03 October 2016

Theresa May’s Great Repeal Bill – a Scottish own goal?

Theresa May’s announcement of a Great Repeal Bill at Tory party conference on Sunday has the hallmarks of a stroke of genius: It creates some momentum in the internal Brexit debate without substantively changing anything and without thereby compromising her negotiating position with the EU. It appeases the die-heart Brexiteers in her party by seemingly following their Brexit-blueprint released last week. It may kill off legal challenges pending in the courts of England and Northern Ireland demanding that Parliament be involved before Article 50 TEU is triggered. It may buy her valuable time before starting the formal withdrawal process as the Great Repeal Bill is likely to get bogged down in parliamentary proceedings – let’s not forget that absent a manifesto promise to the repeal the European Communities Act 1972 the House of Lords is not bound by the Salisbury Convention and is free to delay such a move. Lastly, it evokes positive memories of the Great Reform Act of 1832, which considerably broadened and equalised the franchise (for men only, of course) and set Britain on its way to become a modern democracy. Those who want to ‘take back control’ will be pleased.

The proposal of a Great Repeal Bill is rather simple: a Bill will be announced in the next Queen’s speech that the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) will be repealed. This repeal however will only take effect on the date that the UK has left the EU in accordance with the process foreseen in the EU Treaties – the famous Article 50 TEU. Intriguingly, the Great Repeal Bill will also provide for all EU law currently in force in the UK to be enshrined in UK law and therefore to remain in force. This is a most sensible step as it is the practically only way of avoiding huge gaps, which a wholesale repeal of the ECA would leave. At present the validity of most EU law within the UK legal order depends upon it: directly applicable and directly effective rules such as the Treaty rights and EU Regulations are only applicable because section 2 (1) ECA so decrees. In addition, EU Directives are usually transposed by way of secondary legislation – by so-called Order in Council – under section 2 (2) ECA. Hence if the ECA were repealed without further ado, this would include repeal of this enabling provision and would leave the secondary legislation concerned without a ‘hook’ in primary legislation: it too would cease to exist (for a longer discussion see here). It will be a long and arduous task for the civil service and parliament to sift through each and every piece of legislation and decide whether it is worth keeping or not. If this exercise were to be carried out before Brexit, most people who voted in the referendum would probably not live to see the day.

One option of enshrining EU law in existence into UK law would be to stipulate that ‘all EU law in force on the date of withdrawal from the EU remains in force’. While this ‘grandfathering’ may not prove to be a practical solution where mutual obligations such as free movement provisions are concerned, it may well prove to be sensible with regard to many technical provisions on product rules, the environment, labour and consumer law, etc. So far, so clever.

The Great Reform Bill however raises interesting constitutional questions with regard to the devolved nations of the UK, and in particular Scotland. The devolution settlement is based on the premise that the Westminster Parliament remains sovereign, i.e. according to Dicey ‘it can make or unmake any law whatever.’ Yet where it legislates on devolved matters, the so-called Sewel Convention says that ‘will not normally legislate […] without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.’ Comparable conventions leading to what is called a ‘legislative consent motion’ exist also with regard to the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. The problem with the attempt at enshrining all EU law into UK law as envisaged by the Great Repeal Bill is that a significant proportion of that EU law relates to matters that are currently devolved: for instance, environmental law, agriculture, fishing within the Scottish zone – just to mention a few. Were the Great Repeal Bill to adopt a wholesale approach to all EU law currently in place in the UK, it would have to be considered to be legislating with regard to devolved matters. Under Sewel, the consent of the Scottish Parliament would need to be sought and so would the consent of the two Assemblies. Given the fact that 62% of Scots voted to remain in the EU and that the Scottish government is opposed to ‘Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will’, this consent is not readily forthcoming. So has Theresa May scored an own goal by allowing the Scots to block her first big step towards Brexit? Or is this part of an even more cunning plan to delay having to trigger Article 50 TEU for a very long time?

Having said that, the Sewel Convention is ‘only’ a convention although it has recently been enshrined in the Scotland Act 2016. This does not detract from the fact that it is merely politically binding and not enforceable in the courts; nor does it resolve the question whether a repeal of the ECA is ‘normal’. Politically speaking these are side issues. What counts is how Scottish and Westminster politicians will react: if Westminster decides to ignore the need for a legislative consent motion, can Scottish nationalists portray it as yet another Westminster betrayal in their pitch for another independence referendum? Or can Westminster reassure the Scots that the Great Repeal Bill is really something that will keep as much EU law as possible within the Scottish legal order and thereby account for the wishes of the Scottish electorate? Let’s wait and see. We live in interesting times.

SUGGESTED CITATION  Lock, Tobias: Theresa May’s Great Repeal Bill – a Scottish own goal?, VerfBlog, 2016/10/03, https://verfassungsblog.de/theresa-mays-great-repeal-bill-a-scottish-own-goal/, DOI: 10.17176/20161004-095525.


  1. Ioannis Glinavos Mon 3 Oct 2016 at 17:01 - Reply

    I do not agree with the author’s contention that the proposed bill has any impact on ongoing cases before courts. The PM plans to invoke Art.50 before the bill is introduced. Therefore the issue of Parliamentary involvment in Art.50 remains open.

  2. Tobias lock Mon 3 Oct 2016 at 17:35 - Reply

    Thanks for your comment. That’s why I said ‘may’ kill off these challenges. It all depends on timing – maybe she won’t, after all, trigger article 50 before the bill is introduced – despite promises now made. After all, I would consider the Great Repeal Bill to be first and foremost there to appease the hardcore Brexiteers.

  3. Paolo Sandro Wed 5 Oct 2016 at 00:33 - Reply

    Thanks for your piece Tobias, nice and very agreeable read. One question: couldn’t it be argued that there is no strict technical need to repeal the ECA, as once the UK will formally leave the union, it will simply cease to ‘operate’? As a matter of international law once the UK formally leaves the union the obligations arising from the Treaties won’t apply anymore to it (barring transitional post-exit measures)- hence the ECA would simply lose the ‘source’ of its normativity and cease to have any effect as a matter of internal law? Of course there would still need to be some sort of enshrinement of 40 years of eu legislation into UK law, with a clause like the one you suggest. But what I am pointing at, I guess, is to reinforce your conclusion that this might really be more something to please the hard brexiteers rather than a ‘strictly necessary’ legal move?

  4. Tobias Lock Thu 6 Oct 2016 at 15:28 - Reply

    Interesting question, Paolo. You might be right on this one as the ECA would become somewhat nonsensical. At the same time, if you take it literally, its rules are still capable of applying after Brexit, i.e. a judge can still make sense of them. So repeal is probably warranted.

  5. Paolo Sandro Sun 9 Oct 2016 at 14:04 - Reply

    Thanks for the reply Tobias. Just for future reference, Mark Elliott has taken the same view (ie no technical need to repeal ECA) on his latest blog post on the topic. We shall see what comes out of this mess!

Leave A Comment


1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

Explore posts related to this:
Art. 50 TEU, Devolution, Great Repeal Bill, Scotland, Theresa May, brexit

Other posts about this region:
Europa, Vereinigtes Königreich