Faith

I have written many times over the last four and a half years about faith. Negotiating in good faith that the other side will honour what they agree to.

The first time was when the EU negotiated in good faith that the then PM, Theresa May, could get the negotiated agreement through the UK Parliament. They doubted she could, but thought she knew her own House better than they.

They and May were wrong, she could not get the WA throough the Commons.

Then she left and Johnson came.

He returned to the original agreement, that the regulatory border would be in the Irish Sea.

Where a member leaves a regulatory area, the obvious point is that this would create a regulatory border, unless both sides agreed to harmonise standards and rules either side. May ruled that out, as did Johnson.

So, the question became: where would you like the regulatory border:

1. Along the Republic/NI border.

2. In the Irish Sea.

Either choice is hard, as it involes major political disputes, and one would threaten the GFA and the other would break the UK economic and possibly political union.

May's deal was choice (1). So that meant Johnson had to choose (2).

NI would, in part, remain in the EU SM and CU, and imports from the rump Britain would come under EU rules and regulations.

Johnson, of course, denied this was the case. But the WA and WAB said it was so. There would be some flexibility on goods coming the other way, but for Tesco to simply send goods from a central warehouse to a store in NI would become very difficult and expensive.

As time went by, little by little, the reality of Johnson's oven ready deal became clear, and he had to play with the meaning of words as to whether new infrastructure meant improving current buildings or new ones in their place. Up to ten new lorry parks and processing areas were to be built around the country to facilitate this.

The reality bcame clearer.

And then came the Internal Market Bill, and the intention to break international law by ignoring parts of the WA.

Either, Johnson did not understand what he was signing up to, or the intention was always to break the terms of the WA. The ultimate act of bad faith.

Johnson was elected to implement the WA, "get Brexit done", and there to be "no more negotiations", as the deal was oven ready.

Dozens of new Conservative election candidates were chosen only after swearing to vote for Johnson's deal, this they did.

Now, the question is, bearing in mind that the IMB destroys the WA and the WAB they voted for, will the new tranche of Tory MPs, including the "red wall" ones, still follow the Government line? I mean, a Government with a majority of 80 seats should never be in danger of losing a vote in the Commons, and yet, faced with the reality of breaking what they swore to implement, would they do it? Would they do it knowing that it would hurt the very communities they live in and represent?

Who knows.

The ERG have already said that, in their fucked up view, the IMB doesn't go far enough and they would be adding ammendments creating further breaking of international law, thus proving Brexit commentator, Chris Grey's, point of view that they would never be happy with any kind of Brexit, it would never be hard enough

And will the Lords strike down any part of the IMB that weakens or removes Government manifesto commitments? I mean, the ink is barely dry on that, as the election took place less than 9 months ago.

And what of the Ministerial Code? The code states that Ministers must always obey the law, including international law, or be in breach of it and should resign. Well, a Government Minister, this week, stood up in the Cmmons and stated that the Government was going to break international law.

Why have they not all resigned?

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, stated yesterday, that the UK Government's actions, were they to affect the GFA, would mean no UK-US trade agreement would pass the House. THis has always been the case, and I remember the same being said at least a couple of years ago.

All actions have consequences, and the consequences of these actions will be severe.

So, to end, the Government has three choices what to do with the IMB:

1. Scrap it. Which would show huge errors in judgement byt the Prime Minister, and would, in normal times, be a resignation matter. Whether the UK's standing in relation to international law would recover is another question.

2. Carry on regardless. The most likely course, and one which will bring the Government against the House of Lords and the Judiciary again. And that is without the implications of a trade deal with the US and difficulty in signing FTAs with other countries where the UK's word would no longer be trusted.

3. Cave ito the ERG and other headbangers and expand the scope of the breaking of international law. Let us not think of what that would mean.

Consequences of policy choice; none easy, all politically very damaging, and totally avoidable.