9

The recent act passed in by the UK Parliament EU Withdrawal No.2 Act, that forces the Prime Minister to seek an extension if no deal is agreed or parliament does not agree to no deal, is said by the Prime Minister to bind his hands when negotiating with the European Union.

If Parliament is prorogued (legally for a few days) in order for a Queens Speech and creating a new Parliamentary Session, would the bill mentioned above be an example of a bill that binds the future Parliament which is shown in this answer to not be allowed by the UK's uncodified constitution?

  • 6
    The key point is that you can't write a law that says "PS This law cannot be changed." Any future parliament can change any law given a majority in favour of that change. – Jontia Oct 2 '19 at 15:25
  • 1
    This phrase is much misunderstood. As Jontia says above, and JJJ in their answer below, all it means is that any Act of Parliament can be repealed and amended by any other Act of Parliament. That's it. – Steve Melnikoff Oct 2 '19 at 15:56
15

would the bill mentioned above be an example of a bill that binds the future Parliament which is shown in this answer to not be allowed by the UK's uncodified constitution?

No, because it does not bind that parliament. Parliament can simply pass new legislation to nullify what's required from the PM in that act. That's unlikely to happen because parliament still supports it (given that they're the same people), but nothing prevents them from changing the law other than the will of parliament itself.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    @KDog that's a good question, but in practice it's not that interesting. If parliament supports no deal then they can easily deal with this too in whatever way is legally required. The problem is that there's no majority for any deal or no deal that's also acceptable to the EU. There was a majority for not having no deal and that's where this law comes from. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Oct 2 '19 at 15:45
  • 1
    @KDog: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/45662/… – Fizz Oct 2 '19 at 15:45
  • 3
    A good example is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. That requires a 2/3 supermajority to pass the resolution: "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". That's perfectly lawful. If it also said, this Bill can only be superseded or repealed with a 2/3 majority, that would be unlawful. – richardb Oct 2 '19 at 16:23
  • 3
    @KDog There is a legal principle whereby if two Acts are incompatible with one another, then the later one impliedly repeals the earlier one to the extent of the incompatibility, even if it does not expressly do so. However note that in the case of the Act in question, ss 1(2) and 1(3) provide that the PM does not need to ask for an extension if Parliament has agreed to a no-deal Brexit by the 19th October. – JBentley Oct 2 '19 at 23:33
  • 1
    .. however, implicit repeal does not apply to certain laws, and especially not to law created by EU competences - this is subtle but very important, see Factortame en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – pjc50 Oct 3 '19 at 9:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .