Thread by @garvanwalshe

.@SuellaBraverman asserts that parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament is free to disapply treaties. This is not correct. If it were, as I explain in @ConHome today, the government would actually not have the power to make treaties. Thread.

conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/…

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1304066214596153345

1/ This has to do with the concept of a binding obligation, and the correlative right to enforce (or waive) that obligation.

2/ If the treaty contains a binding obligation one one party, it means the other party has the right to demand the obligation is performed, and hence the power to waive or enforce the obligation.

3/ In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EU imposes obligations on the UK. It follows that the power to enforce or waive these obligations lies with the EU.

4/ Braverman is arguing that parliamentary sovereignty in domestic law can override this.

If this is true, it follows that the power to demand (or waive) the UK uphold the WA doesn't rest with the EU, but is in fact held by the UK

5/She is therefore claiming that the WA gives the EU no rights, and therefore, imposes no obligations on the UK, because her argument isn't limited to the clauses the Govt wants to override, but is a general one, applicable to the hole treaty.

6/ Indeed, the argument is more general than that. There's nothing specific about the EU or this WA.

It applies to all treaties with anyone.

7/ It therefore follows that the UK cannot make any treaties with anyone, but only incur "obligations" to itself, that its parliament can, not as a matter of practice, but a matter of law, cancel at will.