[ad_1]
Updated 36 minutes ago
BORIS JOHNSON HAS suffered a major defeat for his controversial Brexit legislation, as his peers organized votes to remove powers that would allow ministers to violate international law.
Former Conservative leader Lord Howard of Lympne led calls for the Prime Minister to “think again” and remove the contentious parts of the UK Internal Market Bill, warning that the Government is using the language of “lawbreakers. law “everywhere.
Cross-party amendments were tabled to remove clauses linked to the most controversial part of the bill, namely the fifth part, which gives ministers the power to breach the Brexit divorce deal, known as the Withdrawal Agreement, negotiated with Brussels last year.
The House of Lords voted 433 to 165, majority 268, to remove section 42, one of the clauses in dispute, and section 43 was removed without a vote.
This was the first of two votes expected to remove the relevant sections that make up the fifth part.
Ministers have insisted that powers are needed to override the Withdrawal Agreement to protect the relationship between Britain and Northern Ireland, but critics argue the powers are not necessary.
Baroness Angela Smith, Labor leader in the House of Lords, said in a statement: “I am sure some in government will initially react boldly and try to dismiss tonight’s historic votes in the Lords.
To do so, however, would underestimate the genuine and serious concerns in the UK and beyond that ministers put themselves above and beyond the rule of law.
The Government should make sense, accept the removal of these offensive clauses and begin to rebuild our international reputation.
Peers continued to inflict a further defeat on the Government by 407 votes to 148, majority 259, eliminating an additional contentious clause related to the Northern Ireland Protocol.
All other controversial provisions were removed without a vote.
Legislation
The legislation aims to make changes to the way intra-UK trade will operate after it leaves the single market and the EU customs union. This includes making decisions about Northern Ireland that are contrary to the Withdrawal Agreement it ratified this year.
Cross-party amendments were tabled to remove clauses linked to the most controversial part of the bill, the ‘Fifth Part’, which gives a British minister the power to violate the Withdrawal Agreement and make unilateral decisions in relation to Northern Ireland without consulting the EU.
Peers were expected to take the unusual step of voting at the committee stage (marked with a ‘C’ in this graphic) to remove these sections from the bill, rather than waiting for the reporting stage at the end of the process, which indicates the level of opposition to the measures.
Ministers have insisted that powers are needed to override the Withdrawal Agreement to protect the relationship between Britain and Northern Ireland, but critics argue the powers are not necessary.
Speaking ahead of expected votes, Howard said “nothing has changed” since Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis admitted the bill violates international law in a “very specific and limited way.”
He said: “Since then, to my knowledge, no government minister has tried to retract his words.
“Instead, what ministers have done, both in the House of Lords and elsewhere, is to try to defend that circumstances make it convenient to violate international law.
Isn’t that what lawbreakers always say? Isn’t that the excuse of lawbreakers everywhere? What kind of precedent is the government setting when it admits that position?
How can we blame other countries – Russia, China, Iran – if their behavior becomes reprehensible when we ourselves have so little regard for the treaties we sign, when we ourselves set such a deplorable example?
Howard, a Brexit supporter, continued: “There have been some suggestions that opposition to this part of the bill is in some way the last charge of the Remainers.
“That suggestion has a very dangerous implication for those who promote it.
“It implies that only those who voted for us to stay in the European Union care about the rule of law, or the importance of keeping words, or the sanctity of international treaties.
“Fortunately, I am in a position that allows me to confidently contradict that implication. I voted and campaigned for Brexit and not for a moment do I regret or retract that vote.
No news is bad news
Support the magazine
your contributions help us continue to deliver the stories that are important to you
Support us now
“But I want the independent sovereign state I voted for to be a country that holds its head high in the world, keeps its word, upholds the rule of law, and upholds its treaty obligations.”
Other contributions
Many trade unionists are “deeply frustrated” by the proposed trade deals between Northern Ireland and Britain at the end of the transition period, said Nigel Dodds.
The former Westminster leader of the DUP told the Lords: “Just as it is unacceptable for nationalists to have such a border on the island of Ireland, it is equally unacceptable to create barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
“That is why we strongly believe that part of the emphasis on the Belfast Accord that has been made in this House and elsewhere I think it has made a mistake in emphasizing one side of the situation.
Many, many trade unionists are deeply, deeply frustrated and angry tonight in Northern Ireland at the way it is okay to have a free border from north to south, but you can do whatever you want from east to west.
“We must reach reasonable and pragmatic arrangements.”
Igor Judge, a fellow independent from all walks of life, a former head of the judiciary, advised that the House of Lords should be “neither complicit nor supine” and should vote against the bill’s clauses.
Richard Newby, Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords, added: “If we cannot have a say on a matter of deliberate violation of the law by the government, we can also pack our bags now.”
Conservative Baroness Noakes said the bill was a “responsible approach by the government to protect the interests of the United Kingdom, but particularly the interests of Northern Ireland.”
Former Conservative Chancellor Lord Mackay spoke of his “shock” at the British government’s move, insisting that the rule of law is a fundamental part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements.
Tory Lord Cormack said that the clauses that violate the law in the bill should disappear and threatened to vote against them “over and over again” if necessary.
[ad_2]