Michael Gove: This Site has better pictures but the Spitting Image dummy reflects his shifty personality so well that it is hard to find an excuse not to use it.
Michael Gove is living evidence that you can get further by talking nonsense constantly than by rational behaviour.
He has just said that talks on implementing the EU withdrawal agreement are at a “healthy stage”.
That’s odd, when the EU side is that the UK’s negotiating position is still “far apart from what the EU can accept”.
The issue is the Internal Markets Bill – or at least those parts of it that override the EU withdrawal agreement where it concerns customs borders in Northern Ireland.
The European Commission’s Maros Sefcovic… said there was a “window of opportunity” to come to an agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol, but added that was “rapidly closing”.
And that’s what Gove calls a “healthy stage”!
Mr Sefcovic says the EU wants the UK to remove the “contentious parts” of the bill by the end of September – that’s Wednesday.
He said the EU would “not be shy” in using “legal remedies” written into the withdrawal agreement to address any “violations”.
What do you reckon the chances are that the EU will have to use those remedies – and that when it happens, Gove and the other Tories will say the EU is to blame for the failure of the Withdrawal Agreement?
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.
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!
Hundreds of Conservative MPs voted for the EU Withdrawal Agreement to become UK law in January – on the grounds that it would bring the UK back together as “one invigorated nation”. Why have the same people now voted to betray the same agreement?
Back in December last year, as his then-EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons, Boris Johnson said: “Now is the time to act together as one reinvigorated nation, one United Kingdom.
“Now is the moment to come together and write a new and exciting chapter in our national story, to forge a new partnership with our European friends, to stand tall in the world, to begin the healing for which the whole people of this country yearn.”
He ditched that idea with the Internal Market Bill, which has caused as much division within the countries of the UK as it has with the European Union.
The Bill – if passed into law – will break the terms of the EU Withdrawal Agreement. That’s breaking not just national, but international law.
Johnson has said that it is necessary because the EU has reneged on the spirit of the withdrawal agreement, but this is a lie. In fact, like the spoilt little boy he is, he has decided he doesn’t like the terms of his own treaty so he wants to change it unilaterally, to suit himself.
On January 9 this year, 329 of his Conservative colleagues voted to approve the Withdrawal Agreement that Johnson hates so much now.
And on Monday, 339 of his Conservative colleagues voted to rip it up.
How can they justify this behaviour?
Either the Withdrawal Agreement isn’t right for the UK, in which case they should not have supported it in January, or it is – and they should not be breaking international law to wreck it now.
This Writer thinks every single one of the Tories who voted to contradict themselves needs to be asked just what the hell they think they’re playing at.
Are none of these people able to think for themselves?
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.
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!
Partners? Dominic Raab is in the United States, where he has been meeting Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. But the threat to the Good Friday Agreement posed by the Tory government’s Internal Market Bill means they may not see eye-to-eye.
This is awkward for Boris Johnson.
The US Congress – or at least members of it – is threatening to withdraw from any free trade deal with the UK if Boris Johnson’s Internal Market Bill undermines the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland.
This is a body blow to Johnson, who has claimed that the Bill is vitally important even though it very clearly breaks international law by shattering treaty agreements with the EU and in NI.
According to the BBC:
US Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week said there would be no UK-US trade deal if the Good Friday Agreement was undermined.
Ms Pelosi said if the UK broke international law and Brexit undermined the Good Friday Agreement – the Northern Ireland peace deal – there would be “absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress”.
On Tuesday, four senior congressmen also issued a similar warning, saying a UK-US trade deal would be blocked if the UK failed to preserve the gains of the Good Friday Agreement.
In a letter to Mr Johnson, the four congressmen said the plans to give ministers powers to override part of the UK’s exit agreement – designed to avoid a hard Irish border – could have “disastrous consequences for the Good Friday Agreement and broader process to maintain peace on the island of Ireland”.
“We therefore urge you to abandon any and all legally questionable and unfair efforts to flout the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement and look to ensure that Brexit negotiations do not undermine the decades of progress to bring peace to Northern Ireland,” the letter added.
The letter was signed by Democratic congressmen Eliot Engel, Richard Neal, and Bill Keating, who all chair committees in the US House of Representatives, as well as Republican Congressman Peter King.
Downing Street has said the GFA will be upheld “in all circumstances” but the problem is that Johnson has a record of saying one thing and doing the opposite.
The row over the Internal Market Bill is because it contradicts the EU Withdrawal Agreement that Johnson himself signed in January after expelling 21 Tory MPs for failing to support him.
He simply cannot be trusted; he will say anything he likes to get whatever he wants at a particular time.
The warning from Congress underlines fears that no other nation will want to do a deal with a country that breaks international law.
The Americans would be better-advised to pull out of any deal now.
They might as well be negotiating with a spoilt child.
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.
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!
Legacy: this spoof heritage plaque gives a very good summation of David Cameron’s role in the UK’s ongoing Brexit disaster. Why should we take any interest in his views now?
He’s saying the right thing – but for the wrong reasons, and it is still a grotesque act of hypocrisy.
I refer, of course, to former prime minister David Cameron, who regularly, during his time as prime minister of the UK, broke international law but is expressing concern at Boris Johnson doing the same now.
You don’t remember? Allow me to remind you that the United Nations ruled that Cameron’s government broke the law to deliberately harm people with disabilities.
And he broke international law to attack Libya too.
The UN launched its probe into “grave and systematic violations” of the human rights of people with disabilities in 2014, when Cameron was prime minister.
It reported in 2016 – after he had quit (and we’ll get into those details momentarily). The findings showed that austerity policies introduced by Cameron’s government had systematically violated the rights of people with disabilities.
That is an offence in national and international law. The Cameron government had already signalled an intent to repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights that the UK created, possibly in order to dodge this finding.
Boris Johnson’s renewed plan to cut human rights legislation out of the statute book signals that he intends to continue this illegal persecution of people with disabilities. Oh, did you think it was about nailing refugees who have been abusing the law to stay in the UK? Now you know better.
The attacks on Libya took place before Vox Political‘s time but I offer this as an example of commentary explaining why the Cameron government was breaking international law – and, indeed, human rights law – by participating.
So it seems out of character for Cameron to come back from the wilderness after four years and attack Boris Johnson for planning the same:
“Passing an Act of Parliament and then going on to break an international treaty obligation is the very, very last thing you should contemplate. It should be an absolute final resort, so I do have misgivings about what is being proposed,” he said.
It shouldn’t even be a last resort, as others have pointed out:
Breaking international law "should be an absolute final resort".
Breaking an international treaty and the rule of law shouldn't even be an option, and especially not in response to an entirely fabricated threat. pic.twitter.com/n09C121DuB
It is an entirely fabricated threat – indeed, it is one that Boris Johnson created himself. He came up with the EU Withdrawal Agreement that put a customs border in the middle of the Irish Sea. He campaigned for it in a general election and all his current Tory MPs did the same. And he signed it in January.
So it is nonsense for him to turn on us all now and say it is vital to change the terms of the agreement – and all his MPs should be opposing him, not just the few who have so far put their noses above the parapet.
And let’s not forget that Cameron is the man who is most directly responsible for the entire Brexit mess.
He launched the EU membership referendum – it was part of his election manifesto in 2015 – in an attempt to keep the Conservative Party from splitting.
He thought the vote would result in the UK remaining in the EU, silencing Eurosceptics in his party. He was wrong. The public narrowly voted to leave (admittedly on the basis of a stream of lies from Brexiteer campaigners including Boris Johnson). That has led us to where we are now.
And he didn’t even save his party from splitting. Some Tories quit voluntarily to join the ill-fated “Change UK – the Independent Group” or whatever it ended up calling itself. Others were forcibly thrown out by Boris Johnson when they refused to support his withdrawal agreement.
That’s the very agreement he is now saying is not acceptable, by the way.
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.
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!
Geoffrey Cox: the former Attorney General is pointing the finger of accusation at Boris Johnson.
That’s scuppered the claims that the row over Boris Johnson’s plan to break international law is a last gasp of the so-called ‘Remainers’, then.
Geoffrey Cox – a devout Brexiter – was Attorney General when Boris Johnson signed his EU withdrawal agreement in January.
His announcement that he will not support Johnson’s Internal Markets Bill is proof that the controversy extends much further than the established battle lines.
The story broke in The Times, which is behind a paywall. However, the East Fife Times has this:
Boris Johnson’s former attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, has said it would be “unconscionable” to override the Brexit divorce deal.
The Tory MP said there is “no doubt” the “unpalatable” implications of the Withdrawal Agreement were known when the Prime Minister signed it, a time when Mr Cox was the chief law officer.
So he should know!
He stated:
“No British minister should solemnly undertake to observe treaty obligations with his fingers crossed behind his back”. @BorisJohnson’s previous attorney general @Geoffrey_Cox is merciless in his contempt for the PM’s attempt to renege on the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.
The Brexiteer warned he would not back the UK Internal Market Bill unless ministers dispel the impression they plan to “permanently and unilaterally” rewrite an international agreement.
[He] said tariffs and customs procedures on certain goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain were part of the deal.
“There can be no doubt that these were the known, unpalatable but inescapable, implications of the agreement,” he wrote in The Times.
He said if the powers in the Bill were used to “nullify those perfectly plain and foreseeable consequences” then it would amount to the “unilateral abrogation of the treaty obligations”
Cox said ministers could use “clear and lawful” options under the withdrawal agreement to remedy their concerns that food imports may be blocked from Britain to Northern Ireland – or, “in extremis”, take “temporary and proportionate measures” via independent arbitration.
“What ministers should not do, however provoked or frustrated they may feel about an impasse in negotiations, is to take or use powers permanently and unilaterally to rewrite portions of an international agreement into which this country freely entered just a few months ago,” he said.
It seems he also said this:
Geoffrey Cox writes in The Times
“When the Queen’s minister gives his word, on her behalf, it should be axiomatic that he will keep it, even if the consequences are unpalatable.” https://t.co/eySxz4w6Me
The QC… was attorney general during the unlawful suspension of Parliament.
That’s right; Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament illegally – and lied to the Queen in order to do it.
It seems Cox has had enough of such illegalities – and his words carry weight on the Conservative benches in the House of Commons.
They are also carrying weight on the social media:
Really significant as Geoffrey Cox is not only a former attorney-general but also a Brexiteer.
Him speaking out against the internal market bill could be a problem for No10 as it might catch the eye of some Tory backbenchers. https://t.co/9gdvxv64SE
Reminder that Geoffrey Cox is an avowed Brexiter. Let’s nail the lie once and for all that this is the same old culture war, the same old ‘failure to accept the referendum’. This is not about Brexit and Remain. It’s about right and wrong. https://t.co/7S0ZxEg4Du
this Telegraph snippet revealing Brexiteer former attorney-general Geoffrey Cox will rebel over internal market bill is latest proof that this row is *not* (contrary to some claims) a Remainer death spasm pic.twitter.com/xoVetZXQy1
Geoffrey Cox, a Brexiteer and Boris Johnson’s first Attorney General, coming out against the NI clauses in the withdrawal bill in such trenchant terms will add to the unease on the Tory benches https://t.co/uxnTsBM0Fd
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.
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!
Suella Braverman: She has made some knowledgeable enemies who may soon wipe that idiotic grin off her face.
The UK’s professional organisation representing barristers has accused Brextremist Attorney General Suella Braverman of sacrificing the UK’s reputation, sidelining legal advisers and bypassing the ministerial code.
At its annual general meeting, members of the Bar Council asked Braverman how she thought the UK’s Tory government could retain “a shred of credibility” in imploring other countries to follow international law after revealing its own willingness to breach agreements.
Here’s The Guardian with details of the festivities:
Five QCs confronted the attorney general during Saturday’s meeting, telling her that a crime which broke the law in a “specific and limited way” – the phrase used by the Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis, when he announced the move – was still a crime.
Asked if she believed ministers were breaking the ministerial code with the legislation, Braverman on Saturday dodged the question by stating that the code was not legally enforceable. Pressed, she suggested the cabinet secretary had ruled that the code would not be breached.
She was also confronted over why she had sought advice on the measures from three pro-Brexit legal figures, including one junior barrister who had worked with the Vote Leave campaign, rather than relying on senior government lawyers. She refused to disclose the advice she had received, but said that seeking external opinions was not unusual.
Braverman was asked what had changed since former justice minister Lord Faulks stated in 2015 that ministers would not breach international law. She said his statement reflected “government policy at the time”.
The proposals were needed to resolve tensions between domestic and international law created by the EU withdrawal agreement, she said, but the government remained “committed to the rule of law”.
Of course this is not true. A government cannot expect to be believed when it claims to be “committed to the rule of law”, after also committing itself to breaking the law.
We could never expect better from Braverman; she is used to breaking the rules.
Back in 2017, when the European Research Group (ERG) “party within the Tory party” was set up, she was its chair. It was funded illegally, with money from members’ expenses claims (expenses rules state that MPs cannot claim for research or work “done for, or on behalf of, a political party”, but by September 2017 the European Research Group had received more than £250,000 from MPs who claimed the public cash through their official expenses).
After she became a minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union, she remained a member of the ERG, even though the ministerial code prohibits ministers from becoming “associated with non-public organisations whose objectives may in any degree conflict with government policy” – as the ERG’s did at the time.
Neither she nor any of the other then-ministers who were also in the ERG were penalised, which may go a long way towards explaining why she believes she can tell the Bar Council she is above Parliamentary rules.
In March 2019 she was accused of using anti-Semitic language by stating that “As Conservatives, we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism”. This refers to a far-right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theory which identifies Western Marxism as the basis of an ongoing academic and intellectual movement to undermine and destroy Western culture and values. Challenged over this, she dismissed the idea, stating “We have culture evolving from the far left which has allowed the snuffing out of freedom of speech, freedom of thought…I’m very aware of that ongoing creep of cultural Marxism, which has come from Jeremy Corbyn.” So either she didn’t understand what she was talking about or she is a genuine anti-Semite who used opposition to Jeremy Corbyn to co-opt support from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which withdrew its accusations against her.
And now we have her vain attempt to justify breaking international law, as described by This Site here.
The reason she thinks she – and the Johnson government – will get away with breaking international law is easy to understand in the context of her career.
She is an extremist Brexiteer who chaired a pressure group that was funded illegally – but still went on to occupy a role shaping government policy on Brexit; she voiced anti-Semitic sentiments – whether knowingly or not – but got away with it by claiming that she and her challengers had a mutual enemy in Jeremy Corbyn.
Based on this past behaviour, she thinks anyone opposing her on this can say what they want but it will not stop her from having her way.
Well, that has yet to be proved.
She may think she is sure of her ground but the Guardian article quotes a groundswell of opposition within the Parliamentary Conservative Party that could pull it out from under her feet.
And the Bar Council won’t be as easily swayed as the partisan Board of Deputies. Already there are murmurings about court action to forbid her from breaking international law in any way, not just the way she has described.
I look forward to seeing her get her comeuppance. It will be well-deserved.
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.
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!
Spitting Image: Michael Gove’s likeness on the new version of the satirical comedy appears to have certain male genital organs for cheeks – which is entirely appropriate as he was talking a lot of b*ll*cks on TV today.
Michael Gove appeared on breakfast TV, to demand that we all – including our children, obey his government’s new prohibition of social gatherings of more than six people.
Why should we obey this, when he went on to admit that the government itself will break international law and turn the UK into a rogue state that no other country will trust?
I don’t have a clip of him calling on us to obey the ‘Rule of Six’ – which is a stupid demand that won’t stop the now-uncontrollable spread of Covid-19 because it does not target the causes of that spread.
If our friends and family had Covid-19, we would have already caught it, so going out with them makes no difference.
We are still legally allowed to go out on our own and sit in pubs and restaurants that are packed with strangers – any or all of whom may have the virus – but the new rule does not take this into account.
Here’s a link to an article in which Gove accepts responsibility for this act of criminal stupidity:
What is most shocking about this report is the failure of anyone in the Cabinet to challenge the CMO to come back with evidenced based advice *or* to question how this could possibly be rational or proportionate, irrespective of its affect on transmission.https://t.co/h18nHM4nWD
I do have a clip of Gove voicing his support for unqualified Attorney General Suella Braverman, whose defence of Boris Johnson’s decision to break international law by reneging on the EU Withdrawal Agreement in his Internal Markets Bill was comprehensively destroyed on This Site, only days ago. Here he is:
Charlie Stayt “I quote Brandon Lewis saying that the government will break international law, are you saying that’s not the case”
Charlie Stayt rightly pointing out to Michael Gove this morning that this govt's own selective approach to abiding by the law is precisely why people will be less inclined to comply with the endless, confusing new rules they keep introducing
Gove also said the EU was “threatening the integrity of the United Kingdom” by demanding that Boris Johnson honours the withdrawal agreement he signed in January.
Oh, really? That’s not what the Tories said at the time…
Michael Gove telling the @BBCBreakfast that the Withdrawal Agreement is flawed and 'threatens the integrity of the UK , why did they not play him or their audience some of the below………? pic.twitter.com/lbflAvxcK5
In fact This Writer can only fault the Twittersphere on one point: those who accused Gove of turning blond to acknowledge his Aryan/fascist/Nazi supporters appear to be colourblind.
His hair has gone grey. And I’m not surprised.
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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!
Boris Johnson is a fundamentally dishonest animal; we can all agree on that.
He has already been criticised for false behaviour over his new Internal Markets Bill, with which he intends to trample all over the EU Withdrawal Agreement that he himself signed in January.
At the time, he was full of optimism for it, saying it paved the way for his “oven ready” trade deal (among other things).
But it seems the oven wasn’t heated to the right temperature, the trade deal seems likely to fall apart – and other parts of the agreement are also heading for oblivion.
So: was Johnson lying about his agreement when he signed it in January? Or is he lying about his Internal Markets Bill, that he’s pushing through Parliament now?
His current claims are that
the Internal Markets Bill would “ensure the integrity of the UK internal market” and hand power to Scotland and Wales.
He also claimed it would protect the Northern Ireland peace process.
But we know already that it breaks international law, meaning Johnson is actually trying to damage the UK’s standing internationally.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said it will not hand power to the devolved parliaments but is in fact a power grab that will return devolved power to Westminster.
I think she’s right – the Bill sets out plans for a modified internal market – trade between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – in which, if the UK government decides some food imports are acceptable in England, then they will also be allowed in Scotland, even though agriculture is devolved.
Irish politicians are similarly infuriated at the Bill’s apparent disregard for the Good Friday Agreement.
And in Wales, where the Tories are in opposition, their shadow counsel general, David Melding, has resigned – saying Johnson’s behaviour had “gravely aggravated” the dangers facing “our 313-year-old union”.
We know already that this Bill will become law.
We know already that Johnson is a liar – and it seems likely he is lying about this.
So the only thing we don’t know is the extent of the damage he will do to us all.
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.
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!
Former prime minister Theresa May seemed to have developed a backbone when she stood up to Boris Johnson over his Brexit u-turn – but that’s only if you haven’t noticed her betrayal of the dead of Grenfell, that happened less than 24 hours before.
As the Johnson government introduced new legislation into Parliament, contradicting the withdrawal agreement that Johnson himself negotiated and signed, Mrs May had this to say about it:
Theresa May asking Brandon Lewis how other countries can trust us if we are going back on international laws that this government signed up to. Remarkable that the previous Prime Minister has to ask such a question. Deeply worrying for our country.
But while we may praise Mrs May for her response to the withdrawal agreement, er… withdrawal, she has disgraced herself over the response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
May was prime minister when the London tower block was engulfed in flames, due to the fact that it was covered in highly-flammable cladding.
She said at the time that she would work to make sure no such tragedy ever happened again.
Well, cladding on another London block caught fire with the same effect between then and now – fortunately with no fatalities.
And yesterday, Mrs May happily voted to ensure that the recommendations of the Grenfell Inquiry – including the removal of such cladding from private and publicly-owned residential properties – will not be implemented by the government:
Last night, Theresa May was one of the 308 Tory MPs who voted down the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations https://t.co/Fyc0gIJTSy
“We must ensure such a tragedy never happens again. We, in Parliament, must do all we can to help them.” Theresa May just voted against implementing the Grenfell Inquiry recommendations. Never trust a Tory.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
