A BREXITEER, recently appointed to the House of Lords for their support of the No Deal pursued by Boris Johnson’s Government, yesterday voted against the UK Internal Market Bill by accident.
Claire Fox, a former Brexit party MEP, was aiming to vote for the legislation, but accidentally voted the other way.
The newly created peer, who sits as Baroness Fox of Buckley, had originally given a speech fervently in favour of the bill.
Speaking in the chamber, Fox said that Johnson had contested and won a General Election pledging that “the UK would not be tied to EU rules”.
“The government are now trying to keep that promise,” she said.
Fox went on: "The main part of this Internal Market Bill is to give the UK government the power to override those aspects of an international treaty that would, for example, bind Northern Ireland to a range of EU rules.
"The government is not breaking the law, it is making the law, by proposing a Bill that would allow it to change some of its commitments to international treaty by getting it voted through the democratic chamber.”
READ MORE: SNP MP calls for royals to be scrapped and Westminster to be turned into tourist attraction
Speaking in the same debate, Ken Clarke said that in breaking international legal obligations the UK was acting like “a third-world dictatorship”.
He said the Government had “endorsed and recommended” the previous deal, only to change their minds at the last moment.
Clarke warned the bill must not be allowed to give the “Executive the discretion to do what they like with their legal obligations”.
Despite arguing on opposite sides in the chamber, Fox and Clarke later voted the same way, because of Fox’s inability to understand the voting system.
After the vote, Fox tweeted: "I fess up. Haven't got hang of voting app or difference between contents/not contents palaver, so voted wrong way in one of votes.
"My rookies' error gave LibDems a laugh and in huge defeat my vote hardly mattered. Said what I needed."
Fox’s vote meant she was part of the largest defeat in the Lords since the house was reformed in 1999.
The previous record was set just 20 days ago on October 21, when the Lords voted to add words to the Internal Market Bill expressing “regret” for the legislation and saying it “would undermine the rule of law and damage the reputation of the United Kingdom”.
Then, the Lords voted by 395-169, defeating Johnson’s Government with a majority of 226.
READ MORE: John Major tells Boris Johnson not to rule out a second independence referendum
Yesterday, when Fox accidentally voted for the winning side, 433 Lords voted to remove the international law-breaking parts of the bill and 165 voted against.
The majority of 268 achieved in yesterday’s vote was just one shy of the largest-ever majority in the Lords, which took place in 1993 and saw peers vote by 445 to 176 against an amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which would have required a referendum to be held.
In 1993, before the Lords was reformed by Tony Blair’s New Labour, there were around 500 more peers than there are today.
Despite the record size of the defeat, the Government has indicated it will put the law-breaking parts of the bill back in.
The move is unlikely to go down well with the new US president-elect Joe Biden, who has said Brexit must not endanger the Northern Ireland peace process.
The UK Government has repeatedly insisted that their Internal Market Bill protects the Good Friday Agreement, something which has been heavily contested both at home and abroad.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel