(4) This section does not apply to Part 4 of the retraction agreement (see sections 1A, 1B and 8A and Part 1A of Schedule 2). When we joined the European Economic Community, the country was assured that this sovereignty, this group of power, would not be compromised in any way. To prohibit this promise, the Government rightly said at the time that there would be no decision within the European Economic Community that could be imposed on the United Kingdom against its will; We have always had a veto, so if it proposed a law, a tax or a tax that we did not like, we could veto it. During our years of accession, we have seen the gradual reduction of these vetoes – these powers have been abolished – so that today, although we are still full members of the European Union today, there are huge policy areas in which we are not free to legislate where we want, or, in some cases, , not to be free to legislate because they are fully occupied by the Community acquis. Many people on the government side of this House will be terribly disappointed when all this ends and their workhorse of the last 40 years disappears. The real loss of sovereignty and the real power grab is the power that is given to the mandarins of Whitehall and to the cabinet ministers here to make unchecked executive decisions in this House of Commons. The next step is to start negotiations on the future relationship between Britain and the EU. These are not expected to start until March and the EU does not believe that an ambitious and comprehensive agreement will be possible before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. The withdrawal agreement provides for an extension of the transitional period, but it must be agreed until 1 July 2020. The UK government has stated that it will not seek to extend it and the WAA contains provisions that would make the UK illegal (although parliamentary sovereignty means that the government, if it wanted to overturn the ban, could do so easily).
But my friend Hon is talking about majority votes if we can be in the minority. What is his definition of sovereignty? No, it is a misunderstanding about the nature of a trade dispute. Every contract must have some kind of dispute resolution – the gentleman is absolutely right. If there is a trade agreement with the United States or with another body, there will of course be a trade agreement, but the terms of the agreement adopted by this House will be decided. The big difference with the ECJ is the one I have already pointed out: its judicial activism. It creates a law that goes beyond that and must be enforced by this House, whereas this House, when it enacts laws by our national judges, can legislate to repeal it. I am sure Members know that, but our sovereignty has never been questioned and has not been reduced. I could ask for a long time what it was about in this non-argument on sovereignty, but I am almost sure that many of them – perhaps most of them – were a bad argument to divert attention from the desire to deregulate this country and turn us into a nation of good business, without attention being paid to workers` rights , to protect the environment.
, health and safety, or one of the other regulations in which we have played a role in Europe, which we have implemented and which have helped us to help the people we represent. I would like to explain to the government the point of clause 38. I thank Stephen Farry for tabling Amendment 35, but unfortunately we cannot accept it.