header-logo header-logo

10 December 2020
Issue: 7914 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

U-turn on international law breach threat

‘Eleventh hour change of heart’ on Internal Market Bill welcomed

Downing Street has retreated on plans to enact legislation that would enable the UK to breach international law.

Just 24 hours before, MPs had rejected the House of Lords’ 22 amendments to the Internal Market Bill, including Peers’ removal of the clauses in Part V that would permit a breach of international law by allowing the government to override parts of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement as well as ouster clauses to prevent recourse to the courts.

On the next day, however, the Cabinet Office issued a joint statement by the co-chairs of the EU-UK Joint Committee―European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič and the UK Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove―that an agreement in principle had been reached. It stated that in exchange for arrangements on border checks on goods ‘not at risk’ of entering the EU, ‘the UK will withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the [Bill], and not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill’.

Amanda Pinto QC, chair of the Bar Council said: ‘We are very pleased that the government has pulled back from its plans to breach international law, which flew in the face of a principle that is central to the very fabric of our society.

‘This U-turn should not have been necessary. We are disappointed that the initiative was ever adopted, but this course of action should demonstrate to all―including our potential trade partners―that Britain holds itself to the rule of law.

‘We hope that any damage to our reputation and global position that may already have been done, is limited.’

Law Society president David Greene said: ‘Proposing to breach an agreement just entered into, breaking international law, even if in a “specific and limited way” was shocking so we welcome this eleventh hour change of heart. Had this step not been taken the reputation of the jurisdiction would have suffered greatly.’

Meanwhile, the prime minister warned the chances of securing a UK-EU trade deal on goods were ‘looking very, very difficult’. He flew to Brussels on Wednesday of this week for face-to-face meetings with Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission president, which ended in an agreement for talks to continue. There are three main sticking points: fishing rights, competition rules and enforcement.

Issue: 7914 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll