The Times - UK (2020-09-15)

6 2GM Tuesday September 15 2020 | the times

News

Boris Johnson accused Brussels of put-

ting a “revolver on the table” last night

as he fought to quell a rebellion from

the government benches against a bill

that ministers have admitted breaks

international law.

The prime minister said the EU was

“threatening to carve tariff borders

across our own country” and that the

UK Internal Market Bill, which seeks to

override aspects of the Northern Ire-

land protocol, was to “neutralise that

threat”.

The protocol, which the government

agreed to last year, kicks in in the event

of a no-deal Brexit to prevent a hard

border in Ireland. The bill, which Mr

Johnson is trying to fast-track this

week, seeks to alter aspects of that

agreement “notwithstanding” domes-

tic or international law.

Mr Johnson argued last night that

the legislation’s purpose was “to protect

this country against the EU’s proven

willingness to use this delicately bal-

anced protocol in ways for which it was

never intended,” such as blocking the

transfer of animal products from Great

Britain to Northern Ireland.

“I understand how some people will

feel unease over the use of these pow-

ers. I share that sentiment myself, and I

have absolutely no desire to use these

measures. They are an insurance

policy,” he said.

Sir Charles Walker, vice-chairman

of the Tory 1992 Committee, urged Mr

Johnson to exhaust all other options

before we “press the nuclear button”.

“I’m not going to be voting for this bill

at second reading because if you keep

whacking a dog, don’t be surprised

when it bites you back,” he said.

Stephen Hammond, a former Con-

servative minister, said the country

“does not break international law just

because it doesn’t like the compromise

it signed up to”.

Andrea Leadsom, the former Com-

mons leader, backed the government

and said the European Commission’s

Q&A

What happened last

night?

MPs passed the second

reading of Boris

Johnson’s Internal

Markets Bill, but sent a

shot across his bows.

What argument did

Boris Johnson make to

try to win round the

rebels?

He claimed that the EU

had threatened to

“blockade” Northern

Ireland and cut it off

from trade with the rest

of the United Kingdom.

He said EU

negotiators had made

clear that if the two

sides failed to reach an

agreement “to their

satisfaction” then they

might “very well refuse

to list the UK’s food and

agricultural products for

sale anywhere in the

EU”. This, he said, would

create “an instant and

automatic prohibition of

the transfer of our

animal products from

Great Britain to

Northern Ireland”.

Who in the EU made

the threat to ban

British exports to

Northern Ireland?

The government has

refused to discuss when

the threat was made or

who made it.

Why are so many

Conservative MPs

angry about the

government’s stance?

They believe the

government has thrown

out one of the most

important principles of

British statecraft:

respect for the rule of

law. They argue that this

will reduce Britain’s

standing in the world.

Would the bill stop the

EU from “blockading”

food being sent to

Northern Ireland?

Oddly, no. This bill does

not give ministers the

power to define what

customs and food

safety checks are

necessary for products

being sent to Northern

Ireland. It only allows

them to define what

checks, if any, are

necessary on goods

crossing in the other

direction and what

constitutes state aid.

What happens next?

The bill will go into a

committee of the whole

house to debate it line

by line. The critical

clauses on Northern

Ireland are due to come

up next week and there

will certainly be

attempts to amend or

delete them.

One amendment has

already been tabled by

the Conservative

chairman of the justice

select committee Sir

Bob Neill that would

require the government

to come back to the

Commons before

implementing any

changes to the state aid

regime in Northern

Ireland or checks on

goods passing from the

province to the UK.

However, it doesn’t stop

the bill breaching the

withdrawal agreement.

The bill will then go to

the House of Lords.

Could the government

withdraw the

controversial clauses?

Downing Street is

insisting that it will not

back down.

Quentin Letts

Ed and Boris face off

in this game of drones

C

ompared to last autumn’s

Brexit neuralgia, this was

fading thunder on a

humid Indian-summer

eve. As parliamentary

theatre, last night’s debate did not

throb or flash. It was little more

exciting than the proposal’s title —

the United Kingdom Internal

Market Bill — which hardly evoked

the Ronnie Biggs criminality being

alleged by the government’s critics.

In this Covid-secure Commons, it

was never going to be easy to whip

up a storm. The chamber can only

accommodate about 50 MPs and

although several tried to crowd in at

the double doors, they were soon

told to push off by a doorkeeper

enforcing coronavirus rules. David

Davis, sometime Brexit secretary,

tried to put his snout round the

door. “You can’t stand there, sir.”

Exit DD, with one of his shrugs.

Back to the computer-screen

solitaire.

Boris Johnson opened the debate,

a last-minute change to the team-

sheet.

It spared us the ordeal of having

to listen to that incorrigible rabble-

rouser Alok Sharma, secretary of

state for business. For once, the PM

had done his prep. The Commons is

not his strongest arena but he

pushed efficiently through his

speech, taking enough

interventions to be respectable. He

slapped the dispatch box like a

barmaid’s bottom and said the EU

had been behaving disgracefully.

Brussels was refusing to “take its

revolver off the negotiating table”.

No minister, no government could

support this monstrously

unreasonable approach to the

Withdrawal Agreement.

Political Sketch

News Politics

Brussels put a gun on the table,

conduct had been “utterly unaccept-

able” in the trade negotiations and that

it had not acted in good faith.

Another pro-government voice

came from Sir Bernard Jenkin, a

senior Tory who chairs the liaison com-

mittee, who said: “Much has been said

about the potential to lose the respect

of the international community, but

what will other nations think if this

great and sovereign nation cannot

bring itself to accept we made a mistake

ratifying this agreement?... The UK

will gain respect if we extricate our-

selves from the worst.”

Sir Oliver Heald, a former solicitor-

general, has expressed his unhappiness

at the government claiming precedent

for breaking international law.

“For our country to break its word

and to breach international law is just

not something that we do,” he said.

Sammy Wilson, the DUP chief whip,

said the bill would allow the govern-

ment to fulfil, in part, its obligations to

the people of Northern Ireland.

Hilary Benn, the Labour chairman

of the Brexit select committee, said:

“There is a moral here. The first moral

is read stuff before you sign it, and the

second moral is don’t go round telling

the world that the United Kingdom

cannot be trusted to keep its word.”

Sir Bob Neill, the Tory chairman of

the justice select committee, said there

was much to support in the bill aside

from the “egregious, needless and

potentially damaging” clause which

would lead the UK “into breach of its

international obligations”. He has pro-

posed an amendment that would re-

move from the bill the clause that

would break international law, and

which may draw considerable support

from Tory MPs later this week.

Ed Miliband urged Mr Johnson to

take responsibility for the situation,

saying: “This is his deal, it’s his mess, it’s

his failure.” Mr Miliband was standing

in for the Labour leader Sir Keir Starm-

er who was isolating because a member

of his household had developed poss-

ible coronavirus symptoms.

Eleni Courea Political Reporter