Category: Policy and Policy-Making

How Theresa May casually decided that Brexit meant the United Kingdom would leave the single market and customs union – the fascinating and revealing interview with Philip Hammond

3rd February 2021

One response to the news that former chancellor Philip Hammond has given a candid and critical interview about the Brexit policy (or lack of policy) of the Theresa May administration is to sneer and jeer, announce that he should have resigned rather than be party to it, and to ‘like” and RT some tweet saying so.

And then to not give it a further thought.

Another, more worthwhile reaction is to look out the interview, and to read and consider it carefully.

And in doing so, you should compare what Hammond says now with your recollection of what Brexit seemed like at the time, from the outside.

What emerges is a picture that many of us onlookers – conscious of the issues at stake but unimpressed by the government’s shallow public messaging – suspected was true all along.

The interview – which is part of an impressive series of interviews with ‘witnesses’ of Brexit by UK in a Changing Europe – should be read in full by anyone wanting a real understanding of what happened within government on Brexit.

But below are some examples which, at least for me and my commentary, substantiated what some of us believed to be the case at the time – including about the casual nature of the huge decision to leave the single market and the customs union.

The transcript of the interview is here.

*

On the creation of the pop-up government departments, the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for International Trade, Hammond says:

‘Creating a new Government department, frankly, is a pretty cost-free signalling mechanism for an incoming Prime Minister. So, the Department for Exiting the European Union – a ludicrous notion, absolutely ludicrous; a rookie civil service trainee could tell you that that was a stupid idea – and the Department for International Trade, were both gestures.

‘They were ways of bringing in clear, committed Brexiteers to the Government, and plonking them in a place where they could assert their views, rally their troops, and, she hoped, provide a focal point for the hard-line Brexiteers in the parliamentary party. As well as finding out the hard way how difficult this was all going to be in practice.’

*

On the botched re-negotiation that preceded the referendum (which was so limited because it misunderstood what the European Union could offer without a treaty change):

‘We all interpreted German pragmatism as support for a more British view of the future of Europe. That was clearly not correct, so we definitely overestimated the flexibility of the Europeans.’

*

And perhaps most significantly, on the run-up to the fateful October 2016 conservative party speech in Birmingham – and its aftermath:

‘I was completely stunned by the speech that she made at the Conservative Party Conference in October 2016. I hadn’t seen the relevant part of it in advance. I’d had no input to the speech. Nick Timothy kept me completely away from it. […]

‘I was completely and utterly horrified by what I felt was almost a coup: a definition of Brexit without any proper Cabinet consultation at all. 

‘My assessment of Theresa May’s Prime Ministership, in terms of Brexit, is that she dug a 20-foot-deep hole in October 2016 in making that speech and, from that moment onwards, cupful by cupful of earth at a time, was trying to fill it in a bit so that she wasn’t in such a deep mess. […]

‘It was a disaster on all fronts, a total unmitigated disaster that scarred her Prime Ministership and should have sealed Nick Timothy’s fate, but I think she only realised later how badly that had constrained her ability to deliver any kind of practical Brexit at all.’

*

What this interview indicates – if not demonstrates – is how crucial those first few months were after the referendum were to the shape of Brexit, from June to October 2016.

That was when, in my view, the battle for Brexit was won and lost.

Until the conference speech it was possible to conceive of a number of different possible Brexits that could follow the referendum result.

(Or in my (incorrect) view at the time, that it was possible that the thing would just be delayed and delayed, as the sheer magnitude of the task became scarily apparent.)

But after the October speech, the only Brexit which was politically likely would be the absolute version with the United Kingdom leaving the single market and the customs union.

And the only way that such a Brexit could have been stopped, again in my view, would have been if the respective leaders of the labour, liberal democrat and other opposition parties had handled the prospect of a general election differently in late 2019.

In essence: in the whole of the story of Brexit so far, only (a) June to October 2016 and (b) November/December 2019 were the real turning points where Brexit could have turned out substantially different after the referendum.

The interview with Hammond, in particular, reminds us that there were non-Brexiter ‘pragmatists’ as well as (in his word) ‘refuseniks’ in those first few months after the referendum.

And notwithstanding the ‘Brexit means Brexit’ slogan of May in her party leadership bid of that summer, it was still possible to conceive of different outcomes.

The pragmatists could have prevailed.

But.

But something happened – a decision was casually made that will turn out to be as consequential for the United Kingdom as any other immensely important decision in our history.

And that decision was made by a prime minister who, on Hammond’s account, did not understand the import of her decision, and without reference to either cabinet or parliament.

An extraordinary moment, and one which is becoming more extraordinary over time.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is usually published at about 9.30am UK time – though some special posts are published later.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

The one good thing that may come out of the current row about vaccines export controls

1st February 2021

Since 2016 one unfortunate feature of the Brexit policy (or lack of policy) of the United Kingdom has been the disregard for process.

The European Union brought along the tool of process to its negotiations, while the United Kingdom brought bluster and bravado.

The European Union did better in those negotiations than the United Kingdom. 

But.

Process is not the property of the European Union.

Process can be used for the advantage of other parties, depending on the situation.

Or process can protect a weaker party against a misuse of power.

And the United Kingdom was, before Brexit, quite good at using process in its dealings with its then fellow European Union member states and European Union institutions.

The current row over the invocation of Article 16 by the European Union without it properly having followed the correct (or indeed any) process shows how important it is to hold the European Union to following an agreed process.

Process can matter, a lot.

And process can work to the advantage of the United Kingdom too.

As the United Kingdom develops its post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, through the joint institutions and agreed procedures of the trade and cooperation agreement, the good and thoughtful use of process could become an advantage in respect of the European Union.

The United Kingdom does not have to persist with the loud crashes, bangs and wallops of the Brexit era.

Playing the European Union at its own game, and winning, is also possible.

(Even if the wins are cloaked under the cover of ‘jointly beneficial outcomes’ and other such comforting language.)

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is usually published at about 9.30am UK time – though some special posts are published later.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

What is Article 16 of the Northern Irish Protocol – and what on Earth was the European Commission thinking? (Includes a copy of the now deleted proposed regulation.)

30th January 20211

After four years or so of chronicling the various self-inflicted unforced errors of the United Kingdom, and the better decisions at each stage of Brexit by the European Union, it is kind of refreshing to see the European Commission commit a pratfall.

Of course, this is a grave situation, and we should be terribly earnest, but still: it is salutary to be reminded that no entity is perfect.

That said, some partisans – this time for the European Union – will maintain that there was no error and that the European Commission was entitled yesterday to invoke article 16 of the Irish protocol.

Unfortunately for such partisans, the European Commission did a quick reverse-ermine last night to un-invoke article 16.

This was quite the spectacle for onlookers at the end of what was, on any view, not a good week for the European Commission.

But what is article 16?

And what on Earth was the European Commission thinking?

And how can the European Commission explain (away) recital 17 of the (now deleted) proposed regulation in question?

*

One of the blessings of Brexit is dealing with ‘articles’ of international legal instruments – most famously article 50 of the treaty on European Union.

The word ‘article’ is somehow grander than the more mundane ‘section’ and the plebeian ‘clause’.

And indeed articles tend to more self-contained as legal provisions – sometimes like micro legal instruments within macro legal instruments.

Article 16 is within the Irish protocol, which in turn is a protocol to the withdrawal agreement.

Instruments within instruments within instruments.

The article provides in its entirety:

The article is entitled ‘Safeguards’ – but straight away you will see that the provision is itself subject to its own safeguards.

In paragraph 1, the trigger for the safeguards has to be a serious situation that is likely to persist.

And – it then provides that any safeguards will be ‘restricted’ to what is ‘strictly necessary’ for the purpose of remedying that particular serious situation.

And – ‘priority’ shall be given to what measures that cause the least disturbance.

And – in paragraph 2, any imbalances caused by the uses of the safeguards can be addressed.

And – in paragraph 3, there is a further process to be followed, as set out in an annex.

Annex 7 then in turn supplements the substantive limits to the use of Article 16 safeguards with procedural protections:

Even in the event of ‘exceptional circumstances’ under point 3 of this annex, there is still a procedure to be followed.

Safeguards within safeguards within safeguards, and so on.

In summary: invoking article 16 is not to be done casually or by mere oversight.

It is not a red button that can be pressed by accident.

There are substantive and procedural conditions to be fulfilled before it can be invoked.

And the European Commission will know this – for two reasons.

First, article 16 is a provision which the European Union recently agreed.

And second, the European Union is a creature of law itself and is thereby bound by the letter of the law in what it can and cannot do.

The essence of the European Union is process, or it is nothing.

*

Given the careful substantive and procedural protections of article 16 it came as a bit of a surprise when reports emerged yesterday that the European Commission was invoking the provision – and was doing so in a highly charged political situation.

As the Guardian reported:

Even the archbishop of Canterbury.

Imagine that.

*

Although the invocation of article 16 was widely reported by major news sites – and was not denied by the commission – there appears to have been no formal announcement by the commission.

Indeed, there appears to be no ‘on the record’ confirmation that it was invoked.

But.

What happened is that a proposed European Union regulation appears to have been published.

The regulation (in draft form) appears to be at the internet archive.

And, while I was writing this post, a reliable source has provided me with this ‘final’ copy that was deftly downloaded before the European Commission deleted the regulation.

tradoc_159398 (1)

*

Recital 16 – a formal recital! – of this regulation has the European Commission asserting that the quantitive restriction on exports was ‘justified’ under article 16, and that the justification was because it was ‘in order to avert serious societal difficulties due to a lack of supply threatening to disturb the orderly implementation of the vaccination campaigns in the Member States’.

This is significant, as the recital indicates that the justification exercise has already been conducted – that the recital describes a thing that has already taken place.

But asserting the safeguard is justified is not the same as showing that the substantive requirements of article 16 have been met: was it ‘restricted’ to what is ‘strictly necessary’ for the purpose of remedying that particular situation, and was ‘priority’ given to what measures that cause the least disturbance?

Was the measure even within the scope of the Irish protocol in the first place?

And was the annex 7 procedure followed – or even considered?

What we do know, however, is that formal recitals to legal instruments do not come about by accident – even when those regulations are in draft form, let alone ‘final’ form.

Somebody somewhere in the European Commission had to have made a decision for that recital to be part of the regulation.

And that can be most plausibly explained by someone at the European Commission having decided to invoke article 16.

*

The invocation did not last long.

The European Commission issued a late-night press release stating that it was not triggering article 16:

The key sentence is unqualified (and is curiously in the present tense): ‘The Commission is not triggering the safeguard clause.’

*

The known facts point to article 16 having been triggered – that is the most plausible explantation for recital 16 to the proposed regulation – but also point to the commission not having followed annex 7.

In the immediate political context of concerns about ‘vaccine nationalism’ and in the broader context of the border in Ireland after Brexit, it was an unwise move by the European commission.

(Though, as averred at the head of this post, it was also good to see that the European Union can blunder as horribly as the United Kingdom.)

Perhaps the European Commission now hopes that this mistake will fade and disappear.

Perhaps both sides will now take more care before even considering article 16 safeguards.

Or perhaps all this is, in effect, a dress rehearsal for the political crisis when either side does go through with invoking article 16.

Brace, brace.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is usually published at about 9.30am UK time – though some special posts are published later.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no good reason why any public contracts are not in the public domain – the AstraZeneca vaccine contract or otherwise

29th January 2021

Yesterday this blog set out in detail what could be worked out form public domain sources about the politically controversial AstraZeneca contract for the provision of vaccines to the European Union.

That post was an exercise in detective work, aided greatly by the publication of a redacted version of a contract with another supplier, the terms of which fitted neatly with the details disclosed by the European commissioner and the CEO of AstraZeneca in their public bickering.

In the comments below that post, some commenters were able to glean even more from public sources, including from further examination of the published redacted contract (and many of the commenters at this blog are awesome and experts in their fields).

It was an interesting and indeed fascinating exercise.

But.

It was something which should not have been needed.

For the actual contract should have been in the public domain to begin with.

*

There is no good reason why public contracts are not in the public domain.

(By ‘public contracts’ I mean contracts for the supply of goods, services and works –  including for major projects – to public authorities.)

There are (supposed) reasons – the cant phrase ‘commercially sensitive’ is often the excuse – but no good reasons.

But there are two good reasons why public contracts should be in the public domain.

*

First, the goods, services and works supplied under public contracts are paid for with public money.

And public authorities tend to be reliable payers.

Fortunes can and often are made from lucrative public contracts.

It is not unusual for a valuable public contract to be the security for all sorts of further commercial transactions, so dependable is a public contract as a high-value revenue stream.

A good part of the wealth of the City of London, and of those currently enjoying lockdown life in expensive suburbs, is based not on the hard cut-and-thrust of private sector life but on the soft cushions of public sector contracts.

(And this dependency culture contrasts with the complaints of backbench government supporters about the supposed dependency-culture of free school meals.)

The price of this access to public money should be the burden of transparency.

A private sector company should not have the benefit of these lucrative and low-risk public contracts, and also have the contract shielded from public scrutiny.

*

Second, turning from revenue to performance, there is a public interest in publication of how any public contract addresses issues of risk allocation and sanctions for breach.

This is not about prices – as the European commission showed in publication of the redacted vaccine supply contract, it is perfectly possible to publish the substance of how a contract manages risk without publishing (real or imagined) ‘commercially sensitive’ material.

How does the contract deal with foreseeable risks?

How does the contract allocate the burden of risks between the parties?

What happens if a provider is unable to provide the agreed goods, services or works?

This is the meat of any substantial contract – not just the list of what is bought and for what price.

If that is all a contract is then there would be no need for any contract to be more than a page long.

The bulk of a contract, other than for the most simple of transactions, deals with what happens when things do not turn out as agreed – and what can happen next.

And in any public contract what happens next in the event of any non-performance is as much a matter in which the public interest is engaged as in the performance.

But when a contract is – in its entirety – hidden from public view, the public have no knowledge of how that contract allocates risk – or indeed whether the contract allocates risk at all.

This in turn means there will be contracts where the risk of non-performance is loaded entirely on the public authority.

And with such contracts the supplier will not only have the benefit of a lucrative revenue stream but also the benefit of it being legally risk-free.

A public supply contract for cakes, and for the service of eating them.

*

Publication of such contracts would not, at a stroke, mean that problems of non-performance or overcharging will go away.

Public procurement has many problems, and non-transparency is only one.

But the ‘commercially sensitive’ cloak of invisibility serves no one other than the public officials and suppliers who are shielded from any meaningful scrutiny.

A public official can sign a bad deal (and then sign amendment after amendment to that deal), and no one will find out because it is all ‘commercially sensitive’.

A supplier can get away with either bad contracts or terms not being enforced against them, again because it would be commercially sensitive’ for the terms of the contract to be published.

*

Some of those in public procurement will view the above as harsh – and will protest: how could you be so offensive and so doubtful.

But such displays of (non-commercial) sensitivity are not a good reason for non-disclosure of public contracts.

If all is well, then nothing will be lost with publication of public contracts – and publication will provided public confidence that good contracts are being entered into at fair prices and with effective and enforceable allocations of risk.

And if all is not well, then…well.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is usually published at about 9.30am UK time – though some special posts are published later.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

 

What can be worked out about the ‘best efforts’ clause in the AstraZeneca vaccine supply agreement?

28th January 2021

Over at the Financial Times I have done a brief summary post on the ‘best efforts’ clause that features in the current public row between the European Commission and AstraZeneca – please click and read here.

This post sets out the ‘workings out’ for that summary, based on the information available to me this morning.

*

First, what is the public row?

The inkling of the row was on (Friday) 22nd January 2021: EU hit by delay to Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine delivery.

The European Commissioner responsible in respect of the vaccine tweeted:

Here, note two things.

First, the information comes from AstraZeneca – in effect, the European Commission is being formally notified of a delay.

Second, the delays are against a ‘forecast’.

As we will see below, both of those things may be significant.

*

We now move to (Monday) 25th January 2021, and to the published remarks of the commissioner.

In particular, this passage:

‘Last Friday, the company AstraZeneca surprisingly informed the Commission and the European Union Member States that it intends to supply considerably fewer doses in the coming weeks than agreed and announced.

‘This new schedule is not acceptable to the European Union.’

Here note the following.

First, the ‘forecast’ is now a thing which was ‘agreed and announced’.

Second, the information coming from AstraZeneca is described as ‘surprising’.

Third, the reference to a ‘new schedule’.

We will come back to these details.

*

Now the interview with the CEO of AstroZeneca at la Repubblica dated (Tuesday) 26th January 2021 (and I rely on that site’s English translation).

The CEO is quoted as saying in part of his response to a question as to whether there is a feasible basis for a potential legal action against AstraZeneca:

“I can only tell you what’s in their contract. And the contract is very clear. Our commitment is, I am quoting, “our best effort”.’

*

Now back to the European commissioner, on (Wednesday) 27th January 2021 and further published remarks:

‘The view that the company is not obliged to deliver because we signed a ‘best effort’ agreement is neither correct nor is it acceptable.

‘We signed an Advance Purchase Agreement for a product which at the time did not exist, and which still today is not yet authorised. And we signed it precisely to ensure that the company builds the manufacturing capacity to produce the vaccine early, so that they can deliver a certain volume of doses the day that it is authorised.’

Note here the ambiguous sentence about what was signed.

Did the commission not sign an agreement with a ‘best effort clause’?

(Which was my first impression.)

Or did the commission sign a ‘best effort’ agreement but this does not remove the obligation of AstraZeneca to deliver the vaccine?

(Which is also a possible meaning of the statement, but not a meaning that would be immediately obvious to most people.) 

Also note the express reference to this being an ‘Advance Purchase Agreement’.

*

The advance purchase agreements are part of the European Commission’s vaccine policy announced last June.

In a detailed paper, both the nature and structure of these agreements are set out:

‘These agreements will be negotiated with individual companies according to their specific needs and with the aim of supporting and securing an adequate supply of vaccines. They will de-risk the necessary investments related to both vaccine development and clinical trials, and the preparation of the at-scale production capacity along the entire vaccine production chain which is required for a rapid deployment of sufficient doses of an eventual vaccine in the EU and globally. The conditions of the contract will reflect the balance between the prospect of the producer providing a safe and effective vaccine quickly and the investment needed to deploy the vaccine on the European market.’

The agreements were therefore (and were intended to be) balanced allocations of risk between the commission and the supplier.

These agreement would thereby not be bog-standard standard-form supply contracts, but agreements alert to and mindful of the particular risks in respect of the manufacture and the supply of the vaccine.

*

The agreement between the commission and Astra Zeneca is not in the public domain.

But what is in the public domain – helpfully – is a redacted version of an advance purchase agreement between the commission and another supplier.

The link to this agreement was (I am told by the commission press office) published on 19th January 2021 and so was published before this row.

This means that the redactions would not be informed by the subsequent row.

The agreement is here.

Of course, this is not the agreement between the commission and AstraZeneca, and it would only be sight of that contract that would mean you could say what was agreed with absolute confidence.

But, that said, a careful reading of this published contract is revealing.

*

Before we look at the contract, an assumption: the advance purchase agreement with AstraZeneca will be substantially similar to the published contract.

The contracts will not be absolutely identical, because there will be negotiated commercial and other terms (which are probably the redacted parts of the published contact).

And I think it is safe to assume that the agreement will not be on AstraZeneca’s own terms, given the importance the commission placed on the advance purchase agreements being a careful balance for all concerned.

Therefore I am assuming that the the advance purchase agreement with AstraZeneca and the published contract will have many identical and similar terms, even if not absolutely the same.

*

If we look at the published contract, and search, you will quickly find that ‘reasonable best efforts’ is a defined term.

(Some commentators, who have also seen the agreement, start and then sadly finish with just this definition – but as you will see, a defined term is only one step in understanding what is going on.)

The definition of the term is detailed, and indeed rather elaborate:

The size and scope of the definition tells us two things.

First, the parties did not want to leave it to the court (which in this case is the Belgian court) to construe what is a ‘reasonable best effort’ – the parties have defined it for themselves.

And second, such a detailed and elaborate definition in respect of a key component of the contract is likely to have been used in all the advance purchase agreements, not just the published one.

The fact it is not redacted in the published contract also indicates it is not a bespoke definition for just that particular contract.

*

But.

Any defined term is only as important as the operative provision in which it is used.

(This is where some other commentators have not taken the further step.)

A defined term does not exist in a vacuum.

‘Reasonable best efforts’ is not a free-floating term, to be produced like a joker in a card game.

It will be used, and its effect limited, in particular provisions.

And a search of the published contract shows that this detailed and elaborate definition is used only once (at least in the not-redacted text).

This is article 1.3 of the published agreement:

Here we will see that ‘reasonable best efforts’ is used for two things:

‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’

This means that ‘reasonable best efforts’ is only relevant for two specific purposes.

If the published contract is similar to the AstraZeneca contract, then it would be the second limb of this provision which would be relevant.

AstraZeneca would have an obligation to use ‘reasonable best efforts’ to ‘establish sufficient manufacturing capacities’ for the manufacture and supply of the vaccines ‘in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule‘.

Note the mention of the schedule, which ties in with the commissioner’s published remarks.

And note also the mention of ‘to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities’ – which would not mean, say, a diversion of what is manufactured once there are capacities.

*

And there is more.

If we now look at what happens with delays to the ‘estimated delivery schedule’ we go down to article 1.12 of the published agreement:

Here – significantly – both parties explicitly agree in article 1.12.1 that there is a risk of delays in production.

And in the event of such a delay there is an obligation under article 1.12.2 on the supplier to notify the commission and to provide a revised schedule.

Going back to what has happened in the last week, and assuming the contract with AstraZeneca is on similar terms to the published contract, we can see this is exactly what happened.

AstraZeneca informed the commission that it could not keep to the estimated delivery schedule on Friday 22nd January 2021 – and this accords with the mentions of ‘forecast’ and ‘schedule’ by the commissioner.

There was then push-back (to say the least) from the commission, and AstraZeneca – as described by the CEO – sought to rely on the estimated delivery schedule being subject to the ‘best efforts’ provision.

And the commission responded by denying that that ‘best efforts’ provision covers the delay – presumably because AstraZeneca has the capacity but is diverting it from the EU.

*

Of course, without the actual contract entered into with AstraZeneca we cannot be certain.

But it is telling how neatly the details provided in the public row fit with the steps of the terms of the published contract.

Unless there is something significant about which we do not know, it is more likely than not that the details provided in the public row mean that the contract with AstraZeneca are materially the same as that in the public contract.

If the reasoning in this post is correct then the following two things can be contended.

First, the remark of the commissioner that ‘[t]he view that the company is not obliged to deliver because we signed a ‘best effort’ agreement is neither correct nor is it acceptable” is capable of giving a misleading impression – for the agreement did have a ‘best efforts’ provision.

And second, the existence of that ‘best efforts’ provision may not be that helpful to AstraZeneca, if the correct construction of the contract is that it does not cover diverted capacity as opposed to lack of capacity – and so citing the ‘best efforts’ provision will not be enough to meet the commission’s complaint.

*

The moral of the story, of course, is that such public supply contracts should be published as a matter of course – and there is no good reason for such contracts not to be published.

The benefit of access to public money should be the burden of transparency.

But that is a far wider issue to which this blog may return.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is usually published at about 9.30am UK time – though some special posts are published later.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fateful Bloomberg speech of 2013 – contextualising *that* speech by David Cameron eight years later

24th January 2021

Eight years ago yesterday the then prime minister David Cameron gave a speech at Bloomberg.

The speech was to have significant consequences.

The speech can be read here and can be watched here:

And, for background, there is also this Wikipedia page.

*

What should make of Cameron’s Bloomberg speech eight years later?

The speech is undeniably important in the telling of the story of Brexit.

Indeed, when historians come to write of the causes of Brexit, this speech is likely to be be emphasised as a key short-term cause.

It was the first of a sequence of events that led to the Brexit we now have: the Conservative manifesto commitment for a referendum; the 2015 general election; the return of an overall Conservative majority; the referendum bill, the (supposed) ‘re-negotiation’; the calling of the referendum; the (lacklustre) government campaign for remain; the referendum result; and so on.

In terms of a linear sequence of events, the Bloomberg speech would seem to have more reason than many others to be the prime-mover – at least in the short-term.

The first of an apparent chain reaction of political explosions, some with bigger bangs than others, that lead to the biggest bang of all: the rushed departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

But.

*

As Voltaire once said somewhere, history is a box of tricks we play upon our ancestors.

And so what looks neat and linear in hindsight can often be misleading.

This is because although historical narratives are (necessarily) linear if not always neat, past events are complex and invariably messy.

Accordingly, to reckon the significance of a politician’s speech – or of any text or any other speech act – one needs to place that text in contexts.

Otherwise one can fall into the error of thinking, in this particular case, that had Cameron not made that speech in 2013 there would not have been the Brexit we now have, or indeed perhaps no Brexit at all.

*

One context for the speech is the political situation of the Conservative party in and around 2013.

The party was in a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, and the party itself had not had a majority in the house of commons since the early years of the premiership of John Major some twenty years before.

And in 2011 to 2013, the Conservative party looked as if it was being out-flanked by the United Kingdom Independence Party (Ukip).

So until and unless the Conservative party addressed the reasons for Ukip support – either by facing Ukip down or by engaging with its politics – there was a real prospect that the Conservatives would go yet longer without a parliamentary majority.

The Conservative chose to share the politics of Ukip: to make the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union a real possibility.

(And the general election results of 2015 and indeed 2019 indicate that this Conservative political strategy has worked.)

Of course, had Cameron not made the Bloomberg speech in 2013, the surge in Ukip support and its political threat to the Conservatives would not have gone away.

Even with that speech, and the Conservative manifesto commitment of a referendum, Ukip performed strongly (at least in terms of votes) in the 2013 local elections, the 2014 European Parliament elections and the 2015 general election.

As such the Cameron speech was not a cause but an effect, and had a Conservative leader not done something in response to the rise of Ukip support eight years ago yesterday, there would have been something else before not much longer instead.

Some would say that a Conservative leader could have taken on the Ukip threat – like, say, the then Labour leader Neil Kinnock did with Militant in the 1980s – but that was not realistic.

The Conservative party – like the Labour party – had not made a positive case for the European Union for decades: to the extent the European Union impinged on domestic politics, it was invariably in terms of what the United Kingdom had opposed or had opted out of.

So as long as the Conservatives sought to obtain a parliamentary majority and Ukip would challenge that, then the place and timing of the offer of any referendum was incidental.

And given that the issue of membership of the the European Union would dominate the general election of 2015, it is quite plausible to see a referendum with a Leave victory happening afterwards, even if no speech had been given at all, at Bloomberg in 2013 or elsewhere.

*

Another context for the 2013 Bloomberg speech and its referendum commitment was the casual approach of Cameron to constitutional matters generally and referendums in particular.

There had already been a United Kingdom-wide referendum on the electoral system in 2011 which Cameron and other opponents of that electoral reform had defeated comfortably.

Cameron and the Conservatives were also bullish about the impending Scottish referendum (that the United Kingdom government had then recently agreed would happen and which took place in 2014).

Referendums must have seemed a doddle.

And, in any case, that there would be a referendum on any future European Union treaty ‘giving powers to Brussels’ was part of the law.

This general lack of constitutional seriousness can be evidenced in other examples from around the same period: in 2014, the Conservatives put forward an especially flimsy proposal for repeal of the human rights act and in 2015, Cameron sought fundamental reform of the house of lords just because of a defeat on a tax credits proposal.

The historical caution of the Conservative party in respect of constitutional matters was non-existent by the time of the leadership of Cameron.

And so eight years ago yesterday for Cameron to make a commitment to a referendum of such potential constitutional import was not a big thing for him or most of his party.

He probably put no more serious thought into the actual implications of a referendum defeat than he would have put into an essay on the topic of referendums on a PPE degree course.

In hindsight one can now see the serious consequences of such a referendum – not least how it can create a ‘mandate’ that undermines not only effective parliamentary scrutiny but the very doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.

But in 2013 this was not given a second thought, nor indeed much of a first thought.

*

A third context for the speech eight years ago yesterday is not provided by a thing, but an absence of a thing.

In the late 1980s, the 1990s and the early 2000s there was such a thing as ‘Euro-scepticism’.

(I know this because I happen to have been a Maastricht-era Euro-sceptic.)

This approach had two broad features.

First, it insisted that it was primarily about being wary of the direction of the European Economic Community (and then European Union).

In this, the guiding text was another speech by a Conservative leader, at Bruges in 1988, where Margaret Thatcher said:

“We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”

(Euro-sceptics, however, tended to ignore a later part of the same speech where Thatcher also said “Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”)

The second feature of Euro-scepticism was that it was often a reaction to some new treaty advancement: Maastricht, Amsterdam, the (proposed) constitutional treaty, Lisbon.

But when this juggernaut of new treaties came to a halt with the treaty of Lisbon of 2007-9 – there have not been any such significant treaties since – Euro-scepticism lost the yin to its yan.

The development of the European Union entered into a settled stage.

And Euro-scepticism, as it had existed, served no purpose – the question became not about how the latest (supposed) treaty push towards integration should be countered but about membership itself.

There was now just a binary choice.

Any referendum would not be (and could not be) about any new treaty – as envisaged by the 2011 referendum legislation – because there were no new treaties.

The only thing left for a referendum to attach itself to was the question of membership itself.

And so a further context for the 2013 speech and the 2016 referendum is that – paradoxically – the end of substantial formal moves towards European Union integration at Lisbon meant that there was more risk that membership of the European Union was in question.

Those opposed to the European Union had now the cake of no further integration, and the supper of potential withdrawal.

*

There are many other contexts – geopolitics, migration, the credit crunch and austerity, and so on.

This post is not and does not pretend to be exhaustive.

But as with another post at this blog, on counterfactuals, this post avers that Brexit was not about just one bad decision.

There are many ways things could have happened differently and the United Kingdom could still today be in a post-Brexit predicament.

(And alternatively, there are no doubt certain decisions which could have led to substantially different outcomes – such as the decision by former prime minister Theresa May to rule out membership of the single market and the decisions by opposition leaders in late-2019 to nod-along with a general election.)

But the way Brexit did happen, at least in the short-term, followed a fateful speech eight years ago yesterday – when Cameron opened a box of tricks to play upon his contemporaries.

*****

If you value the free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is published at about 9.30am UK time.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome. 

What codification of Roe v Wade means and why President Biden is right to support it

23rd January 2021

Yesterday the twitter account of the new president of the United States tweeted about abortion rights:

Around the same time the following statement was published by the White House:

“Today marks the 48th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade.  

“In the past four years, reproductive health, including the right to choose, has been under relentless and extreme attack.  We are deeply committed to making sure everyone has access to care – including reproductive health care – regardless of income, race, zip code, health insurance status, or immigration status. 

“The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe.  We are also committed to ensuring that we work to eliminate maternal and infant health disparities, increase access to contraception, and support families economically so that all parents can raise their families with dignity.  This commitment extends to our critical work on health outcomes around the world. 

“As the Biden-Harris Administration begins in this critical moment, now is the time to rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all individuals have access to the health care they need.”

*

But what would this “codification” actually mean?

And why should it be welcomed?

The starting point is the 1973 decision of the United States supreme court in Roe v Wade.

That decision held, in effect, that access to an abortion is a fundamental right under the constitution of the United States.

And as a right within the constitution then it is not open to any individual state to prohibit access to an abortion absolutely.

The decision did not preclude regulation of such access by individual states but they could not formally – or practically – ban it altogether.

The ultimate right – subject to regulation – of access to an abortion was that of the woman, and this right could not be removed by any state legislature.

*

From a liberal perspective, it does not ultimately matter what the legal basis is for the fundamental right of access to an abortion.

The basis in the United States could be a supreme court judgment, or a provision in the constitution, or a federal law, or whatever.

The important thing is that there is a right and that it is effective and can be enforced.

That said, there is considerable merit in placing the right on a firmer basis than just a supreme court decision.

What a supreme court giveth, a supreme court can taketh away.

And although conservative judges in particular believe (supposedly) in the principle of stare decisis (that is, precedent) they often find ways to distinguish and set aside precedents when those precedents are liberal.

The conservative packing by former president Donald Trump of the supreme court and the federal judicial benches generally mean that it is increasingly likely that Roe v Wade could either substantially limited or even reversed.

And this is partly because the privacy right that the supreme court articulated in 1973 as the basis of the right of access to an abortion is not actually an express provision in the constitution.

It is a right which the 1973 supreme court found to be necessarily implicit in the constitution.

But the general problem with any right judicially implied into a legal instrument by one court is that it is conceivable that another court will not make the same inference.

And although the 1973 judgment was a welcome advancement, few would say that the reasoning of the justices has been generally accepted.

So the judgment of Roe v Wade stands there precariously, awaiting an assault by conservative lawyers and judges.

And if it falls, then the constitutional right of access to an abortion falls with it.

What a supreme court giveth, a supreme court can taketh away.

*

So what could be done?

Ideally, one would want a constitutional amendment.

If the right of access to an abortion was explicitly spelled-out in, say, an amendment to the constitution then the position would be placed beyond doubt.

And then no supreme court, however constituted and motivated, could do a thing about it (without breaching the constitution itself).

But this would be unlikely in practice, if not impossible.

There would not be sufficient support in congress and certainly not from a sufficient number of states for the constitution to be amended under Article 5 of the constitution.

The next best thing, however, is codification.

This means congress placing the right on a statutory basis at the federal level.

And this would be possible because, as with any express or implied right of the constitution, there is a basis for congress to legislate.

It is not a perfect solution.

It would still be possible for a supreme court to strike down such an act of congress as unconstitutional as it is possible for any other federal legislation.

But it would fortify the right: for instead of a conservative supreme court only needing to reverse the 1973 judgment it would also require striking down federal legislation that gave statutory effect to that right.

And although a right as fundamental as access to an abortion should never depend on mere majoritarianism – for even if abortion was prohibited by every state legislature there should still be a right of access of a woman to an abortion, as that is the nature of fundamental rights – it can be argued that endorsement by democratically elected politicians would also make it more difficult for judges to overturn the relevant legislation.

*

Of course, it is at this stage only a proposal – former president Barack Obama also put forward codification only to not go through with it.

But given the recent packing of the federal benches with conservative judges and what seems to be (and without any serious doubt is) a long-term co-ordinated judicial strategy by conservatives of reversing Roe v Wade, it is prudent for the right of access to an abortion to be codified.

Rousing liberal judgments are wonderful gladdening things – but they are shaky as the sole basis for any fundamental right.

No fundamental right should depend only on a majority of judges at a certain moment in time.

Roe v Wade is a great judgment – at least in its effect, if not its reasoning – but the right it articulates is becoming more vulnerable than it needs to be, and so that right should now be codified.

For what a supreme court giveth, a supreme court can taketh away.

*****

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is published at about 9.30am UK time.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

If you value the free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off or £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome. 

The United States had its cathartic post-2016, post-Trump ceremonial moment – but the United Kingdom cannot have a similar post-2016, post-Brexit moment

22nd January 2021

Two days ago the inauguration of a new president in the United States gave ceremonial form to the constitutional substance that the presidential term of Donald Trump was over.

What had been done in 2016 had, to a significant extent, been undone.

Of course, there will be things that could not been undone, such as the scale of the avoidable loss of life by reason of a flawed coronavirus policy.

The extensive conservative appointments to the federal judicial benches will take a political generation to counterbalance, if they are counterbalanced at all.

And Trumpism – populist authoritarian nationalism feeding off post-truth hyper-partisanship – certainly has not gone away, even if Trump is no longer in the White House.

But taking account of these exceptions, there was still a moment of closure: that a particular presidency was both formally and substantially at an end.

*

In the United Kingdom there will not be such a moment where one can say the consequences of the 2016 referendum vote will come to a similarly cathartic end.

In 2016, American voters (via the electoral college) elected Trump for a term of four years, while those in the United Kingdom voted for Brexit with no similar fixed term.

One decision was set to be revisited in four years, the other was not.

*

Even the (various) departure dates have not provided any sense of release.

The United Kingdom was to leave on on 29th March 2019, then 12th April 2019 or 22nd May 2019, then 31st October 2019, and then 31st January 2020 (on which date the United Kingdom technically left the European Union), and then there was a transition period which would end on 31st December 2020 (on which date the transition period did end) or 31st December 2021.

A couple of this spate of departure dates did turn out to be legally significant, but none of them appear to have had any substantial effect on the politics of Brexit.

Those in favour of Brexit appear to still be trying to convince themselves and others of its merits, and those opposed to Brexit are still seeking to demonstrate its folly.

(This is despite the ‘mandate’ of the 2016 referendum having now been discharged,  in that the United Kingdom has now departed the European Union.)

None of the various departure dates marked when those in favour of or against Brexit could say the matter is decisively over, in the same way the Trump presidency came to its obvious end.

Partly, of course, this is because of the ongoing pandemic: every political thing is now muted.

But even taking the pandemic into account, the politics unleashed by the 2016 referendum have certainly not come to anything like an end.

*

But Brexit will never be over in other senses.

As I averred in this Financial Times video, the trade and cooperation agreement between the European Union is expressly structured as a ‘broad….framework’ that can be supplemented by further agreements on discrete issues and is subject to five-yearly reviews on more fundamental issues.

 

Brexit is now a negotiation without end.

Instead of ever-closer union we now have ever-closer (or less close) cooperation.

There has not been a once-and-for-all settlement of the matter of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

We have simple swapped one dynamic relationship for another.

*

Some of those opposed to Brexit are now waiting for a grand realisation – where a substantial number of people may wake up to what has happened since 2016 and come to their senses.

The notion is that such ‘loss aversion’ will have considerable political force and push the United Kingdom back towards the European Union – perhaps even to swiftly rejoining as a member.

This may happen – the lesson of 2016 is that many unlikely things can actually happen in politics.

But it is unlikely – the government and its political and media supporters are adept at evasions and misdirections, and voters are capable of blaming many things before they will blame their own votes.

Yet taking this as a possibility, it would not be enough.

This is because there are two constituencies that those who seek for the United Kingdom to (re)join the European Union need to win over.

The first is the United Kingdom electorate which needs to be won over to settled and sustained support for full membership of the European Union (without the benefits of the United Kingdom’s previous opt-outs).

The second, and perhaps far harder, will be winning over the European Union.

A belief that once the United Kingdom sorts itself out, that (re)joining the European Union would be straightforward is just a variant form of British (or English) exceptionalism.

Even the grandest, most dramatic domestic realisation of the folly of Brexit will not mean the United Kingdom joins the European Union again, unless the European Union also sees it as in its interests for the United Kingdom to (re)join.

Remorse, however sincere and lasting, will not be enough.

There is no reason or evidence to believe that the European Union would consider membership of the European Union for at least a political generation.

(And the United Kingdom itself may not even exist in its current form by then.)

So as Brexit is a negotiation without end, it will also be two political exchanges (the domestic debate, and the two-way relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union) without any early or obvious end.

*

There will be no cathartic Biden-like ceremony to bring Brexit to a close.

This is because of the nature of the 2016 referendum (which, unlike the election of Trump, was not a decision for a fixed period); and because of the dynamic structure of the new relationship as set out in the trade and cooperation agreement; and because of the unsettled politics both internally in the United Kingdom and of its relationship with the European Union.

And so, to a significant (though not a total) extent, the United States was able to bring what it decided in 2016 to a formal and substantial end, the United Kingdom cannot similarly do so.

For the United Kingdom, 2016 is here to stay.

*****

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is published at about 9.30am UK time.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

If you value the free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off or £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome. 

 

The inauguration of a new president: mere ceremonial form and hard constitutional substance

21st January 2021

One of the few benefits of lockdown is that you are no longer expected to go to weddings and other ‘happy’ ceremonies.

Instead of days of tiresome travel and hours of boredom, one can watch the ceremony and speeches on a laptop for an hour or so and then go and do something more useful instead.

(For more on form vs substance regarding marriage ceremonies, see my 2011 New Statesman post.)

*

Much of this impatient disdain for mere ceremonial form can and should be applied to constitutional matters.

Certain symbolic events symbolise nothing other than symbolism is important only for the sake of symbolism.

Interesting perhaps for the fogeys and other enthusiasts, but often a bore for the rest of us.

And presidential inaugurations in the United States are usually fairly meaningless occasions, other than that they happen to be around the same time as when by automatic operation of law one presidential term ends and another one begins.

But the inauguration ceremony yesterday was different.

It was riveting.

*

Just as lockdown has had a few benefits notwithstanding the immense misery, so has the presidency of Donald Trump.

And one of those few benefits is that far more people now realise how the constitutional law of the United States works (and does not work) in practice.

Certain things before Trump were taken for granted to the extent that anyone realised those things existed at all.

Take, for example, what happens between a November presidential election and the January inauguration of a new presidential term.

The rights to recounts and re-run ballots; the certification of votes by each individual state; the appointment of electors for the electoral college and their obligations; and the congressional counting of the vote and certification of the winner.

Previously each of these steps – even with the contested 2000 result and Bush v Gore – was a mere formality.

One could have an informed interest in American politics and not know much or indeed anything about these obscure procedural steps.

Now many people know exactly the process that exists between the national vote and the start of a new presidential term.

And widespread knowledge about constitutional arrangements is a good thing.

It may be a bad thing for constitutional law to be exciting –  politics should take place within an agreed framework rather than constantly being about undermining that framework – but understanding the rules of any game is important for those taking part and those watching.

*

And we watched the ceremony yesterday with anxious scrutiny.

Few people in the future will realise just how nervous many of us were in the last hours and indeed minutes of the Trump presidency.

What would he do? 

What could happen?

Is it over yet?

(And indeed Trump issued another pardon with only minutes of his term to go.)

Even watching the chief justice swear in the new president was not enough: it still was not noon Eastern Standard Time.

The final one or two minutes seemed to last an eternity, even though the new president was well in to his acceptance speech.

And then: it was twelve noon EST.

Not since Charles Perrault’s Cinderella has there been a strike of twelve that produced such a wonderful general transformation.

It was over.

*

The greatest (if flawed) writer about the constitution of the United Kingdom – at least from an English perspective – Walter Bagehot made a distinction between the efficient and the dignified elements of a constitution.

Some who only know of this famous distinction misrepresent it as meaning that the dignified elements are somehow useless elements.

But this is not what Bagehot meant – what he actually said was:

“There are indeed practical men [and women] who reject the dignified parts of Government. They say, we want only to attain results, to do business: a constitution is a collection of political means for political ends, and if you admit that any part of a constitution does no business, or that a simpler machine would do equally well what it does, you admit that this part of the constitution, however dignified or awful it may be, is nevertheless in truth useless.

“And other reasoners, who distrust this bare philosophy, have propounded subtle arguments to prove that these dignified parts of old Governments are cardinal components of the essential apparatus, great pivots of substantial utility; and so they manufactured fallacies which the plainer school have well exposed.

“But both schools are in error. The dignified parts of Government are those which bring it force—which attract its motive power. The efficient parts only employ that power.”

He continued:

“[The dignified elements] may not do anything definite that a simpler polity would not do better; but they are the preliminaries, the needful prerequisites of all work. They raise the army, though they do not win the battle.”

In other words, it is not just important that institutions work well but they are legitimate and seen to be legitimate.

And thereby the purpose of any constitutional ceremony is not just an exercise in form but part of what confers legitimacy on those who exercise the power of the state.

Of course, we could have got by without any ceremony yesterday and just watched the clock run down in silent dread.

And of course, the ceremony was not ‘efficient’ – even the chief justice got the law wrong in that Biden was not yet the new president, at least for thirteen minutes.

But as Bagehot averred, to say part of a constitution is dignified is not to say that it is useless, but that it serves another purpose.

To be sworn in at the seat of the legislature by the head of the judiciary is a powerful indication of constitutional legitimacy, especially as it was at the very place where an insurrection happened just days ago.

This will not be enough for some Trump supporters, but it could not have been done better in the circumstances.

In more than one sense, therefore, the inauguration ceremony of Joseph Biden sought to bring dignity back to the government of the Unites States – not only in his personal manner but also in Bagehot’s sense of demonstrating to all those watching that this new presidency is constitutionally legitimate.

*****

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is published at about 9.30am UK time.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

If you value the free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off or £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome. 

Beggaring the pardons – why the presidential power to pardon needs to be regulated

20th January 2021

Yesterday, on his last full day in office, President Donald Trump is reported as having issued seventy pardons, as well as having commuted seventy-three other sentences.

This in and of itself is not unusual: on his last day of office President Bill Clinton issued about twice as many pardons – including one for his brother.

Issuing a raft of pardons on one’s final day as president is now as established a tradition as the president pardoning a turkey on Thanksgiving.

Of the many things one should be annoyed or disappointed about Trump and his presidency, the mere fact of last-day questionable pardons is certainly not something unique to him.

Yet, Trump’s (actual and threatened) uses and abuses of pardons, and of his power to commute, do warrant further consideration, as they go to the heart of the relationship between the course of justice and the powers of the executive.

In essence: at what point do pardons cease to complement the justice system – showing mercy to those duly convicted – and become something else instead that undermines the justice system itself?

*

To beg for a pardon is to plead for forgiveness.

It is just that the phrase ‘I beg your pardon’ is so familiar – it now means little more than ‘can you please repeat?’ or ‘what the Dickens have you just said or done?’ – that we overlook what the word ‘pardon’ actually means – or should mean.

And to forgive an act or omission requires certainty as to what that act or omission was – else how do you know what is being forgiven?

Accordingly a pardon should be as exact in its particulars as an indictment – almost a mirror image.

A person has been convicted of and sentenced for [x] – and so it is [x] that is being forgiven.

The conviction would – or should – still stand as a public and formal finding of criminal culpability – but the convicted person would be relieved from the burden of the sentence.

It would also be implicit that an acceptance of a pardon was an admission of criminal guilt – else how can one be forgiven for a wrong, if there was no wrong in the first place?

All this is what a pardon should be about, from first principle of it being an exercise of forgiveness.

(A commutation of a sentence raises a different issue as an exercise of mercy, and does not require any implicit admission of guilt.)

*

But this is not what a presidential pardon is now understood to mean.

A presidential pardon is now, following President Gerald Ford’s pardon of President Richard Nixon for example, something that does not need to be exact in its particulars nor something that carries any implicit admission of guilt.

There does not even need to be a prosecution in place, or even envisaged.

A presidential pardon is now understood to be a ‘get out of jail, free’ card.

*

The use of the ‘understood to be’ qualification above touches on another aspect of presidential pardons – they are rarely litigated and so have not (yet) been regulated by the courts or effectively by congress.

There is significant legal uncertainty as to the scope of pardons that depart from the classic model of exactness in respect of the punishment being forgiven.

The pardon for Nixon, for example, may be a political precedent but it is not a judicial precedent.

A pardon the scope of which Ford granted to Nixon may not survive judicial scrutiny.

(The way a pardon presumably would be litigated is when a prosecution appealed a defendant using a (purported) pardon as a bar on proceedings.)

This may explain why Trump did not announce a self-pardon nor Nixon-like pardons for his family and associates. 

(There may also be other practical considerations, such being able to invoke the fifth amendment against self-incrimination, which would be difficult if you were protected from such incrimination.)

*

But the lack of regulation and case law raises another non-trivial possibility.

There is a fascinating piece at CNN about ‘secret pardons’.

And it is correct that there is nothing on the face of the constitution that requires a pardon to be publicly announced when it is granted.

Trump has also not complied with other conventions when granting pardons, and so there is not inherent reason why he would not flout the convention that a pardon be publicly announced.

If this happened, the first we would ever know of such a pardon would be if and when it was raised by a defendant as a bar to proceedings.

By which time this presidential term of Trump will be long gone.

And what could be done? 

Even impeaching Trump again (and again) would be pointless.

*

As was once averred, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And so it is not surprising that it is in the two areas where an executive has, in effect, absolute power – the bestowal of honours and the granting of pardons – that there is corruption.

Those with political power will always tend to do what they can get away with, unless they are checked and balanced.

(The principle that for every power there is an equal and opposite check and balance is – or should be – the essence of constitutionalism.)

On the face of the constitution of the United States it would appear that the power to grant pardons is absolute.

Yet such an absolute power would make a nonsense of the careful separation of powers set out in the constitution generally, and of the express obligation of the president that he or she ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ (Article II, section 3) in particular.

All because there has not yet been regulation of this power does not mean that a supreme court or congress may not one day set out the scope of the presidential power of pardon that accords with the constitution as a whole.

*

If the word ‘pardon’ has drifted in meaning, so has the word ‘beg’.

It does not only mean ‘to plead’ – but also in the form ‘to beggar’ it can mean broadly ‘to reduce in value’: to ‘beggar belief’ is to say a thing is not worthy of belief, and to ‘beggar thy neighbour’ is to seek to aggrandise at the expense of a competitor.

In this way, Trump’s (actual and threatened) pardons – and other presidential pardons – can be seen as beggaring pardons.

But begging your pardon for that pun, there is now a compelling case for placing the power of presidential pardons on a basis so that they remain exercises of mercy to complement the course of justice, rather than undermining justice itself.

Such a congressional act or supreme court decision would be one good way for the presidency of Donald Trump to be remembered.

*****

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is published at about 9.30am UK time.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

If you value the free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off or £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent to you by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.