Boris Johnson’s plans to break the post-Brexit agreement on Northern Ireland have come under fierce attack from Washington, with senior congressmen on both sides of the US political divide warning that the “irresponsible” move is a threat to peace in the province.
EU commissioners are expected to launch a new lawsuit against the United Kingdom later this week, following the publication on Monday of a bill that will unilaterally rewrite the Northern Ireland Protocol agreed by Mr Johnson with Brussels in 2019.
A former head of the government’s legal service said ministers’ attempts to justify the move were “hopeless”, while another legal expert said the UK would face a “tough fight” to convince any court that it was not. constitutes a violation of international law.
Foreign Minister Liz Truss said the United Kingdom had been forced to take unilateral action as talks with Brussels on easing trade disruptions in Northern Ireland after Brexit had reached a stalemate.
But European capitals backed Brussels’ approach, with Germany saying the UK’s actions were “unacceptable” and warning that “peace and prosperity on the island of Ireland are not a pawn”.
And Irish Foreign Secretary Simon Cowney said London seemed “for some political reason” trying to dismantle the protocol, which is international law that had been carefully drafted over several years through diligent negotiations involving this British prime minister to resolve or to manage the Brexit break on the island of Ireland as best we can. “
Irish Prime Minister Michael Martin said Johnson’s proposals were “not well thought out or well thought out” and that the bill’s provisions would prove “anti-business and anti-industrial”.
In a strong joint statement, a group of senior members of Congress called on the United Kingdom and the EU to “continue negotiations in good faith to reach lasting solutions to the post-Brexit trade challenges.”
The statement, signed by House Speaker Richard Neal, European Commission President Bill Keating and Republican Brian Fitzpatrick and EU Congresswoman Brendan Boyle, said the protocol had been signed by Mr Johnson and ratified by Parliament. of Westminster.
“The introduction of legislation in the United Kingdom undermines the Northern Ireland Protocol, threatens international law and, most alarmingly, could threaten the nearly 25-year peace established by the Good Friday Agreement,” they warned.
Congressman Boyle said the law “clearly violates international law”, noting that about 60% of the members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly last month support the protocol in its current form.
In a separate statement, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said he was “deeply disappointed” by the UK’s decision “to try to unilaterally change the Northern Ireland Protocol”.
“The proposal is an irresponsible move that threatens the 24 years of peace since the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland signed the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, as well as the economic well-being of everyone living on the island,” he warned. it was an “unnecessary distraction” from international unity on Ukraine.
Washington has assured that the UK’s actions will not block a possible future trade agreement, but progress on this front has been negligible since President Joe Biden took office.
A White House spokesman called on both sides to “return to talks to resolve differences.”
UK ministers have said their attempt to repeal elements of the Irish Sea Trade Protocol, the European Court of Justice’s involvement in dispute resolution and Westminster’s control over tax rates in Northern Ireland is justified, as the protocol in its current form is unacceptable to the unionist community.
But DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has shattered the government’s hopes that the bill’s release would lead to a return to power-sharing institutions by the largest unionist party, which blocked the formation of an assembly and executive after last month’s election.
“There is a long way to go with this legislation. “It will take months for them to go through the municipalities and the lords, unless the government decides to escalate the schedule for the bill, and we have not heard that,” he said.
“So we will consider what is happening in the legislative process, but at this stage we have not come to an opinion on when the institutions can be restored.”
Legal experts have renounced the government’s reliance on a concept known as the “doctrine of necessity” to support its claim that the bill will not violate international law.
The Committee on International Law states that the doctrine can be used only in conditions of “serious and imminent danger” and in cases where the state that has it has not contributed to the situation with its own actions.
A legal position signed by Attorney General Suela Braverman said the requirement was met because of “trade diversion and serious social and economic hardship caused by the Protocol” and “the pressure that the Protocol arrangements have on the institutions of Northern Ireland”.
But Sir Jonathan Jones – who left the Treasury’s lawyer for acknowledging that legislation in 2020 would violate international law – described the position as “certainly hopeless, with no evidence of how this high test was met”.
“The EU will certainly accept it as a gross violation of the Withdrawal Agreement,” he said. “Legal proceedings seem inevitable.”
And Cambridge University law professor Mark Elliott said the government’s argument was “ridiculous” and “very doubtful” for any court to accept.
“It would be an understatement to say that the government will face a tough fight to satisfy the court that the bill can be justified by reference to necessity,” said Prof. Elliott.
“By announcing its intention to adopt this legislation and accompanying it with a” legal justification “that provokes ridicule, the government has once again signaled its readiness to play quickly and freely with the rule of law and its commitment to a rules-based international order.
“In this way, he gives up moral authority, questions his credibility as a partner in the treaty – including in any future trade negotiations – and calls on other countries to plead for political convenience disguised as ‘necessity’ to justify waiving contractual obligations.” .
Add Comment