Here is @DanielBoffey ’s article on Johnson’s claim that the EU threatens to cut off NI. And he, too, gets it wrong. So let’s be clear and concise, folks. (Thread) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/14/brexit-boris-johnson-eu-uk-internal-market-bill

@DanielBoffey identifies two risks to the food supply to NI that are allegedly the cause for the Internal Market Bill’s violation of international law: tariffs (that’s art. 5 of the NI protocol) and listing as a food exporter (that’s a requirement under EU law)

He then claims that the Internal Market bill tackles just one of them. That is wrong. How many of these concerns does the bill tackle:
ZERO, none at all. Making it a bit unlikely that the bill was conceived for that purpose.

How can I be so sure? The Bill makes this very convenient. It explicitly says what provisions are supposed to survive a conflict with international law / the WA / EU law / UK law. Sect. 42, 43 and regulations made under 42(1) and 43(1).

Here’s the bill if you want to read the whole long sections (please do!). But I’ll focus on the regulations under 42(1) and 43(1) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0177/20177.pdf

Let’s start with 43(1). Here’s the text

That, clearly, is a power relating to Art. 10 of the NI Protocol. Here’s the first two paras of it. The article is about state aid. So this one has nothing to do with tariffs or other barriers to GB->NI trade. Let’s move on.

Sect. 42(1). Here’s the text. Does it cover tariffs on GB->NI trade or listing for food stuffs in GB->NI trade?

Nope. It explicitly applies to NI->GB trade. As regulations under 42(1) and 43(1) are the only one made immune to the WA/international law/EU law/domestic law that’s it folks.

In short: this bill does not tackle either of the problems mentioned.

But the fact that even the Guardian - despite its leanings - gets this wrong shows that
1) nobody ever reads a bill. Everyone gets their information about the bill from some fancy rumour mill.
2) the concerted efforts of academia reach a readership of 4. This includes my 2 kids

Maybe this is because every time I say I’ll be concise I torture you with 15 tweets and actual legal text?

Please @StevePeers say I’m wrong. I feel like a deranged lunatic shouting at the wind - journalist after journalist keeps repeating a rationale for breaking international law that I CANNOT EVEN FIND IN THE DAMN BILL.