NEW: attorney general @SuellaBraverman has set out her legal position in defence of the Internal Market Bill and the clauses which undermine the Withdrawal Agreement.

One of the counterarguments we remainers used against the claim that the EU unfairly and undemocratically imposed laws and regulations on us was that it isn't really true. We said that actually it was only when our democratically elected parliament mirrored the EU laws into a bill and debated it and then voted on it and passed it that it became law. At any point our parliament, which we elected, could refuse to enact any of the EU stuff -- although obviously there would be consequences, like we would have to leave the EU --- and therefore we had full sovereignty.

That's basically what this is saying. That regardless of any international treaty, it's parliament that is the ultimate decider of what is a law in the UK. If parliament wants enact a law that is contrary to a treaty it can, because that's what the UK legal system says is technically how the law in the UK works

Sure, there will be consequences - in the same way that when we were part of the EU we could, in theory, just refuse to enact their laws into our own law and the consequence would be that we would probably have to leave the EU (or the EU would have to rethink their law and change it if they didn't want us to leave)

And in this case there will also be consequences. But most of the consequences are what the government wants anyway - to force the EU to revisit and make concessions on the original Withdrawal Agreement (not going to happen), to force them to make concessions in the current negotiations in exchange for us abandoning these provisions in this bill (they think there is a chance this approach will get them somewhere), or to force both parties into a situation where we have to leave without a deal (they're already halfway to deciding this is the way they want to go if they don't get it all their own way in the negotiations). And the rest of the consequences like loss of confidence, trust and standing for the UK's international reputation and in future treaty negotiations is all stuff this government doesn't really think is that important, because their believe (and they might be right) that it's not high ideals and principles that determines what you get in treaties, it's what scratching of their back that gets what scratching of your back - i.e practical stuff

So everyone will get in a tizzy about this and moan and some will resign bit this battle was lost last year and really it was lost before that in the referendum. This is the way our country is now. We are a conservative country and the people running the conservative party now are people who think like this and will do this stuff - and there's not really anything anyone can do to stop them

/r/ukpolitics Thread Link - twitter.com