A Continuing Source of Disagreement

The devolved legislatures’ ‘continuity’ legislation prepares their statute books for Brexit in the event of an ongoing impasse with the UK Government over the so-called ‘power grab’ in the EU Withdrawal Bill. Professor Nicola McEwen suggests these ongoing discussions and debates provide insight into the challenges and opportunities likely to shape ongoing intergovernmental relationships. 
 
There has been considerable debate about the impact of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill on the constitutional authority of the devolved legislatures, especially as a result of the constraints imposed by the infamous Clause 11. The UK Government has now introduced an amendment in the House of Lords, requiring it to introduce regulations specifying the areas where this constraint on devolved powers would be applied. Analysis published recently by the UK Government suggests that restrictions would be mainly in the areas of agriculture, fisheries and the environment. 
 
This amendment has been rejected by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. While insisting that their first preference is to agree an amendment to the UK Bill to facilitate common UK frameworks without undermining devolution, their ‘continuity’ bills prepare their own statute books for Brexit without compromising devolved authority. There is some doubt about whether these bills fall within the legislative competence of the devolved institutions and the Supreme Court may in time be asked for its ruling. Whatever the outcome, these ongoing discussions and debates provide insight into the challenges and opportunities which are likely to shape intergovernmental relationships in the coming months and years. 
 
First, the current impasse in part reflects the absence of shared understanding of the extent and limits of devolution. The UK Government sees those powers within the competency of the EU as never having been meaningfully devolved while the Scottish and Welsh governments consider them part of the original devolution settlement. Thus, when the three governments agreed to ‘respect the devolution settlements’ in the principles that they agreed in October would underpin new common UK frameworks, they lacked a common understanding of what that entails. 
 
Second, much of the ongoing dispute is about process rather than outcome. All governments are agreed that there will be some areas where it makes sense to operate uniformly across the UK (or Great Britain, with separate arrangements for Northern Ireland). 
 
For the UK Government, common frameworks are necessary to preserve the UK’s internal market using more or less formal arrangements. According to UK Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington, who now oversees these negotiations, this would ensure free movement of goods and services within the UK “without any extra red tape or expense”. 
 
The devolved governments are as keen as the UK Government to avoid new internal barriers to trade and mobility. Their beef is about who gets to decide. The common position of the Scottish and Welsh Governments was succinctly expressed recently by Mark Drakeford, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and lead minister in the Welsh Government’s Brexit negotiations: 
 
“The things that are to be retained at the UK level should be things that are agreed… what we’re looking for is agreement… the principle of agreement, rather than the principle of imposition, is fundamental to us.” 
 
Of course, process is not unrelated to outcomes. Although all governments share the desire to avoid barriers to trade, they may have divergent views on how this would best be achieved. 
 
Third, the Brexit negotiations have revealed both the opportunities and the limitations afforded by the UK’s territorial constitution. The Withdrawal bill is Westminster legislation, and it is for the Westminster parliament to determine its final content and scope. But early in the process, the UK Government conceded that those clauses of the bill which most directly affect devolved competence would be subject to the Sewel convention, which commits it to seeking the consent of the devolved legislatures before the bill becomes law. 
 
This does not amount to a devolution veto, as the Supreme Court confirmed in its judgement in the Miller case, the Sewel convention is a matter of politics, not a matter of law. However, this concession gave the devolved governments an opportunity for influence in intergovernmental negotiations beyond their constitutional authority. These negotiations have shifted significantly the UK Government’s position, as evident in its amendment to Clause 11, even if not yet to the point where the devolved governments are willing to recommend consent for the bill. 
 
If consent is withheld, the normal procedure, according to the convention, would be for the offending clauses of the UK bill to be removed, freeing up space for devolved legislation. However, given the importance that the current UK Government attaches to retaining authority over the UK internal market, it seems unlikely that it would acquiesce on this occasion. On the other hand, there is discomfort in the UK parliament, especially in the House of Lords, at the prospect of passing the Withdrawal bill without the consent of the devolved legislatures. The Scottish and Welsh Continuity bills are an alternative to that legislative consent.  If implemented, they would add yet more constitutional complexity to the domestic Brexit process. But they are also intended to increase pressure on the UK Government towards further concessions, in the hope of reaching an agreed amendment to the Withdrawal Bill that would render devolved continuity legislation unnecessary. 
 
 
 

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Nicola McEwen's picture
post by Nicola McEwen
University of Edinburgh
22nd March 2018

Latest blogs

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts