Brexit is a constitutional, legal, and political challenge of a size the UK has not seen in decades and will have consequences that are both uncertain and long-lasting. In this post, Dominic Grieve offers his distinctive perspective on Brexit, discussing the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, the role of international courts in UK law, and the more troubling aspects of the Withdrawal Bill itself.
The EU and the sovereignty of parliament
My Brexiter colleagues have in varying degrees signed up to the view that EU membership undermines the sovereignty of parliament in a manner which is damaging to our independence and our parliamentary democracy. This certainly fits in with a national (if principally English) narrative that can be traced back past the Bill of Rights 1688 to Magna Carta in 1215. This narrative has proved very enduring; it places parliament as the central bastion of our liberties.
But it can also be used merely as an assertion of power, particularly when the executive has effective control over parliament. It is with that power that parliament enacted the European Communities Act 1972, which gave primacy to EU law in our country. It was parliament that chose to allow what is now the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to override UK statute law, so as to ensure our conformity with EU law in all areas in which it has competence.
The justification for requiring that supremacy was that without it, achieving adherence to the treaties and convergence between member states in implementing EU law would be very difficult. This was not an unreasonable argument; but it is hard to avoid concluding that the supremacy of EU law lies at the root of the feeling of powerlessness felt by sections of the electorate and reflected in the referendum result. This feeling has been encouraged by the habit of successive UK governments to hide behind decisions of the EU as a justification for being unwilling to address problems raised by its own electors. But where the lawyer and politician in me parts company with the views of my Brexiter colleagues is in the extent to which they appear oblivious to the extent to which parliamentary sovereignty is not – and never has been – unfettered.Continue reading →
Following the result of the EU referendum there was much concern about what Brexit would mean for the peace process in Northern Ireland. Brian Walker writes that, although the full ramifications of Brexit are as yet unclear, at this early stage it seems that post-Good Friday Agreement relationships will in fact survive the severe stress tests of Brexit quite well.
In the Irish Republic, the Brexit result reawakened some of the worst nightmares and revived a familiar debate. The nightmare acted on an already volatile situation in which the Fine Gael Taoiseach Enda Kenny is under internal challenge as leader of a minority coalition supported by a confidence and supply arrangement with the main (and now reviving) opposition party Fianna Fáil, with Sinn Féin as a third force trying to exploit differences between them. Not a stable situation. At Stormont the new two party coalition of the DUP and Sinn Féin split Leave to Remain respectively, while the newly created opposition outside the Executive mainly supported Remain.
Federating the Brexit verdict
As in Scotland demands were made that Northern Ireland should remain within the EU as a consequence of the local majority for Remain. It is hard to see how this could apply retrospectively. In any case the demands will not make headway as neither government will support them. Indeed they seem more of a tactic to press the British government to include the devolved administrations not only in consultations but in the actual negotiations over Article 50. Legal action is threatened to try to ensure Stormont’s as well as the Westminster parliament’s approval for the UK’s eventual negotiating position.
Brexit and the Good Friday Agreement
Because the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) is an international treaty the hare is raised that Irish permission would be necessary to amend it. My informal legal guidance suggests probably not. Moreover the Irish government are unlikely to make it a point of legal challenge. The GFA has little to say about the EU, therefore there would appear to be little to negotiate about in it. However, like all other relevant UK law the Northern Ireland Acts which implement the GFA are EU compliant and are therefore liable to repeal. The repeal of EU legal compliance in the GFA’s enabling legislation might be used to bolster an argument to try to keep Northern Ireland within the EU. An attempt to block it would fail to win cross-community support and no devolved administration has a formal veto. But maintaining EU compliance might form a basis for some sort of associated status with the EU for Northern Ireland (and Scotland), if that were to emerge as a possible solution.