The post you are reporting:
From today's Times. So we have a blatant example of ministers choosing to ignore their legally binding responsibilities. Do any of our contributors have an explanation as to why this should be the case?
The decision by Sir Jonathan Jones to resign as the government’s legal chief represents the culmination of more than a year of bitter conflict between officials and ministers.
Sir Jonathan stepped down after advising that plans to change the Brexit deal would breach international law. Ministers initially opted to take a second legal opinion, which reached the same conclusion, before deciding to push ahead regardless.
The Treasury solicitor, who is obliged to uphold the law under the civil service code, felt that he had no choice but to resign.
By contrast Suella Braverman, the attorney-general, and Michael Ellis, the solicitor-general, remain in post.
A former senior government figure said that Sir Jonathan had clashed with Ms Braverman over claims that she failed to stand up to Downing Street. The source said: “He felt that Suella had not properly taken on board the nature of her position as attorney-general.
“He felt that he was struggling to get her to rise above being a party political figure and to exercise her function to provide honest legal advice to the government. He was an outstanding Treasury solicitor and I think he just felt he could not carry on if she wasn’t going to stand up for the basic principles of her role.”
Another insider said that there had been tensions between the two for months, adding: “The job of the attorney-general is to uphold the rule of law and say when something is unlawful.
“And it was also Jonathan’s job under the civil service code not to do anything unlawful. I understand he just felt that in the circumstances he had no choice but to resign. He has always been a discreet man and it is not his style to speak out about it but he has been clearly uncomfortable for some time.”
The enmity between ministers and government lawyers runs deep. Senior figures in government have viewed officials with suspicion since Boris Johnson’s plans to prorogue parliament in an effort to force through his Brexit deal were leaked last year.
Many in the legal profession have been infuriated by repeated criticism of the role of judges.
In turn, the decision by the prime minister and Dominic Cummings, his most senior aide, to target “judicial activism” is said to have infuriated officials.
“The lawyers find this government intolerable because they think they have no respect for the law,” a source said.
“There’s this idea that the law stands in the way of delivering for the British people, there’s a persistent sneering at institutions and the law. They have respect for Dominic Raab [a former foreign office lawyer] but not for Buckland and Suella.”
Heads of the two main branches of the legal profession in Britain also criticised the government over a statement in the Commons by Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, who claimed that the government would breach international law “in a very specific and limited way”.
