There has been (quite rightly) some unease at the Govt's express intent to breach the withdrawal agreement. But this isn't, for me, the worst part of the proposed trade bill ( https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0177/20177.pdf)

1/n

s. 45(4) states that 'any relevant intentational or domestic law' includes 'any [...] judgment or decision of the European Court *or of any other court or tribunal*'. 2/n

Assuming that this is intended to apply to all judgments (past and future) then this is, in effect, an ouster clause. This creates a number of problems 3/n

First, the scope of the powers contained within s 43/44 are wide. For there to be no judicial oversight here is questionable. 4/n

Second, if this is passed, it will force the judiciary to answer some very difficult questions about how this is to be interpreted which, in turn, could fuel the fire over judicial review reform: 5/n

a) if a court interprets this ouster strictly (in line with Anisminic) then it is likely to be 'read out' of the Act. It only impliedly ousts judicial review, which probably isn't enough. This will certainly lead to some headlines reminiscent of 'enemies of the people'. 6/n

b) if the outer clause *does* take effect, then this creates a dangerous precedent. It runs contrary to the presumption, that Parl. doesn't intend to legislate contrary to international law, and puts these wide powers out of judicial oversight. 7/n

Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic, but in either case, the govt. 'wins'.

In short, we should hope that this bill doesn't leave Parl. unamended.