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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll