It highlights that the Bill, ‘in its current form, represents a direct challenge to the rule of law by including provisions which would allow for potential breaches of international law’.
The Law Society has launched a shortcut tool to help people write to their MP in just two minutes, at: bit.ly/35Thub7.
Both the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, and Attorney General, Suella Braverman, have come under pressure from former Attorney General Dominic Grieve and other senior Conservatives to resign.
Lord Keen, the Advocate General for Scotland, resigned this week after finding it ‘increasingly difficult to reconcile what I consider to be my obligations as a Law Officer with [the Prime Minister’s] policy intentions with respect to the UK [Internal Market] Bill.
‘I have endeavoured to identify a reasonable argument for the provisions at clauses 42 to 45 of the Bill but it is now clear that this will not meet your policy intentions.’
His departure comes a week after the resignation of Jonathan Jones, Head of the Government Legal Service.
MPs voted 340-263 for the Bill at its Second Reading this week. The Bill gives ministers powers to ‘disapply’ rules relating to the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and to State aid ‘notwithstanding’ any incompatibility with international law or domestic law.
Attorney-General Suella Braverman has issued a statement defending the Bill under the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis had previously told the House of Commons the Bill breached international law ‘in a specific and limited way’.
A Law Society and Bar Council briefing on the Bill highlighted that Clauses 41-45 ‘enable ministers to derogate from the obligations of the UK under international law in broad and comprehensive terms and prohibit public bodies from compliance with such obligations.
‘They represent a direct challenge to the rule of law, which includes the country’s obligations under public international law.’ There was a ‘significant risk of violation’ of international law, the briefing noted, which would have implications for ‘the UK’s position as a centre for international legal practice and dispute resolution, and the global use of English law’.
Moreover, there would be ‘negative consequences’ in relation to ‘civil judicial cooperation and enforcement of judgments. The Bill could be highly prejudicial to the government’s application to accede to the Lugano Convention,’ and ‘the provisions could raise significant conflict… with regard to judicial review.’
Law Society president Simon Davis (pictured) said: ‘The rule of law is under attack.
‘‘To hear this country proposing to breach an agreement just entered into, breaking international law, even if in a “specific and limited way” has been shocking. It is because of our commitment to the rule of law that our system of justice is respected globally, that countries want to do trade deals with the UK.’
