IT’S clear that Westminster’s Internal Market Bill is an attempt to subject Scotland to a “Union Jack fest”, the House of Commons heard last night.
The SNP warned that the bill had been designed to allow Westminster to directly intervene in devolved areas without the consent of the Scottish Government.
Listing the areas that the bill would allow Westminster to do this in, such as cultural activities, projects and events, education and training activities, and sport, the SNP’s Alan Brown asked: “What kind of education projects do they want to impose in Scotland? Why do they think that should be in the bill in the first place?”
He told the UK Government that any such interference would “not go down well” north of the Border and would in fact serve to help the Yes cause.
The SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun finished by saying that those “who voted No in 2014 are changing their minds rapidly, as they now know the contempt this Government treats Scotland with”.
Brown was just one of the opposition figures who lined up to take aim at the Internal Market Bill as the Commons considered the Lords’ amendments.
The Lords had removed clauses from the bill that allowed ministers to ignore last year’s legally binding withdrawal agreement and made changes requiring the Government to seek the consent of the devolved administrations over the use of powers in the bill.
If consent was not given within a month, the Government may press ahead, but this change required it to publish a statement explaining why.
However, the UK Government voted by 360 to 265 to remove these changes from the bill, with one Tory MP suggesting that the Lords had become “more a house of opposition” than a useful check and balance.
Speaking before the vote, SNP MP Stuart McDonald warned that the Tories presented a “real and direct threat to the rule of law”.
He said: “The Government is expressly asking us to pass legislation in breach of an agreement it signed just months ago with a counterpart it is still negotiating with. That is simply astonishing.
“We cannot let this be spoken about as if it is no big deal or in any way normal.”
Despite reintroducing the clauses which will break international law should they come into effect, the UK Government has signalled that it will consider removing them should
Brexit negotiations go their way.
A statement from Downing Street said it was committed to the full implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol in a “pragmatic, proportionate way which recognises Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory and upholds the Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions”.
“If the solutions being considered in those discussions are agreed, the UK Government would be prepared to remove clause 44 of the UK Internal Market Bill, concerning export declarations,” it added.
“The UK Government would also be prepared to deactivate clauses 45 and 47, concerning state aid, such that they could be used only when consistent with the UK’s rights and obligations under international law.”
McDonald said the Government’s willingness to climb back on its word was not to be viewed as a good thing, adding: “It simply confirms that the Government is happy to threaten to go back on its word as a means of getting its own way.”
Meanwhile, there is still no sign of a deal in the Brexit negotiations despite there being just over three weeks until the end-of-year deadline.
In a joint statement with the UK Prime Minister released yesterday, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “As agreed on Saturday, we took stock today of the ongoing negotiations. We agreed that the conditions for finalising an agreement are not there due to the remaining significant differences on three critical issues: level playing field, governance and fisheries.
“We asked our chief negotiators and their teams to prepare an overview of the remaining differences to be discussed in a physical meeting in Brussels in the coming days.”
Media reports have taken this to mean that Boris Johnson will be attending the talks in person, however that has not yet been confirmed.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel