LORD HAIN
Along with a clear majority in this House, I totally rejected #Part5, which deliberately & cynically drives a coach & horses through the UK’s respect for the #RuleOfLaw. Not only that, it drives that same coach & horses through the protections we need for the GFA😢...
successfully brought an end to most of the Troubles, which had blighted life in NI since the 1960s.
I put on record..the HORROR & DISBELIEF felt well beyond the shores of this UK. The most striking reaction was that in the US, where the current President’s NI envoy..2/
—his former chief of staff—agreed fundamentally with their rivals in the Democratic party that they cannot do any trade deal with the UK if the UK acts against the GFA. That is exactly what is happening here in this Bill.😢 It is a legal document that works against the peace..3/
agreement for NI. In proposing this, the Govt have pulled off a spectacular feat in uniting Republicans & Democrats at a time when they have never been more divided.This, of course, is not a feat but a spectacular own goal, even by the standards of this PM & this Government🔥4/
Since I last spoke..Joe Biden, Irish-America & Ireland, published on 18 October:
“will support active US engagement to advance the Northern Ireland peace process”
& will ensure that there will be
“no US-UK trade deal if the implementation of Brexit imperils the GFA.” 5/
There is nothing subtle here. The front-runner to be President of the US does NOT like what he sees as this Govt seek to implement Brexit. He is sending a strong WARNING to us, & we in this House have it in our power, through this Bill, to force the Govt to change course.
LORD HAIN
RE:The future of peace in NI
The Minister did NOT explain how the Bill upholds the GFA. He asserted it, but he did not explain how it upholds it, esp given that it repeals the Irish NIP..majority of contributors to debate—in fact, EVERYBODY except him🤔—dispute that😱
That is the problem the Govt face in setting their face against these amendments.
Unless there is an ulterior motive here🤔& I am not suggesting that of the Minister personally but of No. 10 Downing Street😱 I do not understand. If there are concerns about the implementation..2/
of the NIP, there is a committee...co-chaired by Michael Gove with a representative of the EU, to iron out the detailed implementation points. It is a joint c'ttee. That makes us all think that there is something much more serious at stake here, which is undermining the whole..3/
LORD HAIN
UK membership of EU facilitated the delivery of the agreement in a manner which respected both communities. It was the Johnson Govt’s CHOICE of a hard Brexit which has brought about the need for a BORDER IN THE IRISH SEA, to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.
The land border is:
310 miles long
>200 crossing points
110 million people crossing annually
up to 30,000 crossing daily for work
NI Statistics & Research Agency estimates two-thirds of Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland trade is linked to cross-border supply chains. 2/
In view of potential consequences for increasing the TENSIONS within NI/Irish border communities, it's CHILLING to note Clause 47 explicitly disapplies Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act, which requires public authorities to act in a way that is compatible with the ECHR!😱😢3/
LORD HAIN
Words such as “consent” are thrown about in a misleading way—to create an impression that the purpose of these clauses is to protect all those who brought about the peace agreement.
[But]
Not one of these groups supports what the Govt are attempting through this Bill..
NOT 1. The people of NI. 2. The political parties. (The majority of parties, rep the majority of the ppl of NI, opposed to Bill) 3. The Irish Govt. (the UK Govt’s co-guarantor of our peace process, opposed to Bill) 4. The US 5. The EU
...2/
SO whose consent exactly do the Government think they have? I have been racking my brains to think of anyone, but all I have come up with are the Brexit extremists in the Conservative party & the most Brexit-obsessed end of one political party in NI, the DUP—that is it...3/
BARONESS ANDREWS: "GRAVE MATTERS"😱
The powers..described by DPRRC as “inappropriate” may seem rather feeble in the parliamentary lexicon; in fact, it could not be more powerful. Among other synonyms, it means UNSEEMLY, UNBECOMING, LACKING IN PROPRIETY, ILL-JUDGED & OUT OF ORDER!
Nowhere are those & many other epithets more appropriate than what these clauses have to say about the #DevolutionSettlement. The Govt are required not to seek consent but merely to consult😱😭so they
“can act without the need to introduce new primary legislation or to....2/
..obtain the consent of the devolved administrations (the Minister being only under a duty to consult) even though the proper functioning of the internal market is essential to all the administrations of the UK.”
LORD JUDGE (cont)
I expect negotiations to be tough—that is the whole point of them. I hope that our negotiators are being tough—that is what they are there for. That is a very far distant cry from bad faith😱
NO EVIDENCE of that has so far been shown to any of the committees 😱
...which examined these issues; indeed, apart from the most recent observation by the Minister before us today, there is no evidence. Therefore, we are dealing with a hypothetical situation, which is: “We may need these powers at some stage.” Maybe we will; I hope not...2/
If we do, it is perfectly open to the Govt to come back to us, to Parliament, to put before us emergency legislation & for both Houses to sit as long & as late as necessary to examine the proposals, and, if they are satisfactory, to endorse them. 3/
LORD JUDGE:The debate has reinforced my anxiety about the Bill!
If enacted, we'll be giving the Executive the most EXTRAORDINARILY WIDE POWERS, & until the debate I'd not fully appreciated the DANGERS to the union of giving the Executive in London effectively uncontrolled power😱
...over the way in which the internal market will work.
I notice that the Minister has not resiled from the proposition....that the Bill, if enacted, would not break international law or break the law. That it would not break the law seems a crucial element in this...2/
The fact of the matter is that the law wd be broken. The Minister in the other place said so; the Treasury Solicitor resigned; & the noble & learned Lord, Lord Keen, resigned. There can be no getting away from it & to be fair, the Minister in our House has not sought to do so. 3/