“There is simply no way around this binding rule – to opine that parliament is sovereign is, in this sense, hopeless.”Īnn Taylor, the chair of the Lords select committee on the constitution, wrote to the justice secretary, Robert Buckland, on Friday cautioning that: “Any breach of international law threatens to undermine confidence in future treaty commitments made by the UK government and increases the likelihood that the governments of other countries will breach their international law obligations.” Philippe Sands QC, a professor of international law at University College London, said: “Every international lawyer is familiar with the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, and its article 27, which reflects a general principle: ‘A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty’.
#Vienna convention cost code#
In a three-page letter seen by the Guardian that summarised advice from Braverman and Ellis, the pair in effect dismissed duties contained in the ministerial code as irrelevant and concluded that “international law is subordinate to the much more fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty”. Senior lawyers have expressed amazement at their conclusions.
However the weight of legal opinion is shifting against advice from the attorney general, Suella Braverman QC, and the solicitor general, Mark Ellis, who backed the plan. The government stated it intended to reintroduce them. On 9 November two clauses were removed after defeat for the government in the House of Lords. The bill passed its first hurdle in parliament by 77 votes, despite a rebellion by some Tory MPs. The text does not disguise its intention, stating that powers contained in the bill “have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent".
It has become even more controversial because one of its main aims is to empower ministers to pass regulations even if they are contrary to the withdrawal agreement reached with the EU under the Northern Ireland protocol. If one of the countries that makes up the UK lowers their standards, over the importation of chlorinated chicken, for example, the other three nations will have to accept chlorinated chicken too. The Scottish government has criticised it as a Westminster "power grab", and the Welsh government has expressed fears it will lead to a race to the bottom. This, says the government, is in part to ensure international traders have access to the UK as a whole, confident that standards and rules are consistent. The internal market bill insists that devolved administrations have to accept goods and services from all the nations of the UK – even if their standards differ locally. Some rules, for example around food safety or air quality, which were formerly set by EU agreements, will now be controlled by the devolved administrations or Westminster. The internal market bill aims to enforce compatible rules and regulations regarding trade in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
0 kommentar(er)
