this Northern Ireland A government lawyer told a Belfast court that the Brexit agreement did not “undermine” Northern Ireland’s constitutional status in the UK, as some unionists have said.
Tony McGleenan QC is defending the agreement and opposes the legal challenge presented by unionist politicians such as Jim Allister, the leader of traditional union voices, former Labour Party MP Kate Hoey, and former Labour Party MP Kate Hoey. Brexit Party MEP Ben Habib.
In a landmark case, they questioned that the withdrawal agreement and parliamentary bill changed the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and conflicted with the Union Act of 1800.
McGleenan rejected these arguments. He told the senior judge: “The constitutional status of Northern Ireland has not changed.”
He added: “We said that some suggestions for unions to disintegrate are unsustainable.”
this Northern Ireland Agreement It came into effect on January 1, and compulsory inspection and control of goods from the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland. This is because Northern Ireland is still in the UK under the Brexit to avoid compromise on the borders of the island of Ireland, but for trade purposes, in the EU single market, this means that EU customs and standard inspections are still applicable to goods entering the UK. .
Looking back on the process of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, McGlynan believes that the political costs of the Brexit agreement, including the Northern Ireland part, are known to all parties involved, and two of them expressed strong support. It has been “after three years of debate”, and its political power has at least been expressed by the two parties in the case, Habib and Hoey.
Those involved in the case argued that the agreement was illegal because it conflicted with the Trade Union Act and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The High Court rejected their first challenge this summer, and they are appealing the verdict in an expedited trial.
Appellant’s John Larkin QC stated that referring to parliamentary debates and expressing support or otherwise supporting Brexit is a kind of “disturbance” because in law, all that is important is parliamentary “statutory words”.
On Monday, judges were told that the joint bill has the supremacy of the law over the agreement. Larkin told them: “The protocol cannot be effectively enacted because it conflicts with the provisions of the British Constitution-that is, Article 6 of the Joint Act.”
On Tuesday, McGlynan questioned this claim, saying: “The trade union law has an argument of interpretative supremacy; [that] It dominated the later regulations, and we said it was wrong,” he said.
He said that even if there is a conflict between the 1800 law and the protocol, they are “not legally relevant” because Article 7 (a) of the Withdrawal Act allows the protocol to “continue to be effective in domestic law”.
The case is still going on.
