I wrote quite a lot of tweets yesterday. This one was, in my opinion, the most important:
The modern state exists to create and uphold national and international law. If it chooses to break the law then in effect it declares itself to be null and void. It’s not just acting ultra vires its powers. It’s effectively ceased to have purpose or function. It is illegitimate https://t.co/gbGC9JdmvZ
— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) September 8, 2020
I have little to add to the analysis I offered, but I do have some thoughts on the consequences.
If, as I suggest, the state exists to make and uphold national and international law (with the obvious implication being that it has a purpose for doing both) then a public statement that it is not going to do so has massive potential implications.
A minister can, of course, say that any such breach is small, and specifically purposeful in a current circumstance, but as we should all know, the law does not work that way. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with our laws can think of any number of laws that they might wish do not apply to them, or which they might wish could be ignored, but that is not how the law works. The law is not selective, even if the decision to use it to impose punishment can be. The rule of law requires that it be upheld, most especially by those with responsibility for creating and enforcing it.
Now ministers are acting in open defiance of that requirement. They might say that the matter is insignificant or inconsequential. Their senior civil servants clearly did not agree. They resigned. But the ramifications are bigger than that.
The best parallel I can think of is the MP's expense scandal. The sums involved in that scandal were small in real terms. It could even be said that they were inconsequential. But that was not how the issue was interpreted. People were rightly disgusted that lawmakers were willing to fiddle the rules. The backlash was real. The public opinion of politicians fell even further. And this had spillover consequences: many felt that if MPs need not comply with rules, why should they?
The same will happen now. Nationally people will think the rule of law optional. That the Conservative Party has created that situation is staggering.
Internationally we will simply not be trusted.
The Union will be ever more in peril, and rightfully so.
And the credibility of the government's policy will be left in tatters.
All of which matters.
Effective government is most needed at a time of crisis. We have that crisis. At the same time we have a government determined to undermine its own credibility . It would be impossible to make up a situation more serious than that. For a government to make itself illegitimate at this moment is staggering. But that is what this government has done. It is very hard to know what happens next, but no option looks good.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I had thought Mr Johnson sees himself as a second Churchill; more appropriately, with his nonchalant dismissal of the legally binding clauses of the Withdrawal Agreement that he himself signed and got approved by Parliament, he surely parallels Hitler’s arrogant and gangsterish assault on the “piece of paper” he signed at signed at Munich.
You may care to read Clive Ponting’s book “1940” – the picture painted of the liar & fraud Churchill is an interesting one & bears comparison with the current liar & fraud.
Those looking for some below the line entertainment on the subject of the WA are pointed to this article & my comment beneath it (would be never allowed in Ingerland – which says a great deal about press freedom):
https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/uk-plans-to-break-withdrawal-agreement-senior-minister-confirms/
(I am reliably informed the btl is doing the rounds in the European Parliament).
I think it was Newsnight last night (?) that discovered warning of this Government policy – in an old Dominic Cummings Blog. Where else would you look?
The really interesting thing is not the number of lawyers and civil servants fleeing Whitehall today; but the number of Conservatives (especially in the ERG) who are prepared to support the policy. The British people are discovering something about themselves that was well hidden, indeed taboo in polite society; but in the old Scots saying, ‘they ken noo’.
But you might want to ask the question ‘where is Mark Francois?’
Odd how quiet he is
Reading Craig Murray’s account of the extradition proceedings for Julian Assange, it seems that this government is determined to cut corners to get him expedited. One assumes that it is, at least partly, to curry favour with the Trump administration for a ‘good Brexit deal’.
Some of the material released by Wikileaks showed what appears to be American war crimes in Iraq. These have not been investigated, or so I read, by the US authorities.
The US and British Commonwealth set up the United Nations after WW2 and set standards for international conduct.
Both the modern governments of the US and UK make much of the commemoration of the war. It would seem to me they are betraying that legacy.
It seems the Assange Extradition case is a Stalinist Show Trial without the ‘Show’. I gather Amnesty International were refused access and some German MPs only got a video link after a formal complaint from the German Embassy. The magistrate ruled against public video access on the rather odd grounds that she would not be able to control the public behaviour if they were not actually in the court, however ‘covid restrictions’ have allowed them to restrict access to 5 people to the 3 row 40 seat public gallery. Assange is a remand prisoner, as in convicted of nothing (so far), yet held in top security, not allowed to retain any papers in his cell, no computer access (and most of the casework is online), no recent visits by his lawyers and only allowed ‘short phone calls’ with the lawyers on the communal prison pay-phone. It is really astonishing how the UK is sinking in World opinion. Yet we see fit to lecture others on things like human rights.
I suspect just another part of the picture Richard tells of a state descending into a lawless grab what you can free for all.
The even sillier thing is I very much hope Trump does not survive November (even the Trump supporters might notice he is coming up on being responsible for more US deaths than WWII) so there won’t be trade deal with Trump. It does have to be approved by a Democratic controlled House in any case.
Tim – I agree, how good it will be to NOT have a trade deal with USA. It is about the only glimmer of hope that I have at the moment in this sh#tfest. Might then avoid some of these secret investor dispute courts.
Following the British Government’s demonstration of its casual willingness to embrace cynical, sophistry-laden misuse of international law for short-term political advantage; if (as is likely) the Democrats retain control of Congress, and armed with this sudden knowledge of the real character of the ‘Brits’ they are dealing with: a US trade deal will be very unlikely to survive the scrutiny of Congress.
Agreed
You might think it was impossible for this government to sink lower, but somehow they always somehow manage it. One thought. If they will break international agreements when it suits them, what are the chances of them sticking to domestic agreements?
None
My view is that we are seeing the further ‘North Americanisation’ of British politics.
Look, we all know that states find ways around the law in the pursuance of certain policies – look at the practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’ for example.
But what seems different to me, is that now there seem to be no scruples about it – now it is more bare-faced and matter of fact. That in itself is new and will have consequences.
North America (the U.S) can afford this sort of way of operating (which it has since the 20th century really) because of their military might and world position; smaller countries like ours will see more consequences I’m sure of it.
Unless of course our plan is to align with the U.S in which case we may benefit in some way.
In many ways, this approach can be welcomed because there is less hypocrisy, less covering up and more clarity of intent. But it’s the consequences and what it means for our relationship with the rest of the world that does not seem to have been considered. And it also aligns us with some very unsavoury states which is also deeply worrying.
I am tempted to say that this government has hit rock bottom…. but perhaps my lack of imagination does not allow me to see the next downward step.
However, I am intrigued by the question in Parliament and the frank answer from the NI secretary. Are Bob Neill and Brandon Lewis engaged in guerrilla warfare against No. 10? Are they tools of No. 10 in its efforts to bully the EU? I can’t decide which….. or is it possible that Neill and Lewis have differing agenda?
Let’s see how it plays out
But I fear it will only get worse
Most people remember the school bully in the playground who wanted to be the sole arbiter of what was permissible in behaviour terms. Most people with any sense stayed well away from them, they were trouble!
Obviously Brexit has now revealed itself as Bully!
For anybody with an ability to do joined-up thinking “Getting It Done” was always going to end up this way!
The UK is a rogue state and it appears there is nothing that can be done to curb the illegal activities of the state.
In the past the Government would have fallen as right minded MP’s from all sides would not have tolerated repeated and blatant law breaking by any government. Now the state has been captured by rogue elements who are free to do as they wish because they have managed to install co-conspirators who are willing to subvert the functions of democracy to fulfill their own ends. Next will come an “Enabling Act” allowing the incumbent Party to introduce laws without the involvement of Parliament and ultimately control by a single individual in that Party.
Can you imagine the outcry of those on the right if these acts had been perpetrated by a Corbin lead government. The stories of how the government had been captured by revolutionary communists intent on destroying our western way of life. But make no mistake these Right wing revolutionaries of misfits and weirdos are intent on destroying the democracy and traditions of the UK.
You advocate breaking the law by supporting g the actions of Ex rebellion. Does that make you a hypocrite?
I support the aims of XR
I do not agree with all their actions
I also happen to think that the claims that are made about their crimi9nality are absurd: they create minor inconvenience at most
I also know that no significant social change has ever happened without direct action in the UK
It’s the knowing and cynical smiles of the likes of Bernard Jenkins and Andrew Brigdens that stick in my craw when this is raised with them.
Law? International law? Hmmm…which legislature produces this international law? Which democratically elected government enforces it? Oh — I see. It’s not LAW. It’s Agreement.
Law is the the thing that (sovereign) Parliament in the UK produces. I get my say by voting for who gets to make this law. It looks like we’re not proposing to break any actual existing law, merely to change the law — democratically. If this then involves us changing our minds w.r.t. to what we’ve agreed with Johnny Foreigner and reneging on an Agreement then that is NOT a breach of LAW. It is a breach of trust.
With respect, if you wish to express stupid and xenophobic opinions that are entirely contrary to fact would you mind doing so elsewhere?
How did you get ‘..xenophobic opinions…’ out of that?!! He/she who smells a fart… and all of that 🙂
Read the comment for heaven’s sake, and the language used
I could have just deleted it for being blatantly racist
I can’t claim expertise on these matters, but my impression as an ordinary member of the public is that after the government’s actions, the only way another state would sign an agreement with us would be if the enforcement mechanism was both threatening and impossible to evade. In other words it would have to be something like ISDS which was originally going to be part of TTIP.
To me a likely implication is that any agreement with the USA is now guaranteed to have ISDS.
The EU seems to have abandoned ISDS in favour of some kind of regulated dispute resolution court. Since the Tory government presumably won’t agree to another EU court having the power to override UK governmental decisions, this also seems to have the implication that no future deal with the EU is going to be done.
Are there any reasons for me to be more optimistic in either respect?
Regards
Not that I can see
One of the main reasons for leaving the EU was that Parliament was no longer sovereign and we couldn’t hold our MPs to account, tje point being that no Parliament can bind the hands of a future Parliament, which was effectively what happened with the Lisbon Treaty (and to a lesser extent the Maastricht Treaty.
The wonderful Gina Millar even got our Supreme Court to agree that Parliament was sovereign.
Since the WA we’ve had an election and this Parliament can decide to undo the WA if it so wishes.
The election committed us to the WA
This parliament committed us to the WA
Now we will break international law
Of course we can
We do so at our peril, as a certain Marget Thatcher said
Supported I note by John Major and Theresa May
But what did they know?
A lot more than you do, I suggest
I’m sure most will have seen this but I couldn’t resist. An assessment of Mr Johnson’s character by one of his teachers. He knew then what the rest of us know now.
https://twitter.com/LettersOfNote/status/1094970662828101632
He had him sussed
Where is Keir Starmer and the Labour party in all this?
Richard, forgive me if I am wrong but it seems to me that this is “political game playing” at the highest level. Real “Game of Thrones” stuff. Boris knows that the UK does not want Brexit. However he has invested his entire (recent) political career on “getting Brexit done”. He can’t revoke Article 50 or stop Brexit without provoking the Brexiteers and the backbenchers but if he breaches the Withdrawal Agreement; breaking International Law; he is therefore breaking the agreement and thus hoping that the EU will “cancel Brexit” for breaking that law. This way, the people get what they want, he saves face with the Brexiteers and the last four years will have been nothing but a fading nightmare and a huge waste of money.
I suggest that the European “reshuffle” this week indicates that the EU is gearing up for this scenario? After all, it was Ursula Van Der Leyden who threw Ireland’s Trade Minister under the bus and booted him out? https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/politico-brussels-playbook-art-of-the-reshuffle-meps-dont-want-to-go-its-not-mac-time/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=415bb65c78-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_09_09_05_15&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-415bb65c78-190377877
The EU keeps saying that breaking the WA will cause “serious consequences” for the UK but I have yet seen any definition of what those will be. Stopping Brexit and forcing the UK to go back to the start all over again with it all, is about as serious as it gets, stopping Brexit through no fault of Boris’ own making – its the EU’s fault not his, he will argue.
If the EU doesn’t bite this time, expect even more outrageous behaviour from the UK the closer we get to no deal.
Why would the EU do that?
Jason Beattie in the Mirror this morning suggested something similar.
At the EU’s request Michael Gove will today hold emergency talks in London with the EU’s Maros Sefcovic to discuss the Government’s willingness to violate international law.
There is genuine shock and anger throughout the EU and beyond — the Democrats in the US are also in despair — at the UK’s behaviour.
The Internal Market Bill laid before Parliament yesterday is remarkable in its scope.
The proposed law would override “any other legislation, convention or rule of international or domestic law whatsoever, including any order, judgement or decision of the Europe Court or of any other court or tribunal”.
This was No 10’s explanation for going rogue: “The withdrawal agreement and Northern Ireland protocol aren’t like any other treaty. It was agreed at pace at the most challenging political circumstances to deliver on a clear political decision of the British people.”
Then I read this in the Spectator and now I just don’t know what to think. It’s madness:
Why the Conservatives are prepared to break the law over Brexit
The Tories aim to get re-elected by trapping Keir Starmer on the wrong side of a new divide over Europe.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/09/why-conservatives-are-prepared-break-law-over-brexit
P{aul Mason wrote it from a left wing perspective
But he may be right
The EU can’t “cancel BREXIT”. We have already left and we are currently in a transitional period until the end of Thursday 31 December 2020 when the temporary arrangements end unless we agree something new. It is all automatic, by operation of law, even if we try to ignore it. 16 weeks and counting…
We have jumped off the cliff and are enjoying a brief period of relatively peaceful freefall as the ground rushes up towards us very very fast, but very shortly the only question will be how hard or soft the landing will be. We have ripped off the parachute and we now are doing our best to make sure that the safety net is removed too. Wheeeeee…. splat.
A horrible spLat
“A government that breaks the law ceases to have purpose or function. It is illegitimate.”
That is the title of this post. If you feel that is the case, where does that leave your view on the EU, given the EU has broken international law (as well as it’s own laws) on numerous occasions?
It’s not a government
Shall we start with some basics?
The EU is a government. It has a parliament, a president, elections and makes laws and sets regulations. It even has it’s own court. It overrides national governments in many aspects. What is it you say in English? If it walks and talks like a duck?
So I ask again. The EU has repeatedly broken international law, as well as it’s own.
Where does that leave you and your opinions on the UK breaking international law?
Wrong
It’s a Union
You forgot the Council Of Ministers
Try again
So is the UK. Or the USA.
Regardless, the EU has been found guilty of breaking international law and has received the largest fine ever for it. That is amongst many other breaches of international law.
I suspect you are being stupidly pedantic (as the EU has all the trappings of nationhood), difficult and are unwilling to answer the question because you are pro EU and anti Conservative government – which means in your eyes the former can do no wrong and the latter can only do wrong.
Of course, all this makes you is biased, ill-informed and ignorant.
You actually offered not a shred of evidence for your case
But did offer a lot of abuse
Is this the way you behave to everyone?
If so, you have bigger issues to address
Largest ever WTO fine:
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2019/october/us-wins-75-billion-award-airbus
EU breaching international law on refugees rights:
https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/eu-turkey-deal-violation-or-consistency-with-international-law
I could go one, there are many, many more.
But of course you are not interested in anything approaching a fair or balanced view on the matter. Which makes you a hypocrite.
You equate these issues?
That on refugees is serious, I admit
The other is a trade dispute
But to think them equivalent is quite absurd
We’re talking of crass on the scale;e of comparing a parking ticket with murder in the Airbus case
Please don’t call again
As has become obvious, you are a ridiculous hypocrite.
The first example is directly comparable to the legislation which the UK is seeking to pass – which is to allow UK state aid in Northern Ireland (which would fall foul of EU rules, which they themselves are happy to break) and to maintain free trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
So if the EU are happy to break rules – and it has been judged that they have, breaking international treaties to do so, why are you not condemning them as well?
At which point, we can see your true nature and the lack of any real thinking other than the urge to spout bile and rubbish – which I see you have done again in today’s post.
You are, of course, entitled to your view
That almost the whole legal profession do not agree with you might, or at last should, suggest something to you
But apparently it does not
Just off topic for a moment. Have you seen that the BBC is not going to broadcast the daily updates by our First Minster? So we can now add censorship to the list.
Seen that
And agreed