These recommendations are likely to influence both how the government negotiates with its future contractual partners and how Parliament conducts its review of Brexit-related treaties. It should be noted, for example, that the Constitutional Committee recently recommended the creation of a new Treaty Verification Committee, which should “examine all treaties in order to identify those that need further examination and bring them to the attention of both chambers” (on this subject, see our previous contribution to the Constitutional Committee`s report on “parliamentary scrutiny of treaties”). The new International Agreements Committee will work in 2020 under the aegis of the House of Lords EU Committee and will take over the remaining post-Brexit rollover agreements, as well as the new international agreements that the UK government has now been working on. It will play a crucial role in ensuring that these new agreements receive the scrutiny they deserve. It must establish good working relations with both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the DIT; protocols for the exchange of information must be drawn up so that Parliament`s role is not reduced to a stamp after the signing of an agreement; and to develop ways to connect with stakeholders who will be affected by the new agreements under negotiation. Although the lords still do not have the power to significantly delay ratification, the IAC will have a better chance in the Lords to guarantee the time needed to debate important treaties that address one of the main recommendations of the Constitutional Commission. This new committee therefore offers an opportunity, but the difficult precedent of the withdrawal agreement with the European Union shows that we must not underestimate the challenges that lie ahead. Leaving the EU means not only that the UK will leave the EU trading bloc and negotiate a new future relationship with the EU, but it will also leave the EU`s global network of trade agreements, which consists of 41 trade agreements for 72 countries. In January 2019, the European Committee of the House of Lords decided to review the Brexit-related treaties and published a report in June 2019 on the lessons learned from this process. Since January 2019, the government has presented to Parliament more than 50 Brexit-related treaties and international agreements. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG Act), Parliament must be subject to a contract for 21 “session days” (i.e.
a date on which both Houses of Parliament will meet) to consider the treaty before the treaty can be ratified. The last few days parliament was “prorogued” hardly count, although the Supreme Court declared the prorogation illegal, futile and ineffective (as we reported separately). Within the legal framework of the CRAG Act, the EU Selection Committee has developed its own methodology for subjecting Brexit-related contracts (i.e. those that replace existing agreements to which the UK joins due to its EU membership) for consideration by the Committee and, ultimately, of the House of Lords (see here for an overview of the process). At the moment, there is no equivalent in the House of Commons. But after Brexit, the UK finds itself in a completely new position. As an EU Member State, much of the work of negotiating agreements has been carried out on our behalf. The agreements were subject to extensive scrutiny by the European Parliament, including British Members, and the European Parliament had a right of veto over certain agreements under Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Domestically, the European commissions of both chambers (the European Union Commission and the European Control Commission) examined the decisions of British ministers in the EU`s main decision-making body – the Council. After our exit from the European Union on 31 January 2020, these mechanisms are now complete. .