The bill also has a negative impact on cross-border political relations. It reveals a very different view of the Irish border between unionists and the Irish government and highlights the importance of this border for unionist and nationalist identity in a mirror image, with the DUP claiming that the Irish government is trying to keep the border open in order to achieve a united Ireland. Different perceptions of the agreement are also evident. Unionists argue that the protocol was not mutually agreed and therefore undermines the agreement and that it constitutes a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The spirit of the agreement is consensual, but the formal rules of consocative consensus apply only to the policy areas of Strand 1. British foreign policy and therefore the Brexit negotiations are the legislative responsibility of the British government. Brexit itself came for the same reason without the approval of a majority in Northern Ireland, after the referendum gave the UK a Leave majority. A similar misconception is that Northern Ireland`s constitutional status is not affected by the maritime border. Northern Ireland`s constitutional status is enshrined in the agreement and can only change if a majority supports unification in a referendum in Northern Ireland and Ireland. Similarly, Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (unaffiliated), a former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, said she supported the removal of the clauses from the bill because they were “difficult, challenging and undermine the principles of healing, reconciliation and partnership that we were able to achieve through the Belfast Good Friday Agreement”. However, she said she shared the concerns of her union colleagues about friction over goods transported from Britain to Northern Ireland.
The European Commission opened an infringement procedure against the United Kingdom in October 2020. The Commission argued that the UK Government`s failure to withdraw the disputed parts of the bill meant that it had “breached its duty to act in good faith as set out in Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement”. The chairmen of the European Parliament`s political groups and the European Parliament`s UK Coordination Group said in September 2020: “If the UK authorities violate or threaten to breach the Withdrawal Agreement through the UK Internal Market Act in its current or other form, the European Parliament will under no circumstances ratify an agreement between the EU and the UK.” Article 4 of the Agreement provides that the provisions of the Treaty take precedence in law, in particular in the domestic law of the United Kingdom. The Withdrawal Agreement (also known as the Brexit “divorce agreement”) contains a section – or protocol – on Northern Ireland and is now an international treaty. Some Conservative MPs opposed Part 5, including Lord Howard of Lympne, the former leader of the party. He argued that it was “dangerous” to suggest that “opposition to this part of the law is, in a way, the Remainers` final indictment”. He said he did not regret voting for Brexit “for a while”, but said he wanted “the independent sovereign state I voted for to be a country that […] keeps its word, respects the rule of law and respects its contractual obligations.” Others supported the provisions of the bill. For example, Lord Lilley argued that the provisions of the bill “would make it less likely that the European Union would refuse to negotiate `in good faith` and to respect the `legal order` of the other party, as set out in the Withdrawal Agreement. At the same time, he said the UK needed the powers in the bill in case the EU “refuses to resolve these issues through good faith negotiations”. The Scottish government has rejected the UK government`s plans for the single market since its first proposal in July 2020, with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon saying the plans are “trampling on the powers of the Scottish Parliament”. [52] This did not preclude legal action. [54] Sturgeon described the bill as “an abomination that would cripple decentralisation” and that “the British government is not only prepared to break international law – it is clear that it is now ready to break decentralisation.” [55] She tweeted on September 9, 2020 that this was a “complete frontal attack on decentralization” and later said it was an “abomination at almost every level.” [52] Subsidy rules have also become a controversial element of the UK-EU negotiations, with the UK refusing to apply EU state aid rules to UK state subsidies.
Section 43 of the Bill, when it comes into force, would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations, including the non-application or modification of the effect of Article 10 of the Protocol.4 Under Article 10, the United Kingdom has agreed to apply EU State aid law to “measures” or subsidies “affecting trade between Northern Ireland and the Union subject to this Protocol”.5 This could allow for subsidy programmes British. , which include support for Northern Irish businesses. even if this is not the main intention of the grant. While the Bill would continue to allow the decentralised government to set its own standards for the products and sale of goods and services[39], the principle of mutual recognition would not apply these rules to goods and services from other parts of the UK and would ensure that if the goods and services can be legally sold in one part of the UK, they can also be legally sold in all other parts. Some exceptions apply. [3] But it is also true that the maritime border was created literally at the request of Johnson, who called for the removal of former Prime Minister Theresa May`s backstop, which would have made these controls less likely by linking the entire UK to a closer relationship with the EU`s single market and customs union, unless sea and land controls can be avoided. Johnson called for the lifting of this safeguard measure and instead called for the insertion of a “consent mechanism” that would allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to vote against the protocol in four years. This “invisible border” was not problematic as long as the UK remained a member of the EU, but Brexit meant that Northern Ireland had to leave the EU, while Ireland remained a member state and demanded new solutions to reconcile the different interests of all parties. The compromise was reached through the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland (NI Protocol), which avoided a hard border in Ireland and ensured the continued application of the Good Friday Agreement. To circumvent the need for customs controls on goods moving within the island of Ireland, Northern Ireland has been effectively integrated into the EU customs union in order to preserve the integrity of the single market and within the framework of the British customs territory. Under the Agreement, all necessary customs controls or controls and the payment of customs duties (if any) would take place between Northern Ireland and Great Britain (the rest of the United Kingdom). Article 10 of the NI Protocol also provides that the United Kingdom agrees to the continued application of EU State aid rules in Northern Ireland in order to avoid distortions of competition with Ireland.
The NI Protocol is an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement, although it was intended as a temporary measure until another agreement is concluded. Under Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EU and the UK agreed to support each other “in full mutual respect and good faith” to meet the requirements of the Agreement. The law received Royal Assent on December 17, 2020, about two weeks before the UK formally withdrew from the European single market. Prior to its adoption, the UK government removed certain provisions from Part 5 of the Bill (relating to Northern Ireland`s protocol to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement) that sparked controversy over their impact on the rule of law. Part 5 of the Bill contained provisions on Northern Ireland in the light of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is part of the Withdrawal Agreement concluded between the EU and the UK in October 2019 and ratified in January 2020. Part 5 should give Ministers the power to unilaterally interpret, amend or not apply certain parts of the Protocol. Its provisions were specifically intended to allow ministers to do so with regard to the following: the bill drew criticism from the five living former prime ministers: John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May. [58] May stated that “the GOVERNMENT of the United Kingdom has signed the Withdrawal Agreement with the Northern Ireland Protocol. This Parliament voted in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement in UK legislation. The government is changing the way this agreement works. How can the government assure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to comply with the legal obligations of the agreements it has signed? [30] John Major said, “For generations, Britain`s word – solemnly given – has been accepted by its friends and enemies.
Our signing of a treaty or agreement was sacrosanct. If we lose our reputation for keeping the promises we make, we will have lost something that goes beyond the price and may never be found. [59] Conservative MP William Cash spoke positively about the bill in the House of Commons and concluded: “The bill is necessary as an insurance policy and as a guarantee of our national sovereignty within the meaning of the Vienna Convention and our national security. [65] The BRITISH Justice Secretary called the bill an “insurance policy” or “glass breakage in an emergency.” The Justice Minister said the UK government would only invoke the powers in the bill if the EU and the UK fail to reach an agreement and the EU acts “inappropriately”.16 So it`s unclear what might prompt the UK to use the powers conferred by the law. .