[ad_1]
Boris Johnson has been hit by a devastating attack from a former loyal ally as he embarks on hard-hitting Commons showdowns on a bitterly controversial piece of Brexit legislation.
In a big boost to rebellious Conservative MPs, Geoffrey Cox, the prime minister’s pro-Brexit attorney general until February this year, condemned Johnson’s decision to override. Brexi agreement.
“It is inconceivable that this country, justly famous for its respect for the rule of law around the world, would act in such a way,” Cox wrote in a hurtful attack on Johnson in The Times.
And in what appears to be a very personal attack on Johnson, he wrote: “No British minister should solemnly undertake to observe treaty obligations with his fingers crossed behind his back.”
The Cox attack came just hours before MPs began debating the government’s controversial internal market bill, which has been convicted by former prime ministers and leaders Tory Brexiteers.
The legislation is under attack because it nullifies parts of the EU divorce settlement brokered by Johnson, who described it as “fantastic” and “ready for the oven” when he made the deal.
But an attack by such a prominent legal figure is particularly damaging, coming just hours after Attorney General Robert Buckland defended the legislation and said he would only resign if the law was violated in a way he deemed unacceptable.
The Cox attack also followed her successor as attorney general, fellow Brexiteer Suella Braverman, who faced accusations at a stormy meeting of the Bar Council, the professional bar association, of sacrificing the UK’s reputation.
In his Times article under the title “Honor rests on keeping our word,” Cox wrote: “When the Queen’s minister gives his word, on her behalf, it should be axiomatic that he will keep it, even if the consequences are unpleasant. .
“In doing so, it promises the faith, honor and credit of this nation and diminishes Britain’s position and reputation in the world if it is considered otherwise.
“The Withdrawal Agreement and the accompanying Northern Ireland Protocol represent obligations of this country under the treaty to which the government, in which I had the honor to serve as attorney general, gave its solemn and binding word.
Therefore, it is obliged to accept all the ordinary and foreseeable consequences of the application of that agreement.
“Those overt consequences included the unavoidable application of EU customs duties and procedures to certain goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain and the EU’s state aid scheme to the province.
“There can be no doubt that these were the known, unpleasant but unavoidable implications of the agreement. They included the duty to interpret and execute both the agreement and the protocol in good faith.”
And he concluded: “What ministers should not do, no matter how provoked or frustrated they may feel, is to take or use powers permanently and unilaterally to rewrite parts of an agreement that this country freely entered into just a few months ago.
“Therefore, if the government does not urgently and effectively dispel the impression that it intends to do so, I will have no choice but to deny my support for this bill. I am a strong supporter of this government and of Brexit and I am deeply saddened to have to say this.
“We, the British government and parliament, have given our word. Our honor, our credibility, our self-respect and our future influence in the world depend on our keeping that word. Nothing less is worthy of Britain.”
A Conservative MP since 2005, Cox is one of Westminster’s most flamboyant MPs, known for his booming voice in the House of Commons and his moving speech in preparation for introducing Theresa May at the 2018 Conservative conference.
His dramatic intervention will embolden Tory MPs who claim the bill breaks Johnson’s own Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, despite government ministers insisting that it is simply a “safety net” or a “policy of safe”.
At the start of a week in which Commons business will be dominated by debates over the domestic market bill, Cox’s assault is likely to increase the number of conservative rebels and be widely cited by opponents of the bill. law.
In addition to facing a back-up riot, Johnson has come under fire from former Prime Ministers Theresa May, Tony Blair and Sir John Major and leading Brexiters Tory Lord Howard and Lord Lamont.
The first day of the Commons clashes sees MPs debate the bill at its second reading, with votes at 10 p.m. on whether to continue the line-by-line scrutiny in a four-day committee stage.
Labor and smaller parties, including the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats, have tabled amendments refusing to give the bill a second reading, although it is likely that only Labor will be voted on.
:: Subscribe to the All Out Politics podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
The Labor amendment states: “This bill undermines the Withdrawal Agreement already agreed by parliament, reopens the discussion on the Northern Ireland Protocol that has already been resolved, violates international law, undermines return agreements and would tarnish the UK’s global reputation as a law-abiding nation and the UK’s ability to enforce other international trade agreements and protect jobs and the economy. “
The smaller party amendment states: “This House refuses to give a second reading to the UK Internal Market Bill because it violates international law and is contrary to the established repayment agreement.”
During the Commons committee stage, the government faces numerous attempts to amend the bill, including a move by senior Conservative MPs led by attorney Sir Bob Neill, who chairs the Justice Select Committee, to add a “parliamentary blockade”, in effect a veto. any changes to the Withdrawal Agreement.
And after the attacks on the bill already by big Brexit supporters Lord Howard and Lord Lamont, the bill is likely to be bitten by conservatives as well, as well as opponents and colleagues in the House of Representatives. Lords.
