On the day the Commission starts legal proceedings against the UK for the IM Bill, a few thoughts on the significance of this attempt to get around the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement. 1/

If enacted, the Bill is equivalent to crossing the rule-of-law Rubicon. This for the following reasons. 2/

It is often said, in defence, that nations (and the EU) regularly break international law. True enough, but not in this way. There is a systemic difference between this breach and standard breaches. 3/

Normally, what happens is that, when particular legislation or executive regulations are adopted which may be in breach of international commitments, legal advisers will point this out. Decision-makers assess this, and decide on their interpretation ... 4/

and on the risk they are willing to take. They defend their actions as being in compliance, and may of course be proved wrong in an international court or tribunal. They may be proved blatantly wrong, which is a bad thing indeed. 5/

But this Bill is very different, even from the bad cases identified above. It removes all semblance of respecting the rule of international law, and gives the executive an open-ended authorisation to violate the UK's international commitments. 6/

And they are not just any commitments. The provisions on State aid in the NI Protocol play a crucial role in the scheme of the whole agreement. No border in Ireland really presupposes that the UK cannot freely subsidise NI businesses. 7/

An even more important point is that the Withdrawal Agreement is not just any agreement. It's an agreement which confers rights on persons and companies (all of us), under international law and, crucially, under domestic law. 8/

For the State aid provisions, what that for instance means is that any competitor of a subsidised company can go to court in NI to have an illegal subsidy removed (recovered). That is the effect of the NI Protocol, under international law AND under UK domestic law. 9/

How is it part of UK domestic law? Because it says so, and because, crucially, the UK Parliament has made it part of domestic law (has "incorporated" it). 10/

And here is the crux: less than a year later the same Parliament is making legislation which allows for those rights under domestic law to be modified or rescinded. Think of what sort of action that is. 11/

Johnson makes an oven-ready deal with the EU, wins an election for doing so, brings it before Parliament which not only endorses the agreement but makes it part of domestic law. 12/

All of this, as required by the Agreement, and before it is finally ratified by the EU and the UK. Without this incorporation, the EU would NOT have ratified the agreement. 13/

And now Parliament intends to make a U-turn. It openly contradicts its own act of just some months ago, and solemnly pronounces, frankly, the UK's bad faith. 14/

Parliament is sovereign, in the UK. But does its sovereignty extend to this type of breach of the rule of law? Can Parliament really contradict its own legislation - a precondition for the conclusion of a valid and binding international agreement? 15/

Can it turn around in this way, and say, whichever international agreements we incorporate into domestic law, creating rights for people and businesses, we can just decide to flout them? 16/

Fundamentally, isn't parliamentary sovereignty subject to the rule of law? Indeed, how could it function without the rule of law? Should not the rule of law, in a case like this, trump parliamentary sovereignty? Guess you know my answer to the questions. 17/END