Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis “answered the wrong question” when he said a move to override key parts of the Brexit divorce deal would break international law, according to the Tory Advocate General for Scotland. Richard Keen told peers that the UK Internal Market Bill – which gives ministers the power to overwrite provisions in the withdrawal agreement relating to Northern Ireland – does not “constitute a breach of international law or of the rule of law”. The Tory frontbencher’s claim led to cries of derision from the opposition benches in the House of Lords.
The spat came after Mr Lewis sparked a backlash in admitting steps being taken by the Government in relation to the withdrawal agreement would break international law in a “specific and limited way”.
In a recent report for Global Vision, former diplomat Adrian Hill not only echoed Lord Keen’s comments but argued Germany might be behind the Northern Ireland Secretary’s stance.
He wrote: “Sir Bill Cash was the person who wrote Section 38 of the withdrawal agreement.
“That would indicate that Brandon Lewis made his remarks about breaking international law on instructions from someone else.
“Possibly someone in the EU – Barnier, Merkel.
“I suspect she would let someone else do the dirty work, so perhaps the German Ambassador?
“The German Ambassador would have been obeying instructions.
“Whoever was responsible, the intention was to blacken our countries’ name severely, damage our reputation across the whole planet, fabricate that we do not respect international law, a country that was one of the founders of the United Nations for the very purpose of stopping another Germany spitting on the rule of law and on human rights.”
JUST IN: German economist’s stark warning over no deal Brexit exposed
He continued: “There can be no question of trusting Germany or its EU again for a long time, certainly while led by Angela Merkel.
“Probably the British voters won’t trust Germany’s EU for a century or longer.
“Under no circumstances should the UK enter into any kind of agreement, binding or not, with this hostile bloc across the Channel.”
