David Cameron has become the fifth former Prime Minister to criticize a new bill trying to overturn the Brexit withdrawal agreement.
The Internal Markets Bill will come before MPs, with the government calling it an “insurance policy”.
Mr Cameron said he had a “misunderstanding” over it and breaking an international treaty should be a “last resort”.
Tory’s former PM Theresa May and Sir John Major, and Labour’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have condemned the plan.
Earlier, Police Minister Kit Malthus called it a “practical” move.
He echoed the comments made on Sunday by Justice Secretary Robert Buckland, who said the bill was in the bill as the Brexit trade agreement between Britain and the European Union was not agreed.
Boris Johnson was later expected to speak to reporters at an event, but none of the 10 confirmed that it was canceled due to immediate parliamentary business.
The government is expected to gain a vote in the Commons later in the next phase of the bill – which should be around 22:00 BST (21:00 GMT) – but it faces more difficulties in the later stages Falls, especially when legislation comes up for debate among the Lords.
Former Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has said he will vote against it, accusing Mr Johnson of “dishonest” damaging Britain’s international reputation.
A senior government source told the BBC that “all options are on the table” in the context of possible action against Tory MPs who do not support the bill.
Special envoy to PM for freedom of religion or belief, Tory MP Rahman Chishti, Has resigned over the proposed legislation, Saying: “I have always acted in a way that honors the rule of law … [and] Voting for this bill because it contradicts the values I currently hold. ”
Labour’s shadow business secretary, Ed Miliband, also called the proposed legislation “legislative hooliganism”.
Britain left the European Union on 31 January, negotiated and signed the agreement.
The two sides are now in the closing week of negotiations for a Brexit trade deal before the transition period ends on 31 December – informal talks taking place in Brussels this week.
An important part of the evacuation agreement – which is now an international treaty – was the Northern Ireland Protocol, designed to prevent a difficult border returning to the island of Ireland.
The Government-proposed Internal Markets Bill would allow the UK to revise or re-interpret the “state aid” rules on subsidies for firms in Northern Ireland when that consignment arrived at that part of the agreement, in the event of two parties. Do not agree to future business dealings.
Last week, Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said the bill would break “international law” in a “specific and limited way”, causing criticism from all sides of the political spectrum.
Here we go again … A Brexit deadline looms, Westminster is completely noisy about it, and the UK and EU cannot agree.
And yes, yet again, every other sentence has a rotating soup of jargon.
However, take a few steps back, and here it is – how the UK will do business with its immediate neighbors and how different parts of the UK will trade with each other from January next year.
It matters financially – and is also politically important.
The Brexit process has long exposed tensions between the UK and Brussels, but it also underestimates tensions over the UK.
People in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, who have long argued to be disenchanted with London, as they see it, argue that Brexit is the last case study to illustrate their argument.
And so for the delicate task of Westminster, the government has to remove Britain from one union, the European Union, while keeping each other, Britain together.
All these lines have a central purpose in their origin.
Mr Cameron – who called for an EU referendum when he was PM – said there were “misgivings about what is being proposed”.
Speaking to reporters, he said: “Passing an Act of Parliament and then breaking an international treaty obligation is the last thing you should think about. It should be the absolute last resort.”
Mr Cameron said the “big picture” was trying to strike a trade deal with the European Union, urging the government ” [and] Big prize in mind. ”
The comments of four other surviving British prime ministers are strongly criticized.
Mrs May, who still sits as an MP in the Commons, said that breaking international law would harm “confidence” in Britain, while Mr Brown said it would be “self-harm” for the country.
Sir John and Mr Blair – who were in office during key periods of the Northern Ireland peace process – wrote a joint article in the Sunday Times urging Mr Johnson to “embarrass” the UK and urge MPs to reject the “embarrassing” effort Charged. Parts of the withdrawal agreement.
‘To solve the problem’
Mr Malthus defended the bill, saying it “solves the problem we are facing” on the future of trade with the European Union.
He told BBC Breakfast: “What we have done is to say transparently that this is a situation that we think might happen – certainly this is what is separating from the European Union. It is a problem That we have to solve so that a bill can be resolved here.
“In the end those who oppose this bill will have to tell us what the resolution is.”
On Sunday, Justice Secretary Buckland told the BBC that he hoped the powers being sought by ministers would never be needed, and that he would resign if UK international law “in a way I find unacceptable”.
But Labor leader Sir Keer Starr accused the government ministers of “misinforming” the weekend and “spinning” the reasons for pursuing the new bill.
He told LBC: “[Mr Johnson] Mistaking again on a treaty – which would cause reputational damage to the UK.
“I would say to the Prime Minister, go away, go back to the drawing board, leave these problems, don’t act this carelessly and unfairly and we will look at the law again.”
Bill has given different opinions on the Tory backbench.
MP Sir Desmond Sven said he would support the bill, praising the government for not agreeing to any trade deal by the end of the year.
He told BBC News, “If the government did not take care of that possibility, it would be grossly negligent. It is true that this right rests only with the powers.”
But his colleague and chairman of the Justice Select Committee, Sir Bob Neal, said the government and its supporters needed to “calm the language”.
He said there was already a mechanism to address the government’s concerns, but he was willing to “meet half-and-half with them” with amendments to the bill – allowing only those elements that would use international law If Parliament closes it.
- Rules of rods: what is in small print?
- UNWIND with MINDFUL MIX: switch off and escape