[ad_1]
BREXIT’S CONTROVERISAL POLICY will not survive because it is a matter of the rule of law and not Brexit, an Oireachtas committee has been told.
Members of the UK House of Lords told TDs and senators that the contentious provisions of the UK Internal Market Act were an attempt to force negotiations with the EU.
The British government suffered a defeat yesterday, with its peers backing by 395 votes to 169, majority 226, a “repentance” amendment, condemning the controversial provisions.
The Oireachtas European Affairs Committee heard a colleague describe the disputed legislation as “risky”.
The legislation empowers British ministers to override the Brexit divorce deal.
Stewart Wood, a Labor peer and former Northern Ireland adviser to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, called the motion the “biggest political defeat” since the 1999 House of Lords reform.
“If this vote was seen as about Brexit, it would have limited force, but I think the size of the vote suggests that there was a general consensus, this is more about the rule of law than Brexit, and that has political force,” He said. he told the committee.
I don’t see how the bill can continue unchanged, but that is the political nexus for the next three or four weeks.
Source: Oireachtas.ie
Former diplomat John Kerr said it is clear that the government cannot pass the controversial clause in the bill.
“This clause cannot survive because of the rule of law issue, not the Brexit issue,” he added.
The majority in favor of the ‘repentance’ motion would have been much smaller had it been just a matter of Brexit. “
Conservative Baroness Couttie said evidence is lacking to support the government’s claim that the EU is acting in bad faith.
“If they were, that would mean that the internal market bill with clause 5 inside it did not violate international law,” he told committee members.
I don’t think anyone within the Conservative Party, within the House of Lords or Parliament as a whole wants to violate international law, so there is only a difference of opinion as to where you are in the circumstances of not having obtained none. evidence.
When asked why the British government refuses to use the dispute resolution process, Baroness Couttie said: “I was informally told that the concern was whether the joint committee classified all agricultural and food products that were moved from the UK to Northern Ireland as ‘at risk’, this would cause such an impact on the Northern Ireland economy.
(And) indeed possibly peace in Northern Ireland, given the Unionist desire to remain intact as part of the UK, which would have a serious detrimental impact on the UK in the short term.
However, he said they have received no evidence to back up those claims.
Philippa Roe (Baroness Couttie) speaking today at the Oireachtas Committee.
Source: Oireachtas.ie
Liberal Democrats Jonathan Oates said it is no longer a matter of Brexit, but of the rule of law and the UK’s reputation.
“There is no doubt about the violation of international law, he added.
We take it very seriously. This in its current form will not go through the House of Lords and hopefully the government will see it and remove the relevant part.
He added: “Trust has been undermined. This is probably a risky policy and an attempt to force negotiations; I’m not sure it’s been effective. “
Wood said the controversial clause was included in the bill as a reassurance mechanism for hardline Brexiters.
No news is bad news
Support the magazine
your contributions help us keep delivering the stories that are important to you
Support us now
“It was a sign, don’t worry that if you don’t like things, we may have to agree, because ultimately there will be a legislative provision that will override the things we don’t like,” he told the committee.
“It is an insurance policy for conservative supporters.”
However, Baroness Couttie disagreed and said she suspects that the negotiations between the two parties had become “quite tense”.
“Someone in the negotiations made some comment about his ability to behave in an irritating manner and use the joint committee to block goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as a negotiating threat,” he added.
“The British government’s response to that was Clause 5. They see it as a safety net.”
[ad_2]