JohnsoninLords defeatsoverBrexit
POLITICS: Boris Johnson has suffered two major defeats over his controversial Brexit legislation, as peers stripped out powers that would enable Ministers to break international law.
Conservative former leader Lord Howard of Lympne led the calls for the Prime Minister to “think again” and remove the contentious parts of the UK Internal Market Bill.
BORIS JOHNSON has suffered two major defeats over his controversial Brexit legislation, as peers stripped out powers that would enable Ministers to break international law.
Conservative former leader Lord Howard of Lympne led the calls for the Prime Minister to “think again” and remove the contentious parts of the UK Internal Market Bill, warning that the Government is using the language of “law breakers” everywhere.
The legislation sets out the way thattradewithintheUKwillwork once it is outside the EU’s single market and customs union.
Cross- party amendments were tabled to strike out clauses linked to the most contentious part of the Bill, namely Part Five, which gives Ministers the power to breach the Brexit divorce deal – known as the Withdrawal Agreement – brokered with Brussels last year.
The House of Lords voted 433 to 165, majority 268, to remove clause 42 – one of the disputed sections – and Clause 43 was removed without a vote.
They then voted 407 votes to 148, majority 259 to remove Clause 44, relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Speaking before the vote,
Lord Howard said “nothing has changed” since Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis admitted the Bill breaks international law in a “very specific and limited way”.
He said: “Since then, as far as I’m aware, no Government Minister has sought to resile from his words.
“Instead, what Minsters have done, both in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere, is to seek to make the case that circumstances make it expedient to break international law. Isn’t that what lawbreakers always say? Isn’t that the excuse of lawbreakers everywhere? What sort of a precedent is the Government setting when it admits that position?
“How can we reproach other countries – Russia, China, Iran – if their behaviour becomes reprehensible when we ourselves have such scant regard for the treaties we sign up to, when we ourselves set such a lamentable example?”
All the other controversial clauses were removed without votes. The defeats are thought to be among the biggest suffered by the Government in the Lords for several years.
Ministers have insisted powers to override the Withdrawal Agreement are needed to protect the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but critics argue the powers are not necessary.
Baroness Angela Smith, Labour’s leader in the House of Lords, said in a statement: “I am sure some in Government will initially react with bravado and try to dismiss the historic votes in the Lords.
“To do so, however, would underestimate the genuine and serious concerns across the UK and beyond about Ministers putting themselves above and beyond the rule of law. The Government should see sense, accept the removal of these offending clauses, and start to rebuild our international reputation.”
The division list showed 44 Conservative peers rebelled to vote to remove Clause 42 from the Bill.
They included Lord Howard, ex- Brexit Minister Lord Bridges of Headley and former Chief Whip Lord Young of Cookham.
Those opposing Clause 42 of the Bill also included nine bishops, 115 independent crossbenchers, 156 Labour peers and 81 Liberal Democrats.
Thirty eight Conservative peers rebelled to oppose Clause 44.
What sort of a precedent is the Government setting? Conservative former leader Lord Howard of Lympne.