Sausages at dawn as UK defies international law (well, the EC anyway)

 The UK Government has begun steps to reform the NI Protocol at last.Naturally,  the Gruan puts the EU side front and centre. First this

EU poised to take legal action against UK over Northern Ireland protocol bill

 [The UK Government] 'justified the move under a principle called the “doctrine of necessity”, claiming the protocol was causing “peril” to society and politics in Northern Ireland because of the threat to the Good Friday agreement.

But the EU said it would launch legal action for infringing the protocol and a majority of members of the Northern Ireland assembly accused Johnson of being the reckless one by destabilising the Good Friday agreement.

Under the new legislation, which is likely to face considerable opposition in parliament, the government would scrap checks for firms selling goods from Great Britain destined for Northern Ireland rather than the EU. Instead, the government envisages the creation of a “green lane” of fewer checks for those selling goods heading for Northern Ireland and a “red lane” with existing checks for goods destined for EU countries.

It would also allow firms in Great Britain exporting to Northern Ireland to choose between meeting EU or UK standards on regulation, which are expected to increasingly diverge.

Further measures include bringing Northern Ireland’s tax break and spending policies into line with the rest of the UK, and changing oversight of trade disputes so that they are resolved by independent arbitration rather than the European court of justice – a clause pushed by Conservative Eurosceptics.

 In another piece :

The EU has vowed to use “all measures at its disposal” in response to the government bill that would unilaterally override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol – a step Brussels, and many on Conservative backbenchers [sic]  [but see below] , see as a flagrant breach of international law.

the EU is likely to restart an old legal complaint and trigger new ones over the government’s alleged failure to implement parts of the Northern Ireland protocol. Under the protocol, Northern Ireland remains in the EU’s single market for goods and the European court of justice has jurisdiction.

Last March Brussels started legal action against the government, after the government announced that supermarkets and their suppliers would not have to comply with a host of EU food rules, a unilateral extension of a grace period. The EU suspended its legal action in July as a goodwill gesture to help restart talks, but is now likely to revive this case, which could end with the ECJ imposing daily fines

The European Commission has other gripes about British implementation of the protocol: including a unilateral decision to waive some checks on cold meats and alleged failure to provide data and build border inspection posts. The complaints, which the UK disputes, could also end up in the ECJ...[but that will soon have no jurisdiction of course]

British participation in the EU’s €96bn (£81bn) Horizon research programme? A memo on financial services to create a talking shop on regulation? A deal on returning asylum seekers to the EU? No chance. These mooted agreements will remain in the deep freeze for the duration of the dispute over the Northern Ireland protocol.

[But, for any sort of escalation of a trade war, much floated by the media]...

The EU has to go through the exacting dispute-settlement process outlined in the Brexit withdrawal agreement. First the case would go to the ministerial joint committee led by the foreign secretary, Liz Truss, and the European Commission vice-president Maroš Šefčovič. The next step would be an independent arbitration panel that can impose fines on the guilty party. Only in the event of persistent rule-breaking can the EU-UK trade deal be suspended. EU governments, which are also grappling with the soaring cost of living, hope to avoid what they see as a pointless, costly row.

While British negotiators hope tabling the bill will force compromises, the threat has triggered the opposite response: the EU has united in defence of the protocol.

The E is not the only body to unite though. Lastly 

Bulk of Tory MPs stand firm behind Northern Ireland protocol bill

Sir Roger Gale, the North Thanet MP, was among the only Conservatives to express strong reservations, saying: “The legislation appears to be in breach of articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna convention on international treaties ratified by the UK in 1971. I don’t see how I or any member of parliament can vote for a breach of international law.”

Stephen Hammond, another Conservative MP and former remainer, also added his voice of criticism, saying: “Many colleagues are very concerned that this bill will breach international law and the commitments we have freely entered into … There is frustration about why now and how we are proceeding.”

However, the bulk of the 148 Conservative MPs who voted against Johnson’s leadership decided not to criticise the prime minister’s legislation, which has attracted a scathing response from Ireland and the rest of the EU.

Returning to the issue which the EU has neglected, and which their spokesperson dismissed last night in a liberal waffle about the need to overcome DUP objections through a wide-ranging discussion among 'all the communities' in Northern Ireland

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP leader, welcomed the Northern Ireland protocol bill on Tuesday, but said the party would revive the Stormont assembly only if the bill progressed at Westminster.

“Parliament can either choose to go forward with the [Good Friday] agreement and the political institutions and stability in Northern Ireland, or the protocol, but it can’t have both,” he told BBC...

The Northern Ireland protocol and Good Friday agreement cannot exist together. One seriously harms the other. The protocol undermines the cross-community consensus on which the political institutions operate.”

Meanwhile, the GHraun claims that

Legal opinion also coalesced against the government’s claim to justify the breaking of international law under the “doctrine of necessity”.

 They quote one lawyer in support of this, a certain:

Dr Ronan Cormacain, senior research fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law [This is a charity aiming at promoting the rule of law supported by a number of charities including the Sigrid Raussing Trust, a Human Rights fund)