Liam Fox criticises 'muddled thinking' of genocide amendment to trade bill as MPs revolt over vote

The former International Trade Secretary said people didn't vote for Brexit for control of Britain's laws to be passed back to 海角视频 courts

Bookmark
Share
Comments

10:33, 20 JAN 2021
Updated10:35, 20 JAN 2021

Former International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox (Image: David Betts Photography)

North Somerset MP and former International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has suggested people did not vote for Brexit only for control of 海角视频 laws to be passed back to British courts.

Dr Fox was speaking out against a commons vote on an amendment to the trade bill, the legislation that will give the Government the tools to form an independent trade policy after Brexit.

On Tuesday (January 19), MPs voted on the amendment , inserted by the House of Lords, that would give the High Court the power to rule whether a country is committing genocide, and terminate any trade deal the 海角视频 has agreed with that country.

It was created with China in mind, which faces allegations of genocide against the minority Uighur muslim population in Xinjiang province - claims that Beijing has repeatedly denied.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson 's 87-strong working majority was slashed to just 11 after 33 Conservatives defied the whip. Another nine abstained from the vote.

MPs narrowly voted 319-308 to defeat the amendment, which will now go back to the House of Lords, but critics believe a another one could still be tabled.

Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith. who led the revolt, told MPs: "Why would we be doing a trade deal with a country that is guilty of genocide?"

But Dr Fox described the amendment as 鈥渕uddled thinking鈥� that would not have its intended effect on current or future 海角视频-China trade, or on China鈥檚 alleged treatment of the Uighur.

Invoking a slogan from the EU referendum campaign, he told the BBC鈥檚 Today programme ahead of the vote: 鈥淔irst of all I think trade policy should be for Parliament not for the courts.

鈥淲e didn't vote to leave the European Union and ask to take back control of our laws, only to pass them back to the 海角视频 courts.

鈥淚f Parliament wants to have more say over the conditions applied to the negotiation of trade agreements, then the appropriate place to do that is in Parliament, by allowing it to have more of a bigger say at the beginning of the trade negotiations.

鈥淣ot only do I think this will give more power to the courts at the expense of Parliament, which I think is a bad precedent, I think it鈥檚 the thin end of a wedge, as we would get further legal movement in this direction if this precedent were to be set.

鈥淚 don't think it鈥檚 good for the judges. Some of these judgements would indeed be subjective and we want to keep our courts out of political 颈蝉蝉耻别蝉.鈥�

Sign up for more business news straight to your inbox

Stay up to date with our daily newsletter, email breaking news alerts and weekly round-ups. To sign up, find out more and see all of our newsletters, follow the link here

Dr Fox said the Government did not need the involvement of the courts to take a stand to conduct ethical foreign policy.

鈥淲e can take any ethical stance we want. We have our sanctions law to back up what we believe are violations in a number of areas.

鈥淲e don't need the courts to encourage Parliament to have an ethical stance. That's entirely up to politicians. And if politicians feel strongly about it let them make the stance in Parliament. And if they feel that they don't have enough powers to do so, let them demand more.

鈥淏ut to give power away to the courts in order to strengthen the resolve of politicians seems a very bizarre mechanism to me.鈥�

He added: "I, along with many members on this side of the house, voted to leave the European Union to take back control.

"I don't want to take back control from unelected judges in Europe and give more power to judges in the United Kingdom, however high the esteem in which they're held."