The EU Scrutiny Committee on the national sovereignty clause

I don’t agree with Bill Cash, chairman of the committee, when he says

It is essential that it is made clear that Parliament, is the ultimate authority, and not the Supreme Court of the Court of Justice of the EU determines the United Kingdom’s relationship to the EU [sic].

That’s already perfectly clear to anyone not in UKIP or the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party.

But I do agree with the thrust of his committee’s admirable report on the EU Bill, focusing on clause 18, the so-called “national sovereignty clause”.

The EU Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty

It rightly concludes that (para. 81)

Clause 18 is a reaffirmation of the role of a sovereign Parliament in a dualist state, nothing more, nothing less. The principle of dualism, and Parliament’s role within it, is neither controversial nor in danger of erosion by the courts. It did not need declaring in statute.

and that (para. 82)

Clause 18 does not address the competing primacies of EU and national law … the evidence suggests that clause 18 is not needed.

It suggests enacting the clause involves possible danger to Parliamentary sovereignty (para. 85)

Because of trends in judicial interpretation flowing from the assertion of the common law basis of Parliamentary sovereignty, we attach weight to the warnings expressed by Professor Tomkins [public law, Glasgow] if the Government maintains clause 18 in the EU Bill. Expressing a principle in the context only of EU law invites questions about why Parliament chose not for it to apply more generally.

Finally, para. 86 bluntly nails the clause as an empty political exercise:

The consequence of our conclusions above is that the Explanatory Notes are misleading when they state at paragraph 106 that the clause has been included “to address concerns that the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty may be eroded by the courts”. Clause 18 is not a sovereignty clause in the manner claimed by the Government, and the whole premise on which it has been included in the Bill is, in our view, exaggerated. We are gravely concerned that for political reasons it has been portrayed by the Government as a sovereignty clause in correspondence and also in the Explanatory Notes … For these reasons we deeply regret that the Secretary of State’s [sic] refused to come and give evidence himself on these matters.

I had gloomily thought that Tory Eurosceptics might have such wool-covered eyes on anything European that they’d buy William Hague’s clause as doing something positive from their point of view. This report proves at least that they’ve got more sense than that.