The general consensus is that if there is an agreement, the government will go back to those steps and perhaps argue that the agreement means that the “safety net” of the law is no longer necessary. But there is no guarantee that this will happen and it is quite clear that the EU will not be inclined to sign an agreement if the bill is not diluted. [Breaking international law] is in complete contradiction with hopes that the election of President Biden will see a revival of the rules-based international order. Then there is the sensitive subject of the internal market law. The House of Lords voted overwhelmingly in favour of repealing the controversial clauses of the law that effectively give the government the power to repeal parts of the withdrawal agreement. For now, the government has indicated that it will fight to reinstate these clauses when the bill returns to the House of Commons, and has already indicated that it will introduce another legislation (the Finance Act) that may contain other incendiary kits. I know that some colleagues have been thinking about some of the amendments that are not intended to implement the new agreement, but rather to change the basis for it. What could this say to our European friends of our good intentions? That we propose to return to Brussels to demand a third agreement? That we`ll put him on the fifth vote, maybe after half a month or another year? Is there anyone who seriously believes that the EU would reopen the withdrawal agreement? On the contrary, our European friends could not be clearer. The agreement on the table is the one that is included in the bill. Parliament`s decision is whether this agreement should be ratified instead of moving in circles to build a new one.
Is it therefore time to reassess the chances of an agreement before the end of the year? We still believe that the chances are strong enough for a free trade agreement to be concluded, but there are still many ways to derail things. Here are some of the reasons for optimism and pessimism. I voted for Brexit. I want the United Kingdom to be an independent sovereign state. But I would like it to be an independent sovereign state that stands up, keeps its word, maintains the rule of law and respects its contractual obligations. Part 5 of the Internal Market Act goes against all these aspirations. That is why I voted against it on Monday. Under this agreement, the British people will once again be able to live by the laws of the representatives they can elect and withdraw on their own – laws enforced by British judges before British courts. If the House of Commons rejects the withdrawal agreement, the government will not be able to bring it back a second time during this parliamentary session. The British Parliament is expected to rise at the end of July and return at the beginning of September.