Johnson saves first vote on law that flouts Brexit deal

Boris Johnson listens to Labor spokesman Ed Miliband in the House of Commons on Monday- / AFP

Boris Johnson was able to verify on Monday that it is possible to win a parliamentary vote and, even so, leave the House of Commons devastated.

The British prime minister had a sufficient majority of votes (340 to 263 against) to go ahead with the parliamentary process of the UK's Internal Market Act, which unilaterally violates fundamental clauses of the EU Withdrawal Agreement.

But the internal revolt among conservatives, many of them alarmed by the reputational damage that the decision will entail, was inflating hour after hour.

Former Prime Minister David Cameron joined the criticism.

Johnson again bet on his rhetorical ability and proverbial self-confidence to try to calm the choppy waters of Westminster.

He decided to open the parliamentary debate with which the procedure in the Chamber of his controversial law was promoted.

Hours earlier, up to three new authorized voices from his party had warned him of the damage his latest ploy could cause.

"No prime minister can solemnly commit to the obligations of a treaty while keeping his fingers crossed," denounced the former state attorney general (the government's chief legal adviser), Geoffrey Cox.

A firm defender of Brexit, ally and condemnation of Theresa May when she doggedly watched over the legality of each of the former prime minister's steps, and respected by her fellow party members, Cox's blow especially hurt Johnson.

Almost as much as that of another former prime minister (the five predecessors in office are already those who have joined the battle), David Cameron: “Passing in Parliament a text contrary to international legality should be the last resort we contemplate Cameron lamented.

Like the former Minister of Economy, Sajid Javid, who also announced that he would join the line of abstentions.

“We cannot reach a situation in which the borders of our own country are dictated by a foreign power or by an international organization.

No prime minister could allow it, ”Johnson proclaimed in a deeply nationalist speech in which he tried in bad faith to blame the European Union.

Downing Street now assures that the Withdrawal Agreement, presented as a great triumph before the December 2019 General Elections in which the Conservative Party swept, contains a series of important ambiguities that it was necessary to correct with the new legal text.

The leader of the Labor opposition, Keir Starmer, had been forced to seclude himself at his home shortly before the debate.

A member of his family had developed symptoms of Covid-19.

Instead, Ed Miliband chimed in.

Whoever was the failed leader of the Labor Party until his resignation in 2015 gave the impression that all this time he had been preparing for an intervention in which he put Johnson on the ropes.

The prime minister crossed his arms, frowned, and could barely hide his frustration as he sank all his humanity into the seat.

"I never thought, every time I intervened before from this rostrum, that the idea that international legality must be respected would be the subject of division in this Parliament," Miliband denounced as he demolished one by one the arguments put forward by the Government to skip legality .

“They now tell us that the EU Withdrawal Agreement was ambiguous, problematic ... I wonder if he ever read it.

You did not read that agreement, you have not read the law that it proposes to us.

You have no idea.

It is the treaty that you signed and presented as a triumph.

It would be good if, for the first time in his entire political career, he was able to assume his responsibility, ”he reproached a prime minister who was staring at the ceiling with wild eyes.

Johnson assures that the new law is simply a "safety cushion", and that his will continues to be to try to reach an agreement with the EU before December 31, when the transition period ends.

For now, his maneuver has irritated Brussels, which has demanded a rectification before the end of September.

But above all, in the midst of the enormous crisis that the coronavirus pandemic has represented, Johnson has chosen to return to lead the House of Commons to a labyrinth of endless discussions and resentment like the one he went through throughout 2019.

Prime Minister suggests EU will block food from Northern Ireland

As criticism has grown against the UK's Internal Market Bill, the Johnson government has been changing the arguments by which it tried to justify the legal ploy.

To the point of using threats that are not even part of the disputed document.

“We are now assured that the European Union will not only impose tariffs on products that travel from Great Britain to Northern Ireland [The United Kingdom, in official terminology, is the sum of these two territories separated by the Irish Sea].

They could even in fact stop the transit of food between both parties, "Johnson said this Sunday in the pages of The Daily Telegraph, his unconditional ally in the battle of Brexit.

It was a message intended to arouse the Eurosceptic electorate, which has nothing to do with the new bill and which turns a normal mechanism of international legality into a political weapon with demagogic overtones.

To the point that the Labor spokesman, Ed Miliband, gave Johnson his time to speak so that the prime minister explained to the House in which article of the debated law there was any reference to the matter.

Johnson stammered a sneer and gave up speaking.

The reality is much more technical and less Machiavellian.

Under the Withdrawal Agreement signed between London and Brussels last January, Northern Ireland will remain part of the EU Internal Market.

It was the agreed solution not to establish new borders between this British territory and the Republic of Ireland (a member of the European Union), and thus avoid endangering the peace agreement that ended decades of terrorism.

With these premises, any agricultural product that the United Kingdom wants to introduce in Northern Ireland, it would be sending it, for practical purposes, to the internal market of the European Union.

And the community rules themselves establish that, in such a situation, a "third country authorization" must be granted, which certifies that the United Kingdom complies with the phytosanitary regime required in the EU. Downing Street, which presumes to have certain regulations. consumption equal to or even higher than the community, sees bad faith behind the requirement.

But the truth is that until now they have been unable to present to the negotiating counterpart what their health regulations will be for agricultural and livestock products in the post-Brexit era. A technicality that, under normal circumstances, would be remedied, has become a new argument poisoned to resurrect in the House of Commons the fratricidal battle of the last three years.