Boris Johnson: With a Bound Set Free Sean Gabb (Published in The Commentator on the 4th September 2019) Yesterday evening, Boris Johnson lost even the shadow of a majority. He may stagger through the next few days, till the prorogation takes effect. During this time, he may get his friends in the Lords to talk…
via Boris Johnson: With a Bound Set Free (2019), by Sean Gabb — SEAN GABB
Cannot the CCA be invoked if a minister merely believes there might be an emergency? It’s a long time since I read it, but I seem to recall that feature?
Section 19 of Part 2 defines what an ’emergency’ is. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/section/19
Section 21 sets out the conditions that must be met before the emergency powers can be invoked. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/section/21
You will see that section 21(2) states as a condition that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur. That would suggest that a belief that there “might” be an emergency will normally be insufficient.
When the conditions are met, section 22 appears to give senior ministers complete freedom of action, subject to the limitations in section 23.
Surely if Boris Johnson seriously wanted a WTO/Hard Brexit he would have prorogued Parliament on the first day until 1st. November? He hasn’t done this. Instead he has allowed a debate, which now limits his freedom of action. For example, he cannot now decide to prorogue until the 1st. November instead if doing so is intended to block legislation. I believe there is old case law on this (the name of the case escapes me for the moment). Anybody would think Prime Minister Blow Job is a closet Remainer.
Some are suggesting that the Speaker’s denial of the need for Queen’s Consent at Third Reading will leave the legislation open to legal challenge, but all that does is delay Brexit – at best.
Looking at the Civil Contingencies Act, section 19 of Part 2 provides us with the definition of an ’emergency’ (link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/section/19). I suppose the government could use the Remainers’ own propaganda against them and argue that a so-called “No Deal” Brexit is an ’emergency’. Would Blow Job be that daring, though? Then there’s section 23 of Part 2 to consider (link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/section/23). It provides that the Human Rights Act is excluded from emergency regulation. Given that the HRA is the ECHR incorporated into domestic law, this means that one of these Remainers could come along and claim that the government is using the CCA to deny people European citizenship rights, etc. (or, in some cases, rights under UK immigration law). Maybe that wouldn’t halt Brexit in its tracks, however.
There will be no Brexit, it was never on the cards.
That’s even better.