Play all audios:
There are some phrases that, when you hear them in the House of Commons, you know instinctively will have lasting significance. The “No, no, no,” of Margaret Thatcher at the dispatch box was
one such example, where she expressed an attitude to the EU with which we would all become familiar. Another example came when Jeremy Corbyn was telling the Commons what European Socialist
leaders had recently said to him in Brussels. He paused unwisely, allowing a heckler, with pinpoint accuracy to suggest: “Who are you?” So it is with the words, “Yes, this does break
international law in a very specific and limited way,” delivered by the Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis. These words were not off the cuff, but plainly read from a Departmental
brief, thus written and agreed as a statement of UK Government policy, words which I cannot recall being uttered before from the front bench. Government may unwittingly break the law, and
many of us in departments such as Social Security may have delivered legislation that was subsequently deemed unlawful by a court judgement. But deliberately breaking the law is not
something which the supreme, and sovereign, UK Government can actually do and expect to retain credibility. Why should this technical breach of the law matter so much? As a former foreign
minister I cannot express too strongly the importance of the UK’s role as a state which is a foundation stone of the rule of law worldwide. It is all we have to cling onto in a harsh global
environment where many states regard international rules as hindrances to their own power, and who do all they can to evade them. We export the rule of law. I have worked with our judges who
give their time, with the blessing of the UK Government, to some of the most difficult areas of the world. They ensured that, after conflict, suspects accused of serious crimes faced a
system of justice rather than retribution, thus setting down the cornerstones of future stability. I expressed personally to the US Secretary of State the view of the UK Government that
adherence to the Iran nuclear deal kept Tehran from acquiring such weapons. If the US arbitrarily walked away from it, who would sign a similar deal limiting such ambitions in the future?
From Hong Kong to the Falklands, the rule of law is all that separates us from the notion that “might is right”. And those people who live under oppressive governments with security states
are deeply aware of Magna Carta and all that flowed from it — thesis a huge part of Britain’s soft power. As John Major said yesterday “our signature on any treaty or agreement was
sacrosanct”. Once lost, reputation is hard to regain, and the fateful Government phrase will now be thrown at Ambassadors and Ministers repeatedly. The attitude of those with whom we are
currently negotiating over Brexit has been one of deep disappointment at best, and a hardening of attitudes is likely. These are negotiations which matter, and partners do not like being set
up in advance as targets for blame should we fail to meet our own objectives. And as for those with whom we want to negotiate in future, such as the US in a new trade deal, the symbolism of
Ireland and the importance the Good Friday Agreement has a very significant place in US politics. “Limited and specific” will cut no ice on the Hill. There must be a better way through
this. At its heart is the insistence that “sovereignty” is only served by the UK getting its own way. Attempts to negotiate on the hard parts are therefore an insult to that sovereignty,
meaning that an agreement based on compromise in some way makes us no longer independent. This is plain wrong. Contrary to a familiar trope of the Brexit debate, we have always been
independent and sovereign. The Brexit White Paper of 2017, signed off by a government which included prominent members of the campaign to leave the EU, acknowledged that “Parliament has
remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU”. Sovereignty means the ability of a state to make its own choices, including those that involve pooling or sharing sovereignty. Nato,
for example. Or the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK’s interest is best served by making agreements and partnerships with others, some on our terms, and some on theirs. Other nations are
entitled to sovereignty too. Unless we want to sink into isolation, we need to ease away from a position encapsulated in this week’s key phrase, which has worried our friends and encouraged
those who bear us ill-will. I think our Government is big enough to do this.