Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 47,688
Thanks: 27,647
Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts
|
Re: BREXIT: Boris Johnson Breaks International Law
Government Admits Changes to Brexit Deal Break International Law.
Senior Tories urge ministers to scrap 'illegal' Brexit rule plan. Government ignored legal advice over proposed withdrawal agreement changes.
The head of the Government's legal department has quit over the row
The PM was challenged over the admission by a top minister that the Government's new Brexit legislation would break international law in a 'very specific and limited' way
The Telegraph UK, 9 SEP 2020.
Boris Johnson faced a backlash from MPs over plans to override parts of the Brexit deal (Image: PRU/AFP via Getty
A Cabinet minister has admitted that plans to change parts of the Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland will break the law, just hours after the head of the Government’s legal department quit in protest.
Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland Secretary, told MPs that plans to override elements of the Withdrawal Agreement with domestic legislation would breach international law in a “very specific and limited way”.
However, he insisted the Government was “fully committed” to implementing the agreement and was merely delivering on its commitments to ensure Northern Ireland enjoyed “unfettered access” to the UK’s internal market.
The admission provoked a major backlash from senior Tory MPs, among them Theresa May, who warned it risked undermining trust in the Government as it sought to strike trade deals with countries around the world.
Separately, David Sassoli, the President of the European Parliament, warned there would be “serious consequences” if the UK attempted to undermine the withdrawal agreement.
His comments were echoed by Nathalie Loiseau, a close ally of French President Emmanuel Macron and an MEP on the Brexit co-ordinating group, who said: “You don’t ‘break international law in a specific and limited way’. You do break it or you don’t. You can’t be half illegal, as you can’t be half pregnant.”
Jean-Claude Juncker, the former European Commission president, said no deal was now the “most possible and probably only outcome of the negotiations.”
Legal experts also suggested the move raised questions over the future of Suella Braverman QC, the Attorney General and Robert Buckland, the Justice Secretary, who are bound to uphold the rule of law.
However, Brexiteers including Sir Iain Duncan Smith said the Government was “within its rights” to revisit the agreement, while Sir Bernard Jenkin suggested Boris Johnson should tear it up altogether if the EU insisted on an “unreasonable interpretation”.
The row erupted as it emerged that Sir Jonathan Jones, the Treasury solicitor and permanent secretary to the Government’s legal department, had resigned.
While the Attorney General’s Office refused to comment beyond confirming that Sir Jonathan will step down in April, multiple Whitehall sources claimed he had quit amid a row over changes to the Brexit deal.
It also emerged that Rowena Collins Rice, the director general of the Attorney General’s office, was also departing, although the department insisted it was part of a long-term process.
Sir Jonathan is understood to have disagreed with Ms Braverman’s interpretation of the legal implications, with insiders claiming external advice from a leading QC had also warned that the plans risked breaching international law.
However, Downing Street is said to have accepted the advice of Ms Braverman. Lord Falconer, Labour’s shadow attorney general who previously worked with Sir Jonathan, said: “This resignation indicates that senior government lawyers think that the government are about to break the law.”
Sir Jonathan is the sixth leading civil servant to stand down this year, with Sir Mark Sedwill, the outgoing head of the civil service, having completed his last day in the post.
The Internal Markets Bill will seek to limit Brussels’ influence over the UK’s state aid regime, the need for customs declarations, and checks and tariffs on goods crossing the Irish Sea.
The Government has said the changes are minor clarifications and provide a “safety net” should no agreement be reached before the end of the transition period.
However, when asked by Sir Bob Neil, the Tory chairman of the Commons justice committee, whether the changes breached the UK’s international obligations, Mr Lewis told the Commons: “Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”
He added that the powers the Government was taking would enable ministers to "disapply" the legal concept of "direct effect" - which requires the enforcement of EU law - in "certain, very tightly defined circumstances".
“There are clear precedents for the UK, and indeed other countries, needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change,” he added.
However, Sir Bob later said that any breach of international law was “unacceptable, regardless of whether it’s in a ‘specific’ or ‘limited way’.
His concerns were echoed by Mrs May, who said: “The UK Government signed the Withdrawal Agreement with the Northern Ireland protocol, this Parliament voted that Withdrawal Agreement into UK legislation.
"The Government is now changing the operation of that agreement. Given that, how can the Government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations of the agreements it signs?"
Sir Roger Gale, the Conservative MP for North Thanet, tweeted: "Seeking to renegotiate the Northern Ireland protocol will be regarded worldwide as an act of bad faith.
"Britain is an honourable country and that honour is not for sale or barter."
Tobias Ellwood, the Tory chairman of the defence committee, also warned that breaching international law would damage Britain's efforts to call out China and Russia over their transgressions.
A member of the One Nation caucus of around 100 moderate Tory MPs added: “A number of people struggle to comprehend a Conservative Government knowingly breaking the law.”
|