Photo: Shutterstock

Not only must businesses grapple with the coronavirus pandemic but many will soon have to once again wrestle with the UKs decision to leave the EU, with difficult decisions having to be made over the sourcing of talent, write Gillian McKearney and Pip Hague.

In the midst of Covid-19 and business continuity planning, its important that employers and particularly HR teams do not lose sight of the other pressing issue Brexit and in particular the impact this will have on the workforce.

With fears of further waves of Covid-19, especially as winter draws near, many businesses are struggling to focus on anything else. But, with only four months to go until the UK departs from the EU, how many employers have dropped the ball?

Research released by the CBI has revealed that one in five businesses are less prepared for Brexit now than at the start of the year due to Covid-19. Half of businesses are no more prepared for our departure than they were at the start of the year. Lastly and perhaps causing the most cause for concern, 21% of respondents said that their Brexit preparations had actually derailed since the start of the year.

There are winners and losers when it comes to the impact of Brexit on businesses who need non-native workers. For those who are already sponsor license holders, there will be certain advantages when the UKs new points-based immigration system kicks in: a lower minimum salary level, increase in roles available to sponsor and no advertisement requirement. Industries dependent on a consistent influx of EU workers, such as hospitality, retail, manufacturing and construction etc are likely to be the most impacted.

The UKs departure could raise a lot of questions and doubts over the stability of their workforce. Now while Brexit is a multifaceted complex issue and although we officially Brexited on 31 January 2020, the UK still has no clarity on whether we will exit with or without a deal. The transition period is due to end on 31 December 2020. On the 1 January 2021, the UKs Australian-style points-based immigration system will kick in, marking the most significant developments in UK immigration law in 40 years. This is important as there are certain things that employers who rely on EU workers can and should get in place before this cut-off date.

With not long to go, lets look at the key actions HR can do now to make the transition easier.

The quickest way for employers to safeguard the future of their workforce and keep their trained workers is to direct their EU staff about the EU settlement scheme, the scheme introduced to allow EU, EEA and Swiss citizens to continue living and working in the UK after the cut off period of 30 June 2021. Its the responsibility of the individual to make their application to the scheme, which means employers cannot require them to apply and cannot check that they apply. This makes the jobs of HR teams harder, but they should continue to put a robust process in place to oversee who is and isnt applying and to analyse what roles and which areas of the business are likely to suffer.

The latest stats released from the government showed that at the end of June 2020, there were over 3.7 million applications to the scheme. While this is a positive figure and shows than many of our EU workers are likely to stay post-Brexit, the number of refused applications is increasing. Employees and employers have common goals here, which is to remain in the UK and keep working. Be risk averse and apply sooner rather than later.

Our clients are often surprised to hear about the various opportunities available regarding workplace planning. Now is the time to be alive to and take advantage of the cut off date. The key cut-off date is triggered at 11:59pm on 31 December 2020. Provided an EU citizen enters into the UK by the 31 December 2020, theyre permitted to stay and work and have up to 30 June 2021 to apply to the scheme. This period is a blessing in disguise for some businesses. Its the time to plan recruitment drives and resource work contracts. 1 January to 30 June 2021 is a grant of extra time to allow eligible EU nationals to apply to the scheme.

Businesses need to be particularly cautious about checking the Right to Work documents for those EU nationals recruited during this period. If they arrived after 1 January 2021, they will be subject to the new immigration system and require a visa to work.

We recognise that while the EU settlement scheme will be of great use to many, there will eventually come a time when worker shortages will be an issue again. Therefore, employers may wish to consider whether they should apply for a sponsor licence because recruiting in and outside of the EU will be the same, with some advantages as mentioned above.

There are different types of sponsor licences, requirements and responsibilities for employers. If there is uncertainty around whether a licence is best, employers need to ask themselves the following questions:

Once an employer decides whether a sponsor license would be of value to the business, its best to apply for a licence sooner rather than later to ensure its available to use at the end of the year, minimise delays or disruption to workforce planning.

The changes to the UKs immigration system will herald a new era for the UK and while no business can entirely be prepared for what will happen at the end of the transition period, its important that employers do as much forward planning as possible.

Browse more recruitment and resourcing jobs

Read the original post:

Immigration and EU workers: Brexit hasn't gone away - Personnel Today

During a meeting of the EU-UK Joint Specialised Committee on citizens rights last week, the Commission agreed British people living in the EU can move to a different country to the one they are residing in for purposes including work and study.

However, according to campaigners briefed on the plans, the right to onward movement comes with limitations as people will need to prove five years of continuous residence in the bloc.

Since the UK voted to leave the EU back in 2016, Brits living in Europe have been demanding the continuation of free movement rights.

They claimed the EUs offer in the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement represents a diminution of their movement rights.

They argued their career prospects within the bloc would be jeopardised if they lost the ability to move freely when the transition period ends in December.

Fiona Godfrey, co-chair of the British in Europe campaign, said: We received good news on combining our Withdrawal Agreement status with other EU immigration statuses, which should provide some UK citizens in the EU with some further mobility rights.

We now need clarity on how those rights will be evidenced.

The Commission also confirmed 25 out of 27 EU countries will differentiate between those who have spent five years or more in the bloc and those who havent used the biometric residence cards for British nationals.

The other two countries, who were not named, are reportedly considering an alternative method of demonstrating five-year residency.

READ MORE:Post-Brexit Britain: Demand to scrap VAT on school uniforms

Under the Withdrawal Agreement, Brits with a permanent EU residence are able to leave the country and return without losing their status.

During the meeting, the UK and EU heard views from campaign groups British in Europe and The3Million which represents citizens on either side of the Channel.

Although this is a step forward for Brits in the EU, Ms Godfrey says more is needed to ensure citizens on both sides are able to exercise their rights.

She continued: We are five months away from the end of the transition yet only seven of the 27 countries have opened application procedures.

DON'T MISSBrexit will NOT make any difference in stopping Channel crossings[COMMENT]Border Force intercepts dinghy 'with 12 migrants on board'[INSIGHT]Brexit warning: Frost told EU not fazed by no deal threats[REVEAL]

A second wave of lockdowns will further delay applications.

Some [EU countries] are extending the grace period but if we go into this winter without a vaccine [for coronavirus] we may need to see it extended into 2022.

It is delusional to think that the Withdrawal Agreement can be implemented perfectly in six to 18 months in our circumstances.

Luke Piper, head of policy at The3Million, argued there needs to be more progress addressing the treatment of EU citizens in the UK after the end of the transition period.

He said: Whilst solutions were presented by the EU to address some of the concerns raised by British in Europe, there remain some fundamental differences on interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement around scope and rights.

We look forward to further contributions and frank conversations.

We trust the Specialised Committee will work in the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement and fulfilled the purpose for which it was established to resolve these and future challenges.

According to Politico, the UK Home Office has suggested an EU Settlement Scheme which goes beyond the rights of the Withdrawal Agreement.

A spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office said: We are closely monitoring member state implementation during the transition period in line with what has been agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement.

We continue to call on the EU and member states to ensure timely implementation and clear communications for UK nationals in the EU, as the UK has done for EU citizens in the UK.

More here:

Britons residing in the EU after Brexit transition ends to get extra free movement rights - Express

The UK formally left the European Union back in January after voting to leave in 2016 and negotiations are currently deadlocked with both sides unable to come to an agreement.

As the end of the transition period draws closer and closer, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has vowed to end the year with or without a trade deal in place.

As Mr Frost is set to take up a new post as National Security Advisor (NSA) in September, the chief Brexit negotiator will continue to oversee talks with the EU.

He is believed to have told colleagues he will stay on if a trade deal has not been agreed with Brussels by autumn.

Mr Frosts appointment as the NSA is believed to be a signal to the bloc that Britain will walk away if a deal is not struck over the summer.

A government source told the Sunday Telegraph: Hes said he will stay in charge of the negotiations until they have been completed.

He will take up the new post in September by plans to spend 90 percent of his time on the trade talks if thats what is needed.

When his new role was announced Mr Frost said EU talks would remain my top single priority until those negotiations have concluded, one way or another.

The next round of Brexit talks are due to resume on August 17.

READ MORE:Brexit warning: Frost told EU not fazed by no deal threats

Following the announcement of his new role, former Prime Minister Theresa May condemned the move by Mr Johnson.

She said: Why is the new national security adviser a political appointee with no proven expertise in national security?

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove defended the move by the Prime Minister and said Mr Frost was highly qualified and would be accountable to Mr Johnson.

Mr Gove said the negotiator would neither be a civil servant nor a special adviser but have the status of an envoy.

DON'T MISSBrexit Britain and EU told they CAN break deadlockbut theres a catch[INSIGHT]Brexit: Boris warned conceding to EU would be 'catastrophic weakness'[COMMENT]EU snub: How fisheries have more than just monetary value to Britons[REVEAL]

Mr Johnson called Mr Frost as experienced diplomat, policy thinker and proven negotiator, with a strong belief in building Britains place in the world.

He added: In his new role I am confident he will make an equal difference to this countrys ability to project influence for the better.

As well as his new role, Mr Frost was also given a peerage by Mr Johnson after he was one of his key advisers as foreign secretary.

The deadline for negotiations has been pushed back to October following the ongoing coronavirus pandemic but there is no sign of an agreement yet.

One of the main disputes in the negotiations is fishing as the EU wants to maintain its rights to Britain's fishing waters.

Under the controversial Commons Fisheries Policy (CFP), all member states are given access to EU waters via quotas.

As the UK has a large coastal area, critics have often argued the system is unfair.

Back in June, the EUs chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier suggested the UK would be treated as an independent coastal state.

According to reports at the time, Mr Barnier told other diplomats a compromise would have to wait until other parts of the trade deal were being finalised.

EU sources said the Frenchman is looking for a whole trade deal which relies heavily on fishing rights.

See the article here:

David Frost will remain committed to crunch Brexit talksdespite new role in September - Daily Express

The UK Internal Market white paper would see Westminster define how the devolved nations would interact with it post-Brexit.

The UK governments plans for interacting with the devolved nations post-Brexit is a power grab, said Plaid Cymru. The Party of Wales has responded on Monday to the Westminster Governments consultation on the UK internal market.

The response called the proposed legislation an encroachment over devolved powers and raised concerns with the actual process of consultation on the proposals.

The UK Internal Market white paper, presented in the House of Commons in July, would see Westminster define how the devolved nations would interact with it post-Brexit. Some of the proposals contained were described by Plaid Cymru as a power grab.

One example given in the consultation response is building regulations, which have diverged significantly in Wales since devolution in 2011. However the white paper claims that divergent approaches to building regulations could be a barrier to design and plan projects across the UK.

Devolved administrations shouldnt be forced to accept goods produced according to lower standards in other parts of the UK, continues the response. This would be the case under the governments non-discrimination and mutual recognition proposal, it added.

The inclusion of building regulations in the proposed legislation contradicts the governments claim that pre-existing differences would be excluded and is a clear example of how the proposals will undermine the current devolution settlement, it concludes.

The party said that a sham four- week- consultation is not a proportionate amount of time and that suggested the Government sees its proposal as a fait accompli. It further criticised the fact that the consultation and white paper were not jointly put forward by Westminster and the devolved administrations.

In addition it called for key decisions related to the internal market to be be subject to approval by the devolved parliaments.

Speaking on behalf of the party, Liz Saville Roberts MP said said that Westminster has been chipping away at two decades of devolution.

She added: Four weeks and a series of loaded questions over the summer whilst Parliament isnt sitting is all this Westminster Government has given people in terms of a consultation on a fundamental shift in the constitution of the UK.

It is as if the Westminster Government cannot even hide its contempt for devolution. This is a power grab, plain and simple.

Sophia Dourou is a freelance journalist

As youre here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But theres a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the rights hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

Were not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isnt free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as 1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, were so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

Go here to read the rest:

'Sham' consultation slammed amid fears of post Brexit power grab - Left Foot Forward

A company is in line to save 73m from a post-Brexit trade shake-up, after campaigning to leave the EU and donating money to the Conservatives.

Tate & Lyle Sugars has secured a sweet deal that will also see cane imported from countries with lower employment and environmental standards, Greenpeace alleged, following an investigation.

It looks like the government has granted them their wish, said Sam Lowe, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform think-tank, on the new arrangements.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

But the firm said it was a complete fantasy that it wanted to import cheap, poorly produced sugar, under a shake-up at the end of the year, and defended its lobbying.

Gerald Mason, its senior vice president, told The Observer: Weve never hidden our issues with Europe. Weve been quite transparent about it.

The controversy comes after the government said companies will be able to import 260,000 tonnes of raw sugar cane from anywhere in the world, tariff-free, from January.

However, the only company that currently imports raw sugar cane is Tate & Lyle one of the few large employers that publicly backed Brexit.

Its name was also carried on the lanyards worn by everyone who attended the 2017 Tory conference, a sponsorship is recorded as an 8,000 donation by the Electoral Commission.

The new tariff-free quota equates to a 72.8m saving, according to analysis by Greenpeaces Unearthed investigations team.

A referendum is held on Britain's membership of the European Union. Fifty-two per cent of the country votes in favour of leaving

AFP via Getty

David Cameron resigns on the morning of the result after leading the campaign for Britain to remain in the EU

Getty

Theresa May becomes leader of the Conservative party and prime minister, winning the leadership contest unopposed after Andrea Leadsom drops out

Getty

The High Court rules that parliament must vote on triggering Article 50, which would begin the Brexit process

The prime minister triggers Article 50 after parliament endorses the result of the referendum

Getty

Seeking a mandate for her Brexit plan, May goes to the country

Getty

After a disastrous campaign, Theresa May loses her majority in the commons and turns to the DUP for support. Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party makes gains after being predicted to lose heavily

AFP/Getty

David Davis and Michel Barnier, chief negotiators for the UK and EU respectively, hold a press conference on the first day of Brexit negotiations. Soon after the beginning of negotiations, it becomes clear that the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will prove a major sticking point

AFP/Getty

The government suffers a defeat in parliament over the EU withdrawal agreement, guaranteeing that MPs are given a 'meaningful vote' on the deal

Following a summit at Chequers where the prime minister claimed to have gained cabinet support for her deal, Boris Johnson resigns as foreign secretary along with David Davis, the Brexit secretary

Reuters

The draft withdrawal agreement settles Britain's divorce bill, secures the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa and includes a political declaration commiting both parties to frictionless trade in goods and cooperation on security matters. The deal also includes the backstop, which is anathema to many brexiteers and Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resign from the cabinet in protest

Getty

After several failed attempts to pass her withdrawal agreement through the commons, Theresa May resigns

Reuters

Boris Johnson is elected leader of the Conservative party in a landslide victory. He later heads to Buckingham Palace where the Queen invites him to form a government

Getty

Boris Johnson prorogues parliament for five weeks in the lead up to the UK's agreed departure date of 31 October.

Stephen Morgan MP

The High Court rules that Johnson's prorogation of parliament is 'unlawful' after a legal challenge brought by businesswoman Gina Miller

Getty

Following a summit in Merseyside, Johnson agrees a compromise to the backstop with Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar - making the withdrawal agreement more palatable to Brexiteers

Getty

As parliament passes the Letwin amendment requiring the prime minister to request a further delay to Brexit, protesters take to the streets in the final show of force for a Final Say referendum

Getty

The Conservatives win the December election in a landslide, granting Boris Johnson a large majority to pass through his brexit deal and pursue his domestic agenda

Getty

The withdrawal agreement passes through the commons with a majority of 124

Getty

Members of the European parliament overwhelmingly back the ratification of Britain's departure, clearing the way for Brexit two days later on 31 January. Following the vote, members join hands and sing Auld Lang Syne

AFP/Getty

A referendum is held on Britain's membership of the European Union. Fifty-two per cent of the country votes in favour of leaving

AFP via Getty

David Cameron resigns on the morning of the result after leading the campaign for Britain to remain in the EU

Getty

Theresa May becomes leader of the Conservative party and prime minister, winning the leadership contest unopposed after Andrea Leadsom drops out

Getty

The High Court rules that parliament must vote on triggering Article 50, which would begin the Brexit process

The prime minister triggers Article 50 after parliament endorses the result of the referendum

Getty

Seeking a mandate for her Brexit plan, May goes to the country

Getty

After a disastrous campaign, Theresa May loses her majority in the commons and turns to the DUP for support. Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party makes gains after being predicted to lose heavily

AFP/Getty

David Davis and Michel Barnier, chief negotiators for the UK and EU respectively, hold a press conference on the first day of Brexit negotiations. Soon after the beginning of negotiations, it becomes clear that the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will prove a major sticking point

AFP/Getty

The government suffers a defeat in parliament over the EU withdrawal agreement, guaranteeing that MPs are given a 'meaningful vote' on the deal

Following a summit at Chequers where the prime minister claimed to have gained cabinet support for her deal, Boris Johnson resigns as foreign secretary along with David Davis, the Brexit secretary

Reuters

The draft withdrawal agreement settles Britain's divorce bill, secures the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa and includes a political declaration commiting both parties to frictionless trade in goods and cooperation on security matters. The deal also includes the backstop, which is anathema to many brexiteers and Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resign from the cabinet in protest

Getty

After several failed attempts to pass her withdrawal agreement through the commons, Theresa May resigns

Reuters

Boris Johnson is elected leader of the Conservative party in a landslide victory. He later heads to Buckingham Palace where the Queen invites him to form a government

Getty

Boris Johnson prorogues parliament for five weeks in the lead up to the UK's agreed departure date of 31 October.

Stephen Morgan MP

The High Court rules that Johnson's prorogation of parliament is 'unlawful' after a legal challenge brought by businesswoman Gina Miller

Getty

Following a summit in Merseyside, Johnson agrees a compromise to the backstop with Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar - making the withdrawal agreement more palatable to Brexiteers

Getty

As parliament passes the Letwin amendment requiring the prime minister to request a further delay to Brexit, protesters take to the streets in the final show of force for a Final Say referendum

Getty

The Conservatives win the December election in a landslide, granting Boris Johnson a large majority to pass through his brexit deal and pursue his domestic agenda

Getty

The withdrawal agreement passes through the commons with a majority of 124

Getty

Members of the European parliament overwhelmingly back the ratification of Britain's departure, clearing the way for Brexit two days later on 31 January. Following the vote, members join hands and sing Auld Lang Syne

AFP/Getty

It is being introduced after a long and public lobbying campaign by the company. Greenpeace said Tate & Lyle had held at least 10 meetings with senior ministers over the last three years.

The latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox

The Brexit fight split the UKs sugar industry, because the companys main rival, British Sugar, makes its product from beets produced by British farmers and has attacked the changes.

This is a sweet deal for a food giant with close ties to the Conservative Party and easy access to ministers, but its a bitter one for our environmental standards and farmers, said John Sauven, Greenpeaces executive director.

Ditching tariffs on raw cane sugar will boost imports from a handful of countries, all of which use pesticides banned in the UK for being harmful to wildlife and humans.

But Mr Mason said: In Australia and Brazil, which are two countries wed love to buy more from, they have the highest numbers of sugar producers who are certified for the highest ethical environmental standards in the world.

He defended Tate & Lyles links with the Tories, saying: Yes, we have ministers visit the refinery to talk about the issues.

We have Labour Party politicians, we have Lib Dem politicians. Anybody who can help us secure the future of our business in the UK, we will speak to very openly and transparently.

A Department for International Trade spokesperson said: The UK global tariff schedule is tailored to the UK economy and designed to back British businesses, ensuring they compete on fair terms with the rest of the world.

More:

Tate & Lyle: Brexit-backing firm that donated to Tories set to save 73m from trade change - The Independent

A Conservative donor that was one of the only large UK businesses publicly to back leaving the European Union will get a tariff break worth up to 73m next year in one of the governments first post-Brexit trade reforms, an Unearthed investigation has found.

Tate & Lyle Sugars (T&L) stands to be the sole beneficiary of a government decision to allow tariff-free imports of up to 260,000 tonnes of raw cane sugar next year, when the UKs post-Brexit transition arrangements with the EU come to an end.

The US-owned companys refinery in Silvertown, East London, is the countrys only importer of raw cane sugar the UKs other sugar producers use sugarbeet, grown domestically or in the EU.

The government move has provoked fury from British farmers, who say it is offshoring legitimate environmental concerns by forcing them to compete with sugarcane grown to lower environmental standards than the UKs.

T&L aims to increase imports from major cane producers like Brazil and Australia, which allow intensive use of hazardous and bee-killing pesticides that are banned in the UK. Brazil last year cancelled a 10-year-old ban on sugarcane growing in the Amazon rainforest.

The trade reform comes after years of aggressive campaigning by T&L for a Brexit that removes import tariffs on sugarcane.

Ministers need to come clean on what lobbying tookplace prior to this decision

Unearthed found the company met with government ministers to discuss trade policy and Brexit at least 10 times between 2017 and mid-2019, and sponsored the lanyards at the 2017 Conservative Party conference. That sponsorship was recorded by the Electoral Commission as a donation of 8,287.

Labour shadow environment secretary Luke Pollard said the government had serious questions to answer about the zero tariff quota.

Not onlyisthe government refusing to protect British farmers from being undercut by cheap imports,it isnow striking sweetheart deals with Tory donors in big business, he said.

Tate & Lylesconnections intothe Conservative Party run deep. Ministers need to come clean on what lobbying tookplace prior to this decision.

But Tate & Lyle Sugars senior vice president Gerald Mason said the company had been quite transparent about its issues with the EU.

Yes, we have ministers visit the refinery to talk about the issues, he told the Observer newspaper. We have Labour Party politicians, we have Lib Dem politicians. Anybody that can help us secure the future of our business in the UK, we will speak to very openly and transparently.

The Department for International Trade was approached for comment, but had not responded by time of publication.

Golden Opportunity

T&L has always seen Brexit as a golden opportunity to get rid of what it considers discriminatory tariffs imposed on sugarcane by the EU. This led it to become one of the only significant UK employers to back a hard Brexit, leaving even the EU customs union.

But T&Ls Gerald Mason said it was just wrong to see the new tariff-free allowance as Tate & Lyles quota.

Anybody can import [raw cane sugar], he continued. Anybody can refine it if they want to get into the industry.

Its not us that are going to get any money from this. Its our competitors that have been subsidised by the EU all these years. What it will do is allow us to buy from some extra countries that we cant buy from today. It is not a cash subsidy. We would never buy from suppliers where we have to pay the full tariff, because its uneconomic.

Under the UK Global Tariff that comes into force next year, imports of raw cane sugar outside the tariff-free quota would cost T&L 28 per 100kg, a similar rate to the 33.90 tariff currently in force under EU rules. This means if the company makes full use of next years 260,000 tonne quota it will save 72.8m on the standard rate. According to the Grocer magazine, T&L imported 447,000 tonnes of raw cane sugar in 2018-19.

T&L can and does already import some raw cane sugar tariff-free under EU rules, but this has to come from low-income countries like Mauritius and Belize that have higher production costs than Brazil or Australia. It can also import some raw cane sugar from Brazil under an EU quota for the country that gives a discount on the full tariff.

T&L says the EUs tariff restrictions on its imports from the biggest producers have resulted in its business running at a loss.

Go here to read the rest:

Brexit-backing sugar refiner gets sweetheart deal on cane imports - Unearthed

While Labour dithered and argued with itself, Boris spoke for the 52 per cent who wanted to leave the European Union. The Referendum, of course, was back in 2016 and there were two key reasons for the popular vote favouring departure.

Firstly, politicians promised to address the issue of immigration, which had vexed too many people for too many years. Secondly, Boris promised 350 million for the NHS, which seemed to get the vote across the line.

It will be a generation before Britain contemplates Europe again. For now, politicians must resolve the messiest of divorces as we head towards a cliff edge with a crash out on World Trade terms possible.

Covid-19 has changed the world and though we are legally bound to depart, its reasonable to ask ourselves whether it will leave us better off or whether it will be an act of economic, social and cultural self-harm. If the 2016 vote were to be rerun today, the polls show it would be very close.

Covid-19 has taught us the value of having friends in neighbouring countries as international co-operation has brought about the best results in fighting the pandemic, so leaving the EU with relationships intact is important.

While Europe is flawed, it remains a formidable trading block and we shall be on the outside looking in, rather than influencing policy. The idea that doing trade deals is easy is incorrect and there are considerable concerns about our trade deal with the USA, particularly if Mr Trump is re-elected in November and eyes up the NHS.

Europe has slipped from a news agenda that has been dominated by one story since February: Covid-19.

The Government must work more quickly to prepare. People did not vote for job losses and lower living standards, though many fear just that. Plotting a course for the UK after leaving the EU was always going to be a challenge.

The onset of coronavirus has made that challenge a lot more difficult.

Go here to see the original:

Express & Star comment: Covid adding further issues around Brexit - expressandstar.com

Michael McGough now admits that people are going to lose their jobs: Some weak businesses will close post virus, Brexit or no Brexit (Stop the scare stories, Opinion, July 30).

We all know that more will close in the case of a no-deal Brexit.

It will not be the fault of the employees of these businesses.

It may not be the fault of the people running the businesses if they fail due to the change in the economic environment.

This neo-Darwinian concept, survival of the fittest, takes no account of human suffering.

Darwin recognised changes which took multi-generations to happen. A company can close overnight but it will take years to establish a new one.

In the meantime countless people will be out of work, trying to exist - you cant call it living - on universal benefit.

It will be little consolation to them that the tax, which they no longer have to pay because their incomes are so low, is not going to a body which has fashioned our economy for forty years.

Chris Sumner

By email

Read more from the original source:

Letter: Brexit will close businesses and put people out of work - East London and West Essex Guardian Series

Law360, London (August 10, 2020, 5:42 PM BST) -- A London judge has cleared English insurer Rothesay to transfer 114 million ($149 million) worth of insurance policies to an Irish insurer to ensure the plans are administered after the U.K.'s transition out of the European Union becomes finalized.

High Court Judge Richard Snowden signed off on Rothesay Life PLC's plans to shift 400 life insurance policies, or annuities, to the Dublin-based Monument Insurance DAC under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Rothesay and Monument signed the agreement in 2019 over concerns the English insurer would no longer be able to manage the plans after Brexit. The U.K. left the...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Read the rest here:

Rothesay Cleared To Shift EU Policies To Dublin After Brexit - Law360

Just before the EU referendum in 2016, the American political scientist Andrew Moravcsik wrote in the Financial Times that Brexit should be seen as a kabuki drama stylised but meaningless posturing. Four years on, it is clear that nothing could be further from the truth. Even if the UK does manage to strike a deal with the EU, relations between the two have been fundamentally altered.

The Withdrawal Agreement, signed off and ratified earlier this year, settled the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, as well as the UKs financial liabilities the Brexit bill. A protocol on Northern Ireland was also agreed. So that a hard border with the South can be avoided, Northern Ireland will continue to follow some single-market rules. This implicitly means putting in place what Boris Johnson had categorically ruled out: border checks. We can do a deal without checks on the Irish border, he declared a year ago. The government has since acknowledged that there will be minimal checks.

Northern Ireland aside, there is no agreement on any aspect of the future relationship. The prelude to the latest round of Brexit talks was Johnsons call for the injection of a bit of ooomph. Both sides supposedly geared up for an intensification of negotiations. But when the talks concluded on 23 July not much had changed: Michel Barnier, the EUs chief negotiator, said the two sides were still far away from an agreement; his UK counterpart, David Frost, admitted there were considerable gaps. Barniers gloomy forecast was that a trade deal was now unlikely.

Barnier hasnt sounded positive about any of the negotiations he has been involved in since the referendum. The two sides talk past each other, and make accusations of bad faith. The EU claims the UK has reneged on its commitments, in particular to the level playing field agreed standards on environmental protection, workers rights, taxation and state aid that was in the Political Declaration made at the same time as the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK government, meanwhile, makes clear its irritation at the EUs refusal to give the UK the sort of deal it has supposedly signed with other countries.

These claims are a mixture of fact and fiction. The Political Declaration was supposed to provide a model for the future relationship, but since then there has been a general election and the UK has a new government, which is entitled to a different view on the issue. The EU might respond that it was Johnson who signed the declaration; certainly his cavalier attitude to it hasnt made him seem any more trustworthy. Whats more, the notion that the government is merely asking for what other countries have been granted is misleading. Not least, it ignores the claims to special treatment that London is making. Unsurprisingly, the EUs trade deal with Canada had different priorities and didnt devote any space at all to, say, road haulage.

Behind the rhetoric, real sticking points and differences of principle remain. The EU at first seemed to expect to retain its current level of access to British fishing waters and was keen to avoid an annual discussion about quotas of the sort it has with countries like Norway. It now appears to be emphasising the need for a sustainable and long-term solution, and shows signs of accepting that this will mean less access for its boats. Barnier, though, complained on 23 July that Britain hadnt made any compromises and was still demanding the near total exclusion of European boats.

The level playing field is another major problem. It is not, as some in the UK have claimed, a last-minute trap sprung on London by Brussels. It has always been one of the EUs conditions. It is a demand rooted in self-interest: a large competitor economy on its doorstep represents a challenge. If the UK were given access to the EU market, it might succeed in undercutting EU firms. This is why Brussels is insisting on guarantees regarding UK regulatory standards; its also the reason it is insisting on stricter rules than it felt necessary to enforce with smaller and more distant trading partners such as Canada. But, as David Frost made clear in a speech in Brussels earlier this year:

It is central to our vision that we must have the ability to set laws that suit us So to think that we might accept EU supervision on so-called level playing field issues simply fails to see the point of what we are doing. That isnt a simple negotiating position which might move under pressure it is the point of the whole project.

The Political Declaration stipulated the need for robust commitments to ensure a level playing field in order to prevent distortions of trade. The EUs negotiating mandate states that any agreement should uphold common high standards, and corresponding high standards over time. This isnt incompatible with Frosts position. Both sides could agree to a non-regression clause, committing them to maintaining the standards they currently share, without any need to introduce a role for EU law or worse still from Londons perspective for the EUs Court of Justice. Another possibility is an agreement that allows unilateral sanctions if one side diverges on standards.

State aid a countrys provision of financial help to domestic companies or organisations, which potentially distorts competition and trade within the EU is the most intractable sticking point. In part, this is because the EU takes a hard line on the issue. Its opening position is that any agreement should ensure the application of Union state aid rules to and in the United Kingdom. Given that, as far as the UK government is concerned, the purpose of Brexit is to prevent the application of EU rules to the UK, it isnt hard to see the problem. Barnier has signalled some flexibility on this in recent weeks: We need, he said, to work together to come up with the appropriate toolbox to ensure fair, sustainable competition. But the Johnson government hasnt yet indicated what compromises it may be willing to make, or what its new competition policy might look like. For many supporters of Brexit, taking power back from Brussels wasnt supposed to be an end in itself, but a means to the end of rolling back the regulations imposed on the UK by Brussels. Indeed, one reason the EU has been so keen to tie the UK to level playing field conditions, and is so reluctant to believe the UKs repeated assurances that it has no intention of cutting regulatory standards, is that Brexiters have spent thirty years insisting that deregulation was the prize to be gained from leaving.

There is an additional complication here. Both Article 10 and Annex 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol make it clear that EU state aid rules will apply to the UK where trade in goods between Northern Ireland and the EU is concerned. This means that any UK-wide tax incentive provided to businesses would be subject to scrutiny by the European Commission. EU competition law will therefore continue to have some effect on the UK as a whole whatever is negotiated in the future relationship.

Despite all this, it would be unwise to bet against a deal being reached, for the simple reason that both sides want one. The EU wont sign a deal at any price, but the Commission and the member states would very much prefer even a limited agreement to no trade deal, if only to limit the scale of economic disruption. For the UK, the argument in favour of a deal is even stronger. Politically, there is more to be gained from signing a deal than from not signing one. Think back to last year. Johnson was hailed as a hero for as his cheerleaders would have it defying the odds and negotiating a new withdrawal agreement. In fact, he had done nothing of the sort: he signed up to terms that both he and Theresa May had previously rejected as unacceptable. In fact, because it removed the all-UK backstop that May negotiated, which was unpopular with many member states because it gave the whole of the UK access to the EU market without a commitment to abide by all its rules, Johnsons deal was actually more popular in Brussels.

Despite this, the simple fact of his having come up with a new agreement contributed significantly to the success of an election campaign centred on Johnsons ability to get Brexit done. So much of the current debate concerns the dangers of the failure to reach a trade deal that securing any agreement at all will again be seen as a triumph. This is just as well for Johnson. Given the time constraints and the current positions of both sides, its hard to imagine that any agreement will amount to more than a thin free-trade agreement encompassing tariffs and quotas for goods. Any deal likely to be secured by the end of October (the deadline set by Barnier to give the EU and the member states time to ratify it) would exclude a number of areas of current co-operation. The EU provides the framework for cross-national collaboration on issues from foreign policy to defence to operations dealing with terrorism and organised crime. It is hard to see agreement being reached on all of them in the time remaining. Continued discussion will be necessary either bilaterally with key member states (defence collaboration with France, for example), or with the EU well after the end of formal negotiations. If talks were to break down in the autumn, trade would revert to WTO terms, leading to disruptions at borders, higher prices, and possibly shortages. In these circumstances, it is hard to imagine how anything approaching constructive dialogue could take place.

Either a thin trade deal or no deal at all would have significant repercussions for the domestic economy. Any deal that involves the removal of tariffs and quotas will ease trade in goods. But it will not, even for manufacturers, mean a continuation of the status quo. EU rules of origin were described as amounting to a hidden hard Brexit in a recent report for the Food and Drink Federation and the National Association of British and Irish Flour Millers. The report notes that UK and EU food and drink manufacturers may find that the products they make with imported commodities for the current EU/UK market will not meet origin requirements for preferential trade between the two. They give as an example such ingredients as tropical fruits, which currently have no bearing on a products right to be traded freely between the EU and the UK, and French wheat used in a UK biscuit. Rules of origin will certainly complicate trade with the EU and, along with checks to ensure conformity with EU standards, will impede the free flow of trade across the UK-EU border.

These border checks will also mean that the just in time supply chains used by the car industry, for example, will no longer be practicable. Honda has estimated that a 15-minute delay at the border will add around 850,000 to its annual costs. HMRC estimates that customs declarations will cost businesses around 15 billion a year, while fulfilling rules of origin requirements will add another 5.5-6 billion. On top of this are the costs associated with ensuring compliance with EU standards costs in terms of the delays imposed by checks and the need to seek EU as well as national approval. The UK will no longer, for instance, be able to grant type-approval for cars confirming that they reach specified performance standards intended for the EU market.

Thats just for goods. Services make up 80 per cent of the British economy and 40 per cent of the UKs services exports go to the EU. Here, the impact looks likely to be even greater. To facilitate trade in services, governments generally have to agree to align their domestic regulations: passporting allows British financial services firms to operate across the Continent. Mutual recognition of qualifications means a British architect can get a job in Lisbon as easily as in Liverpool. Freedom of movement allows firms to send their staff to work in other member states. All these arrangements will come to an end on 31 December. As Frost intimated, regulatory alignment is anathema to a government that sees regulatory independence as a principal reason for leaving the EU. Ending freedom of movement was one of the central demands of the Leave campaign. The EU, meanwhile, has made it clear that it sees no reason to allow the UK to keep the bits of the existing system it finds useful such as the mutual recognition of qualifications while opting out of others. Documents recently published by the European Commission outlining preparations for Brexit make it clear that while Brussels will continue to allow the City of London access to European customers where there are possible risks to financial stability, its aim is that such business will sooner or later be based within the Union.

The modelling done by my institute, UK in a Changing Europe, estimates that the negative impact over ten years of the kind of deal currently being negotiated would be of the order of 6.4 per cent of GDP. This is in contrast to 4.9 per cent for Mays deal and 8.1 per cent for no deal. Our most optimistic scenario suggests that a Brexit deal will leave the public finances 16 billion worse off (49 billion in our most pessimistic scenario, about the same size as the budget for the Ministry of Defence, and more than twice the long-term increase in funding for the NHS announced in 2018).

The pandemic itself will of course have an enormous impact on the economy. And there are some who see an opportunity here. The scale of the problems caused by Covid-19 might help disguise the impact of Brexit. With supply chains already badly affected, a steep rise in unemployment widely expected, and the focus being on restarting the economy as quickly as possible, there couldnt be a better opportunity to mask the disruption caused by the end of the transition period. It may indeed make sense to bundle the private sector adaptations needed to cope with the pandemic together with those required to adjust to a new form of trade with the EU. Yet its something of a gamble. For one thing, Brexit will affect the economy differently from the way the virus has affected it. The retail and hospitality sectors have suffered the brunt of the impact of the virus, but sectors such as the pharmaceutical industry are the ones that stand to be worst hit by Brexit. Although some areas of economic activity, such as food supply chains, weathered Covid-19 impressively after early problems, the border checks imposed by Brexit may well achieve what the pandemic could not, and cause disruptions to supply.

Economic policy will be the single greatest concern of both the government and the electorate for some time to come, but Conservative MPs are far from united on the appropriate response. The new chancellor, Rishi Sunak, claims to be unencumbered by dogma, but his predecessor, Sajid Javid, has admitted being concerned about the level of national debt; and Andrea Leadsom, until recently Johnsons secretary for business, energy and industrial strategy, says that current levels of government spending make her uneasy. While the voters who propelled Johnson to power last December were mostly socially conservative Leavers, they werent in agreement about economic policy. Of the voters many of them in red wall seats who switched in 2019 from Labour to the Tories, 84 per cent believe there is one law for the rich, another for the poor, compared to 22 per cent of Tory Party members and 5 per cent of Conservative MPs. Asked whether management will take advantage of workers, 78 per cent of Labour to Tory switchers agreed; the figure for Conservative MPs was again 5 per cent.

Expectations in those new Conservative seats have been raised by Johnsons rhetoric about levelling up the country. Even if this ambition is sincere, its hard to see him making any progress with it. For one thing, Covid-19 will have an unevenly distributed impact on the economy. The parts of the country worst hit by post-pandemic job losses are likely to be in precisely those left behind areas with lots of low-skilled jobs in retail and manufacturing. And then theres Brexit. Here too there is likely to be a significant correlation between the scale of the economic impact on regions and their relative wealth. Some forecasts suggest that Leave-voting areas will be the worst affected by Brexit because their economies are disproportionately dependent on trade with the EU. Meanwhile, support for Scottish independence is up to 55 per cent. It may yet turn out that this is the consequence of Brexit that consumes the largest amount of the governments time over the next few years.

Follow this link:

Anand Menon In case you'd forgotten: Will there be a Brexit deal? LRB 13 August 2020 - London Review of Books

A few weeks prior to the Scottish independence referendum in September 2014, I travelled on a train from Glasgow to London, with a Sri Lankan colleague.

Shortly into the journey, we overheard a lively argument coming from the table opposite, on whether Scotland should remain as part of the UK or not?

My colleague looked at me and stated if such a debate had taken place on public transport in Colombo or Kandy heads would have been cut off.

Six years ago, not a single shot was fired in anger when Scots decided against becoming an independent nation. The turnout was a record 84.6%. A generation of young people were politically engaged as 16 and 17-year-olds were also allowed to vote. The Scottish independence referendum was a festival of politics compared with the horror show of Brexit.

Although there was no civil unrest, it would be foolish to downplay the tension caused by giving the public the opportunity to answer - should Scotland be an independent country? This specific question had led to disagreements between friends, families, work colleagues, which to this day have not completely healed.

Interested observers around the world would have looked on with either astonishment or admiration that the UK Government, through the Edinburgh Agreement gave the Scottish Government the necessary powers for a legally binding referendum to take place.

Imagine the Indian or Spanish Governments following a similar example and agreeing for ballots to take place in Kashmir or Catalonia. Hell would have to freeze over before that happens.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) has been in power since 2007 and Brexit has given the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, added justification to push for a second referendum.

Although the decision to leave the EU was a UK whole vote, Scotland backed Remain by 62%. However Prime Minister Boris Johnson is adamant that he will not give the necessary authority for one to take place?Recent polls show that the majority of Scots favour independence.

How will a second Scottish independence referendum fare? Will it be a carnival of political engagement again or will it be divisive and toxic as Brexit?

Police Scotland has expressed great concern that any future independence debate could be hijacked by bigots.Moreover whilst immigration dominated the Brexit vote, such a subject was on the periphery during the Scottish referendum. However, there are some signs that such a topic could become more prominent if and when Scotland decides its future again.

The killing of George Floyd in the US placed the spotlight again on Sheku Bayoh who died in police custody in Scotland. According to his family racism was a factor in his death.

On two separate occasions in June this year riot police converged on to Glasgows George Square to separate Black Lives Matters activists and those welcoming refugees from members of the National Defence League who claimed to be defending statues. Nicola Sturgeon strongly condemned racist thugs and described the scenes from the heart of the countrys largest city as disgraceful.

Speaking at the Scottish Parliament the Justice Minister Humza Yousaf and Labours Anas Sarwar provoked a wider debate about the lack of ethnic minority representation in Scottish society. Both were at the receiving end of vitriolic online abuse.

The debate on immigration or race is not restricted to minority communities or EU nationals. Last month Nicola Sturgeon stated that the Scottish Government could close the border between England and Scotland to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Videos emerged online of a small group of pro-independence supporters, protesting close to the border, waving Scottish flags and displaying banners, reading keep Scotland Covid Free and England out of Scotland. On another video a protestor was telling visitors to stay the f**k away.

Opposition politicians described such scenes as disgraceful and ones that would damage the Scottish tourist industry. Others claimed that protestors were inspired by comments made by SNP politicians.

On social media Humza Yousaf wrote: If you are a racist you are no friend of mine and no part of the [independence] movement I belong to. Horrible, reprehensible and vile. Luckily these morons dont represent the Scotland I know and love.

More recently a former founding member of a grassroots independence group, All Under One Banner, claimed the movement had been damaged by anti-English racists.

Whichever side wins, should a second vote take place, is likely to find the country more divided with the prospect of unifying its people a very difficult proposition.

Read more from the original source:

Scottish independence: Is it becoming as divisive and toxic as Brexit? - Asian Image

Brexit - a trading impasse looms

Quietly, relentlessly, the UK appears to be being shepherded into crashing out of the European Union with no trading deal in place at the end of the year.

While the consequences of this process are still being largely successfully shielded from the general public, the business community cant afford to postpone the crucial decisions which need to be made - and whether there is a deal or not, these will still include tariffs, taxes and licenses, says Access to Export.

The Linton-based advisory company has prepared a Brexit International Trade Preparation Checklist for the Cambridgeshire Chambers of Commerce - and the terrible waste of time that Brexit has involved is laid bare in all its gory detail.

Even with a good deal in the EU-UK negotiations, Access to Export warns UK businesses will be paying tariffs to export and import goods both at the send stage and the receive stage from January 1.

Every companys situation will be different, says Access to Export managing director Chris Willers, so we have used our wealth of hands-on worldwide international trade experience to put together this comprehensive international trade checklist.

The checklist includes a series of questions that every trader should ask themselves. Each trader needs to be able to answer each question to ensure they are properly prepared for trade with the EU from January 1 onwards.

Access to Export was founded in 1999 and has an office in Linton and another in Southampton. The report took two weeks to compile, says managing director Chris Willers.

The Brexit International Trade Preparation Checklist summarises and crystallises a lot of the information being published by the government.

The report confirms that every single order will require contract-specific negotiations between the buyer and seller including on freight, insurance, customs export declarations, customs clearance responsibilities, payment and licenses.

The facts include:

- Goods will be subject to customs procedures

- Exports will be subject to duty and taxes at destination

- Import/export documentation will be required

- Import VAT will be payable

- Import tariffs may apply if there is no trade deal

From an international trading viewpoint it all depends on the outcome of trade negotiations between the EU and the UK government, says Chris. The UK government is trying to achieve a free trade agreement so goods can move as they did which means no incoming taxes but goods will still have to go through customs.

Are there any benefits to trading with the EU without being in the EU?

From an international trading perspective there arent really any trading advantages to Brexit, says Chris. We might manage to maintain the status quo in terms of having no import or export taxes, but what there will be is that goods entering or leaving the UK will have to go through a customs process where they dont at the moment.

Everyone is worried about a second wave at the moment, says Chambers chief executive John Bridge, but that might not be Covid-19, it might be Brexit.

Brexit is stark reality. People are beginning to understand what it means in terms of documentation. Its not just the UK there are businesses in France and Germany who are as concerned if no more so about interruptions.

Meanwhile the furlough scheme will cease at the end of October, andJohn Bridge OBE, chief executiveof the Cambridgeshire Chambers of Commerce, says it has already proved its value.

Its been really good, he says. HMRC set the scheme up quickly and the payments have been really prompt. It hasnt saved every job but its saved a lot of jobs.

On August 1, the government ceased paying 80 per cent of salary: it now pays 80 per cent of salary minus National Insurance and pension (a cut of around five per cent).

From September 1, the furlough drops off to 70 per cent of salary, with employers expected to make up the extra 10 per cent or more to qualify.

After October 1, the government pays 60 per cent of salary, also on condition that the employer tops that up to 80 per cent.

Theres a lot of people falling between stools and not getting any financial support, notes John.

The next Chambers meeting is on August 27, with the Minister for Employment, Mims Davies, as the special guest. Job challenges stemming from the pandemic and leaving the EU will be discussed. The minister will provide updates on government employment support initiatives, including Kickstart.

Registration details here.

Visit link:

Brexit checklist warns of inevitable red tape for exports and imports - Cambridge Independent

The Bank of England (BoE) has predicted that the economic downturn in the UK economy might be less severe than it thought at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

British banks also have enough capital to keep lending to businesses and absorb the huge losses likely to result from the pandemic, the BoE said.

There is also confidence regarding the impact of Brexit on the UK's financial services once the transition period expires at the end of the year.

The central bank says that in the event of no deal being reached between the UK and the EU, most risks to stability "have been mitigated". But it adds that "some disruption is possible", "further action is needed" and the full impact cannot be anticipated.

The relatively upbeat assessments come in two reports published by the bank on Thursday.

The BoE warns, however, that it could take a longer time for the economy to return to its pre-covonavirus size -- and that amid high uncertainty the banking system might struggle in the face of "severe economic outcomes".

The central bank opened the door to providing more monetary stimulus as Britain reopens after the pandemic lockdowns. Its Financial Policy Committee (FPC) warned that defensive action like scaling back on lending would be costly to both banks and the wider economy.

"It remains the FPCs judgement that banks have the capacity, and it is in the collective interest of the banking system, to continue to support businesses and households through this period," the committee said.

The BoE estimates that the economy probably shrank by 23% in the second quarter but is already recovering. Its prediction of a 9.5% overall contraction in the economy for 2020 was more optimistic than its forecast in May for a 14% drop.

However, it says the economy probably wont return to pre-pandemic levels until the end of 2021 as spending by consumers and businesses remains weak.

Committee minutes show there is concern about rising rates of unemployment, which it's feared could prove to be more persistent than expected. The jobless rate is forecast to rise to 7.5% this year, from 3.75% in 2019.

"The outlook for the UK and global economies remains unusually uncertain," the bank said in a statement. "It will depend critically on the evolution of the pandemic, measures taken to protect public health, and how governments, households and businesses respond to these."

"Weve got huge uncertainty and a very big downside risk," warned Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey.

The BoEs Monetary Policy Committee kept its benchmark interest rate at a record low of 0.1%.

Some analysts were surprised by the central banks assessments.

"The Bank of Englands overly optimistic updated economic projections leave the door wide open for more monetary stimulus later this year,'" wrote Kallum Pickering, senior economist at Berenberg bank, in a note that began with the headline "Verging on unrealistic".

"Relative to the obvious challenges ahead linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighted by the recent re-imposition of modest containment measures in major parts of the UK, the V-shaped recovery that the Bank of England continues to project seems unlikely, to put it mildly."

Here is the original post:

Bank of England cautiously upbeat on UK economy, banks and... Brexit - Euronews

Like me, you might be finding that the days are going slowly, but the months are flying by. To that end, were in August, with several risk events on the horizon through to the end of the year. Theyll impact our lives in different ways, as well as our investments. For most of us, that includes our Stocks and Shares ISA. Its the tool most of us use to house our stocks in the most tax-efficient way. With an allowance of 20,000 per year, its likely you hold most (if not all) of your stocks and shares within the ISA.

Your Stocks and Shares ISA has already survived the stock market crash in March. The risk event that caused this was the closing down of economies due to the coronavirus. With lockdown being enforced around the world, consumer spending dried up. This was compounded by a lack of social interaction and travel. With the exception of firms offering basic necessities, the pandemic negatively impacted revenue for most FTSE 100 businesses.

For most of April, the UK was registering new case numbers of at least 4,000 per day. This is now down to around 700 per day. This move lower has been well correlated with the FTSE 100 index rallying from the lows seen towards the end of the first quarter. So its logical to think that a second wave of the virus could pose a big risk for the stocks within your ISA. Yet, given that the second wave of the virus is not confirmed, I dont believe its the largest risk to my ISA for the rest of the year.

This turns me to Brexit. This is a very real risk, given that theres a hard deadline at the end of this year. The UK government have made it clear they want to get a deal done before December. As we saw at the back end of last year, the FTSE 100 is very sensitive to Brexit headlines. This is especially true when things come down to the wire.

One other risk that I think could start to come on investors radars soon is negative interest rates. Current rates stand at 0.1%, but with the economy struggling, there is a lot of chatter about taking rates below zero. This isnt unheard of; Europe has been in this situation of negative rates for several years. This could be a definite short-term risk to stocks within the ISA, as it gives the impression that the economy is really struggling. But in the longer term, this risk could turn into a positive. Firms will be able to borrow money at cheaper levels, and more people are likely to invest in stocks given the opportunity cost of holding cash.

You may disagree with me on the above risks, and the priority of them. Its very subjective! But the main takeaway from this is that you need to keep a close eye on your Stocks and Shares ISA. Not only this, but the volatility well likely see from any of the above risks materialising could present an opportunity to buy. Ive outlined one FTSE 100 bargain Id considering buying already due to the coronavirus here.

The post Coronavirus, Brexit, negative rates. Whats the biggest risk to my Stocks and Shares ISA? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.

More reading

jonathansmith1 has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.

Motley Fool UK 2020

Read the rest here:

Coronavirus, Brexit, negative rates. What's the biggest risk to my Stocks and Shares ISA? - Yahoo Finance UK

Plans to store piles of earth in a field next to the site of a post-Brexit lorry park have been described as "environmental vandalism" by angry residents.

The Department for Transport wants to put soil on land alongside its newly-acquired 27-acre plot in Ashford as it continues to work on the controversial holding area project for up to 2,000 trucks.

Bosses say they plan to keep the height of soil stockpiles to a minimum, but frustrated neighbours say storing earth in the field near Junction 10a of the M20 is not welcome.

The government sent a letter to residents on Friday explaining the Sevington works, which will see part of the hedgerow in Highfield Lane removed to create an access point.

But parish councillor Stewart Ross, who lives nearby in Kingsford Street, says bosses are "spoiling the countryside".

"It's environmental vandalism," he said.

"They are dumping it on what is effectively a virgin field - crops are growing on it at the moment but it will be no use to man or beast once they've put poor quality soil on it.

"The worry is that it is the thin end of the wedge."

Residents living in Mersham have long feared the land which separates the village from the lorry park site would be developed.

Mr Ross, who has lived in Mersham for 35 years, added: "The land is not in Ashford Borough Council's Local Plan and we want assurances from the government that the land will not be developed.

"I think there is general concern about what is going to happen because the government seems to be ploughing on without any real consultation.

"The communication has been very poor.

"You would have thought they would hold a public meeting to relay to residents what they are planning to do, but there has been nothing like that at all.

"It has all been done very stealthily."

On Saturday, the Village Alliance campaign group launched a petition calling for a green buffer zone to be created on land between Mersham and the lorry park site part of which is where the government now wants to store the topsoil.

The group is urging Ashford Borough Council (ABC) to use its strategic gap in perpetuity policy, which protects ancient settlements and countryside from encroachment.

But in the letter sent to residents on Friday, Haroona Chughtai, deputy director of the 'future EU roads relationship', said "there is no planned development" for the land, which is to the east of the lorry park.

He said: "However, you will start to see movement of vehicles and machinery over the coming months on that parcel of land starting from Wednesday in a limited capacity as the Department for Transport intends to store topsoil from the western parcel on it temporarily, limited to 12 months.

"The department is very conscious of any potential visual impact that storing a significant amount of earth and therefore our plan is to keep the height of soil stockpiles to a minimum wherever possible.

"To transport the material from west to east, the plan is to crossover at certain sections of hedgerow running down Highfield Lane.

"We are not yet in a position to do so due to ecological reasons, and so in the meantime this will be achieved by using the turning circle at the northern end of Highfield Lane through an existing access from the west field to the east."

When built, the DfT is planning "two primary uses" for the Sevington site - a temporary lorry holding area in case there is disruption at Dover and as a border control post to check truckers have the correct paperwork.

Bosses say they won't need to submit a planning application to Ashford Borough Council, but will use a Special Development Order (SDO) instead, which allows the Secretary of State to grant planning permission.

To sign the Village Alliance's green buffer zone petition, visit bit.ly/31GtkkU

Signed petition forms can be left at Mersham Village Stores, The Royal Oak or the Farriers Arms until Sunday, August 30.

If you need your form collecting, or any further information, phone 07732 382624.

Signed petitions can also be sent to thevillageallianceTVA@gmail.com

If residents have any queries about the planned works at the MOJO site, they should email RoadsEUExit@dtf.gov.uk

How is Brexit going to affect Kent? For all the latest news, views and analysis visit our dedicated page here

Read more: All the latest news from Ashford

The rest is here:

'It's environmental vandalism - they're spoiling the countryside' - Kent Online

An article in the Dutch, left-leaning newspaper Het Parool led with the headline Despite Brexit, multinationals prefer London over Amsterdam or Paris this week. The piece reports that the feared exit [of companies] from Great Britain is not happening as expected, and highlights the fact that Unilever decided to:

Reportedly, the opportunity offered by Londons capital markets trumps any risks resulting from Brexit, an element that could also play a role in Shell possibly moving its headquarters from the Netherlands to the UK.

The article goes on to point out that despite relocations by some major companies (such as Dyson, Honda and Panasonic) firms have not rushed to leave Britain. At least 1,441 companies have even recently moved to the UK, according to official statistics published in November.

Goldman Sachs has recently decided to build a new 1 billion headquarters in London and city firms are less worried about Brexit, having spent millions of pounds on precautions for any negative consequences. Before the pandemic, the IMF issued a prediction that the UK economy would outpace the eurozone for the first two years after Brexit, concluding that despite the risk of no deal, Great Britain remains a magnet for capital, even in the eye of a storm.

Notably, the article adds that:

The presence of Prime Minister Boris Johnson is reassuring, despite his actions during the pandemic that are a cause for concern. As opposed to his predecessor, Theresa May, he does get along with business. He is opposed to regulation and for free trade. Multinationals now also fear theLabour party less, since the moderate Keir Starmer was chosen as its leader.

Analyses like this demonstrate that mainland Europe is now finally coming to terms with Brexit, based on facts on the ground.

There is, however, an import caveat: it still matters what kind of trade arrangement the UK agrees with the EU before 1 January. Will the UK manage to reconcile regulatory and trade sovereignty with maintaining access to Continental markets? Will it manage to compensate the unavoidable loss of a degree of market access with competitive measures, such as the creation of freeports? We need to wait to find out.

An outstanding question in the ongoing negotiations is to what extent the EU will drop its insistence on level playing field minimum standards for UK regulations, in return for continued market access to UK businesses. A ban on state aid is part of the level playing field, but the EU has just signaled some flexibility on this.

Given the way the EU Commission often reinterprets tax breaks as state aid, this is a welcome development. A compromise could be the creation of a dispute resolution mechanism on any state aid granted to UK companies, instead of obliging London to follow EU rules straight away. This concept should perhaps also be applied to market access more generally. The UK could agree that after December, it will continue maintaining all EU rules it has taken over in domestic legislation, but pledge to notify the EU every time it intends to issue divergent regulation. This concession should of course depend on the EU granting a lot more market access than it has offered so far.

In this way, cliff edges, tariffs and economic damage could be avoided at the end of the year. Involving the EU in the British legislative process could also help inform UK lawmakers about how they can minimise the loss of market access when diverging from EU regulation. When it comes to chemicals, the UK government may simply opt to shy away from different standards for chemical products, due to the importance of the EU market. While on digital innovation, the UK may decide it isnt worth constraining British innovators with GDPR and other similar innovation-killing regulatory straitjackets, and diverge from the EU.

In July, the UK compromised by accepting an overall governance framework, rather than a patchwork of sector-by-sector deals, and the EU side moved at least according to Brexit negotiator David Frost on the role of the European Court of Justice. If the two sides manage to sort their level playing field issues, only fisheries access remains as the last big sticking point. An EU diplomat has told Reuters that fisheries won't wreck the whole thing, which is probably right, if only because the UK wouldnt be able to consume all the fish it is entitled to catch in its own waters.

With all of this out of the way, both the EU and the UK can then focus on recovering from the massive and ongoing damage inflicted by the pandemic.

Now that Europeans are finally coming around to the idea that Brexit wont be the complete disaster many of them originally predicted and that post-Brexit Britain wont be the desperately dependent and helpless island they envisioned, they should be more willing to engage in the talks.

Pieter Cleppe is a non-resident fellow of the Property Rights Alliance, based in Brussels. @pietercleppe

Originally posted here:

Europe is finally coming to terms with Brexit - Spectator.co.uk

Boris Johnson seemed to have ended the Conservative partys agonies over Brexit last year by negotiating a new withdrawal agreement with the EU, and winning the backing of every single Tory MP at least once a rump of rebellious Remainers had been purged.

The hardline Brexiteers who brought down Theresa May over fears her Brexit deal would leave the UK in Brussels orbit indefinitely, could have been expected to kick up a fuss over her successors replacement agreement. While it ditched the backstop arrangement they so hated, it was full of other provisions previously opposed by Eurosceptics, such as a hefty divorce payment.

Whats more, the new withdrawal agreement creates a border in the Irish Sea with customs and regulatory checks on goods crossing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, a provision loathed by the Democratic Unionist Party which was closely allied to the Tory Brexiteers throughout the May era.

Nonetheless, not a single member of the European Research Group voted against the deal, instead hailing Mr Johnson as a political hero for persuading the EU to revisit the original deal. During the general election campaign they took to social media to boast of the oven ready agreement, and after the Conservative victory it was duly passed into law.

Only now, six months after Britain legally left the EU, have MPs begun to kick up a fuss. Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said this week: Whilst the UK wants to have a good trade relationship with the EU as a sovereign state, the EU has different ideas. They want our money and they want to stop us being a competitor. The withdrawal agreement we signed last year sadly helps them. He pointed specifically to provisions making the UK responsible for part of the EUs loan book, which he claimed could land the Treasury with a 160bn bill.

Last month the Centre for Brexit Policy issued a report, endorsed by veteran backbenchers Bill Cash and Owen Paterson, demanding the wholesale replacement of the withdrawal agreement which it called a poison pill. The think-tank is led by John Longworth, a businessman and ex-MEP who was so enthusiastic about Mr Johnsons deal he left the Brexit Party and joined the Conservatives in order to endorse it.

The irony of senior Brexiteers turning on a deal they once enthusiastically welcomed is palpable, and has been the cause of schadenfreude for some Remainers who are still licking their wounds. But it raises the political stakes for the Prime Minister: after clashing with backbenchers over China and Covid-19, he could find it increasingly tricky to offer any concessions to Brussels in trade negotiations this year, fearing a rebellion from the same people who doomed his predecessors premiership.

View original post here:

The next Tory rebellion could be on Brexit as some MPs turn against withdrawal agreement - iNews