Going to be interesting to see what happens now Cox has come out very strongly against it, I recall his opinion held quite a lot of sway in the party previously.
I have no doubt that it will pass, then the fun will really start.
The distinction between Geoffrey Cox, QC, the previous Attorney General and Suella Braverman, "QC", as lawyers, is as stark can be.
When Mrs May had claimed that her revised agreement had meant "there would be nothing to prevent the UK instigating measures that would ultimately dis-apply the backstop", Cox gave his
honest legal opinion that there was nothing in the agreement that would allow the UK to disapply the agreement unilaterally.
Whatever one's views on his politics, he remained a lawyer of independence, integrity as well as experience.
Braverman is a legal lightweight who owes becoming a QC not to the usual route but exclusively to Johnson's patronage. Given an Attorney General's first duty is to uphold the law ahead of the interests of any client, her appointment could be seen as a joke.
Politically however, she is committed to ousting scrutiny by the Courts of the lawfulness of Government.
Whatever your politics, the Supreme Court came down twice in favour of our elected Parliament, latterly to ensure Johnson could not abuse a prorogation power to shut it down. The Internal Market Bill now gives ministers the power, not only to interpret the Protocol, but to disapply or modify its effect to the extent of nullifying a treaty obligation entered into by the UK Government, as they see fit.
It excludes parliamentary scrutiny and attempts to exclude judicial scrutiny of the lawfulness of all ministerial actions thereunder. There is a distinctly un-British, totalitarian undercurrent to our Cummings-led Government, being disguised by Jester-in-Chief Johnson, as a defence of British interests. We should be very wary.
