[ad_1]
The writer, a former member of the Conservative Cabinet, is MP for Chingford and Woodford Green
The UK has reached a critical moment in securing its post-Brexit future. This week, the Boris Johnson government introduced important legislation, the Internal Market Act, to ensure the maintenance of a free market for goods and services within the four nations of the UK after leaving the EU.
There has been notable concern over the bill’s proposals to restrict the three-part “direct effect” of our withdrawal agreement with the EU with respect to Northern Ireland. Among other things, the bill would prevent the imposition of EU tariffs on all products shipped from Britain to Northern Ireland.
I think the government is right to do so and the protest is exaggerated.
What critics seem to have forgotten is that the Brexit deal makes it clear that Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory. Goods should be allowed to flow between Great Britain and Northern Ireland without tariffs, unless they are considered “at risk”. The problem is that the category “at risk” is not defined.
This gives the EU too much discretion because, in theory, it could define all UK products as “at risk” if it so wishes and apply tariffs to all goods that cross the Irish Sea. Such a possibility is contrary to the Act of Union which upholds the status of Northern Ireland within the UK and removes all customs duties between the constituent parts of the UK.
The introduction of customs duties between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would alter the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. By doing so, it would obviously violate the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland. That agreement states that the status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed without the consent of its people.
Surely, if the EU did not intend this, and has consistently stated that it wishes to preserve the peace agreement, then it has no reason to object to a UK law that blocks such a prospect.
If, as a cynic might surmise, the withdrawal agreement was really meant to be used to intimidate the UK or give advantages to EU producers of goods, then it is even more important that the UK pass a bill to block this blatant attack. about our constitutional arrangement.
I am also intrigued by some of the protests about the inviolability of international law, including objections from the EU itself. After all, the EU has also violated international law when it suits it. The EU has ignored a number of adverse rulings from the World Trade Organization, including those involving subsidies to Airbus and a dispute between the EU and the US over steel and aluminum.
Furthermore, the Court of Justice of the European Communities has rejected in another case, Portugal v Council, the application of the direct effect of the WTO agreements in EU law, in essence, contrary to the obligations of the treaties already favor of EU national legislation. The EU is being a bit hypocritical.
The Brexit withdrawal agreement is clear. The parties must negotiate the future relationship “in good faith and with full respect for their respective legal systems.” I think the bloc is already breaching that when it threatens to take legal action to enforce terms that could jeopardize the UK constitutional agreement.
Furthermore, there is a principle of international law according to which the powers of treaties must be exercised in good faith. I think that the EU’s insistence that it needs power to impose full tariffs on goods crossing the Irish Sea represents yet another example of bad faith.
The UK internal market bill should come as no surprise to the EU. After all, the bloc knew full well that Johnson intended to protect the UK domestic market. The EU must surely understand that the law implementing the withdrawal agreement it signed has a clause that says “nothing in this law abrogates the sovereignty of the UK Parliament”. You will have learned that this gives the Westminster Parliament the power to pass such legislation.
Of course, the Johnson government has the right to ensure that our constitutional agreement and our sovereignty are protected. It is correct to secure intra-UK trade and ensure that we are ready for the day when Brexit is finally completed later this year.
It would make no sense for the UK to vote to leave the EU and regain its sovereignty, only to find it stolen out the back door in Ireland by the EU. No other country worth its salt would agree to comply with laws and regulations over which it has no control. Neither should the UK, with its proud history of defending freedom.
Sovereignty is what the British people voted for, not subordination.
