The Green Ribbon

Intelligence or operations: A key question for evaluating the CIA

The New Yorker has a valuable long read this week, asking Has the C.I.A. Done More Harm Than Good?

"Almost from its creation" author Amy Davidson Sorkin notes, "there was a sense that something about the C.I.A. was off. The split between covert action and intelligence gathering and analysis was part of it."

This division between analysis and operations re-emerges in some of the recent writing of which Sorkin provides an overview. Nathalia Holt's Wise Gals: The Spies Who Built the CIA and Changed the Future of Espionage shows that 'women in the C.I.A. were seen as more natural analysts than operatives—with analysis, in turn, seen as less manly, and less valuable, to everybody’s detriment.'

There is a good case that an evaluation of the CIA should consider analysis and operations separately, mirroring the institutional divide between the agency's own Directorate of Operations, responsible for agent-running, covert operations and counterintelligence, and the Directorate of Analysis, historically the Directorate of Intelligence.

IRD, MI6 and the eurocommunists

The stream of revelations from the files of Britain's cold war propaganda unit, the Information Research Department (IRD), continues in the Observer today.

The paper reports on how the IRD worked with MI6 in the 1970s to undermine the Italian Communist Party, in spite of the Eurocommunist trend which saw the party taking a more independent line towards Moscow.

a longstanding agent handled by MI6’s Swiss station chief, Terry O’Bryan-Tear, recruited rightwing Swiss politician Franco Masoni to print anti-Communist material in the Gazzetta Ticinese. Masoni offered to circulate 60,000 copies across the Swiss border, giving IRD a covert media outlet in Italy. O’Bryan-Tear’s “agent” also agreed to print a booklet showing how Communists exploited the democratic process of Czechoslovakia to seize power in 1948.

I would guess this is the same person as Hubert O'Bryan Tear, who served in Berne from 1972 to 1977. If so, he had significant experience of covert operations, including some depressingly familiar trouble-spots. According to Stephen Dorril's history of MI6, he ran agents into Ukraine in the early 1950s, and worked with Saudi-backed royalists in Yemen in the mid-1960s.

Labour's Scottish gamble

Politico has an intriguing nugget on Scotland:

And while a serious revival in Scotland appears unlikely — one party official admitted only 15 seats north of the border are competitive for Labour, and that “we won’t win them all” — aides are bullish that Tory warnings about Starmer needing a backroom deal with the SNP to secure a parliamentary majority will not have the same potency in England that they have in the past.

“We have a simple message on that now,” the same Labour official said. “No. Deal. We don’t need one. We know the SNP wouldn’t vote down a Labour government, and so do they.”

This may well be the most expedient calculation for Labour given the past Conservative fear-mongering about a Labour-SNP coalition, and the possibility of winning a majority, either independently or with the Lib Dems.

If the SNP did end up holding the balance of power, however, it could unravel. Labour might instinctively prefer a minority government to coalition but it is the former which gives more room for maneuver to smaller parties. There is reason to think could use that freedom to bring down a Labour government.

For one thing, they have done it before, in 1979, and they might have serious reasons to do it again. If Labour does not expect to do well in Scotland, then the SNP is likely to retain a mandate for a new independence referendum. It will be under pressure from its own activists to use its parliamentary leverage to obtain one. If Labour is not prepared to concede at that point, the kind of day-to-day negotiation by which minority governments survive would become very difficult.

How a Labour government would deal with Northern Ireland

With a Labour government looking increasingly likely after last week's 'fiscal event', the policy announcements at this week's party conference have taken on a new significance.

Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Kyle didn't disappoint in that respect, stating that he would set out the criteria for a referendum on Irish Unity if Labour were to come to power. That drew sharp criticism from some unionists, who called for him to retain an element of ambiguity.

The Good Friday Agreement is notably vague, stating only that the Northern Ireland Secretary shall call a poll 'if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.'

The Belfast Newsletter argues that 'this gives wide discretion to the incumbent secretary of state. It is essential that this discretion is kept wide. Every other aspect of the process favours separatists.'

However, ambiguity has it risks for unionists as well as nationalists. For one thing, it leaves open the possibility that the tests have already been met. The Belfast Telegraph reports that former Northern Ireland Secretary Sean Woodward 'claimed there is a nationalist majority in the Stormont Assembly, a majority of Catholics in the population and opinion polls suggesting people want to have their say.' It is arguably the most British of constitutional criteria that favour nationalists most. At the last Westminster election they won nine seats to unionism's seven. With one seat going to Alliance this was a plurality rather than an absolute majority.

Nevertheless, the current ambiguity might give an incoming Secretary of State scope to call a referendum on their first day in office, as well as to delay one indefinitely. That is surely untenable.

Some party members would like Labour to go further and campaign for Irish unity. I don't believe I am alone, even among Labour supporters of Irish unity, in thinking this would be a step too far. There is dubious benefit in a British party being drawn into boosterism on an issue the Good Friday Agreement remits to the 'people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment.' The turbulent relationship between unionism and the Conservative Party is sufficient illustration of the dangers.

The right role for Labour is to defend the Good Friday Agreement, and facilitate the dialogue it allows for.

For Northern Ireland's immediate future, Kyle's most important comment was that 'a Labour government would deliver rapid deals with the EU on the flow of goods, the sharing of data, and making it easier for agricultural products to move around the UK and the island of Ireland.' That implies a degree of UK-EU alignment that the current government would not countenance, bypassing the zero-sum impasse between unionism and nationalism over the Northern Ireland protocol, and potentially restoring devolution.

In the short term, the interesting question is whether this incentivises the Truss government to pre-empt Labour with their own solution.

MI5 and the far-right: then and now

ITV is running a new thriller next month based on the life of Matthew Collins, a former far-right activist who now works for the anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate. Today's Guardian interview with Collins reveals that he ran four spies inside the BNP's Belfast office, three of them English. There's also this nugget:

His work as an informant handler meant he frequently crossed paths with MI5 and counter-terrorism police, although he says the security services never tried to recruit him.

Yet he does allege that the security services continue to receive intelligence from senior figures within the far right.

“Some of the most senior people in the British far right are in the employment of the security services.”

In 2018, MI5 took over from the police as the lead agency targeting extreme rightwing terrorism, a development Collins says has led to a more aggressive stance.

“Since the move, even though they’re going in too hard too early, they’re getting results.”

Although the counter-extremism rubric is a new one, it is in some ways a revival of MI5's older responsibility for counter-subversion. In the 1930s, MI5's infiltration of of the British Union of Fascists was very effective, though of somewhat ambiguous significance. Their top agent-runner, Maxwell Knight, was a former fascist organiser who used many agents recruited on the right against the left.

Northern Ireland census shows Catholics out-number Protestants for the first time

The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency has today released the results of the 2021 census. As widely anticipated, it shows for the first time that Northern Ireland has more Catholics (45.7%) than Protestants (43.48%) (See update below).

This is inevitably a historic moment given that Northern Ireland was founded on the basis of a Protestant majority. The symbolism is profoundly unhelpful to a British government which is seeking to legitimise a hardline sovereigntist approach to the Northern Ireland protocol 

Nevertheless, to a great extent it only confirms what we already know from election results - that no community in Northern Ireland has an outright majority.

The traditional inference from religion to politics is a questionable exercise, but the census results are in line with political trends such as the gradual disappearance of the unionist majority, and the emergence of a growing middle ground.

Whether the result portends a stable nationalist majority is a more open question. It's worth noting that nationalists already hold more seats than unionists at Westminster, though they are level-pegging in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

While the religion issue will get the most focus, other census questions are probably of more direct political significance in this respect. For example, slightly more people still think of themselves as 'British only' (31.86%) than 'Irish only' (29.13%), with 'Northern Irish only' counting for another 19.78%. This represents a stark shift from the 2011 figures: 'British only' (40%), 'Irish only' (25%), 'Northern Irish only' (21%). My initial reaction is that this volatility suggests a political rather than a demographic shift - possibly a Brexit effect.

The median vote in Northern Ireland is likely to go the middle-ground parties fin the near term. The strength of that casting vote will be diluted by the cross-community power-sharing system which underpins the influence of the main political blocs - a guarantee is increasingly as important to unionists as it is to nationalists.

Beyond that, it may be increasingly hard to interpret Northern Irish politics in terms of those two blocs, so that the constitutional future will depend less on demographic destiny than on political argument.

 

Greeks turn to MI5 after bugging scandal

The Greek government has enlisted a former senior MI5 officer to reform its intelligence services, the daily Kathemirini reported earlier this month.

The government has reportedly opted for a British model to restructure Greece’s National Intelligence Service (EYP) in an optimal and effective way. 

The changes are being initiated in the wake of the tapping of PASOK President Nikos Androulakis’ phone, which exposed long-standing problems linked to the country’s intelligence services.

The advisor is not being named, but a number of people, including former directors-general such as Stephen Lander, Jonathan Evans and Andrew Parker, might fit Kathemerini's description.

...he is reportedly a highly respected figure in the UK and has received the highest honors. He was an MI5 officer during the 1980s and 1990s and dealt with the terrorist threats arising from the Northern Ireland troubles and international terrorism. His contribution to the reform of MI5 is also linked to wider developments in the counter-terrorism field as they were initiated following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The scandal in Greece is only one dimension of a waving of bugging revelations which began last year with a leak from the Israeli surveillance company NSO Group. The controversy has since widened amid evidence of bugging by other companies, including the North Macedonian firm Cytrox, which is alleged to have bugged Androulakis.

Intelligence and the Arms to Africa Affair

The National Archives move towards a 20-year-rule mean that many records from the early New Labour years are now available. 

That includes episodes like the 1998 Arms to Africa Affair when a British mercenary outfit, Tim Spicer's Sandline International, sent arms to Sierra Leone in defiance of a UN arms embargo.

New Foreign Office Advisor called for trade border between Ireland and the EU

When Liz Truss's press secretary was asked for a list of the new Prime Minister's advisors earlier this month, journalists were told that 'you can refer to the Guido Fawkes website.'

So we must take take Guido as authoritative when it reports tonight that 'Victoria Hewson is leaving the IEA to join the Foreign Office as a SpAd, focusing on Northern Ireland.'

Troubles legacy bill criticised at London trauma event

The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill came under strong criticism last night from a range of voices at a West London event on dealing with trauma from the conflict.

Former Irish army officer, Senator Tom Clonan, described the legislation, which received its second reading this week as ‘an act of collective self-harm.’

Among those attending the event was Andy Seaman, brother of Tony Harrison, a private in the Parachute Regiment, who was shot dead by the IRA while visiting his girlfriend in Belfast in 1991. He told the meeting that ‘the bill which they are introducing would, overnight, put an end to any inquiries, any kind of scrutiny, and any hope of justice, for families who have received no justice for decades. People who were guilty of committing the most heinous unimaginable crimes would be basically free to stroll off into the sunset.’

As part of the event, a trauma workshop was hosted by Psychotherapist Peter Finn. Asked if there was any role for an amnesty in a truth and reconciliation process, Mr Finn said that “there’s a lot to be thought about in terms of how it’s negotiated and how the families of the victims are brought into that conversation from the beginning, rather than being told at some point that this is the outcome of some conversations in which you were not involved.”

‘Personally, I would hesitate to voice an opinion about what the right thing is. I would want such an amnesty to be a product of some diligent work that’s done with integrity and rigour, and with humility and honesty, taking the initiative from the families and survivors.’

The event was presented by Troubles, Tragedy & Trauma, an organisation founded by Michael O'Hare, whose 12-year-old sister Majella was shot dead by a soldier in 1976. The group works aims to highlight legacy issues from the Northern Ireland conflict, encourage reconciliation and promote positive mental wellbeing for those affected by the Troubles.

Chinese influence claims draw in Baroness linked to Boris

Last month's MI5 action alert on Chinese influence seems to have prompted some follow-up in the press in recent days.

This week's (paywalled) Sunday Times had this: 

A Conservative peer’s wife attended a meeting of a branch of the Chinese intelligence and propaganda agency that MI5 has said covertly interferes in British politics.

Lady Bates, a Tory donor married to Lord Bates, met President Xi at a conference of the Chinese Overseas Friendship Association (Cofa). It is part of the United Front Work Department (UFWD), the state organisation responsible for intelligence and propaganda operations across the world, and is based at its Beijing headquarters.

The UFWD is the organisation that MI5 accused Christine Lee of working with to cultivate parliamentarians in its alert. Yet as with Lee, allegations linking Lady Bates to the Chinese state are not new.

Lee and Lady Bates were the focus of a July 2020 article in the Daily Mail, as part of a serialisation of Hidden Hand, a book on Chinese international influence by Clive Hamilton, an Australian academic, and Mareike Ohlberg, of the Atlanticist think-tank, the German Marshall Fund.

That piece noted that Lady Bates had already been embroiled in political controversy in Britain:

In 2014 Xuelin Bates was caught up in a property scandal involving Boris Johnson, then mayor of London, with whom she had developed a friendship. She suggested the Royal Albert Dock as a development site to a Chinese company, Advanced Business Park, described as China’s largest property investment in the UK.

It was claimed that Johnson gave preferment to ABP because of Bates’s donations to the Conservative Party — £162,000 between 2010 and 2012. Lady Bates said the money had not come from ABP but from her own pocket.

Criticisms of the deal at the time focused largely on procedural unfairness and potential corruption.   However, Hamilton and Ohlberg's claims about Bates add another dimension:

Between 2010 and 2014 she was vice president of the council of the Zhejiang Overseas Exchange Association. It later merged with the United Front Work Department, an agency of the CCP tasked with liaising with all forces outside the party, such as recognised religious organisations and other interest groups. It’s also tasked with guiding the 50-60 million people of Chinese heritage abroad.

In one of the clearest signs of the CCP’s faith in her, Li Xuelin was executive vice-president of the UK Chinese Association for the Promotion of National Reunification, the British chapter of the Beijing body which promotes the CCP’s position on Taiwan.

The US, which like many states has its own history of using front organisations, has designated the Association for the Promotion of National Reunification as an arm of the UFWD.

If Hamilton and Ohlberg's characterisation is correct, Lady Bates' Conservative donations, and her business dealings with Boris Johnson's London Mayoralty, came at a time when she was affiliated to the UFWD, the same organisation which MI5 now says is seeking to covertly interfere in UK politics.

It should be said that Lady Bates has strongly denied that characterisation:

A spokesperson for Lady Bates has previously said she rejects 'in the strongest possible terms any suggestion she has been an “influencer on behalf of China”'.

Last night her representatives said the Cofa meeting was a 'social' event and she did not liaise or have ongoing contact with the UFWD.

The existence of so much open-source material prior to MI5's intervention underlines that the kind of covert action of which Lee and Lady Bates have been accused is inherently noisier than the truly clandestine business of espionage. Even their political donations were, in themselves, matters of public record.

While MI5 reduced its focus on foreign governments in the 1990s and 2000s, it has long had sections focused on China, and one might assume that monitoring attempts to use friendship groups and ethnic associations as vectors of influence was part of their routine business, like monitoring the World Peace Council during the Cold War.

This brings us back to the question why the action alert against Christine Lee was issued when it was. The Telegraph claims that Lee was targeting 'a new generation of future British leaders'.

The decision surely also owed something to the wider climate of geopolitical tension that has replaced the economically driven détente of the Cameron era. Activity that might once have been accepted or tolerated, now no longer is. The risk is that when the mood shifts, people involved in what they regarded as legitimate civil activity may find themselves on the faultline.

Greater transparency about political donations may be one way to dissipate that risk. Timely action could head off the kind of moral panic which could otherwise see ethnic minorities becoming scapegoats for the political cupidity of the recent past.

Aquind decision highlights growing scrutiny of Russian donors

I noted earlier this week that the opposition was attempting to make an issue of Russian donations to the Conservative Party in Monday's parliamentary debate on foreign political interference.

Labour attempted this previously in the wake of the Skripal affair, but with the party's Atlanticist right in the ascendant, Boris Johnson weakened and a crisis in Ukraine, it may get more traction than it did four years ago.

Thursday's decision by business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng to reject the Aquind cross-channel electricity interconnector could be one sign of this.

Foreign influence debate strengthens case for donor transparency

Following last week's MI5 alert about an alleged Chinese interference operation at Westminster, Home Secretary Priti Patel made a statement to the Commons on Monday on foreign interference in British politics.

Patel told MPs that such alerts would be more common in future, and "we are developing new national security legislation to make it even harder for states to conduct malign activity. We are also taking further steps to protect the integrity of our democracy by tackling electoral fraud and preventing foreign interference in elections through the Elections Bill."

While even some Conservative MPs regard the electoral fraud measures as misconceived, the Elections Bill does include measures to restrict foreign campaign funding. However, several opposition MPs suggested these did not go far enough.

Breakthrough on Ireland's Brexit border

The UK and the EU have today reached agreement on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to Northern Ireland. As part of the deal, the UK will withdraw planned legislation that would have over-ridden international law.

Following intensive and constructive work over the past weeks by the EU and the UK, the two co-chairs can now announce their agreement in principle on all issues, in particular with regard to the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland...

...In view of these mutually agreed solutions, the UK will withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the UK Internal Market Bill, and not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill. (European Commission)

While this must be a very positive development, wider negotiations on a trade deal are still in the balance ahead of Boris Johnson's talks with Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen in Brussels this week.

Nevertheless, it now looks more likely that the Withdrawal Agreement will stick even in a no deal scenario. This has historic implications for Northern Ireland. 

Although there are bound to be teething problems given the lateness of the deal, in principle, the North South border will remain open, and a sea border between Britain and Northern Ireland will emerge to the extent that Britain diverges from the EU.

Northern Ireland unionists no longer have the leverage that they did in recent parliaments, but a trade deal is now very much in unionist interests. Even with a deal, we may see the Northern Ireland economy aligning much more closely with the Republic in future.

One week: two worlds - Brexit and the US election

It's been a surprisingly quiet week in Brexit negotiations, given that the end of the withdrawal period is now less than two months away.

 

That this is probably a good sign was confirmed by Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney on Tuesday, when he suggested that some form of long term agreement is now likely. The outstanding question is whether that will include a trade agreement. Even if it does, it is not likely to be an ambitious one.

 

This week's US election is arguably the biggest unknown factor. The FT reports that Boris Johnson is concerned about British diplomatic isolation in the event of a Biden victory, particularly after antagonizing the Democrats over Ireland. Part of this might simply reflect a decision by the Biden campaign to close down diplomatic contacts generally. Some commentators claim Johnson is closer to Biden on issues such as climate change and (oddly enough, given Brexit) multilateralism. Nevertheless, Johnson's populist style may look distinctly passé if Biden is elected.

 

Yet a Trump victory is still a real possibility. While the national polls favour Biden, some of the key states are much closer, and the polls wouldn't need to understate Trump by much for an upset to happen.

 

UK-based pundits are notorious for their willingness to pontificate on US elections, and I'm not about to defy the stereotype. For my money, the 'Blue wall' swing states that Trump took from Hilary Clinton in 2016, like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and perennial swing states like Ohio and Florida, are more likely to be decisive than Democratic stretch goals like Georgia and Texas.

That said, if Biden has a good night, the latter states may be important in the down-ballot race for control of Congress. (Although it's a conservative site, I tend to use RealClearPolitics to follow US elections because of the usefullness of its maps. Alternative suggestions are welcome!)

 

By this time next week, the world could be facing one of two very different political outcomes. If there is lingering uncertainty, that may favour Trump given conservative dominance of the Supreme Court.

 

Yet for Brexit, the possibilities are narrowing. Biden makes a trade deal more likely, Trump a deal without a trade element. But any trade deal will not be far-reaching, and the prospect of an unmanaged no deal breakdown seems to be receding.

Sir Joseph Ball: From MI5 to the Conservative Party

The Conservative leadership used homophobia to keep anti-fascist MPs in line during the 1930s, according to a forthcoming account by Labour MP Chris Bryant.  The BBC has some intriguing details:

In  the course of researching his book, Mr Bryant found evidence that Mr  Chamberlain boasted to his sisters that he knew everything the rebels  were up to.

And  Sir Joseph Ball, head of the Conservative Research Department at the  time, bought the magazine Truth to attack the prime minister's critics.

In  his diaries, Mr Nicolson recalls the magazine describing him as having  "the mincing manner of a French salon, that I lack virility and should  retire from public life".

Ball is a particularly interesting figure for reasons which aren't mentioned in the BBC article, although I suspect they may feature in Bryant's book, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler.

 

The official history of MI5 records that Ball joined the Conservative Party in 1927 because of low pay in the Security Service where he had been head of investigations. Author Christopher Andrew suggests that he was a prime candidate for involvement in the Zinoviev Letter, a notorious piece of anti-Labour propaganda which emerged from the security services in the run-up to the 1924 election.

 

Like the career of Maxwell Knight, Ball's role is a window into a miliieu that linked MI5, The Conservatives and the pro-fascist right in the 1930s. Ironically, this was arguably a factor in MI5's ability to roll-up domestic right-wing subversion during the Second World War.

Hardline security bills pose dilemma for Labour

Several bills going through the House of Commons at the moment demonstrate the Johnson's Government's commitment to the hard edge of state power, in both its overt and covert forms.

While this legislation raises significant human rights concerns, Labour has been cautious in challenging the Government so far. This may reflect Keir Starmer's strategy of attempting to prove his patriotism to British voters before engaging in any major policy moves. 

Divisions over this approach emerged two weeks ago at the second reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which would make it more difficult to prosecute British soldiers for war crimes.

Ferrier decision could set up SNP-Labour battle

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has today called on one of her own party's MPs to resign from the House of Commons. The SNP withdrew the whip from Rutherglen and Hamilton West MP Margaret Ferrier after it emerged she had taken a train from Glasgow to London while Covid positive.

If Ferrier complies, it could set up an intriguing by-election in a seat which has changed hands three times between Labour and the SNP since 2015. Ferrier gained the seat that year only to lose it to Ged Killen in 2017, before taking it back last December.

The opportunity to run a recent MP like Killen might well give Labour a fighting chance in the seat. It's an unexpected prospect for a once dominant party that has been in relentless decline in Scotland for over a decade, with only the brief respite of seat gains in 2017 that were wiped away within two year.

New UK Labour leader Keir Starmer has had to walk a fine line on Scotland's constitutional future, respecting self-determination while opposing independence. There has been little expectation for a Labour recovery in Scotland, with the party more pre-occupied by infighting over the position of Scottish leader Richard Leonard. 

This is a key obstacle to a Labour majority government. Without strong gains in Scotland, Labour may have to consider an SNP alliance as an alternative route to power.

A by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West may be an early test in one of the next election's most intractable battlegrounds.

Tory rebellion over internal market bill

When Boris Johnson's Conservatives won an 81 seat majority last December, it looked as if we wouldn't have to worry about close parliamentary votes on Brexit anymore. Johnson may have begun to squander that advantage with the admission that the Internal Market Bill breaks international law.

Hufffpost's Arj Singh is reporting estimates of up to 40 Conservative rebels, theoretically enough to leave the Government relying on the DUP if they all vote against the legislation, though the reality is likely to be more prosaic:

One Tory predicts 20/30 voting against the government at second reading tonight and another 20 or so abstentions, but that feels high to me tbh (Arj Sing, via Twitter). 

The bigger threat to the bill is likely to come with Sir Bob Neill's amendment next Monday. While the Government's majority is most likely to survive, a significant rebellion will strengthen opposition in the Lords, where the Constitution Unit's Meg Russell sees potential for a showdown:

 Despite loud complaints from some newspapers,  the Lords was very cautious over Brexit – understandably deferring both  to MPs’ decisions and the 2016 referendum result. But that deference  has its limits – one of which would almost certainly be proposals to endorse a breach of international law. Moreover, this move explicitly  reneges on the Withdrawal Agreement which the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto described as ‘a great new deal that is ready to go’ (Meg Russell, Constitution Unit).  

While the Lords cannot block bills outright, its power of delay could be decisive given the time-sensitive nature of Brexit legislation.

Potential Tory rebels in the Commons

Theresa May: asked "how can the Government reassure future international partners the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations of the agreements it signs" (Lizzy Buchan, The Mirror)

Geoffrey Cox:  "Geoffrey Cox voting against the Internal Market Bill" (Patrick Maguire, The Times, via Twitter). 

 

George Freeman: "I share the concerns of former @Conservatives PMs & Party leaders & senior (Brexiteer) lawyers & MPs that this is v damaging. I cannot vote for the Bill as it stands. I’m backing the #Neil Amendment. And talking to Ministers & No10 to urge the NIP measures withdrawn" (Twitter).

 

Sir Roger Gale:  "Voting against this measure is a matter of principle not just for myself or this government, but for this Country" (Twitter). 

 

Sir Bob Neill - author of amendment to the bill (Paul Waugh, Huffpost).

 

Damian Green - tabling amendment.

 

Oliver Heald - tabling amendment.

 

Tobias Ellwood -  warned the UK would "lose the moral high ground" if the government went through with the changes. (BBC).

 

Tom Tugendhat:  "Our entire economy is based on the perception that people have of the  UK's adherence to the rule of law"  (BBC). 

 

Simon Hoare - backed Michael Howard's comments on the bill (Hugo Gye, INews).

Rehman Chishti - has resigned as Prime Minister's Envoy (Twitter).

 

Damian Collins

Gary Streeter (Twitter)

 

Sajid Javid (Twitter)

 

Jeremy Wright

 

Jack Lopresti

 

Charles Walker

Internal market bill lives up to its billing

Reports that the UK Internal Market Bill would tear up the EU withdrawal agreement have been causing political ructions all week. Today, the full text of the bill was published, and it looks very much as advertised.

Section 45 of the bill states that ministerial regulations apply "notwithstanding  any relevant  international  or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent." The definition of “Relevant international or domestic law” is explicitly defined as including "any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol" and "any other provision of the EU withdrawal agreement."

This is a clear breach of the government's undertaking to give effect to the withdrawal agreement in domestic law. It is not, on the face of it, the action of a government that is serious about a Brexit deal.

However, some still see the bill as a bluff. The Economist's Matthew Holehouse argues that  if the Government 'wanted to break its obligations in January it could just fail to comply. No legislation broadcasting the plan three months early required. '

It's questionable whether the bill will be on the statute book in time for Brexit. Lord Rifkind told CNN today that Boris Johnson will have "serious difficulty getting this proposal through parliament" with rejection likely in the House of Lords by 'a very large majority'.  There are also doubts about how the courts would interpret the legislation. Above all, there is the fact that the UK's obligations would still remain in international law.

The Irish Government is still counselling a cool response, according to the Irish Times' Pat Leahy:

 In this view, then – which holds that the British government is not,  actually, a rogue actor on the international stage, merely threatening  to act like one – the British actions of recent days are  “sabre-rattling”, and to be understood as such. Expect much more of this  in the coming weeks, this view says; expect many more noises about how  the UK is prepared for no-deal and how the UK will hold firm, whatever the cost; and then expect to do a deal, in the end. 

Peter Foster of the Financial Times reports that the European Commission is taking a similar view after a 'very tense' call between vice-president Maroš Šefčovič and Michael Gove.  Šefčovič has called for 'an extraordinary EU-UK Joint Committee to be held as soon as possible - so that our UK partners elaborate and respond to our strong concerns regarding their announcement.' 

Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen has also commented this afternoon, tweeting: "Very concerned about announcements from the British government on its intentions to breach the Withdrawal Agreement. This would break international law and undermines trust. Pacta sunt servanda = the foundation of prosperous future relations."

It remains to be seen, however, if the EU will take any further steps in response. While trust is at a low ebb, it will not want to be seen as responsible for a breakdown in talks.  It may instead rely on time pressure to force Johnson to declare victory and move on.

If the bluff perspective is right, as it has been for most of the Brexit process, the British Government's undiplomatic behaviour will demonstrate to its domestic audience that it is fighting hard, creating space for Johnson to move onto substantive negotiations.