Putting the Bullet Back in the Chamber -Could Parliament Exit from Brexit?

The Wightman judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union holding that a Member State may unilaterally revoke its notified intention to withdraw from the EU prior to that withdrawal taking effect has largely fallen foul of a Brexit news cycle in which each new twist and turn supersedes the last. Indeed the UK Prime Minister’s decision to postpone a House of Commons vote to approve the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration negotiated between the UK and the EU almost entirely overshadowed the Court’s ruling.With the substance of the ruling more or less following last week’s Opinion from the Court’s Advocate General, the impact of the judgment is also somewhat reduced. However, the judgment contains significant messages for political and legal audiences.

To the political audience there is one enormous political message and it is not so much a message about withdrawal as it is about membership.

The Court is clearly signalling that membership of the European Union, and the rights and responsibilities which come with it, is voluntary. States exercise their sovereignty to choose to join the European Union and the Court emphasises that when states join the EU using the Article 49 TEU process they ‘freely and voluntary’ commit themselves to the values underpinning the EU. The discipline of EU membership – including acceptance of the primacy and direct effect of EU law – is something which states can accept voluntarily by joining, or reject voluntarily by leaving the EU. If a state decides to change its mind and not to leave but to remain a Member State, it must be free to do so voluntarily and can neither be coerced into leaving or be authorized to remain by the other Member States.

In short, the Union is a voluntary association of sovereign and equal Member States. As political messages go, that is a pretty big message.

That big message also comes with a more specific message for the UK. If the UK were to decide to remain in the EU it would do so ‘under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State’. Given that the UK’s membership of the EU entails a range of opt-outs, these would not be up for renegotiation as a condition of remaining an EU Member State.

In other words, the status quo of remaining in the EU would be the status quo of the UK’s current terms of membership.

Aside from these important political message, the judgment also has something for EU lawyers and UK constitutional lawyers.

For EU lawyers, the decision is of significance not least in resolving a legal question that had been much debated in blogs and in journal articles (some of which are summarised in my earlier blog on this case). Despite well expressed reservations in some quarters that unilateral revocation might be used to game a withdrawal process or might otherwise risk moral hazards or abuse, the Court has come down on the side of a contextual and historical interpretation of Article 50 TEU that emphasises the voluntary nature of the withdrawal process. Accordingly, unless and until a withdrawal agreement enters into force or the two-year withdrawal period – or an extended period – expires, a Member State remains free to change its mind and notify the European Council (in writing) of its ‘unequivocal and unconditional’ intention to remain a Member State of the EU.

The ruling is also of interest to EU lawyers because of the willingness of the Court not only to deal with the case on an expedited basis – the ruling comes barely more than two months from the request of the Scottish Court of Session for a preliminary ruling from the Court – but also because of the rejection of the UK Government’s position that the referral was inadmissible. The Court was unwilling to accept that the presumption of the relevance of the question posed by the national court had been rebutted. Interestingly, once the Inner House of the Court of Session had determined that the case was admissible under domestic rules governing an application for judicial review and had rejected claims that a referral was inadmissible on grounds of being hypothetical or academic in nature, the Court of Justice appeared to be content with those assessments. In particular, the Court did not accept that there was no real dispute between the parties unlike other cases where the parties have essentially contrived litigation in order to obtain an interpretation of EU law from the Court. That said, the essential dispute between the parliamentarians and the UK government was on the need for a reference to the Court of Justice: it is hard to see what other substantive dispute there was between the parties.

For UK constitutional lawyers, the Wightman ruling is also of some significance. While the UK Supreme Court in Miller had proceeded on the assumption that an Article 50 TEU notice could not be revoked we now know that this is not the position under EU law and no doubt some will speculate whether the clarification of the legal position would have led to a different result (for the reasons given by Jack Williams it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would have decided differently). However, the point remains that there are domestic constitutional requirements which must be met in order for the UK to leave the EU and as the Court of Justice tells us, these are also applicable to revocation of a notice of intention to withdraw from the EU. Indeed, the Court’s safeguard against an abusive withdrawal of a notified intention to leave the EU is that a change of mind is subject to domestic decision-making procedures. Thus, any decision not to withdraw from the EU must – by analogy with the decision to withdraw in terms of Article 50(1) TEU – be in accordance with domestic constitutional requirements.

The Court of Justice has muddied the waters somewhat, however, by referring not just to the notification of an intention to revoke in accordance with domestic constitutional requirements but also to the Member State’s decision ‘to revoke the notification of that intention through a democratic process’. Two issues arise. Is the need for a ‘democratic process’ an additional EU law requirement, and what would an acceptable democratic process look like?

One way in which the Court departs from its Advocate General is that the Court does not demand that the notification of revocation meet EU requirements of good faith and sincere cooperation. In that light the reference to the democratic process could be viewed as a more concrete procedural demand of EU law intended to prevent an abusive exercise of the right to revoke at the whim of the executive. However, the better view is that decisions to withdraw from the EU or stay a Member State remain sovereign matters for the Member States themselves and the domestic constitutional and democratic procedures mandated by the laws of the Member States. The EU law requirement is instead for the revocation to be ‘unequivocal and unconditional’ – that the revocation is the result of a constitutional and democratic process is the domestic means of achieving that outcome. It is not for the EU to mandate what those constitutional and democratic requirements ought to be, but it is for the EU to verify that the outcome achieves its need for a decision that is unequivocal and unconditional.

All of which leaves open the question of what democratic requirements might be required by UK law. As we saw with the original Article 50 withdrawal notification, it may not be entirely apparent what rules UK law imposes. Phillipson and Young contend that an Act of Parliament would be required given that the will of Parliament – expressed in the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 providing for the UK’s departure from the EU – would be frustrated by a revocation of the UK’s Article 50 notice. A referendum prior to that decision would not be required although it could be undertaken if the UK so chose. But whether a referendum occurs or not is being driven by the somewhat chaotic domestic politics of Brexit rather than being a product of the Court’s Wightman ruling. Indeed one way of reading the judgment is that the best way of securing an unconditional and unequivocal decision to revoke the notified intention to withdraw from the EU is for the UK Parliament to legislate accordingly.

If the political message of the Wightman ruling is that the EU is a union of sovereign states, then the legal message is that it is up to the sovereign UK Parliament to decide whether the UK leaves the EU or remains a Member State. But as the Prime Minister’s decision to postpone a vote on her deal reveals, it is not obvious that there is any consensus within Parliament to move one way or another. The Court of Justice has left open the possibility for the Brexit bullet to be returned to the chamber. It is not obvious that the Chamber of the House of Commons knows whether it wants the bullet back.

An earlier version of this post appeared as Sovereign Choices: The CJEU’s Ruling on Exit from Brexit, VerfBlog, 2018/12/10, https://verfassungsblog.de/sovereign-choices-the-cjeus-ruling-on-exit-from-brexit/.

Time for a Rethink – What Did We Learn From Today’s Opinion on Revoking an Article 50 Withdrawal Notification?

In an Opinion published today, Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona has recommended to the Court of Justice of the EU that it finds that it is legally possible for a Member State to revoke its Article 50 withdrawal notification and that it may do so unilaterally.

The Advocate General emphasised the unilateral nature of the notification of an intention to withdraw from an international treaty. For him, this continues throughout the Article 50 process meaning that the ‘intention’ to withdraw can change and a Member State may exercise its sovereignty to revoke its intention to leave the EU up until the expiry of the two-year period following the original notification. In short, the UK has up until 29 March 2019 to notify the European Council if it wishes to change its mind and the agreement of the other Member States is not required.

However, the powers of a Member State to revoke a notified intention to leave the EU are not unconditional. Firstly, a notification must be in accordance with national constitutional requirements meaning that the domestic constitutional rules and procedures are a limit on the power of a government to indicate a change of position. Secondly, the principles of good faith and sincere cooperation are applicable to avoid an abuse of the right of revocation.

Today’s Opinion arose from judicial review proceedings brought earlier in the year before the Scottish courts seeking to determine whether EU law permits the UK to revoke its notified intention to leave the European Union. The case was initiated by members of the Scottish, UK and European parliaments and was initially rejected on the grounds that it appeared to raise a largely hypothetical question as the policy of the UK government is not to revoke the Prime Minister’s letter of 29 March 2017 notifying the European Council of the UK’s intention to leave the EU.

On appeal, the Inner House of the Court of Session was mindful that in terms of section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, members of the UK Parliament have an opportunity to vote on the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration negotiated between the UK and the EU as part of the Article 50 withdrawal process. With a parliamentary debate on the Brexit deal beginning today and ending in the so-called ‘meaningful vote’ on 11 December, the argument before the Scottish court was that in order to make up their minds, MPs also needed to know whether there was a legal option to revoke the Article 50 notification. The Court of Session decided it needed a definitive legal interpretation of whether revocation was permissible under Article 50 and, if so, whether it could be undertaken unilaterally or only with the agreement of the EU27.

The UK Government has opposed the attempt to involve the Court of Justice and even sought to appeal the decision of the Court of Session to the UK Supreme Court. But with the Supreme Court refusing permission to appeal to it, proceedings got underway before the Court of Justice. The Court of Session had requested that the Court of Justice handle the case with urgency and today’s Opinion comes very rapidly after the oral hearing on 27thNovember. At that hearing, the UK Government continued to oppose the admissibility of the case on the grounds that it would draw the Court of Justice into a political issue. Although the European Commission also thought that the Court of Justice could be justified in refusing the admissibility of the case it did recognise the exceptional and constitutionally significant nature of the question being asked before the Court. However, on the substance of the case, both the European Commission and the European Council believed that a state could not revoke an Article 50 notification unilaterally but rather needed the unanimous consent of the other Member States. That view was rejected by the Advocate General in today’s Opinion. However, it will still be for the Court to come to its own decision on the admissibility of the legal question posed before it and if so, whether it agrees that revocation is unilateral. The answers provided by the Avocate General to these questions are consistent with my own views expressed in an earlier blog on Verfassungsblog.

On the one hand , given the timing of the meaningful vote a week today and the uncertainty which inevitably arises from a non-binding Advocate General’s Opinion, an early final judgment of the Court is highly desirable. However, this case is only the fifth case to go to a Full Court composed of all judges in its modern composition of more than 20 judges. Getting a quick ruling will depend on whether a consensus has emerged on the admissibility of the case and on the answers to be given to the questions posed to the Court. The Court may also wish to avoid what might look like an overtly political intervention in the febrile domestic politics of Brexit.

On the other hand, a judgment after the Commons vote on 11 December is not necessarily irrelevant given the likelihood that the vote will see the Prime Minister’s deal rejected making a second vote or even a referendum a distinct possibility.

Remainers are likely to seize on the Advocate General’s Opinion in seeking to propel the Brexit debate towards a further referendum to include an option for the UK to change its mind and remain in the EU. Leavers are perhaps more likely to see today’s events as an unwanted interference in a domestic political matter.

Is the ‘Backstop’ a Trampoline to the Future UK-EU Trade Relationship

Following the publication of the text of the Withdrawal Agreement on 14 November, the full text of the Political Declaration on the future UK-EU relationship is now keenly awaited (the outline was published on the same day as the text of the Withdrawal Agreement). It will set out the aspirations for an ambitious economic relationship between the UK and the EU to be negotiated once the UK has left the EU on 29 March 2019. EU leaders will consider these documents at a special summit to be held on 25 November.

The Withdrawal Agreement itself is not just the ‘divorce’ agreement but also sets out two routes to a new UK-EU relationship.

The apparently obvious route is to be found in the part of the Agreement establishing a ‘transition period’. In essence, the transition period is a legal ‘stand-still’ during which time the UK will remain bound by EU law obligations but without being a Member State and without any of the representation in the EU’s institutions that flows from EU membership. The transition period is intended to give the UK and EU time to negotiate agreements governing their future relationship. The transition period lasts until 31 December 2020 unless – before the end of July 2020 – the UK and EU agree to exercise an option to extend the transition period. Although the Withdrawal Agreement does not determine how long this extension might last, the use of the formulation ‘up to [31 December 21XX]’ suggests at least a year up until the end of 2021, although Michel Barnier has indicateda willingness to accept a transition period up until the end of 2022. Extending transition will entail making future budget contributions for the additional years that the UK remains in the transition period.

The longer that the UK remains in transition, the longer the UK and the EU have to negotiate a future relationship without the need for the provisions of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland – the ‘backstop’ – to be triggered. Until the transition period ends, frontier controls on the island of Ireland will continue to be eliminated because the UK will remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market. While offering a relatively smooth transition from EU membership – things would remain more or less as they are until the new agreement became applicable – an extended transition period has certain drawbacks.

A longer transition opens the UK Government to the accusation of delivering a ‘zombie’ Brexit that transgresses its own red lines. In transition the UK will have formally left the EU but will remain within the Customs Union, the Single Market – including free movement of people – and remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. Extending transition also entails additional budgetary contributions. The other less obvious but potentially significant problem with parking the UK in transition is that it doesn’t help identify what the UK would be transitioning towards and so might make it less easy for businesses to anticipate the adjustments they may need to make. That said, the political declaration ought to go some way towards illuminating the path towards the future relationship even if it stops short of building a direct legal bridge towards the ultimate destination.

The less obvious route to a future relationship with the EU is through the ‘backstop’. There are two reasons why we have perhaps not given sufficient thought to the backstop as an additional bridging device. The first is that we have tended to treat the ‘Irish problem’ as somehow distinct from the wider discussion about the UK-EU future relationship. This was odd given that it should have been clear that any solution to the border issues on the island of Ireland was always going to be a strong signifier of how the UK and the EU might structure their economic relationship to reduce any friction on trade. It would be a tall order to devise one solution to manage the border issues in Ireland as a ‘backstop’ and at the same time devise a different but equivalent solution for the future relationship. Nonetheless, with some factions pushing the Government towards a more minimalist free trade agreement – which would leave unresolved the Irish border issues – treating the backstop as an exceptional device became part and parcel of how we thought about it. Secondly, the language of ‘backstop’, or ‘insurance policy’ or ‘safety net’ has underscored the idea that this is a device which is not intended to be used.  Instead the focus has been on agreeing the future relationship to avoid ever having to invoke the backstop’s provisions.

However, when we consider what the UK and the EU have agreed as a backstop it becomes much clearer that this may be less a residual fall-back and more of a policy choice as a way of bridging the gap between EU membership and a future relationship. The backstop may turn out not to be a safety net, but a trampoline.

At the core of the backstop is the ‘single customs territory’ encompassing the customs territory of the EU and the customs territory of the whole of the UK including Northern Ireland. Good produced in either territory move without payment of any customs duties, as do goods from third countries that have paid the relevant tariffs applied by the EU and the UK to goods from outside the single customs territory (the UK will align its tariffs and its trade policy with that of the EU).

During the operation of the backstop, the UK has committed to certain ‘level playing field’ obligations in respect of taxation including compliance with EU and international standards as well as certain EU directives. In the spheres of environmental, social and employment regulation, there are  ‘non-regression’ clauses. These commit the UK to not reduce its level of protection in things like air quality targets and waste management. The UK has also agreed to implement a system of carbon pricing in line with the EU’s carbon trading system. In the area of employment protection, the Protocol requires the UK not to reduce standards in areas such as health and safety at work, working conditions and employment standards (but without application of the dispute resolution mechanism laid down in the Agreement).

In addition to all of this, the Protocol requires the UK to comply with EU state aid rules (with certain exemptions for agricultural production) albeit enforced not by the European Commission but the UK Competition and Markets Authority (the UK’s competition regulator). That said, the European Commission is to be allowed to bring cases in UK courts for alleged breaches of state aid rules. The EU’s competition rules on cartels and abusive market behaviour is also applicable.

In short, while the backstop means that the UK is out of the EU Customs Union and its Single Market, the coordination of the UK and EU customs territories and the maintenance of certain obligations aimed at ensuring that competition is not distorted ensure that the whole of the UK will enter into an economic relationship with the EU that may anticipate the type of future relationship that the UK and EU might seek to build. To be sure, an agreement on a future relationship will seek to go beyond this not least in terms of trade in services and other non-economic spheres of cooperation like foreign and security policies. But at least as regards trade in goods, entering into a backstop arrangement pending the finalisation of a complete package of agreements on a future relationship might seem preferable to an extension of the transition period.

What then becomes interesting is that the other provisions of the backstop that are specific to North-South relations on the island of Ireland and which would keep Northern Ireland more closely aligned with the EU Single Market than the rest of the UK – in order to avoid non-tariff barriers to trade on the island of Ireland – becomes the exceptional part rather than the dominant part of the agreement.

That the backstop may perform a more active role in defining what happens after 29 March 2019 can be easily evidenced. The Preamble to the Protocol itself makes clear that:

‘HAVING REGARD to the Union and to the United Kingdom’s common objective of a close future relationship, which will establish ambitious customs arrangements that build on the single customs territory provided for in this Protocol, in full respect of their respective legal orders.’

The UK Government’s own explanation of what the Withdrawal Agreement entails – while describing the backstop as an ‘uncomfortable arrangement’ – nonetheless states that:

‘If the future relationship is not going to be ready by 1 January 2021, the UK has two choices: request an extension of the [transition period] or activate the backstop.’

This presents the backstop as a distinctive policy choice. It would move the UK out of a stand-still transition in which the UK would have the obligations and not the benefits of EU membership into what would in effect constitute an ‘interim agreement leading to the formation of a free trade area/customs union’ within the meaning of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. The enforcement mechanisms contained in the Withdrawal Agreement would apply in place of the normal enforcement mechanisms that apply to EU Member States and which will apply to the UK during transition. The free movement of people would come to an end.

Legally, using the backstop as an interim trade deal is not without its difficulties and may even be incompatible with the use of Article 50 TEU as a legal basis particularly if the backstop dragged on. Indeed, while there has been much discussion about the inability of the UK to unilaterally exit the backstop, were the backstop to become an enduring basis of UK-EU relations the legality of the arrangement would likely be challenged.

If the Withdrawal Agreement ever enters into force – and currently it looks unlikely to obtain approval in the House of Commons – we may yet look back and realise that turning the backstop into an interim trade arrangement was the key to making Brexit happen.

Extending the Transition Period: 3 Options

Following her visit to the European Council meeting in Brussels, the Prime Minister Theresa May indicated that the UK might seek to extend the Brexit transition period ‘for a matter of months’. A recent European Policy Centre discussion paper has proposed a one-off mechanism to extend the transition period for a year. However, this week newspapers reported that the Cabinet had been warned that the UK could end up in a long-running transition following its departure from the EU. In a new Faculty of Law Research Paper,  I explore three options open to the UK to extend the transition period and conclude that creating an extended transition and implementation facility would allow transition to end early as new agreements between the UK and EU enter into force.

For some time now, both the United Kingdom and the European Union have been agreed that once the UK ceases to be a Member State of the EU on 29 March 2019, it will enter into a ‘stand-still’ period during which the UK will continue to be bound by its existing EU obligations (alternatives to this approach were explored in an earlier blog). The rationale behind this is to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ departure which would otherwise see tariffs and regulatory controls imposed on cross-border trade between the UK and the EU.

To the extent there has been disagreement between the two sides it has been on terminology – the EU refers to this as a ‘transition period’ while the UK insists on calling it an ‘implementation period’ – and duration – the UK sought a two-year period whereas the EU was only willing to agree a transition that would end on 31 December 2020 (coinciding with the end of the current budgetary ‘multi-annual framework’). The UK agreed to the EU’s offer of a transitionending in December 2020.

However, the duration of the transition period has come back to the fore of the negotiations for two reasons.

The UK believes that the issue of how to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland can only properly be resolved in the context of the negotiations on the future economic relationship. The UK had hoped that this might be negotiated in parallel with the withdrawal arrangements. However, the EU has insisted that it is only the framework for future cooperation that can be discussed in the context of the withdrawal negotiations meaning that the terms of a future economic relationship can only be agreed once the UK leaves. As long as the UK is in transition, the issue of frontier controls on the island of Ireland does not arise. But with the transitional period ending at the end of 2020, EU negotiators have insisted on the need for a ‘backstop’ to ensure that if transition ends without a deal on a future relationship that meets the commitments made in the 2017 Joint Report, a ‘hard border’ in Ireland will be avoided. It is the failure to reach agreement on a backstop which is making negotiators on both sides reconsider a time-limited transition period.

The second reason for revisiting the duration of the transition period is that the pace of negotiations thus far, coupled with deep disagreement over the UK Government’s ‘Chequers Plan’ for a new UK-EU relationship, suggest that the transition period as currently conceived will be too short to allow for negotiations on a future relationship to be concluded. Taken together with the backstop issue, minds have turned to whether it would be prudent to extend transition,

In a recent European Policy Centre paper, Tobias Lock and Fabian Zuleeg make a strong case for the extension of transition, suggesting that a one-time one-year option to extend transition would be a workable solution.

In a new Research Paper, I explore three potential models for an extended transition:

  • A one-off option to extend transition for a year following the end of the initial transition period (the Lock and Zuleeg model)
  • A rolling or open-ended transition with an exit mechanism
  • An extended transition and implementation facility.

The Research Paper suggests that while Lock and Zuleeg make a good case, their proposal still risks a ‘second cliff-edge’ at the end of an extended transitional period if there is no agreement on a future relationship. A one-year optional extension may not give negotiators sufficient time to reach an agreement and might not create sufficient confidence to avoid the need to negotiate a backstop.

The most obvious way to avoid a backstop would be to keep the UK in transition unless and until a new economic partnership between the UK and the EU was agreed (provided also that this met the commitments on the Irish border agreed in the 2017 Joint Report). However, a perpetual transition would be politically unacceptable, be difficult to manage in budgetary terms and would conflict with EU law. It would, therefore, need an exit mechanism. This could be modelled on Article 50 itself and allow either the UK or the EU to notify the other of their intention to end the transition period. After a defined period, the transition period would come to an end with or without a deal on a future relationship.

A compromise solution draws on the existing draft Agreement and would allow transition to end once new agreements on customs and trade, foreign, security and defence policy are agreed and became applicable. Unlike an open transition, this facility would have to have a defined endpoint and a proposed deadline of 31 December 2022 is suggested. This is beyond the next General Election which is scheduled for 5 May 2022. The aim would be to give negotiators the flexibility to agree new partnership arrangements but with incentives to reach agreements early to avoid the need to continue to use the transition and implementation facility. The UK and EU could depart transition well before the facility expired. This does not ‘solve’ the Irish border issue. The Withdrawal Agreement must contain commitments which have already been made to avoid a hard border. The pressure remains on the UK to define how a future relationship with the EU would meet those commitments. But by expanding the time available to continue negotiations, at least some of the current pressure on negotiators may be released. The alternative is that no deal is done on withdrawal and the UK departs the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement. In which case the issue of frontier controls comes quickly back onto the agenda. Extending transition in the hope of finding solutions may be the least worst outcome.

 

 

Too Big to Fail – Why All the Talk about a ‘No Deal’ Brexit?

As Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU move towards an endgame series of summits among the leaders of the EU27, little new has emerged about whether Prime Minister May’s ‘Chequers Plan’ – or a variation of it – will be acceptable to the EU.

Although reports were circulating that the EU’s Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier, had described the plan as ‘dead’, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker – in his annual State of the Union speech– appeared to offer some hope to the UK that an ‘ambitious new partnership’ could be forged on the basis of a free trade agreement as envisaged in the Chequers Plan. Nonetheless, he also warned that a state that left the EU and its Single Market could not enjoy the same privileges as an EU Member State. Prime Minister May also knows that even if her Government can reach an agreement with the EU, there is no guarantee that MPs will endorse it.

Noticeably, the UK Government has been talking up its arrangements for a ‘No Deal’ Brexit. In August, the Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab outlined the UK’s preparations for a disorderly departure from the EU. An initial series of technical papers were issued by his Department, indicating the likely effects of leaving the EU without a legal framework to govern future trade and cooperation between the UK and the EU. With 80% of the Withdrawal Agreement in place – including settlements of the UK’s financial liabilities – Raab noted that the scenarios identified were not what the Government expected or wanted, and instead presented the publications of the papers as a government planning ‘for every eventuality’.

With the UK publishing a further round of No Deal technical papers on 13 September, the volume of No Deal chatter seems to have gone up considerably. The Prime Minister even hosted a special meeting of the Cabinet apparently to discuss contingency planning should the UK leave the EU without a deal. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, also attended for part of the meeting and was reported to have told the Cabinet that a major property market crash would be a likely outcome of a No Deal Brexit.

Meanwhile the Brexit Secretary amplified remarks he made earlier in that week that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ and that included the settlement of the UK’s financial liabilities as agreed in the first phase of Brexit talks. While repeating that the UK would honour its obligations, Raab made clear that should a No Deal Brexit occur, the agreement reached at the end of 2017 would lapse. At her weekly Prime Minister’s Questions session in the Commons, Theresa May had similarly noted that in respect of the accepted so-called ‘Divorce Bill’, in the event of a No Deal Brexit, ‘the position changes’.  To be clear, the Government accepts it has financial liabilities and it is not suggesting it will not meet those liabilities. Nonetheless, the threat to take that settlement off the table is a further instance of the consequences of a No Deal Breit.

All this talking up of a No Deal Brexit appears aimed at a range of audiences.

The technical papers are supposed to give guidance to stakeholders about how the Government intends to implement regulatory arrangements governing goods like medicines and services like mobile phone use and data roaming.  Yet much of this guidance does not get beyond telling businesses that the UK will legislate to allow EU-based manufacturers and service-providers to continue to access the UK while leaving enormous uncertainty as to what degree of reciprocal arrangements – if any – UK companies will experience in 27 other countries. The same goes for citizens’ rights after Brexit. If the deal done on those rights in 2017 disappears, the UK could legislate to replicate the terms of the deal for citizens of the EU27: a point that Raab has also made in interviews. But again, this does nothing to provide reassurance for UK nationals resident in any of the EU27 Member States with the potential for those states to take divergent approaches, subject to any common EU legislative rules.

Given that real certainty and clarity can only come from a Withdrawal Agreement that includes a clear transitional framework, and from some sense of what the future relationship between the UK and EU will entail, the No Deal chatter is really aimed at different political audiences.

In seeking to sell her plan to the public, discussion of a No Deal Brexit helps to prepare people for the reality that things will be different outside of the EU. For those ideologically committed to Brexit, the risks and downsides of EU withdrawal have often been dismissed as ‘Project Fear’: the Brexiteer equivalent of ‘Fake News’. The release of technical papers describing some of the potential fall-out from life outside the EU, allows the PM to worry the public just enough to make her plan seem like a less bad outcome.

At a domestic political level, talking up the risk of a No Deal Brexit is no doubt an attempt by Prime Minister May to focus the minds of MPs – as well as members of her own Cabinet – that her Chequers Plan is the only basis for an orderly exit from the EU. In her Panorama television interview, Mrs May repeated that the choice was between a deal based on the Chequers Plan or a No Deal departure from the EU. Were her own MPs and colleagues to reject a deal negotiated by her and to remove her as PM, the risk of falling out the EU without a deal increases. Avoiding that eventuality also means keeping her in No 10. The PM is using her own weakness and the threat of the UK crashing out of the EU to garner political traction for her Chequers Plan and to keep her in office (for the time being).

But another audience for all of this is the leaders of the EU27. The UK has been asking Barnier and his team to show flexibility and not to stick to the models of how they have done deals in the past. Raising the threat of a No Deal Brexit may be intended to appeal directly to the EU leaders to redefine or reinterpret the negotiation mandate of the European Commission to allow for talks to reach a positive conclusion. An upcoming informal summit of those leaders may be an opportunity to do just that although it is not clear that the Member States would actually change the mandate rather than clarify the EU’s endgame position. Again, it is the weakness of the UK that turns out to be its strength. Like a major bank during the financial crisis, the Brexit talks are too big to fail and the UK is probably pinning its hope on the EU27 to avert a failure given the terrible consequences of failure.

We do need to keep in mind that the current talks cannot and will not define the future relationship between the UK and the EU; it can only settle the ‘framework’ for that relationship. And so there is always the potential to kick the can down the road by agreeing a thinner rather than a thicker version of that framework. Indeed, the value of Sterling recently rose on the back of a Bloomberg report that Germany might accept a more minimal framework agreement.

Paradoxically, then, the current preoccupation with a No Deal Brexit is an indicator that some serious political thought is now being given to how to ensure that the Brexit endgame produces a Withdrawal Agreement. It is the political and economic consequences of failure that is driving the parties towards an agreement. The question is whether the concept of ‘too big to fail’ will be enough to ensure that any political agreement reached will also be endorsed either by MPs or by the public should a ‘People’s Vote’ transpire.

Brexit’s Bitter Pill – How Significant Was the Government’s Defeat on the Trade Bill Amendment?

With the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 gaining Royal Assent on 26 June 2018, the focus in the UK Parliament has turned to the scrutiny and amendment of the Government’s Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill (aka the ‘Customs Bill’) and its Trade Bill. In votes on amendments to the Trade Bill in the House of Commons on 17 July, the Government managed to block attempts to amend the Bill to require the Government to negotiate participation in a customs union with the EU. The Government’s position has remained unchanged since the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech in January 2017 that the UK is leaving the EU customs union. Following Cabinet agreement at a meeting at Chequers, the Government’s White Paper on the framework of the future partnership with the EU identifies that the UK will only seek a free trade agreement with the EU, meaning that the UK and EU will form distinct customs territories.

But in a surprise result, the Government failed to block an amendment which requires it to be ‘an objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the European Union,  European Economic Area and the European Medicines Agency’ (new clause 6 of the Bill). The amendment was backed by prominent Conservative Brexit rebels including Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve, Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry. But what is the real significance of this?

Since the 2016 referendum there has been anxiety about what Brexit will mean for the approval and marketing of medicines, with the UK pulling out of the Single Market and withdrawing from EU institutions and agencies including the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As the Commons’ Health Select Committee Report on Brexit made clear, almost all the evidence it received suggested that after Brexit,  ‘the UK should continue to align with the EU regulatory regime on medicines …’.

The Government’s desire for a future economic partnership with the EU includes a willingness by the UK to continue to abide by a ‘common rulebook’ for goods, including medicines. But in order for a rulebook to work and for there to be alignment with the regulatory regime on medicines, the UK will also need to participate in an institutional, administrative and regulatory infrastructure that make that rulebook work in practice.

The EMA – set to move from its UK base in London to Amsterdam following Brexit – plays an important role in the risk assessment of new drugs and in the system of ‘centralised’ authorisation of certain new drugs – including those to fight cancer and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s. The Government has made clear its desire to continue to participate in the work of the EMA following the UK’s withdrawal; a position it reiterates in its July 2018 White Paper on the framework of the future partnership with the EU.

But what is significant about the amendment to the Trade Bill is that it looks beyond the EMA to the system for ‘decentralised’ authorisation of medicines coordinated by a network of national regulators and by which the majority of medicines are placed on the European market.

Nonetheless, the first thing to be clear about is that domestic legislation does not an international agreement make. Whatever the appropriateness or not of Parliament instructing Government on its objectives for international negotiations, in the end it is for the EU and the UK Government to agree any arrangements for participation in the medicines network and work of the EMA.

From the EU’s side, the balance of rights and responsibilities which will be achieved in any future relationship depends on the wider context of the overall relationship and here the EU has, to date, had a rather fixed view of the kinds of models it is prepared to work with. The European Commission Task Force 50slides on ‘Regulatory Issues’ from February 2018 offers a contrast between a free movement/Single Market model of cooperation, and a free trade model. According to the Commission,  the regulatory tools and structures of the EU’s Single Market are not available under a free trade agreement. The idea of a sectoral approach to market access and regulatory issues is also rejected by the European Commission. Accordingly, whether or not the UK does get to participate in the European medicines regulatory network and the work of the EMA is not an issue that can be negotiated separately from that of the future relationship, and any future participation is dependent on whether the EU can accept that the UK may benefit from regulatory aspects of the Single Market without being in the EU or a party to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement like other non-EU states, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein who do participate in the medicines network and aspects of the work of EMA.

There is also an important issue of time.

The future relationship will follow a period of transition during which time the UK will continue to be bound by, and apply EU law, in terms of the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK hopes to finalise with the EU by October 2018. Nonetheless, the draft Withdrawal Agreement makes clear that although the UK will continue to have obligations as if it still were a Member State, in terms of appointment of members of EU agencies and participation in the decision-making and the governance of EU agencies the UK will not be considered to be a Member State after 29 March 2019. Now, it should be recalled that even for those non-EU states that participate in the EEA Agreement there is no direct participation in the management boards of EU agencies but there is participation in working and expert groups. Importantly, the three non-EU states that participate in the EEA are represented in the Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures that manages this system for mutual recognition that is at the heart of the medicines regulatory network.

However, the draft Withdrawal Agreement states in Article 6 that during the transitional period, attendance at meetings of committees, expert groups or similar entities of EU agencies is in principle excluded unless the Agreement provides otherwise. Indeed, Article 123(5) of the draft Agreement only envisages the representation of UK experts in the work of EU agencies where an act is to be addressed to a company established in the UK. More significantly, Article 123(6) states that the UK will not act as a lead authority or ‘reference Member State’ in the risk assessment, examination, approval or authorisation of certain products including medicines (Annex ‘y+6’). The implications of this are set out in a Q&A document of June 2018 produced by the Heads of Medicines Agencies. After 29 March 2019 – the beginning of transition – pharmaceutical companies that use the UK as a Reference Member State for obtaining authorisations for their medicines will not be able to make any new regulatory submissions until they appoint a new Reference Member State. All of which is on top of the problem that any market authorisation holder must be established in an EU/EEA state and that in order to hold a valid medicines authorisation, the holder must also be established in an EU/EEA state.

The limitations of the amendment to the Trade Bill now become clear. Even assuming that the UK Government could persuade the EU to conclude a future international trade agreement that will allow UK medicines’ regulators to participate in the EU regulatory regime – and the White Paper is clear that the Government does want UK regulators to be able to act as a ‘leading authority’ for medicines assessment (paragraph 30 c.) – there is an evident gap during the transitional period where – according to current texts – the existing system for decentralised medicines authorisation will not work as it has worked during the UK’s EU membership. The UK will not be a Reference Member State and authorization applicants and holders will not be based in an EU/EEA state.

It seems inconceivable that the UK will arrive at a future relationship with the EU that allows full participation in the European medicines regulatory regime after a transitional arrangement which would essentially exclude the UK from core aspects of the system of decentralised authorisation of medicines and mutual recognition of such authorizations.

There is clearly some way for negotiations between the UK and the EU to go and the amendment to the Trade Bill on medicines certainly reminds Government of the importance politicians and the public attach to this issue. However, UK parliamentarians cannot make this system for the regulation of medicines work by legislative fiat and in focusing on the future trade relationship with the EU it misses the target in terms of the need to protect this system during the transitional period. That may be a bitter pill to swallow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now is not the time for a ‘least worst’ Brexit – it’s time for a referendum on Brexit itself

There are 340 days to go until the UK leaves the EU.

The time remaining for the UK and EU to negotiate a withdrawal agreement is even less than that.

Domestic legislation still needs to be passed to retain EU law in national law. Time will also be needed to give domestic legal effect to any withdrawal agreement.

Time is short even to do what the UK Government wants to do, namely to leave the EU, its Single Market and Customs Union, and instead negotiate with the EU a new relationship based on a free trade agreement.

And yet we still seem to be talking about alternative options. Indeed, the term “least worst Brexit” seems to be gaining some currency as politicians and others wake up to the reality of what the UK intends to give up from its EU membership as well as all the difficulties and limitations associated with what the UK Government aspires to achieve.

A prime example of these attempts to temper the effects of Brexit is the idea of remaining in a customs union. The focal point for this debate is Parliament, with both the Lords and the Commons seeking to steer the Government towards a customs union.

For the Commons, a debate will be held on Thursday on a motionthat calls on the Government ‘to include as an objective in negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU the establishment of an effective customs union’ between the UK and the EU. It will be a debate with no immediate legal consequences and the reference to a ‘future relationship’ may look beyond the immediacy of current negotiations. The Lords, however, have gone further in amending the European Union (Withdrawal) Billto make the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 conditional on Ministers laying before both Houses of Parliament a statement concerning the steps taken in negotiations under Article 50(2) to negotiate an arrangement to continue participating in a customs union with the EU.

In response to these moves, the UK Government has today repeated its position that the UK will be leaving the customs union. So what should we make of attempts by Parliament to push for a least worst Brexit?

The first thing to be clear about is that the UK Government is not negotiating in Brussels according to a mandate that Parliament has set for the UK Government in advance of negotiations. Our constitutional set up is instead one in which Parliament’s role is to legislate to implement international agreements and, in more recent times, to signal its approval of such agreements prior to ratification so as not to lead to the circumstance in which a Government is confronted with a Parliament unwilling to legislate for a deal that it does not like. We are now 15 months on from the Lancaster House speech in which the UK Government set out what sort of Brexit it wanted. We are also more than a year into the negotiations that will lead to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU with likely less than half a year left to finalise the deal. This hardly seems the moment for Parliament to decide it wants to instruct the UK Government on what it should be negotiating.

Secondly, Parliament cannot simply legislate for a customs union. The UK is leaving the EU and any future relationship can only be negotiated between the UK Government and the EU. The Lords amendment to the Withdrawal Bill does recognise that in the sense that it only demands that Parliament is informed about those negotiations. As such it is also an amendment whose condition is easily satisfied. After all, ministers may simply state to Parliament that ministers have taken no steps to negotiate a customs union as it is not government policy to have one with the EU.

Given that the Government is clear about what it wants, the only real option for Parliament is to bring the Government down one way or another. And if this Government is gone, are we really talking about forging a least worst Brexit or something else all together?

Because if there is a strong enough political momentum to reject the Government’s Brexit strategy and to argue instead for a customs union and likely also the Single Market, then perhaps there is political momentum to push for retention of EU membership itself.

As I argued in Brexit Timeand as I have been suggesting here, Brexit is a choice in time and of time. In the time that remains before the UK leaves the EU, I think the choice is not between the UK Government’s form of Brexit and a least worse version. It is between what the Government is seeking or the UK remaining in the EU.

So I have come to a conclusion. There should be a referendum on the question whether the UK leaves the EU on the terms that the UK Government negotiates, or the UK remains a Member State of the European Union. There is no time for a third way option and all the chatter that suggests that such an option might be viable is, to my mind, a distraction.

I fully understand those that believe another referendum could be divisive. But to be clear this would be a referendum on a different proposition. And it seems to me that people on both sides of this argument need to have the courage of their convictions. Either the Government is right to push for an end to EU membership on the terms it negotiates, or it is wrong and the status quo should prevail. As I have also argued on this blog, if there is to be another referendum, time is limited.

This is not the time for Parliament to try and find a middle ground. It is time for Parliament to allow the electorate to make a decisive choice. If Parliament wants to legislate for anything it should be to for a referendum.