EU gives Boris Johnson 20 days to retreat on Brexit Bill
|
 | By Asa Bennett,
Brexit Commissioning Editor |
|
Around this time last year, Boris Johnson had made his now notorious declaration that he would rather be "dead in a ditch" than see Brexit delayed.
Some Eurocrats must be wishing the Prime Minister had met as grim a fate as that, as long as they were spared from dealing with the spanner he has since inserted this week into the diplomatic works.
The EU has now given the British until the end of the month to gut their Internal Market Bill and remove the parts that would have allowed ministers to override the Irish protocol, otherwise it would constitute an "extremely serious violation of the Withdrawal Agreement and of international law."
This Brussels ultimatum came after Maros Sefcovic, a vice-president of the European Commission, came to London to meet his British counterpart for an emergency meeting of the UK-EU joint committee. But Michael Gove stood firm, saying afterwards he had been "perfectly clear ... that we would not be withdrawing this legislation".
With both sides at even greater loggerheads, how will this pan out? Clearly, caving into the EU's demands would be anathema for Mr Johnson's government, but that doesn't stop others intervening to force a compromise.
Such a prospect depends on the Houses of Parliament, which will shortly be scrutinising the bill that the Government has indicated it wants to push through at pace.
Bob Neill – the Tory MP whose question earlier this week prompted Brandon Lewis to make his infamous pronouncement about international law – has tabled an amendment, with the support of ex-minister Damian Green and others. It would give MPs the right to decide whether the Government can override the Brexit deal in individual cases.
If Mr Johnson's chunky majority ensures such efforts amount to naught, the bill will not have the same numbers in its favour in the House of Lords.
Tory grandees on the red benches, like former party leader Lord Howard and former chancellor Lord Lamont, have been sounding off about the "scant regard" shown by the Government for the UK's treaty obligations. Ministers would need peers like these to ensure the bill got anywhere in the Lords, given the lack of a majority in that chamber, suggesting the legislation will be highly vulnerable if it makes it that far.
How much of a problem could the Lords prove? The 1911 Parliament Act cemented the superiority of the Commons, so if MPs back the bill, it will prevail in the end. But perhaps peers will focus on ensuring an amendment like Mr Neill's survives.
Despite this legislation provoking the sourest tone yet in post-Brexit dialogue, David Frost has offered the news that may surprise some after the seventh round of negotiations – they want to keep talking.
"We have agreed to meet again, as planned, in Brussels next week to continue discussions," the UK's chief negotiator confirmed last night, describing this week's talks as "useful exchanges".
However, the newly ennobled negotiator made clear "a number of challenging areas remain and the divergences on some are still significant." So anyone who thought this legal row might provide cover for both sides to pull a deal out of the hat will be disappointed.
Nevertheless, one should not gloss over the fact negotiators still feel there is something worth talking about. That is worth remembering amid the political chest-beating from both sides.
That said, you would be forgiven for thinking after reading my analysis of yet another Brexit bill facing parliamentary trench warfare, and the risk of various amendments, that it feels highly reminiscent of 2019.
Will this week's legal row end up being the 2020 version of Mr Johnson's "dead in a ditch" brinkmanship – i.e. a big show of strength that paves the way for compromise by showing both sides have fought their corner to the utmost? Or is this an even greater stand that will lead to an explosive no-deal finale?
Only a few people know for sure. In a process dominated by Michel Barnier's ticking clock, time will truly tell whether a deal can still be salvaged. |
|
