Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I just think they saw it as futile. I think the air of confidence is simply to avoid saying they will break the law.
For the, very likely, people Vs Parliament election it's better to have Ministers out using air time to say "we will deliver Brexit" than Peers dragging out proceedings all weekend.
Although I agree with a lot of your post - it's likely to end up in the supreme court on the point of can Parliament compel the executive in this way, regardless of how well or badly the Bill is drafted.
|
We will never know either way, unless at some point someone publishes their memoirs.
The constitutional question that is put to the Supreme Court is going to be momentous. We have all been bandying around the phrase “parliamentary sovereignty” in this discussion without ever really questioning the source or the limitations of that sovereignty (if any). If their lordships did, for example, rule that centuries of convention in which Parliament has allowed the government to govern means one perfunctory Act designed to force a sitting Prime Minister to write a letter is unconstitutional, there and then it will have ruled that there is something Parliament cannot do (other than bind itself).
Alternatively, there may be sufficient statute law already in existence which is not effectively repealed or temporarily set aside by the Benn Act that renders it ineffective. That would not drive a coach and horses through the principle of parliamentary sovereignty but it will render it extremely difficult for a future “rebel alliance” to do what they did last week. Who would pin their career on something so easily picked apart in court?
My feeling about this is towards the latter. A high debate about the ancient conventions surrounding the roles of legislature and executive, which in all likelihood would end up uncomfortably close to considering the outcome of the English civil war and the basis upon which the monarchy was restored, would be interesting but esoteric and difficult to do quickly and its outcome too hard to predict. Invalidating the Benn Act on the basis that it’s bad law that violates something else parliament has already enacted, and with all its usual scrutiny (whereas the Benn Act is manifestly a rush job and therefore inferior), is a more likely approach.
But then here I am making predictions again, and that’s a very silly thing to do right now...