'The EU needs to stick something on the table first'

@Owen Thomas:

"If you ask for the world in a negotiation, and then try and compromise by asking for half of it, it's clearly bonkers to then say because the other side isn't agreeing with that they are inflexible.

"Their demand on fishing is ridiculous. Could I see it negotiated away? Yes, but the EU needs to stick something on the table first, not expect us to give it away for nothing.

"We know how they operate. As soon as we give them a sniff of compromise they'd zero in on it, ignore everything else and then salami slice us. David Frost isn't dumb."

@Jeremy Friend:

"I thought MrFrost put it very well and succinctly. He pointed out that our stance on the ECJ, fisheries and the level playing field are not negotiating positions but the norm which an independent country owns. They cannot therefore be bartered away. They are not up for discussion and unless the EU accepts that, as they have with all other countries with whom they have a free trade agreement, there can be no agreement.

"It is not a 'bill' for the EU to accept or reject. It is a sine qua non of a country's independence and sovereignty."

Following the positive results from the trials at Oxford University, Celia Walden fearedthe influence thatanti-vaxxers have on social media and discussedhow the potential Covid-19 vaccine could be made compulsory if too many people refuse to be vaccinated. While a number of our readers agreed with Ms Walden, others weremore cautious about rushing a vaccine to market.

@Helen King:

Im very pro-vaccine, Ive had all my vaccinations and so have my children. But no, I will not be taking a rushed vaccine and will be advising my children not to either. Id rather take my chances with the virus than a vaccine that because ofits rushed nature, we will have no indications of its long-term effects.

The selfish ones are those who want to force others to have a vaccine. Anyway, the vaccine is still unlikely to happen, so its all a moot point anyway.

@Charles Cole:

That there are even people discussing the idea of a compulsory vaccine shows how far we have sunk. How utterly incredible. If people want to take a vaccine which has been rushed to market with extraordinary haste, let them. The state is here to serve us, not the other way around.

@Derek Smith:

Civilised society is an imperfect system but it's all we have, and depends on both rules and conditions that are deemed reasonable and sensible by the majority. Vaccination has allowed the human race to mostly overcome the mass casualties associated with densely populated towns and cities largely through compliance. Remove this and these dormant mass killing machines such as smallpox, measles, typhoid and ad infinitum will rear up and once again kill and maim, usually innocent children.

Ignoring vaccination protocols is ignorant, dangerous and downright stupid, if you want to ignore your societal responsibility jog off and do so on your own, live in your own bubble but do not use public schools, hospitals or any communal area as you are definitely not welcome.

Tom Welsh argued that many young people feel cut off from colleagues and the wider corporate context by working from home during lockdown. Our readers drew from their own experiences to debate both the advantages and disadvantages of working from home, with many agreeing that businesses should opt for a more flexible approach.

@Peter Jackson:

I used to live 1.5 miles from my office. Having a separate space to work from where I lived allowed me to work without distractions, when needed, and I could talk to people when needed. Gradually everyone else in my group started working from home. The office became a lonely place to be.

Working from home would have meant setting aside space in my flat for working and being alone all day. Even lonelier than the office.

There are advantages and disadvantages to working from home for bothemployeesand employers. It is hard to build a team if people aren't meeting, or to train someone remotely.

Businesses should be able to choose what suits them best. The employees can choose whether or not an employer offers home working as a factor when looking for work.

@Keith Badger:

There is nothing 'woke' about allowing people to work from home. I run a business where many functions that were office-based such as accounts, marketing, customer services and sales are now donefrom home.

People are happier and more productive than before, we have no issues with parking or a lack of office space. It's a win win as far as I'm concerned. I have given people the option of returning to work in the office if they so wish, but so far nobody has taken me up on that offer. Good for them.

@Able Archer:

Before lockdown, I worked from home twodays a week and wentinto the office three days a week. Seeing people at work is good for office camaraderie and meant we could interact informally.

Some of my colleagues chose to WFH permanently, which meant that they seemed detached from the rest of us and were more likely to be left out of the loop on small matters.

It can also be very lonely sitting at home all day. Not everyone has the ideal home, some of us are stuck in small flats with poor sound insulation. We were created as social beings to interact with each other. Talking at someone down a screen with a slight time delay is not proper social interaction.

@Jay Bee:

A 'blended working' solution will become the norm after this something like two days a week in the office, three days at home.

Companies who aim to return to inflexible in-office work routines, will haemorrhage staff and fail. You just need to look at the opinion polls British office workers have had an awakening to the many benefits of a more progressive work/life balance.

Lewis Hamilton won the Hungarian Grand Prix on Sunday for the eighth time after a perfect drive. Luke Slater arguedthat whileHamilton and Mercedes brilliance has ensured their dominance,it is not what the sport needs.

The rest is here:

'It's time to walk away from Brexit trade talks' - Readers on this weeks talking points - Telegraph.co.uk

The first lesson we can learn from the way the government handled this report about the Russians trying to fiddle with our elections is its fine to have something ready, then wait nine months before letting anyone see it.

We would be so much more relaxed if we all did this. Kids could tell their teachers: Ive finished my geography homework. Ill hand it in next April.

In a cafe, the waiter could tell you the sausage and chips are ready, so theyll bring them out a few weeks after Christmas.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

The government seems just as calm about the Russians trying to influence our democracy. The prime minister answered Keir Starmers question about the report by saying, Youve had more flip-flops than Bournemouth beach.

This is an impressively chilled reaction to another country trying to alter your government. Maybe Boris Johnson learned this at a mindfulness class, where he was told, If youre prime minister, and the Russians try to muck about with your election, dont get stressed. Breathe deeply, chant were getting Brexit done 4 million times, and make a funny joke, such as You do more whining than a man who runs an active vineyard, to soothe your spiritual journey.

The report concluded the government had not seen or sought evidence of interference by Russia because they did not want to know. Thats a novel method for investigating a crime, to not want to find any evidence.

There should be a detective series, starring Boris Johnsons cabinet. They turn up to a murder scene, and theyre told, A man was seen shooting the victim. We caught him hiding in this cupboard. Here he is. So Boris Johnson says, Well never work out who did it. Close the case. The whole programme would be over in nine seconds, proving how efficient they are.

Boris Johnson also told us the real reason anyone was concerned about the report was they were an Islingtonian Remainer trying to undermine the referendum result.

This will be how everything works now for a couple of hundred years. The government could be caught setting up a series of brothels in Kuala Lumpur to fund the cabinets crystal meth habit. And when Keir Starmer says: Could the prime minister assure the house he will cease his forays into prostitution and partaking of class A narcotics? Johnson would reply: Ah, aha, what we have, indeed, Mr Speaker, is a flagrant attempt, er attempt, to undermine the historic vote of the British people.

In any case, Boris Johnson knows for a fact the Russians have no interest in winning influence in Britain, because he accepted 160,000 from Russian oligarch Lubov Chernukhin to play her at tennis.

So he must know that Russian business doesnt try to buy favours. She simply wanted to improve her tennis, and rather than do it the complicated way, by paying a tennis coach, she spent the money wisely and played Boris Johnson. She was lucky he could fit her in, between his sessions coaching Roger Federer.

You can understand why the government wouldnt believe the claims, as it seems implausible that Putins people would behave in an underhand or deceitful way. Its true they brought down a plane and lied about it, and poisoned one of our oldest cities and said they were there to admire the cathedral. But they wouldnt try more serious things like invent a Twitter account to say the EU had a negative effect on the British jam industry.

But the biggest revelation from this issue is that for 60 years there has been a misunderstanding between us all. For all that time, Conservative people would say to anyone slightly liberal: If you had your way, youd let the Russians run the country. We thought they were angry about the Russians, but in fact they were upset because we didnt want the Russians to run the country enough.

The Russians would fund the odd political campaign or pamphlet, but now we realise the Conservatives wanted the Russians to run our elections and dictate when our prime ministers play tennis.

There could be another reason the government is so dismissive about the report. It concludes the Russians tried to interfere through using TV programmes and social media. So Boris Johnson must think: My oligarch mates have bought a huge chunk of London and all the riverside apartments and a football club and shares in everything, so why are people in a flap because of some programmes on Russia Today and a bunch of Twitter accounts?

It seems unlikely that Russian social media made a decisive difference in the referendum. Or maybe it did, and Gary from Stoke said: Here mum, Ive just got a message from Anna3628710 on Twitter that says the EU are responsible for stealing 17 per cent of our mackerel. Sod that, Im voting Leave.

And Maureen from Sunderland meant to watch Homes Under the Hammer one day, but accidentally switched on Russia Todays misleading documentary about how EU salad subsidies are unfairly biased against British cucumber farmers.

Another possibility is the Leave Campaign had an effective message and the Remain Campaign had no message. And the stories that had the greatest impact were those about taking back control, and money saved by leaving would be spent on the NHS, and the number of immigrants had reached Breaking Point. These ideas werent spread by Russian Twitter accounts, they were on billboards and Facebook pages and buses, arranged by Dominic Cummings and Nigel Farage.

So the problem with the referendum was British interference. There should be another report, that should conclude wed have been better off only allowing foreigners to campaign in the referendum, and not let the British say anything.

See original here:

When it comes to Brexit, British interference got us into this mess - The Independent

FILE PHOTO: The Union Jack flags are seen above number 11 Downing street after Britain's prime minister Boris Johnson tested positive for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in London, Britain, March 27, 2020. REUTERS/Toby Melville

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will continue to engage constructively with the European Union in talks on a future relationship, but London is not willing to give up its rights as an independent state, a spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Monday.

The two sides will resume talks on Tuesday after Britains chief negotiator David Frost hosts his EU counterpart Michel Barnier for dinner later on Monday, but there has been little movement on the significant differences that divide them.

Britain left the EU in January and is in a status quo transition period until the end of the year, when some companies fear disruption if the two fail to secure a free trade deal.

Our position on our sovereignty, laws and fisheries is clear, we will not give up our rights as an independent state, the spokesman told reporters.

We will continue to engage constructively with the EU on these key issues and will work hard to reach the broad outline of an agreement, but as we have been clear all along we are not asking for a special, bespoke or unique deal.

Reporting by Elizabeth Piper; editing by William James and Alistair Smout

View post:

Britain will be constructive with EU in Brexit talks, says PM's spokesman - Reuters

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Claims that Holyrood powers are under threat by post-Brexit legislation are "absolute scaremongering", the Scottish Secretary has said.

Alister Jack told BBC Scotland plans for a UK "internal market" amounted to a "power surge" and not a "power grab".

The proposals have been set out in a white paper, with legislation to follow later in the year.

Scottish Constitutional Affairs Secretary Mike Russell said any assurances from the UK were "not true".

Plans for how a UK-wide "internal market" will operate after the country leaves the EU were published earlier in the week.

UK Business Secretary Alok Sharma said the move would see "the biggest transfer of powers in the history of devolution".

But the Scottish government has said the plan would "strip power" from the Scottish Parliament.

Speaking on BBC Scotland's Sunday Politics programme, Mr Jack said the objections raised by Mr Russell were a "confected red herring".

He said there was "absolutely no threat" to Scottish government policies like free university tuition or alcohol minimum pricing.

"There is not a single power being taken away from Holyrood or any of the other devolved administrations and when challenged in parliament this week, they couldn't come up with a single power they're losing," he said.

"This is absolutely a power surge for them, not a power grab."

Much of the debate over powers has focused on food standards and whether chlorinated chicken would ever be sold in the UK.

But Mr Jack said this was "not going to happen".

"Chlorinated chicken can't be sold in the UK. Nor can hormone-induced beef. We're quite clear about that. They are illegal products," he said.

"We're going to bring all the EU food standards into UK domestic law at the end of this year in the Withdrawal Act. And then we intend to increase our food production standards and our animal welfare standards which are already the highest in Europe."

Mr Jack told the BBC that the only future changes would be to improve food standards and not "diminish" them.

He added: "Were it ever to come to pass that a future government did something on food standards that didn't satisfy the other devolved administrations first of all there would be a bill to go through the UK Parliament on that trade deal and then there would be consent motions sought from the other administrations."

However, Mr Russell said he had "no doubt" that under the current proposals chlorinated chicken could be sold in Scotland, even if the Scottish Parliament did not want it.

Speaking earlier on the programme, he said the proposals were there because the UK wanted to be able to do "bad trade deals" with other countries as they were the "only trade deals left to them".

"To do so they want to make sure that neither the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Parliament or the Northern Irish Parliament can interfere with that," he said.

"That won't just be bad for consumers, it'll be very bad for business. It will put Scottish businesses out of business if they go ahead."

Mr Russell said he had heard many assurances in the past from the UK government but they had "come to nothing".

View post:

Alister Jack: 'No threat' to devolved power in post-Brexit laws - BBC News

Using the case of Britains 2016 vote to leave the European Union, James Wood andValentina Ausserladscheider challenge prevailing accounts explaining populism as political response to neoliberalisms negative impact on voters. Using a descriptive analysis, they explain how the antagonistic people vs. elite relationship at the core of populism has been mobilised by opposing British political actors as a discursive frame to generate voter support for their own policies.

Populism has come to dominate Britains political economy, which culminated in the 2016 vote to leave the political and economic project of the EU. Although there are various conceptions of what populism is, many definitions focus on a core antagonistic relationship between the people and a corrupt or incompetent elite.

Dominant explanations of the rise of populism in Britain argue that populist politicians appealed to a long-standing general will of the people by advocating anti-EU policies to mitigate the negative consequences of globalisation, such as increased immigration and inequality from international trade. Populism has also been considered a response to voter demands for greater state intervention in the British economy to challenge the market-based policies of neoliberalism, which have increased economic insecurity since the 1980s. However, we argue these accounts fail to adequately conceptualise what constitutes as populism in the case of Brexit.

The chart above from The Economist demonstrates that for a decade prior to the 2016 referendum, less than 10% of the British public believed the EU was a pressing political issue; this increased dramatically to over 50% shortly after the referendum announcement. Therefore, leaving the EU cannot be considered a long-standing voter demand that populist politicians adopted to appeal to voters. Rather, the referendum itself may be considered the referential moment where leaving the EU became a significant issue for British voters. Additionally, whilst populist political actors on the left, such as Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party, advocated increased state intervention in the economy to challenge neoliberalism, there were mainstream populist political actors in the Conservative Party supporting policies perfectly congruent with neoliberalism.

Our research provides an alternative explanation as to what constitutes as populism in the case of Brexit. We argue that what these populist political actors have in common is that they both present a challenge to Britains debt-driven neoliberal growth model, which is reliant on continuous house price increases and consumption.

Major shifts in macroeconomic policy paradigms occur rarely, and require the policies associated with the dominant paradigm to be framed negatively by political actors to the voting public. We argue that the elite/people relationship at the core of populism was used as a discursive frame by political actors looking to generate voter support for their own policies. Here, a current policy can be problematised by political actors by framing it as being detrimental to the people whilst benefiting an elite; alternatively, the converse framing can be used to highlight the benefits of their policies to voters as the people at the expense of the elite.

We explore this argument by examining two competing economic policy paradigms looking to challenge Britains debt-driven neoliberal growth model: the Liberal Economic Nationalists and the Democratic Socialists.

Britains modern Liberal Economic Nationalist policy paradigm looks to change Britains neoliberal growth model from being debt-driven to focus on increasing British exports, and is advocated by an influential group of politicians in the Conservative Party, such as Michael Gove, Liz Truss, and Boris Johnson.

The Conservatives used the populist frame to critique the EU for limiting Britains sovereignty and generate support for their own export-oriented trade policies. An example of this can be seen in Michael Goves announcement in support of the Vote Leave campaign:

The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people Every single day, every single minister is told: Yes Minister, I understand, but Im afraid thats against EU rules. I know it. My colleagues in government know it. And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.

After chastising EU elites for limiting British sovereignty that harms the British people, Gove then redeployed the populist frame in a different speech to show how leaving the EU resolves this problem for the people:

I am not asking the British people to have faith in me, I am asking them to have faith in themselves. I am asking the British people to take back control from those [EU] organisations which are distant and elitist. With trade it is really important that we take back control.

Therefore, for the Conservatives, Brexit provides an opportunity for British neoliberalism to be reoriented around an export-driven growth model supported by non-EU trade.

Rather than focus on the EU, the Democratic Socialists in the Labour Party directly critiqued market-based neoliberal policies for benefiting the few at the expense of the many: a clear transposition of the populist elite/people frame. One example comes from Jeremy Corbyns speech to the 2017 Labour Party Conference:

Ten years after the global financial crash the Tories still believe in the same dogmatic mantra Deregulate, privatise, cut taxes for the wealthy, weaken rights at work, delivering profits for a few, and debt for the many. Nothing has changed.

To rebalance inequalities in favour of the many, they propose a post-Brexit full paradigm shift towards socialism, by nationalising industries and limiting market activity. Corbyn promoted such policies to the public using the populist discursive frame in the 2017 Labour Party manifesto:

the distribution of ownership of the countrys economy means that decisions about our economy are often made by a narrow elite. More democratic ownership structures would help our economy deliver for the many and lead to a fairer distribution of wealth.

These examples demonstrate how these opposing political actors have used the populist discursive frame to construct a challenge to Britains debt-driven neoliberal growth model and generate voter support for their own economic policies. Therefore, rather than focusing on how different political actors adopt incongruent policies to appeal to the public, we argue it is the shared deployment of the elite/people discursive frame that provides a more complete account of constitutes as populism in the case of Brexit. This offers a more compelling generalisable constitutive theory to understand the phenomenon of global populism and how it manifests in specific cases.

__________

Note: the above draws on the authors published work in The Review of International Political Economy. All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Featured image credit: by Christian Lue on Unsplash.

See the rest here:

Populism and the manufactured crisis of British neoliberalism: the case of Brexit - British Politics and Policy at LSE

The Tnaiste Leo Varadkar has said the emergency COVID-19 payments can be repurposed in the new year to deal with Brexit if needed.

Under the July stimulus plan, the emergency Pandemic Unemployment Payment and the Wage Subsidy Scheme will be extended until April 2021.

However both will be tapered to lower levels during that time - with the unemployment payment eventually being reduced in line with jobseekers benefit.

Speaking to Newstalk's political correspondent Sean Defoe, Mr Varadkar said part of the decision to extend the fund was with Brexit in mind.

"There's extra money from my department in particular to help businesses that trade with the UK to prepare for Brexit."

"But more significantly, if you look at the way this package is structured, it runs through to the end of the first quarter of next year.

"The Pandemic Unemployment Payment, the Wage Subsidy, the VAT cut - all of those things run into February and March of next year, April in some cases.

"Why did we make that decision? Because Brexit's coming: at least in terms of trade Brexit, if you like, political Brexit already happened but trade Brexit will happen on the 31st of December this year.

"So if you look at what's happening for example in Britain, they're ending their wage subsidy in October - same in Northern Ireland - they're ending their VAT cut at the end of December.

"We thought 'no, we actually needed a plan that runs through to the spring of next year' - so that it covers Brexit as well as what's happening as a result of the pandemic".

It comes as the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said a trade deal between the bloc and the UK is now unlikely.

On Thursday, Mr Barnier said while some progress was made, issues around a level playing field and fisheries are still outstanding.

"The EU has always insisted that an economic partnership with the UK must include robust level playing field rules and an equitable agreement on fisheries.

"This means that, by its current refusal to commit to conditions of open and fair competition and to a balanced agreement on fisheries, the UK makes a trade agreement at this point unlikely", he added.

Meanwhile the Government's new staycation tax rebate can also be used to get tax back on meals in local restaurants.

Under the plan people can get up to 125 back on 625 spent on accommodation or food bills.

Mr Varadkar said the scheme can also be used to boost local business.

"I think this is going to benefit all parts of Ireland - essentially it's a 5bn injection into our economy, 7bn if you include loan guarantees.

"And it's all about getting businesses open, helping those that are open to stay open, getting people back to work and for those who won't be able to go back to their old jobs, there'll be about 75,000 opportunities in terms of education, apprenticeships, enterprise set up grants, courses, you name it.

"But I think one thing that'll be particularly beneficial for businesses in rural Ireland is that fact that the minimum restart grant has been increased to 4,000.

"Any business that is re-opening in rural Ireland, or any business that stayed open and saw a significant reduction in their turnover, will have a restart grant of 4,000".

"I think what will also be of particular benefit is that there'll be a commercial rates holiday for six months.

"The big companies will have to pay, but the smaller companies particularity in towns and villages won't have to pay".

He said he hopes people will take advantage of the spend and save initiative while holidaying at home.

"We're hoping that at least two million people will take advantage of it.

"Yes it's for domestic tourism encouraging people to take that weekend away or that night away during the winter.

"But also as well encouraging people to support local businesses in their towns.

"So if you can't afford, or you're not able to go away for the weekend, you can use that money in your local town - and if you do that'll be a good thing as well".

Reporting by Sean Defoe | Additionalreporting: Jack Quann

See the article here:

COVID-19 payments can be repurposed to deal with Brexit - Varadkar - Newstalk

CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to step up their fight to protect the NHS after a legal bid to prevent it being on the table in post-Brexit trade deals was voted down by Tory MPs.

A series of amendments to the Trade Bill aimed at protecting the NHS from control from outside the UK and allowing more parliamentary scrutiny of deals were rejected in the House of Commons last week.

More than 230,000 people have now signed a petition urging peers to introduce fresh amendments to the Bill when it goes to the House of Lords in the autumn.

Pascale Robinson, campaigns officer for anti-privatisation pressure group We Own It, said unless specific protections were in place for the NHS, there was the risk of the health service being opened up in trade deals to American healthcare firms and drug prices increasing.

She said the huge response to the petition in the space of just a few days showed how angry people were at the result of the voting down of the amendments.

It has shown that platitudes about protecting our NHS are a barefaced lie and that we will not forgive or forget those MPs who did not stand up for the NHS in that vote, she said.

READ MORE:Majority of Scots regret Brexit and would rejoin EU, eu+me finds

Robinson also pointed that while health was devolved in Scotland, the proposals around the UK internal market meant it would be impacted by any trade deal. She added: They call it levelling the playing field, meaning there is the same access what will happen is Scotland will have to accept goods and services of the same standard as the UK.

The British Medical Association said it was disappointing the amendments were voted down, adding it would have gone some way to protecting the health service and public health in trade agreements.

BMA council deputy chair and trade negotiations lead Dr David Wrigley said: The BMA is clear that the only true protection we have is if our health service and standards are protected by law. As the Bill moves on for consideration by the Lords, it is vital this pivotal point to do so is not lost.

Green MP Caroline Lucas had put forward an amendment to stop the health service being a part of trade deals, saying red lines were needed in the negotiations. The bid to give MPs and peers a say on any new trade deals signed by UK ministers was a rebellion led by Conservative MP Jonathan Djanogly.

Meanwhile, SNP MPs were among those who submitted an amendment to ensure Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could give their consent to trade regulations containing matters within their remit, which was also rejected.

All six Scottish Tory MPs voted against these amendments, which were backed by the SNP, Labour and LibDems.

READ MORE:Stephen Gethins's bid to strengthen Scotland-EU post-Brexit ties

Following Mondays vote, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine MP Andrew Bowie was one of a number of Conservatives who pointed to the partys manifesto commitment which pledged the NHS will not be on the table in any trade negotiations.

Just to be clear no one voted to sell the NHS last night. It is not for sale. It is not on the table, he tweeted.

But Gay Lee, a nurse and member of campaign group Keep Our NHS Public, said: That is the argument of well, we promised, so we dont need to put it in writing and we dont need to put it law.

The Government is not particularly trusted at the moment, so how they think that argument is going to wash with people I dont know.

The UK Government has also insisted that any changes affecting the NHS would have to come before parliament.

However, at present the role of Westminster in approving treaties is based on rules established 100 years ago, which means there is no systematic scrutiny and consent to ratification is given by default, with no debate or vote required.

Dr Brigid Fowler, senior researcher at think tank the Hansard Society, said the view of most constitutional lawyers who had examined the issue is that the current system is not fit for purpose and particularly now the UK is negotiating its own free trade agreements.

She said: This was the first time that a Conservative MP had put his head over the parapet and said we think we should amend this.

It was really significant that there are now clearly some Conservative backbenchers who arent happy but there werent enough of them.

At the moment theres nothing in law to stop a UK minister just signing a free trade agreement without MPs having seen it.

She added: Youre making a form of law when you sign an international treaty like that and youre also making economic policy.

It could have massive implications for different industries and for different parts of the country.

Nick Dearden, director of campaign group Global Justice Now, pointed out peers had successfully passed a democratic scrutiny amendment in the previous Trade Bill. The bill was subsequently dropped by the UK Government when Westminster was prorogued last year.

It is really interesting that this is one of the few areas where there has actually been a Tory rebellion, Dearden said.

The Government is really under the most enormous pressure on this.

Link:

Activists step up bid to protect the NHS from Brexit trade deal - The National

PUBLISHED: 14:30 24 July 2020 | UPDATED: 12:53 25 July 2020

Nicola McEWEN

Former Prime Minister Theresa May pledged to 'strengthen the precious European Union' when setting out her Brexit objectives in January 2017. Picture: Frank Augstein/PA

PA Wire/PA Images

Recently published plans on how the UKs internal market will work after Brexit hint at further tensions ahead, suggests NICOLA McEWEN.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

When Theresa May first set out her Brexit objectives at Lancaster House in January 2017, one of her top priorities was to strengthen the precious union, by ensuring that as we leave the European Union no new barriers to living and doing business within our own Union are created.

The recent publication of a UK government white paper gives the clearest indication yet of how her successor plans to uphold the UK internal market.

Although the details are unusually sketchy for a white paper, the proposals could have a profound effect on devolution.

They could place considerable constraints on the capacity of the devolved institutions to pursue some of the distinctive policy goals they have been able to take up hitherto, including those that were permissible within EU internal market regulations.

Once the transition period ends, the UK and devolved governments will no longer be obliged to conform to EU regulations.

Each will be free to develop new regulations within their areas of competence, subject to any level playing field commitments made in a UK-EU deal.

That opens up the possibility of greater policy divergence that, in principle, might disrupt trade across the UKs internal borders.

To guard against this possibility, the white paper proposes a Market Access Commitment. This will introduce in primary legislation both a principle of mutual recognition and a principle of non-discrimination to guarantee the continued right of all UK companies to trade unhindered in every part of the UK.

Mutual recognition ensures that goods or services that satisfy regulatory standards in one part of the UK are eligible to enter the market anywhere in the UK.

Non-discrimination prevents UK businesses or individuals trading across the UKs internal borders from being treated differently from local traders, either directly on the grounds of residence or geographical origin.

So, if the Scottish parliament decided to pass a law to limit the sugar content of goods produced in Scotland to tackle the problem of obesity, it could not impose those standards on goods coming into Scotland from other parts of the UK, nor could it prevent those goods from entering the Scottish market, provided these satisfy regulations set anywhere in the UK.

Such a law may also be challenged by Scottish producers as an unnecessary barrier to their ability to trade freely across the UK.

There are many uncertainties in the proposals. The devolved governments had been concerned that an independent regulatory body, potentially with little understanding of devolution, could be tasked with enforcing UK internal market rules.

The white paper seems to rule this out. That leaves open the issue as to how the Market Access Commitment will be enforced.

The implication is that businesses and consumers will be empowered to challenge any law or action that is perceived to impede their ability to engage in frictionless trade in any part of the UK.

The legislation could go even further, amending the devolution settlements, either to introduce a constraint that prevents laws from being passed that are incompatible with UK internal market law, or that empower the Secretary of State to prevent actions by the devolved institutions on grounds of incompatibility with the internal market.

Any of these enforcement mechanisms could represent a significant new constraint on devolved competence and would be met with considerable resistance.

In theory, the internal market principles would affect all four administrations. In practice, they will inevitably have an asymmetrical effect.

The paper acknowledges that traders in Northern Ireland, and goods entering that market, will have to comply with EU rules, as required by the Northern Ireland protocol.

Moreover, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the Westminster parliament cannot bind itself, and so its autonomy to make laws will not face the constraints that may be placed on the devolved institutions.

The sheer size of the English economy and population relative to the others is also likely to give English businesses and consumers, and the UK government making policies for England, considerably greater influence in determining regulatory standards across the UK.

No government in any part of the UK would seek to impose unnecessary barriers to trade and mobility. But who gets to determine the necessity, or otherwise, of distinctive regulations?

When the Scottish parliament passed legislation to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol, the disruption to trade in alcohol resulting from the policy was defended as a legitimate and proportionate means of tackling adverse health and social effects of alcohol abuse.

After lengthy legal challenges led by the Scotch Whisky Association, the Supreme Court sided with the Scottish government.

But it is not at all clear that public health, environmental or any other policy goals will be justifiable exemptions from UK internal market principles. The white paper seems to place the objective of frictionless trade above all other policy ambitions.

New governance arrangements are envisaged, building on existing intergovernmental relations (IGR), ensuring a strong basis for political decision-making, oversight, and dialogue in relation to the Internal Market. There is no detail at all about what these intergovernmental processes would entail.

The Joint Review of IGR, initiated by the four administrations in March 2018, has struggled to produce any recommendations to address the evident weaknesses in intergovernmental machinery or agree mechanisms for resolving dispute.

It is difficult to foresee agreement on shared governance arrangements for an internal market if its principles are designed and imposed by the UK government.

UK internal market legislation will affect devolved competences, and so under the Sewel convention, the consent of the devolved legislatures will be sought. That consent is unlikely to be secured. Will that matter? Recent experience suggests not.

In other Brexit-related legislation, the UK government has demonstrated its willingness to press ahead despite devolved institutions withholding consent. Setting aside the Sewel convention again would further undermine one of the core principles of UK devolution.

Without cooperation, consent and co-decision built into the development and governance of a UK internal market, further tensions between the UK and devolved institutions are inevitable. And for what?

The research in the annex to the white paper makes clear that, in comparison to trade between EU member states, between the Nordic states and within European federal states such as Germany, the UK is already highly integrated and the costs associated with cross-border trade are very low.

This suggests that EU regulations have not been the only factor supporting UK market integration. By using a legislative sledgehammer to crack a hypothetical nut, these measures are unlikely restore the trust between the UK and devolved governments that the Brexit process has eroded.

Instead, they may deepen the fractures that threaten the very Union the UK government is seeking to strengthen.

Nicola McEwen is a professor of territorial politics, a co-director of the Centre on Constitutional at the University of Edinburgh, and senior fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe, which originally published this article

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

Read the rest here:

Will Britain's post-Brexit plan deepen divisions within the Union? - The New European

BERLIN, July 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Following the conclusion of the sixth round of Brexit talks, BDI Director General Joachim Lang said: "A collapse in the negotiations on a partnership agreement is now all but inevitable."

"The sixth round of Brexit negotiations was more than a disappointment for the German economy. On key points, such as competition conditions in the future, London has repeatedly diverged from the political declaration. A collapse in the negotiations on a partnership agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom is now all but inevitable. Too many political and technical issues remain unsettled for them to be solved in time.

The imperative of the hour for the German government and the EU is to bundle all their forces and to focus all their attention on the essential emergency measures. Also business on both sides of the Channel must now prepare itself for bilateral trade without an agreement under WTO rules.

German industry does not believe that the United Kingdom will complete the public infrastructure for cross-border goods traffic in time. The latest plans on the part of the British are incomplete. This means that companies are faced with new customs duties, additional bureaucracy and an economic disaster."

The Federation of German Industries (BDI) is the umbrella organisation of German industry and industry-related services. It speaks for 40 trade associations and more than 100,000 enterprises with around 8 million employees. Membership is voluntary.

The Federationof German Industries Member association of BUSINESSEUROPE

Contact numbersT: +49 (0)30 2028 1450 F: +49 (0)30 2028 2450

Website http://www.bdi.eu

Email: bdi-presseteam@bdi.eu

Follow this link:

BDI on the conclusion of the Brexit round of talks: "A collapse in the negotiations on a partnership agreement is now all but inevitable" -...

25 July 2020, 14:05 | Updated: 25 July 2020, 14:18

Maajid Nawaz pleaded with Remainers to put their egos aside and accept that we need to work together towards a post-Brexit Britain, regardless of your opinion of the result.

Maajid Nawaz was speaking about Brexit as the deadline for a deal edges closer and closer. He was putting forward the argument that Brits have more in common than not, despite the divisive nature of Brexit.

"The human spirit is more binding and more lasting than political debate," said Maajid and used the example of how he was supported in his hunger strike by someone on the other end of the political spectrum to him, Nigel Farage.

"Sometimes it means holding your nose, holding your grudge," to work for the greater good Maajid said, and asked if "on the Brexit debate can we please start doing that."

He warned Remainers that if you don't contribute to the debate and discourse surrounding post-Brexit Britain, Brexiteers "will shape the future of this country without your input."

"Bury the hatchet, bury our egos and start trying to work out which kind of Brexiter we can work with," Maajid said.

He argued that "we need to develop a post-Brexit liberal vision for Britain" and this cannot be achieved if only one side of the debate is addressed.

Maajid went on to imagine "who can our allies be," in post-Brexit Britain and argued that the first place the UK should be looking is to begin "forging closer and closer alliances with the Five Eyes nations" who are the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK.

He argued that if the nations were to move further than just being an intelligence sharing bloc and a socio-economic one too, this would be an ideal place for the UK to start it's life outside of the EU.

Here is the original post:

Remainers must bury the hatchet and work towards a post-Brexit Britain - LBC