Withdrawal Agreement Bill Debate
On 21 January 2020, the House of Lords passed the bill after approving five amendments. However, these amendments were repealed by the House of Commons the next day. [12] [13] The government has made great promises over the days of debate that I do not believe given its record over the past nine years, but I hope they prove me wrong. First of all, there are promises that there will be no regression of environmental standards. We must have a British version of the dynamic alignment of environmental policy. I know the government doesn`t want dynamic alignment because that means we`re in the EU, but there has to be a British version where we don`t end up with a zombie policy and stay behind as the EU moves forward. We still have to compete to outperform the EU again and again in terms of climate protection. We need to phase out diesel and petrol cars, create environmentally friendly homes and achieve 100% clean energy. I hope that all these directives will be dealt with in the next environmental law. The measure must have teeth to comply with the European Court of Justice.
The bill was first submitted to Parliament on 21 October 2019, but expired on 6 November with the dissolution of Parliament in preparation for the December 2019 parliamentary elections. Turning to the fourth point, we had an important discussion on this subject and yesterday we witnessed a remarkable moment in this House. All the Northern Irish parties represented here have joined forces to table an amendment on the impact of the Northern Ireland Protocol in response to the overwhelming demands of the local business community, which fears the profound and long-term effects of this agreement. Claire Hanna was rightly concerned that in the two hours devoted to the two hours all of which required the discussion of the protocol, only one representative of Northern Ireland had the opportunity to deliver a speech. With yesterday`s rejection of the new Term 55 and the rejection of Labour`s Amendment 1, the government has confirmed that it intends to avoid transparency on the impact of the Northern Ireland Protocol and to continue to exclude the people of Northern Ireland from the Brexit negotiations. It is clear that the whole House is seriously concerned about this issue. I understand why the government rejected some of the amendments that we and other opposition parties tabled, but not all. Many simply reinstated the government`s previous commitments and others were supposed to improve the law; no one should thwart Brexit.
During the brief debate on the bill in committee, we, as the opposition, raised five main issues that we believe reflect the serious problems with the Withdrawal Agreement and how the government has implemented it. More than 100 amendments were tabled in committee, but not a word of the bill has changed, which is why we will be voting against third reading today. With regard to clause 37 of the bill, which was the subject of comments and attempted amendments when it was adopted, it becomes clear that the issues related to the resettlement of vulnerable children are very strong in the minds of many Members of this House. However, it is crucial that we recognise the strength of the government`s and the UK`s position when it comes to ensuring the safety and well-being of refugee children in practice. Border policy is and has always been a national competence, not a competence of the European Union. It is only right that the opportunity to fully discuss these issues will arise in due course when an immigration bill is introduced in the House. But those of us who are approaching the abrupt end of refugee resettlement will welcome the rejection of the amendments to paragraph 37, and I will briefly explain why. Peers approved Boris Johnson`s Brexit bill, but not before making changes to the legislation.
Nandy voted against the bill on Friday, along with other hopefuls Rebecca Long-Bailey, Keir Starmer, Clive Lewis and Emily Thornberry. . . .
