Thread by @DavidGauke

Brandon Lewis said of the Internal Market Bill “this does break international law”. Not “it creates the potential to break international law” or “we might break it in an emergency but we’re not yet breaking it”. He said “this does break international law”.

If taking the power to override a treaty is in itself a breach of international law (which is implicit in what Brandon Lewis said), additional safeguards on the exercise of any such power (such as requiring a Commons vote) doesn’t stop it being a breach of international law.

Sir Jonathan Jones’ email to GLD officials says that ‘certain provisions of the Bill ... are contrary to the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU’. (He also uses the phrase ‘notwithstanding the breach of international law’.) So his view is that taking the powers is itself a breach.

Arguments that international law is only breached when the powers in the Bill are exercised is inconsistent with what a Minister - reading from a prepared script - has already told the Commons and the view of the Govt’s most senior lawyer.

So if you’re concerned about the UK deliberately breaching international law (with all the implications for our international reputation and the rule of law), a Commons veto on the exercise of the powers under Part 5 of the Internal Market Bill won’t address your concerns.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Government accepts the Neill Amendment. But the Internal Market Bill would still be in breach of international law and any MP voting in support of the relevant provisions would be condoning that.