Doesn’t matter how glaring the actual problems are facing the country - a malfunctioning testing system during a global pandemic, a No Deal Brexit approaching, mass unemployment - but someone in government will always point fingers on the powerless, on foreigners & human rights.
Another week, another flat out UK govt confrontation with international law - this time pursuant to our obligations under the Refugee Convention.
Post-Grenfell, thousands of us still live in flammable homes, for which we were never responsible & are now liable for financial cost, untold stress & inability to move. The silence has been deafening, govt urgency lacking. End the hidden housing scandal.
For the avoidance of doubt, the use of "emotional" when responding to a fair question on the rule of law by the shadow AG, a female MP & barrister, is intended as a put-down, not much different from "calm down, dear."
Whether that comes from a male or female MP, unacceptable.
I should add that there was nothing 'illogical' either about the q asked.
Many of us have been asking it. Many of us want to know how violating the rule of law - both international & domestic - can be supported by a Law Officer.
(See this on domestic.) ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ron…
The restrictions will again have a v serious effect on family life, with potentially v disruptive & painful impact on older people and other groups. They will severely impact other fundamental rights. It sounds as they may be long-lasting.
Parliament’s voice matters.
These are important matters. We need to know that proportionality has been properly considered & equality impact assessments have been conducted.
In short, we need to talk about this slew of regulations that Parliament is being deprived of scrutinising.
This statement by AG @SuellaBraverman contains fundamental omissions, misunderstandings or misrepresentations.
Crucially, it waves a populist flag for parliamentary sovereignty as if that was an answer to the international law problem created by govt in its Bill.
She argues that because Parliamentary sovereignty forms part of our domestic constitutional arrangements, Plmnt can enact whatever it wants, irrespective of international law & treaty obligations freely entered into.
That isn't an answer to the q of breach, but a flag wave. /2
In common with the many countries whom Britain has called upon to respect & adhere to its int'l law obligations, Britain is required to act in accordance with its treaty obligations. Bandying about the language of parliamentary sovereignty does not sidestep that obligation. /3
I have just emerged from a long desk day advising on the law of the land to discover it has been a shameful day for law, and the rule of law, in the UK.
Something is rotten in any state that promotes this.
And one doesn’t get credit for breaking just a little bit of the law.
And you can take that also from a former Lord Chancellor.
Struggling to close my jaw as I catch up on today’s developments faultlining where law meets politics.