Category Archives: Brexit

The British government is quietly seeking access to the European Unions pandemic warning system, despite early reluctance to cooperate on health after Brexit, the Guardian has learned.

The UK is seeking something akin to membership of the EUs early warning and response system (EWRS), which has played a critical role in coordinating Europes response to the coronavirus, as well as to earlier pandemics such as bird flu. According to an EU source, this would be pretty much the same as membership of the system.

The governments enthusiasm in the privacy of the negotiating room contrasts with noncommittal public statements. Detailed negotiating objectives published in February merely stated that the UK was open to exploring cooperation between the UK and EU in other specific and narrowly defined areas where this is in the interest of both sides, for example on matters of health security.

Health was not even mentioned in the governments written statement to Parliament, aside from a reference to pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reported on 1 March that No 10 had blocked the Department of Healths request to be part of the EWRS.

A government spokesperson did not respond to a question about whether the UK was seeking a form of membership or participation in the EWRS, but referred back to the February negotiating objectives.

In private, the coronavirus, which had claimed at least 26,771 lives in the UK by Thursday, appears to have altered government thinking.

There was not much appetite from the UK at the beginning, said the EU source, referring to cooperation on health. Thats been corrected. They are keen and they are keen to be seen to be keen. Both sides want close cooperation.

However, the EU is not prepared to offer the UK full membership of the EWRS, an online platform set up in 1998 where public authorities share information about health emergencies.

Instead, EU officials propose to plug the UK into the system when a pandemic emerges, similar to arrangements for other non-EU countries.

Health security does not feature in the UK negotiating text sent in private to the EUs chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, although EU officials have received a non-paper outlining government aims on health.

In another sign of rising British interest in European cooperation, the Guardian has established that the UK attended all five of the EUs health security committee meetings on the coronavirus pandemic in April, a perfect attendance record, compared with a 70% British presence between 17 January and 30 March.

During the April meetings, officials discussed lockdown exit strategies and launching a joint procurement scheme on therapeutics in intensive care. No decision has been taken to launch this bulk-buying programme.

The Guardian first reported in March that the UK was not taking part in any of the EUs four procurement schemes, missing bulk-buying efforts on personal protective equipment for medical workers, ventilators and testing kit despite having attended relevant meetings.

Meanwhile, among NHS senior managers there is anxiety that Brexit talks risk significant elements of health being forgotten about, said Layla McCay, the international director of the NHS Confederation.

NHS organisations have been stood up and stood down and stood up again for potentially a no-deal Brexit, she said. If a quite thorough future relationship for health matters is not on track come June, then the NHS is going to have to start to prepare for specific disruption next year as a result of Brexit, and it will have to do so while also facing both winter and coronavirus challenges. It will be a significant extra ask.

British membership of the EWRS and broader EU health network strengthen our ability to respond as effectively as possible to health emergencies, McCay added.

The UK government spokesperson said: The safety and security of our citizens is a top priority. The UK is ready to discuss how our citizens can be kept safe and benefit from continued international cooperation on health security following the end of the transition period, where it is in our mutual interest.

Any such arrangements must align with the fundamental principles of respecting the UKs political and economic independence, recognition of the UK and EUs status as sovereign equals, and ensuring the UK has control over its own laws.

Read this article:

UK seeks access to EU health cooperation in light of coronavirus - The Guardian

NewsPoliticsThe UK faces the "chilling prospect" of a no-deal Brexit and a double blow to the economy because of the Government's refusal to extend the transition period, Ian Blackford has warned.

Saturday, 2nd May 2020, 12:55 pm

The SNP leader at Westminster accused the Conservative Government of behaving with the "height of irresponsibility" by not extending talks with the EU in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

But Tory MP David Duguid argued that keeping the "hardline target" would "focus efforts", despite the disruption and economic damage being caused by the global lockdown.

He also suggested that to push back the leaving date would affect any companies' plans they had devised before the coronavirus lockdown, as well as causing uncertainty for business.

With the withdrawal framework needing to be agreed by June, Mr Blackford said the country is heading towards a no-deal Brexit, describing the situation as a "very chilling prospect".

Calling for the Government to accept the EU's offer of an extension to the Brexit process, he said: "On the back of the health crisis, quite rightly we've had to take measures to protect people and that's meant that we've crashed the economy.

"Many people were talking about the UK economy shrinking by 35% as a consequence of that."I have to say to the Government it's the height of irresponsibility to then threaten this second blow to the economy if we're daft enough to go down the road of a no-deal Brexit."Speaking on BBC Good Morning Scotland, Mr Blackford suggested the Government was pushing ahead with the original Brexit deadlines so they can "blame any economic impact" on the coronavirus crisis, rather than as a result of leaving the European Union.Mr Duguid said that all Conservative MPs signed a pledge before the 2019 election that the UK would leave the UK no later than December 2020 and said not doing so would hinder our ability to negotiate new trade deals.While acknowledging the coronavirus will have a "huge effect on the economy", the Banff and Buchan MP suggested that would be made worse by "kicking the can down the road" and extending the negotiations with the EU."We need to keep that hardline target, that deadline, which will focus efforts," Mr Duguid said.

Read the original here:

SNP warn of 'chilling prospect' of no-deal Brexit as UK Gov won't extend talks - The Scotsman

The U.K. argues it isnt prepared to consent to demands the EU hasnt made of other countries -- including measures to stop U.K. businesses undercutting their European rivals and continued access for EU fishing boats to U.K. waters.

Photographer: Annie Sakkab/Bloomberg

Photographer: Annie Sakkab/Bloomberg

Sign up to ourBrexitBulletin, follow us @Brexitandsubscribe to our podcast.

Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove complained that the European Union isnt treating Britain like a sovereign state in talks about the two sides future relationship, underscoring the risk of an economic shock at the year-end if they cant reach a trade deal.

He told a committee of lawmakers in London that in areas such as fishing and the future influence of EU institutions the bloc is asking for more of the U.K. than it does of other independent countries, something that is unacceptable to the U.K. The government has called for political movement from the EU if the talks are to avoid failing.

The EUs stance is particularly difficult and challenging, Gove said to the House of Commons Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU on Monday. Im confident the EU will want to operate in a constructive way.

Goves emphasis on sovereignty exposes the disconnect between the two sides as time runs out for them to seal a deal. The EUs chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, last week dismissed the idea that the U.K. is the equal of the EU, saying the reality of this negotiation is that it is one between a market of 66 million consumers and the EUs 450 million.

Barnier also attacked the U.K. for failing to engage substantially in several key areas of the negotiations and for refusing to extend the deadline to reach a deal.

With the two sides at loggerheads, the U.K. looks increasingly likely to crash out of the bloc at the end of December without a trade deal, spelling disruption for businesses already grappling with the coronavirus pandemic.

Brexit Talks Marred by Accusation U.K. Is Running Down the Clock

Gove said he hoped the coronavirus crisis would focus the minds of EU negotiators on the importance of reaching a deal. He said the two sides would take stock of the talks in June. Asked about the chances of an agreement, the minister said they are now better than 50% -- but he also said he is a terrible predictor.

Earlier, Prime Minister Boris Johnsons spokesman called for the EU to modify its demands in two key areas: continued access for European fishing boats and the so-called level playing field.

The U.K. argues that the current fishing system is unfair because it allows EU boats to catch more in British waters than domestic vessels. The EU argues that it needs to include measures to stop the U.K. undercutting the blocs economy in any agreement because of the countrys geographical proximity.

All we are seeking is an agreement based on precedent, James Slack told reporters on Monday. The British government is ready to keep talking, but that doesnt make us any more likely to agree if Brussels doesnt change its position, he said. There will need to be a political injection on the EU side.

Failure to strike an accord by Dec. 31 would mean the return of tariffs and quotas as well as the imposition of bureaucratic barriers for businesses.

(Updates with Gove comments from first paragraph.)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

Here is the original post:

Gove Complains EU Not Respecting Sovereignty in Brexit Talks - Bloomberg

PUBLISHED: 10:37 28 April 2020 | UPDATED: 10:45 28 April 2020

Anti-Brexit demonstrators wave European Union and Union flags outside the Houses of Parliament in London. Credit: Yui Mok/PA

PA Wire/PA Images

A group of campaigners have filed a court case with the General Court of the European Union that argues EU citizenship is permanent status regardless of Brexit.

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.

The pro-EU activists believe legally all 66 million continue to hold the status, even when the transition period ends, allowing them to freely move and work in all 27 countries of the bloc.

As The New European reported last month, the legal case acknowledges that not all rights will applicable to UK residents - such as the right to vote or stand in European elections - but believe freedom of movement rights can still be preserved.

The campaigners argue that such status cannot be removed without their consent.

If successful it would allow UK citizens to remain EU citizens.

Dr Alexandra von Westernhagen, one of the lawyers behind the case, explained to The London Economic: Our case is formally an action partially to annul the decision of the EU Council of Ministers of 30 January 2020 which approved the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement, insofar as it deprives the applicants, without their consent and without due process, of their status as EU citizens and their rights resulting from that status.

MORE: Support your pro-European newspaper with a 13 digital or print subscription

MORE: Or make a donation to help grow our journalism

The case asks what is the nature of the EU itself: is it a Union for its member states only? Or is it also a Union for and between the people of Europe? This is a fundamental question for all 515 million EU citizens and everybody else who believes in the idea of an international, value-based citizenship.

The European Commission denied to comment further, but said: We take note of the intention to begin legal proceedings.

Remain campaigners had hoped associate EU citizenship would allow those that did not support Brexit to retain links with the EU after the end of the transition period at the end of the year.

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.

Go here to see the original:

Campaigners file case that argues EU citizenship is permanent regardless of Brexit | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European

Boris Johnson has repeatedly refused to extend Brexit any further as the Prime Minister has vowed to get trade talks done by December 31, 2020. But Mr Johnson is facing calls to delay following the coronavirus pandemic which have made trade negotiations challenging. The Conservative Party's leading donor, Alexander Temerko, has said to extend for at least one year.

Speaking to Sky News, Mr Temerko said: "We need a lift. It might be very slowly but very bravely.

"We definitely need to open businesses, maybe restaurants and hotels and return business to construction.

"That is very important today.

"On May 7, we need to start lifting the lockdown."

READ MORE:Labour crisis: Starmers brutal Brexit snub to Corbyn exposed

He added: "Michael Gove, Boris and Alok Sharma totally agree that we need to use our national business to create new capacity for fighting this virus."

Mr Temerko went on to give his advice on Brexit.

He said: "We don't know what kind of rule will be when we leave Europe.

"If we leave Europe, the situation will be tougher.

"My advice is to extend for one year. It's not to continue the Remain idea, I think it would be better for the economy."

Zoom drinks and informal chats could be the way of breaking the post-Brexit trade deadlock, according to insiders.

The first two rounds of trade negotiations between the UK and European Union teams have so far been conducted online via video-conferencing due to the coronavirus pandemic.

But insiders said that while there were efficiency benefits to online working, the ability to "take people off for a coffee and talk stuff through" had been lost without face-to-face contact.

DON'T MISS

Tony Blair's shock claim about Gordon Brown exposed[INSIGHT]Brussels power grab: EU demands control over Northern Ireland fishing[LATEST]British fishermen FURIOUS at trawlers Covid or not, this must stop'[COMMENT]

And with social distancing measures likely to be in place until a COVID-19 vaccine is discovered, both sides are said to want to find "new ways" of establishing informal conversations in a bid to break the current deadlock.

Briefing reporters on Thursday about the progress of the virtual talks, a source close to the UK negotiating team said: "The downside is you can't take people off for a coffee and talk stuff through and have the informal discussions.

"We'll have to find ways of replicating that. We'll have to do it by video-conference, by phone and by other ways and we're going to have to be tolerant of each other.

"Obviously it is still possible to have the conversations, what's more difficult to replicate is the atmospherics.

"But that doesn't mean you can't do it and we will aim to do it over the next couple of months."

See original here:

Boris Johnson must extend Brexit talks for another YEAR, major Tory Party donor demands - Express

PUBLISHED: 12:46 30 April 2020 | UPDATED: 12:46 30 April 2020

David Edgerton

Workers in the assembly area of an aircraft factory in the Midlands, building spitfires. (Photo by Hudson/Fox Photos/Getty Images)

Archant

Historian DAVID EDGERTON on the cynical fantasies about innovation and exceptionalism providing a common strand.

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.

The governments response to Covid-19 and Brexit are intimately connected. Recognising this is vital to understanding the politics of both. Indeed as the trade expert David Henig has noted, we will know that the UK is really serious about Covid-19 at the moment in which is prepared to say that a Brexit extension is needed. That moment has not yet come, indeed it has been ruled out.

On the face of it there is a very great difference between the two policies. In the case of Brexit the government has consistently rejected the advice of economists, including its own.

In the case of Covid-19 it constantly reiterates that it is following the science. But there is an underlying connection which is important. Brexiteer arguments are centred on fantasies about British scientific and inventive genius. The government has sought to address Covid-19 at least in part on this deluded basis.

At the beginning, Boris Johnson stood behind the science to justify a UK-only policy of delay of the Covid-19 virus. This involved minimal intervention in what Johnson took to reminding us are the freedom-loving proclivities of the British people. Too late, what looked like a cunning plan to exemplify the virtues of the British way collapsed utterly.

The UK is now, broadly-speaking, following Europe and much of the rest of the world. Following the science now sounds like a way of not answering legitimate questions.

But when it comes to ventilators, a Brexiteer innovation-fixated logic applies. The current crisis has been an opportunity to illustrate the argument that the UK was a powerful innovation nation that could do very well without the EU.

The government launched a programme, the details of which are still murky, to create new emergency ventilators. First off the blocks in the PR blitz was the Brexiteer Sir James Dyson, who was teaming up with another Brexiteer capitalist, Lord Bamford of JCB, to make many thousands of the devices.

This, it turned out was just one of many projects to design new ventilators, and to modify others for mass production. There were lots of allusions to the Second World War, as if Spitfires had been conjured out of thin air in the heat generated by patriotic enthusiasm.

It is telling too that the government decided not to take part in the EU ventilator procurement programme. This had to be a British programme for PR purposes, even though many of the companies making the components in the UK are European, like Siemens, Airbus, Thales

That wartime analogy was deeply misleading the UK was a world leader in aircraft before the Battle of Britain. It had been making Spitfires since the late 1930s, and had huge long-planned specialist factories making them.

What is clear is that we are not in 1940. The UK is not a world leader in ventilator manufacture, far from it. Furthermore, the NHS (and this is a scandal) has been under-supplied with them. The high-end ventilators the NHS now needs will and are coming from abroad.

It looks as if the British emergency ventilators will generally be low-end ones, and one at least has already been rejected. The ones that seem to be going into production are based on simple machines long in production in the UK.

Indeed, there may be a wartime analogy which could become pertinent. Churchill did attempt to conjure up new weapons in a hurry in the face of expert advice. They included anti-aircraft rockets, spigot mortars, and indeed a trench-cutting machine. They were universally late, did not work well or at all, and represented a huge waste of resources.

We should not be fooled into believing that there is a coherent industrial strategy emerging out of the epidemic, a determined move to national self-supply.

For if there were the government would not be throwing manufacturing in Britain to the winds, as its Brexit plans certainly would. For they involve the breaking up of the regulatory and customs market in which they exist, and furthermore, would open the British market not only to European producers, but those from all over the world. That is what being a global champion of free trade means.

What we need to understand is the centrality of a mythical picture of British innovation to Brexit. Brexiteer arguments for a hard Brexit hinge on the UKs supposed leadership in creativity and innovation, which was just waiting to be unleashed.

Dominic Cummings got his 800 million in the budget for a UK version of the US Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). The wonderful thing about invoking science is that it suggests action, drive, modernity.

Yet what Johnson and other Brexiteers have rediscovered was a great British liberal tradition of making a lot of noise about science in order to cover up deliberate inaction, in the face of demands for a national and imperial strategy for agriculture and industry.

Before the Great War, faced with calls from the Tories for tariffs on imports, not least food, which he vehemently opposed, David Lloyd George funded agricultural research to help farmers instead.

Of course any help they might receive would be years in the future and trivial by comparison with tariffs. Similarly, in the 1920s, the government resisted protection and imperial preference by creating an Empire Marketing Board, one of whose major functions was research. It had minor impact, as intended, and was wound up the moment tariffs came in the 1930s.

The strategy has been in action for a while. After 2008 there was much talk about the march of the makers, and the northern powerhouse. One of the very few initiatives was the support, with 50m, of the Graphene Institute. Graphene, made by two Manchester University scientists, was seen as a wonder material, which would transform the fortunes of the university, its region and the whole country. It was trumpeted the key to a vibrant new future. It has not arrived. Sums like 50m can buy a lot of media coverage; they cannot buy you a real industrial strategy. Innovation capacity in batteries has been a favourite for some years. Yet there is no significant British battery industry, nor the prospect of one. Electric cars, and batteries for them, are very much more advanced in Europe, in China and in Japan. One cannot magic an industry out of thin air, whether high-end ventilators or batteries, but by referencing innovation one can pretend, for a while.

And that is where the politics of Covid-19, and Brexit, are stuck, in cynical fantasies about innovation.

David Edgerton teaches at Kings College London, where he is Hans Rausing professor of the history of science and technology and professor of modern British history; this article also appears at his blog, http://www.davidedgerton.org

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.

See the original post here:

DAVID EDGERTON: Where Brexit and Covid-19 collide | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European

Politicians, scientists, environmentalist and campaigners say the deal struck between EU Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan and the Mexican Minister for Economic Affairs Graciela Mrquez Coln yesterday will trigger human rights abuses and crimes against the environment. A collective of so-called civil society European organisations which took part in the so-called Toxi Tour in Mexico demand the trade deal is scrapped. The group undertook a high-profile so-called Toxi Tour of Mexico just before Christmas touring some of the nations most polluted areas to raise awareness about environmental problems and denounce companies they blamed for causing them.

On paper the deal includes measures to fight corruption and money laundering as well as investment protection, sustainable development in line with the Paris climate accord and simpler customs rules to boost exports.

But Latin-America news site Amerika21 said though the trade agreement was supposed to cover areas of human rights and the environment it actually gave more power to big business to side-step government regulations.

They added the civic society group also felt all political energies in Mexico should be focused on fighting the coronavirus pandemic.

The paper wrote: The updated trade agreement could lay the foundation for further human rights violations by European companies in Mexico.

Although it fundamentally includes the protection of human rights, while the protection of investments is characterised by the application of binding standards, the EU has always pursued a non-binding "soft law" policy with regard to human rights.

Civil society organisations believe that changing this approach is long overdue.

The new trade agreement between the European Union and Mexico should not be ratified or signed. In doing so, they are joining the global demand that the only commercial priority at the moment must be to remove obstacles to access to medical care and other resources, to strengthen public health systems and other social measures to deal with the current crisis.

But Mr Hogan said: While most of our efforts have been focused lately on tackling the coronavirus crisis, we have also been working to advance our open and fair trade agenda, which continues to be very important.

Openness, partnerships and co-operation will be even more essential as we rebuild our economies after this pandemic. I am very pleased, therefore, that together with our Mexican partners, we share similar views and that our continued work could now come to fruition.

"Todays agreement is clear evidence of our shared commitment to advance our agenda of partnership and co-operation. This agreement once in force will help both the EU and Mexico to support our respective economies and boost employment.

READ MORE:EU to cave as Brussels will give up fishery demands - UK says

The free trade contract will also trigger the interest of Brexiteers as the contract is intended to enable duty-free trade of goods between the EU and Mexico and is part of the global agreement that entered into force in 2000. In addition to political cooperation, development cooperation and human rights are also covered.

Some commentators have pointed out this is largely what Britain is asking for in the Brexit deal.

The biggest complaint from the Toxi Tour critics is it would be the first trade agreement between the EU and a Latin American country to include investment protection clauses.

Amerika21 wrote: This would strengthen the ability of transnational corporations to assert themselves against governments in both Europe and Mexico.2

The Toxi tour through Mexican industrial areas in December 2019 showed the downside of the increase in the number of multinational companies based in Mexico due to free trade agreements.

DON'T MISSNigel Farage erupted in a furious Brexit rant[VIDEO]Brutal warning 'Labour is done for' under Keir Starmer revealed[ARCHIVE]How Nicola Sturgeon was dubbed 'world's most dangerous woman'[ANALYSIS]

The rest is here:

EU free trade deal with Mexico (started at same time as Brexit) is AGREED - Express.co.uk

The UK formally left the EU in January, belatedly implementing the result of the 2016 referendum. But clearly this is far from being the end of the road. The UK is bound throughout the transition period by all the obligations of a full member state. There is a great deal of disentangling to be done, and evidently a wide gap between the UKs stated intentions and what the EU appears to have in mind.

The Foundation for Independence, a fully cross-party organisation, has been established to monitor these developments and to hold the government and the opposition to account. Brexit does not belong to one party, and Labour must now fully engage in delivering on the decision of the British people to leave the EU.

The UK governments view, as set out in a recent speech by David Frost the UKs chief negotiator is that the UK should become fully independent of the EU, except in so far as we reach agreements with the EU on an intergovernmental rather than an integrated political basis, covering all the many matters on which we have a common interest.

The EUs view, on the other hand, is that in return for access to the EU market the UK should have to comply with large sections of the single market and customs union obligations to provide a level-playing field for UK-EU trade. This would entail the UK being obliged to follow EU precepts on issues varying from state aid to environmental standards, and from employment conditions to regulation on financial services.

It is the foundations view that it is right to aim for full independence, as is the position for many other countries including such varied economies as those of South Korea, Japan, Israel and Mexico with which the EU has negotiated trade deals. All such deals entail some degree of compromise on total sovereignty but none of them involve anything like the detailed interference and control that the EU is proposing in the UKs case.

The EUs main argument for its stance is that the UK is a large economy very close to Europe, and therefore in a different relationship to the EU than other countries. The foundations view is that this is not a relevant consideration provided that there is agreement on equivalence. This means that the UK and the EU both accept that trade has to be conducted to agreed standards and outcomes but that how these are reached should be up to each of the contracting parties to determine and not laid down by one side, giving the other no option other but to comply.

Labour lost many of its Red Wall seats in December last year precisely because we lost a lot of Leave voters. If Labour is to win back the trust of these voters, it must work to hold the government to account on delivering upon the commitments made in the 2016 referendum namely that Brexit would ensure that we fully take back control of our laws, borders, money and trade.

It is in this context that the independence approach is surely the fairest way to interpret the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum. This was not a vote to remain in the EU in all but name, by formally leaving but staying within the single market and the customs union as some people have proposed. That would leave us with the worst of all worlds: with all the obligations of EU membership that the UK electorate voted against, but without us having a vote on the future direction which the EU may decide to take. The UK voted to have sovereignty over our affairs, and this is what the current negotiations ought to try to achieve.

Success will depend on the resolve of the UK negotiators and on the support that they have, which is partly where the foundation comes into play. Labour also has a key role to play here, and we have some strong cards in our hands. One is the huge balance of payments deficit we run with the EU about 110bn in 2018. The EU sells far more to us than we do to them, putting them in a position where they have much more to lose than we do by the imposition of tariffs. Our huge payments deficit with the EU, incidentally, contrasts with the surplus 26bn in 2018 that we have with the rest of the world. We also pay into the EU budget some 11bn more than we get out of it every year.

The EU badly needs us to continue to pay something towards the provision of common shared services, albeit much less than we pay now. The danger is that we get pushed into making concessions on fishing, as a prime example in order to secure any kind of deal because of a fear that the alternative is another cliff edge. This is the scenario that we must avoid.

The foundation believes that a reasonable deal is in our own, as well as the EUs, interest but not if it is one-sided, in favour of the European bloc. To get there, we may have to be willing to walk away from a bad deal, and Labour should be prepared to support this. There are high stakes, and we will need strong nerves and determination to emerge with a deal that both the UK and the EU are prepared to accept.

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

Support LabourList

Continue reading here:

Brexit does not belong to one party, and Labour must play its part - LabourList

The UK has said it will refuse any request to extend the Brexit transition period beyond December 31 even if the EU wants that to happen.

This means that as it stands the UK will fully leave the EUs Single Market and Customs Union by January 1, 2021.

This is also the cut-off for Britons to have established French residency to benefit from the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement (WA) deal and obtain a new residents card.

The WA came into force after the UK left the EU on January 31, and one of its sections allowed for the current transition period.

During this year, the UK temporarily keeps most of the benefits of EU membership and Britons can still move overand establish the right to maintain many rights of an EU citizen, with limited exceptions such as voting or standing in French local elections.

Britons wanting to stay long term in France and benefit from the WA will have to apply for new Brexit deal residency cards. A new French website is due to open for applications in July.

The final cut-off to apply will be six months after the transition ...

Continued here:

Post-Brexit carte system 'will be easy', France says - The Connexion

PUBLISHED: 10:38 30 April 2020 | UPDATED: 10:38 30 April 2020

Home Secretary Priti Patel delivers a speech in London. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA.

PA Wire/PA Images

Allies of Priti Patel are demanding that critics apologise to the home secretary as she is expected to be cleared of bullying allegations.

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.

The Daily Telegraph reports that an investigation into the Tory MP, overseen by cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, found no evidence to support claims she had bullied staff in three different departments.

The report follows the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam, who is suing for constructive dismissal after accusing Pate of bullying staff.

Labour has called on Michael Gove, Cabinet Office minister, to release the findings of the inquiry into the public so they could be completely assured over the conduct of government ministers.

But Brexiteer allies of the home secretary have called for an apology to Patel before the report had been released or concluded.

Mark Francois, current chair of the European Research Group, said he was glad she has been completely exonerated.

Iain Duncan Smith, former leader of the Conservative Party, said that the government should jump on the issue and bring to account those with an ulterior motive.

Former Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said those who briefed against Patel owed her an apology.

Patel made headlines earlier in the month for a lack of sincerity in her apologies to those who felt that there had been failings in the government handling of personal protective equipment (PPE).

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.

More:

Priti Patel allies to 'demand apology' over bullying allegations | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European