Thread by @DerrickBerthel1

Thread on the Internal Market (IM) bill and Brexit.

For what it’s worth I think Boris is right with the IM bill. We can argue whether it breaks international law or not, or whether it only breaks international law if enacted (or not).

We can argue that enacting IM will prevent the UK breaking other international treaties and which then should take precedent. We can find lawyers backing all arguments.

We can point to other examples where countries have broken international treaties (including the EU and many members of the EU unilaterally). We can argue whether the UK should be better than every other country in the world (in this regard).

But ultimately, I think there are two big issues to consider as a result of the bill’s existence.

First, does it make it more or less likely that we end up with a sustainable FTA with the EU.

Second, does the bill threaten the UK’s reputation with the ROW.

On the first, I have absolutely no doubt that the bill makes the chances of a sustainable deal more likely. The EU was using the NI protocol to force the UK to sign up to remaining under the EU orbit/control.

Not only do I believe Boris could never agree such a deal (political suicide), but I also believe that even if he did, such a deal would not have been sustainable.

Ultimately the British people will not accept EU control without representation. The alternative – handing control of NI to the EU - would also ultimately be unacceptable to the people of the UK.

History is littered with international treaties that failed to last the test of time & often the authors themselves recognised the problems as they were written. Lloyd George, for example, famously warned the seeds of another world war were embedded in the Treaty of Versailles.

The EU, however, does not believe this. It believes that like every UK PM for the past 50+ years (with one notable exception) Boris is talking tough to the home crowd whilst looking for a way to give the EU what it wants but be able to present it as something different at home.

What Boris has done with the IM bill is show EU that this is not the case. Yes, he wants a deal, but if EU is unwilling to agree a Canada style FTA (i.e. accepting the costs of being outside the SM & CU but nothing more) he will accept No Deal – and not at the price of losing NI.

The EU has still to make the same choice it has always had. A rapid or gradual divergence from the UK. I still believe that they will ultimately choose the latter and that the IM bill makes this more likely.

But what about our international reputation? Whilst I do not believe it is a good idea to routinely break international treaties and that doing so does confer some reputational/trust loss, I do not believe that the IM bill falls into this category.

Why? Because whilst the ROW may not know the minutiae of the UK/EU negotiations, it does know what the big picture is. It knows that this is (exactly what it is) a choice between the UK remaining under EU control or re-entering the world.

Rather than see the IM bill as a sign of weakness in this regard, the ROW sees it as a sign of strength.
It sees a UK preparing to leave EU control. And contrary to Remainer arguments, the ROW really wants to see the UK back on the world stage.

Asia & Lat Am aren’t busy trying to get the UK into the CPATPP simply to target some of the EU’s trade surplus. Rather it is because this partnership is viewed by its members not just as a trade deal but as a bulwark against Chinese expansionism and aggression.

In that regard members view an independent and sovereign UK as an important military, intelligence, diplomatic and yes economic partner in the alliance.

In Asia the UK leaving the EU is seen as another Falklands moment.

Up until the Falklands war Asia viewed the UK as a weak, bankrupt low self-esteem nation in perpetual decline. The Falklands transformed their opinion and demonstrated that the UK was prepared to stand up for itself.

It is the same lens through which they view Brexit and the IM bill.

Not a repudiation of international law, but as part of a process of regaining its independence from the EU.

I believe the IM bill both makes a sustainable deal with the EU more likely & strengthens the worlds perception of the UK. I commend the IM bill to the House and to the country.