THE UK Government has admitted its new masterplan for Brexit will break international law.
That sounds bad, obviously, but it’s important to put such statements into their proper context.
Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis did just that in the Commons today, explaining that the Tories are only prepared to break the law in a “specific and very limited way”.
Now that doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Amazingly, not everyone is convinced by the minister’s justification.
WATCH: The moment Tories admit Brexit plan will break international law
Here are some of the best responses to Lewis’s astonishing admission.
Legal experts are somewhat sceptical about the Tory plan.
The Secret Barrister has called on both the Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland and Attorney General Suella Braverman to resign over the matter, given that both swore that pesky oath to uphold the rule of law. He had this to say.
Ah, well if you’re only breaking the law in a very specific and limited way, that’s basically as good as following the law. That’s what all good lawyers will tell you, right @SuellaBraverman? https://t.co/DCz73i3QIq
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) September 8, 2020
Scottish Justice Minister Humza Yousaf was equally impressed.
UK Govt:
— Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) September 8, 2020
"Yes this does break international law, but in a very specific and limited way"
Imagine as a citizen you tried this defence in Court, you would rightly be laughed out the Court (and duly found guilty!) https://t.co/zlaacBTX5k
Good Law Project chief Jo Maugham added this.
"My client only broke the law in a specific and limited way" is amongst the rarer pleas advanced by Counsel in written or oral submissions. https://t.co/2beBwHC7Py
— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) September 8, 2020
Even the Downing Street cat could see the holes in Lewis’s justification.
Remember kids, the government says you’re OK to break the law, so long as it’s in a specific and limited way...pic.twitter.com/Fri5gwWMsp
— Larry the Cat (@Number10cat) September 8, 2020
Others imagined the statement in alternative scenarios.
SNP MP Alyn Smith and writer David Hayward drew on Shakespeare.
"I go, and it is done: the bell invites me.
— Alyn Smith MP 🏴🇪🇺🏳️🌈 (@AlynSmith) September 8, 2020
“Hear it not, Duncan! For t’is a knell.
“That summons thee to heaven, or to hell.
“But only in a limited and specific way.” 🤴🏻💀
HAMLET: Did you kill my dad?
— The Columnist (@Sime0nStylites) September 8, 2020
CLAUDIUS: Only in a limited and specific way.
While EU law professor Steve Peers and Politics Home editor in chief Alan White used slightly more contemporary references.
"Luke...the Death Star only destroyed planets in a very specific and limited way" pic.twitter.com/tG7aNq1Wiy
— Steve Peers (@StevePeers) September 8, 2020
🎵 "I fought the law in a very specific and limited way
— Alan White (@aljwhite) September 8, 2020
and the law won" 🎵 pic.twitter.com/dCXRwNqX5l
Scot Goes Pop blogger and National contributor James Kelly pondered the argument’s possible ramifications for Scottish independence.
The next time the Spectator tells us that holding an independence referendum without a Section 30 would not be "legal", we'll have to be sure to ask for clarification on whether it would only be illegal "in a very specific and limited way".https://t.co/E9d2iv3HKe
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) September 8, 2020
Columnist Kirsty Strickland added this.
doing the same tweet everybody else is doing but only in a very specific and limited way
— Kirsty Strickland (@KirstyStricklan) September 8, 2020
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel