European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

I respectfully and utterly disagree. As part of the United Kingdom, we are all subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. The Human Rights Act is what fundamentally gives the hon. Lady’s constituents the rights that they have in that sphere, and she would lose nothing by losing the control of the foreign court of the European Court of Justice.

I am listing examples of the 300 areas of law that have been purloined by the EU in its sovereignty grab over Northern Ireland. I mentioned the 34 different diktats on animals. We have even reached the point in Northern Ireland where, under these arrangements, our cattle can no longer bear a UK ear tag. They now have to have a specified European Union ear tag. That is but an illustration of how absurd and utterly wrong and offensive it is that the right to make the laws in our own country has been surrendered to a foreign power.

All those 300 areas are set forth in annex 2 of the protocol or, as it is now more kindly called, the Windsor framework. Look at annex 2, look at the hundreds of laws—289 of them which now have been removed from the ambit of the lawmaking of this House or the lawmaking of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is amazing to look at the volume of law: there are 70 pages containing not the details of the law but simply the headings of the law. That shows the extent to which the EU has its foot in the door in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister]

Absolutely. I printed them off a couple of months ago and I was staggered by how voluminous just the titles are. It is not just 300 laws; it is 300 areas of law which have been surrendered.

I have a challenge for every Member of this House who comes from a different part of the United Kingdom from Northern Ireland—those who represent GB constituencies. My challenge to them today is: “How would you feel if in 300 areas of law affecting your constituents, you had no input—you couldn’t change, you couldn’t move an amendment—because those laws were made colonial-like in a foreign Parliament by those elected not by your constituents but by the constituents of 27 other countries?” How, I ask this House, could any democrat, any representative MP, say that is right and correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

Maybe the hon. Member could help me. What would he call taking a territory and subjecting it to someone else’s laws? What would he call it other than colonisation? Is that not the very essence of what he and his colleagues wear as a badge of pride in their anti-colonialism? Is that not what it is in name and in truth?

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman remember that in the Brexit negotiations those so-called allies made it clear that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland’s removal from the United Kingdom? Far from being allies, they declared themselves to want to be colonisers.

[Jim Allister]

Yes, that was the boast of Mr Barnier and his staff: that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland—and so it has proved to be. That may be something of indifference, or indeed pride, for some people in this House, but it should be a badge of shame that we allowed a part of the United Kingdom to be colonised by the EU, and that we have surrendered our rights to make our own laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. The fascinating point is the very concept was articulated from and originated within the EU itself.

During the early stages of the negotiations, Sir Jonathan Faull and academics Daniel Sarmiento and Joseph Weiler came up with that proposition. It is not my proposition. It is not a United Kingdom proposition. It was an EU proposition. They said the answer is mutual enforcement. Today we have a statement from those three gentlemen, which has been made public. It says, “On Friday of this week, the House of Commons will be debating a Bill which attempts to address some of the difficulties resulting from the Brexit divorce agreements between the EU and the UK, which might be of interest to readers. In 2019, we proposed a solution which would have obviated any need for these complicated and divisive legal manoeuvres. The UK and the EU could have respected each other’s positions and saved everyone a great deal of time and effort. The Financial Times characterised the proposal as a ‘win-win solution’. Regrettably, it was not followed.” I echo that: regrettably, it was not followed. Why was it not followed? Because the politics took over. Instead of looking for a workable, practical border solution, the politics of making the United Kingdom pay for leaving the EU took over. That is how we got into this morass of a pernicious imposition through the border.

[Sammy Wilson]

During the early stages of the negotiations, the permanent secretary of the then Brexit Department told the Select Committee that the Irish Government, before Leo Varadkar took over, were actually exploring those kinds of solutions. The politics of the changeover in the Irish Republic and the willingness of Leo Varadkar to become the puppet of the EU in these negotiations stopped that method of looking at the border.

[Jim Allister]

I fear that there is a lot of truth in that. As I say, the politics took over. A further truth is that for some—not all, but some—enthusiasts of the protocol arrangement of a nationalist or Irish republican persuasion, there is a political gain that subsumes all doubts that they might have as democrats. For 30 years and more, the IRA terrorised through bomb and bullet to try to push the border to the Irish sea: “Brits out—push the border to the Irish sea!” That is precisely what the protocol has done: it has pushed the border to the Irish sea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would be the first to admit that we do not always get these things right—whoever does? What we have to do is try, try and try again, and attempt to do our best in good faith. I will come back to that in a moment.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member has quoted some of the comments that were made in this House, but does he accept that of the two people who negotiated the very things that he is referring to, and to whom those comments refer, one thought that he had signed up to an agreement for no paperwork? He said that if there was any paperwork, people should simply tear it up, as it does not matter. Does he accept that the other one negotiated an agreement whose EU version was totally different from the version that he gave to this House and the people of Northern Ireland? Let us not fall back too much on the comments made about either of the two agreements of the time, because many were made either with a lack of knowledge or with hope that was not fully founded.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

As I understand it, that issue is being negotiated. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not accept the point he made about subjugation. I do not think it is subjugation, and I will come to that. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I respect the point he made, and I respect the views of his constituents, just as I respect the views of my constituents. But it does not alter the fact that the negotiation is taking place. As I said before—I will repeat it again—these things are never, ever symmetrical.

[Sammy Wilson]

I know that the hon. Member and others on the Government Benches have tried to make light of the use of the words “subjugation”, “colonisation” and everything else, but almost every week in this place, Members complain that Ministers do not come to this House to explain and elucidate on their policies, and that they are not prepared to be questioned on those policies, and quite rightly so. If Ministers were able to do that continuously in this place, would Labour Members not be claiming that we did not have accountable Government, that we did not have a Government who respected democracy, and that they were subjugating the people who are affected by those laws? I guarantee that no Members present would accept that from Ministers in this place, but they accept it in Northern Ireland.

[Peter Dowd]

In this place, we are enabled to ask these questions in a whole variety of different ways, including oral questions, written questions and meetings with Ministers. They are still available right across the piece, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. Over a number years in this place, I have sometimes felt that I have not been listened to by the Government of the day. That is what I believed. [Interruption.] I was often listened to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and I completely accept that there were honourable exceptions. But at the end of the day, we live in a democracy in which we can challenge time after time, and we have to be persistent. I repeat that there are differences of opinion, but I respect them. I hope that today’s debate is being conducted in an as open and transparent way as possible.

This is not the end of the matter. Even if the Bill does not go through, the matter is not over. Nobody is going to pretend that somehow we are all going to go our separate ways and no one is ever going to ask a question or challenge a Minister in the future. This issue will come back time after time. I know emotion has its place, but so do hard facts, statistics and evidence, and they have to be balanced against one another. However, passion can sometimes lead to a febrile atmosphere that dominates, and we have to guard against that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. I reject the Bill as respectfully as I can. Countries have to operate in an international rules-based system. That is the position that this country has taken on many occasions, even when the consequences for us have been dire. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim talked about foundations. I do not want to undermine the foundation of the rules-based system, trust and good faith. That is what I do not want to breach.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Member not accept that trust in the United Kingdom is important? The Belfast agreement makes it clear that a promise was made to the people of Northern Ireland that there would be no change of any sort to our constitutional position unless they expressed a wish for it. The people of Northern Ireland have continually voted to be part of the Union. I know that the hon. Member is a Unionist. The Labour party fought hard to maintain the Union when Scottish nationalists tried to break away. Does he accept that he has an equal obligation to Unionist people in Northern Ireland—an obligation to stand by the promises that were made to them in an internationally agreed settlement? [Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) says from a sedentary position, the framework strengthens the Union. That is exactly the point that I would have made. I know that some people do not accept that, but I believe that it strengthens the Union. Like a curate’s egg, any treaty will have good and bad parts for both sides. We would not need treaties or agreements if we all agreed about everything. The reality is that dissonance comes with the territory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a really important and fair point. We have to be very careful in this area when we have international obligations, and we have to be even more cautious when we are dealing with the situation that we found ourselves in given the context of the Belfast agreement.

I am drawing to a close, Members will be pleased to know, but it is worthwhile exploring the concept in a little more detail, because as I said, it goes to our position as a custodian. The circumstances in which we can depart from obligations are fairly clear: for instance, by mutual agreement—that is unsurprising—or implied right to withdraw. Neither of those is the case in this situation. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks they should be, but I do not believe that they are.

Can we say that the treaty or agreement is no longer in place due to agreed time limits or sunset clauses? The answer to that question is no. Has the other side materially breached the treaty or the agreement, which would in turn absolve us of our obligations? Well, I do not think that applies either. What about our ability to carry out the agreement because of the “disappearance or destruction” of an object crucial to the operation of the treaty? That get-out clause does not exist, either; well, not that I am aware. In fact, the Windsor framework is protected by the Vienna convention on treaties, as was brought out during the statement that I referred to.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member mentions whether the other side has ever broken the treaty. Of course it did: the EU did so in a fit of pique, rage and vengeance against the United Kingdom during the covid crisis. It caught itself quickly, because it realised exactly what it had done, but the fact of the matter is, in the mind of the EU, the treaty is not as sacrosanct as he is trying to make it out to be for the UK. He suggests that we should not even think about breaking the Windsor framework and the protocol. The EU, when it is convenient, has shown that it will.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s position, but again, I disagree with his assertion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I will not respond to the hon. Lady’s last line; I will leave it to others to determine. She and I have engaged with each other—sometimes helpfully, and sometimes crossly—for years. When there are opportunities to work together to benefit my constituency or anybody else’s in the United Kingdom, I will do it. What I am actually doing at the moment is sharing agreements that were reached. She and her colleagues voted for them, yet we are still waiting for their implementation.

Let me give another one: an agreement outlined in “Safeguarding the Union” required a labelling regime across the United Kingdom. The reason for that was that there were no cost implications or benefits for businesses in Scotland, England and Wales if they simply chose not to supply our market in Northern Ireland. We have heard every hue and cry from drinks manufacturers and food manufacturers across the United Kingdom, who have said that this is costly and will cause them difficulty, yet Asda, Sainsbury’s and Tesco simply put it on their best-before date line. It costs them nothing, but what does it ensure? No divergence of trade within our own country. What does it ensure? Access to the Northern Ireland market and the removal of a disincentive.

What have we heard? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has no interest in honouring the very aspect of the agreement that Labour supported back in February. It is now saying, “Yes, we will take the power, but we will not use it, unless—”. Unless what? It is repudiating a commitment from an agreement that it supported, but it will not say what is the trigger point. At what point is it OK for it to step in? At what point should Northern Ireland be disenfranchised before our sovereign Government and our sovereign Parliament will take steps to protect the consumer interests of the people of Northern Ireland? We do not know, but what we do know is that even when they have been prepared to engage in discussions that are of practical benefit to the people of Northern Ireland to resolve these issues—and Labour supported those—there has not been full and faithful implementation. It is not governed by the Vienna convention, but we are not seeing that full and faithful implementation.

[Sammy Wilson]

My right hon. Friend says that even when solutions are found, they are not implemented. We have heard examples of things that people never imagined would be problems becoming problems. The fact is that every time a solution is found, because we in Northern Ireland are subject to laws that are different from those in the UK, new problems arise. Unless we deal with the fundamental issue, namely what is causing the problems, we will be continually looking for solutions and continually fighting to get them implemented, and that is not good either for business in Northern Ireland or for confidence in the Union.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. What have we achieved over the last five years? A game, and not a very enjoyable game, of whack-a-mole, for it is about as strategic as whack-a-mole. An issue comes up involving the VAT margin schemes for second-car salesmen; we find a solution. Then another issue pops up, and another, and another. Whack-a-mole! That is the best strategic approach that this Government, and the previous Government, have adopted to deal with issues that are affecting us because of the decision taken back in 2019.

I remember the parliamentary discourse about the quest for agreement, but I know this. When the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson—[Interruption.] Just let me finish. No need for your wee quips. When Boris Johnson engaged with this issue, in respect of the protocol, he went to the Wirral for a walkabout in a wedding venue with Leo Varadkar, and became smitten with Leo. He ditched the democratic consent principles in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. It was always part of the preceding arrangements that a consent vote in Northern Ireland would adhere to the consent principles in the Belfast agreement, and Boris Johnson ditched them.

In “Safeguarding the Union”, there was a commitment to remove and repeal a legacy provision in section 10(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, on having due regard to an all-island economy—a commitment that Labour supported, but now repudiate because it is in “Safeguarding the Union”. Let me remind the House that it is only in “Safeguarding the Union” because it features in the Windsor framework. Much of the approach from the Government Benches seems to amount to “We cannot achieve anything with the European Union unless we demonstrate our trust and our integrity—or our servitude!—to the European Union.” Paragraph 53 of the Windsor framework indicates very clearly that there is no need to have a legal due regard to an all-island economy that does not exist. Anyone who stands up here today and talks about their full-throated support for the Windsor framework should read what paragraph 53 has to say about the all-island economy. It is a matter of fact that we do not have an all-island economy; we have strands within our economy that operate on a cross-border basis in the context of two legal jurisdictions, two tax jurisdictions, two currency jurisdictions, two VAT jurisdictions and two regulatory jurisdictions, unless covered under annex 2 of the protocol. We do not have an all-island economy. It is a superfluous piece of legislation that is drawn out of the joint report from 2017, and it should go. It should go because I say so; it should go because it was agreed under the Windsor framework, which is quickly forgotten and ignored.

We have talked about article 2 in this debate. No one on this side of the Chamber is indicating that we should leave, through this argument, the European convention on human rights, nor that we should replace the Human Rights Act 1998, which embeds those commitments in our domestic legislation. The argument being raised on article 2 of the Windsor framework is that what has been presented as an international treaty, an agreement and a resolution on trade is impacting and frustrating the ability of this sovereign Parliament because of how the courts in Northern Ireland are interpreting the provisions on myriad areas outside trade.

Immigration is a classic example. The hon. Member for Walthamstow was right that we worked on this and we talked about this, but let me be very clear: whenever I stood up in this Chamber on behalf of my colleagues as our spokesman on home affairs to say that I would not vote for the Illegal Migration Act 2023, it was not because I did not think there was an issue with immigration. I do. It was not because I was ill-prepared to support Government in their endeavours. I was prepared to do so. I said this in this Chamber and my colleagues supported me: it was because, though the Government said that the provisions would apply in Northern Ireland, we were indicating that they would not.

The very same people who told me that the immigration legislation would apply in Northern Ireland launched a leadership campaign on the back of the arguments I was making afterward. We were right, but it is wrong that a trading agreement should have any impact whatever on the ability of this sovereign Parliament to set a uniform immigration policy across the whole United Kingdom. It was wrong then, and I am glad that the Secretary of State on Wednesday night indicated that that is a ground of appeal that the Government are bringing forward, because it is wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

I want to give the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) another example. She will have heard colleagues in interventions, she will have heard the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) at Prime Minister’s questions and she will have heard me at Northern Ireland questions raise the issue of the general product safety regulations that come into force next Friday. What is the best answer we had from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? “We are in discussions.” What do we hear from Labour Members? “It’s in train.”

Information should have been given to businesses long before next Friday, but have I ever heard a Labour Member say, “Actually, in January 2024, the Conservative Government extended the February 2023 agreement to adhere to the requirements and standards of EU safety markings—the CE markings on goods—and general product safety”? Why are we in a situation where our Government—the last Government, but still our Government—agreed to adhere to EU standards on general product safety, only to find that, come next Friday, it will all be too problematic for GB businesses to trade with a part of the United Kingdom? It is wrong. It should not be the case, and it is not at all satisfactory that we are talking today about the aspiration to have a solution when this comes in on Friday. Businesses should already have the information.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my right hon. Friend not find it even stranger that for products moving from the Republic of Ireland into GB, the Government rushed to find an accommodation? Only last week, the Minister told us that she was totally satisfied that checks away from the border would be perfectly suitable because producers in the Republic of Ireland were getting concerned about access to the GB market, yet our Government cannot find any urgency for facilitating the movement of products from GB to Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is right. That is where it becomes thoroughly obnoxious for people in Northern Ireland. They say, “Whatever the constitutional views are, and whatever the Labour position on this and the Conservative position on that, why am I being impinged on? Why am I being treated differently? If a workaround is available that allows goods from the Republic of Ireland into the GB market, why is there not one for me?”.

When we talk about market access and the UK internal market system, we are in principle talking about a marketplace—somewhere to both buy and sell, where trade flows in both directions. However, when Government Members talk about market access, they all too often consider one direction only, and not the implications for businesses in Northern Ireland.

I will conclude with a point about the democratic scrutiny mechanism and the vote that is due on Tuesday. The arrangements are a complete inversion of the commitments that were given in the Belfast agreement. They were brought forward following Boris Johnson’s bedazzlement with Leo Varadkar in the Wirral. The protections that were offered to the people of Northern Ireland were stripped away in haste as a result of that political union. It has left us in a position where, even though cross-community support will not be attained, articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework will continue.

There is a strong argument, which others have made, that we should not countenance that process with our presence, but as I said at our party conference in September and since, we will be there on Tuesday. If the vote proceeds, we will vote against the continued application of the Windsor framework, in the knowledge that if we demonstrate our opposition, we will not leave anybody on other Benches or in the European Union with the chance credibly to argue, “They weren’t even interested enough to vote—they didn’t even turn up.” With our vote and our voice, we will demonstrate our opposition to the continued application of the framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I am going to make some progress. To the Government’s mind, this commitment to normal security arrangements could not be met, under the common travel area arrangements, with a hard border of the sort that the Bill would institute.

The hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that, come what may, he wants his part of the UK enabled to follow the rest out of the EU. I need not remind him that the whole of the UK left the European Union, and that the debate has been settled. We can see that he would prefer that damaging hard border for Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

First, will the Minister accept that the arrangements referred to in the Belfast agreement were security arrangements—army watchtowers and Army posts along the border? Secondly, despite what she has said about the common travel area, does she accept that guards are stopping and searching vehicles on roads in and out of Northern Ireland, to take people off them, because they believe that they are illegal immigrants? The common travel area is not even being respected by the Irish Government.

[Fleur Anderson]

There are absolutely minimal stops along the border. It is not a hard border, but circumstances would be very different under the Bill, which implies an ideological hard Brexit—

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I hope the right hon. Member understands that I am talking about the difference between a hard border and a soft border. The Windsor framework enables the smooth flow of trade, which is good for businesses on both sides of the border and also safeguards the Union. The Windsor framework does not damage the Union; it actually strengthens it and ensures that it can continue.

[Sammy Wilson]

On the issue of a hard border, will the Minister give way?