Withdrawal Agreement Bill Clause 38

In Amendment No 9, we specifically talk about an economic impact assessment. There haven`t been any since 2018 – and that was with chequers` agreement. Honestly, after reading the Chequers agreement, which many members on the government benches, including the Prime Minister, did not support, I can say that it was a complete agreement. Honestly, it was never a deal; it was just a wish list that had no chance of passing. Since then, there has been no assessment of the economic impact, and certainly no assessment of the economic impact of what this bill will do. The importance of Article 26 goes beyond its possible legal effect. The 2018 European Union Withdrawal Act, put in place by Theresa May`s government, provides a system designed to maximise legal continuity and certainty once the UK, as a member state or following the transition, is no longer subject to EU law. Section 6 of the 2018 Act required UK courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, to follow EU case law retained when interpreting EU law. If the government decides that it does not wish to maintain a particular EU law or a judgment of the CJEU, it is free to ask Parliament to legislate. The decision to include Article 26 of the WAB could be exhausted as an indication that the Johnson government wants to move away from the legal presumption of continuity.

This is in line with the Prime Minister`s stated position that a priority for the future relationship is to avoid alignment with EU law or any form of CJEU case law. From this point of view, Clause 26 is one of the first signs of the constitutional effects of a policy of direct derogation from EU law after the expiry of the transposition period. Sir John, I think your statement overlooks two key principles here. Firstly, it may or may not be true that Parliament is sovereign and can always go beyond international law. But what does this do to our reputation for respect for international law and our ability to criticize nations that violate it? According to this logic, we could have simply ignored any decision of the CJEU anyway. Second, the government won an 80-seat majority with the AO (which at the time did not have a term 38) as its flagship policy. .