The video revolves around the contentious issues surrounding Brexit, particularly focusing on the political and legal controversies related to the UK's decision to potentially break international law. The prime minister's proposal to alter laws associated with the UK's exit treaty, perceived as a strategy against the EU's hardball tactics, has incensed loyalists and provoked concerns within the government. Criticisms arise from different quarters, with accusations that these actions risk damaging the UK's international reputation, while some argue it's a necessary strategy to safeguard national interests.

A parliamentary debate unfolds, spotlighting divisions within the Tory party where certain members are rebelling against their own party's stance. The introduction of an amendment by Bob Neil is anticipated to address these legal breaches. The involved politicians emphasize the importance of maintaining the UK's credibility and adhering to binding agreements, while others argue that the government's measures are a preemptive means to ensure that the UK isn't unfairly constrained by the EU.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. interlocutors [ˌɪntərˈlɒkjʊtəz] - (noun) - A person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation. - Synonyms: (conversation partner, speaker, discussant)

Mister speaker, our interlocutors on the other side are holding out the possibility of blockading food and agricultural transports within our own country.

2. bogus [ˈbəʊɡəs] - (adjective) - Not genuine or true; fake. - Synonyms: (fake, false, fraudulent)

Right, let's deal with the second bogus argument, a return of Brexit drama to the Commons and Tory nerves about a growing rebellion.

3. baffled [ˈbaf(ə)ld] - (verb) - Totally bewildered or perplexed. - Synonyms: (confused, puzzled, mystified)

I think the EU are baffled about what's going on right now because obviously there are two things to reaching a deal before the end of the year

4. perplexed [pəˈplɛkst] - (adjective) - Completely baffled; very puzzled. - Synonyms: (confused, puzzled, befuddled)

One EU observer says Brussels is perplexed by the UK's tactics.

5. negotiations [nɪˌɡəʊʃɪˈeɪʃənz] - (noun) - Discussions aimed at reaching an agreement. - Synonyms: (talks, discussions, bargaining)

One is, you know, unblocking those key sticking points in the trade negotiations

6. preemptive [prɪˈɛmptɪv] - (adjective) - Taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive. - Synonyms: (preventive, precautionary, anticipatory)

This looks preemptive, in the words of your colleague George Freeman.

7. contingencies [kənˈtɪndʒənsiz] - (noun) - Future events or circumstances that are possible but cannot be predicted with certainty. - Synonyms: (possibilities, events, incidents)

You have contingencies already written in.

8. specious [ˈspiːʃəs] - (adjective) - Superficially plausible, but actually wrong. - Synonyms: (misleading, deceptive, false)

These arguments are quite specious.

9. manifestly [ˈmanɪfɛstli] - (adverb) - In a way that is clear or obvious to the eye or mind. - Synonyms: (obviously, evidently, clearly)

Everybody in the world can see that there were difficult situations from us leaving the EU when they wanted to do all in their power to stop us and to make it painful for us, and are even prepared to threaten things which are manifestly against the law.

10. principle [ˈprɪnsəpl] - (noun) - A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior. - Synonyms: (truth, belief, ideal)

Quite simply, it's a matter of principle.

Brexit - Internal Market Bill clears first hurdle in Commons - BBC Newsnight

Big beasts from a different era. A former player still hoping for a second act. An iconic Brexiteer joining forces with former Remainers who've learned to live with Brexit. I now call the prime minister. Prime minister. Mister Speaker, I beg to move that this bill be read a second time. A plan by the prime minister to break international law over Brexit has alarmed loyalists. This bill will give ministers overt authority to break international law. Has the position on the ministerial code changed? Boris Johnson wants to change the law around Britain's exit treaty in light of what he regards as hardball tactics by Brussels. Their refusal to list the UK as a third country. The EU term for a formal relationship with a non-member state risks disrupting food deliveries from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. He believes that is because Northern Ireland will be largely tied to EU rules to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. The EU has said that if we fail to reach an agreement to their satisfaction, they might very well refuse to list the UK's food and agricultural products for sale anywhere in the EU. And it gets even worse, Mister speaker, because under this protocol, that decision would create an instant and automatic prohibition on the transfer of our animal products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Mister speaker, our interlocutors on the other side are holding out the possibility of blockading food and agricultural transports within our own country. And I give way to my honourable friend standing in for Keir Starmer. Ed Miliband questioned that explanation. Now, if the prime minister wants to tell us that there's another part of this bill that I haven't noticed that will deal with this supposed threat of the blockade, he can. I'll give way to him. I'll very happily give way to him and tell me he can tell us. I'm sure he's read it. I'm sure he knows it. I'm sure he knows it in detail, because he's a details man. Come on, come on. Tell us what clause protects the threat that he says he's worried about GB to Northern Ireland exports. I give way to him. One of the right honorable gentlemen can't give away unless he's asked to. There you have it. He didn't read the protocol. He hasn't read the bill. He doesn't know his stuff. Right, let's deal with the second bogus argument, a return of Brexit drama to the Commons and Tory nerves about a growing rebellion.

I detect despair in the government's whips office at what it regards as a failure by number ten to prepare the ground for such a significant move as breaking international law. One former cabinet minister, a Brexiteer no less, lays the blame firmly at the door of the prime minister's chief strategist, Dominic Cummings. This is one of his classic street fights, I was told. But by going in so hard, he's handed the knife to the other side. One EU observer says Brussels is perplexed by the UK's tactics. I think the EU are baffled about what's going on right now because obviously there are two things to reaching a deal before the end of the year. One is, you know, unblocking those key sticking points in the trade negotiations. We know those are fisheries and state, Aidan. And the other is making sure that the withdrawal agreement is applied in full before the end of the year. So obviously, any attempt to unpick the withdrawal agreement has gone down like a lead balloon in Brussels.

A balmy indian summer's day at Westminster. But a bumpy ride awaits in the final Brexit countdown. That was Nick. We can go back to him in central lobby. Where do you think this goes from here, Nick? Well, all eyes turn now to next Tuesday, when Bob Neil, the former minister, is due to table his amendment that would deal with this issue of the government, saying that it would breach international law, though in a limited and specified way. The way that he would do that is he would let the bill go through. But if the government in December needs, as it's saying, to smash the emergency glass and rely on these elements, then MP's at that point would have a vote. Now, interestingly, I spoke to one former cabinet minister who voted for this bill at second reading in the last hour or so, but they said, I absolutely stand by the Bob Neil amendment. I want to vote for that. I want to vote against the government. And the reason why I voted with it tonight is because if I didn't do that, we wouldn't have a bill to amend next week, early days, but just talking to people on the sort of the fringes of the Bob Neil group, it sounds like there have been discussions. Bob Neal has been talking to the government today, and maybe you could find a scenario where the government is able to give some undertakings, maybe undertakings for the dispatch box of votes for MP's, and maybe you wouldn't actually need to have the amendments next week, but at the moment, the rebels do appear to be on the back foot.

Thanks very much indeed. Well, joining us now, a conservative backbencher who didn't vote with the government tonight, Sir Roger Gale, Peter Lilly, the conservative peer who supports this bill and will, we think, be voting for it in the Lords, should it come to the Lords. And from Cologne, we're joined by the vice president of the EU Parliament, Katharina Bali. Welcome to you all. If I can start, Sir Roger, with you. You voted against the government, possibly the only conservative mp that did tonight. Why? Quite simply, it's a matter of principle. I believe very strongly that we should obey international law. I believe that the United Kingdom's word is its bond, and always has been. And I think that this is damaging our international reputation for honesty and straight dealing at a time when we are about to embark upon a series of trade negotiations. And I'm very concerned indeed that people may say, well, if they can do that, then is any agreement worth the paper it's written on? So, as I said, for me, it's a matter of principle. Do you know, it's either right or wrong, and I think it was wrong.

Are you going to be allowed to stay in the party? There were rumors tonight that anyone who voted against might lose the whip. What have you heard? Well, I haven't heard anything at all. None of the whips have been in touch with me at all about this. As far as I'm concerned, I've been a member of the party for over 50 years. I was a member of the party before Boris Johnson was born. I've been a conservative member of parliament, proudly, for 37 years, and I shall remain a Conservative. What the party's managers choose to do is, of course, their business, not mine. There's been, over the last few days, a lot of noise and a lot of unhappiness from the Tory ranks, from your own colleagues. I wonder if you're surprised that more didn't vote as you did with their conscience. No, I took a view that you fight this tooth and nail at every step. Others have quite clearly decided they want to hold their fire for Bob Neil's amendment, which, by the way, I will support, although it's not perfect. And, of course, there's always third reading, so there's much to play for yet. But, no, I'm not remotely surprised that I'm in a tiny minority tonight. I think that might change next Tuesday.

Can I just ask why you are? I mean, why didn't you wait for the Neil amendment? Why would you risk everything on this first reading instead of waiting for an amendment that would put the power into parliament's hands, where, you know, you would have supported numbers, presumably? Well, Emily, to take your phrase, because I cannot stomach the idea of voting against a freely entered into international agreement that was signed by the prime minister of the United Kingdom, was hailed as a great triumph at the time, blazed around the election hustings and then taken through the House of Commons. If it was good then, it's good now. If it wasn't good, then we shouldn't have voted for it then. And what would you say to the prime minister who says, boundaries, national boundaries, cannot be dictated by a foreign power? I have a very real fear that in taking the measure that he has, and if this is pursued through. Oh, and by the way, I want a deal. But if we don't get a deal, you could well find now, as a result of this, a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So what would you say? I'm about to speak to your colleague, Peter Lilly, who think this deal is absolutely fine. Well, Peter's an old friend. I may have had a bumpy ride in the Commons. I think he's going to have a bumpy ride in the Lords. And that's it, a bumpy ride?

I think you'll find he's in a minority. But you think the bill won't get through or will get through or will be dropped before it comes to that? Well, I hope, even now, I'm mildly surprised that nobody's bothered to try and strike any sort of sensible agreement up until now. But I hope that a deal will be struck and that we shall recoup what is left of our international reputation for straight dealing. Does it matter if the public are broadly on the side of a prime minister who just wants to crack on and get it done, whatever the risks or whatever the breakage is along the way? Well, we all want Brexit done, and I'd prefer it to be done with a deal. And I still hope that we'll get a deal. I don't actually think this has contributed one iota to a successful deal. We shall have to wait and see. But I hope that deal is struck. But that really isn't the point. This is a question of right and wrong. You're either right or you're wrong. You can't, as a cabinet minister said the other day, break the international law just a little bit. You either break the law or you uphold the law. I believe in a law based, rules based society. Clearly, some don't.

Roger, Gail, thanks very much. Let me pick up with you. Lord Lilly, you're either right or wrong tonight. The vote has paved the way for the breaking of international law, and I wonder if you're proud of your party tonight. I'm an old friend of Roger, as he said, and like him, I believe governments are bound by the law, should follow accepted precedent and to keep their manifesto promises. And I think this bill does all those things. The international agreement, the withdrawal agreement is only the law of the land because we made it the law of the land in parliament by passing the Withdrawal act. Because you signed it into law.

No, we didn't sign it into law. We passed it into law with an act of parliament. And in that act of parliament, we included clauses saying that parliament retained the right to override parts of it. And that is what we potentially will have to do if there is a breach of faith in the negotiations. These arguments are quite specious. When you've heard your own party, a minister, say it does break international law, when you've heard Michael Howard, former leaders, a QC, say it does, when you've heard Jeffrey Cox QC, former attorney general, say it does, why would you fight something that many in your own party, senior, respected lawyers, are saying blatantly, it does break the international law.

But you will have read very distinguished lawyers whose specialism is european and international law, saying that this is quite compatible and a legal thing to do as long as it's done. Why do you risk it? I mean, you've heard of it. I'll tell you why we risk it. Because if we don't, then the European Union is saying first that they and their courts will interpret the treaty as meaning that every good coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will have to fill in an export declaration, despite the fact that the treaty says nothing shall restrict the unfettered, hang on, unfettered trade between Northern Ireland and Britain.

They also say they will insist on the application of tariffs to every good going from Britain to Northern Ireland. I've got the EU parliament and I'm going to put that to her in a second. But putting aside the fact that your government actually signed this deal, declared it a great new deal, putting aside you won an election on the strength of this new deal and its readiness, you have contingencies already written in. You have contingencies in the shape of Article 16 for economic trade difficulties, and you have a joint committee for ironing out those problems instead. Thats what trash your reputation.

I mean, you can answer all the questions or ask. No, im just asking that. That was a statement, not a question. But it was incorrect. We signed it because there is a mechanism in the treaty called the joint committee where both sides are legally obliged to negotiate in good faith to reach agreement. And indeed, on some of these issues, they're committed to reaching an agreement. Why wouldn't you go to the joint? Look, I'll let you ask a question twice as long as my answer. The treaty says that they are supposed to reach agreement. Now, supposing they don't negotiate in good faith and simply sit on their hands, which is what they're threatening to do, then obviously they are in breach of the agreement and we have right to take proper action. I hope that they will negotiate in good faith. I rather think they probably will. In which case we won't have to use any of these legal measures. But it would be irresponsible not to have those measures on the statute book ready, just in case. And if we didn't, you'd be saying, oh, why didn't you think of it?

It's not me saying it, that's the point. This looks preemptive, in the words of your colleague George Freeman, who has called it self defeating, desperate and an inability to stand by our word. Why would you put the EU in the position of looking like the guys that are not going to do anything at all? Because you've already broken the international treaty. We haven't broken the international treatment treaty and almost everybody agrees that passing this bill itself does not break it. It gives us the power.

After the 31 December, if the EU has not negotiated in good faith through the joint committee to resolve these three practical problems, desperate and inability. You must ask him. I'm not his spokesman. I'm just telling you it is none of those things unconscionable. Why would Lord Lamont call it impossible to defend? These are people on your side. Lord Lamont and I are very much on side. He thought that the statement by Brendan Lewis made it very difficult to defend. Not that the intrinsic nature of it is, and I'm entitled to my views, as is Roger and other people, but a lot of distinguished lawyers agree with me that if.

Let's hope it doesn't happen. On balance, I don't think it will happen. If the EU refuse to negotiate in good faith and insist on export declarations and everything, tariffs on everything going the other direction, EU state aids law being applied throughout the United Kingdom, then we have to be in a position to take action. But that's a big. And meanwhile it's a big if you need to be prepared for. You might have countries around the world watching tonight and thinking about a trade deal with us and then thinking, oh, hang on, they might unilaterally rip that up nine months later. Why would we bother? Why would you preempt someone, something to trash our reputation?

Everybody in the world can see that there were difficult situations from us leaving the EU when they wanted to do all in their power to stop us and to make it painful for us, and are even prepared to threaten things which are manifestly against the law, as anyone believing in good faith would interpret the law, like trying to impose a legal blockade and food going from Britain to Northern Ireland. So in those circumstances, it's sensible to take precautions. Right, well, let me put those points directly to Katerina Bali, and you'll have heard them a couple of times doing all in their power to stop it. The PM has said you're willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths, using the Northern Ireland protocol to exert leverage against the UK. That's what he thinks this is about.

Well, if I understand, if I understood correctly what Peter Lilly was saying, saying, then. He was saying that he hopes the EU will not act in bad faith, which implies that it is not, at the moment, negotiating in bad faith, which the EU isn't. I mean, these are completely normal negotiations from the part of the EU being fully transparent, by the way. Everyone can see, can look into the. The negotiation protocols and to everything that there is, which you cannot. On the uk side, the UK is keeping completely secretly what they have in mind, what. What their strategy is, what their positions are.

The government who are acting in good faith is the EU, and we are not breaching any agreement or law. Well, let me put to you what the government's worried about a blockade of food going to Northern Ireland, that you might impose checks, that you are meddling in what is essentially free movement within the UK. That is what they put at your door now. Well, it's exactly the purpose of these negotiations to not have customs declarations and taxes and fees. That is exactly why we are negotiating all this. But it's possible that they're not wrong on that.

If the negotiations fails and we have a hard Brexit, a crash out Brexit. So this is, if you like, a backstop. No, this is what happens. I mean, you're trying to put the blame on us, but this is what the situation has been from the very beginning, when you decided to leave the European Union. There has been, from the very first moment, the possibility, if there is no deal, then we will have this situation that hasn't changed at all. And it does not depend on negotiations. It's just what happens to if we don't agree. There's no bad faith in this. No this isn't just a question of there being no free trade agreement, with or without.

Let me. Let Katerina finish. There is bad faith in defining things completely different now in the withdrawal agreement than the last months. It is not by accident that it's called a joint committee. But let me put. Can I put to you that the concern of our chief negotiator, who says, for example, you know the details of our food standards, because they're the same as yours. So why couldn't we automatically trade on that basis, as you allow so many other countries to do? It seems to be an extra hurdle that you're imposing against the UK at this moment.

If it was only on this little aspect, that would be fine. But we have this aspect of the joint committee that decides if things change and if now, and I think this is absolutely logical, that if things change, then you agree again on something new. But now the UK government is claiming the right to do it unilaterally. And this is what is not, which is a clear breach of the withdrawal agreement. And that is the point. It's not, you know, it's always this gamesmanship. It's always, you know, finding something new to bother about. But actually, the problem is that the Brexiteers promised something that they cannot deliver to their people.

Okay, let me go back. They cannot deliver a Brexit that doesn't change anything, doesn't cost anything and is easily done. They just can't deliver. And they're trying to blame the EU for this. And this time a year ago, you were fighting with other parties in parliament. Now, you know, the conservative party is, dare I say, to quote a former prime minister banging on about Europe on its own. It's you versus your own colleagues, former prime ministers, former attorney generals, QCs, who dont like the way this is going.

Well, its often the way that ex ministers suddenly find reasons to disagree with their party. Ive always avoided that. But to go back to Katrina, she picked me up and says, if we negotiate with good faith. Exactly. I hope both sides will negotiate in good faith, in which case these measures will not be necessary. But I'd put to her and to you, what if they do refuse to reach any agreement, even the most reasonable one? Will they then insist on export declarations on every item coming from Ireland to Great Britain? It's probably your own party that you need to make that point to most clearly tonight.

No, no, because we're negotiating with Europe. My own party has just passed this with a large majority. But I'd like to hear from her whether she thinks it's right to that that should happen. Is it right that all goods going from Britain to Ireland should be, should bear the EU tariff? Now, what do you think should happen? If. I think we should reach agreement on a perfectly sensible thing and say, yes, the majority of customs, the majority of your customs law will apply, but not the bit requiring export declarations going from Great Britain. That's easy to.

Why are you threatening not to? We're not threatening not to. It's just one part of the whole declaration. And why, please, if you think we are both acting in good faith, why are you already breaching the last agreement? How do you want us to expect you to be, to be acting in good faith now? We've run out of time, but thank you very much. Thanks for coming.

Politics, Leadership, Global, Brexit, International Law, Uk-Eu Relations, Bbc Newsnight