Stick, Twist or Bust? Tory MPs on Johnson’s position

Stick, Twist or Bust? Tory MPs on Johnson’s position

Jan 18, 2022 | Bylines, News

Which Conservative MPs are sticking with Boris Johnson and which are calling on him to resign over ‘Partygate’, questions Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines?

Prime Minister Johnson seems to have got himself into a bit of bother. The supposed leadership ‘qualities’ that brought him to power and convincingly won a general election in 2019, are now considered potential liabilities. But in typical party fashion, the Conservatives are split as to whether Johnson has outlived his usefulness, and is now doing more harm than good.

 

Stick: the MPs who think Johnson should stay

Operation ‘Big Dog’ – named by the Johnson himself – is a plan to save the prime minister. It has been reported to include the overhauling of his top team. No doubt some Conservative MPs and ministers coming out in support of Johnson are considering their own political futures, as well as that of their boss.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss tweeted: “The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain – from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward.” Considering Truss is one of the most active runners and riders in the race to replace Johnson, he may well be wondering what she is holding behind his back. A double-edged sword, perhaps.

The education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, chose a different tack to defend Johnson over the ‘Partygate’ debacle, saying, “he’s human, and we make mistakes”. Considering the backlash from the public, his suggestion that Johnson “called it right” may have misread the mood of the country completely.

Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary – in hot water herself over her plans to defund the BBC – said Johnson “did the right thing, he apologised”. She said, “what we all want is the enquiry to conclude & to see what the findings are”, adding that she did not accept that “he’s in the wrong”.

Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, dismissed those calling Johnson to resign as “people who are always unhappy”.

 

Twist: the MPs who are undecided

Hedging their bets, there are those calling for change, but not directly for Johnson’s resignation. Amongst them, MP Tobias Ellwood described Johnson as having “a cavalier disregard to these hallowed professional grounds”. He said Johnson needed to lead “in a very different style”, adding that a “fresh tone” was needed. “The Boris approach of old is simply not enough.”

Former leader of the ERG, Steve Baker, said it was “impossible to say” if Johnson would lead the party into the next election. He said his constituents were “absolutely furious” and that they may be “too angry to forgive”. Presumably, he was referring to their anger at Johnson, while overlooking their anger at the government in general.

While Chancellor Rishi Sunak – another candidate for Johnson’s replacement – also thought Johnson was “right to apologise”, his ‘support’ was generally considered rather lacklustre and late in the day. Like many, he appears to be waiting for the result of Sue Gray’s enquiry before pinning his colours to the mast

Bust: The MPs who want Johnson to go!

Although still relatively few, the Conservative MPs calling directly for Johnson’s resignation are increasing in number. 

Andrew Bridgen MP said, “I’m calling on the Prime Minister to stand down”. In years to come, he said, Johnson would be remembered “as delivering Brexit and guiding us through a pandemic. His legacy shouldn’t become one mired in sleaze but rather one of knowing when the time is right to leave the stage”. That legacy “should be cemented now by a dignified exit from politics”. He said he believed more revelations were yet to come, and that Johnson had lost the “moral authority” to lead the country.

 

Veteran backbencher, Sir Roger Gale – who has never been a major fan – described the prime minister as a “dead man walking”. He said, “I think we’ve now got to the stage where frankly we have to find another leader”. Gale submitted his letter of no confidence to the 1922 committee a year ago. Other MPs have followed suit, though the number of letters received is a closely guarded secret.

Tim Loughton MP described Johnson’s position as “untenable” adding that his “resignation is the only way to bring this whole unfortunate episode to an end”.

Caroline Nokes acknowledged that many Conservative MPs owed their seats in parliament to Johnson, and that he did a “fantastic job” in winning the 2019 election. However, he now “looks like a liability. He is damaging the entire Conservative brand”.

Never regarded as a fan of Johnson’s, Douglas Ross, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said Johnson could not continue as PM if he attended the party in Downing Street on 20 May. He described Johnson’s apology as “acceptance from the prime minister that it was wrong”.

In support of Ross, former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, now member of the House of Lords, Baroness Ruth Davidson, said, “Nobody needs an official to tell them if they were at a boozy shindig in their own garden. People are (rightly) furious. They sacrificed so much – visiting sick or grieving relatives, funerals. What TF were any of these people thinking?”

Davidson was joined by fellow peer Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who went one further, suggesting all current ministers should quit if they are implicated in Partygate – not just the prime minister. “Every minister, parliamentarian & staffer at any #downingstreetparty must resign NOW. No ifs no buts.” She added, “the rule of law is a fundamental value – the glue that hold us together as a nation. Once that is trashed by those in power the very essence of our democracy is at stake”. Her tweet on 12 January was a repeat of one she had posted on 8 December.

Chair of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, William Wragg, commented on the main defence currently being employed by both Johnson and many ministers – waiting for the findings of the enquiry. He said he did not think “it should be left to the findings of a civil servant to determine the future of the Prime Minister and, indeed, who governs this country. The Prime Minister’s position is untenable”.

The most recent MP to add his name to the list of those calling for Johnson to go, is Tom Hunt. A new MP who won his seat in 2019, Hunt claimed to have changed his mind after speaking to enraged constituents. He described Number 10 as seeming more like a “frat house” than the centre of government. He said there “there needs to be almost a total clear out of Number 10 and all of those who were in anyway connected with what appear to be clear rule breaking events need to properly held to account”.

 

Betting on the future

While public opinion shifts away from Johnson and in favour of Keir Starmer, opposition parties are watching every governmental manoeuvre and reaction with interest. As the Conservatives dig themselves ever deeper graves, their opponents will be only too keen to supply more shovels.

It’s no longer a question of if Johnson is busted, but when. It will depend on any further awkward revelations, or the government’s handling of such. A week is a long time in politics.

Whether Johnson’s remaining in position will help or hinder the Conservatives chances in the next election, is open for debate. Potential replacements look equally ill-suited to the role of leading the country. What we can bet on though is that as long as this PM – or indeed, this government – is in power, the damage to the country’s economy, reputation and its inhabitants will continue. Time for a change. Let’s start at the top.

Truss’s part in EU talks shows her desperation for a deal to be done

Truss’s part in EU talks shows her desperation for a deal to be done

Jan 16, 2022 | Bylines, News

Truss’s part in EU talks began with the threat to trigger Article 16, but her hard-Brexit rhetoric is unlikely to work, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

 

When Lord Frost resigned his position as Brexit minister in December 2021, many hoped for a change of tone and approach in EU/UK relations. Those hopes were quickly dashed when Liz Truss took over the role, on top of her other ministerial responsibilities as foreign secretary and minister for women and equalities.

Truss quickly made her intentions clear – she aimed to be every bit as argumentative, provocative and bombastic as her predecessor. No doubt this will have delighted the Brexiters in government, whose favour she is no doubt currying, in her quest to become the next prime minister.

New broom, old ideology

Those hoping a new broom would sweep Brexit cleaner – not least the EU – were yet again to be disappointed, if not surprised. Another opportunity for a softer approach, and a softer Brexit, apparently missed in the name of Brexit right-wing ideology.

Truss made it clear she was prepared to override parts of the Brexit agreement, and was willing to trigger Article 16, if the Brexit talks failed. To emphasise the point, her recent ‘pinned tweet’ – which spoke of the “importance of safeguarding peace in Northern Ireland” – was a Telegraph article headlined ‘I will trigger Article 16 if the EU does not cooperate’.

Truss said she would be presenting “constructive proposals”, in an effort to reach a “comprehensive solution”. She described the issues as “myriad and manifest”, and pledged to “work day and night to negotiate a solution”. Quite how she will manage the extra hours with three ministerial posts and her constituents concerns to worry about, she never made clear.

In response to the Article 16 threat, EU negotiator, Maroš Šefčovič warned that such a drastic step would threaten “the foundation of the entire deal”. The EU ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida, said the bloc was not surprised by the renewed threat as “we’ve heard this before”, adding that the EU felt it was “not very helpful that we keep agitating the issue”. He said the two sides should focus on “trying to find solutions for difficulties in the implementation of the protocol”.

The Irish angle

Before meeting directly with the EU, Truss first met with Irish foreign minister, Simon Coveney. The Irish government described the meeting with Coveney as “good and friendly”. However, UK government sources said they would not be dropping demands for further compromises from the EU. Those accommodations include the continued UK demand for the removal of European Court of Justice jurisdiction.

Coveney said it would have been “naive” to expect Truss to take a different position from Lord Frost, but expressed a desire for a new start. Regarding the threat to trigger Article 16, Coveney said this would lead to “further tension and an undermining of trust”. Both sides, he said, need to start “listening to each other and trying to find accommodation rather than creating stand-offs and using threatening language. I think that is not helpful”

Northern Irish eyes on May election

On Monday, Truss met with Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, leader of the DUP, whose priority is an end to checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Donaldson said he had shown great patience, and called on the UK government to make “imminent progress” in the negotiations. He claimed he had “been reasonable” but said it was time for the government to act. “If the EU are not prepared to agree on what is required”, he said, then the government must take “unilateral action”. In response, Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis, said that despite not setting “arbitrary time frames” on the talks, the issues needed to be resolved “as quickly as possible”.

Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou Macdonald also spoke with Truss and responded to Donaldson’s comments. She said the “political posturing” of the DUP must not hold back progress, adding that “stability, peace, jobs and prosperity must come first”.

 

Comments made by the DUP should be considered in the context of Northern Ireland’s forthcoming election in May. According to Coveney, the protocol “would be a big part of that election”. EU Commissioner, Mairead McGuinness suggested that a solution to the protocol impasse must be found “before we get into campaign mode for the Assembly elections”.

Perhaps, this is one area where Truss and Donaldson will find common ground – using the Brexit negotiations as a platform for their own political ambitions.

“A deal to be done”

On Thursday evening, Truss hosted a welcome dinner for Šefčovič at the foreign secretary’s country residence, Chevening House. It was their first face-to-face meeting, ahead of the talks on Friday. Before the talks even began, Truss claimed they provided a “reset” opportunity, and suggested the EU had “a clear responsibility” to fix the problems.

Following “constructive talks” on Friday morning, the only outcome seemed to be an agreement to meet again on 24 January for more intensive negotiations. Truss said “there is a deal to be done” but added that “if we don’t make sufficient progress we will have to look at the alternatives”.

 

In a joint statement, Truss and Šefčovič said, “The meeting took place in a cordial atmosphere. They agreed that officials would meet next week in intensified talks and that the principals would meet again on January 24. We share a desire for a positive relationship between the EU and the UK underpinned by our shared belief in freedom and democracy”.

 

Negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU may be a novel experience for Truss, but the EU are old hands at this game. They are unlikely to have heard anything from the UK side that they haven’t heard before, that they haven’t anticipated, or that they don’t have an answer to.

Truss said, “As fellow believers in liberty and democracy, we should be capable of reaching an agreement that delivers for Northern Ireland and allows us to unleash the full potential of our relationship”. As trade secretary, she was adept at signing international deals that replicated those we previously had as EU members. If she can do the same with the EU, that’ll do nicely, thank you.

But I’m not holding my breath. We are more likely to see Truss trying to out-do her predecessor in the hard Brexit stakes than taking a softer, more compromising approach. After all, there’s a much bigger prize she has her eye on.

Open Letter to Liz Truss

Open Letter to Liz Truss

Dec 22, 2021 | Bylines, News

Bremain Chair Sue Wilson writes an open letter to Liz Truss for West England Bylines:

Dear Liz,

I hope you’ll excuse the informality but dear ‘Foreign Secretary, Brexit Secretary and Women and Equalities Secretary’ is a bit of a mouthful. Let me start by wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and congratulating you on your new role, even if it wasn’t the one you were actively seeking.

I’m very much looking forward to watching you demonstrate your talents in the Brexit negotiations. Let’s face it, after all the damage Lord Frost has done to international relations, you could hardly make matters any worse. However, you might need to come up with a convincing story to explain to your European counterparts how you morphed from being a staunch Remainer to a fully-paid up member of the Hard Brexit Supporters club. Dealing with Brussels, however, will be the least of your worries – it’s the ERG you’ll need to keep an eye on.

On hearing the news of your new Brexit role, I had assumed you would be giving up the day job. Apparently not – it seems you are to be a minister of many portfolios. Still, your prior experience of securing trade deals abroad that look just like the ones we had as EU members, is most welcome. I’m really looking forward to watching you replicate our former deal with the EU. Single market and customs union here we come – yippee!! That kind of ‘getting Brexit done’ I can live with.

I was surprised to discover that you have held so many different cabinet roles in your parliamentary career, so I guess you are a lot smarter, or perhaps more ruthless, than most assume. From Lord Chancellor to Environment, from Trade Secretary to Education, and of course your role as Foreign Secretary. How is Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe doing, by the way? We haven’t heard anything about your negotiations regarding her release lately, but I understand perfectly if it’s all a bit hush-hush.

I would also love to hear about the work you do as Minister for Women and Equalities, as I can’t say I’ve heard about any new laws affecting the rights of women or minorities. Apart, that is, from those pesky new bills planning to take away existing rights. An expensive business, this sovereignty lark, but hey-ho – it seems that’s the cost of democracy.

Many have suggested that your new role is not so much a reward, as a poisoned chalice. Perhaps a deliberate ploy by the prime minister to keep you out of the way and out of number 10. But that seems like overkill to me. After all, isn’t that what the role of Foreign Secretary is for in the first place?

I am pleased, though, to see that you can still find time to entertain us with your many glamour photo-shoots. How we smiled to see you flying the flag while riding a bike in Sydney, or astride a motorbike in Thailand. (Air miles must be racking up now). I particularly enjoyed your Thatcher impersonation in a tank, though personally, the impersonation of the Queen in front of the fireplace was a step too far for me. Or was that supposed to be Thatcher as well? The less said the better about the completely bonkers one for the Mail!

I will close with a few well-meaning warnings from someone with a few more miles on the clock than you. Firstly, you would do well to note that now you are dealing with the Europeans, you will have to step up your game. You’ll need to know considerably more about how the EU works than Johnson ever could or Frost ever did. The EU know what they are doing and know how to protect their own. I appreciate that dealing with grown-ups may be a novel experience for you.

Secondly, don’t trust Johnson as far as you can throw a pout. I’m sure this is not news to you, but just because you share some attributes – looking out for number one, never being far from a camera lens etc – doesn’t mean you don’t have to watch your back. And leave the dressing up box to Johnson – he’s so much better at it carrying it off than you are.

Finally, get yourself some friends. You seem to be the only cabinet minister that didn’t get invited to any of the Downing Street parties last Christmas. Hosting your own party at Number 10 might be your ultimate – or even immediate – goal, but “if wishes were horses”, as my granny used to say, we’d all be millionaires.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Wilson – MBE

Brexit oven-ready deal has been de-Frosted

Brexit oven-ready deal has been de-Frosted

Dec 20, 2021 | Bylines, News

In his resignation letter, Frost expressed concern over the government’s “current direction of travel”. Ironically, it’s a concern we all share, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. On Saturday night, social media erupted with the news that Lord Frost – Brexit negotiator, Cabinet minister and member of the House of Lords – had resigned. This was not news to the prime minister, as his resignation had been tendered a week earlier. Frost had been persuaded to stay until January, but once the news leaked, he wrote to Boris Johnson saying he was standing down with immediate effect.

In Frost’s letter, he showed the same delusional attitude to Brexit that we have come to expect. He said “Brexit is now secure” and the government’s challenge was to “deliver on the opportunities it gives us”. Clearly, he did not feel up to that particular challenge.

 

Frost’s reasons for resigning

The Mail on Sunday reported that Frost’s decision had been prompted by the introduction of plan B covid measures and his apprehension over covid passes. He also expressed concerns about government policies relating to taxes and net-zero policies.

There’s little doubt that Frost was in favour of fewer, or no, covid restrictions. In a speech on 23 November, he said that safety measures “cannot and must not last forever”, adding that “free Britain, or at least merry England, is probably now the free-est country in the world as regards Covid restrictions. No mask rules, no vaccine passports – and long may it remain so”.

Regardless of Frost’s stated reasons for leaving, it is difficult to accept that Brexit itself was not a considerable factor. His antagonistic approach – one surely encouraged by Johnson himself – has been frequently accompanied by threats, not least the triggering of article 16. His prevention from taking that nuclear approach, added to recent compromises over the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, must have been tough to accept.

But no, nothing to do with Brexit, it’s apparently all about covid. This has been, after all, a common theme from our government – pin the blame for Brexit damage on the pandemic and hope nobody recognises the truth.

Reactions to the news

Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said the government was in “total chaos”, and grabbed the opportunity to take a swipe at Johnson himself. She said he was not “up to the job” and that the country deserved “better than this buffoonery”. Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, Jenny Chapman, added that the country needed “leadership not a lame duck PM whose MPs and cabinet have lost faith in him”.

On behalf on the Liberal Democrats, Layla Moran described the resignation as a “sign of the chaos and confusion” at the heart of government. “The rats are fleeing Boris Johnson’s sinking ship”, she added, “as he lurches from crisis to crisis”.

Never one to miss an opportunity, Nigel Farage described Lord Frost as a “Conservative and true Brexiteer”, adding that Johnson was “neither”. Perhaps he is unaware that Frost was – hard as it is now to believe – once a Remainer.

In the prime minister’s response, Johnson expressed his regret and thanked Frost for his contribution towards “getting Brexit done”. He described Frost as his “EU Sherpa” and said he should be “immensely proud of his historic service to this Government and this country”.

 

Who will replace him?

Frost’s resignation causes yet more problems for the already beleaguered Johnson. Reeling from the loss of the ‘safe’ seat in North Shropshire, Johnson is now on notice from his backbenchers.

Within the cabinet, Frost was perhaps the closest ally of Johnson, so the prime minister will surely be feeling the pressure. But who should replace him? Does he appease the right-wing ERG, and appoint an extremist who, according to former Downing Street chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, could risk a “damaging trade war with the EU”? Or does he jeopardise any remaining internal party support by appointing a more compromising replacement?

 

It remains to be seen whether Johnson will grab this opportunity to take a more pragmatic approach, or whether he’ll continue to consider his own security and prospects ahead of those of the nation.

What now for Brexit?

For five and a half years, we have watched the government – and a variety of Brexit ministers and negotiators – take the most damaging of decisions about our post-Brexit future. It did not have to be this way. With the country divided, a compromise solution of a softer Brexit, with access to the single market and customs union, may not have pleased the extremists, but would have satisfied most and helped heal the divisions.

With her red lines, Theresa May put a stop to that option, thanks to her obsession with immigration. Johnson and Frost only succeeded in making matters worse. We now have a difficult relationship with our former friends, a terrible deal, and those responsible for the negotiations have all toddled off into the sunset, or the House of Lords.

In his resignation letter, Frost expressed concern over the government’s “current direction of travel”. It’s a concern we all share, but not in the way that Frost meant. His failure to follow through and complete this task is surely a sign that Brexit is not going well, even by the government’s standards. Maybe Frost has himself finally awoken to the realities of Brexit, and wishes to distance himself from its failure. Or perhaps even from the increasingly unpopular Johnson.

Frost’s letter included the claim that the UK’s “freedom and independence” has been restored. Perhaps he’ll find his own freedom and independence as lonely and isolating as post-Brexit Britain.

Lords debate Brexit impact on institutional framework and trade

Lords debate Brexit impact on institutional framework and trade

Dec 12, 2021 | Bylines, News

The latest House of Lords ‘Beyond Brexit’ debate covered the institutional framework, trade in services and trade in goods, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

On 15 November, the House of Lords Grand Committee convened to debate reports produced by the, now defunct, European Union Committee (EUC) on the impacts of Brexit. The series of reports, entitled ‘Beyond Brexit’, were brought back to the Lords on 6 December for further debate.

The latest debate focused on three of the Beyond Brexit reports, covering:

  • The institutional framework
  • Trade in services
  • Trade in goods

Read more here about the debate on 11 November, covering food, the environment, energy and health.

Former chair of the EUC, the Earl of Kinnoull, spoke of the 50+ years that various Lords committees had been analysing and reporting on all aspects of EU relations. Eleven months on from his committee’s production of the Beyond Brexit reports, he spoke of the relief that the ratification of the trade and co-operation agreement (TCA) had brought. However, he said it was now important to “take general stock of the position and how it matches up to the various words and aspirations of the TCA package”.

 

The post-Brexit institutional framework

The Earl of Kinnoull raised the issue of the lack of regulatory co-operation for financial services, and the failure to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU). This failure meant that the EU had not assessed the UK for equivalence – a promise originally made in July. He also expressed concerns regarding the UK’s participation in EU programmes, such as Horizon, which currently excludes the UK’s “vast higher education and research community”. He asked that the government commit to providing the committee with a full picture of developments.

Lord Kerr of Kinloch spoke of the lack of structure for handling important discussions with the EU on common, global issues, such as the climate crisis, refugees and covid. Lord Frost had earlier told a committee that such structures would happen “naturally and organically”. Lord Kerr asked how many such meetings had taken place, or had been proposed, as he could not recall any.

“I think we need to overcome the temptation to celebrate difference and to recognise that splendid isolation is not always all that splendid.”

Lord Kerr of Kinloch

Lord Kerr spoke of earlier discussions regarding a ‘parliamentary partnership assembly’ consisting of members of parliament and of the European parliament. This proposal had been welcomed by Mr. Gove, but it appeared that hold-ups were coming from the UK side, despite the EU being “out on the pitch and warming up”. He asked the minister to explain the position of Jacob Rees-Mogg – was it “recumbent”, “laid back” or “supine”?

 

Trade in services

Baroness Donaghy emphasised the importance of economic services to the UK. In 2019, the UK exported £317bn of services to the EU and imported £217bn, and has consistently run a trade surplus. Donaghy described the UK services sector as “a major success” story, as well as iterating the importance of the creative industries. She added that the government had only succeeded in “minor acts of mitigation”.

The Baroness expressed concern regarding the creative industries, which she described as “hugely important and influential”, being worth £100m in 2019. Lord Hannay of Chiswick added that discussions with the government regarding the creative arts felt “more like a dialogue of the deaf than a constructive and concerned response to the dire situation into which one of the most vibrant and profitable sources of our invisible exports has been cast following Brexit”.

Baroness Donaghy, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle all spoke of the damage caused by the loss of the Erasmus scheme and in the inadequate substitution of the Turing scheme.

 

Trade in goods

Chair of the sub-committee on the protocol, Lord Jay of Ewelme, spoke of his concern regarding the provision of medicines in Northern Ireland, and the impact on the vulnerable. He also raised the issue of threats to trigger article 16, and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny.

Shortages of labour and drivers was raised by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, who also mentioned the “poor quality of facilities for those moving goods”. She said she was “severely embarrassed” to hear of the conditions facing drivers stuck on motorways or in car parks who were “unable properly to use services to look after themselves, let alone the goods they are seeking to move”.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick raised the issue of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls, and questioned why the government were not looking for an SPS accord. He said that even though this had been considered during the pre-Brexit negotiations, that did not mean it should not be revisited.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle said she came to this debate from a different position from other noble Lords, because she does not go “Yay – trade! More trade!” She said her interest was in “the well-being of the people of the UK and of the planet”, and the well-being of the planet itself. She expressed concern that the government often seemed to push for free trade agreements with other parts of the world “at great cost to the environment and to existing businesses”

Lord Desai begged the government to consider taking “care of our citizens, trade and economy which are suffering”. He suggested his noble colleagues “read the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility which talks about ‘scarring’ due to Brexit. It is costing us 4 percent to 5 percent of GDP. This is a serious matter, and the government ought to let go of their pride and get some business done”.

 

Relations with the EU

Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top spoke of the importance of developing good working relations with the EU, and said we would be far more successful in our negotiations if only we “act as grown-ups, treating others with respect and as we would wish to be treated ourselves, while keeping our word and acting with integrity”. She described the view that this approach would be seen as “rolling over” as “absolute nonsense”, reflecting “old-time male attitudes”:

“Let us grow up and treat our partners as real partners who are able to contribute to the development and success of our country as well. We can contribute to countries across Europe being successful and they can contribute to our success. If we think that in today’s world, we can do it all without them or that sort of relationship, then we are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The people of this country have the right to demand that we deal honestly and fairly with them, which also means dealing with the EU in that manner.”

Baroness Armstrong

Criticism of the government approach was also made by Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who spoke of the need for rebuilding the trust with the EU, that had been “so undermined in recent times”. He said liberal democracies needed to “work together, not pull apart”. Former MEP, Lord Inglewood, described “the bed we have made” and which “we are all now lying in” as a “hard Brexit with a deal”.

Lord Kerr asked who was responsible for bilateral relations with our 27 EU neighbours – was it the foreign secretary or Lord Frost? And if it was Lord Frost’s responsibility, Lord Kerr added, “can he and does he draw directly on [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] expertise?” Lord Kerr went on to cite the “unfortunate letter” to President Macron that “could have been better drafted had an expert eye looked at it”.

Government rhetoric, “that discourages co-operation”, was again raised by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. He said, “The only way we will succeed in competition is by friendly co-operation, with a keen eye on our long-term goals. This is a long game, and we must not lose it by rhetoric that does not foster co-operation”.

Lord Desai described the current situation as a “car crash that is causing enormous damage” and likened discussions between the UK and the EU to a divorced man not caring about the children, and who thinks he is free to walk away without talking about the necessary future arrangements. He said it was symptomatic of the approach taken by the “winning section in the Conservative Party”, who were so hostile to Europe. They said they would conduct “free trade agreements with 100 countries in no time whatsoever”, he added, “as if they had not held a responsible job in their lives”.

 

Lord Frost missing in action

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard referred to the fact that Lord Frost was unavailable to attend the debate and speak on behalf of the government. Frost’s place was taken by Lord True, whom Kerr described as “a genial, subtle debater, and not at all frosty”.

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, speaking of Lord Frost’s absence, said, “he has taken to making statements on the last day of term, or when the Commons is not sitting, and issuing Written Statements rather than Oral Statements. I hope that will not become a habit”.

 

Government response

Lord True began his half-hour response by stating that it had never been the government’s intention “to be triumphalist, aggressive or divisive on these questions”. He said the government saw the EU as “a close friend and partner” and wished for “nothing other than good relations”. He described parliamentary scrutiny as “invaluable and essential”. He said the ratification of the TCA had been a “landmark moment” which fulfilled the promise to “take back control of our laws, borders, money, trade and fisheries”.

In regard to SPS checks, the EU were deemed to be at fault in failing to agree to proposed equivalence commitments – a decision described by Lord True as “surprising”. He also complained of an EU failure to grant the UK “full listed status” regarding, for example, the movements of molluscs or pets.

On the finance sector, Lord True welcomed the European Commission’s extension of an equivalence decisions re clearing houses. On the MoU, he said that technical discussions had concluded and that the MoU could be signed once formal EU procedures are concluded.

The government is committed to being “a science and research superpower”, and are awaiting the EU’s formalisation of UK participation in collaborative international programmes. The priority, said Lord True, must be in “supporting the UK’s scientists and researchers”. The decision regarding the Erasmus programme was to pursue a global exchange programme rather than contribute “a large net contribution” to Erasmus.

On the creative arts, again the blame was levelled at the EU for failing to adopt a UK proposal, which had been accepted by Norway and Iceland. Lord True stated that it is not government policy to negotiate a visa waiver. Lord Hannay responded by saying the minister had replied, “exactly as I predicted”. The government had again failed, he said, to propose any solution to limit the damage. Lord True’s rejoinder was merely to say he had set the record straight, drawn attention to “progress that has been made” and had reasserted “the government’s concern for the well-being of these industries”.

In response to Lord Kerr’s questions about responsibilities for ongoing bilateral discussions, Lord True said that Lord Frost, who “works hand in glove with the Foreign Office”, was the person responsible for those discussions. It is unlikely that Lord Kerr will have felt reassured.

Lord True described the gap between the UK and EU positions as “significant” and said progress had been “limited”. The government maintains that, “the threshold has been met to use the article 16 safeguards to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement if solutions cannot be found”.

In summation, the Earl of Kinnoull concluded by referring again to the state of relations between the UK and the EU. He regretted that we “have fallen out with” our neighbours and friends and spoke of the need to “rebuild trust and respect”.

Lord Frost may have had somewhere more important or interesting to be, but Lord True, “true diplomat” or not, certainly towed the party line, even if with rather more decorum. Whether any of the noble lords and ladies present will feel as though they received any straight answers, or feel any the wiser, is highly unlikely.

Read the full transcript from Hansard of the House of Lords Grand Committee debate on 6/12/21 here

On New Year’s Day, Brexit will be a bit more ‘done’

On New Year’s Day, Brexit will be a bit more ‘done’

Dec 10, 2021 | Bylines, News

New Brexit rules for trade imports and exports will come into place from 2022 which will make trading with the EU more expensive and difficult, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. On 1 December, the government published the latest update to their ‘Brexit: business guidance’. The publication reminds traders that new Brexit rules will apply from 1 January 2022, and preparations will be needed to deal with forthcoming customs changes.

 

The EU introduced full customs controls on 1 January 2021, but the UK chose to phase in border controls over time. On 14 September, chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost issued a statement in which he spoke of the government’s timetable for the rollout of UK staged customs controls. Frost said that despite having been ready to meet the original timetable, “the Government has decided to delay further some elements of the new controls, especially those relating to Sanitary and Phytosanitary goods”.

Frost placed the blame for the delay on the pandemic, unsurprisingly, despite having had years to prepare. The pandemic did not cause any problems for the EU however, who were ready on time.

Current customs rules

 

For imports from the EU, UK importers currently have two options for standard goods, until the end of this year. The first option is to file an import declaration immediately on entry. The alternative is to register the goods, but not submit a declaration until six months later. In practice, this means there are currently relatively few delays at the British border.

There are, however, many exceptions where full border controls already apply, eg excise goods, such as alcohol and tobacco, controlled drugs and chemicals. Live animals and ‘high risk’ agricultural goods are additional exclusions, as they require a veterinary or phytosanitary health certificate before UK entry.

The new customs requirements

 

From 1 January, it will no longer be possible to “delay making import customs declarations under the Staged Customs Controls rules.” Before goods arrive in the UK, a security declaration or entry summary declaration must also be submitted to UK customs.

The government suggests that some businesses might want to involve the help of an intermediary, such as a customs agent, to help with the process. They also suggest applying for a “simplified declarations” form from HMRC, which “allows their goods to be released directly to a specified customs procedure without having to provide a full customs declaration at the point of release”. Unfortunately, it takes up to 60 days to process a simplified declaration application, so this is of little help for those facing the 1 January deadline without one.

Unless goods have a valid declaration, and have received customs clearance, they will not be ‘released into circulation’ or allowed to leave the port. If the necessary checks cannot be carried out at the border, they may be directed to an inland border facility for documentary of physical checks.

Changes still to come

 

If the measures coming into force at the beginning of next year weren’t enough to contend with, there are many more restrictions yet to be added. As of 1 July, these additional changes include:

Mandatory safety declarations for all cargo
Certification for most veterinary and phytosanitary products
Physical border checks on sanitary and phytosanitary products
New requirements for export health certificates
Further requirements will be added later in the year. From 1 September, certification will be required for all dairy products. From 1 November, certification will be required for all remaining veterinary cargo, including combined products and fish products.

Brexit isn’t ‘done’

 

By any definition, it is clear that Brexit is far from ‘done’. The hurdles facing UK importers and exporters have made trading with the EU more difficult, more expensive and more risky. For some, dealing with our largest and closest market is no longer economically viable – half of UK businesses have reduced their EU trade or stopped dealing with the EU altogether. Add to that supply chain issues and staff shortages already caused by Brexit and it’s clear that things are likely to get worse before they get better. If they get better.

According to the Federation of Small Businesses, only 25 percent of firms that will be affected by the new rules are ready. Many may not fully understand the implications of the changes or what is required of them. Some may even still be struggling to cope with the earlier impacts of Brexit.

We can only hope that our government, at least, is ready. Though that would be breaking the habit of their parliamentary lifetime.

 

Additional source documents that might be useful for traders:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/new-customs-rules-for-trade-with-the-eu/

https://business.gov.nl/running-your-business/international-business/brexit/brexit-the-border-operating-model/

https://www.getreadyforbrexit.eu/en/at-the-uk-border-2/