The precise wording of it matters because the implications affect us all, and the rule of law is threatened by uncertain laws. As the House of Lords constitutional committee said in September: “The executive powers conferred by the bill are unprecedented and extraordinary and raise fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers between parliament and government.” [...]
On the face of it, clause 9 of the bill – the subject of the vote – was an extraordinary power grab. However ministers have sought to dress it up, the words contained a sweeping power which would hand the government the ability to legislate to implement any withdrawal agreement without any need for a further act of parliament. Worse still, the clause contains a “Henry VIII power” which means it can be relied on by ministers to amend or repeal provisions in acts of parliament – including the withdrawal bill itself. [...]
Grieve’s amendment was about legal process and proper order. Put another way, it was about the strength and stability of our laws, and our constitutional arrangements. It was about parliament having some say – even if not dramatic sway – while reducing the government’s power to do almost as it pleases. As the House of Lords constitutional committee pointed out, there is a need for “appropriate balance between the urgency required to ensure legal continuity and stability, and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny and control of the executive”.
No comments:
Post a Comment