As for the idea that this is a matter for the NI executive: (1) that is irrelevant as a matter of international law (assuming that the current government accepts that NI is part of the U.K.); and
(2) s.26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 gives it all the powers the current government needs to intervene.
Unfortunately, we have a deeply cavalier government which subordinates everything to its political games (and, at the moment, protecting its leader from the consequences of his own arrogance and deceit).
Interesting use of coy language (“make it easier …)” to hide what @SuellaBraverman is actually suggesting: that Parliament hand over its powers to decide what critical parts of our law should be to Ministers, to exercise as they want without any proper Parliamentary scrutiny.
To be noted by Tory MPs - such as @SteveBakerHW and others - who have pointed that ministerial law-making without proper scrutiny during Covid has not exactly been an unalloyed triumph. And also by Tory MPs who might want to scrutinise what Labour ministers do with these powers.
Given that proposal, this complaint about EU law shows some front.
The claim that he believed it to be true involves an assertion of extraordinary incompetence in leadership. It is also impossible to reconcile with detail - not in the report - that No 10 has already admitted about Johnson’s involvement.
Knowingly misleading Parliament should - by strong convention, the Ministerial Code and as the keystone of government’s accountability to Parliament- be a resigning matter.
As matters stand, “bridging law” (retained EU law) can be removed as easily as any other law - by an Act of Parliament, subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and to suggest amendments.
What this proposal means is that Ministers will grab power to rewrite rules on eg product safety, the environment, and consumer and employment rights, by a flick of their pen and with minimal scrutiny by Parliament. No point in writing to your MP: there’ll be little they can do.
The law at the time. Note 7(2)(d)(i) and (3). No gatherings - defined as 2 or more present together in order to engage in any form of social interaction or activity with each other (even for 10 minutes). Includes wishing happy birthday and consuming cake.
But it’s also important to look at Johnson’s claim on 1.12.21. Regardless of what he knew/understood when he went into the garden on 20.5.20, is it credible that *after* that event, he still believed that guidance had been completely followed in No 10?
Is it also credible that - months after the party on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral - he still knew so little about it (or other similar events) that he genuinely believed on 1.12.21 that “guidance was followed completely”?
Insisting that a serving Prime Minister should not knowingly mislead Parliament, and that if he has he must resign, is *defending* our democracy, not “undermining” or “belittling” it.
We do not elect our governments or MPs with carte blanche to do anything they like. That would be episodic autocracy. We elect them to operate within the rules of our constitution. Which is representative democracy.
And one of the few hard-edged conventions with hard-edged consequences in our constitutional arrangements is that if Ministers knowingly mislead Parliament, they resign.