[ad_1]
Peers defeated the government by 433 votes to 165 on Monday night, amending the government’s internal market bill to remove clauses that nullify the Brexit deal with the EU on Northern Ireland.
Downing Street had already pledged before the vote to use its majority of Commons to reinsert the offending clauses, which ministers have admitted violate international law in a “limited and specific way.”
But the decision would put Johnson on a collision course with Biden, who warned he would not sign a trade deal with the UK if the prime minister goes ahead.
Johnson’s own peers accused him of acting as a common “lawbreaker,” while Labor leader in the House of Lords, Baroness Angela Smith, said: “I’m sure some in government will react initially with courage and they will try to dismiss tonight’s historic votes in the gentlemen, but to do so would underestimate the genuine and serious concerns in the UK and beyond ministers putting 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.”
Speaking during the Lords’ debate on the amendment before the vote, former Conservative leader Lord (Michael) Howard led calls for Johnson to “think again.”
“What ministers have done, both in the House of Honorable Members and elsewhere, is to seek to argue that circumstances make it desirable to violate international law,” said the pair, a long-time Eurosceptic and Brexit supporter. .
“Isn’t that what violators always say? Isn’t that the excuse of violators 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 pitiful example?”
He added: “There have been some suggestions that opposition to this part of the bill is in some way the latest charge from the Remainers.
“That suggestion has a very dangerous implication for those who propose it. It implies that only those who voted for us to remain in the European Union care about the rule of law, the importance of keeping the words or the inviolability of international treaties.” .
“Fortunately, I am in a position to confidently contradict that implication. I voted and campaigned for Brexit and do not regret or retract for a moment from that vote.
“But I want the independent sovereign state that I voted for to be a country that holds its head high in the world, keeps its word, upholds the rule of law, and complies with treaty obligations.”
Crossbench’s peer Lord Judge, a former head of the judiciary, cautioned that peers should be “neither complicit nor supine” and should vote against the bill’s clauses.
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby also weighed in, arguing that the bill “does not take into account the sensitivities and complexities of Northern Ireland and could have serious and unintended consequences for peace and reconciliation.”
The clauses would effectively prohibit the imposition of controls and controls on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, despite the government signing them in the withdrawal agreement with the EU.
Another clause would also prohibit the courts from reviewing the legislation, which former Supreme Court Justice Lord Neuberger said last month would put Britain on a “very slippery slope” toward dictatorship.
The European Commission, with which the UK is currently negotiating a free trade agreement, has also said that the clauses should be removed and has launched infringement proceedings against the UK in the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
