1/ Jessica Simor QC in her introduction to the urgent webinar meeting called to discuss the serious challenges to the rule of law raised by the Internal Market Bill.
The full webinar can be found here: https://www.ibanet.org/Implications-of-the-Internal-Market-Bill.aspx
“I first want to make clear that this meeting is not

2/ about political views, which are irrelevant to what we are discussing, this meeting is about the rule of law, so whilst it is of course political to fight for the rule of law, it is not in any sense part political or Brexit political. It is not an overstatement to say that

3/ defending the rule of law is to fight for democracy and freedom and against authoritarianism. So yes, whatever our political views we must all be activists in defending the rule of law, but activists for the benefit of each and every person in this country, whatever their

4/ political views. The importance of this was underlined by the fact that the Attorney General for Scotland Lord Keen and Sir Johnathan Jones the treasury solicitor have resigned, the two former Attorney Generals Sir Geoffrey Cox and Jeremy Wright QC, as well as

5/ Theresa May have all spoken out against the bill.
The issues to be discussed today surmount politics, whilst it is not unprecedented for the executive to attempt to remove the role of the courts in overseeing its decision making, the Internal Market Bill has deeper

6/ implications. Not only is its stated purpose to breach international law, something that must be unprecedented, it also gives ministers powers to adopt regulations that allow them to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal. Put bluntly it gives ministers the power to make

7/ their otherwise illegal acts legal in whatever way they choose. This is an astonishing idea, and it begs the questions; Why do this? What for? And what will come next? In addition it alters the Devolution Settlement without using the procedures provided in the Devolution Acts,

8/ acts which are constitutional acts and were adopted following referendums.
Those that defend the proposals argue that to take such absolute powers is constitutional, in the sense that parliament can do as it likes, it could hand the executive all of its powers if it chose to

9/ do so. The question for this evening is not one of constitutional theory however. It is not to discuss what is dicey, or whether a breach of international law is a breach of the rule of law, these are legal semantic games, which are out of step with the challenges we are

10/ facing. We need to focus on what is happening and where we are going. We need to face the challenges that noncompliance with convention and the accepted boundaries of institutional power involve. We need to consider the risks of secrecy and non-transparency to accountability.

11/ We need to face the fact that without politicians that play by the rules, even if unenforceable rules and without a rule of law grounded in constitutional principle, this country may become one that appears free, but in which its institutions do not function independently,

12/ its lawyers and civil servants are subordinated, its parliament weakened and public trust irreparably damaged. Legality, Accountability and Trust are all required for a functioning democratic society. The Barr is a powerful profession with people of independent mind, without

13/ employers to whom we answer. We have come together as lawyers to think about consequences, unforeseen as they may be, serious as they will certainly be.”

Former Chief Justice Lord Kerr says the Internal Market Bill - which allows govt to bereak international law & exempts various powers from legal challenge - risks driving the UK down a “very slippery slope” towards dictatorship. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/oct/19/uk-needs-judges-to-limit-government-power-says-lord-kerr?CMP=share_btn_tw