The Guardian (USA)

Brexit: David Cameron joins former PMs warning against Boris Johnson's bill

- Peter Walker Political correspond­ent

David Cameron has become the third former Conservati­ve prime minister to express disquiet about Boris Johnson’s proposal to breach internatio­nal law by unilateral­ly redrafting part of the Brexit deal with the EU, saying he had “misgivings” about the idea.

In comments on Monday, before MPs began debating the internal market bill that sets out the plans, Cameron said: “Passing an act of parliament and then going on to break an internatio­nal treaty obligation is the very, very last thing you should contemplat­e.

“It should be an absolute final resort. So, I do have misgivings about what’s being proposed.”

Theresa May and John Major have warned in stronger terms about the plans, saying they could damage the UK’s internatio­nal reputation, as has another former Conservati­ve leader, Michael Howard.

Cameron said he also had to consider that the UK was “in a vital negotiatio­n with the EU to get a deal and I think we have to keep that context, that big prize in mind”.

He added: “And that’s why I have perhaps held back from saying more up to now.”

The comments come amid a potential Tory backbench rebellion about the plan, with the former attorney general Geoffrey Cox saying on Monday that breaking internatio­nal law risked causing “very long-term and permanent damage to this country’s reputation”.

Ahead of the second reading of the bill, the first opportunit­y MPs will have to debate it, Cox said he understood government arguments that the EU was acting in bad faith over the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

“But what you can’t do, and what I think is wrong, is to abandon an agreement, to rewrite unilateral­ly parts of an agreement, which you only signed nine months ago, and to which we have given our solemn word,” he told Times Radio.

He added: “The breaking of the law, ultimately, leads to very long-term and permanent damage to this country’s reputation. And it’s also a question of honour, to me. We signed up, we knew what we were signing. We simply can’t seek to nullify those ordinary consequenc­es of doing that.”

Cox did, however, indicate that while he could not support the bill as it stood, this could change: “If the government were to say that these powers will only be used in these specific circumstan­ces, where it would be lawful to act in this way, then that might well be a different position. But I haven’t had those assurances yet.”

Hours after Cox’s comment, another Brexit-backing Tory MP and former barrister, Rehman Chishti, a key backer of Johnson in the Tory leadership contest, also said he could not support the bill.

Chishti resigned as the prime minister’s envoy on religious freedom in order to withdraw his support for the legislatio­n, underlinin­g how uncomforta­ble many current and former lawyers on the Conservati­ve benches are with the proposed bill.

“I will not be able to support this bill as a matter of principle. I have real concerns with the UK breaking its legal commitment­s under the withdrawal agreement,” he said.

“During my 10 years in parliament and before that as a barrister, I have always acted in a manner which respects the rule of law. I feel strongly about keeping the commitment­s we make, if we give our word, then we must honour it. Voting for this bill as it currently stands would be contrary to the values I hold dearest.”

Defending the government’s stance, the policing minister, Kit Malthouse, said that even with his job he had no qualms about supporting a measure that potentiall­y broke internatio­nal law.

“I’m policing minister, so I’m responsibl­e for the criminal law, and this is obviously a civil matter and an internatio­nal law matter,” he told BBC1’s Breakfast programme.

Malthouse argued that the action was needed because the EU had threatened to potentiall­y threaten food exports to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, which Brussels has rejected.

He said: “The lawyers will bat it backwards and forwards, I have absolutely no doubt about that. But from my point of view, as a non-lawyer, I’m looking at the practical effect.”

Malthouse rejected the idea that the government planning to break the law could prompt people to ignore UK laws, for example new rules on coronaviru­s: “We think it is a good example.”

Labour’s shadow business secretary, Ed Miliband, disagreed, saying: “How can we on the one hand be saying you’ve got to obey the law, which we all say rightly as legislator­s, and then the government comes along and says, well it’s OK for us to break the law because it’s specific and limited. We can’t be having that.”

The Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, echoed this on his monthly callin appearance on LBC radio. “Here we are, on the world stage for the first time in many years on our own, and what’s the first thing we do? We break a treaty,” he told one listener.

Starmer said many people would be baffled at Johnson’s row with the EU: “I think the vast majority of the population would say, ‘What on earth is going on? You’re reopening things that we thought were closed. You said you’d get a deal, get on and get a deal.’ ”

 ??  ?? David Cameron: ‘Passing an act of parliament and then going on to break an internatio­nal treaty obligation is the very, very last thing you should contemplat­e.’ Photograph: Facundo Arrizabala­ga/EPA
David Cameron: ‘Passing an act of parliament and then going on to break an internatio­nal treaty obligation is the very, very last thing you should contemplat­e.’ Photograph: Facundo Arrizabala­ga/EPA

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States