Independent Premium

Despite dire warnings about breaking international law, the government won the first vote on the UK internal market  on Monday night by a comfortable majority of 77. Only two Conservative MPs – Sir Roger Gale and Andrew Percy – voted against the bill, while more than 20 abstained. The Tory rebellion was somewhat offset by the support for the bill from the Democratic Union Party, which backs Brexit but opposes the withdrawal agreement. The most difficult moment in the House of Commons will probably come on Tuesday next week, when there will be votes on amendments to take out the clause of the bill that takes the power to override the withdrawal agreement, or to make it subject to a further vote of parliament. At that point, several of the abstainers might vote against the government, and other rebels who voted for the principle of the bill will join them. Damian Green, who was Theresa May’s deputy, voted for the bill in principle on Monday, but has said he will vote for an amendment that would require another vote, which has already been tabled by Sir Robert Neill, one of the abstainers. Boris Johnson tried to bamboozle the rebels by suggesting that, “if the powers were ever needed, ministers would return to this house with a statutory instrument on which a vote … would be held” – but he didn’t say that such a vote would come afterwards rather than before the powers were invoked.  More

In the rarefied world inhabited by the tiny number of people who have ever held the keys to Number 10 Downing Street, the word “misgivings” should not be underestimated.While others might be tempted to use stronger language, former prime ministers are loth to criticise their successors.  Many are fearful of accusations that they cannot let go of the trappings of power, or of being labelled as a sore loser.   More

The European Commission responded furiously to the publication of the UK Internal Market Bill last week because it gives ministers the power to set aside some of the provisions of the withdrawal agreement by which the UK left the EU in January.  Maros Sefcovic, the commission vice-president, demanded a meeting with Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, in London, and “reminded” him that the withdrawal agreement “contains a number of mechanisms and legal remedies to address violations of the legal obligations contained in the text – which the European Union will not be shy in using”.But what are these “mechanisms and legal remedies”? He said there were a number of them, although that number is two. One is the Court of Justice of the EU, which retains the right to adjudicate on matters of EU law insofar as they affect the withdrawal agreement.   More

By far the most ominous recent public intervention in the arguments about Brexit came from Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader (2003 to 2005). Now Lord Howard, he is a man of impeccable Eurosceptic credentials, voted for Brexit and has thus far loyally supported the government. But for this distinguished former barrister, the overt threat to break international law and renege on the EU withdrawal agreement was just too much to bear. He put the case succinctly in a question to a government minister: “How can we reproach Russia, China or Iran when their conduct falls below internationally accepted standards, when we are showing such scant regard for our treaty obligations?”  There are many Tories – many more than in the Commons  who agree with Lord Howard, Lord Heseltine, Lord Lamont and other grandees across the chamber. In other words, Lord Howard is not one of them”usual suspects”, and evidence of dissent in the Commons will add to the forces of resistance in the Lords.  The questions are whether they Lords are entitled stop the government’s move to override the withdrawal agreement via the new Internal Market bill, and whether they will? More

One of the more curious parliamentary trends in recent months has been the increasing animosity between the speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, and the government. Although electing Hoyle last November to replace John Bercow was designed to reserve relations and ease tensions, Hoyle is proving to be nobody’s poodle. As a popular figure on all sides with no pretensions and a man of the world, he asserts the rights of the house with arguably more authority than his predecessor. He is having to do so more often.  The speaker seems to have particular problems with the prime minister and with health and social care secretary, and his annoyance turned to a mild fury when the news about the “rule of six” was released before the Commons got to hear of it. This undeniably important story, affecting the lives of so many of the constituents of MPs representing English seats wasn’t even unveiled at a Downing Street press conference or in a Department of Health Social Care media statement. Rather it was scooped by ITV’s political editor Robert Peston, on Twitter of all places. Prompted by points of order by Tory MP Desmond Swayne and by Matt Hancock’s Labour shadow, Jonathan Ashworth, the speaker made little attempt to disguise his anger, or the potential retribution.“It was all over Twitter as this was going on. Obviously somebody decided to tell the media rather than this house,” he said. “What I would say is that I expect the secretary of state to apologise to members and make sure that this chamber knows first. He was fully aware – fully aware – of what was  going to be said later. Let me say that if this minister wants to run this chamber ragged, I can assure you now that I am sure an urgent question every day might just begin to run him ragged.” More

The prime minister’s desire to override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement has caused something of a storm. Boris Johnson’s critics question why he did not previously spot any flaws in his “oven-ready deal”; moreover, whatever the problems, to unilaterally try to amend an international treaty would be a breach of international law, with all that implies.The prospective assault on international law has been confirmed by the Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis. Mr Lewis told the House of Commons that the move will indeed break international law “in a limited and specific way”. He has claimed precedent in the 2013 Finance Act making provision to deal with tax dodging and vary international agreements unilaterally. That has been denied by George Osborne, the chancellor of the time. People on both sides have offered interpretations of various clauses in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement that might justify the government’s actions. However, some of the arbitration procedures have still to be agreed.There are, in fact, a number of ways the government’s bid to override the withdrawal agreement can be stopped. More