would not have accepted a date ten years into the future.
– chirlu
2 days ago
1
@chirlu 10 years may be an extreme example. The issue is, does she need to accept it (treaty v uk law) can she accept (milller case). I've made an edit
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
Technically Theresa May offered date(s), and the EU (conditionally) accepted them.
– Caleth
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
Theresa May has accepted it. She (presumably) would not have accepted a date ten years into the future.
– chirlu
2 days ago
1
@chirlu 10 years may be an extreme example. The issue is, does she need to accept it (treaty v uk law) can she accept (milller case). I've made an edit
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
Technically Theresa May offered date(s), and the EU (conditionally) accepted them.
– Caleth
2 days ago
1
1
Theresa May has accepted it. She (presumably) would not have accepted a date ten years into the future.
– chirlu
2 days ago
Theresa May has accepted it. She (presumably) would not have accepted a date ten years into the future.
– chirlu
2 days ago
1
1
@chirlu 10 years may be an extreme example. The issue is, does she need to accept it (treaty v uk law) can she accept (milller case). I've made an edit
– Drifter104
2 days ago
@chirlu 10 years may be an extreme example. The issue is, does she need to accept it (treaty v uk law) can she accept (milller case). I've made an edit
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
2
Technically Theresa May offered date(s), and the EU (conditionally) accepted them.
– Caleth
2 days ago
Technically Theresa May offered date(s), and the EU (conditionally) accepted them.
– Caleth
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
To address certain points in the question:
further reading has suggested that [secondary legislation] is not required because the change was made using the mechanisms of Article 50, which is part of the EU treaty which will (ironically) take [precedence]
This isn't true. For the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be effective, it's necessary for the exit date specified in the Act to match the date agreed by the EU and UK, and that can only be done by secondary legislation, as specified in the Act. From section 20(3):
Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
Section 20(4) grants the government the power to ensure that this is the case:
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 then specifies that parliamentary approval is required to do this:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Returning to the question:
This seems wrong though because in effect the EU could have offered a date that was unacceptable to the UK, without the UK being able to reject it.
That's not true. Any extension requires an agreement between the UK and EU. To quote from Section 3 of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Hence if the EU offers a date that the UK finds unacceptable, the UK is free to reject it, and so leave the EU on exit day.
Note that changing the exit date in the Act is entirely dependent on a new date first being agreed by the UK and EU. It is a bookkeeping exercise, not an opportunity for Parliament to reject the agreement. Having said that, it is unclear what would happen if Parliament were to reject this change.
TL;DR: Any new exit day must be agreed by the UK and EU. The date specified in the Act must match this, and the Act grants the government the power to ensure this is the case, subject to approval by Parliament.
The other answer has more votes but this answers the question in a more detailed way. So I'm going to accept this one
– Drifter104
yesterday
add a comment |
The relevant legislation is actually to be found in the Withdrawal Act itself, which in section 20 includes a paragraph
(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
The relevant parts of subsection (1) and (2) define the exit day and exit time as 11pm on March 29th 2019.
Since statute already gives Ministers the power to vary the date via a "statutory instrument" (i.e. by writing a letter to parliament proclaiming the new date) no further positive vote is needed. In principle a motion to reject the SI could pass within 40 sitting days under the so called "negative procedure", but given that the Commons has already voted against the idea of a no-deal exit, this is unlikely to happen.
That's the UK Withdrawal Act, not the (or an) agreement.
– JJJ
2 days ago
@JJJ thanks, Along with a possible withdrawal agreement bill, there are too many pieces of paper with virtually the same name.
– origimbo
2 days ago
I assume the Withdrawal Agreement Bill didn't make it. Perhaps some other bills regarding no-deal preparations did make it?
– JJJ
2 days ago
3
The last paragraph is wrong: it requires the affirmative procedure: Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act: "A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
1
@Drifter104 It's needed because UK law needs to acknowledge that we are no longer part of the EU and domestic law needs to keep in step. If we left the EU without repealing the 1972 Act, or repealed the Act while still being bound by the Treaties, then swathes of UK law would be at best ambiguous and at worst non-existent.
– Andrew Leach
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
International law has nothing to do with it. Miller was about British constitutional law. It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law, and in particular to remove rights established in domestic law. The outcome was that Parliament legislated to allow May to begin the Article 50 process. But that Act didn't fix a timetable, and accepting the extension to the negotiation time doesn't materially affect the status quo.
As to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which did mention a date, 20.(4) states that
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
so no Parliamentary approval is required.
I know the Miller case was about British law and you are right.It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law
. However, by changing the date (which is in domestic law) what is the difference? Rights are fundamentally different, after the 29th March
– Drifter104
2 days ago
3
Changing the date isn't unilaterally changing domestic law, as evidenced by the direct quote from primary legislation. It's employing a power explicitly delegated by Parliament.
– Peter Taylor
2 days ago
ah ok, so basically parliament agreed that certain parts of the withdrawal act could be changed, this being one of them.
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
The last sentence is wrong; see my comment on the other answer.
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Drifter104 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39683%2fdoes-the-uk-parliament-need-to-pass-secondary-legislation-to-accept-the-article%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
To address certain points in the question:
further reading has suggested that [secondary legislation] is not required because the change was made using the mechanisms of Article 50, which is part of the EU treaty which will (ironically) take [precedence]
This isn't true. For the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be effective, it's necessary for the exit date specified in the Act to match the date agreed by the EU and UK, and that can only be done by secondary legislation, as specified in the Act. From section 20(3):
Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
Section 20(4) grants the government the power to ensure that this is the case:
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 then specifies that parliamentary approval is required to do this:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Returning to the question:
This seems wrong though because in effect the EU could have offered a date that was unacceptable to the UK, without the UK being able to reject it.
That's not true. Any extension requires an agreement between the UK and EU. To quote from Section 3 of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Hence if the EU offers a date that the UK finds unacceptable, the UK is free to reject it, and so leave the EU on exit day.
Note that changing the exit date in the Act is entirely dependent on a new date first being agreed by the UK and EU. It is a bookkeeping exercise, not an opportunity for Parliament to reject the agreement. Having said that, it is unclear what would happen if Parliament were to reject this change.
TL;DR: Any new exit day must be agreed by the UK and EU. The date specified in the Act must match this, and the Act grants the government the power to ensure this is the case, subject to approval by Parliament.
The other answer has more votes but this answers the question in a more detailed way. So I'm going to accept this one
– Drifter104
yesterday
add a comment |
To address certain points in the question:
further reading has suggested that [secondary legislation] is not required because the change was made using the mechanisms of Article 50, which is part of the EU treaty which will (ironically) take [precedence]
This isn't true. For the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be effective, it's necessary for the exit date specified in the Act to match the date agreed by the EU and UK, and that can only be done by secondary legislation, as specified in the Act. From section 20(3):
Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
Section 20(4) grants the government the power to ensure that this is the case:
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 then specifies that parliamentary approval is required to do this:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Returning to the question:
This seems wrong though because in effect the EU could have offered a date that was unacceptable to the UK, without the UK being able to reject it.
That's not true. Any extension requires an agreement between the UK and EU. To quote from Section 3 of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Hence if the EU offers a date that the UK finds unacceptable, the UK is free to reject it, and so leave the EU on exit day.
Note that changing the exit date in the Act is entirely dependent on a new date first being agreed by the UK and EU. It is a bookkeeping exercise, not an opportunity for Parliament to reject the agreement. Having said that, it is unclear what would happen if Parliament were to reject this change.
TL;DR: Any new exit day must be agreed by the UK and EU. The date specified in the Act must match this, and the Act grants the government the power to ensure this is the case, subject to approval by Parliament.
The other answer has more votes but this answers the question in a more detailed way. So I'm going to accept this one
– Drifter104
yesterday
add a comment |
To address certain points in the question:
further reading has suggested that [secondary legislation] is not required because the change was made using the mechanisms of Article 50, which is part of the EU treaty which will (ironically) take [precedence]
This isn't true. For the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be effective, it's necessary for the exit date specified in the Act to match the date agreed by the EU and UK, and that can only be done by secondary legislation, as specified in the Act. From section 20(3):
Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
Section 20(4) grants the government the power to ensure that this is the case:
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 then specifies that parliamentary approval is required to do this:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Returning to the question:
This seems wrong though because in effect the EU could have offered a date that was unacceptable to the UK, without the UK being able to reject it.
That's not true. Any extension requires an agreement between the UK and EU. To quote from Section 3 of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Hence if the EU offers a date that the UK finds unacceptable, the UK is free to reject it, and so leave the EU on exit day.
Note that changing the exit date in the Act is entirely dependent on a new date first being agreed by the UK and EU. It is a bookkeeping exercise, not an opportunity for Parliament to reject the agreement. Having said that, it is unclear what would happen if Parliament were to reject this change.
TL;DR: Any new exit day must be agreed by the UK and EU. The date specified in the Act must match this, and the Act grants the government the power to ensure this is the case, subject to approval by Parliament.
To address certain points in the question:
further reading has suggested that [secondary legislation] is not required because the change was made using the mechanisms of Article 50, which is part of the EU treaty which will (ironically) take [precedence]
This isn't true. For the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be effective, it's necessary for the exit date specified in the Act to match the date agreed by the EU and UK, and that can only be done by secondary legislation, as specified in the Act. From section 20(3):
Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
Section 20(4) grants the government the power to ensure that this is the case:
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 then specifies that parliamentary approval is required to do this:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Returning to the question:
This seems wrong though because in effect the EU could have offered a date that was unacceptable to the UK, without the UK being able to reject it.
That's not true. Any extension requires an agreement between the UK and EU. To quote from Section 3 of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Hence if the EU offers a date that the UK finds unacceptable, the UK is free to reject it, and so leave the EU on exit day.
Note that changing the exit date in the Act is entirely dependent on a new date first being agreed by the UK and EU. It is a bookkeeping exercise, not an opportunity for Parliament to reject the agreement. Having said that, it is unclear what would happen if Parliament were to reject this change.
TL;DR: Any new exit day must be agreed by the UK and EU. The date specified in the Act must match this, and the Act grants the government the power to ensure this is the case, subject to approval by Parliament.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff
4,33711836
4,33711836
The other answer has more votes but this answers the question in a more detailed way. So I'm going to accept this one
– Drifter104
yesterday
add a comment |
The other answer has more votes but this answers the question in a more detailed way. So I'm going to accept this one
– Drifter104
yesterday
The other answer has more votes but this answers the question in a more detailed way. So I'm going to accept this one
– Drifter104
yesterday
The other answer has more votes but this answers the question in a more detailed way. So I'm going to accept this one
– Drifter104
yesterday
add a comment |
The relevant legislation is actually to be found in the Withdrawal Act itself, which in section 20 includes a paragraph
(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
The relevant parts of subsection (1) and (2) define the exit day and exit time as 11pm on March 29th 2019.
Since statute already gives Ministers the power to vary the date via a "statutory instrument" (i.e. by writing a letter to parliament proclaiming the new date) no further positive vote is needed. In principle a motion to reject the SI could pass within 40 sitting days under the so called "negative procedure", but given that the Commons has already voted against the idea of a no-deal exit, this is unlikely to happen.
That's the UK Withdrawal Act, not the (or an) agreement.
– JJJ
2 days ago
@JJJ thanks, Along with a possible withdrawal agreement bill, there are too many pieces of paper with virtually the same name.
– origimbo
2 days ago
I assume the Withdrawal Agreement Bill didn't make it. Perhaps some other bills regarding no-deal preparations did make it?
– JJJ
2 days ago
3
The last paragraph is wrong: it requires the affirmative procedure: Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act: "A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
1
@Drifter104 It's needed because UK law needs to acknowledge that we are no longer part of the EU and domestic law needs to keep in step. If we left the EU without repealing the 1972 Act, or repealed the Act while still being bound by the Treaties, then swathes of UK law would be at best ambiguous and at worst non-existent.
– Andrew Leach
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
The relevant legislation is actually to be found in the Withdrawal Act itself, which in section 20 includes a paragraph
(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
The relevant parts of subsection (1) and (2) define the exit day and exit time as 11pm on March 29th 2019.
Since statute already gives Ministers the power to vary the date via a "statutory instrument" (i.e. by writing a letter to parliament proclaiming the new date) no further positive vote is needed. In principle a motion to reject the SI could pass within 40 sitting days under the so called "negative procedure", but given that the Commons has already voted against the idea of a no-deal exit, this is unlikely to happen.
That's the UK Withdrawal Act, not the (or an) agreement.
– JJJ
2 days ago
@JJJ thanks, Along with a possible withdrawal agreement bill, there are too many pieces of paper with virtually the same name.
– origimbo
2 days ago
I assume the Withdrawal Agreement Bill didn't make it. Perhaps some other bills regarding no-deal preparations did make it?
– JJJ
2 days ago
3
The last paragraph is wrong: it requires the affirmative procedure: Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act: "A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
1
@Drifter104 It's needed because UK law needs to acknowledge that we are no longer part of the EU and domestic law needs to keep in step. If we left the EU without repealing the 1972 Act, or repealed the Act while still being bound by the Treaties, then swathes of UK law would be at best ambiguous and at worst non-existent.
– Andrew Leach
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
The relevant legislation is actually to be found in the Withdrawal Act itself, which in section 20 includes a paragraph
(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
The relevant parts of subsection (1) and (2) define the exit day and exit time as 11pm on March 29th 2019.
Since statute already gives Ministers the power to vary the date via a "statutory instrument" (i.e. by writing a letter to parliament proclaiming the new date) no further positive vote is needed. In principle a motion to reject the SI could pass within 40 sitting days under the so called "negative procedure", but given that the Commons has already voted against the idea of a no-deal exit, this is unlikely to happen.
The relevant legislation is actually to be found in the Withdrawal Act itself, which in section 20 includes a paragraph
(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
The relevant parts of subsection (1) and (2) define the exit day and exit time as 11pm on March 29th 2019.
Since statute already gives Ministers the power to vary the date via a "statutory instrument" (i.e. by writing a letter to parliament proclaiming the new date) no further positive vote is needed. In principle a motion to reject the SI could pass within 40 sitting days under the so called "negative procedure", but given that the Commons has already voted against the idea of a no-deal exit, this is unlikely to happen.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
origimboorigimbo
12.6k23250
12.6k23250
That's the UK Withdrawal Act, not the (or an) agreement.
– JJJ
2 days ago
@JJJ thanks, Along with a possible withdrawal agreement bill, there are too many pieces of paper with virtually the same name.
– origimbo
2 days ago
I assume the Withdrawal Agreement Bill didn't make it. Perhaps some other bills regarding no-deal preparations did make it?
– JJJ
2 days ago
3
The last paragraph is wrong: it requires the affirmative procedure: Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act: "A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
1
@Drifter104 It's needed because UK law needs to acknowledge that we are no longer part of the EU and domestic law needs to keep in step. If we left the EU without repealing the 1972 Act, or repealed the Act while still being bound by the Treaties, then swathes of UK law would be at best ambiguous and at worst non-existent.
– Andrew Leach
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
That's the UK Withdrawal Act, not the (or an) agreement.
– JJJ
2 days ago
@JJJ thanks, Along with a possible withdrawal agreement bill, there are too many pieces of paper with virtually the same name.
– origimbo
2 days ago
I assume the Withdrawal Agreement Bill didn't make it. Perhaps some other bills regarding no-deal preparations did make it?
– JJJ
2 days ago
3
The last paragraph is wrong: it requires the affirmative procedure: Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act: "A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
1
@Drifter104 It's needed because UK law needs to acknowledge that we are no longer part of the EU and domestic law needs to keep in step. If we left the EU without repealing the 1972 Act, or repealed the Act while still being bound by the Treaties, then swathes of UK law would be at best ambiguous and at worst non-existent.
– Andrew Leach
yesterday
That's the UK Withdrawal Act, not the (or an) agreement.
– JJJ
2 days ago
That's the UK Withdrawal Act, not the (or an) agreement.
– JJJ
2 days ago
@JJJ thanks, Along with a possible withdrawal agreement bill, there are too many pieces of paper with virtually the same name.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@JJJ thanks, Along with a possible withdrawal agreement bill, there are too many pieces of paper with virtually the same name.
– origimbo
2 days ago
I assume the Withdrawal Agreement Bill didn't make it. Perhaps some other bills regarding no-deal preparations did make it?
– JJJ
2 days ago
I assume the Withdrawal Agreement Bill didn't make it. Perhaps some other bills regarding no-deal preparations did make it?
– JJJ
2 days ago
3
3
The last paragraph is wrong: it requires the affirmative procedure: Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act: "A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
The last paragraph is wrong: it requires the affirmative procedure: Schedule 7, Part 2, section 14 of the Act: "A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
1
1
@Drifter104 It's needed because UK law needs to acknowledge that we are no longer part of the EU and domestic law needs to keep in step. If we left the EU without repealing the 1972 Act, or repealed the Act while still being bound by the Treaties, then swathes of UK law would be at best ambiguous and at worst non-existent.
– Andrew Leach
yesterday
@Drifter104 It's needed because UK law needs to acknowledge that we are no longer part of the EU and domestic law needs to keep in step. If we left the EU without repealing the 1972 Act, or repealed the Act while still being bound by the Treaties, then swathes of UK law would be at best ambiguous and at worst non-existent.
– Andrew Leach
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
International law has nothing to do with it. Miller was about British constitutional law. It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law, and in particular to remove rights established in domestic law. The outcome was that Parliament legislated to allow May to begin the Article 50 process. But that Act didn't fix a timetable, and accepting the extension to the negotiation time doesn't materially affect the status quo.
As to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which did mention a date, 20.(4) states that
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
so no Parliamentary approval is required.
I know the Miller case was about British law and you are right.It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law
. However, by changing the date (which is in domestic law) what is the difference? Rights are fundamentally different, after the 29th March
– Drifter104
2 days ago
3
Changing the date isn't unilaterally changing domestic law, as evidenced by the direct quote from primary legislation. It's employing a power explicitly delegated by Parliament.
– Peter Taylor
2 days ago
ah ok, so basically parliament agreed that certain parts of the withdrawal act could be changed, this being one of them.
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
The last sentence is wrong; see my comment on the other answer.
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
add a comment |
International law has nothing to do with it. Miller was about British constitutional law. It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law, and in particular to remove rights established in domestic law. The outcome was that Parliament legislated to allow May to begin the Article 50 process. But that Act didn't fix a timetable, and accepting the extension to the negotiation time doesn't materially affect the status quo.
As to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which did mention a date, 20.(4) states that
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
so no Parliamentary approval is required.
I know the Miller case was about British law and you are right.It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law
. However, by changing the date (which is in domestic law) what is the difference? Rights are fundamentally different, after the 29th March
– Drifter104
2 days ago
3
Changing the date isn't unilaterally changing domestic law, as evidenced by the direct quote from primary legislation. It's employing a power explicitly delegated by Parliament.
– Peter Taylor
2 days ago
ah ok, so basically parliament agreed that certain parts of the withdrawal act could be changed, this being one of them.
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
The last sentence is wrong; see my comment on the other answer.
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
add a comment |
International law has nothing to do with it. Miller was about British constitutional law. It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law, and in particular to remove rights established in domestic law. The outcome was that Parliament legislated to allow May to begin the Article 50 process. But that Act didn't fix a timetable, and accepting the extension to the negotiation time doesn't materially affect the status quo.
As to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which did mention a date, 20.(4) states that
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
so no Parliamentary approval is required.
International law has nothing to do with it. Miller was about British constitutional law. It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law, and in particular to remove rights established in domestic law. The outcome was that Parliament legislated to allow May to begin the Article 50 process. But that Act didn't fix a timetable, and accepting the extension to the negotiation time doesn't materially affect the status quo.
As to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which did mention a date, 20.(4) states that
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
so no Parliamentary approval is required.
answered 2 days ago
Peter TaylorPeter Taylor
2,383716
2,383716
I know the Miller case was about British law and you are right.It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law
. However, by changing the date (which is in domestic law) what is the difference? Rights are fundamentally different, after the 29th March
– Drifter104
2 days ago
3
Changing the date isn't unilaterally changing domestic law, as evidenced by the direct quote from primary legislation. It's employing a power explicitly delegated by Parliament.
– Peter Taylor
2 days ago
ah ok, so basically parliament agreed that certain parts of the withdrawal act could be changed, this being one of them.
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
The last sentence is wrong; see my comment on the other answer.
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
add a comment |
I know the Miller case was about British law and you are right.It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law
. However, by changing the date (which is in domestic law) what is the difference? Rights are fundamentally different, after the 29th March
– Drifter104
2 days ago
3
Changing the date isn't unilaterally changing domestic law, as evidenced by the direct quote from primary legislation. It's employing a power explicitly delegated by Parliament.
– Peter Taylor
2 days ago
ah ok, so basically parliament agreed that certain parts of the withdrawal act could be changed, this being one of them.
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
The last sentence is wrong; see my comment on the other answer.
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
I know the Miller case was about British law and you are right.
It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law
. However, by changing the date (which is in domestic law) what is the difference? Rights are fundamentally different, after the 29th March– Drifter104
2 days ago
I know the Miller case was about British law and you are right.
It upheld that the executive did not have the power to unilaterally change domestic law
. However, by changing the date (which is in domestic law) what is the difference? Rights are fundamentally different, after the 29th March– Drifter104
2 days ago
3
3
Changing the date isn't unilaterally changing domestic law, as evidenced by the direct quote from primary legislation. It's employing a power explicitly delegated by Parliament.
– Peter Taylor
2 days ago
Changing the date isn't unilaterally changing domestic law, as evidenced by the direct quote from primary legislation. It's employing a power explicitly delegated by Parliament.
– Peter Taylor
2 days ago
ah ok, so basically parliament agreed that certain parts of the withdrawal act could be changed, this being one of them.
– Drifter104
2 days ago
ah ok, so basically parliament agreed that certain parts of the withdrawal act could be changed, this being one of them.
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
2
The last sentence is wrong; see my comment on the other answer.
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
The last sentence is wrong; see my comment on the other answer.
– Steve Melnikoff
2 days ago
add a comment |
Drifter104 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Drifter104 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Drifter104 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Drifter104 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39683%2fdoes-the-uk-parliament-need-to-pass-secondary-legislation-to-accept-the-article%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Theresa May has accepted it. She (presumably) would not have accepted a date ten years into the future.
– chirlu
2 days ago
1
@chirlu 10 years may be an extreme example. The issue is, does she need to accept it (treaty v uk law) can she accept (milller case). I've made an edit
– Drifter104
2 days ago
2
Technically Theresa May offered date(s), and the EU (conditionally) accepted them.
– Caleth
2 days ago