[ad_1]
Government sources called for calm Sunday night, but suspected gambling may be behind reports that the Boris Johnson government could go ahead with legislation to undermine Brexit trade talks.
The Financial Times reported Sunday night that the UK was considering using sections of the legislation to be published on Wednesday to “remove the legal force from parts of the withdrawal agreement”, including those involving state aid and Irish customs from the North.
That would undermine the Northern Ireland deal the prime minister signed last October.
A senior Irish government source warned that knee-jerk reaction should be avoided. The EU Brexit task force will seek clarification on the story, which the source said was the most appropriate forum.
A second government source speculated that the story could be a negotiating tactic. The source emphasized that the withdrawal agreement between Brussels and London is legally binding and that Britain’s word would be worthless if it breached the agreement.
Foreign Minister Simon Coveney tweeted, referring to the story, that it would be “a very reckless way to proceed.”
In a statement Sunday night, Johnson said the European Council needed to sign a trade deal on October 15 if it was to be in force before the end of the year. “So there is no point in thinking about timelines that go beyond that point. If we can’t agree by then, then I don’t see there is a free trade agreement between us, and we should both accept it and move on. “
He said the UK would then have a “Australia-like” trade deal with the EU. “I have said from the beginning that it would be a good result for the UK.”
He said that under such an agreement the UK would have full control over fishing laws, regulations and waters and would close trade deals with every country in the world “and as a result we will prosper enormously.” He said that “there is still an agreement to be reached. . . but we cannot and we will not compromise the fundamentals of what it means to be an independent country to achieve it. “
‘Extremely worrying’
Fine Gael TD for Dublin Rathdown Neale Richmond, who chaired the Seanad Brexit committee during the last government administration, said the reports, if true, “would be an extremely worrying and reckless path for the British government.”
“The Withdrawal Agreement is an International Treaty with obligations under International Law. It cannot simply be overridden by national law. “
The Financial Times reported that the UK is planning new legislation that will overturn key parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement, risking the collapse of trade negotiations with Brussels.
Sections of the domestic market bill, due to be released Wednesday, are expected to “remove the legal force from parts of the withdrawal agreement” in areas including state aid and Northern Ireland customs, according to three people familiar with the plans. .
The move would “clearly and consciously” undermine the Northern Ireland deal that Boris Johnson signed last October to prevent a return to a hard border in the region, a person with knowledge of the plans said.
Last week, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier warned that “a precise implementation of the withdrawal agreement” was vital to the success of the trade talks and a key issue of trust between the two sides.
“It’s a very powerful instrument,” said one of those familiar with the subject. “The bill will state explicitly that the government reserves the right to establish its own regime, directly establishing UK law in opposition to the obligations arising from the withdrawal agreement, and with full knowledge that this will violate international law.” .
Invoice clauses
The UK Internal Market Bill, outlined in a 100-page white paper in July, is designed to ensure the “smooth running” of trade between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland after the UK leave the single market and the EU customs union at the end of this year.
But some clauses in the bill will effectively nullify parts of the so-called Northern Ireland protocol, which was signed alongside the withdrawal agreement in October and has angered prominent Brexit-supporting MPs who see it as a threat to British sovereignty.
A British government spokesman said it was “working hard to resolve outstanding issues” with the Northern Ireland protocol. The spokesperson added: “As a responsible government, we are considering alternative options in the event this is not achieved to ensure that Northern Ireland communities are protected.”
Under the withdrawal agreement, the UK must notify Brussels of any State aid decisions affecting the Northern Ireland goods market and oblige companies in the province to submit customs formalities when shipping goods to the rest of the UK. But clauses on the domestic market and finance bills will force UK courts to follow the new UK law rather than the EU deal, diluting the protocol’s ability to meddle in state aid policy. from United Kingdom.
The fall finance bill, used to convert the chancellor’s budget into law, is also expected to overwrite a third aspect of Northern Ireland’s protocol covering the payment of tariffs on goods entering the region, according to those familiar with the plans.
‘Nuclear option’
Officials say the plans risk poisoning the prospects for a last-minute deal.
Lord Frost, the UK’s chief negotiator, has already deepened tensions ahead of negotiations set to resume in London on Tuesday, saying in a Sunday newspaper interview that the UK would not become a “client state” of the European Union.
A second person familiar with the impending bill said Lord Frost had personally pushed for the decision to take the “nuclear option” of overwriting the withdrawal agreement, despite progress in talks on implementing the Irish protocol.
Christophe Hansen, the lead MEP in the European Parliament for the adoption of the future trade agreement, told the Financial Times that full respect for the withdrawal agreement was a central issue of “trust” and a “litmus test” of the UK’s will. to honor the agreements with Brussels.
“It is very important for us to see that it gets under way,” he said, warning that otherwise the EU could not be sure that Britain will abide by any future association agreements. – Additional reporting copyright The Financial Times Limited 2020
[ad_2]