UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: European Union

  • Theresa May – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Theresa May – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by Theresa May, the former Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, although I have to say to the lone Minister sitting on the Front Bench that I do not welcome this Bill. I fully understand and share the Government’s desire to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I understand and share the desire to keep the Union of the United Kingdom. I recognise the frustration and difficulty when the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are not in place and operating. I also share the Government’s desire to get that Assembly and Executive back operating for the good of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe, however, that this Bill is the way to achieve those aims.

    In thinking about the Bill, I started by asking myself three questions. First, do I consider it to be legal under international law? Secondly, will it achieve its aims? Thirdly, does it at least maintain the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three questions is no. That is even before we look at the extraordinarily sweeping powers that the Bill would give to Ministers.

    The Government’s claim of legality, as we have heard, is based on the doctrine of necessity in international law. The Government, as the Foreign Secretary said, have published a legal position, and that described this term “necessity” in the following way:

    “the term ‘necessity’ is used in international law to lawfully justify situations where the only way a State can safeguard an essential interest is the non-performance of another international obligation…the action taken may not seriously impair the essential interests of the other State(s), and cannot be claimed where excluded by the relevant obligation or where the State invoking it has contributed to the situation of necessity.”

    Let us examine that. First, if the necessity argument is to hold, this Bill must be the only way to achieve the Government’s desires, yet the Government’s legal position paper itself accepts that there are other ways. For example, it says:

    “The Government’s preference remains a negotiated outcome”,

    which was reiterated by the Foreign Secretary in her opening speech. The paper also acknowledges that another way to deal with this issue lies in the existence of article 16. The Government’s preferred option is negotiation, and then there is a second option, which is article 16.

    Article 16 is referred to in the legal position paper, but when I read that I thought it was referred to in a way that seemed to try to say that the existence of article 16 somehow justifies the introduction of this Bill. Article 16 does not justify this Bill; the very existence of article 16 negates the legal justification for the Bill.

    Let us also examine some of the other arguments for invoking the necessity defence. That defence cannot be claimed where the state invoking it has contributed to the situation of necessity. Again, in their legal position paper, the Government set out their argument that

    “the peril that has emerged was not inherent in the Protocol’s provisions.”

    I find that a most extraordinary statement. The peril is a direct result of the border down the Irish sea, which was an integral and inherent part of the protocol that the Government signed in the withdrawal agreement. It is possible that the Government might say, “Ah well, we knew about that, but we did not think the DUP would react in the way that it has.” I say to the Minister that the Government should have listened to the DUP in the many debates that went on over the withdrawal agreement, because it made its position on the protocol very clear at that point, and it was not positive.

    Finally, necessity suggests urgency; “imminent peril” is the phrase used. There is nothing urgent about the Bill. It has not been introduced as emergency legislation. It is likely to take not weeks, but months to get through Parliament. As the former Treasury solicitor Jonathan Jones said in The House magazine,

    “If the UK really did face imminent peril, you might think the government would need to deal with it more quickly than that.”

    My answer to all those who question whether the Bill is legal under international law is that for all the above reasons, no, it is not.

    Question two is whether the Bill will achieve its aims. I am assuming that the aims are either to encourage the DUP into the Northern Ireland Executive, or that the Bill is a negotiating tool to bring the EU back round to the table. On the first of those, so far I have seen no absolute commitment from the DUP that the Executive will be up and running as a result of the Bill. There were rumours that that might happen on Second Reading, but as far as I can see it has not happened. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wants to have a discussion with me about negotiations with other parties in this House on various matters, I am happy to do so.

    If the Bill is a negotiating tool, will it actually bring the EU back round the table? So far, we have seen no sign of that. My experience was that the EU looks carefully at the political situation in any country. As I discovered after I had faced a no-confidence vote—and despite having won that vote—the EU then starts to ask itself, “Is it really worth negotiating with these people in government, because will they actually be there in any period of time?”, regardless of the justification or otherwise for its taking that view. I suspect those in the EU are saying to themselves, “Why should we negotiate in detail with a Government who show themselves willing to sign an agreement, claim it as a victory and then try to tear part of it up after less than three years?” My answer to the second question as to whether the Bill will achieve its aims is no, it will not.

    My final question was about the UK’s standing in the world. The UK’s standing in the world, and our ability to convene and encourage others in the defence of our shared values, depends on the respect that others have for us as a country—a country that keeps its word and displays those shared values in its actions. As a patriot, I would not want to do anything to diminish this country in the eyes of the world. I have to say to the Government that this Bill is not in my view legal in international law, it will not achieve its aims and it will diminish the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world. I cannot support it.

  • Richard Thomson – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Richard Thomson – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by Richard Thomson, the SNP MP for Gordon, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    I rise to speak in line with the basis of our reasoned amendment, namely that we believe that this Bill breaks international law.

    We have already had to stumble our way through the consequences of a Brexit deal that was supposedly oven-ready. Quite frankly, what is proposed in this legislation is no better. The fact is that, if this Bill does not break international law, it is an act preparatory to doing so.

    I will start my remarks by being as helpful as I think I can be to the Government. First, I hope I can understand and at least empathise with some of the concerns of people in Northern Ireland over how aspects of the protocol are working or, as they would view it, not working. Secondly, I do not consider it unreasonable in and of itself that, in the light of experience, the Government should seek to try to renegotiate aspects of the deal that has taken effect. However, I am firmly and clearly of the view that this is absolutely not the way to go about trying to achieve that objective.

    I am bound to observe that, although we are here to talk about a Bill on the Northern Ireland protocol, the issues here do not only affect Northern Ireland. We are subject to a withdrawal agreement that does not work for Scotland or, I would contend, any other part of the United Kingdom. There is much rhetoric from the Government about our precious Union, but it is a Union under the stewardship of a Government who did not pay a great deal of attention to the concerns or priorities of the majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland who opposed Brexit. If relations are to be rebalanced across these islands, whether that is cross-community in Northern Ireland or even cross-Union, some recognition of those points by the Government is long overdue.

    Jim Shannon

    I was very fortunate to have the hon. Gentleman in my constituency, where I gave him the opportunity, which I know he enjoyed it, to meet some of the Unionist community groups, the fishermen and the elected representatives. Every one of those people, as he will remember well, conveyed to him the unfairness of the Northern Ireland protocol and the impact it was having on fishing and on the community. He will know that the local people he met were very fearful of a future where the Northern Ireland protocol was retained. Does he understand those issues, and will he express that in the Chamber as well?

    Richard Thomson

    I recall that visit with great fondness, particularly the discussions we were able to have in Portavogie, and I am extraordinarily grateful to him and to everybody I met when I was last in Northern Ireland for the chance to discuss these matters. As I have said, I certainly hope I can empathise with and understand some of the issues raised there; if he will allow me to make some progress, he might see where there are perhaps areas of agreement and also, inevitably, some areas of divergence.

    Richard Graham

    It seems to me that the fundamental issue of debate is whether the EU would move on the implementation issues that it claims are the only problem. For the EU, it is not a question of renegotiation, but of implementation. It has said that it believes that customs formalities can be reduced by about 80%, and the same with sanitary and phytosanitary checks, and that the expanded trusted trader scheme could solve many of the problems. How confident is the hon. Gentleman that those things will be delivered, given how long this has been going on for and the affect already evident in Northern Ireland?

    Richard Thomson

    It certainly appears to me that there is a potential landing zone between what has been proposed by the European Union and what has been proposed by the UK Government—indeed, there is a bit of an overlap. I would offer to come along with Ministers, but they might feel that reinforcements had arrived and somehow weakened their position. Nevertheless, there ought to be a landing zone here for those of goodwill and good faith.

    Even as a supporter of Scottish independence, I find it utterly inconceivable that any Unionist Government would have signed up to the kind of arrangements that placed a trade border down the middle of the Irish sea while denying they were doing any such thing. All the issues inherent in the protocol could have been avoided had the UK Government maintained a modicum of statecraft and respect for all parts of the Union, acknowledged the limitations of the mandate they had from the Brexit referendum and remained in as close alignment as they could with the single market and customs union, thereby minimising the economic harms we have seen to the UK since then and ensuring that no part of that precious Union was left behind. Yet even now it seems that the Government have not learned from their mistakes. The Scottish Government were not consulted by the UK Government before they took this action. I believe I am right in saying that the UK Government did not even afford the Scottish Government the courtesy of a phone call in advance to advise of these plans.

    It has also been reported that the UK Government did not consult their top legal adviser—the First Treasury Counsel, Sir James Eadie—on the legality of their move. So we have a UK Government who are in contempt both of international law, as we have seen in other matters, and domestic law. Aspects around the Prime Minister’s current travails are bad enough, but to stand up and use the full authority of a ministerial office to say that which is not gets right to the heart not just of the problems being presented by the protocol in its current form but of the fitness of the Prime Minister, or anyone aspiring to replace him.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    It is clear that the protocol is not working, and Northern Ireland business is suffering. In what way does this Bill act to the disadvantage of the European Union, because it seems to me that it is a very good way forward?

    Richard Thomson

    Well, it seems to me that whether it disadvantages or not is not something that Her Majesty’s Government get to decide. While I am clear that there are problems with the protocol, clearly there are aspects of it that are working very well, as indeed those on the Treasury Benches have admitted. I will set out some of the examples, particularly over trade, where it is not having the impact that we are told, in all aspects, that it is. I come from the point of view that trust has been broken between the UK Government and the people of all these islands, as well as between the UK Government and our international partners. That gets right to the nub of the issues about trying to renegotiate it.

    We should not really need to say this, but it is absolutely vital that the UK Government should be able to respect the international obligations that they enter into freely. Lord Butler, who was head of the civil service for 10 years, has said that this country has repeatedly criticised states like Russia and China for breaking the rules-based international order and yet now holds that it is perfectly justified in breaching international law itself. It seems that in this Bill we are going from a “limited and specific” breach to something that is potentially extensive and egregious. General Sir Richard Barrons, the former chief of joint forces command, who served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland, has said that

    “what the government is proposing is short-sighted tactics which will do much harm strategically in the wider world. In fact what is being done is particularly stupid.”

    He went on to warn that these moves will empower our adversaries as

    “it will undermine us with our enemies by giving them the opportunity to accuse us of hypocrisy when we call them out for breaking the rules-based international order. It will also undermine us with our allies who will doubt whether they can rely on us to keep to an agreement, keep to our word.”

    Dr Murrison

    I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with a great deal of interest. He is right to defend international law and international treaties. Did he raise the concerns he has just expressed when the European Union was busy breaking those treaties—for example, over subsidies to Airbus?

    Joanna Cherry

    Whataboutery!

    Richard Thomson

    My hon. and learned Friend says it very eloquently in one word: whataboutery.

    We have been brought here by 40 years of political dysfunction in the Conservative party and the various neuroses it has had over Europe. The exceptionalists of the “punch above our weight” brigade to be found extensively, but not exclusively, within the European Research Group, where research seems to be at a premium, have led us to this point, in the process shredding any reputation that the UK might have preserved either for good, stable government or adherence to international norms.

    Whatever the bluff and bluster, and personal agendas that might be at play—I notice that the Foreign Secretary is no longer in her place—it is of course the UK’s exit from the EU rather than the protocol that created this difficult situation, because there were only ever three options that would allow this particular circle to be squared: a return of a border on the island of Ireland, close alignment between UK and EU regulatory standards to reduce the need for checks, or checks to be carried out at the main Northern Ireland ports. The further that there is a diversion from the single market and the customs union, the harder the border then eventually becomes.

    Sir William Cash

    Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1937 de Valera himself actually tore up the Anglo-Irish treaty in exactly the same kind of way as he is accusing other people of doing?

    Richard Thomson

    The hon. Gentleman seems to be confusing me with a representative of the Government of Ireland; that is an interesting historical diversion that I would be more than happy to discuss with him later, but I am not exactly certain how germane it is to this particular discussion. It seems a little bit recondite to say the least.

    The Government have presented a precis of the legal advice. The Law Society of Scotland has identified a number of provisions in the Bill that it believes to be inconsistent with the UK’s international law obligations. Because of the amount of time available and the fact that we are only on Second Reading, I do not intend to go into those points in any great depth or delve unnecessarily into the horrors of the empowerment of Ministers that the Bill represents—the Henry VIII powers. However, I just specifically highlight the issues that the Bill creates given that article 4 of the withdrawal agreement states expressly that the UK cannot legislate contrarily to its commitments through primary legislation.

    We now get on to necessity, which is ultimately the justification that the Government are using. As I understand it, that rests on two key points: first, that there is effectively, when viewed from London, no detriment to the single market from these measures; and secondly, that this underwrites the Government’s wishes to protect the UK single market and the Good Friday agreement. That argument was neatly eviscerated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) in an earlier intervention, but there are three points that instantly leap out at me. First, as I have said, whether or not there is detriment is a largely subjective measure. Whatever unilateral assertions might be made on this, whether or not there is detriment requires to be determined in another manner.

    Secondly, making an invocation of necessity must not seriously impair an essential interest of another party, and it is quite hard to argue that this could not at least be at risk of happening. Thirdly, it is not particularly credible now to cite the protocol as harming the single market or the Good Friday agreement when it was cited by HM Government as a means of protecting both those things. The Prime Minister wanting to override a deal that he himself was happy to claim credit for, in terms of having got Brexit done, during his 2019 election campaign is not the strongest basis for sustaining that argument.

    With regard to the economic effect, Northern Ireland has clearly lagged behind the rest of the UK in economic performance in recent decades. For some reason, it is currently outpacing every other part of the UK, except, perhaps predictably, London. There must be some reason why that might be, and I do not know whether anyone can help me with it, but perhaps there is a clue—

    Sammy Wilson

    If the hon. Gentleman were to examine the economic performance in Northern Ireland, he might find that, surprisingly, it is the service sector that has increased, by seven times more than the manufacturing sector, and of course the service sector is not covered by the protocol at all.

    Richard Thomson

    Manufacturing also seems to be doing quite well, as I recall. Perhaps having a foot in both markets and easier access to both, in contrast to counterparts on the other side of the north channel, might also be a reason for that.

    A survey by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce shows that 70% of businesses now believe that that unique trading position with preferential access to both the EU and UK single markets presents opportunities for Northern Ireland, with the number of businesses reporting a significant problem dropping from 15% to 8%. While I would not seek to diminish in any way the problems that those 8% feel, that is perhaps an indication that many of the problems, at least initially, were because of the short lead-in time that was given and the lack of preparation and clarity ahead of the big changes that came in January 2021.

    To come back to my fundamental point, we need a protocol. The nature of Brexit means that there needs to be a protocol. It does not need to be exactly the same as this version, but what we absolutely do not need, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, is the prospect of increased trade frictions through needless conflict and a developing trade war with our largest and closest overseas market. That is what I very much fear this legislation, if enacted and utilised, would do.

    I believe that the way forward is through negotiations. Like the man asked to give directions, I would not be starting from this point, for a variety of reasons, and I need not detain the House on that. We need negotiations based on trust, good faith and co-operation. The UK Government would stand a much better chance of success if they were driven by that, instead of by this piece of legislative brinkmanship, and if they were to pursue measures that for once were motivated by a genuine desire to deliver the best possible outcomes out of this mess for all peoples on these islands, rather than simply pandering to the agendas of those in the tiny subset of the population who might have an influence over who the next leader of the Conservative and Unionist party might happen to be—a party that no longer seems to be very certain what it is here to conserve or to unify.

  • Simon Hoare – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Simon Hoare – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by Simon Hoare, the Conservative MP for North Dorset, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ten minutes is the time usually taken to make opening remarks, and popularity is something that I have always shunned.

    The shadow Foreign Secretary is right: at the heart of this is trust or the absence of it—or, as she leaves the Chamber, the absence of Truss. Is the protocol perfect? No, it is not. The question, therefore, is not whether but how changes should be made. There are many ways to achieve change, but this Bill is not one of them.

    The Office of Speaker’s Counsel has provided a legal opinion to all members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and it raises enormous concerns about this Bill’s legality. The Foreign Secretary and others have tried to conflate—they have fallen into the trap of conflating—the resurrection of devolution and the protocol. Those are two very separate and different workstreams, and we need to decouple them. Treaty making is reserved to this place; devolution is the duty of the politicians of Northern Ireland. We can and should be able to see the resurrection of one and negotiation on the other, but to fall into the trap of conflating them, the result of which is this Bill, is very sad indeed.

    This is not a well thought-out Bill, it is not a good Bill and it is not a constitutional Bill. The integrity of the United Kingdom can be changed only via the Good Friday agreement. The protocol and trading arrangements do not interrupt or change the constitutional integrity of the UK, so I do not agree with those who try to position this as a constitutional Bill.

    Gavin Robinson

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Simon Hoare

    If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to make a few more points.

    This Bill represents a failure of statecraft and puts at risk the reputation of the United Kingdom. The arguments in support of it are flimsy at best and irrational at worst. The Bill risks economically harmful retaliation and runs the risk of shredding our reputation as a guardian of international law and the rules-based system. How in the name of heaven can we expect to speak to others with authority when we ourselves shun, at a moment’s notice, our legal obligations? A hard-won reputation so easily played with—

    Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) rose—

    Simon Hoare

    I give way to my constituency neighbour.

    Dr Murrison

    My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a good speech. Of course, the Bill is permissive legislation; meanwhile, negotiations are ongoing. He referred to a failure of statecraft—whose failure?

    Simon Hoare

    I think it is probably a failure of both sides, but a presumption of, “If I don’t get my own way on everything, I’m going to take my ball off the pitch; I’m going to act unilaterally, off my own bat” is not the way to do it. As a former distinguished Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that most Northern Ireland outcomes are based on compromise—on give and take, and on finding the place and the path of least resistance.

    This has been a failure of statecraft. I do not believe that the Bill passes the international test of necessity. It has to pass all the tests set out in the statute, and it does not. What, then, is this Bill? Is it a bargaining chip to try to browbeat the EU? Is it a bribe to right hon. and hon. Members in the Democratic Unionist party to get back around the table at Stormont?

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Simon Hoare

    Let me just finish on what the Bill might be, and then I shall of course give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Is the Bill a muscle flex for a future leadership bid? To sacrifice our national reputation on the altar of personal ambition would be shameful.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson

    The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made a point on this subject earlier, but as a result of the protocol we have a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. Many of the laws that now regulate how we trade with the rest of the United Kingdom are made by a foreign entity over which we have no say whatsoever, and our VAT rates are set by that foreign entity. There should be no taxation without representation. I do not need to be bribed to ask for what is the right of my people: democracy.

    Simon Hoare

    That is a point with which I have much sympathy, and which Committee members discussed with the Commission when we were there last December. The Commission is aware of that. Norway has Ministers of its Government in Brussels to discuss such things week in, week out. The EU and, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, Northern Irish business organisations are really keen to identify platforms whereby that democratic deficit can be in some way addressed. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely. I am tempted to say to him, “Don’t shout at me; shout at the Ministers who advocated for the protocol and for us to sign and support it.”

    Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) rose—

    Simon Hoare

    I am going to make some progress, if I may.

    I suggest that we have to be the party of the rule of law, or we are nothing. It is sad that we have to be reminded of that. This a power grab, with all these Henry VIII clauses. If we were being asked to pass powers to Ministers so we could polish an already superlative protocol, we might have some faith, but they have admitted that the results of what they negotiated have caught them by surprise—that they did not understand the import of what they were signing up to, or they did not quite understand the terms or the meaning of the words. We are told that they were surprised that the other side would expect us and them to fulfil the obligations we had negotiated.

    Given our deep understanding of the complexities and difficulties of the politics of Northern Ireland— I have little or no doubt that we can all unite on that—I suggest that to enter into something so lightly without understanding precisely all the details, and then to say, “We’re having to do this because we didn’t expect the other side to do it in the way that they want us to do it,” is for the birds. It is totally bonkers. The Government told us that, having reached a difficult compromise on the final text of the protocol, they expected the EU to do something else. With all the history, all we relied on was expectation.

    These Henry VIII clauses really will not stick. Seventeen of the clauses give unspecified powers to Ministers. Was taking back control about this Parliament handing powers to the Executive to use for unspecified purposes? Even worse, one clause tells us that powers will be used to change powers that might have been changed in the Bill if those changes are subsequently thought to have been wrong or ill-advised. That is not only someone marking their own homework, but someone copying somebody else’s homework and then claiming all the credit themselves.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    I find it astonishing that my hon. Friend has got eight minutes into his speech and he has still not mentioned the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

    Simon Hoare

    My hon. Friend was obviously not listening, because I made it very clear at the start that the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is not touched by the protocol. The constitutional integrity of Northern Ireland within our United Kingdom is contained within the clauses of the Good Friday agreement—that is the only way. Anybody who tries to position this protocol—

    Gavin Robinson

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Simon Hoare

    I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because of the time.

    Anybody who thinks that this is, in some way, a back door to a speeding up of the reunification of Ireland is fundamentally wrong.

    Colum Eastwood

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Simon Hoare

    I will not, but I know the hon. Gentleman will understand why.

    The argument of necessity is clearly not made. The Prime Minister himself wants to see this done by negotiation, and I agree with him. There is the option to trigger article 16 if the Government think that that is necessary. If the situation is as bad as some Ministers would have this House believe, one has to ask why they have not used the emergency brake of article 16, but have instead suggested a calm and tranquil Sunday afternoon walk through a bicameral system of legislative progress—something that will take 10 months. Either the data is as bad as they tell us it is—incidentally, it is not—in which case rapid action is required, or we are just going to do this, which suggests to me that this is all gamesmanship and muscle flexing. Belfast port is now handling a record amount of cargo; last year, it handled a record 25.6 million tonnes. The food and drinks sector is benefitting. More Irish businesses are buying stuff from Northern Ireland, which is good for Northern Ireland plc.

    The Henry VIII clauses are wrong, the purpose of the Bill is wrong, and the necessity for it is not proven. I ask this question sincerely of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. We are talking about playing fast and loose with our international reputation; playing fast and loose with our adherence to the rule of law; an Executive power grab with Henry VIII clauses; and pandering and giving way to some sort of political brinkmanship on one side of the very sensitive divide in Northern Ireland, which we cannot afford to treat as a plaything. If the Labour party were on the Government Benches and doing what is contained in this Bill, what would our response be, as Conservatives? We would say that this was a party not fit for Government. We would say that it was a party that does not understand or respect our traditions, and that does not understand the importance of reputation. For a fellow Tory to have to point that out to Tories is shameful. I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to think about what this does to our party’s reputation and to our nation’s reputation, because both are in peril.

  • David Lammy – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    David Lammy – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    Less than three years ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box seeking to persuade the House to support the withdrawal agreement that he negotiated with the European Union. It was, he said,

    “a great deal for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 579.]

    He urged each of us

    “to show the same breadth of vision as our European neighbours”

    with whom he had struck the agreement. He reassured us that

    “Above all, we and our European friends have preserved the letter and the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 571.]

    His deal, he argued, was

    “in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 583.]

    Today, 18 months after it came into force, the Government are taking a wrecking ball to their own agreement.

    Ian Paisley

    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the very good proposal, made a few moments ago by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), that we should trigger article 16. Do Her Majesty’s official Opposition agree with that proposal? Does the shadow Secretary of State believe that article 16 should be triggered now?

    Mr Lammy

    What can I say to the hon. Gentleman? The Opposition think that there is a better way forward through negotiation, but at least the proposition that he suggests is legal. I will come on to that in a moment.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    The most important thing in all this is peace, and getting power sharing up and running. Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint the House with the discussions that he has had with the DUP on the solution to the problem, given that the DUP refuses to rejoin power sharing unless the protocol is dealt with? I am sure that he has discussed this with the DUP.

    Mr Lammy

    In our discussions, the DUP had consistently said that it wanted a negotiated settlement—until it saw today’s Bill.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Lammy

    I will make some progress.

    Ian Paisley

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    I call Ian Paisley on a point of order, but I hope that this is not a way of disrupting the debate.

    Ian Paisley

    Is it in order for the shadow Secretary of State to indicate that he has had negotiations with the Democratic Unionist party when no such negotiations have taken place, Madam Deputy Speaker?

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He knows that he is well able to ask to intervene again on the shadow Secretary of State. It undermines our debates if we come up with endless points of order that interrupt them. It is not a fair thing to do. The hon. Gentleman will try to catch my eye later; I suggest that we try to respect each other in the Chamber.

    Mr Lammy rose—

    Ian Paisley

    Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

    Mr Lammy

    I will not; I will make some progress.

    The Government are bringing the Bill to the House because they object to the text that they negotiated, and the choices that they freely made. They are asking each Member of the House to vote for a Bill that flouts international law. That proposition should never be put to hon. Members. The Bill is damaging and counterproductive. The strategy behind it is flawed. The legal justification for it is feeble. The precedent that it sets is dangerous and the timing could hardly be worse. It divides the United Kingdom and the European Union at a time when we should be pulling together against Putin’s war on the continent, and it risks causing new trade barriers during a cost of living crisis.

    John Redwood

    The protocol makes very clear the primacy of the Good Friday agreement for peace in Northern Ireland and says that the EU will respect our internal market. The EU is doing neither. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy to persuade it to do so?

    Mr Lammy

    Negotiate—just as Labour did to get the Good Friday agreement. We negotiate. We do not break international law and alienate our partners and allies not just in Europe but across the world, and the right hon. Gentleman should know better.

    As we debate the Bill, we should ask ourselves some simple questions. First, will it resolve the situation in Northern Ireland? Secondly, is it in the best interests of our great country? Thirdly, is it compatible with our commitment to the rule of law? Let me take each of those in turn.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    Will the right hon. Member give way?

    Mr Lammy

    I will not at the moment.

    Let us deal with Northern Ireland first as context. None of us in this House doubts that the situation in Northern Ireland is serious. Opposition Members need no reminder of the importance of the Good Friday agreement, which is one of the proudest achievements of a Labour Government, together with parties and communities across Northern Ireland and the Irish Government in Dublin. It was the result of hard work and compromise, graft and statesmanship, a relentless focus on the goal of peace. It was born six months after Bloody Sunday. For more than half my lifetime, Northern Ireland endured the pain and violence of conflict and division. More than 3,500 people were killed. Thousands more were injured. Cities and communities were riven by intolerance and division. I remember what that conflict brought to my city, from the Baltic Exchange attack to the Docklands bombing. Above the door over there and other doors into this Chamber are plaques to Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Sir Anthony Berry, Robert Bradford and, most recently, to Sir Henry Wilson.

    Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since that hopeful Easter in 1998. Since then, we have seen transformational progress. A generation has grown up in a new Northern Ireland, harvesting the fruits of a hard-won peace. That legacy demands that all of us act with the utmost responsibility and sensitivity. We need calm heads at this moment and responsible leadership.

    We recognise that the operation of the protocol and the barriers and checks that were inherent in its design have created new tensions that need to be addressed. Unionists feel that their place in the UK is threatened, and we must listen to all concerns on all sides. We all want to see power sharing restored. The UK Government, the European Union and parties across Northern Ireland need to show willing and act in good faith. However, at its most fundamental level, the Bill will not achieve its objectives. The House cannot impose a unilateral solution when progress demands that both sides agree. This is not an act of good faith, nor is it a long-term solution.

    Only an agreement that works for all sides and delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland will have durability and provide the political stability that businesses crave and the public deserve. Instead, the Bill will make a resolution more difficult. By breaking their obligations, the Government dissolve the little trust that remains; by taking this aggressive action, we make it harder for those on the other side of the table to compromise. On that basis alone, the Bill should be rejected.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)

    I recognise the comments that the shadow Secretary of State has made about the Belfast agreement and the need for consensus. He is aware that there is not a consensus in support of the protocol; there never has been one, from day one, in Northern Ireland. I gave time—a lot of time—for the negotiations to progress, but that did not work because the EU fundamentally refuses to change the text of the protocol. If the shadow Secretary of State is serious about getting a solution that works, will he go to the EU and join the Government in making the argument that the EU needs to agree to a negotiation in which it is prepared to change the text of the protocol?

    Mr Lammy

    I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in these matters, and indeed when the protocol was being negotiated in the first place. May I say that I met EU ambassadors in London last week and made that very point? I point him to the speech that I made last week, in which I highlighted exactly what he has just said.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    I do not think that anyone in this House can doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s personal commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, after the remarks that he has made. As someone whose father was nearly blown up in the Grand Hotel, I share that passion, but the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has to grapple with is that he wants a negotiation. What if the EU will not negotiate? What would he do then? That is the position that we are in. We cannot elevate the protocol to be more important than the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is the necessity we face.

    Mr Lammy

    I accept the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes his remarks. Let me just say that they have said that trust is at an all-time low. The question for this House is whether the Bill maintains or assists trust, given that ultimately this will be an agreement and it will be negotiated.

    Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Is he aware of comments by the US trade representative Ambassador Tai, from Speaker Pelosi and indeed from a host of our American allies in Congress? They have been very clear with us that there will be no US-UK trade deal unless there is a durable way forward on the Northern Ireland question. Not only does this reckless approach risk destroying relations with the EU, but it puts a deal with America at risk.

    Mr Lammy

    My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I have been to Washington on three occasions in the past six months, and I can say that across the political divide, Republicans and Democrats have raised the issue. On my most recent visit, they were aghast; they had not seen the content of the Bill at that stage, but they were aghast at the proposition. Perhaps the Northern Ireland Secretary might tell us what our American friends and allies have said in relation to the Bill now that they have seen the draft.

    My second question is whether the Bill is in the best interests of this country. As we stand here today, Britain faces the worst cost of living crisis in decades. Inflation is at more than 9%, bills are rising, energy costs are soaring and supply chains are under pressure. It beggars belief why, at this time, the Government would choose to risk new frictions in our trading relations with the EU. They cannot get away with abdicating responsibility for this reckless conduct. If we choose to break a contract, we cannot plausibly expect the other side to take no action in response. We cannot claim that we did not foresee the consequences. Of course the European Union would respond, just as we would if the situation were reversed. I will wager that the Foreign Secretary would be one of the first people to complain if the boot were on the other foot.

    A game of brinkmanship with the European Union will only add to our economic problems, but this is not just about economic concerns, important though they are. We must also see the bigger picture. For four months, the Putin regime has fought a bloody war against Ukraine. As a Parliament, we have been united in our support for Ukraine and our staunch opposition to Russia’s aggression. NATO allies and European partners have stood together. How can this be the right moment to deepen a diplomatic row? How can this be the right time to tell our friends and partners that we cannot be relied on? I cannot help noting that some Conservative Members told us that the situation in Ukraine was too serious—that this was not the right time to change Prime Minister. Apparently, however, it is not serious enough to prevent us from starting a diplomatic fight with some of our closest allies.

    Thirdly, is the Bill compatible with international law? [Hon. Members: “ Yes.”] Quite simply, the Bill breaks international law. It provides for a wholesale rewrite of an international treaty in domestic law. One of the most troubling aspects is the dangerous legal distortion that is used to justify it. The doctrine of necessity is not an excuse for states to abandon their obligations. It exists to do precisely the opposite: to constrain the circumstances in which states can legitimately claim that their hand has been forced. It requires this action to be the “only way” possible to resolve the issue, but the Government have not used article 16 and still say that a negotiated solution is possible. It requires a grave and imminent peril, but the Government have chosen a route that will involve months of parliamentary wrangling to fix issues such as unequal VAT rates, which no reasonable person could consider a matter of grave peril. It requires the invoking state not to have contributed to the situation of necessity, but the problems are a direct result of the choices that the Government made when negotiating with the European Union. If they were not, we would not need to change the text of the protocol at all.

    Joanna Cherry

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, particularly on the legal points. He has listed all the problems with the Government’s legal note of advice. Does he, like me, find it interesting that, whenever any of us raise these points, no Conservative Member is capable of answering them?

    Mr Lammy

    The hon. and learned Lady knows that there is not a serious Queen’s Counsel in the country who would support the use of the doctrine of necessity in the way in which the Government have sought to use it, and I think that Conservative Members do as well.

    Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)

    If I heard him aright, the right hon. Gentleman indicated earlier that the Government should have used article 16. He said, “They have not yet used article 16”, indicating that they should use it before going down this road. It was, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who I think is the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, who said that triggering article 16 would “prolong and deepen” uncertainty in Northern Ireland and pose another huge risk to stability there. Does this now mean that the Government should have triggered article 16, or that they should not—or maybe that there is a disagreement, or maybe that it will not be decided until after the passage of the Bill?

    Mr Lammy

    I think that the right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. Article 16 arises in relation to the defence that the Government suggest: the doctrine of necessity—that is, they have not used it and the point of using it is that, at the very least, it would be legal.

    “Pacta sunt servanda”. Agreements must be kept. This is the essence of international law: the solemn promise of states acting in good faith and upholding their commitments to treaties that they have agreed. How would we react if a country we had renegotiated with did the same thing and simply disregarded the commitments we had mutually agreed on? I do not doubt that, if an authoritarian state used necessity to justify its actions in breaking a treaty in the manner the Government are proposing to do through this Bill, the Foreign Secretary and many of us across this House would condemn it.

    Since the right hon. Lady became Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office has issued countless statements and press releases urging others to meet their international obligations. They include Iran under the joint comprehensive plan of action; China under the joint declaration of Hong Kong; and Russia under the Budapest memorandum. In just the last fortnight, the Foreign Office under her leadership has publicly called on Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nicaragua, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia to meet their international obligations. Hypocrisy is corrosive to our foreign policy and I know that Members from across the House share these concerns.

    Chris Bryant

    I take this point from my right hon. Friend’s mention of the Budapest accord: when the UK signs a document, it really needs to stand by it. We did not stand by the Budapest accord either. We did not make sure that the text was proper before we brought it to Parliament, and that is one of the reasons we have the problems we have today, is it not?

    Mr Lammy

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we use the word “honourable” across this House, it means something. It is about the integrity of this place and about the pre-eminent position that this Parliament and this country find themselves in on matters of international affairs. That is why this is such a sombre moment.

    Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and these matters deserve thoughtful consideration, but could he take advantage of his time at the Dispatch Box to tell us whether he would change the protocol? If so, how would he change it? How does he think the process of negotiation, which has failed so far, would achieve those changes?

    Mr Lammy

    I want to make some progress, but I have said that this party would negotiate, just as we negotiated the Good Friday agreement.

    Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)

    The shadow Secretary of State has made much of the Government abandoning their obligations, but surely the obligation in the protocol was designed from the EU’s point of view to protect the EU single market. How does this Bill not give that guarantee to the EU, when goods going into the Republic will be checked, when there will be severe penalties on those who try evade those checks and when any firms producing in Northern Ireland will have to comply with EU rules when they are sending goods to the Republic? Surely that safeguards the single market and the obligations will be met.

    Mr Lammy

    Yes, it needs to be improved, but the question is how. What is the best method to achieve that? Is breaking international law and placing ourselves in a situation in which our EU partners do not trust us the best way?

    Mr Francois

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Lammy

    Let me just make some progress, because I have been on my feet for a long time and lots of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.

    Our country’s reputation is a matter beyond party. It is hard won and easily lost. When this Bill was first mooted, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) asked

    “what such a move would say about the United Kingdom and its willingness to abide by treaties that it has signed.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 38.]

    The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said in a thoughtful piece on this legislation last week that our country

    “benefits greatly from our reputation for keeping our word and upholding the rule of law…We should be very wary indeed of damaging that standing.”

    The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said,

    “I don’t see how…any member of parliament can vote for a breach of international law.”

    Lord Anderson and Lord Pannick, who are among the most distinguished lawyers in the country, have called this Bill a “clear breach” of international law that

    “shows a lack of commitment to the rule of law and to a rules-based international order that damages the reputation of the UK.”

    And Sir Jonathan Jones QC, formerly the most senior lawyer in Government, has described the legal justification for the Bill as “hopeless.” This is, of course, the same distinguished lawyer who resigned last time the Government proposed legislation in violation of their own treaty commitments. On that occasion, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had the temerity to tell the House the truth about the Government’s plan to break international law in a “limited and specific way.”

    This Bill breaks the withdrawal agreement in a broad and extensive way while maintaining the pretence that it is somehow compliant. I am not sure what is worse—to be open about breaking the law or to dress up a treaty violation with this flimsy and transparent legal distortion.

    Mr Francois

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Will he confirm to the House that he has actually read the Northern Ireland protocol? If he has read it, will he remind the House of what article 13.8 says about the ability to amend or even supersede the protocol entirely?

    Mr Lammy

    The right hon. Gentleman has, like me, been in this House for many years. This is too serious an issue for any shadow Minister or Minister not to have spent the whole weekend working hard on the Bill, as he knows. He also knows that we all come to this House hopeful of reaching agreement, but very conscious of the lawbreaking that is going forward, so of course I have read it.

    Undermining international law runs counter to Britain’s interest, damages Britain’s moral authority and political credibility, and risks emboldening dictators and authoritarian states around the world. It serves the best interests of those who want to weaken the rule of law, and it is unbefitting of this great country.

    This Bill not only contravenes international law but affords the Government extraordinary powers and denies proper respect to the role of this House. Fifteen of the 26 clauses confer powers on Ministers. The Hansard Society, not an organisation known for hyperbole, has called the powers given to Ministers “breathtaking.” Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers “eye wateringly broad.”

    Ministers may use these powers whenever they feel it appropriate. Clause 22 allows them to amend Acts of Parliament, and clause 15 gifts them the power to disapply other parts of the protocol, potentially including the article on democratic consent in Northern Ireland. Ministers could use secondary legislation to change not just primary law but an international treaty. This is a power grab so broad it would make Henry VIII blush.

    Clause 19 allows Ministers to implement a new deal with the European Union without primary legislation. Do Conservative Back Benchers really want to give any Foreign Secretary that power? This is brazen Executive overreach. It is an act of disrespect to Parliament and all MPs should reject it.

    Karin Smyth

    As well as disrespecting Members and Parliament, the Bill is extraordinarily disrespectful to the representatives of people in Northern Ireland who will have no say on these provisions, as the Secretary of State is grabbing all the power.

    Mr Lammy

    My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Should this Bill reach Committee stage, I hope that proper scrutiny and consideration will be given to the powers that the Foreign Secretary is taking for herself and denying this Parliament and Northern Ireland.

    Colum Eastwood

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Lammy

    I must make some progress, because I am very conscious that we will run out of time.

    As I have outlined, the Bill is damaging and counterproductive, and it is also unnecessary. We want to see checks reduced to an absolute necessary minimum, and there are practical solutions if we work to find them. Let us lower the temperature and focus on what works.

    For months, we have been urging the Government to negotiate a veterinary agreement with the European Union that could remove the need for the vast majority of checks across the Irish sea on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. New Zealand has such an agreement. Why cannot we have one? I do not believe that it is beyond the ability of a British Government to negotiate one. That could be the basis of other steps to reduce friction, including improving data sharing. I am not one of those people who believe that only the UK Government need to show flexibility; the EU has been too rigid as well. However, the only way forward is to work hard on negotiation and compromise. I believe that with hard work and determination, with creativity and flexibility, we can overcome those challenges.

    This Bill is not the way forward. It will exacerbate the problems it hopes to solve. It will gift Ministers unaccountable powers. It will divide us from our friends and allies in Europe when we should be united. It damages our country’s reputation. It will break international law. The rule of law is not a Labour or a Conservative value; it is our common inheritance. Since Magna Carta in 1215, it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the greatest contributions that our country has made to the world. No party owns it. No Government should squander it. Britain should be a country that keeps its word. Let us stand for that principle and vote against this Bill tonight.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    We are taking this action to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has brought peace and political stability to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol is undermining the function of the agreement and of power sharing. It has created fractures between east and west, diverted trade and meant that people in Northern Ireland are treated differently from people in Great Britain. It has weakened their economic rights. That has created a sense that parity of esteem between different parts of the community, an essential part of the agreement, has been damaged.

    The Bill will address those political challenges and fix the practical problems the protocol has created. It avoids a hard border and protects the integrity of the UK and the European Union single market. It is necessary because the growing issues in Northern Ireland, including on tax and customs, are baked into the protocol itself. Our preference remains a negotiated solution, and the Bill contains a provision that allows for negotiated agreement, but the EU has ruled out up-front making changes to the text of the protocol.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her very patient and good diplomacy. Will she confirm that this very moderate measure is completely legal and essential to the peace and good will of Northern Ireland?

    Elizabeth Truss

    I can absolutely confirm that this Bill is both necessary and legal, and the Government have published a legal statement setting that out.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will make a bit more progress and then allow some further interventions.

    We continue to raise the issues of concern with our European partners, but we simply cannot allow this situation to drift. Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government since February due specifically to the protocol, at a time of major global economic challenges. Therefore, it is the duty of this Government to act now to enable a plan for restored local government to begin. It is both legal and necessary.

    This Bill fixes the specific problems that have been caused in Northern Ireland while maintaining those parts of the protocol that are working. It fixes problems in four areas: customs and sanitary and phytosanitary; a dual regulatory model; subsidy control and VAT; and governance. On customs and SPS, the Bill creates a green and red lane system. All those trading into Northern Ireland will be part of a trusted trader scheme. Goods destined for Northern Ireland will not face customs bureaucracy. Goods for the Republic of Ireland and the EU will go through four EU-style border procedures. All data from both the green and red lanes will be shared with the EU in real time as the goods depart from Great Britain. This means that the EU will have this data before the goods arrive in Northern Ireland, ensuring that the EU single market is protected.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the Secretary of State for bringing this forward and for her comprehensive understanding of the position of many people in Northern Ireland. As someone who has had businesses contacting me for those who have openly stated that they are from a nationalist tradition and yet feel afraid to voice complaints to their own MP for fear of reprisals, I speak with confidence in assuring the Secretary of State that Northern Ireland as a whole needs this Bill not simply for cultural identity, which is imperative, but for financial viability for small businesses due to the effects of the EU’s vindictive approach to block VAT and state aid. This Bill really is long overdue.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. Interventions should be fairly brief because we have a lot of people wanting to speak in this debate.

    Elizabeth Truss

    I was talking about the data that we are sharing with the EU. I am pleased to say that we already have this system in place. We are giving demonstrations to businesses and the EU to show how it works, and I am happy to make those demonstrations available to Members of Parliament as well. Any trader violating the lanes will face penalties and would face ejection from the scheme.

    Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)

    I have an immense amount of sympathy with what the Foreign Secretary is saying, and it does seem to me as though the EU is not being particularly constructive in trying to get the solution that we all want to see. But many of us are extremely concerned that the Bill brazenly breaks a solemn international treaty, trashes our international reputation, threatens a trade war at a time when our economy is flat, and puts us at odds with our most important ally. Can she say anything to reassure me in my anxieties on these points?

    Elizabeth Truss

    As I said at the outset, our preference is for a negotiated solution, and we have sought that for 18 months, but as recently as last weekend the EU has refused to change the text of the protocol. That is why there is strong legal justification, as set out in our legal statement, for us taking this action. Our priority, as the United Kingdom Government, has to be political stability within our own country. While we put this Bill through Parliament, we will continue to seek a negotiated solution with the EU, and there are provisions in the Bill to deliver that. I would strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to raise this with the EU directly and to encourage a negotiated solution, because there is a solution to be achieved. We have laid it out very clearly with our red and green proposal, but we do need the EU to agree to change the text of the protocol. That is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.

    Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. The Government’s legal position prays in aid the international law doctrine of necessity, but the International Law Commission says that where a state has itself contributed to the situation of necessity, that doctrine cannot be prayed in aid. Given that the Prime Minister signed the withdrawal agreement, including the protocol, in the knowledge that it would give rise to precisely the difficulties of which the Government now complain—we debated it on the Floor of the House—does the Secretary of State not see that there is a pretty big hole in the legal advice she has been given?

    Elizabeth Truss

    We set out the case extremely clearly in the legal advice, and the doctrine of necessity has been used by other Governments in the past where there is a severe issue and the other party is unwilling to renegotiate that treaty. That is the position we are in with the Northern Ireland protocol. What I would ask the hon. and learned Lady and other Members on the Opposition Benches is this: given that the EU refuses to reopen the Northern Ireland protocol, and issues around customs and tax are specifically baked in, what is their solution for dealing with the real issues in Northern Ireland? We have looked at all the alternative solutions, and the only effective solution is this Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, in the absence of the EU being willing to negotiate a new protocol.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend could also point out that the protocol itself contains provisions for it to be changed, and the EU refuses to contemplate using those provisions. May I also point out that at the time we signed the protocol, we did not know the shape of the trade and co-operation agreement, and it was reasonable to expect the EU to give mutual recognition of products and standards, including SPS standards, as it has with New Zealand, for example? The EU refuses to give us those provisions. The problems in the protocol would be much less if the EU had given us a better trade deal.

    Elizabeth Truss

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the protocol is not set in stone. That is why for the past 18 months this Government have sought to achieve negotiated changes to the protocol. In the absence of the EU being willing to change the text, the only way to resolve this matter is for us to legislate.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I am going to make more progress, and then I will take more interventions.

    We fully understand and respect the legitimate concerns of the EU that the single market should be protected. Our solution does just that. The Bill will also establish a dual regulatory regime so that businesses can choose between meeting UK and EU standards. That removes the barriers to goods made to UK standards being sold in Northern Ireland and it cuts the processes that drive up cost for business. It prevents unnecessary divergence between two parts of the UK internal market. Anybody who trades into the EU single market will still have to do so according to EU standards.

    The Bill will also ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, overcoming constraints that have meant Northern Ireland has not benefited from the same support as the rest of the UK. For example, at present people in Northern Ireland are not able to benefit from the VAT cuts on solar panels that the Chancellor announced in the spring statement.

    These are essential functions of any 21st-century state, but they are especially important in Northern Ireland, where the UK Government play an outsized role in the local economy. We will maintain the arrangements in the protocol on VAT, which support trade on the island of Ireland while ensuring that Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibility available in Great Britain.

    Caroline Lucas

    Does the Secretary of State understand why so many people would accuse this Government of the most rank hypocrisy? First, this is a predictable outcome of the agreement that they negotiated when they did not give a fig for the situation in Northern Ireland, frankly. Secondly, if they were serious about negotiations, they could be using article 16. Thirdly, at the very same time that the Prime Minister is gladhanding G7 leaders in Bavaria and extolling the virtues of a rules-based international system, his own Government at home are riding a horse and coaches through a rules-based system. Does she understand the concerns we have? What kind of reputation will the UK have on the global stage as a result of this proposal?

    Elizabeth Truss

    As I have made clear, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should have primacy. The fact is that it has been undermined over the past two years, as we can see from the fact that the institutions of Northern Ireland are not up and running. That is why the Government need to act, and we are doing so in a reasonable and legal way.

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    I entirely accept my right hon. Friend’s desire to achieve a negotiated settlement if at all possible; I know how much work has gone into that. To return to the legal point, she will know that the application of the doctrine of necessity requires both the legal tests to be met and the evidential base to be there, because it is largely fact-specific to show whether those tests have been met. I know that the Government have been working hard to assemble that evidential base, but can she tell us when it will be available to the House so that we can form a judgment as to whether those legal tests are met and, therefore, proportionality and necessity are met? It would be helpful to have that before we come to a conclusion on the Bill.

    Elizabeth Truss

    I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There are clearly very severe issues in Northern Ireland, including the fact that its institutions are not up and running, which mean that the UK has to act and cannot allow the situation to drift. I do not think that we have heard what the Opposition’s alternative would be, apart from simply hoping that the EU might suddenly negotiate or come up with a new outcome.

    Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Elizabeth Truss

    Perhaps the hon. Lady can give us an idea about her alternative plan.

    Karin Smyth

    Over the past six years, I have given several alternatives, including as a shadow Minister. The Secretary of State talks about the institutions. Can she give the House the details of the agreement she has secured from the political parties in Northern Ireland that they will return to Stormont on the completion of the Bill—or on the completion of Second Reading, at any point during the Committee stage, or on Third Reading? What in the Bill has secured that? What role is there for anybody in Northern Ireland, given that the powers go to the Minister of the Crown?

    Elizabeth Truss

    I note that the hon. Lady has not come up with any alternatives to the Bill to move the situation forward. The approach we have taken, with the four areas that I am talking through, is to identify what the practical problems are for the people of Northern Ireland and to come up with solutions that address those problems while protecting the EU single market. It is our expectation that the passage of the Bill will result in the institutions being re-established.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will make progress on talking through the elements of the Bill, but I will be happy to accept further interventions later.

    The Bill will ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, which will overcome the constraints that have meant that Northern Ireland has not benefited from the same support as the rest of the UK, as I mentioned. It will also maintain the arrangements in the protocol on VAT that support trade on the island of Ireland, while ensuring that Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibilities available in Great Britain.

    The Bill will remove the role of the European Court where it is not appropriate, including its role as the final arbiter of disputes. That is in line with normal international dispute-resolution provisions, including in the trade and co-operation agreement. The Bill will also enable courts to seek an opinion from the European Court on legitimate questions of the interpretation of EU law, which will ensure that it can still be applied for the purposes of north-south trade.

    The Belfast/Good Friday agreement is based on consent from both communities. All Unionist parties have cited the European Court as a main cause of major democratic deficit. Together with VAT and state aid rules, it causes Unionists to feel less connected and less part of the UK. This is not a hypothetical issue; the European Court has already become one of the most controversial elements of the protocol and threatens to disrupt everyday lives. The EU has brought infraction proceedings against the UK in five areas that cover issues such as parcels and transporting pets. To be absolutely clear, the Bill changes only the parts of the protocol that are causing the problems and undermining the three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    I have a very short question, which is simply this. The Foreign Secretary says the Bill is legal, but lots of people disagree with her, including lots of very eminent lawyers both in this country and elsewhere. Which body will arbitrate on the decision as to whether this Bill is legal?

    Elizabeth Truss

    We have published our Government legal statement, which clearly states the reasons why this Bill is legal and the necessity of pursuing this Bill. I return to my point about the lack of alternatives being proposed by the Opposition. We have exhausted all the other avenues, and this remains the course of action that is actually going to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and re-establish the institutions.

    Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

    There is a lot of talk about international law, but can I take the Foreign Secretary to paragraph 3 of article 2 of the UN charter? It says:

    “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

    That is incumbent on us and the EU, and the EU needs to engage with us and negotiate so that peace is not threatened.

    Elizabeth Truss

    My hon. Friend is right. It is very clear from the legal advice that one of the issues is that the EU will not change the text of the protocol even though, when the protocol was negotiated, it was very clear that it was not set in stone and should be subject to change because of the very unique situation in Northern Ireland.

    We are very clear that there are elements of the protocol that are working and that we do want to maintain. We will maintain the conditions for north-south co-operation and trade, and uphold the common travel area. We will maintain the functioning of the single electricity market, which benefits both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

    The Bill provides specific powers to implement technical regulations as part of our solution, and today we launched a consultation with businesses to make sure that the way it is implemented works for the people of business in Northern Ireland. We will continue consulting with businesses and the EU over the coming weeks to make sure that the implementation works.

    Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)

    One of the fundamental purposes of this long-awaited Bill is to uphold the critical Good Friday agreement, which as the whole House knows completely underpins the maintenance of peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. That being the case, for those who follow this matter closely, including in the United States, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that one of the strongest advocates for action on this has been Lord Trimble, the Nobel laureate, who helped negotiate the Good Friday agreement in the first place?

    Elizabeth Truss

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all know how hard-won peace and political stability in Northern Ireland was, and we all know how important it is that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is upheld and is not undermined. That is the discussion I have been having with colleagues in the United States and around the world, and those who have experienced the situation in Northern Ireland fully understand how important it is that we act and that we cannot allow this situation to drift.

    I know there are those across the House who want to give negotiation more time. The problem we face is that we have already been negotiating for 18 months. We have a negotiating partner that is refusing to change the text of the protocol. Meanwhile, we have a worsening situation in Northern Ireland. So it is firmly the view of this Government that we need to act. We are pursuing this legislation as all other options have been exhausted.

    Our first choice was and remains renegotiating the protocol text with the EU. This is in line with the evolution of other treaties, which happens all the time. For example, both the EU and the UK are currently renegotiating changes to the energy charter treaty. Given the unique nature of Northern Ireland and the unprecedented nature of these arrangements, it was always likely that flexibility would be needed. In fact, that flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the protocol itself, but despite the fact that we have been pursuing these renegotiations we have not seen the flexibility needed from the EU.

    As recently as this weekend, the EU said it will not renegotiate the text of the protocol, and Members across the House will have seen that the EU put forward proposals last year and again a fortnight ago; it is worth pointing out that those proposals will leave the people and businesses of Northern Ireland worse off than the current standstill arrangements. Its proposals would make the situation on the ground worse, adding further to the tensions and stresses; goods going solely to Northern Ireland would still face customs paperwork and sanitary and phytosanitary certificates.

    Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is borne out of necessity: necessity to act in our national interest, to provide a permanent solution to a temporary measure, to preserve the Belfast agreement, and to preserve the constitutional settlement that keeps Northern Ireland as part of the UK? It is a necessity to prevent a democratic deficit and to use international law to safeguard and protect our essential interests while protecting those of the EU.

    Elizabeth Truss

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We still face a situation in which the EU has refused to change the text of the protocol, and its proposals do not even address many of the issues of concern—over governance, subsidies, manufactured goods and VAT. Without dealing with those very real issues for the people of Northern Ireland we are not going to see the balance of the Belfast Good Friday agreement restored, and we are not going to see the cross-community support we need to get the political institutions back up and running.

    Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

    The Foreign Secretary knows that the three things that need to be resolved are the friction in trade; repairing the harm to our constitutional position within this country; and erasing the democratic deficit at the heart of the protocol. The Foreign Secretary has fairly outlined the myriad steps the Government have taken; if this Bill is required, they can have our support in resolving these issues, but she will also hear a lot of opposition from Members of other parties on this side of the House. In hearing that opposition from colleagues sitting to my right and left, can she identify even one of them who advocated using article 16 or the provisions of the protocol, or have they simply no interest in trying to resolve the issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland today?

    Elizabeth Truss

    The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Those who advocate further negotiation with the EU need to persuade the EU to change its negotiating mandate so the text of the protocol can change, because we know that those specific issues, including on the customs bureaucracy and VAT, can only be addressed by addressing the text of the protocol itself.

    I want to come on to the specific point the hon. Gentleman made about article 16. Of course we have looked at triggering article 16 to deal with this issue; however, we came to the conclusion that it would not resolve the fundamental issues in the protocol. It is only a temporary measure and it would only treat some of the symptoms without fixing the root cause of the problems, which are baked into the protocol text itself. It could also lead to attrition and litigation with the EU while not delivering sufficient change.

    I want to be clear: we do not rule out using article 16 further down the line if the circumstances demand it, but in order to fix the very real problems in Northern Ireland and get the political institutions back up and running, the only solution that is effective and provides a comprehensive and durable solution is this Bill.

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)

    I suspect that when the Foreign Secretary was campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union, she never in a million years thought she would be standing here proposing a Bill of this sort. In light of the comment she just made about article 16, why are the Government not proposing to use the legal method to raise these questions with the European Union through the treaty they signed, rather than claiming necessity? The Foreign Secretary has yet to give me a single example where the British Government have claimed necessity for abrogating a treaty they have negotiated and signed.

    Elizabeth Truss

    The reason why I am putting the Bill forward is that I am a patriot, and I am a democrat. Our No. 1 priority is protecting peace and political stability in Northern Ireland and protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested will achieve that end.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will finish off my remarks.

    The only way for us to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and fix the problems in Northern Ireland is to pass this legislation. We have heard all kinds of complaining from the Opposition side about the solution that the Government are putting forward, but no alternative solution that will deliver.

    I want to be clear that this is not my preferred choice, but, in the absence of a negotiated solution, we have no other choice. There is no need for the EU to react negatively. It will be no worse off as a result of the Bill. These issues are very small in the context of the single market, but they are critical for Northern Ireland.

    Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)

    The Foreign Secretary knows that I have grave concerns about her Bill, but may I ask her coolly to reflect on praying in aid patriotism as a defence of it? Is she seriously impugning the patriotism of colleagues across the House who have concerns about her Bill? I find that a false conflation.

    Elizabeth Truss

    I was directly responding to the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about why I campaigned one way in the referendum and am now working to ensure that the Brexit negotiation that we achieved works for the people of Northern Ireland. That is because I believe in the Union of the United Kingdom and in the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I want to resolve those issues.

    All I am pointing out to colleagues across the House is that I have negotiated in good faith with the European Union, but it has refused to change the text of the protocol. I have looked at all the options—including triggering article 16—to see whether they would work to resolve the serious issues in Northern Ireland, and I have come to the genuine conclusion that they will not.

    Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

    Will the Secretary of State commit that never again will a Government stand at that Dispatch Box and change the Act of Union in a way that is detrimental to this United Kingdom that we all adhere to and all admire? Will she also confirm that more than 300 hours have been spent in negotiations with the EU and that it has resisted any change whatsoever, such is its animosity towards Northern Ireland?

    Elizabeth Truss

    The very clear reason why we are acting now is that there has been a refusal to change the text of the protocol, which is causing real problems in Northern Ireland. As I have said, these issues are very small in the context of the single market, but they are critical for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is in their interests that we are acting in putting through the Bill.

    Once the legislation is enacted, we can draw a line under the issue and unleash the full potential of our relationship with the EU. Fundamentally, we share a belief in democracy, in freedom and in the right of all countries to self-determination. We are natural allies in an increasingly uncertain and geopolitical world.

    Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)

    Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

    Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

    Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will not give way any more—the House will be pleased to hear that I am almost at the end of my remarks. We want to work with the EU for the betterment of not just Europe but the world, and we want to focus all our efforts on tackling external threats, such as Putin’s Russia. Once this legislation is passed, we will have a solution that helps to restore the balance between the communities, and that upholds the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia Joining the European Union

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia Joining the European Union

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, at the European Parliamentary Plenary in Brussels on 22 June 2022.

    Thank you, Madam President, dear Roberta,

    Cher Charles,

    Honourable Members,

    From the early days of the Maidan on, Ukraine has bravely resisted against Russia’s aggression. It went through repression and uprising. It went through territorial annexation, and now outright war. It is the only country where people got shot because they wrapped themselves in a European flag. Ukraine has gone through hell and high water for one simple reason: Its desire to join the European Union.

    The European Commission answered to this desire explicitly. The opinion we presented last week recognises Ukraine’s aspirations. It acknowledges the immense progress that Ukraine’s democracy has achieved since the Maidan protests of 2014. Our opinion stems from a careful and thorough assessment of the reality on the ground. And this evidence tells us that Ukraine deserves a European perspective, and also the candidate status on the understanding that the country will carry out a number of further, important reforms.

    Ukraine has proven, already before the war, that it is on the right trajectory. In the last few years Ukraine has reformed more than in the last decades. Thanks to the Association Agreement of 2016, Ukraine has already implemented roughly 70% of EU rules, norms and standards. It is already involved in many important EU programmes like Horizon Europe and Erasmus. Ukraine is a robust parliamentary democracy, it has a well-functioning public administration, which every day is passing the ultimate stress test of war. It has free and fair elections and a vibrant civil society, that holds the government to account. Year after year, small businesses and, in particular, young entrepreneurs have conquered new space in the country´s economy – and fought back against the power of oligarchs. Ukraine punches well above its weight when it comes to innovative start-ups and the digital economy. And all of this progress has been achieved because the people of Ukraine have Europe in their hearts and their minds.

    But we also know that there is important work ahead. Take the fight against corruption. Ukraine has already taken important steps in the right direction. It has set up the necessary anti-corruption bodies. But now these institutions have to come to life. They need teeth, and the right people in senior posts.

    Or take the excessive influence of oligarchs on the economy. Ukraine has adopted a bold law to break the oligarchs’ grip on Ukraine’s economic, political and public life. In fact, it is the only country in the Eastern Partnership that has done so. Now it is about turning the law into positive and enduring change. I discussed this and other issues with President Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Shmyhal during my recent visit to Kyiv. And I know that the people of Ukraine want to continue on the path of modernisation, the path of democracy, the path that leads to Europe.

    Honourable Members,

    After the fall of the Berlin wall, Jacques Delors said: ‘History is once again on the march in Europe. But it is for us to give history a meaning.’

    Jacques Delors was referring to the need to open up our Union to all European countries. And his words are still true today. History is on the march. And I am not just talking about Putin’s war of aggression. I am talking about the wind of change that once again blows across our continent. With their applications, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are telling us that they want change. They want more democracy, more freedoms and stronger reforms. They are telling us that they want Europe. We have a responsibility towards them, but we also have a responsibility towards ourselves to make the right choice. So let me speak briefly about our assessment for Moldova. Moldova has taken decisive steps towards Europe, too. With a clear mandate from its citizens. It is on a real pro-reform, anti-corruption and European path for the first time since independence. And this is why it deserves the European perspective and candidate status, again on the understanding that the country will carry out a number of further, important reforms. In particular, its economy and public administration require major efforts. But provided that the country’s leaders stay the course, we believe the country has the potential to live up to the requirements.

    Georgia shares the same aspirations and potential as Ukraine and Moldova. Its application has strengths, in particular the market orientation of its economy, with a strong private sector. To succeed however, the country must now come together politically. It must design a clear path towards structural reform and towards the European Union. A path that concretely sets out the necessary reforms, brings civil society on board and benefits from broad political support. This is why we recommend to Council to grant Georgia the European perspective, but to come back and assess how the country meets a number of conditions before granting it candidate status.

    Honourable Members,

    How far Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia will come and how quickly they proceed will depend first and foremost on their actions and their progress. It is a merits-based approach. But how we respond to their passion and their progress is our choice, and ours only. This Parliament has already spoken, loud and clear. I would like to thank you again for that. It is now up to the European Council to decide, and live up to the historic responsibility we are confronted with.

    The history of our Union is one of young democracies getting stronger together. It is the history of Germany’s rebirth after the war. It is Greece, Spain and Portugal moving fast from dictatorship to democracy in the mid-1970s. It is the democratic uprising that brought down the Iron Curtain. It is the long path of reconciliation in the Western Balkans. A path that must lead all the six Western Balkan countries to join our Union. And the next chapter is being written today by the brave people of Ukraine, and by all of us, who must accompany them on their European path. Again, this is Europe’s moment. And we must seize it.

    Long live Europe.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Comments at Press Conference with President Michel and President Macron

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Comments at Press Conference with President Michel and President Macron

    The opening remarks made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 24 June 2022.

    Today, we had the opportunity to hold an in-depth discussion on the economy during the Euro Summit. The euro area is forecast to continue growing both in 2022 and 2023 although by less than we anticipated before the war. Obviously, the war in Ukraine is having a heavy impact, both on growth and on inflation. We have seen Russia’s disruptive action on gas. And we are seeing price increases beyond energy, on food and elsewhere in the economy. Therefore, we discussed how to mitigate the economic and social impacts, especially on the most vulnerable of our societies.

    This starts with being adequately prepared to deal with potential further disruptions in deliveries of Russian gas to Europe. We are working hard on this. We have reviewed all the national emergency plans to help make sure everyone is ready for further disruptions. And we are working on a common European emergency demand reduction plan with industry, but also with the 27 Member States. We do this because we have learnt our lesson from COVID-19. There we have seen that, when we act together as 27, when we avoid fragmentation, we are strong and we have an enormous impact. I will present this plan in July to the Leaders. There will not be a return to cheap fossil fuels, I think. And therefore, alongside temporary and targeted support to vulnerable families and businesses, it is essential to help our economies and societies adapt to the new conditions. The root cause of our problem is our dependence on fossil fuels, which we must get rid of.

    This is basically the essence of REPowerEU. We are providing through REPowerEU resources of round about EUR 300 billion to do three things: The first pillar is to diversify our energy supply. The second pillar is to increase the energy efficiency. And the third pillar is the supply of our own green renewable energy. We are already seeing results. If I may give you an example for the first pillar, the diversification away from Russian gas: We see that the US LNG deliveries to the European Union are up by 75% this year compared to last year. We have just signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Israel, Egypt and the European Union to make sure that there is natural gas from Israel, liquefied in Egypt and then brought via LNG to the European Union. The Norwegian pipeline gas is up by 15%; Azerbaijan is up by 90%. So there is a lot on the move to really diversify away from the Russian gas to other trustworthy suppliers. Looking at the renewables, I think that there is one interesting figure: The European Union was and is the second largest market globally in terms of increased capacity of renewables in 2021, and will be in 2022. So you also see the big move forward of heavy investment in renewables. That is the energy of the future. That is the way to go.

    A second topic that we have been discussing is, in parallel, that we are working on the review of the economic governance. We know that debts and deficits have soared in all Member States after COVID-19. And at the same time, investment needs are very large for a successful transition to a green, digital and resilient EU society and economy. Therefore, we need to design rules that in a way reconcile these higher investment needs – they are necessary – and at the same time to safeguard sound fiscal finances. One goes with the other: that is fiscal sustainability and growth.

    And let me also end, dear Emmanuel, by congratulating you on an extremely successful French Presidency. The work you have done was colossal. I witnessed every day how intensive your team – and I really want to thank you and your team – has been working on progress in the European Union. It really made a difference. We should keep in mind that when you started, there was a lot on your plate, but you had no clue that there was a war coming. In record time, we delivered together six packages of heavy sanctions. And I think that it was a hallmark and a very defining moment to see the determination of the European Union and the speed at which we can move forward. We have, in this time, welcomed 7.5 million refugees from Ukraine. 3 million are still here. And you and your team, as Presidency, made it possible that we very quickly granted temporary protection, that is access to the labour market, to the education system, to the social security system. All this thanks to the French Presidency.

    I thank you personally for the enormous progress that we have made on the European Green Deal – and here, specifically the huge package of Fit for 55. Dozens of proposals have now been pushed forward. And this is a real step forward. The same goes, and I know that this is very close to your heart, for the DSA and the DMA, so putting the online world in order as well as we have it in the offline world, to protect our citizens and to keep up the competitiveness of our businesses in the online world. This has been – the DSA and the DMA – negotiated with ambition and adopted in record time. You really delivered. There was the Conference on the Future of Europe.

    But I am personally very proud on one specific file that you have concluded during the French Presidency, and this is Women on Boards. It took ten long years; it was stuck for ten years. The French Presidency made it possible that it reappeared and was negotiated and adopted in record time. So not only did you put an end to an injustice for women, but also to an enormous loss of earnings for companies. It is a real big step forward that we have now this agreement on Women on Boards.

    Last but not least, and I would not miss to mention it, we have made good progress on the Pact on Migration and Asylum, especially on the voluntary solidarity mechanism and on the governance of Schengen. Important files. They were difficult to manage, you really pushed it forward. I stop here, but as you can see, dear Emmanuel, I think that France can be very proud of this Presidency. It was outstanding. Many thanks for that.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Social and Economic Consequences of Russian Invasion

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Social and Economic Consequences of Russian Invasion

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 4 May 2022.

    Madam President, dear Roberta,

    Honourable Members,

    Next week, we will mark Europe Day. The 72nd birthday of our Union. This Europe Day will be all about the Union of the future – how we make it stronger, more resilient, closer to its people. But the answer to all of these questions, we cannot give alone. The answer is also given in Ukraine. It is given in Kharkiv, where Ukrainian first responders venture into the combat zone to help those wounded by Russian attacks. It is given in small towns like Bucha, where survivors are coping with the atrocities committed against civilians by Russian soldiers. And it is given in Mariupol, where Ukrainians are resisting a Russian force, which greatly outnumbers them. They are fighting to reaffirm basic ideas: That they are the master of their own future – and not some foreign leader. That it is the international law that counts and not the right of might. And that Putin must pay a high price for his brutal aggression.

    Thus, the future of the European Union is also written in Ukraine. And therefore, today, I would like to speak about two topics. First about sanctions and second about relief and reconstruction. Today, we are presenting the sixth package of sanctions. First, we are listing high-ranking military officers and other individuals who committed war crimes in Bucha and who are responsible for the inhuman siege of the city of Mariupol. This sends another important signal to all perpetrators of the Kremlin’s war: We know who you are, and you will be held accountable. Second, we de-SWIFT Sberbank – by far Russia’s largest bank, and two other major banks. By that, we hit banks that are systemically critical to the Russian financial system and Putin’s ability to wage destruction. This will solidify the complete isolation of the Russian financial sector from the global system. Third, we are banning three big Russian state-owned broadcasters from our airwaves. They will not be allowed to distribute their content anymore in the EU, in whatever shape or form, be it on cable, via satellite, on the internet or via smartphone apps. We have identified these TV channels as mouthpieces that amplify Putin’s lies and propaganda aggressively. We should not give them a stage anymore to spread these lies. Moreover, the Kremlin relies on accountants, consultants and spin doctors from Europe. And this will now stop. We are banning those services from being provided to Russian companies.

    My final point on sanction: When the Leaders met in Versailles, they agreed to phase out our dependency on Russian energy. In the last sanction package, we started with coal. Now we are addressing our dependency on Russian oil. Let us be clear: it will not be easy. Some Member States are strongly dependent on Russian oil. But we simply have to work on it. We now propose a ban on Russian oil. This will be a complete import ban on all Russian oil, seaborne and pipeline, crude and refined. We will make sure that we phase out Russian oil in an orderly fashion, in a way that allows us and our partners to secure alternative supply routes and minimises the impact on global markets. This is why we will phase out Russian supply of crude oil within six months and refined products by the end of the year. Thus, we maximise pressure on Russia, while at the same time minimising collateral damage to us and our partners around the globe. Because to help Ukraine, our own economy has to remain strong.

    With all these steps, we are depriving the Russian economy from its ability to diversify and modernise. Putin wanted to wipe Ukraine from the map. He will clearly not succeed. On the contrary: Ukraine has risen up in unity. And it is his own country, Russia, he is sinking.

    Honourable Members,

    We want Ukraine to win this war. But we also want to set the conditions for Ukraine’s success in the aftermath of the war. The first step is immediate relief. This is about short-term economic support to help Ukrainians cope with the fallout of the war, like we do with our macro-financial assistance package and with direct support to the Ukrainian budget. In addition, we recently proposed to suspend all import duties on Ukrainian exports to our Union for one year. I am sure the European Parliament will put its weight behind this idea. But this is not enough for the short-term relief. Ukraine’s GDP is expected to fall by 30% to 50% this year alone. And the IMF estimates that, from May on, Ukraine needs EUR 5 billion each month, plain and simply, to keep the country running, paying pensions, salaries and basic services. We have to support them, but we cannot do it alone. I welcome that the United States announced massive budgetary support. And we, as Team Europe, will also do our share.

    But then, in a second phase, there is the wider reconstruction effort. The scale of destruction is staggering. Hospitals and schools, houses, roads, bridges, railroads, theatres and factories – so much has to be rebuilt. In the fog of war, it is difficult to come up with a precise estimate. Economists are talking about several hundred billion euros. And costs are rising with each day of this senseless war.

    Honourable Members,

    Europe has a very special responsibility towards Ukraine. With our support, Ukrainians can rebuild their country for the next generation. That is why today I am proposing to you that we start working on an ambitious recovery package for our Ukrainian friends. This package should bring massive investment to meet the needs and the necessary reforms. It should address the existing weaknesses of the Ukrainian economy and lay the foundations for sustainable long-term growth. It could set a system of milestones and targets to make sure that European money truly delivers for the people of Ukraine, and is spent in accordance with EU rules. It could help fight corruption, align the legal environment with European standards and radically upgrade Ukraine’s productive capacity. This will bring the stability and certainty needed to make Ukraine an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. And eventually, it will pave the way for Ukraine’s future inside the European Union.

    Slava Ukraini and long live Europe.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement by Ursula von der Leyen with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement by Ursula von der Leyen with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, in Kyiv on 8 April 2022.

    Thank you, dear Volodymyr,

    Let me start by saying that the missile attack this morning on a train station used for evacuations of civilians is despicable. I am appalled by the loss of life and I offer my deep condolences to the families of the victims and all of those who lost loved ones.

    It was important to start my visit in Bucha today. Because in Bucha our humanity was shattered. And it is right and just that the world voted to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council. This war is a challenge for the entire international community. And this is a decisive moment. Will heinous devastation win or humanity prevail? Will the right of might dominate or is it the rule of law? Will there be constant conflict and struggle or a future of common prosperity?

    Your fight is our fight. I am here with you in Kyiv today to tell you that Europe is on your side. This is the message, dear Volodymyr, I want to bring to the Ukrainian people today.

    We just discussed how to step it up Europe’s support. Let me be clear: We can never match the sacrifice of the Ukrainian people. But we are mobilising our economic power to make Putin pay a heavy price. We have imposed five waves of unprecedented sanctions against Russia. And we are already preparing the next wave. We are now moving into a system of rolling sanctions. And these sanctions are biting hard. Exports in goods to Russia have fallen almost 71%. Inflation is around 20% – and rising. Businesses confidence in Russia is at its lowest level since 1995. And the best and brightest minds are leaving the country, together with more than 700 private companies. On top of this, Member States have already frozen EUR 225 billion of private Russian assets in the EU since the beginning of the war. Russia will decent in economic, financial and technological decay. While Ukraine is marching towards a European future.

    We stand with you as you defend your country. This is my second point. Ukrainian people are holding up the torch of freedom for all of us. The European Union is sending weapons to your country. We have allocated EUR 1 billion from the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces. And more will come. I am grateful the High Representative will now propose another EUR 500 million. In addition, EU Member States are delivering military equipment on an unprecedented scale. Slovakia is a shining example for that. With this we support the brave Ukrainian soldiers, fighting for Ukraine´s freedom. And for everyone’s freedom.

    Third, we are strengthening our financial help for Ukraine. Today, we are delivering on EUR 1 billion of support. This sum consists of three different financial packages. As we speak, we are transferring EUR 120 million in budget support. We will make available the EUR 330 million from our emergency package now. Both are grants. And we are accelerating the second half of the macro-financial assistance package with EUR 600 million.

    Fourth, we are with Ukrainians as they seek refuge within our borders. And I promise you: We will take good care of them until it is safe to return home. Home to a free and prosperous Ukraine. We make sure, that they have access to housing, schools, medical care and work. The brave people of Ukraine deserve nothing less. Together with Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, of Canada we are convening a pledging event in Warsaw tomorrow. We call our campaign ‘Stand up for Ukraine’. We will mobilise support for people fleeing the war inside and outside Ukraine. This campaign is yet another proof that Ukraine´s cause today is the world´s cause.

    Finally, we are with you as you dream of Europe. Dear Volodymyr, my message today is clear: Ukraine belongs in the European family. We have heard your request, loud and clear. And today, we are here to give you a first, positive answer. In this envelope, dear Volodymyr, there is an important step towards EU membership. This questionnaire is the basis for our discussion in the coming months. This is where your path towards the European Union begins. We will be at your disposal 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to work on this common basis. Ukraine is a friend, we know this very well. Ukraine shares our values. And due to our association agreement, Ukraine is already closely aligned with our Union. So we will accelerate this process as much as we can, while ensuring that all conditions are respected.

    On the first day of your mandate, dear Volodymyr, you said: ‘We have chosen Europe as our direction. But Europe’, you said, ‘Europe is not somewhere else. Europe is here in our mind. And when Europe is in our mind, then Europe will come to our country too.’

    Today, more than ever, Europe is here. Europe is with you.

    Slava Ukraini.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Q&A at Stand Up for Ukraine

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Q&A at Stand Up for Ukraine

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 9 April 2022.

    It is wonderful to be here with you, Hugh, with you, Mr President, with you, Justin. It is wonderful to have you here. Indeed, I was yesterday in Kyiv and I visited Bucha. And there are no words for the horror I have seen in Bucha, the ugly face of Putin’s army terrorising people. And I have so much admiration for our brave Ukrainian friends fighting against this. They are fighting our war. It is our fight that they are in. Because it is not only Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty and integrity, but they are also fighting for the question whether humanity will prevail or whether heinous devastation will be the result. It is the question whether democracy will be stronger or if it is autocracy that will dominate. It is the question whether there is the right of might dominating or whether it is the rule of law.

    And therefore, this is the reason why, together with Justin Trudeau, with Hugh Evans – and thank you very much Mr President, for hosting it here – we said that they stand up for our freedom, so we stand up for Ukraine. This is the reason why we are here today. And we want to rally the world for refugees, inside and outside Ukraine, to support them. So I hope that many, many people will join.

    I want to thank Global Citizen for really activating and mobilising so many artists, sports people and celebrities. Mr President, I want to thank you for hosting us, because this is the country that is hosting two million refugees from Ukraine. So many people are here, who support. Thank you very much for that and let us have a fantastic result for Ukraine.

    Interventions

    Q1 Europe has come together in an unprecedented way to support those coming from Ukraine to the bloc. You have activated the [EU Civil] Protection Mechanism and offered direct support to Ukraine itself. Can you tell us a little bit more about those efforts to date, as you stand in solidarity with Ukraine?

    President von der Leyen: Yes, indeed, there are four million people, that fled Ukraine, right now in the European Union, and there are six and a half million people within Ukraine who fled the war and they need help. They need urgently help. Here, in the European Union, it means that we have immediately triggered the protection for them that gives them citizens’ rights. So from day one: access to schools, to housing, to healthcare, and of course to the labour market. But of course, they need much, much more. They need support. The Member States are doing an outstanding job. It is phenomenal. The NGOs are working on the ground. The communities, the local communities, are outstanding in receiving the refugees. But as I said, more is needed. And any pledge will help a refugee, here, in the European Union. But also, and this is so important: Any pledge will help a person that is internally displaced, so who has lost their home because of the bombing and shelling of Putin’s army within Ukraine. Yesterday, when I spoke with President Zelenskyy, he urged me again to, first of all, ask for pledges for Ukraine refugees in Ukraine but also to be very clear for those who had to flee Ukraine, that they are welcome here. It is wonderful to have them here and we want to give them shelter and support, and help as much as possible. But President Zelenskyy was also hoping that, pretty soon, you might be able to come back and help rebuild the country. What I want to say is that Europe stands by your side. And I know that Justin Trudeau – I have spoken with him many, many times about it – is fully determined, also with Canada. We stand by your side, be it now in the times of war; be it with the refugees; but most importantly, after this war has been won by Ukraine, for the time for reconstruction and rebuilding the country. So our motto is really: Slava Ukraini.

    Q2 We know that conflict is one of the greatest threats to education. And according to UNICEF, more than 350,000 children in Ukraine have already lost access to education. So Madam President, my question to you is this: How do we ensure that this does not become the last issue that gets funded and that we do not end up with a generation of displaced youth with a lost education and compromised health?

    President von der Leyen: Yes, indeed, this is one of the most pressing questions because many, many of the refugees are young children and they need immediately access to schools. And of course, children need other children, so they need to be with their peer groups. And therefore, the pledging here is also about supporting the Member States who have refugees and children. I was travelling to Kyiv with the Slovak Prime Minister, and he told me that, in the last four weeks, they got 700 children that need immediately access to kindergarten, for example. Also, you need teachers, you need classrooms, very practical things, very down-to-earth. And therefore, it is so necessary that we support them in that but also in health issues. The normal access to healthcare is important, but we have, for example, many that come that are not vaccinated, not only against COVID-19 but also the basic vaccinations that you normally get in your childhood. So this has to be done. Or there are many that come that have other diseases which are normally not so present in the population. So the access to healthcare is eminent and extremely important. All these are topics where the Member States are really doing a great job and doing their utmost to accommodate. But the more support they get the better. And then, there is a last point. I just wanted to refer to Arina’s last comment. Arina, you are so right. Arina wanted to tell us, rightly so, that of course, we are now speaking about the refugees. But we also have to be very clear towards Putin that this cannot be, this aggression. And therefore, we are imposing heavy sanctions on Putin and his war machine to really dry out that – economic sanctions, financial sanctions. And Arina is right, what we have to do is get rid of the fossil fuel dependency from Russia. This is for us so important. So, we got out of coal. We are looking into oil. And Arina, what we have to do is not only diversify away from the Russian fossil fuel but we also need massive investment in renewables. This is not only good for a strategic investment in independence but it is, of course, also good for our climate and for our planet. So, many, many tasks to look at. And I just wanted to support you on that point, Arina, it is a very important one.

    Q3 Many across the globe, are becoming increasingly aware of the wider impacts of this conflict on the global food supply. In fact, their estimates are of up to 500 million people potentially facing food insecurity as a result. So with that in mind, what actions can the EU and the European Community take to prioritise this issue and basically prevent or certainly minimise a global food crisis?

    President von der Leyen: Yes, indeed, besides the incredible human suffering that this war brings along and the unbelievable atrocities that we see, there are knock-on effects, for example on global food security. Ukraine is basically the wheat chamber of the world. And now, it is becoming more and more difficult for the farmers in Ukraine to sow and to have the next harvest. And if you see the figures of how many countries, in the global south for example, are dependent on the export of wheat from Ukraine, it is a very, very serious problem. And it is even more serious because, yesterday, the Prime Minister, Denys Shmyhal, told me in Kyiv that Putin’s army is now systematically bombing warehouses, where grain and wheat is stored. Or for example, Ukraine needs to export the wheat by ships, usually, so he is blocking these ships in the Black Sea, therefore increasing the pressure on the food system. So the first thing that we have offered is: ‘Listen, Ukraine, then take the land route and we will create so-called green corridors, so that these transports for wheat can go along through different borders – it is a longer land route, but at least get the wheat out and get some income in, without any difficulties through these green lanes. We do everything possible to support the Ukrainian farmers who need everything to sow, that they can do their work under very difficult circumstances because of their safety. But they are willing to risk their lives, really, to produce the wheat that the world needs. We are giving now EUR 2.5 billion into the global food security, but I know that more will be needed. Because if I look at the numbers, I mean, Ukraine is a major part of the World Food Programme, for example. So this is one of the ugly knock-on effects of this horrible war and one more reason to do everything to end this war.

    Closing remarks by President von der Leyen at the global pledging event ‘Stand Up For Ukraine’

    Thank you so much, Isha, thank you very much for a splendid moderation, thank you very much. And many, many thanks to you, Hugh, at Global Citizen for, again, standing up for those, who need a strong voice. Those, who we often do not see, do not hear and mobilising, rallying the world, and pushing us politicians hard and the leaders hard. That is your job and it is wonderful to see that.

    And Justin, many, many thanks for being a fantastic co-host. It would not have been possible without you. And thank you for your determination, whenever I meet you in our G7 meetings, for example, your intensity of your beliefs and the strength with which you are fighting for the refugees and their needs – I really want to thank you for that.

    And when I look into this room here, I know that there are many refugees here in the room. And looking into your eyes and thinking about your thoughts and the fears that you might have, I just want to tell you that we stand by you. I want to thank the citizens, the many, many people who just opened their hearts and their minds, and their doors and want to help you and comfort you. Because they know that the question how we act today might one day also be a question where they need help, and then hope to find citizens that open their minds and hearts and doors for them. And therefore, thank you all for stepping up for Ukraine.

    I am very curious what the pledges will bring, and you have seen many, many European Leaders that have pledged for their country. We always speak of Team Europe, these are the 27 Member States and the European Commission. So we will see what the 27 Member States have pledged. But I can only announce today, for the European Commission, that we want to pledge EUR 1 billion, EUR 600 million of those will go to Ukraine, to the Ukrainian authorities, and partially to the United Nations, so that the Ukrainian authorities, who know exactly who is in need, can distribute that. And EUR 400 million will go to the frontline states that are doing such an outstanding job and helping the refugees that are coming.

    And the final tally: The world has finally pledged EUR 9.1 billion through this campaign. And, in addition, the Commission, working with EBRD, adds another EUR 1 billion for the IDPs in Ukraine. This is fantastic, so EUR 10.1 billion. And if you say that in dollars, it is even more.