[ad_1]
Media playback is not supported by your device
Boris Johnson has told MPs that he believes the EU may not be negotiating with the UK in good faith.
The prime minister was explaining why he wants to overwrite parts of the Brexit deal he signed with the EU in January.
He said it was to prevent the EU from behaving “unreasonably” if the UK does not reach a trade deal.
Pressed by Labor’s Hilary Benn on whether he thought the EU was negotiating in good faith, he said: “I don’t think they are.”
This contradicted Northern Ireland’s secretary, Brandon Lewis, who earlier told MPs that he believed the EU was acting in good faith.
When brought up, Johnson said “it’s always possible for me to be wrong and maybe they’ll prove my suspicions wrong.”
Potential rebellion
Both parties have a duty to act in good faith under article 5 of the withdrawal agreement, but it is difficult to demonstrate a lack of “good faith” or “best efforts”, another phrase enshrined in the treaty.
The legal definition of “good faith” is stronger than the generally accepted meaning of the words.
Johnson told the Liaison Committee, a panel of high-level parliamentarians, that a no-deal scenario “is not what this country wants” and “is not what our friends and partners in the EU want from us.”
“So, I have every hope and expectation that that will not be the result.”
It comes as the prime minister seeks to prevent a possible rebellion by Conservative MPs over his plan to rewrite parts of the withdrawal agreement.
More than 30 Conservative MPs were expected to vote in favor of an amendment to the Internal Market Law next week.
If passed, Sir Bob Neill’s amendment would have given Members the final say on the changes to the withdrawal agreement that are proposed in the Internal Market Act.
The prime minister has now promised to give MPs “an additional layer of parliamentary oversight,” the BBC understands.
‘Belt and suspenders’
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said the ministers’ hope is that this “will prevent rebellion next week.”
Johnson says the Internal Market Act is necessary to protect the UK’s “territorial integrity” if trade talks with the EU fail.
He described it to MPs as a “belt and suspender” measure in the event of “extreme” interpretations of the withdrawal agreement by the EU.
The bill was “to ensure that friends and associates do not do something unreasonable,” he added.
But it has sparked a backlash from the EU, which has threatened legal action, and possible suspension of trade talks, if not withdrawn.
Brandon Lewis admitted last week, in response to a Commons question from Conservative MP Sir Bob Neill, that the bill would violate international law in a “specific and limited” way.
His words prompted the resignation of a senior government legal official and the conviction of the five living former prime ministers, who warned that it threatens the UK’s reputation for respecting international treaties and laws.
Several Conservative MPs either abstained or voted against the bill on Monday, with many of them expected to back Sir Bob Neill’s amendment next week.
‘Legal safety net’
In Article I, Sir Bob said that his amendment “seeks to put a parliamentary blockade on the powers that the government seeks to grant itself.”
He added: “Slamming the entire bill would be the wrong approach.
“There is a lot of good in it, with 51 of its 54 clauses quite innocuous for the great majority.
“However, the severity of the remaining three clauses requires, at a minimum, additional checks and balances.
“My amendment would guarantee greater parliamentary approval before the government can fire them.”
Speaking earlier, Johnson’s official spokesman said the prime minister and his team “are in talks with MPs about the bill and the importance of creating the legal safety net.”
He confirmed that the prime minister had spoken with Sir Bob and said that “the talks with the deputies will continue.”
What is the Internal Market Law?
The bill sets out rules for the functioning of the UK’s internal market (trade between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) after the end of the Brexit transition period in January.
It proposes:
- No further checks will be carried out on goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of Great Britain
- Give UK ministers powers to modify or “waive” rules related to the movement of goods which will come into effect from 1 January if the UK and the EU cannot reach an alternative agreement through a business agreement
- Powers to override previously agreed obligations on state aid: government support to businesses.
The bill explicitly states that these powers must apply even if they are incompatible with international law.
Ministers say the legislation is necessary to avoid “damaging” tariffs on goods traveling from the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland if negotiations with the EU on a free trade deal fail.
But some high-level conservatives, including former Prime Minister John Major, have warned that it runs the risk of undermining the UK’s reputation as a defender of international law.
The legislation has also proved controversial with decentralized administrations, who are concerned about how the UK’s ‘home market’ will work after Brexit and who will set the regulations and standards.
[ad_2]