The amazing thing is not that Amal Clooney as resigned from her role as a UK envoy in response to  the government’s declared intention to break international law, but the statement issued by Lord Neuberger, sometime president of the Supreme Court,  in her support.  He said ““I support her principled response to the shameful attitude of the UK government to its international treaty obligations in the internal market bill and in ministerial announcements that it is prepared to break international law.”  That seems pretty clear to me.

Every living PM, except one, has now spoken out against the “Internal Market” Bill. Which raises the question: is Johnson man or nightmare ?

Internal Market bill – Britain plumbs new depths. No longer just a laughing stock, now heading for the status of rogue state.

It is usual in politics to find disagreement.  But, by and large this is disagreement about the means to reach generally accepted ends: we all want to live in a pleasant country, in safety and security, with enough to eat, education for our young people and care in our old age. All, that is except Johnson and his cronies: they want to live in an entirely different UK, and to achieve it they are prepared to destroy pretty much anything and everything, including the UK itself.  They have a different vision.

The question arises then, whether that vision focusses on the country taken as whole or their own grasping selves: do they want to make the UK a better place for us all, or simply to smash, and grab all they can?

I cannot think of a prime minister who has not been motivated by the good of the country as he/she saw it. With one exception: Johnson.  Consider:

1. he has lied, lied and lied again.  His lies are too numerous to list, so let me just take one of them: “Brexit,”  he said, “will give the British people back control.”  And yet he does everything in his power to disable every form of decision making, or oversight other than his own.

2. nepotism: he has promoted to seats of governance, his own brother and those with questionable  allegiance to our “norms,”  (eg those who support terrorism, those who support hostile powers… ).

3. he has signed a deal that he now says has handed over the power to “carve up” the Kingdom; to avoid this he proposes to break international law, thereby at one move transforming the UK to a pariah state no better than Russia, China, Iran, Iraq… you name it.

4. his actions (and inactions) have resulted in the loss of health, and life, of ten of thousands of British citizens.  They have also driven the Scots to the point where it is becoming increasing hard to imagine that Scotland will remain a part of the UK for many months to come.

Are these the actions of a prime minister working to improve the country; or one who has set out to destroy it?

Johnson says “Brussels could carve up the UK” if MPs reject his bill to illegally change the Withdrawal Agreement. Then, why the f*** did he sign it ?

“No one can truly gauge the damage no-deal will wreak on food prices and availability for shoppers, but as the BRC has reiterated numerous times now, it will be far worse than anything seen during Covid. Tariffs alone could add huge extra costs, the supply chain will see unprecedented disruption, and the backdrop of Christmas makes any sort of adequate planning near impossible.

What is perhaps most remarkable about the situation is that the government will be choosing to enforce this burden upon the public as it deals with job losses, business closures, and all the other financial hardships of a recession. Food poverty in the UK has been exacerbated already by the pandemic and it doesn’t take a wild leap of imagination to foresee how things could quickly get worse for those already hardest hit.”

Harry Holmes in The Grocer

It is my understanding that the legal advice issued by government lawyers (which includes a categorical statement that the action proposed by the British government would be a breach of international law “in a very specific and limited way”) does not make reference to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (1969) to which the UK was a signatory.   This states that: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to Article 46.”

The key wording of Article 27 is contained in the first sentence. However, for the sake of completeness, Article 46 states as follows:  “1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.”

One other point is also relevant: Article 26 “PACTA SUNT SERVANDA”: “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”

The question then arises of whether the Ministerial Code requires minsters to act in accordance with international and domestic law.  Government lawyers differ on this.  However, The Court of Appeal has stated that the Ministerial Code (2010): subsumes within the stated duty of minister to “comply with the law” reference to international law and treaty obligations.  “That duty includes those obligations.  Whatever the precise meaning of the reference to those obligations, they are not independent obligations but simply part of the overarching duty of compliance with the law.” R (Gulf Centre for Human Rights v. The Prime Minister and The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (2018).

If further clarification were required (which in my opinion it was not) in 2015 the Cabinet Office indicated that the phrase “comply with the law” included international law.

It is worth noting that one, very eminent, lawyer has described the Attorney General’s”opinion” which runs contrary to the above as “utterly risible.”

It is also worth noting that newly appointed Cabinet Secretary has opined that the Ministerial Code requires only that ministers adhere to domestic law.  That opinion may be wrong – in which case his tenure of office may be among the shortest on record.

I was interested to read this morning that a spokeswoman for HSBC recently said  “HSBC has operated across the globe for over 150 years and is fully committed to driving a diverse and inclusive culture. We are committed to learning from the past and, in particular, anything that would be inconsistent with our values today. HSBC has zero tolerance towards racial discrimination, or any other type of discrimination.”

I worked for the Bank in the 1990’s and it was a bastion of white male culture.  I recall no female senior managers, and my wife, who also worked for the Bank, was employed on completely different (and worse) terms than mine.  While I was there the first (ever) Chinese general manager was appointed.  I recall no other Asians, and no Continental Europeans,  in the ranks of top managers – just plenty of Scots.

Anybody with an eye for these things is well aware that Boris Johnson, prime minister of what remains, for the moment the UK, is a coward, a liar and a bully.

In his battle with Sir Kier Starmer he is regularly bested, his government is under scorn and attack: he will behave as bullies always do, lash out and then turn tail and run.

I am not a civil servant, and I have never met the new Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case; nor, the the best of my knowledge, anybody who has.  But I do know that he is stepping in where angels fear to tread.

Johnson may be prime minister in name, but I for one have much doubt as to whether he is the one calling the tunes in Number 10.  Put frankly, he’s nasty enough, but too indolent.  For whatever reason – and one may well wonder what that reason may be  – it seems to be a.n.other who is pulling the strings, as The Urban Spaceman (Sajid Javid – who recently took up a position as an adviser to a US investment bank) discovered at the beginning of this year.  There is a trend: experience out: young personable, inexperienced man in.  Simon Case may prove to be the Rishi Sunak of the civil service.

Experience, like judgement, is an unvalued ability in this age, but it is not without its worth.  “Intelligence” said G.H. Hardy, “is for any practical purpose, a very minor gift.”  Assessing the issues on which to stand your ground, knowing when to run and when to dig in, are important political skills and they come with years.

The civil service has lost five permanent secretaries so far this year. It is inconceivable that, whilst one or two may have been a bit under par, all five deserved the chop.  It requires strength of character, experience and judgement to stand up to a bully. Let us hope, for all our sakes, that the New Cabinet Secretary has them, Just-in Case.