European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Jim Allister and Peter Dowd

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. Many of us here today want to discuss this issue because it is crucial to our constituents not just in the short term, but in the longer term. The former Member for Clwyd West said:

“The Command Paper tells us that the framework, ‘narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland—to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations’”.—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 605.]

[Jim Allister]

The hon. Member has recited what some might have thought were erudite contributions in support of these arrangements, apparently with the insinuation towards the end that we have considered this whole matter. Have his friends not spent since July trying to undo the very things that the previous Government did on so many other matters, because they thought that they were wrong? They were wrong on this, so should they not be trying to undo it?

[Peter Dowd]

I do not quite understand the hon. and learned Member’s point. Today, we are trying to tease out many of the issues and concerns that he, quite understandably, has raised, to try to understand them and maybe to reflect on them and, in future, give consideration to them through the process. It is important that we are all here today listening to what he and other Members have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I am not going to challenge the integrity of the people who were part of that negotiation. It is not for me to challenge their integrity: they are hon. Members, and I believe that they did what they did with the best intention. During the statement on 27 February, I believe that, on the whole, most comments were supportive, but I acknowledge and accept that some were not, such as those from the right hon. Gentleman himself. He made his views known, as did others.

I acknowledge that some of the Members who spoke during that statement are in the Chamber today and express disquiet. I welcome the fact that they have taken their places on the Benches, but their disquiet and the disquiet of others must be set in the context of the following—namely, that the agreement, according to the Command Paper, which is important and which I referred to earlier,

“narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland – to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations.”

In any negotiation in the circumstances, coming away with that figure is not necessarily unreasonable. Would a figure of 100% be the acid test? Maybe it would, but I do not think so, given the circumstances—in practical terms, that is unlikely. That is the nature of negotiation: otherwise, it would be called imposition. We must recognise that those on the other side, who have their views, passions and commitment to their communities as well as their histories, have also been fraught with other people.

I will finish with this. I do not accept the idea that some of our partners in the European Union—some of those eastern bloc European countries that were under the yoke of the Soviet Union as a coloniser—would take the different view that they, in turn, were part of a group or cabal trying to impose a colonialist approach to another country.

[Jim Allister]

How else would the hon. Member describe a scenario in which a huge quota of laws are made in a foreign jurisdiction? How else would he classify that than as colonialism?

[Peter Dowd]

I will touch on that a little later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Precisely—my hon. Friend on the Front Bench says it would be dangerous, and it would be. What about the key provisions of the outer space treaty? What about the agreement establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Redevelopment? On and on it goes.

[Jim Allister]

Is the Belfast agreement not an international treaty subject to international law? Is it okay to breach that agreement when it comes to its provision of every key decision being taken on a cross-community basis? I suppose that is okay because it affects only Unionists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

This House often debates the most challenging and sensitive matters. In this Chamber last Friday, we saw how a sensitive and intense debate based on conviction rather than dogma brings out the best in the House. That is why I have been looking forward to this debate and to listening to the views of colleagues of all political persuasions, and I hope I have done that.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim gave the House a heads-up on this Bill with his previous actions. For example, the putative incompatibility of article 6 of the Acts of Union with the Belfast agreement was ruled out on all counts by the Supreme Court, as far as I am aware. I am sure Members on both sides of the Chamber will recognise that engagement with this debate is done in good faith, even where there are differences of opinion.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanatory notes on the Bill. I read them with interest, particularly paragraph 11:

“The purpose of the Bill is to provide Ministers with the power to make changes to the operation of the Windsor Framework in domestic law, restore the cross-community imperative of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in respect of continuance of the Windsor Framework and to safeguard democracy, peace and stability in Northern Ireland.”

In my view, this is effectively a reincarnation of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022, which caused concern in so many quarters, domains and jurisdictions. The Government of the time acknowledged that there would be non-performance of their international obligations out of necessity. They said that they sought to reach a negotiated settlement with the European Union to forestall the need to invoke the concept of necessity.

The previous Government subsequently withdrew the Bill, because they believed they had secured the necessary conditions they sought, as set out in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Therefore, the assertion on the use of the concept of necessity was never put to the test. I, for one, am pleased that it was not. If it had been, in my view and in the view of many others, we would have been on the road to perdition—there is no doubt about that.

As I have said, this Bill is another iteration of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that would take us back to June 2022 and, once again, put the country in danger of breaching its obligations under international law, notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim said. The idea that the Bill can invoke the concept of necessity as a reason for a breach is beguiling, but illusory.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Member not accept that a fundamental element of the jurisprudence of international law in this area is the requirement that any such agreement must not infringe the territorial integrity of either state? That, patently, has happened. Is this not the fundamental flaw in the international law argument? It falls at the first prerequisite: that the territorial integrity of the state with which the agreement is being made must not be infringed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I do not want to go down that particular rabbit hole, but I will say this. We have the sovereign base in Akrotiri, in Cyprus. We negotiated that. Is it a breach of the sovereign territory of Cyprus? Is it somehow wrong? We negotiated it, we agreed it, it exists and it is used, so I do not believe that it is a breach. It is possible to negotiate a range of matters. It could be said that an element of sovereignty is given away for a better, or a more comprehensive, capacity in another area.

[Jim Allister]

What the hon. Member seems to be saying is that if the United Kingdom decides to acquiesce in—indeed, support—the infringement of its own territorial integrity, that is all right. If that is the basis, is it not all the more reason why the Government—a new Government—of the United Kingdom ought to address this humiliating concession?

[Peter Dowd]

I do not think it is a humiliating concession, but if it is a concession at all, I think it is an attempt, given the circumstances that we faced, to reach an agreement with trading partners in the light of the decision of the British people. We live in a world where we do not get everything we want. We live in a world where there is a little bit of give and a little bit of take, and sometimes we are able to give more than we take, and vice versa. As I have said, however, I do not want to go down that rabbit hole, because I do not think it is necessarily the subject of today’s debate. We touch on it, and it is pertinent, but I do not think it should dominate the whole debate.

There is no doubt that the subject is fraught with all the concerns and anxieties and consternation to which I referred earlier, and we have to operate in the wider political environment and milieu in which countries have to operate all the time. I think it only fair to point out that the law of unintended consequences may decide to poke its head around the door, and perhaps even to walk into the Chamber, and there will be nothing that we can do. That is the very nature of the issue that confronts us. There are no easy solutions. There are no easy answers to difficult questions. There are no off-the-cuff responses that will sort out the issue. That is a statement of the obvious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

It is a fair point. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: if we agree to the Bill, are we in breach of faith and trust? I think so. I do not say that lightly, or to be offensive or provocative.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Member think that there is such a thing as breach of trust when it comes to relations within the United Kingdom? Are the citizens of this United Kingdom entitled to expect equal citizenship, and to be governed by laws that their nation makes, or are those things secondary to tipping our cap to the EU? Is that his stance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I regret that the hon. Gentleman takes that view of what I am saying. I would not say it is not fair, but I am genuinely trying to be as conciliatory as I can be given the circumstances in relation to the question of trust. The question is this: is this Bill a breach of an agreement or a treaty? In my view it is, and I think most people are not denying that assertion. There may be some people who do so, but as a House of Commons paper of 4 December says on page 17:

“No rule of a state’s domestic law can be used to justify a breach of its existing international obligations. This principle is set out in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”

I genuinely believe that I am bound by that. We can caveat any breach of international law until the cows come home; it can be claimed that it is out of the concept of necessity as referred to before in terms of international law. However, although we can claim whatever we want, it does not wash with other countries with which we have negotiated, and that in a sense is all there is to that particular point.

[Jim Allister]

In pursuit of the hon. Member’s filibuster, he tells us how much he adheres to international law. Why does he not adhere to the declaration and the principles of international law from the United Nations of 24 October 1970, which says in very emphatic terms that there is a duty in treaties

“not to intervene in matters within domestic jurisdiction of any State”

and that the principles of international law require respect for territorial integrity? If those are the principles and the Windsor framework infringes on those principles, is it not the Windsor framework that is flawed, and not the declaration of fundamental principles?

[Peter Dowd]

No, I disagree. If I am being honest, I think that view is predicated on a fallacy. I do not want to use those words, as I am trying to be as temperate as I possibly can be, but I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman is using that reference somewhat inappropriately. As I said, we can caveat any breach of international law that we like, but it comes back to the question of what our partners or co-signatories think.

It is worthwhile exploring that concept in a little more detail, because it goes to the heart of our responsibilities as a custodian—I choose that word with care, for that is what we are—of international law, and not just in relation to any particular treaty, but in general terms.