EU gives UK 20 days to retreat on Brexit Bill
Gove says Government will refuse to bow to Brussels ultimatum on divorce talks
THE European Union has given Boris Johnson a 20-day ultimatum to back down on his plans to alter the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement or face the collapse of trade talks and legal action.
Brussels warned yesterday that legislation allowing ministers to override key elements of the divorce deal relating to Northern Ireland constituted an “extremely serious violation” and broke international law.
However, Downing Street remained defiant last night and insisted it “could not and would not” withdraw the Internal Market Bill.
A growing number of Tory grandees have voiced their opposition to the legislation, among them Lord Howard, the former party leader, who accused the Prime Minister of showing “scant regard” for the UK’S treaty obligations.
Separately, Sir Bob Neill, the chairman of the Commons justice committee, tabled an amendment to the legislation which would seek to limit the powers it hands to ministers.
As many as 30 Tory MPS were last night reportedly prepared to rebel over the Bill. Government sources suggested they would not lose the whip, unlike those who voted against the Brexit deal last year.
Maros Sefcovic, a vice-president of the European Commission, told his counterpart, Michael Gove, at an emergency meeting of the UK-EU joint committee that the UK had until the end of the month to withdraw the measures.
Should the Government refuse, it faces a lawsuit in the European Court of Justice and potentially huge daily fines. Emerging from the eighth round of trade deal negotiations last night, Michel Barnier, the EU’S chief negotiator, said: “For there to be any future relationship between the EU and the UK, there must be mutual trust and confidence between us – today and in the future.” He added that “significant differences” remained on the key issues of fishing rights and state aid rules.
However, Mr Gove insisted the UK had no intention of backing down, saying: “I made it perfectly clear to Maros Sefcovic that we would not be withdrawing this legislation. He understood that, of course, he regretted it.”
EU sources accused Mr Gove of failing to act like the “usual gentleman” by refusing to use “diplomatic language”, although this was denied by others.
Despite mounting tensions, Lord Frost, the UK’S chief negotiator, insisted the basis for a deal remained intact, with the two sides agreeing to resume talks next week in Brussels.
It led to renewed speculation among MPS that the Government’s actions were an attempt to force concessions from the EU, rather than bring about a no-deal situation.
Meanwhile, Lord Howard, a prominent Brexiteer, became the third former Conservative leader after Theresa May and Sir John Major to sound his opposition to the Brexit legislation.
He told the House of Lords: “How can we reproach Russia or China or Iran when their conduct falls below internationally accepted standards, when
Downing Street was taken by surprise when details of its plan to override sections of the Withdrawal Agreement with new legislation were splashed over the front page of the Financial Times on Monday.
It revealed that parts of the Internal Market Bill would “eliminate the legal force” of sections relating to state aid and Northern Ireland customs. It was clear the Government’s Brexit team had sprung a leak.
With an internal inquiry under way, George Eustice, the Environment Secretary, was dispatched to quell the outcry over the UK’S “disrespect” for its international obligations.
The Government had planned to introduce the legislation “knowing it would cause a row” but hadn’t anticipated the scale of the backlash.
Mr Eustice insisted the UK “wasn’t moving the goalposts” but there were “a few minor technical issues that needed to be resolved”. Despite strong remainer rhetoric from Brussels and others, Emmanuel Macron, the French president, appeared panicked, calling the Prime Minister on Monday night to stress “the importance of making progress this month” on a trade deal.
A government spokesman reiterated Boris Johnson’s call for an agreement by the European Council on Oct 15, adding: “Reaching a deal at the eleventh hour is not an option”.
By the time Lord Frost, the UK’S chief negotiator met his EU counterpart Michel Barnier for talks on Tuesday, an email had been sent by Tory HQ, signed by Mr Johnson, entitled: “I will not back down”.
Sources quickly sought to clarify that the PM would still try for a deal amid disquiet on the backbenches.
Having spent much of Monday trying to downplay the FT splash, No10 then tried to pour cold water on The Telegraph’s interpretation of events, headlined: “Brexit deal never made sense, PM to tell EU”.
It came as leaked EU diplomatic cables accused Mr Johnson of “holding back until the last moment on finding compromise on the issues of fisheries, state aid and dispute resolution, to achieve a last-minute trade-off.”
There was worse to come when Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland Secretary, conceded to MPS that the Bill would indeed break the law in a “very specific and limited way”.
The candid admission prompted the resignation of Sir Jonathan Jones, head of the legal department. This was welcomed by Brexiteer backbenchers, who had always blamed civil service lawyers for failing to spot flaws in the Withdrawal Agreement in the first place.
“The civil service legal team is useless,” said Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader. “They didn’t spot that if the Government signed the document as it stands, the EU could apply state aid rules to all goods coming into the UK. Then in January they admitted they had missed it.”
That came amid claims that Brussels had threatened to disrupt food exports from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage, which then prompted ministers to demand a “safety net” to address the problem.
There were other theories behind the Government’s bullishness, including Dominic Cummings’ rumoured desire to be vindicated for insisting there will “never be a deal” and Mr Johnson being more relaxed about no-deal because of Covid.
As one former minister put it: “There are not bad conditions for no-deal. Coronavirus is causing so much economic calamity, no one will know what to blame on Brexit. We are already having to subsidise companies and the borders are less busy, making it less of a logistical challenge.”
With Brexit having dominated the news for most of Tuesday, the focus shifted back to Covid when No10 at 10.30pm announced no social gatherings of more than six people from Monday, after a spike in infections.
Wednesday not only brought the tabling of the Bill but yet more outrage from the EU27, with Micheál Martin, the Irish Taoiseach, expressing “grave concerns” over the stated intention to breach an international treaty.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, threw her hat into the ring, insisting there would be “absolutely no chance” of a trade deal with the US if “Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord”.
Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, set the tone for the Government’s fightback, saying detractors were taking an “extreme interpretation” of the Bill, which was “totally wrong”. Claiming the legislation ensured Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers could enjoy “unfettered access to the rest of the UK”, he added: “It would be unreasonable to suggest a sovereign nation isn’t able to trade within its own borders.” Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commission’s vice-president, had only just arrived to meet Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, when leaked documents emerged at noon suggesting the EU would embark on a trade war as well as consider legal action.
The Government reiterated that the provisions were only a “safety net” but Michael Howard, the former Tory leader, did not see it that way, saying it would damage our “reputation for probity and respect for the rule of law”.
The EC then threatened to scrap trade talks altogether, accusing the Government of having “damaged trust” – later undermined by a 7pm statement by Lord Frost, saying both sides were to meet in Brussels next week. He said there had been “useful exchanges”, while Mr Barnier countered: “Significant differences remain”.
A separate statement followed, outlining the Government’s legal position. It read: “Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation.”
With a majority of 80, the Government is determined to pass the Bill through both Houses with two weeks, despite the prospect of fierce resistance in the upper chamber.
The Brexit battle lines have once again been drawn and it feels like 2019 all over again.
‘Coronavirus is causing so much economic calamity no one will know what to blame on Brexit’