The #NIProtocolBill is here, together with the claimed legal “justification” which is the doctrine of necessity. Sounds thin to me, not to say threadbare. gov.uk/government/new…
The Govt’s legal position is summarised here gov.uk/government/pub…. 
In short - necessity rarely excuses a breach, and only when (inter alia) the State’s act is the only way to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril, and when no other essential interest is seriously impaired by the breach: jusmundi.com/en/document/wi…
The State must also establish, as the government accepts, that it has not substantially contributed to the situation of necessity.
These citations give an indication of the rare and extreme conditions that must apply before the defence of necessity can be accepted.
The government’s “justification” document refers to the non-sitting Assembly and, vaguely, to strain imposed by the Protocol on “socio-political conditions” in Northern Ireland. The test for necessity requires a good deal more than that. What will they come up with? /ends
In particular, how can it be argued that breach is "the only way available" to protect against grave and imminent peril when the UK has not invoked the Art 16 safety valve, which permits unilateral safeguard measures to be taken in the face of "serious societal difficulties"?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
