Northern Ireland Protocol bill not legal and won’t restore Stormont: Theresa May

The Conservative former prime minister delivered a withering assessment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as she made clear she would not support it.

Mrs May questioned the argument that a legal principle of necessity allows for the UK government’s plans, insisting there is “nothing urgent” about the legislation.

Concluding her speech to the House of Commons, she said: “The UK’s standing in the world, our ability to convene and encourage others in the defence of our shared values, depends on the respect others have for us as a country, a country that keeps its word, and displays those shared values in its actions.

“As a patriot, I would not want to do anything that would diminish this country in the eyes of the world.

“I have to say to the government, this bill is not, in my view, legal in international law, it will not achieve its aims, and it will diminish the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world, and I cannot support it.”

Mrs May said she did not believe the bill would achieve the aim of restoring powersharing institutions at Stormont and warned it would give UK ministers “extraordinarily sweeping powers”.

Speaking during the bill’s second reading, she said: “I actually started off by asking myself three questions: First of all, do I consider this to be legal under international law? Second, will it achieve its aims?

“Third, does it at least maintain the standing of the UK in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three of those questions is ‘no’.

“That is even before we look at the extraordinarily sweeping powers that this bill would give to ministers.”

Mrs May also expressed doubt that the bill will bring the EU back to the negotiating table.

Recalling her own experiences with the EU, she said: “As I discovered after I had faced a no confidence vote, despite having won … they then start to ask themselves, well is it really worth negotiating with these people in government because will they actually be there in any period of time, regardless of justification or not for them taking that view.

“But also, actually, I suspect they are saying to themselves, why should they negotiate in detail with a government that shows itself willing to sign an agreement, claim it is a victory and then try to tear part of it up in less than three years.”

On the legal principle of necessity for the bill, the Conservative MP said: “Necessity suggests urgent. Imminent peril is the phrase that is used. There is nothing urgent about this bill.

“It has not been introduced as emergency legislation. It’s likely to take not weeks but months to get through Parliament.”