header-logo header-logo

24 September 2020 / Professor Mark Engelman
Issue: 7903 / Categories: Opinion , Constitutional law , Patents
printer mail-detail

Broken promises & the UK Internal Market Bill

28044
Mark Engelman outlines how the ‘Perfidious Albion’ of the government’s proposed intentions to breach an international treaty is nothing new

‘Perfidious Albion’, according to Wikipedia, is a pejorative phrase used within the context of international relations diplomacy to refer to alleged acts of diplomatic sleights, duplicity, treachery and hence infidelity (with respect to perceived promises made to or alliances formed with other nation states) by monarchs or governments of the UK (or England prior to 1707) in their pursuit of self-interest.

The government’s UK Internal Market Bill expressly admits to empowering:

‘Ministers to prevent the application of, and unilaterally re-interpret and disapply parts of the Protocol, as well as ignore their legal obligations under both domestic and international law to enact the Protocol.’

It goes on to explain that The Protocol is that part of the Withdrawal Agreement which sets out how goods will be traded between Northern Ireland and Great Britain (the rest of the UK) after the transition period ends.

Admission

This

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll