Tory rebellion widens over Boris Johnson's bill
to override Brexit deal
Criticism grows of plan to break international law as
EU calls for bill to be dropped
Simon
Murphy, Daniel Boffey and Owen Bowcott
Sun 13 Sep
2020 21.00 BSTLast modified on Mon 14 Sep 2020 00.11 BST
Boris
Johnson has described the internal market bill as a ‘legal safety net’, but it
has attracted anger among EU members.
Downing
Street is facing a showdown with Conservative backbench rebels as criticism
over its plans to break international law with a new controversial bill that
could override parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement grew louder on Sunday.
It is
understood that opposition among the party is growing, with dozens of Tory MPs
expected to support a key amendment to the internal market bill that would give
parliament a crucial veto of any changes to the agreement.
MPs will
have an opportunity to air their opposition during a second reading and debate
of the bill on Monday, when it will also be put to a vote before passing to
committee stage. A number of Tory MPs intend to abstain on Monday’s vote, with
up to 30 expected to back the amendment tabled by Sir Bob Neill, chair of the
justice select committee, next week.
Geoffrey
Cox, Boris Johnson’s former attorney general, broke cover on Sunday evening to
say he could not support the bill, describing the government’s plan as
“unconscionable”.
The shadow
Cabinet Office minister, Rachel Reeves, confirmed that Labour would also vote
against the bill in its current form.
Neill, who
will be abstaining on Monday, told the Guardian: “I’ve had some very positive
support from fellow Conservative MPs, significantly from both people who
supported Brexit, as well as remainers. I’m confident that support is growing.”
His
comments come as the justice secretary, Robert Buckland, said he would resign
if the law was “broken in a way that I find unacceptable” but stressed that “we
are not at that stage”. He told BBC One’s the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday that
the legislation was a “break the glass in emergency provision if we need it”.
Lord
Thomas, the lord chief justice of England and Wales from 2013 to 2017, said he
did not accept Buckland’s argument and in effect called on him to consider his
position. Referencing the resignation of Jonathan Jones, the head of the
government’s legal department, he told BBC Radio on Sunday: “Obviously Sir
Jonathan felt that the situation was such that he felt he could not continue. I
do not see the lord chancellor [Buckland] being in any different position.”
Former
prime ministers Sir John Major and Tony Blair also criticised the threat to
break international law over the weekend. In a joint article written for the Sunday
Times, the pair urged MPs to reject the legislation, saying it imperiled the
Irish peace process, trade negotiations and the UK’s integrity.
Writing in
the Times on Monday, Cox said: “When the Queen’s minister gives his word, on
her behalf, it should be axiomatic that he will keep it, even if the
consequences are unpalatable.”
Meanwhile,
a new war of words broke out on Twitter between Downing Street’s chief
negotiator, David Frost, and his EU counterpart, Michel Barnier, over the
Northern Ireland protocol, under which it would continue to enforce EU customs
and follow product standards rules to prevent a hard border on the island of
Ireland.
Frost
claimed the EU had made it clear there is no guarantee it will add Britain to
its list of approved third countries for food imports. But Barnier said it
needed details from the UK on its future health standards for food, plant and
animal origin products for export, known as sanitary and phytosanitary
standards.
Neill said
his amendment would not reach parliament until the second week of debates but
would “allow time for momentum to grow,” adding: “Ministers will be under
pressure to explain what their opposition is to a parliamentary lock. The
amendment doesn’t actually remove these clauses from the bill. Some people will
say: ‘You ought to go further and take them out completely.’ But this is done
in the spirit of compromise if the government really needs to use them in an
emergency.
“What you
can do is have the provision in the bill but you wouldn’t actually activate it
until the House of Commons, on a minister’s motion, specifically authorised
those clauses to come into effect by voting for it.”
In an
extraordinary scene in the Commons last week, the Northern Ireland secretary,
Brandon Lewis, admitted that the proposed bill “does break international law in
a very specific and limited way”. The bill, which would give ministers powers
to “disapply” part of the deal signed by Johnson last year, has infuriated
Brussels.
Writing for
the Telegraph on Saturday, Johnson claimed that he had been anxious in recent
weeks as negotiators believed there was a “serious misunderstanding” about the
terms of the withdrawal agreement. He wrote: “We are now hearing that, unless
we agree to the EU’s terms, the EU will use an extreme interpretation of the
Northern Ireland protocol to impose a full-scale trade border down the Irish
Sea.” Johnson described the internal market bill as a “legal safety net”, to
“protect the free flow of goods and services between NI and the rest of the
UK”.
After its
expected passage through its second reading on Monday, the bill will come
before the committee stage on Tuesday and Wednesday but, because of scheduling,
Neill’s amendment is unlikely to be voted on in parliament until the following
week, when there will be another two days of debate.
The
opposition is unlikely to overcome the government’s 80-seat majority but
provides another headache for Downing Street amid growing discontent among
Conservative MPs following a series of high-profile U-turns this year over
Covid-19 policy decisions. Former Tory leaders Theresa May and Sir Michael
Howard have spoken out against the new bill.
Neill said
he hoped other parties might also support his amendment. Reeves said Labour
“would need to look at the detail” of Neill’s amendment before deciding to back
it, and that it would be tabling amendments of its own.
Tory MP
Tobias Ellwood, chair of the defence select committee, and one of the
Conservatives backing Neill’s amendment and abstaining on Monday’s vote, said:
“This isn’t about a rebellion, this is about advancing the strategies to ensure
we don’t lose sight of who we are and what we stand for and that is absolutely
critical in these dangerous and changing times.
“Britain is
one of the founding fathers of modern democracy and international law and at a
time when the rules-based order is eroding, we should be seen to defend it
rather than undermine it.”
The veteran
Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale said that he would be both voting against the
internal market bill and supporting Neill’s amendment. “As far as I’m
concerned, there is an international agreement that we signed up to freely and
willingly and which we must now honour. End of story,” he said.
Meanwhile,
there were new calls from Brussels and EU capitals on Sunday for the internal
market bill to be dropped. After a phone call with Ireland’s taoiseach, Micheál
Martin, the president of the European council, Charles Michel, tweeted:
“Withdrawal agreement to be fully implemented, ensure peace and stability in
Ireland and preserve the integrity of single market. Time for UK government to
take its responsibilities. International credibility of UK signature at stake.”
France’s EU
affairs minister, Clément Beaune, said it would be inconceivable for London to
adopt a bill that would partly contradict the agreement ratifying its divorce
from the EU.
The escalating delinquency of Boris Johnson and
his gang of blue anarchists
Andrew Rawnsley
What kind of Tory government jeopardises the union and
tears up the rule of law?
Sun 13 Sep
2020 09.00 BSTLast modified on Sun 13 Sep 2020 12.40 BST
‘My word is my bond is not a motto by which Boris
Johnson has ever lived his life’
‘
For people
who present themselves as super-patriots, Boris Johnson and his coterie at
Number 10 have a craze for despoiling everything that the world once regarded
as the best of British. The independence of the judiciary, the success of the
BBC, the impartiality of the civil service and the authority of parliament -
all have been bricked and bottled by the blue anarchists. When the Tory leader
tried his prorogation stunt last autumn, he was even prepared to taint the
position of the Queen by giving her illegal advice. Now their delinquency has
escalated to explicitly tearing up the rule of law. That foundation stone of
British democracy and lodestar of our country’s international reputation, the
principle that once had no more passionate champion than the Conservative
party, is no longer safe from them.
It was an
extraordinary moment when a member of the cabinet stood before parliament to
declare that the government plans to intentionally break international law by
unilaterally rewriting sections of the withdrawal agreement with the EU. Number
10 then confirmed that Mr Johnson was ready to violate a treaty that he
negotiated less than a year ago, made the centrepiece of his pitch to the
British people at the election last December, and then had the Commons rapidly
ratify in January. The agreement he once flourished as a “wonderful” triumph
for his personal diplomacy is now described by Number 10 as a rushed botch that
the prime minister never liked. Breaching of a treaty that he himself signed and
advocated sets a fresh standard of brazenness.
The anger
of European leaders has not surprised Number 10. Some there, those who think
spitting in someone’s face is an effective form of diplomacy, report that it
was a deliberately incendiary act.
A regime
with an unveiled contempt for both officials and conventions probably shrugged
at the resignation of Sir Jonathan Jones as the head of the government’s legal
department. Nor do they seem bothered that they have hideously compromised the
offices of the attorney general and the lord chancellor who have both sworn
solemn oaths to uphold the law. Theresa May and Sir John Major are among the
senior Tories shocked to find that an allegedly Conservative government wants
to turn Britain into a treaty-breaking renegade state. Sir John warns: “If we
lose our reputation for honouring the promises we make, we will have lost
something without price.” Grave reprimands from two of his predecessors would
have troubled previous prime ministers, but not this one. My word is my bond is
not a motto by which Boris Johnson has ever lived his life.
Even the
zealots at Number 10 may have a tremor of self-doubt when they are losing Tory
elders as Brexity as Lord Howard
What may
disturb him, at least a bit, is the vehemence of the reaction from some on the
right of his party. No one has excoriated him as fiercely as Michael Howard, a
veteran Eurosceptic. That former Tory leader makes the excellent point that the
“severe damage” done to Britain’s moral authority will make it harder to
criticise international law-breaking by the likes of China, Russia and Iran.
Norman Lamont, the former Tory chancellor and one of the first prophets of
Brexit, weighed in to say that the government had got itself into a “terrible
mess”. Even the zealots at Number 10 may have a tremor of self-doubt when they
are losing Tory elders as Brexity as Lords Howard and Lamont.
The trigger
for this simultaneous descent towards rogue nation status and lurch to the
brink of a crash-out Brexit was the deadlock in the talks with the EU. It is no
surprise that they have proved much more difficult than the Brexiters sought to
pretend during the referendum campaign, when the negotiation was going be a
“piece of cake”, and again in the run up to the December election, when Mr
Johnson promised that his “oven-ready deal” would secure “a fantastic new trade
agreement with the EU”. As some of us remarked at the time, “Get Brexit Done”
was both the most effective slogan of the Tories’ election campaign and the
most mendacious.
What was
harder to anticipate is that the negotiations have got into most serious
difficulty over the issue of business subsidies. In return for continuing
access to its single market, the EU wants the UK to comply with restrictions on
state aid to prevent companies this side of the Channel gaining an unfair
advantage. These competition rules flowed from the creation of the single
market that was driven by Margaret Thatcher. If the Iron Lady were still with
us, she would be melting in horror that a government that calls itself
Conservative is fighting to the brink for the right to use market-distorting
subsidies. And imagine her bewilderment at discovering that a French politician
is leading the other side of the argument. The main reason this has become such
a contentious issue is Dominic Cummings. Many excellent sources report that the
prime minister’s chief adviser has an obsessive ambition to direct large
amounts of government aid in support of tech ventures. Sensible Tories boggle
that their government would trash Britain’s reputation as a trustworthy
international partner, wreck our trade and security relations with our closest
neighbours and risk the prospects of many existing British businesses so that
Number 10’s self-appointed genius can fantasise that he is a cross between Elon
Musk, Sergey Brin and Masayoshi Son while splashing taxpayers’ money at any
“moonshot” idea that launches off the top of his head. This is a most surreal
place for the Conservative party to have got to.
A growing
band of Tories can see this. Revulsion with international law-breaking has
combined with the many discontents about the handling of the coronavirus crisis
to add to the febrility among Conservative MPs. When I put in a call to one
senior Tory, our conversation began with him asking: “Covid or Brexit? Which
shitshow do you want to talk about?”
Among those
Tories who still believe that the rule of law matters, a rebellion is gathering
weight. Even if the prime minister gets his way in the Commons, his scheme will
be ripped apart in the Lords, where there are many peers who take issues of
constitutionality very seriously. There is no sign of the EU flinching in the
face of blustery Johnsonian brinkmanship with which they are now highly
familiar. Rather, their unity has hardened around the threat of trade and
financial sanctions if he doesn’t back down by the end of the month.
It is
characteristic of the tight and self-admiring bubble at Number 10 that they
embarked down this dangerous road without considering how other powerful
political forces might react. They particularly neglected to consider that the
Irish American caucus in Washington would respond angrily to illegal meddling
with the special protocols on Northern Ireland. On both sides of the aisle,
congressmen and women are lambasting the Johnson government’s latest manoeuvre
as a risk to the Good Friday agreement. If they are hostile to Britain, there
is no prospect of securing a trade agreement with the US, which the Brexiters
have always held out as one of the great prizes of their enterprise.
There are
plenty of skilled diplomats and civil servants working for the British
government with the connections and expertise to have spotted how badly this
reckless gambit would backfire, but the behaviour of Number 10 deters them from
offering candid advice. As one senior Tory puts it: “The climate of fear in
Whitehall that they (Johnson and Cummings) have created means that officials do
not rush to warn them when they are about to make a mistake.”
Continuing
down this road will also increase the threat to the integrity of the United
Kingdom and make it that much more conceivable that history records Boris
Johnson as the prime minister who lost Scotland. The Nationalists have already
prospered mightily from Scottish resentment that they are being forced into a
Brexit the majority of them opposed by a Tory government that an even larger
majority didn’t want. A disaster Brexit occurring in the months immediately
leading up to next spring’s election to the Holyrood parliament will be all
their Hogmanays at once for the SNP. That would surely guarantee them a
thumping victory that they would then exploit to claim an irresistible mandate
for another referendum on independence. In the words of a Conservative who once
held a very senior position in the cabinet: “A no-deal Brexit will put
rocket-boosters under Nicola Sturgeon. What is a Tory government doing putting
the United Kingdom at so much risk?”
What
indeed? Perhaps that senior Tory asks the wrong question about a government
that vandalises so many of the principles and institutions that Conservatives
once cherished. Of a regime that violates international law and jeopardises the
union, Tories should really be asking themselves: is this a Conservative
government at all?
• Andrew
Rawnsley is Chief Political Commentator of the Observer
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário