Brexiteers’ justification for breaking international law on Brexit is illiterate. Why hasn’t Braverman resigned?
Suella Braverman: She used to chair a secret group of Brexit-supporting MPs and is now Attorney General. Yes, she is as daft as she looks.
In trying to humiliate a leading Remainer – and justify its own contempt for international law – Boris Johnson and his government have made the UK a laughing-stock once again.
And our Attorney General, Suella Braverman, should be offering up her resignation. Rather than uphold the rule of law, she has sided with a government that intends to break it, turning the UK into nothing better than a rogue state.
Almost as bad, she offered as justification for this lawbreaking a Supreme Court ruling that Parliament is sovereign in domestic matters – a ruling won by Remain campaigner Gina Miller in a challenge to previous Brexit legislation.
But the same Supreme Court ruling made it clear that this does not excuse the UK government from honouring its obligations under international law.
Here’s Braverman’s statement, as exulted by Brexiteers. I’ve found a more level-headed response to it:
Attorney General @SuellaBraverman still hasn’t resigned, but she has broken her recent silence on the Internal Market Bill by publishing a statement of HM Government’s ‘legal position’ on it.
It runs to one side of A4.
And it is utterly risible.
/1 https://t.co/jx1Jy2cAIL pic.twitter.com/xJvwej8yL5
— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) September 10, 2020
What is the appropriate response? This:
This is based on the Attorney General's ignorant and/or dishonest reference to what the Miller judgment says about international law. The Supreme Court actually said that international treaties are binding in international law. https://t.co/vfICqGqYvq
— Steve Peers (@StevePeers) September 10, 2020
Perhaps. This:
This is exactly what the present Attorney General @SuellaBraverman should be saying right now (in fact she should be screaming it from the rooftops). It appears however she has no view on the matter. If that’s the case she has no business being in that office & should resign https://t.co/bT6Ux8WKfo
— Peter Stefanovic (@PeterStefanovi2) September 10, 2020
Mmm… How about two in-depth Twitter threads? First this:
The Attorney General is a barrister, who, because of her political appointment, is allowed to put QC after her name.
This business with the Internal Market Bill and how it breaches international law is complex.
The public is entitled to trust what the AG says about the law.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) September 10, 2020
Legally, it’s nonsense. Parliament is indeed sovereign – as a matter of domestic (UK) law, it can legislate for whatever it likes – but that is not the issue here.
The issue is whether legislating in the way proposed would breach *international* law.
And we know it does. https://t.co/HsGTvewLh3
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) September 10, 2020
But by deploying inscrutable (and appallingly drafted) legalese and preying upon the public’s unfamiliarity with the law, @SuellaBraverman is trying to forge a veneer of legal respectability to mask her government’s plainly unlawful intentions.
The very definition of #FakeLaw.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) September 10, 2020
She conflates “binding” with “enforceable”. International law is not enforceable in domestic courts – ie you can’t make a claim in your local court for a breach of international law unless that law also appears in UK law.
But international law is absolutely binding on the govt.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) September 10, 2020
Oh yeah. And the inevitable plug. Buy it, borrow it, lend it, force everyone you know to read it. It’s only because of our unfamiliarity with the legal system that the government and its cheerleaders can lie to us with impunity.
Don’t let them lie to you.#FakeLaw https://t.co/vXACAvM2rM
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) September 10, 2020
(After that lesson in the law, I think the Secret Barrister may be allowed to advertise a book about it.)
And then there’s this:
The AG freely acknowledges this and concedes that the UK is required, as a matter of international law, to discharge its treat obligations in good faith. She then attempts, but fails, to make an exceptionalist argument based on parliamentary sovereignty & dualism. /3
— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) September 10, 2020
The AG also places weight on but misunderstands the implications of the ‘dualist’ nature of the UK legal system. She claims that it means that ‘treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation’. That is flatly incorrect. /5
— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) September 10, 2020
The Government’s argument is that Parliament’s legal capacity in domestic law to make any law it wants somehow makes it acceptable, as a matter of international law, for the UK to renege on its treaty obligations. But the latter does not follow from the former. /7
— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) September 10, 2020
The UK may have left the EU, but it has not left the community of nations or the rules-based international order. Treaty obligations are binding upon the UK, and to suggest that they are not ‘because Parliament is sovereign’ is as embarrassing as it is dangerous. /ends
— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) September 10, 2020
It is not for members of the public to challenge this.
I have a feeling that the Tory government will face serious and well-funded legal challenges both from within the UK and outside.
I am concerned that this will lead to an equally serious financial penalty – a bill that, once again, the taxpayer will have to pay.
We always end up bailing out these incompetent Tories when we should be sending them to jail instead.
Last word goes to Mark Elliott (again):
I see Attorney-General @SuellaBraverman & Lord Chancellor @RobertBuckland still haven't resigned from a Government intent on undermining the rule of law.
I was going to say that's quite extraordinary — but it's now just par for the course.
Not a political point. Just a fact.
— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) September 10, 2020
It is par for the course in a government that is as bent as a nine-bob note.
But Suella Braverman’s resignation is definitely required.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
