[ad_1]
Image copyright
AFP
The MSPs have voted not to consent to UK government legislation to establish an “internal market” after Brexit.
The internal market bill is making its way into the Commons, but has sparked disputes with decentralized administrations.
Constitution Secretary Mike Russell said the bill would “fundamentally undermine” the Scottish Parliament.
However, Scottish Conservatives argued that the legislation will protect jobs and grant “significant” new powers.
The MSPs voted 90-28 to say that Parliament “agrees not to consent” to UK law as it “limits the competence of the Scottish Parliament and violates international law”. Only the Conservatives voted against the motion.
The Scottish government argues that Holyrood’s consent is required under the Sewel Convention, which says that the UK government will normally consult delegated bodies before passing a law affecting the powers they wield.
However, the last time the MSPs voted to reject consent, on the EU Withdrawal Law, the Supreme Court ruled that while Sewel was important, it was only a convention and could not be overseen by the court.
Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove has already indicated that the UK government will go ahead with the legislation even without delegated consent, saying that “leaving the EU is not normal, it is exceptional.”
- What is the dispute over “home markets” about?
- Gove criticizes the ‘creation of myths’ about the internal market
The UK government has clashed with the EU over provisions of the internal market bill that ministers admit would “violate international law” by invalidating parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement.
They are also embroiled in a dispute with delegated administrations over what the trade laws and regulations could mean in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland from January 2021.
The proposed system of “mutual recognition” would have each administration set standards and regulations at the local level, but they would still have to accept products from all other parts of the UK.
The UK government says this is important to ensure that there is still a free flow of goods and services in the UK, but decentralized administrations say it could spark a “race to the bottom”.
Image copyright
PA media
Mike Russell said it was “nonsense on stilts” to suggest the bill would protect jobs.
The parliamentary constitution committee recommended that the MSPs reject the bill, with the exception of the three Conservative members, and MSPs from all other parties said they were “dismayed” by the UK government’s approach.
Russell told MSPs that the bill would “bring a wrecking ball to Scotland’s parliament and democracy” and put a “blanket restriction” on Holyrood’s powers.
He said the proposed system was a recipe for “regulatory incoherence and a race to the bottom” and would “force Scotland to accept lower standards for food, environmental standards and building standards.”
The minister also said it was “silly on stilts” to suggest that the bill would protect jobs, or that it would receive additional powers at Holyrood.
He added: “This bill is totally unacceptable and must be rejected.”
‘Constitutional alarm’
For Scottish conservatives, Dean Lockhart said there were “legitimate questions” about the details of how the plans would work, but said there was “too much emphasis on constitutional scaremongering and hypothetical concerns” that were “completely false”.
The MSP said that trade with the rest of the UK was “more important than the EU market and the rest of the world combined” for the Scottish economy.
He said: “Surely the priority when new restrictions on economic activity have just been announced should be to protect the 550,000 jobs and 60% of the trade that depends on barrier-free access to the domestic market.”
Alex Rowley of Scottish Labor called the bill “a total attack on the existing repayment agreement”, and said that “we will not support any measure that reduces and limits the competence of the Scottish Parliament”.
He said: “The biggest threat to the future of Scotland, its economy and its relationship with the rest of the UK is Boris Johnson and all the Scottish Tories who have lined up behind him in blind allegiance.”
Scottish Green co-leader Patrick Harvie criticized “an extraordinary bill that poses an extraordinary threat to all of us”, saying that if the UK government goes ahead without their consent, it would make the case for a second the independence referendum is “incontestable”.
Meanwhile, Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie said the bill “exists to soften a trade deal with the United States” and “would remove objections from delegated administrations on issues like food safety and environmental safety.”
Scotland’s Secretary of State Alister Jack said the vote was disappointing as the internal market bill was “in the best interest of the people throughout Scotland”.
“The UK government has acted decisively to safeguard smooth trade between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, on which 60 per cent of Scotland’s exports depend,” he said.
Scottish Constitution Secretary Michael Russell called on the UK government to withdraw the legislation.
“The Scottish Parliament has overwhelmingly supported the rejection of the bill by this government. We now urge the UK government, once again, to abandon this deeply damaging bill,” he said.
