A Tale of Two Bills

The first Bill mentioned in the King’s Speech, underlying its importance to the Government, was the European Partnership Bill. Although at the time of writing it still has not been published, its contents have been trailed in the press since the beginning of the year, and we now also have the benefit of the detailed notes on the bill provided by the Government’s Briefing on the King’s Speech. In the first instance, the Bill will seek to dynamically align Great Britain with EU law in three areas: i) at least 76 plant and animal health, biosecurity and food laws, ii) carbon emissions trading and iii) the single electricity market. Beyond this it will provide a basis for allowing other areas of UK law to be subject to dynamic alignment with EU law as and when the Government deems fit.

Labour, whether led by Starmer, Burnham, Rayner or Streeting (assuming a new PM does not revert to honouring the referendum result), will no doubt seek to justify the Bill on the basis of their 2024 manifesto which talks about a relationship reset with the EU, but there is a problem. The reset is not open ended but very clear that it is about seeking a more positive relationship with the EU within the confines of a commitment to respecting the Brexit vote such that there would be no question of, for example, rejoining the EU Single Market. This gives rise to two issues.

First, from 1973 until our departure, the thing that lay at the heart of our membership of the EU was Section 2 of the 1972 European Communities Act which was in essence a mechanism for dynamically aligning our laws to those of the EU, albeit in the context of our representation in the EU bodies making those laws. In this context it is not clear how effectively re-establishing Section 2 of the 1972 Act to facilitate dynamic alignment in three areas, with open ended possibilities for its extension to other areas, can be regarded as in any way respectful of the Brexit vote and consistent with the Labour manifesto. Rather than enabling us to take back control over law-making, it gives away all legislative control in the affected areas. At least when we were in the EU, we had some control in that we were represented in the EU legislature making the laws.

Secondly, the European Partnership Bill is about rejoining key aspects of the European Single Market. In this we can be very grateful to the EU Commission who pointed this fact out in their recommendation that the Council of Ministers commence negotiations with the UK about the UK joining the Common Electricity market. They stated: ‘The EU aims to establish a permanent, legally binding mechanism for the financial contribution of the United Kingdom towards reducing economic and social disparities between the regions of the Union … The financial contribution of the United Kingdom should be calculated based on the Union financial contribution towards reducing the disparities between the regions of the Union, adjusted to reflect the relative size of the UK economy and the proportion of the internal market to which the United Kingdom participates.’ In other words, joining the Single Electricity Market involves rejoining the Single Market for some purposes in return for which we must make contributions, once again, to the EU Cohesion Fund.

Central to the efforts of the Government to try and avoid the accusation that they are taking us back into the EU has been the argument that at least part of what they are doing is seeking to reduce friction on the Irish Sea border. This affords them the opportunity to suggest that rather than seeking to sabotage Brexit across the whole country, they are instead acting in good faith, trying to limit problems on the Irish Sea border. We in Northern Ireland can see through this and wouldn’t want people in Great Britain to think they have to give up on Brexit to stand by Northern Ireland any more than Northern Ireland had to give up on Brexit – as was implied at the time – to facilitate it in Great Britain. However, if we are to move forward from this point and achieve a sustainable Brexit, we must now all come together in recognition of the fact that it is not possible to enjoy this in any part of the UK while another part of the country effectively remains in the EU.

In this context the Bill that our country needs is not Keir Starmer’s European Partnership Bill but the European Union Withdrawal Bill which I successfully entered into the Lords Private Members Ballot two days after the King’s Speech, coming out towards the top in fifth place. The Bill was developed and introduced in the last session by Jim Allister, the Member of Parliament for North Antrim, with cross-party, UK-wide unionist support. Instead of accommodating the problems arising from the disenfranchisement of the people of Northern Ireland by extending this indignity to the rest of the country, the European Union Withdrawal Bill places Brexit on a strong and sustainable foundation by removing the Irish Sea border, re-enfranchising the people of Northern Ireland and delivering Brexit for the whole United Kingdom. At the same time, it protects the integrity of both the UK and EU internal markets without creating a hard border with the Republic of Ireland by means of a combination of Mutual Enforcement legal provision (which can be applied unilaterally if necessary) and alternative arrangements technology.

While the European Union Withdrawal Bill has been necessitated by the failure to secure Brexit for Northern Ireland, it should be understood as a Bill for the whole United Kingdom because it removes from the Brexit saboteurs the argument that they must impose EU law on GB in order to prevent divergence with NI. As such it calls time on EU efforts to place Brexit in jeopardy by means of their strategy of divide and rule. Instead, it delivers Brexit on the sustainable, whole country basis that we now desperately need, and thereby rejects absolutely the attempts of the EU27 to disrespect our territorial and civic integrity as a sovereign and democratic United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.