Read on Twitter
The Scottish LP seem to think it’s sensible to hammer the SNP for voting against a deal they don’t agree with. And their voters oppose.
The grounds? The “threat” of no deal. It suits some ppl to present the vote in Parliament as a deal versus no deal choice but it’s not true /1
The grounds? The “threat” of no deal. It suits some ppl to present the vote in Parliament as a deal versus no deal choice but it’s not true /1
With the U.K. and EU agreeing a deal, the only way to get to a “no deal” would be to replace the U.K. govt with one committed to it.
Why? Parliament has extremely limited power in relation to trade deals and international treaties more broadly /2
Why? Parliament has extremely limited power in relation to trade deals and international treaties more broadly /2
Tomorrow the govt will publish their proposed legislation on the deal. There are various options (see below), but it will prob be a short enabling act that provides ministers with more powers to take executive action to implement the deal - not a yes/no vote on the deal as such/3
Key point here is that the U.K. parliament has very limited powers in relation to ratification of international treaties. New agreements have to be laid before Parliament (not debated or voted on) for 21 days /4
I wrote something on this with @SamFowles last year. We outline the scale of ‘executive dominance’ in foreign affairs in the U.K. constitutional setting. It’s pretty messed up tbph /5 https://www.anothereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/not-in-our-name-briefing-a4-4pp.pdf
Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act Parliament can delay ratification. But it can’t block it. In addition, ministers can get round the 21 day rule by explaining why the circumstances make it exceptional. Which would obviously apply in this case /6
For this treaty specifically, the govt has already granted itself broad powers to implement the deal back in January. And it does have the option of attempting to do this wholly through secondary legislation. It doesn’t even need to have a vote if it doesn’t want to /7
The advantage of an enabling act are political and logistical. Politically it’s provides Boris Johnson with his set piece vote. Logistically it’s an opportunity to give ministers even more executive powers to implement the deal without parliamentary oversight and scrutiny /8
In the *extremely unlikely*, hypothetical event parliament voted against the enabling act it would cause a political crisis for the Johnson govt but it wouldn’t lead to a “no deal” as U.K. parliamentary support not ultimately required to sign off on the deal /9
The “no deal threat” has been a powerful myth. You can see why - no deal would have been bad even if never plausible. But now there is a U.K.-EU deal, the only way to get “no deal” outcome is for U.K. to renounce their own deal or be replaced by a no deal govt /10
Some further reading on the above:
1. Commons Library on CRAG: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-parliaments-role-in-ratifying-a-uk-eu-future-relationship-treaty/
2. More detail on the options for U.K. ratification here: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-uk-ratification
/11 ENDS.
1. Commons Library on CRAG: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-parliaments-role-in-ratifying-a-uk-eu-future-relationship-treaty/
2. More detail on the options for U.K. ratification here: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-uk-ratification
/11 ENDS.
A ps. As an illustration of the constitutionally illiterate arguments animating the Scottish Labour Party's attack on the SNP check out the below. And I say this as a Labour member. Honestly the absolute state of this illogical tweet... 
https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/status/1343512657220005888?s=20
https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/status/1343512657220005888?s=20
