The AG & Lord Chancellor should be ashamed, as should a Prime Minister and Foreign Sec who claim to be committed to both the union & to Britain's reputation abroad. #ruleoflaw#devolution
This conclusion as to the casual disregard for the #ruleoflaw in Britain is utterly damning of Johnson’s government.
It damages not only our crucial work abroad as part of an international order but also the very foundations of our democracy, and societial consent for our norms.
Our system has Law Officers to ensure that we abide by the rule of law. These aren’t political games. These are essential offices to maintain the norms by which our democratic society functions, by advising the govt & maintaining public confidence. And yet...
The @HLConstitution exposes the political game playing, and naked evasion or misstatement, in respect of the #InternalMarketBill for what it is. It is an irresponsible stain upon our country, its reputation & our collective future as part of an international order.
As for Clause 47 & the impermissible attempt to exclude HRA & limit judicial review, the report is clear on the #ruleoflaw implications.
Damning too on the game-play drawing Courts into controversial areas. It doesn’t use the “enemies of the people” language, but we remember..
Very strong, unsurprising, criticism of the devolution aspects of the #InternalMarketBill too. @GeorgePeretzQC has described the bill as a “leash” imposed on the devolved govts. @joannaccherry has been equally clear about the implications on consent.
All in the name of Brexit.
The report features criticism of both the lack of consultation and legislative scrutiny.
It barely now needs to be said that this is a feature, indeed even a hallmark of this govt.
Consultation & scrutiny demand accountability from a govt determined to avoid it.
All of this *should* shame & expose Johnson’s government and Law Officers for their casual disregard for the union, the rule of law & our international commitments.
But it won’t.
At a time when the country desperately needs unity & trust in govt, this govt will barely shrug.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#RuleofLaw This important meeting has just begun. I understand there is a very high level of registrations. The speakers - former President of UK Supreme Court Lord Neuberger, Dominic Grieve QC, Joanna Cherry QC, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC - are now joined by Lord Howard. #IMBill
This meeting is not about political views, which are irrelevant . Defending the rule of law is “activist” for the benefit of every person in the country, whatever their political views.
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