Politics explained

As a sort of shop steward for backbench Conservative MPs, Sir Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, is a man worth listening to – especially so if you happen to be the current leader of the Conservative Party. More than one of Boris Johnson’s predecessors has had their career prematurely ended when they have lost the confidence of the ’22, but Johnson seems too arrogant to care. That could be his biggest error so far.In normal times, the 1922 committee conveys the worries of Tory MPs to ministers discreetly, and they are usually taken seriously. So it is a sign of how badly relations between Johnson and his parliamentary party have become that Sir Graham has taken to speaking out publicly. He has not held back; the government is “ruling by decree” over the Covid crisis, he claims, which is another way of saying that the MPs are being ignored. and they are angry about it. There will be a Commons vote next week on the “rule of six” and other Covid-related restrictions to normal life, and a Conservative rebellion is threatened. The government may only get its way with Labour support, something of a humiliation for a party with a supposed working majority of 87The Tory MPs are also dissatisfied with the way Brexit is being handled, up to and including the recent open declaration that the UK is ready to break international law. The leadership then had to offer some hasty concessions to avert defeat on the internal market bill, which proposed to override the UK-EU withdrawal agreement, and may well have to offer more as the bill makes its way to the House of Lords (where Johnson is even less beloved). More

It is not quite “New Labour” or even, as Keir Starmer memorably put it earlier this year, that the party is “under new management”.With the opening of Labour’s conference, online only this year, the party has unveiled its new slogan: “A New Leadership”.The phrase points to a deeper problem for Labour. More

The government’s plan to break international law in a “specific and limited way” around the Brexit agreement has caused an outcry in the UK, but what about across the Channel?  As it happens, Brussels isn’t really sure what to make of the whole thing. Michel Barnier is said to have laid out two scenarios to diplomats this week: either there are domestic reasons behind Boris Johnson’s plan, or he’s doing it as part of a feint in trade negotiations.If domestic, Mr Barnier’s argument goes, the UK government is worried about coming under fire for its handling of Covid-19 and wants to put a bonfire under Brexit again. With one eye on the polls, Downing Street realises it’s about to be blamed for a second wave and wants to get people talking about something else.   More

Boris Johnson’s threat to break international law by overriding part of his EU withdrawal agreement has not only provoked a backlash from Conservative MPs and Brussels. It now risks a diplomatic dispute with the US Congress.
Democratic congressmen Eliot Engel, Richard Neal and Bill Keating, who all chair committees in the House of Representatives, and Republican  Peter King asked him to  “abandon any and all legally questionable and unfair efforts to flout the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement and look to ensure that Brexit negotiations do not undermine the decades of progress to bring peace to Northern Ireland”. More

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