Uk's Questionable Legality: Breaking International Law?

In September 2020, the UK government unveiled a draft Brexit law which would rewrite parts of its EU withdrawal deal. The bill, known as the Internal Market Bill, would give the UK government the right to unilaterally change some of the arrangements made for the UK's only land border with the EU. The government admitted that this proposed legislation would 'break international law in a very specific and limited way'. This admission caused a torrent of criticism, including from former prime minister Theresa May, who questioned whether the UK was risking its international reputation as a trustworthy nation.

The UK's Internal Market Bill breaks international law

The UK Internal Market Bill breaks international law, as admitted by the UK government. The bill was proposed to rewrite parts of the UK's EU withdrawal deal, which was agreed upon and signed in 2019. It was designed to override key portions of the deal regarding Northern Ireland.

The bill gives UK ministers powers to "disapply" parts of the rules agreed upon for goods that cross in and out of Northern Ireland. This includes goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the UK, and goods coming from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The bill also gives ministers the power to change the articles on state aid.

The UK government has argued that these measures are necessary because the EU is now trying to "leverage" the Northern Ireland protocol in trade talks. However, the EU has warned that any breach of the agreement would be a matter of serious concern and could damage political trust. The EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said that "trust and confidence are, and will be, key".

The UK's standing in the world is also at stake. The UK has always stood up for international law on the world stage and has used it to condemn other countries' actions. By breaking international law, the UK risks making it harder for itself to enforce international norms on other countries. It will also be harder for the UK to do deals with partners, including the EU, if it has a reputation for reneging on its promises.

The bill also has implications for domestic law. Under the bill, some ministerial decisions would be placed above the law altogether, which is an affront to the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. This could make it difficult for the UK government to be held accountable for its actions.

The UK's reputation and ability to enforce international norms

The UK's decision to break international law, even in a "specific and limited" way, has implications for its standing in the world. Firstly, it undermines the country's ability to enforce international norms on other countries. For example, the UK has previously condemned Russia's poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal, China's National Security Law in Hong Kong, and nuclear programmes in Iran and North Korea by citing international law. Now, other countries may be less inclined to listen to the UK's criticisms if they perceive its commitment to international law as flexible or conditional.

Secondly, the UK's reputation for reneging on its promises could make it more difficult to negotiate deals with partners, including the EU. Boris Johnson himself has emphasised the benefits of a "rules-based international order" for global stability. However, the UK's willingness to break international law during Brexit negotiations sends a conflicting message and may complicate future diplomatic and trade relations.

The UK's actions have also sparked concerns about the potential erosion of the Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of conflict in Northern Ireland. By installing a customs border down the Irish Sea and requiring customs forms for goods travelling between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, the UK government has deviated from the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, which aimed to keep the border open and avoid customs checks. This has led to fears that a physical separation could threaten the fragile peace established by the agreement.

The UK's decision to break international law during Brexit negotiations has had far-reaching consequences for its reputation and ability to enforce international norms. It has raised doubts about the country's trustworthiness, complicated future diplomatic and trade relations, and potentially undermined efforts to maintain peace in Northern Ireland. While the UK government justified its actions as necessary to protect Northern Ireland and create a safety net in case Brexit talks collapsed, the move has ultimately damaged the country's standing in the international community.

The UK's ability to do deals with partners

The UK's reputation for upholding the rules-based international order is also called into question by this decision. The UK has long stood up for international law on the world stage and used it to condemn actions by other countries. By breaking international law itself, the UK undermines its credibility and makes it harder to enforce international norms on other countries. This could have implications for the UK's ability to negotiate and do deals with partners in the future.

The EU has already expressed its anger and concern over the UK's decision, with European Council President Charles Michel stating that " [b]reaking international law is not acceptable and does not create the confidence we need to build our future relationship." This indicates that the UK's relationship with the EU, a key partner, may be damaged by this decision. The EU has also warned of serious consequences and the possibility of trade tariffs if the UK goes ahead with the breach.

The UK's decision to break international law could also impact its relationships with other countries. For example, Ireland's Prime Minister Micheal Martin expressed concern about the legislative threat and the breach of an international treaty. This indicates that the UK's ability to do deals with partners could be hindered by its decision to break international law.

Overall, the UK's ability to do deals with partners may be negatively impacted by its decision to break international law. The UK's reputation and credibility on the world stage may be damaged, making it harder to negotiate and do deals with other countries, including the EU. The UK's relationships with partners may be strained, and there could be serious consequences for trade and future agreements.

The UK's Internal Market Bill lays the ground to break more law

The UK's Internal Market Bill has been a source of controversy and has raised questions about the country's commitment to upholding international law. The bill, designed to outline the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the European Union (EU), has been criticised for potentially breaching the Brexit withdrawal agreement and undermining the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is its potential to override the Northern Ireland Protocol, which was agreed upon as part of the withdrawal agreement. The protocol aims to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and ensure free trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. However, the Internal Market Bill gives UK ministers the power to "disapply" or override certain rules and regulations regarding trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, effectively breaking the commitments made in the withdrawal agreement.

Legal experts and politicians have warned that the bill could break international law. Brandon Lewis, the British minister responsible for Northern Ireland, admitted that the bill would break international law but only in a "very specific and limited way". However, legal scholars argue that there is no such thing as a "partial" breach of international law. The bill also sparked concerns among the EU, with European Council President Charles Michel stating that "breaking international law is not acceptable and does not create the confidence we need to build our future relationship."

The Internal Market Bill also raises questions about the future of devolution. The Scottish and Welsh governments have criticised the bill as a "power grab", arguing that it undermines the devolution of powers by imposing common rules and regulations across the UK, even in areas where the devolved administrations have set different standards. For example, the bill could allow the import of products from the US, such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, which may be permitted in England but opposed in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland due to their impact on food standards.

While the UK government has made some concessions to address concerns, the controversy surrounding the Internal Market Bill highlights the complex and contentious nature of the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the EU and the potential for further legal and political clashes.

The UK's Internal Market Bill and the ministerial code

The UK Internal Market Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020. The bill was designed to prevent internal trade barriers within the UK and restrict the legislative powers of devolved administrations in economic policy. The bill was rejected several times by the House of Lords, but it was eventually passed in December 2020, two weeks before the UK left the European Single Market.

The UK government stated that the bill was intended to guarantee the continued seamless functioning of the UK's internal market and to enshrine in law principles to ensure regulations from one part of the UK are recognised across the country. However, the Scottish and Welsh governments criticised the bill for its re-centralisation of control over commerce, which they saw as reversing the devolution of power in the United Kingdom.

The bill was also criticised for including provisions that were incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement and thus illegal under international law. These provisions related to the Northern Ireland Protocol, which sets out how goods will be traded between Northern Ireland and Great Britain (the rest of the UK) after Brexit. The UK government argued that these provisions were necessary to prevent potential bans on the sale of GB agri-food products in Northern Ireland if trade negotiations with the EU failed.

The inclusion of these provisions in the bill led to several resignations, including the head of the Government Legal Department, the Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, and the Advocate General for Scotland. The bill was also criticised by all five living former prime ministers, who argued that it would damage the UK's reputation and make it difficult for future international partners to trust the UK to abide by its legal obligations.

The Scottish Government's Legislative Consent Memorandum stated that the bill undermined devolution and breached international law. It warned that the bill would encourage harmful deregulation without democratic accountability or proper parliamentary scrutiny and explicitly give UK ministers wide new powers in currently devolved areas. The Memorandum concluded that the bill was incompatible with Scottish Ministers' responsibilities under the Ministerial Code, which states the "overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law, including international law".

Frequently asked questions