Legend has it the people of Britain are so obsessed with queuing – the nation’s favourite pastime – that, when German firebombs were raining cats and dogs over London Town during the Blitz, shelter-seekers would insist on forming an orderly queue outside their local bunkers whilst trying their best to hide their trembling hands in their coat pockets, praying and turning the air blue under their breath all at once. Even since the nation arose from out the azure main, the idea of honour has been one of the most important values of the British identity. Being British means having a sense of fair play and the quality of knowing and doing what is generally considered as “honourable”. The stereotypical image of Britons being ardent queuers epitomizes “the British character”: stubborn, stoical, and having an almost religious belief in the adherence to rules and principles.

With this in mind, it is troubling to see the government of a nation that has since time immemorial prided itself on honour and fair play publish a bill that could allow it to go back on its word and renege on what has already been agreed. The Internal Market Bill, published by the British government on Wednesday ( September 9), could nullify the legal force of parts of the withdrawal agreement signed between Britain and the European Union(EU) less than a year ago. According to the British government, the bill is designed to “protect jobs and trade” after the end of the transition period and will enable it “to provide financial assistance to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland with new powers to spend taxpayers' money previously administered by the EU”. Well-intentioned as it may sound, the bill will irretrievably damage the reputation of Britain as a country that respects the rule of law and its international commitments if the bill successfully goes through parliament.

The most damaging provision in the proposed bill is that which stated in Section 45, in which it is set down that some of the regulations made under the bill will “have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent”. Government ministers will be able to draw up provisions and regulations with respect to the Northern Ireland Protocol that are “not to be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of any incompatibility or inconsistency with relevant international or domestic law”. The government’s intention is as clear as a pikestaff: it wants to renege on its promises on a de facto customs border down the Irish Sea.

The eleventh-hour agreement reached between the UK and the EU in October last year was a product of compromise. In order to satisfy both Britain’s wish for Northern Ireland to remain legally in the UK Customs Territory (and part of any future UK trade deals) and the EU’s requirement for product and safety standard checks on goods entering EU custom union, the withdrawal agreement has provisions that retain a requirement for Northern Ireland to stay aligned with certain EU standards: a de jure customs border on the island of Ireland between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic will only be frictionless if Northern Ireland adheres to Brussels' rules. This is exactly what Boris Johnson signed up to and promised to deliver on when he set his hand to the withdrawal agreement last year.

The government’s intent to renege on its international obligations is laid bare all the more by Brandon Lewis' frank admission on Tuesday in Parliament that the move would “break international law in a specific and limited way”. The Northern Ireland Secretary’s resort to slippery logocratic utterance is laughable, if pitiable, for anybody who is blessed with gift of common sense would be able to discern that there is no such thing as an “extensive and unlimited” breach of law; all breaches of law are specific and limited, defined by scope of their relevant statutes. Mr Lewis' admission proves how untenable the government’s position is, and its blatant disregard of the rule of law and its international obligations is astonishing, not least because the Court of Appeal confirmed in 2018 that government ministers have the duty to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations (see para. 26, [2018] EWCA Civ 1855).

As Theresa May pointed out in parliament last week, how can the government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations it signs? If the government were to be so reckless and delusional as to go down the path of walking away from the negotiation and tear up what it has promised to hold to, Britain’s reputation as a respectable and trustworthy member of the international community would be irretrievably tainted. In fact, if anything, some of the damage is done already. The parliament – especially Conservative MPs – should now act with all its might to put a stop to this government’s dishonourable practice of sacrificing rules and principles for expediency.

(Joseph Long is a London-based writer and linguist from Hong Kong. He is a Philosophy graduate of King’s College London and has been a member of the Society of Authors in the United Kingdom since February 2020.)

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play