🇪🇺 5 former British PMs oppose Boris Johnson’s Brexit bill

5 former British PMs oppose Boris Johnson’s Brexit bill

By Clyde Hughes

Sept. 14 (UPI) – David Cameron on Monday became the fifth former British prime minister to voice concern for a proposal to override Britain’s withdrawal deal with the European Union.

Cameron, Britain’s leader from 2010 to 2016, said Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s proposed Internal Market Bill could violate international law.

The bill, if passed, would allow the British government to modify or “disapply” Brexit rules that have already been agreed to – as they relate to shipments of goods between Britain and Northern Ireland – if London and the EU don’t reach a trade deal by the time the transition period ends in January.

I saw quite a bit on this in the past 2 days. An administrator for Johnson also stepped down. He holds some sort of position, I forget who.

“Five former British prime ministers” in fact means “every living former British prime minister”.

The person who resigned is Sir Jonathan Jones. He was HM Procurator General, Treasury Solicitor, Head of the Government Legal Service, and Permanent Secretary of the Government Legal Department. Thus, he was not an administrator for Boris Johnson, but rather the most senior lawyer in the British Civil Service. This is concerning, because civil servants should not be placed in a position where they have to resign because of political decisions taken by the government. It is also part of a worrying trend for tensions between this government and the Civil Service.


Yes but getting rid of senior civil servants is the policy - edicts from the bridge of Cummings’ digital fortress are the future - all who stand in their way must be removed.

Who needs expertise in the age of “nothing is true and everything is possible?”


There is still a very strong sentiment toward Remain among the majority of the central government and that includes the civil service. So of course they will oppose Johnson to the hilt as they have been opposing Brexit all this time.

Somehow the EU still thinks it is entitled to full override of London for certain critical aspects of the internal UK economy that are really the purview of an independent UK government while the Remainers think it is acceptable to yield this control back to the EU.

More popcorn, please. These things have a way of coming to a head as the deadline approaches. The US presidential election will influence this as well as Biden and Trump are on opposite sides with respect to trade agreements with a fully independent UK.


I’m not sure to what extent you have really grasped the issues at stake. Boris Johnson’s government made an agreement with the EU. That same government is now attempting to enact legislation that is repugnant to an international agreement. It is entirely reasonable for the most senior lawyer in the Civil Service to resign if he feels unable to work with a government that acts unlawfully.

This is a dispute over the degree of sovereignty the EU may exercise over what is essentially a UK internal matter. One example of several that the Remain vs. Brexit battle is still very much alive.


It’s more a dispute over whether a country is entitled to break an international agreement by means of domestic legislation. If the government didn’t want to enter into an agreement with the EU, it didn’t have to. But it can’t make an international agreement and then present a bill to Parliament that breaks that agreement. Remember, this is the same government that advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament in a manner that was found to be unlawful, void, and of no effect.


You have a cogent point about entering into agreements.

But that is missing the mark of the root of the dispute here. Which is how much sovereignty should the UK yield to the EU in a post-Brexit world? If one listens to the EU head negotiator, the answer is far more than Johnson will agree to. That is the real battle here. What Barnier and the EU want is a very watered down Brexit that essentially reestablishes EU control over the UK for trade and certain other matters. Johnson has likely chosen his ground poorly, but that doesn’t mean his point about EU wanting sovereignty over UK matters isn’t a valid one.


Less than a year ago the UK government reached an agreement with the EU, declared it a great success, and had it passed through Parliament and duly signed. Now it is seeking to break that duly passed, duly signed agreement — and tells us it is not a great success but a terrible Brussels plot.

We are being lied to.


The UK is a sovereign country. Our government is free to enter into any agreement it chooses or no agreement at all. The EU cannot make the UK government accept something it doesn’t agree to. However, the UK government has to be realistic. The process is a negotiation; it’s not a blank cheque. Unfortunately, the UK approached Brexit with the attitude that the EU needs us more than we need them and that the EU would therefore accept whatever terms we demanded. As things have turned out, however, it seems that the EU may actually be in the stronger negotiating position. That means that they may be able to demand things that we would rather not have given them. Alternatively, there is always the option of no deal. We don’t have to accept terms we don’t like; we can just walk away with no deal. I don’t think it’s a good option, but it is an option.

It’s unfortunate that our government seemingly failed to grasp that it could be problematic if they wanted to (1) leave the EU, (2) keep Northern Ireland within the UK, and (3) not have a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, i.e. between the UK and the EU.

1 Like

Yes, as many of us have pointed out in these forums while the Brexit nonsense was erupting, and indeed as a Theresa May was warned by her senior civil servants at the time, it is not possible to have (1) the UK leave both the customs union and the single market and (2) nothing separating the trade of GB and NI while (3) preserving a borderless island of Ireland. One of the three had to go.

In the withdrawal agreement Johnson agreed that the one that had to go was number 2. He agreed to a trade border between GB and NI. Now that trade border, which he agreed, and Parliament passed, is apparently a dastardly EU plot.

We are being lied to.


It’s more than that, it no longer matters whether what is being said coincides with reality because reality, itself, no longer matters.

But what will America’s Catholic Right make of all this? Will it follow the traditional line of protecting dear old Ireland against Albion’s perfidy? Or will it be energised by its irrational hatred of the EU?

The latter, I suspect.


After the fiasco of Theresa May’s pathetic effort to get an agreement the British people
showed their usual sound common sense and gave Boris Johnson’ and the Conservatives
an unambiguous majority of 80

And Mr Johnson did indeed get an agreement.

An agreement he now denounces and readies himself to breach.

Silly old Theresa, eh?

1 Like

Well, here, I expect it rather depends on whatever Murdoch’s propagandists announce.

Hate does seem to be the great motivating force of our times.


She should have kept well away from the whole thing and left it all up to the towering genius of Angela Loathsome.

1 Like

Brexit = British Exit . Thats what Mr Johnson intends to deliver ,. keeping Britain
intact in the process .

After all, Bojo has such an amazing record of successful policy delivery. :laughing:

Considering what Mr Johnson was up against in the House of Parliament last year-
he’s doing well. Having the backing of the electorate means he will get to represent
the will of the majority , which is what elections are for.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.