It also paves the way for the Government to start losing many more judicial reviews. Few law firms outside government have the breadth of expertise and experience offered by the Government Legal Department (GLD).
NB: the Government already has ready access, when ministers want a second opinion, to the immense legal skills and experience of the barristers on the Attorney General’s panels and in the final instance to the Treasury Devil (Sir James Eadie QC).
That system works well: and during my many years on those panels (which you automatically leave when you become a QC) there were occasions when I advised that ministers were right to question advice they had got from the GLD. That is the system working.
But generally, in my experience, the GLD advice is right: the cases that are fought and lost are usually ones where the advice was that there was a significant risk of losing (NB it is often entirely right to fight a case even if you know there is a good chance you will lose).
Complaining about GLD advice, as @Policy_Exchange is apparently doing, is usually a case of shooting the messenger. And the ability to go to the AG’s panels of outside barristers, and to the AG himself, provides a sufficient check against over-cautious (or over-optimistic) advice
As to the proposed removal of the commitment that the UK has always stood by - that it and it’s officials would act in accordance with the UK’s commitments in international law,
all that needs to be said is that it would harm the international reputation of the UK and the international rule of law.
As a medium rank power, the UK relies a lot on other States complying with their general international law and treaty obligations. It will do so even more after Brexit. It is not in the UK’s interests to weaken the rule of international law.
