thread

DECEIT & THE INTERNAL MARKET BILL

1. Boris inherited a Party on the verge of collapse back in the summer of 2019 & without a majority of MP's willing to fulfill the referendum promise.

2. Parliament had boxed itself to a stupor during the summer of 2019. No major legislation could get through & the May government had given up trying - they were present but not in power.

3. Bit by bit the remain cohort on all sides of the Commons (and Parliament) we're gaining control, but we're squabbling amongst themselves as to how to wield the axe.

4. A Peoples Parliament, a Government of National Unity (which turned out to be a contradiction in terms as no-one could agree), a citizens assembly (with no deal taken off the table), a 2nd referendum, or just give up pretending to be democratic completely & revoke Article 50.

5. We saw the Benn Bill, allegedly drafted by EU lawyers. It removed a no deal option, forcing Boris to seek an extension & attempted to introduce a softer Brexit with a 2nd referendum attached via the Kinnock Amendment.

6. It received Royal Assent on 9 September, the day of prorogation. Then the Supreme Court did the unthinkable - it concluded proceedings in Parliament were justiciable.

7. The situation had deteriorated & was openly hostile. We saw incredible scenes in the Commons as angry Labour MP's over reacted to 'humbug' & 'Surrender Act'. Bercow was now drunk on his own importance & often puce with rage.

8. We were in a mess. Labour knew they'd backed the wrong horse in favouring the remain cohort. They also knew that a promise of fresh negotiation of a better deal & a 2nd ref wasn't popular, but to his credit, or lack of awareness, Corbyn eventually supported an election.

9. Meanwhile Boris set about renegotiating the Withdrawal Agreement with both hands tied behind his back due to the above events. The price of a general election had been the Benn Act & the threat of no deal removed.

10. So we can see that although Boris was able to negotiate some changes to the Withdrawal Agreement, now more aligned to a Canada style deal, elements of the Withdrawal Agreement were & are problematic.

11. And this is why we're now in trouble & why the Internal Market Bill attempts to hold together the United Kingdom. It's purpose is to ensure an internal market between our 4 countries, with mutual recognition of goods, services & qualifications across the UK & NI.

12. The EU have exploited the weakness to full potential with Northern Ireland & emerging dialogue from the trade negotiations has revealed how the EU are seeking to make trade between the UK & NI problematic, despite provision for 'unfettered access' in the NI Protocol.

13. The controversial clauses within the Internal Market Bill are found in Part 5:
Clause 41 seeks to prevent any new checks or controls between GB & NI,
Clause 42 restates the unfettered access provision in the NI Protocol,

14. Clause 43 give a Minister the power to amend or disapply EU law in relation to Article 10 of the NI protocol relating to state aid. It also seeks to oust ECJ case law in relation to the Protocol provision.

15. Clause 45 seeks to give domestic law primacy over international law in relation to the above Clauses 42 & 43.

These Clauses intend to prevent the annexation of NI from the rest of the UK.

16. The government has acknowledged the controversial clauses have the potential to breach the WA/Protocol provisions in a 'limited & specific way'.

17. The relevant parts of the Protocol don't kick in until transition ends, so the earliest date is 1 January for a potential breach of treaty obligations to occur when a Minister makes regulations to protect NI/GB trade in regard to state aid & exit declarations.

18. It's a tangled web of conflicting & competing provisions. Article 5 of the Protocol provides no customs duties shall be payable for GB to NI goods unless there's risk of them entering the single market via Ireland.

19. Yet the S.55 Taxation (Cross Border Trade) Act prevents NI being in a separate customs territory to GB.

The Protocol itself is jumbled seeming to refer to the wrong Command Paper in parts, pointing to a non binding (on UK) political agreement between NI political parties.

20. The legislation that places the WA treaty provisions into domestic law contradicts itself by giving primacy to retained EU legislation but also stating those provisions should not derogate from the sovereignty of Parliament.

21. Then we have the provisions within the Agricultural Act where EU law can be modified or disapplied for 'exceptional market conditions or general purposes'

22. So as we can see, it's a dog's dinner of conflicting legislation.

But my main concern in all of this has been the behaviour of our Parliamentarians. So eager to squeal 'Rule of Law' & 'breaking international law'.

23. Yet strangely silent on the antics taking place in Brussels, with their own treaty provisions conveniently ignored as they plan to breach fiscal rules to pump billions into the system to save the Euro.

24. And it takes me back once again to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. I've long held the view that the Benn Act breached the full powers provision in Article 7. Our PM's negotiating ability was severely curtailed by the removal of no deal.

25. So I shall be less than impressed next week if the usual suspects attempt an air of superiority, saying our global standing is harmed by 'breaking international law'. They are the reason we're in this mess & I bet once again their loyalties will be to the EU instead of the UK

26. And in all of that I forgot Super Saturday with Oliver Letwin & his amendment that in effect blocked the WA from proceeding!