David Cameron has become the fifth former prime minister to criticize a new bill seeking to repeal the Brexit withdrawal agreement.
No. 10 states that the Internal Market Bill is “crucial legislation for the UK”.
But Cameron said he had doubts about it and that violating the international agreement should be the “ultimate resort”.
Former Tory PMs Theresa May, Sir John Major, Labor’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown condemned the plan.
However, a spokesman for Boris Johnson said the bill provided a “vital legal safety net” so the government could “take the necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the UK domestic market” – measures that were never expected to be used.
The Prime Minister will deliver the inaugural address at the second debate of the MPs from 16:30 BST (15:30 GMT). It is expected to pass at this early stage after the 22:00 vote.
But legislation is likely to face more difficulties in its early stages, especially when it comes to debate in Bill Lord House.
Former Attorney General Jeffrey Cox accused Mr. Johnson “Unconditional” damage to Britain’s international reputation He said he would block support for the bill in its current form.
Prime Minister’s Representative for Freedom of Religion or Religion Tory MP Rahman Chisti, Resigned following the proposed law“I have always respected the rule of law … [and] Voting for this bill would be contrary to my favorite values as it currently exists. ”
Senior government sources said all options were on the list based on possible action against Tory MPs who did not support the bill.
Ed Miliband, Labor’s shadow business secretary, also called the proposed law “legislative goondaism.”
Miliband will stand in the opposition dispatch box for Sir Keer Stormer The labor leader was forced to isolate himself at home When a member of his household developed symptoms of the corona virus.
The UK withdrew from the European Union on January 31, signing a withdrawal agreement with the group.
Both sides are now in the final weeks of negotiations for a post-Brexit trade deal Transition period End of December 31st – Ana mal formal talks are taking place in Brussels this week.
An important part of the withdrawal agreement – which is now an international agreement – is the Northern Ireland Protocol, designed to prevent the return of a strict border to the island of Ireland.
The domestic market bill proposed by the government would invalidate part of that agreement in the case of goods and would allow the UK to amend or reinterpret “State Aid” rules regarding subsidies to companies in Northern Ireland. Future trade agreement not approved.
last week, Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said the bill would violate international law in a specific and limited way., Leading to criticism from all quarters of the political spectrum.
Here we go again … a Brexit deadline is long overdue, there is a lot of talk about it in Westminster, the UK and the European Union cannot agree.
Yes, again, there is a soup of wording in every other verse.
However take a few steps back, this is all – how the UK will trade with its immediate neighbors from January next year, and how different parts of the UK will trade with each other.
It’s important economically – it’s politically important.
The Brexit process has long exposed tensions between the UK and Brussels, but this should not underestimate the tensions in the UK as well.
People from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have long argued that Brexit would be the ultimate case study to justify their actions.
So Westminster’s sensitive mission is to expel the UK from one union, the European Union, and hold another union together.
All these lines have a central target at their center.
Cameron, who called an EU referendum when he was prime minister, said he was “skeptical” about the proposal.
He told reporters: “The last thing you need to think about is passing a law in parliament and then violating the obligations of an international agreement. That should be the ultimate goal. “
Mr Cameron said the “big picture” was about trying to make a trade deal with the European Union. [and] With that great gift in mind. “
The comments come amid strong criticism from other former UK prime ministers.
Ms May, a former Commons MP, said violating international law would undermine the UK’s credibility. Brown said it was tantamount to harming the country itself.
Sir John and Mr. Blair, who were in power during the critical period of the Northern Ireland peace process – Wrote a joint article in the Sunday Times Johnson accused the UK of embarrassment and inciting MPs to reject the shameful attempt to invalidate certain parts of the withdrawal agreement.
‘Problem to solve’
Earlier, Policing Minister Kit Malhaus called the bill a “practical” step, saying it would “solve the problem we face” about the future of trade with the European Union.
He told the BBC Breakfast: “We have made it clear that this is a situation that we think will happen – and that’s exactly what the European Union is reporting.
“Finally, the people who oppose this bill should tell us what the resolution is.”
Justice Secretary Robert Buckland told the BBC on Sunday that the bill would be “an insurance policy” if the UK and the European Union did not agree to a post-Brexit trade agreement.
He said he hoped the powers demanded by ministers would never be needed and that he would resign if the UK stopped violating international law.
Labor leader Sir Keer Stormer has accused government ministers of passing false information over the weekend and explaining why they are pursuing the new bill.
He told LBC:[Mr Johnson] Making a mistake in canceling a contract – it will damage the UK’s reputation.
“I say to the Prime Minister, look, go back to the drawing board, leave these issues, do not act in this careless and wrong way, we will look back at the legislation.”
The bill disagrees with the Tory backbenches.
MP Sir Desmond Swain said he would support the bill, praising the government for preparing in case trade deals are not approved by the end of the year.
He told BBC News: “If the government does not take precautions against this possibility, it will be utterly negligent. If so, it’s hand in hand with authority. ”
Sir Bob Neil, his colleague and chairman of the Justice Select Committee, said the government and its supporters need to calm the language.
He said there was already a mechanism in place to address the government’s concerns, but that he was prepared to “deal with them halfway through” by amending the bill – only elements that violate international law could be used if signed by parliament.