Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Politics
  2. Brexit
8 September 2020

Brandon Lewis admits the government plans to “break international law“. What now?

The cabinet minister's statement raise questions barely conceivable for a functioning Western democracy.

By Ailbhe Rea

What do you do when a cabinet minister admits that the government plans to “break international law”?

That is the extraordinary question today after Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland Secretary, confirmed in the House of Commons chamber that a new bill to override the Brexit withdrawal agreement “does break international law in a specific and limited way”.

The government’s most senior lawyer, Jonathan Jones, has also today tendered his resignation, amid reports that an external lawyer advised the government that it would be in breach of international obligations if it legislated in contradiction to the Withdrawal Agreement, but decided to press ahead with the legislation anyway.

Brandon Lewis has done journalists’ jobs for us. Since the first hint of this incendiary story in the Financial Times on 7 September, we have had to wait to see the contents of the Internal Market Bill when it is published on 9 September, balancing concerns that this bill would renege on our international commitments and risk a hard border on the island of Ireland against the government’s insistence that these were “minor clarifications” and that it was committed to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol in full.

Thanks to Lewis, however, we don’t have to do the delicate dance of balancing the government’s line against its dissenters. Whether this new bill tramples over huge sections of the Withdrawal Agreement or offers “minor clarifications” to areas that have not been finalised in the joint committee on the Northern Irish protocol, it breaks international law. Of course it does: the government is seeking to overwrite an international agreement that was made as an insurance policy in the event of no further agreement. It has decided unilaterally to “clarify” matters that are the subject of a bilateral agreement and subject to further clarification only through a specifically-designed bilateral joint committee. But instead of days and weeks arguing about whether this is technically lawful,a cabinet minister has provided us with the gift of a frank answer, and one that will go down in history, to be repeated back at this government and at the UK by other countries for decades to come.

Select and enter your email address Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. A weekly newsletter helping you fit together the pieces of the global economic slowdown. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.
  • Administration / Office
  • Arts and Culture
  • Board Member
  • Business / Corporate Services
  • Client / Customer Services
  • Communications
  • Construction, Works, Engineering
  • Education, Curriculum and Teaching
  • Environment, Conservation and NRM
  • Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
  • Finance Management
  • Health - Medical and Nursing Management
  • HR, Training and Organisational Development
  • Information and Communications Technology
  • Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
  • Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
  • Legal Officers and Practitioners
  • Librarians and Library Management
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • OH&S, Risk Management
  • Operations Management
  • Planning, Policy, Strategy
  • Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
  • Projects, Programs and Advisors
  • Property, Assets and Fleet Management
  • Public Relations and Media
  • Purchasing and Procurement
  • Quality Management
  • Science and Technical Research and Development
  • Security and Law Enforcement
  • Service Delivery
  • Sport and Recreation
  • Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
  • Wellbeing, Community / Social Services
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.

The publication of the bill tomorrow will raise questions of its own, but for now, Lewis’s statement raises questions that are barely conceivable of a functioning Western democracy.

How, fundamentally, can the UK government exert any authority in asking other countries to adhere to international law if it does not do so itself?

How will any country sign a trade deal or any other treaty with the UK if the government has shown itself willing to renege on commitments enshrined in international law?

How can ministers proceed to implement a bill which contradicts the ministerial code’s insistence on the “overarching duty on ministers to comply with the law”?

How can it compel civil servants to break the Civil Service Code, which states that civil servants must “comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice”?

How many Conservative MPs will refuse to vote for a bill that by their government’s own admission breaks international law? How many cabinet ministers will see this as a step too far?

How will the EU respond?

And, perhaps most importantly: what does this mean for ordinary people in Northern Ireland?