John Redwood: This is a Government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers. Chagos proves it

Sir John Redwood is a former MP for Wokingham and a former Secretary of State for Wales, he now sits in the House of Lords.

The Attorney General intervenes widely across government and has considerable influence through being a trusted advisor of the Prime Minister.

Sir Keir Starmer himself as a former government lawyer approaches many problems by asking what the law, Treaties and internal law requires him to do. The problem is the lawyers helping him often seem to give bad advice, and regularly give advice which is unpopular with the public. Voters are fed up with international lawyers telling us what we must do  often favouring the foreigner at the expense of the UK national interest.

We can see bad law leading the Prime Minister astray over the Chagos islands.

First the government asserted that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that we should give the islands to Mauritius would soon result in the UK losing a binding case in the Court. They would then  order us to give the islands away on worse terms . We were told to settle before such an embarrassment. So why hadn’t these lawyers read our Treaty joining the International Court system? This clearly states that the Court cannot make a binding judgement against us on Commonwealth or defence matters. Diego Garcia and Mauritius are in both reserved categories. Many months have passed since we were told the ICJ would tell us what to do, but so far they have not tried such a move.

Worried no doubt by being told this, Ministers shifted to the UN Law of the Sea. Here they had not read far enough into the Treaty when we joined. Clause 298 gives us a clear opt out for defence matters, which our base at Diego Garcia most clearly is. The UK has always reserved the right to exempt defence matters from the Treaty jurisdiction.

These lawyers are usually particularly hot at defending the rights of former colonists of the previous colonising powers like the UK. So why did they announce the giveaway of the Chagos islands without bothering to consult the Chagos islanders. They should have been particularly careful as it was a previous Labour government that evicted the Chagossians from their homeland against their will. When the government did get round to talking to the islanders, now UK citizens, they discovered they do not want their islands given away to Mauritius. The Chagossians want the islands to stay British. So why didn’t this matter?

Worse still, when a few of the islanders decided as UK citizens to return to this British territory the UK government ordered them off their islands. More bad law, as they rapidly lost in Court with a finding they could not order them out. Many of us were particularly angry about this development. Here was a government which said it could not stop illegal migrants with no connection arriving in the UK, yet thought it could stop UK citizens returning to UK land where they originally lived.

The lawyers in the government have done a particularly bad job with illegal arrivals into  the UK. They promised to smash the gangs and stop people arriving here by boat. It should have been a law enforcement issue. Many of those arriving had paid money for an illegal boat trip to criminals who were probably not paying tax and were breaking the safety rules of boat travel. They often arrived without documents to say who they are, how old they are and where they came from.

Instead of the government lawyers strengthening the law to prevent this law breaking they weakened it. They removed the recently legislated but not enforced  provision that no-one arriving legally could then claim asylum. This  could have made a big difference to the numbers coming.

No wonder people are frustrated.

The truth is we elect a Prime Minister and government to tackle the problems of our day. This may well require changing the law. With a large majority this government could have changed the law on migration to get numbers down. Instead it changed the law so numbers rose. We expect our elected government to stand up for UK interests abroad, not to give in to any foreign power or court who want us to pay up and to surrender our assets. When negotiating new Treaties we only want to sign ones where we get a benefit, and where there is a clear exit clause if circumstances change.

The government is negotiating to give more money to the EU and to put us under more of their power to make laws for us. They fail to make a convincing case of how this could possibly help us. They refuse to show Parliament the texts of a new Agreement which will undermine our Brexit freedoms. Why do these lawyers want the EU to make our laws for us, when we will have no effective voice and no vote over what they wish to impose? The UK economy is not short of laws and rules. Importing more from the EU and paying them more money  is more likely to slow our growth further. It will be yet another burden on taxpayers.

The government seems determined to widen the growing gap between itself and the public on Chagos, on immigration and soon also on the EU re set. A government of the lawyers by the lawyers for the lawyers seems too often to find against the UK, its taxpayers and voters. It wants to assert the rights of the EU, of China, of Mauritius to the detriment of our country. No wonder the government becomes ever more unpopular. No wonder as it racks up the bills to pay foreign governments the tax burden gets worse.