Read on Twitter
Twitter is full of lawyers talking about the Withdrawal Agreement, the bill and the Rule of Law. Those who agree with the Govt invoke the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. They point out that Parl can legislate away any domestic legal consequence. 1/n
Those who disagree with the Govt point out that however sovereign Parliament might be, it cannot legislate away the international legal consequences. Nor can it legislate away the international political consequences. /2
Both sides agree that what is proposed breaches international law. One side says this is a threat to the rule of law as it involves a Govt deliberately breaching legal obligations it voluntarily assumed. The other redefines the rule of law appears that only applies to our laws /3
Those who agree with Government say that it is justified. The justification appears to be that we did not adequately understand the consequences of what we were proposing and what we agreed to. /4
Our negotiating partners are finding it difficult to see the justificatory force in that. The immediate consequence may be to derail the negotiations. That seems a more likely result than the EU deciding, instead, to fold. 5
The adverse impact on the negotiations seems so unavoidable that it becomes difficult to envisage that that was not the intended consequence - that Govt, facing the impossibility of delivering what it had promised, has found a way to collapse the scrum. /6
But I have to be careful that my advancing years don’t pitch me into cynicism. /end
