Category Archives: Brexit

King criticised handling of negotiations and said there was no need for the atmosphere around them to be so bad

A former governor of the Bank of England has described the UK's handling of Brexit as a "shambles".

Mervyn King, who was the governor between 2003 and 2013, criticised the inability of the political classes to choose a version of Brexit to follow and said the atmosphere around negotiations was unnecessarily bad.

"I think its been a shambles since 2016," Kingtold LBC radio in the UK. "Parliament unable to decide which of eight or nine versions of Brexit, the failure to negotiate properly."

King, who previously advocated for a no deal arrangement with the European Union, added: "If you rule out no deal you havent got any negotiating position at all."

He said the UK should have made a "pro-European case for Brexit" and offered all EU residents in the UK automatic rights of residence, rather than making it part of a negotiation.

"We could have done more to try to ensure we had access to education and research opportunities in Europe," he added. "The atmosphere that was created in negotiations with Europe turned out to be very bad, there was no need for the atmosphere to be that bad."

However, King felt disagreements between the UK and the European Union would have continued to rankle had Brexit not happened.

"I dont think we would have wanted to follow down the path which the European Central Bank and European Commission want to take them, which is towards a fiscal and political union," he said. "I think it would have led to an even greater debate at home about 'why should our tax and spending policy in Britain be determined by the rest of Europe?'"

King was also asked about former Prime Minister Liz Truss's brief period in power.

"I do think we got a bit hysterical," he said. "I can understand to some extent why and that the government appeared to be hell bent on cutting taxes without any proper analysis or framework, jettisoning the way government was being organised.

"I understand that, but I don't think the economic consequences were that bad. And frankly, they've gone away, they've disappeared now.

"What we should boast about as a country is that we had a government that we didn't think was doing very well, it lasted 44 days, we got rid of it, and no-one got hurt."

Read more:

Ex-Bank of England governor describes handling of Brexit as a shambles - Euronews

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the Settings & Account section.

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the Settings & Account section. If youd like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many users needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

Read the rest here:

Brexit and austerity left UK badly prepared for pandemic, inquiry told - Financial Times

Brexit is partly to be blamed for UK's feeble pandemic preparation, the COVID inquiry was told on its opening day.

The UKs COVID inquiry has heard that Brexit weakened the country's ability to respond well to the pandemic.

Counsel for the COVID inquiry Hugo Keith KC said Brexit-related planning and administrative processes hindered the countrys preparedness to tackle the pandemic, on the opening day of the hearings.

The independent inquiry chaired by Baroness Heather Hallett started its first module on Tuesday and will involve six weeks of public hearings until 20 July.

The Pandemic hit the UK just as it was leaving the EU, Keith said. It is clear that such planning, from 2018 onwards, crowded out and prevented some or perhaps a majority of the improvements that central government itself understood were required to be made to resilience planning and preparedness.

Putting the governments Operation Yellowhammer into scrutiny, he said the enormous amount of work weakened the capacity to devise a pandemic response.

The proposed operation was put into place in case of a unilateral exit from the EU if a withdrawal agreement was not reached.

The resource-intensive planning was done to address the consequences of a possible no-deal exit, the UK government had devised a plan to aid food and medical supplies, travel and transport, and business.

Did the attention therefore paid to the risks of a no-deal exit drain the resources and capacity that should have been continuing the fight against the next pandemic? Keith questioned.

The evidence so far puts the governments focus on Brexit rather than preparing the UK for civil emergency as the main factor behind one of the highest death tolls in the world, Keith claimed.

The inquiry is yet to hear evidence from members of the public, which investigators say will help them better understand the effects of the virus and the response of authorities.

These answers will be put into themed reports that will serve as evidence.

Public hearings will be concluded by 2026, putting every aspect of the pandemic under the microscope.

Read the rest here:

Brexit 'made UK vulnerable to COVID', inquiry told - Euronews

The waiters can sometimes be a little surly. That holiday villa you booked in the Loire may not always be as desirable as it looked in the pictures. And you can never be entirely sure which side they will be on in a major war. Still, despite occasional inconsistencies, there is one thing you could always rely on the French for. They will insist forever that leaving the EU has been a catastrophe for the British economy, and by far the stupidest decision any major country has ever made.

But hold on. Whats this? In a note this morning BNP Paribas, a bank right at the heart of the French establishment, finally admitted Brexit had not made much difference. At this rate, perhaps even the EUs chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier will be arguing it was all fairly irrelevant all along.

Seven years after the vote, perhaps the wounds are finally starting to heal

Written by Stephane Colliac, a senior economist with Frances largest financial institution, the note does not exactly break new ground. But it does take an objective look at the data since the 2016 referendum and crunch some of the numbers on what has happened since to foreign investment, labour movements, and business confidence.

It is generally assumed that Brexit has made the United Kingdom less attractive economically, argues Colliac. However, data on the balance of payments and foreign workers reveal that its not as simple as that.

Indeed not. As the note argues, while the UK has become a less attractive destination for European workers, it has become more attractive to people from other parts of the world. Likewise, despite predictions that leaving the EU would lead to a 22 per cent fall in foreign investment in the 10 years after leaving, it has actually gone up slightly.

These comparisons suggest that Brexit did have a negative impact on the UK economy during the post-referendum period of uncertainty, the note concludes. But this period ended once actual Brexit details had been ironed out. Once a stable post-Brexit framework had been established, the UK got a boost, as direct investments and arrivals of foreign workers from countries outside the European Union (EU) made up the ground lost.

Well, gosh. No one looking at the data would especially disagree. The British economy is doing badly, of course, but so is most of Europe as well. The interesting point, however, is surely this: even BNP Paribas has finally reconciled itself to the view that leaving the EU has not made any significant difference to the British economy one way or the other.

Unlock a months worth of unlimited online and app access by subscribing today for free. After that, its just 1 a week saving more than 50% off the usual rate.

Seven years after the vote, perhaps the wounds are finally starting to heal, and some common sense is finally starting to prevail. Heck, who knows, perhaps at this rate Alastair Campbell, the Financial Times, the Liberal Democrats, and the rest of the Remain establishment will finally own up to a fact that is obvious to everyone else. The UK has plenty of economic problems. But not being part of the EU is not among them.

See the original post here:

Is France finally changing its tune on Brexit? - The Spectator

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the Settings & Account section.

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the Settings & Account section. If youd like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many users needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

See the article here:

UK post-Brexit border charges will increase food prices, warns industry - Financial Times

There were about 12,000 British holiday reps six years ago now there are only about 3,700

ALAMY

The presence of British reps usually young, always enthusiastic at foreign holiday resorts has been a feature of summer breaks since the advent of mass overseas tourism in the 1960s. Skilled at standing at the front of a swaying coach somewhere in the Mediterranean littoral shouting into a microphone, they are relentlessly optimistic by day and keenly oversexed by night. Repping has offered generations of extroverts a place in the sun. In 2017, almost 12,000 Brits worked abroad as liaison officers, sports instructors, nannies and chalet staff, the perks far outweighing the risible pay. This year that will drop to 3,700.

Holiday companies blame post-Brexit bureaucracy, which has made seconding British staff to the EU more complex. Employing Brits has become so

View original post here:

The Times view on Brexit and summer holiday jobs: Seasons in the Sun - The Times

Carmakers including Stellantis, which owns the UK Vauxhall brand, Ford and Mercedes-Benz have warned about the detrimental effect of the post-Brexit trading arrangements.

Nissan, the U.K.'s largest automaker by volume, has said building cars in Britain may become too expensive after the rules kick in.

While the U.K. is a significant vehicle exporter, it's also a lucrative market for cars made in the EU.

The British government has asked for a delay of the terms under the post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement to 2027, by which time battery makers such as Northvolt and Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. with sites in Sweden and Germany are set to be up and running at scale.

ACEA, the European auto industry lobby group, estimates that EU-based companies will pay 4.3 billion euros ($4.7 billion) in tariffs and lose sales between 2024 and 2027, director-general Sigrid de Vries told the Financial Times.

Last month, several EU officials with knowledge of the talks said there has been no major breakthrough so far, following comments by U.K. Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch of an imminent resolution.

See more here:

German automakers warn of tough EU talks on post-Brexit EV trade - Automotive News Europe

This issue has in recent months become a real bone of contention between the Scottish Government and the Conservatives at Westminster. And it formed the basis of a Scottish Affairs Committee hearing at Westminster on Monday, on the topic of promoting Scotland internationally.

Secretary of State for Scotland Mr Jack got the ball rolling just ahead of this meeting, by declaring: Our recent report shows that Scotland benefits hugely from the scale and reach of the UK Governments international engagement and influence.

From international security to trade and culture, the UK Governments international departments and agencies are securing the interest of all parts of the United Kingdom.

The assertion that the UK Governments international departments and agencies are securing the interest of all parts of the UK on the trade front is an interesting claim indeed.

Civil servants and other non-elected individuals working in these departments and agencies might well be doing a diligent job on this front on a day-to-day basis, in terms of effort and professionalism.

However, that is surely not the crux of the matter in the context of Mr Jacks remarks.

Mr Jacks assertion might surely be interpreted by many as a declaration that the Conservative Government is doing a good job in the areas he mentions, on behalf of the devolved nations and England.

However, Brexit has hampered in an extraordinary way Scotlands trade with its most important export market, the European Economic Area.

Scotlands electorate was firmly opposed to leaving the European Union, and we should never lose sight of this when we hear the Tories proclaim most boldly that they are somehow acting in everyones interests.

Leaving the EU has, of course, hampered greatly companies the length and breadth of the UK which export to the EEA and import from this huge and important bloc, by ending the frictionless trade from which they benefited so enormously.

For the avoidance of doubt, Brexit has had entirely the opposite effect of securing the interest of Scotland on international trade. The same applies to its effect on the rest of the UK, whatever Mr Jack might want to portray.

Mr Jacks remarks ahead of the committee meeting were therefore, to say the very least, quite remarkable. Some might view them as disingenuous but who knows on that score?

When we got to Mr Jacks actual testimony on Monday, this very much reinforced the impression that one thing the Tories really do not like at all is Scottish Government ministers, when talking to overseas governments and their representatives, mentioninga desire to rejoin the EU.

READ MORE:Ian McConnell: Hapless Brexit Tories try to fob off Scots with cheap biscuits

You wonder occasionally whether this might be partly because the Conservatives, deep down, actually know how foolish and indefensible a decision their hard Brexit was, though it would be a brave person who would bet on the Tories being embarrassed or apologetic about their dire lack of judgement.

Of course, arch-Brexiters are known for their great intolerance of any suggestion of rejoining the EU, even as their folly wreaks havoc on the UK economy and bears down heavily on living standards in these toughest of times.

The UK Governments recent efforts to control Scotlands engagement with other countries have looked very heavy-handed indeed, and it would be difficult to conclude other than that this interference has worrying implications for the economy north of the Border.

Earlier in the spring, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs James Cleverly decided to intervene on Scottish Government ministers engagement with other countries. And it is an issue on which there seems to have been more than a little grandstanding by the Conservatives.

Mr Cleverly wrote a letter on March 31 to heads of UK missions abroad, entitled Working with the Scottish Government internationally and covering new Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office guidance on how to manage and support devolved government ministerial visits overseas.

Manage and support constitutes interesting language.

READ MORE:Is Danny Blanchflower or Alister Jack right?

Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture Angus Robertson wrote to Mr Cleverly on May 1, declaring: I am concerned about the damage the letter and guidance could do to Scottish trade, cultural exchanges and education, and to Scottish interests in general.

READ MORE:Ian McConnell: Amid the detractors mudslinging, some great news for Scotland

Mr Robertson claimed the new guidance is further example of the UK Governments intention to undermine devolution, adding: The UK Governments apparent determination to reduce Scotland to the status of a mere administrative unit and for it to be characterised as such by UK Government diplomats is unacceptable.

Giving the impression of someone on his high horse, Mr Jack declared to the Scottish Affairs Committee on Monday: Consuls of foreign countries have made this point to me directly - that they find it uncomfortable when the Scottish Government ministers raise separation, independence or other foreign affairs issues, constitutional foreign affairs, with themThey understand thatwe are one state, the United Kingdom, and it puts them in an invidious position, and it is not appreciated.

He declared that Mr Robertson had on one occasion described Brexit as a calamity,said it had posed additional challenges for Scotland, not least because Scotland was pro-EU, and that, at a St Andrews Day reception in a European capital had criticised the impact of the EU exit on student exchange programmes to Scotland.

Mr Robertson observed in his May 1 letter: It should be needless to say that Scottish Government ministers would never purport to speak for the UK. The fact that we have very different views on matters such as immigration, asylum and Brexit will be well known to governments overseas, and it would be absurd to think that our such views could be confused with those of the UK Government.

It is surely absolutely the case that the governments of other countries would not confuse the Scottish Governments views on the crucial issues of immigration, asylum and Brexit with the entrenched ideology of the ruling Conservatives on these topics. The Torieshave been very noisy indeed about their views as they have whipped up a populist crescendo in the UK.

The Conservatives'clampdown on immigration from the EEA at a time when the UK is in the grip of an extraordinary skills and labour shortages crisis, their hard Brexit and the attendant destruction of frictionless trade, and their attitudes onasylum could hardly be more different to the Scottish Governments views.

And it is difficult to see what on earth is wrong with Scottish Government ministers stating the reality of Brexit and, for example, the effects on the labour force of the clampdown on immigration, given these matters will often be most pertinent to discussions relating to business and economic affairs.

Why should they have to come across as silent, or worse still somehow lacking in reason, by not stating the reality of the situation, just because it irks the Conservative Government at Westminster?

Read this article:

Ian McConnell: Jack, on high horse over Scottish truths, stirs hornet's nest - HeraldScotland

There are plenty of reasons for viewing todays huge merger deal between the UK mobile networks of Vodafone and Three with suspicion. It could reduce choice for consumers. It may lead to job losses. And it is possible that they will downgrade their service even more than they already have, cut back on investment, and squeeze more money out of a captive market.

Yet that is not quite the whole story. In fact, done right, the merger could even turn out to be a rare Brexit win.

Todays tie-up between Vodafone and Three was widely expected. The two companies will combine their British networks, and will have 27 million users between them, taking them ahead of Virgin Media O2, with 24 million and BT Group with 20 million. It will become the leading provider in the industry. Of course it remains to be seen whether our new, slightly batty regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority, allows it to go ahead. One point is certain, however. The EU would have blocked it. It has form, particularly in the UK, when it blocked the 2016 attempt to merge Three and O2.

The mobile telecoms industry is murderously competitive, with wafer thin margins, in which no one makes any real money

In fairness, it is easy to see what the EU was getting at. Mergers are usually bad for customers: indeed the whole purpose of them is typically to insulate companies from anything as bothersome as people being able to go elsewhere. And yet, mobile competition has not worked out very well. In reality, the mobile telecoms industry is murderously competitive, with wafer thin margins, in which no one makes any real money. By preventing it from consolidating, even modestly, all the EU has done is weaken it. The result? All the money is made by Apple and Google, both American companies, and none by anyone else.

With three major networks, British consumers will still have plenty of choice. And the mobile companies might actually be able to make some money, which they can then re-invest in new services and products. The mini-computer we all carry around in our pockets remains the most lucrative piece of technology in the world, and one that still has plenty of potential for growth.

There is lots of faddish talk of industrial strategies, and of more investment in green energy, batteries and electric vehicles. And yet, the UK is never going to be able to match the subsidies on offer in the US, and there is no point in even trying. In truth, allowing a slightly stronger trio of profitable, growing mobile operators to emerge is a far better bet and it has been made much easier by being outside the EU.

Go here to read the rest:

The Vodafone-Three merger could be a Brexit win - The Spectator

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson had a conventional rise to power.

Boris Johnson was once likened by a member of his party to a "greased piglet" for his ability to bounce back from a succession of setbacks and scandals that would have sunk other less popular politicians.

However, his luck has continued to fade as Covid-era party scandals forced him to quit as a member of parliament less than a year after they helped push him out of office as prime minister.

The 58-year-old populist angrily quit as MP in the midst of an investigation into whether he repeatedly lied to parliament over lockdown-breaking parties when he was in office, which he slammed as a "kangaroo court."

His resignation pre-empted a finding which could force a humiliating fight to retain his MP seat, which he held by a slim majority.

"It is very sad to be leaving Parliament -- at least for now -- but above all I am bewildered and appalled that I can be forced out, anti-democratically... with such egregious bias," he said.

Johnson led the Tories to a thumping 80-seat majority in the December 2019 general election on a promise to "get Brexit done".

That allowed him to railroad through parliament his divorce deal with the European Union, unblocking years of political paralysis.

But he was undone by his handling of the Covid pandemic, "Partygate" and a succession of other scandals that led to a ministerial rebellion in July last year.

Even though he quit as prime minister, rumours have persisted that Johnson -- a thrice-married father of at least eight children -- had not given up hope of another shot at the top job.

'Cavalier'

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson had a conventional rise to power for a Conservative politician: first the elite Eton College, then Oxford University.

At Eton, his teachers bemoaned his "cavalier attitude" to his studies and the sense he gave that he should be treated as "an exception".

Johnson's apparent attitude that rules were for other people was amply demonstrated in 2006 when he inexplicably rugby tackled a football opponent in a charity game.

His elastic relationship with the truth was forged at Oxford, where he was president of the Oxford Union, a debating society founded on rhetoric and repartee rather than mastery of cold, hard facts.

His privileged cohort in the backstabbing den of student politics provided many leading Brexiteers.

Soon after Oxford, he married his first wife -- fellow student Allegra Mostyn-Owen -- despite her mother's misgivings.

"I didn't like the fact he was on the right," Gaia Servadio, who died in 2021, was quoted as saying by Johnson's biographer Tom Bower.

"But above all, I didn't like his character. For him, the truth doesn't exist."

After university, he was sacked from The Times newspaper after making up a quote, then joined The Telegraph as its Brussels correspondent.

From there, he fed the growing Conservative Euroscepticism of the 1990s with regular "euromyths" about supposed EU plans for a federal mega-state threatening British sovereignty.

Exasperated rivals charged with matching his questionable exclusives described some of his tales as "complete bollocks".

Opportunism

Johnson capitalised on his increasingly high profile with satirical television quiz show appearances and newspaper and magazine columns.

Much of his journalism has since been requoted at length, particularly his unreconstructed views on issues from single mothers and homosexuality to British colonialism.

He became an MP in 2004, with the Tory leader at the time, Michael Howard, sacking him from his shadow cabinet for lying about an extra-marital affair.

From 2008 to 2016 he served two terms as mayor of London, promoting himself as a pro-EU liberal, a stance which he abandoned as soon as the Brexit referendum came about.

He became "leave" campaign's figurehead, capitalising on his popular image as an unconventional but likeable rogue as the quickest route to power.

His former editor at The Telegraph, Max Hastings, described it as cynical -- but not unexpected. Johnson, he said, "cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification".

Hastings wrote in The Times ahead of Johnson's resignation as prime minister that he had "broken every rule of decency, and made no attempt to pursue a coherent policy agenda beyond Brexit".

But he was "the same moral bankrupt as when the Conservative party chose him, as shambolic in his conduct of office as in his management of his life".

After he quit as MP, the Labour party's deputy leader Angela Rayner said the public -- battling a cost-of-living crisis -- have had enough of the "never-ending Tory soap opera".

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Read more:

Brexit To 'Partygate': The Rise And Fall Of Boris Johnson - NDTV