The question of whether or not the government can actually get all the necessary primary and secondary legislation through before the end of March is doubtful, as the IfG report I posted about yesterday suggested. There are other problems too, in HMRC databases, and customs declaration systems which may not be ready in time, plus getting private sector businesses up to speed. It all makes the date very optimistic if not impossible which is why a delay is inevitable.
However, Dr North at EU Referendum blog is surprisingly relaxed about the legislative programme and fully expects the government to stick to March 29th. In reply to a comment on his blog yesterday he had this to say about the Institute for Government report, Brexit: Two months to go.
"Most of the IoG paper is flawed. The European Union Withdrawal Act is in itself enabling legislation which gives powers to ministers to continue, by statutory instrument, primary and EU legislation which was in force prior to our leaving. All it needs government to do is lay before the House an SI the day before Brexit listing all those measures which will continue in force. The SI takes effect on the day it is laid.
"Should there be any serious gaps which could cause harm to human health, etc, the government can invoke the Civil Contingencies Act, which gives ministers powers to make directions, which can cover for any period required to bring in more permanent regulation.
"The IoG [sic] premise that we need more time to bring in the legislation simply does not stand up. These teenage scribblers are just pushing buttons for the sake of it".
I know The Sunday Times reported a few weeks ago that the government was planning on using martial law under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 but I assumed this would be in the event of civil disorder breaking out not as a deliberate policy to get legislation through the House.
The Civil Contingencies Act is designed for use in an 'emergency' which includes war or an attack by a foreign power. Plagues of locusts or stuff that poses a threat of serious damage to our security or welfare. It is intended to deal with an apocalypse not problems caused by the government's own self imposed deadlines being breached and especially not problems easily solved by the PM simply writing a letter revoking Article 50. Life is only under threat from Brexit, not from delaying or cancelling it.
This is Dr North's authoritarian streak showing through. He is looking at the issue from entirely the wrong way - but this isn't a surprise is it?
We will see who the teenage scribblers are very soon - and I don't think they will be found at the IfG
As David Lammy MP said (HERE) in response to The Sunday Times article, "The idea that the government has any mandate for this catastrophic scenario is ludicrous. The Leave campaign promised a stable new trading relationship with the EU after Brexit, not total isolation and soldiers in our airports"
And according to this absolutely stunning report (HERE) in The Telegraph this morning, nine cabinet ministers think Brexit will have to be delayed if extra time is needed to agree a deal. It's stunning that two thirds of the cabinet presumably still believe March 29th is possible.
