Media playback is unsupported on your device
David Cameron has become the fifth former prime minister to criticize the new bill for trying to override the Brexit withdrawal agreement.
The internal market bill will come before MPs later, the government calls it “insurance policy policy”.
Mr Cameron said he had “misunderstandings” about it and that breaking the international treaty should be the “ultimate refuge”.
Former Tory PMs Theresa May and Sir John Major and Labor’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have condemned the plan.
Earlier, Policing Minister Kit Malthhouse called it a “practical” move.
He echoed remarks by Justice Secretary Robert Buckland on Sunday, who said the bill was only there if the UK and the EU did not agree on a post-Brexit trade deal.
Boris Johnson was later expected to speak to reporters at an event, but No. 10 has not confirmed that it has been canceled due to immediate parliamentary business.
The government is expected to get a vote in the Commons in the next phase of the bill – which should be around 22:00 BST (21:00 GMT) – but the next phase is expected to face even more difficulties, especially when the law goes to Lord’s for discussion. Is.
Former Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has said he would vote against it, accusing Mr Johnson of “unnecessarily” damaging Britain’s international reputation.
A senior government source told the BBC that “all options are on the table” in terms of possible action against Tory MPs who do not support the bill.
Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Recognition, Tory MP Rehman Chishti, Has resigned over the proposed law, Saying: “I have always behaved in a way that respects the rule of law … [and] Currently voting for this bill would be against my values, which I love. ”
Ed Miliband, the business secretary of Labor’s shadow, also called the proposed law “legal bullying.”
The UK left the EU on January 1, negotiating with the group and signing a withdrawal agreement.
With informal talks taking place in Brussels this week – both sides are now in the final weeks of negotiations for a post-Brexit trade deal before the transition period ends on December 31.
The main part of the withdrawal agreement – now an international treaty – was the protocol of Northern Ireland, designed to prevent a strict border from returning to the island of Ireland.
The government’s proposed internal market bill will override that part of the agreement when it comes to goods and allow the UK to amend or reinterpret “state aid” rules on subsidies for payments in Northern Ireland, in which case the parties disagree for future trade deals. .
Last week, Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said the bill would “break” international law “in a specific and limited way” that could lead to criticism from all parties in the political spectrum.
Here we go again … Brexit deadline has loomed, there is a lot of noise in Westminster about it, and the UK and EU cannot agree.
And yes, yet again, there is a revolving soup of curvature in every other sentence.
Take a few steps back though, and here’s all this – how the UK will trade with its immediate neighbors from January next year and how different parts of the UK will trade with each other.
This is important economically – and politically as well.
The Brexit process has long highlighted tensions between the UK and Brussels, but don’t underestimate that tension on the UK either.
Those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales who have long argued to be unscathed from London, as they see it, argue that Brexit is the final case study to clarify their argument.
And so on the delicate task of Westminster the government has to get the UK out of the EU from one union, while with the other, to hold the UK.
This is the central goal of all rows.
Mr Cameron – who called for an EU referendum when he was prime minister – said he had “misunderstood what was being suggested”.
Speaking to reporters, he said: “Passing an act of parliament and then breaking the obligation of an international treaty is the very last thing you have to consider. That should be the absolute ultimate intention.”
Mr Cameron said the “big picture” was to try to strike a trade deal with the EU, urging the government to “keep that in mind” [and] That big prize in mind. “
The comments follow harsh criticism from four other UK surviving former prime ministers.
Ms May, who still sits as an MP in the Consulate, said breaking international law would hurt “confidence” in the UK, while Mr Brown said it amounted to “self-harm” for the country.
Sir John and Mr Blair – both of whom were in office fees during the main period of Northern Ireland’s peace process – wrote a joint article in the Sunday Times accusing Mr Johnson of “embarrassing” the UK and urging lawmakers to reject the “shameful” attempt to override. Parts of the withdrawal agreement.
‘Problem solved’
Mr Malthhouse defended the bill, saying it would “solve the problem we are facing” in the future of trade with the EU.
He told the BBC Breakfast: “What we have done is to say transparently that this is a situation that we think can happen – this is exactly what is being suggested by the European Union. This is a problem that we have to solve. So that solves it.
“In the end, those who oppose the bill will tell us what the resolution is.”
On Sunday, Justice Secretary Mr Buckland told the BBC he hoped the powers sought by ministers would never be needed, and that he would resign “in a way that is unacceptable” if the UK violated international law.
But Labor leader Sir Carey Starme accused government ministers of “misinformation” over the weekend and “spinning” the reasons for pushing the new bill forward.
He told LBC: “[Mr Johnson] There is a mistake being made in renewing the treaty – which would be a significant loss for the UK.
“I will tell the Prime Minister, go away, go back to the drawing board, leave these problems, do not act this carelessly and wrongly and we will look at the law again.”
Media playback is unsupported on your device
The bill has a different opinion on the Tory backbench.
MP Sir Desmond Swayne said he would support the bill, praising the government for preparing it if no trade deal is agreed by the end of the year.
He told BBC News: “If the government does not take precautions against this possibility, it will be completely negligent. It is only right that it should be in power.”
But his colleague and chairman of the judge’s selection committee, Sir Bob Neal, said the government and its supporters needed to “calm the language.”
He said the government already has a mechanism in place to address the concerns, but is ready to “meet them halfway” with an amendment to the bill – allowing the use of elements that violate international law only if parliament signs it.
- Rule six: What’s in a small print?
- Uninstall with Mindful Mix: Switch Off and Escape
