header-logo header-logo

U-turn on international law breach threat

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll