The Minister referred to Clause 5, which gives priority to the Withdrawal Agreement over national law. It will not authorize any parliamentary scrutiny of any of the resulting amendments. These vast, broad forces affect people. In particular, the removal of Clause 31 of the original Withdrawal Agreement as a whole means that Parliament has no voice, no influence and no ability to define the terms or objectives of the future relationship, which goes far beyond any trade agreement. Such actions scare people from what is happening. Furthermore, we have not heard a good argument from the government as to why Parliament is suddenly excluded in this way. My contribution to the debate on the law on the Withdrawal Agreement from the European Union, 8 January 2020 By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: January 9, 2020 John Redwood (Wokingham (Con): Clause 38 is welcome. I pay tribute to my honourable friend, the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), for being one of the co-editors of this excellent legislative proposal by the government. I also support the minister in opposing various new clauses and amendments before us.
With the WAB, the Commons and Lords are expected to settle their differences on Wednesday 22 January. The EU regularly violates international law. The VA is not an international treaty as such, as I do not think the EU is a signatory to the Vienna Convention. . . .