[ad_1]
The physical posts will be funded at Northern Ireland ports before the UK leaves the EU, according to a Stormont committee.
Junior Minister Declan Kearney told the committee that the Executive had received information from officials on Monday about the latest stage of Brexit negotiations between the UK government and the EU.
He went on to say that the British government “confirmed that it will urgently establish detailed plans with the Executive, which includes physical posts at ports of entry.”
Northern Ireland will continue to follow EU single market rules for agricultural and manufactured goods after Brexit, while the rest of the UK will stop following these rules in late 2020.
“They have pointed out that to implement the protocol by January 1 in a way that we all want, which of course is to avoid disruption to trade,” Kearney told the committee.
“Delivery of that infrastructure should start as soon as possible, and the British government has indicated that it will provide advice on the requirements and the funding to implement them.”
Kearney described June as a “crucial month” for the Brexit negotiations, signaling the end of that month as the deadline to request an extension of the transition period, which should end by the end of the year.
Read:
The latest Brexit stories
Brexit gears move slowly as deadlines approach
“There will also be a UK and EU stock balance of future relations negotiations in June, which will assess progress after four rounds of negotiations that should have taken place at that time,” he said.
“The third round will take place this week and there will be a fourth round that will start on June 4.”
The comments came when the Sinn Féin MLA along with Junior Minister Gordon Lyons (DUP) presented evidence to the Executive Office committee after attending a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Withdrawal Agreement on March 30.
Kearney added that so far there has been no indication that the UK government is seeking an extension.
He insisted that a decision on the transition “needs to be addressed in the coming weeks,” while Lyons said the decision is not from the Executive Office, but from the UK and the EU.
Committee chairman Colin McGrath pressured junior ministers to pressure London for an extension.
Mr. Kearney replied: “I don’t think it is conceivable that we don’t have that kind of discussion in the Executive given the magnitude of the challenge we face.
“This is a scale of economic challenges that we have not seen before, and Covid-19 has changed everything for us. Our perspective on Brexit, the withdrawal agreement and transition arrangements six months ago has fundamentally changed and changed arising from the last month period as we go through this pandemic. “
Power to allow ministers to change UK law under attack
Meanwhile, a move to give ministers the power to change UK law in implementing post-Brexit international legal deals has faced a barrage of criticism from its peers.
Members of the House of Lords raised constitutional concerns about the provision contained in the legislation that currently passes through the upper house, warning that it was “totally inappropriate” and “goes too far.”
The private international law bill (implementation of agreements) will allow the introduction of international norms used to deal with cross-border legal disputes after leaving the EU.
However, in a move to a long-standing convention, the bill seeks to give the British government the power to enact such agreements through the use of secondary legislation, known as legal instruments, rather than requiring an act of Parliament.
The Committee of the Constitution of Lords has already described the measure as “unjustified and poorly considered.”
Speaking during the detailed scrutiny of the bill at the committee stage, Shadow Attorney General Lord Falconer of Thoroton said in the virtual process: “What you allow the Government to do is through delegated legislation to change the country’s law. .. to give effect to the agreements that have entered into private international law.
“As a matter of constitutional property, this is wrong.”
He argued against giving the government “this totally inappropriate power never used before and for which an adequate justification has not been given.”
Prominent lawyer Lord Pannick said the measure “raises issues of considerable constitutional concern.”
He said: “The concern is that, with the exception of the EU law from which we are extracting ourselves, it is a fundamental principle of our constitution that international agreements can only change the content of our national law if force gives them it forces a law of the Parliament “.
“We believe that there is no justification … to allow our law to be amended by a legal instrument without the need for a full parliamentary debate.”
Lord Pannick argued that the measure “would not only allow the implementation of the text of the international agreement, but would allow for consequential, complementary and incidental provisions.”
He said: “It will allow ministers to create new criminal offenses through legal instruments.
“These are matters for detailed scrutiny of a bill through the various stages of the parliamentary process.”
Highlighting the need to “maintain ministerial responsibility to Parliament”, Lord Pannick added: “This is not an emergency legislation.
“It is a proposal for a permanent change in power to the executive.”
Former Supreme Court Vice President Lord Mance argued that the measure “simply goes too far.”
He said: “Direct parliamentary legislation is possible and appropriate.
“It is unlikely that the government would suggest that, whether it be speed or reputational risk, unlimited power … a delegated legislative power is required for the first time in history to implement any internationally agreed future private international measure.”
He added: “I suggest, therefore, that the Government should think again about the advisability of dealing with important matters, although they may be technical, in the manner proposed indefinitely.”
Co-worker Baroness Taylor de Bolton, chair of the Lords Constitution Committee, said members felt that “it was wrong for international agreements to be dealt with by the government through secondary legislation.”
“I certainly hope the government thinks about this again,” he added.
Former Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Judge said: “The bill unnecessarily grants excessive power to the executive branch through secondary rather than primary legislation.”
In response, Justice Ministry spokesman Lord Keen said restricting ministerial power “would prevent the United Kingdom from implementing future agreements in a timely manner.”
He said, “That, in turn, is going to delay the benefit of those deals for both citizens and businesses.
“I would consider this an unsatisfactory position given that in many cases a considerable advantage can be obtained from such international cooperation in the area of private international law.”
Lord Keen added: “I declare that it is in the interest of the United Kingdom to implement private international agreements in national legislation … without the delay that would inevitably arise if primary legislation were required on every occasion.
“This power I present is both reasonable and proportionate.
“Delays on this matter would be detrimental.”
While there are currently no electronic voting facilities for the Lords’ remote procedures, the peers indicated their opposition to the measure.
It sets the stage for a future showdown and possible defeat for the UK government when the bill returns at the reporting stage.
[ad_2]