Oris Johnson’s bid to effectively destroy part of the Northern Ireland Protocol raises the first commons hurdle without Tory votes against, despite warnings that the plan is illegal. I cleared it.
Parliamentarians voted 295 to 221, with a majority of 74, making a second read of the Northern Ireland Protocol bill. This will clarify how to get a detailed investigation in the coming weeks.
The voting list shows that dozens of Conservative lawmakers have abstained and joined former Prime Minister Theresa May.
In response, Foreign Minister Liz Truss tweeted a bill empowering the minister to revoke some of the post-Brexit agreements in Northern Ireland, “a practical solution to the problems posed by the Protocol. To provide and protect the Good Friday Agreement. “
“The outcome of the negotiations remains our preference, but the EU must accept changes to the Protocol itself,” she added.
The prime minister previously argued that the proposed bill could be implemented “quite quickly” and that it would be passed by the end of the year.
The government aims to quickly track the bill through the Commons before Congress’s summer vacation.
However, some lawmakers who chose not to block it in their second reading are likely to seek amendments, and the House of Lords also challenged some of the bill, setting up a long confrontation between the two chambers. It is expected to do.
The European Union has also launched new legal action against Britain in retaliation for the government’s move.
Johnson’s government said measures to remove checks on goods, flora and fauna moving from the UK to Northern Ireland are necessary to protect the Good Friday Agreement and peace and stability.
“What we are trying to do is to correct the balance of the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement, which I think is very important for our country,” he told reporters at the G7 Summit in Germany. Told.
“You have one tradition, one community, and you feel that things aren’t really working the way they like or understand. Unnecessary barriers to trade between Britain and Northern Ireland. there is.
“All we are saying is that we can get rid of them without endangering the EU Single Market.”
Asked if this year’s measures could be implemented, Johnson said, “Yes, I think Congress will be happy to do that very quickly.”
“If I could get some of the flexibility I needed in a conversation with Maroš Šefchovic,” he said, “even better.”
“We remain optimistic,” he added.
Ms. Truss sought to downplay parliamentarians’ concerns, stating that the bill had “strong legal justification” and that Britain continued to seek a negotiated solution.
However, leading the criticism from the Tory bench, Mrs. May told the Commons: A country that keeps its words and displays those shared values in her actions.
“As a patriot, I don’t want to do anything to make this country decline in the eyes of the world.
“I have to tell the government, in my view, this bill is not legal in international law, it will not achieve its purpose and will reduce Britain’s status in the eyes of the world, and I can’t support it. “
Julian Smith, a conservative former secretary of Northern Ireland, also said:
“I also have a black and white solution available when the reality is that the compromise will eventually become a compromise after the bill has been dragged into the response and retaliation of the lords, courts, and the EU. I need to be afraid of the risks that bring the impression to unionism. “
But former conservative Justice Minister Sir Robert Buckland said the government needed to act because of the growing “real threat.”
Unionist opposition to the check imposition has seen the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) refuse to return to Staumont’s power-sharing executives and leave the area without a functioning government.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, admitted that the bill wasn’t perfect, but “if the UK domestic market needs to change in order to function properly, the minister may make changes. I can do it. “
Before the debate, Sir Jeffrey mainly warned that blocking legislation was similar to “breaking the Good Friday Agreement.”
A number 10 spokesman said on Monday that the government had never set a “strict target date” when it expected the bill to pass.