Several constituents have written to me with important questions about the Internal Market Bill, so I want to set out my views and correct a few misconceptions about it that have been shared with me. I would also recommend reading the Prime Minister's opening remarks and responses from this evening's debate, which can be found here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/…/UnitedKingdomInternalMarket…
To firstly put this all into context, the Internal Market Bill has come about as a response to threats made by the EU’s negotiating team during the current negotiations about the UK-EU future relationship. Had these threats not been made by the EU, the Bill would not have been put forward. As it happens, the EU have threatened to not only place tariffs on goods crossing the Irish Sea, but actually to blockade the transport of food products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland if the UK does not agree to its terms. This goes completely against the Withdrawal Agreement and is an unacceptable threat to the UK’s sovereignty and indeed to international law. The UK has therefore been forced to introduce this Bill as a means of protecting the UK if the EU were to go down this route.
The most serious concern that has been raised with me is that this Bill breaks international law, but I can confirm that this is not correct. In and of itself, the Internal Market Bill simply grants powers to the Government to allow it to take action to protect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in the event that the EU follows-through with its threat to break the Withdrawal Agreement and jeopardise the Belfast Agreement – both of which, it should be remembered, form part of international law. It should therefore be made clear that the only scenario under which these powers would need to be used is if the EU has itself breached international law by reneging on the Withdrawal Agreement. So this Bill is very much a defensive action from the UK Government for a worst-case scenario. I would much rather we did not have to pass this Bill, but the EU negotiating team have left the UK with no choice as a result of their threats.
I am therefore supporting this Bill in order to not only protect the integrity of the United Kingdom, but also in the sincere hope that the EU takes these threats off the table for the sake of our two unions working closely together in the future. I very much hope that the EU’s threats are just threats and that they intend to return to negotiating on the terms agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement. This Bill is not one that any of us wanted to see introduced, but in the circumstances it is absolutely right and necessary to do so in order to restore honesty and integrity back to the negotiations.
