[ad_1]
Media playback is not supported by your device
David Cameron has become the fifth former prime minister to criticize a new bill that seeks to overturn the Brexit withdrawal agreement.
The internal market bill will be presented to MPs later, and the government will call it an “insurance policy.”
Cameron said he had “doubts” about it and that breaking an international treaty should be the “last resort.”
Former Conservative MPs Theresa May and Sir John Major, and Labor’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have condemned the plan.
Earlier, Police Minister Kit Malthouse called it a “practical” step.
He echoed comments made by Attorney General Robert Buckland on Sunday, who said the bill was there in the event the UK and the EU fail to agree to a post-Brexit trade deal.
Boris Johnson was expected to speak to reporters at a later event, but issue 10 confirmed that it had been canceled due to urgent parliamentary business.
The government is expected to win a vote in the Commons later in the next stage of the bill, which is expected around 22:00 BST (21:00 GMT), but is expected to face more difficulties in later stages, especially when the legislation is headed for debate in the Lords.
But former attorney general Geoffrey Cox has said he will vote against, accusing Johnson of doing “undue” damage to Britain’s international reputation.
The Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, Conservative MP Rehman Chishti, has resigned because of the bill, saying: “I have always acted in a way that respects the rule of law … [and] voting for this bill in its current form would be contrary to the values that I hold most dear. ”
Labor’s shadow business secretary Ed Miliband also called the proposed law “legislative vandalism.”
The UK left the EU on January 31, having negotiated and signed the withdrawal agreement with the bloc.
The two sides are now in the final weeks of negotiations for a post-Brexit trade deal before the transition period ends on December 31, with informal talks taking place in Brussels this week.
A key part of the withdrawal agreement, which is now an international treaty, was the Northern Ireland Protocol, designed to prevent a firm border from returning to the island of Ireland.
The government’s proposed internal market bill would override that part of that agreement for goods and allow the UK to modify or reinterpret the “state aid” rules on business subsidies in Northern Ireland, in the case of the two parties not agreeing to a future trade agreement.
Last week, Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said the bill would “violate international law” in a “specific and limited way”, prompting a series of criticism from all sides of the political spectrum.
‘Big prize’
Cameron, who called the EU referendum when he was prime minister, said he had “doubts about what is being proposed.”
Speaking to reporters, he said: “Passing an act of Parliament and then breaking an international treaty obligation is the last thing you should contemplate. It should be the absolute last resort.”
Cameron said the “big picture” was about trying to get a trade deal with the EU, and urged the government to “keep that context. [and] that grand prize in mind. “
The comments follow loudest criticism from the other four surviving former UK prime ministers.
Ms May, who still sits as an MP in the Commons, said violating international law would damage “confidence” in the UK, while Brown said it would be akin to “self-harm” for the country.
Sir John and Blair, who were in office during key periods in the Northern Ireland peace process, wrote a joint article in the Sunday Times accusing Johnson of “embarrassing” the UK and urging MPs to reject the “disgraceful “attempt to void parts of the withdrawal agreement.
Media playback is not supported by your device
Malthouse defended the bill, saying it “solves the problem we are facing” about the future of trade with the EU.
He told BBC Breakfast: “What we have done is to say with transparency that this is a situation that we believe may occur; certainly that is what is being hinted at from the EU. It is a problem that we have to solve, so here is a bill that solves it.
“In the end, the people who oppose this bill have to tell us what the resolution is.”
On Sunday, Justice Secretary Mr Buckland told the BBC that he hoped the powers ministers sought would never be necessary and that he would resign if the UK ended up violating international law “in a way that I consider unacceptable”.
But Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer accused government ministers of distributing “misinformation” over the weekend and “spinning” the reasons they were following the new bill.
He told LBC: “[Mr Johnson] you are making a mistake by breaking a treaty, which will damage the reputation of the UK.
“I would say to the prime minister, look, go, go back to the drawing board, drop these issues, don’t act in this reckless and wrong way and we will reexamine the legislation.”
Media playback is not supported by your device
The bill has divided opinions on conservative back benches.
MP Sir Desmond Swayne said he would support the bill and praised the government for preparing in case a trade deal is not reached by the end of the year.
He told BBC News: “If the government did not take precautions against that possibility, it would be completely negligent. It is fine to arm itself with powers just in case.
But his colleague and chairman of the Justice Select Committee, Sir Bob Neill, said the government and its supporters had to “calm the talk.”
He said a mechanism already existed to address the government’s concerns, but was willing to “satisfy them halfway” with an amendment to the bill, allowing only those elements that would violate international law to be used if Parliament passes it. .
- THE RULE OF SIX: What’s in the fine print?
- RELAX WITH MINDFUL MIX – Turn off and escape
[ad_2]
