The critical Commons debate on the Withdrawal Agreement will be delayed because of the barney over the government publishing only a summary of its legal advice rather than "all" of it, whatever that means. As the government did not oppose the motion calling for all the advice to be published it may well be in contempt of the House and, if so, it will begrudgingly have to release more stuff having made an ass of itself. Whether they ever release it "all" very few would ever know. But one thing is clear: as we can all read for ourselves that there is a risk of being locked in to the Irish backstop indefinitely, the advice - in summary or total detail - won't tell us much we don't already know.
For what it's worth I don't think such legal advice should ever be published, for several reasons. Firstly, it's advice and as such an opinion, not factual or guaranteed. Courts often give decisions that set precedents. By definition any prior advice given on those cases would almost certainly be incorrect. Secondly, it's given in confidence. If it might routinely be published it will be more time consuming and costly to produce and will be worded more cautiously and caveated even more. It could become worthless to the intended recipients. Thirdly, it is given in the context of the specific time and situation. Taken out of that context it is likely to be misconstrued. I accept this third point doesn't apply to this Brexit spat.
So I think the delay in the debate about matters of substance is unfortunate, a points scoring sideshow when there are more important matters at hand.
That said, it was clearly appropriate for the Attorney General to brief the whole House, not just the government, on the draft Withdrawal Agreement. I listened with interest to some of his speech. I thought his presentation, including answering whatever questions MPs asked of him, was clear and useful. It reminded me of many briefing meetings with legal advisers and commercial managers, taking operational management through the key aspects of a new company law requirement or a draft contract. In the latter case there were many, many occasions where I, and other colleagues, had significant concerns about particular clauses which evaporated when the reason for the clause (which we had often misunderstood) was explained, together with how it would operate in practice and what relevance other parts of the agreement had.
The Attorney General's strong advice that the issues raised by the Withdrawal Agreement were for political debate and decision rather than a matter of legal interpretation strikes me as 100% correct and is further reason for me considering this whole issue of legal advice a distraction.
The silver lining was that his explanations - and I didn't hear all of his speech - eased concerns I had on several points. Indeed, on everything other than the Irish backstop and the risk of 'locked-in Hotel California syndrome'. I'll come back to that before the Commons vote as I think I have formed my view.
However, I would argue strongly that Remainers don't logically have a stake in this issue. It seems to me that, while May's deal could leave us locked in to a customs union, everyone wanting a softer Brexit would leave us in a customs union. Labour's policy would, as would some Norway/EEA variants. As, of course would remaining in the EU. The only difference is we might be locked in under May's deal. So this issue should only be of concern to Rees Mogg and the hardline Brexiteers. Some days this does include me but I will come off that fence soon.
My advice: the sooner MPs get to debating the real issues that they need to decide on the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment