Lord Frost gives evidence to public administration and constitutional affairs committee

Lord Frost gives evidence to public administration and constitutional affairs committee

Jun 9, 2022 | Bylines, News

This week Lord Frost came up with a series of explanations for why the Brexit deal isn’t working, none of them being his fault writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Whatever’s wrong with the Brexit deal – and according to Lord David Frost that’s quite a lot – it’s someone else’s fault. On Tuesday, Lord Frost, former chief Brexit negotiator, was giving evidence to a House of Commons select committee. The public administration and constitutional affairs committee (PACAC) was taking evidence on the subject of ‘Scrutiny of International Treaties and other International Agreements’.

Over the course of 90 minutes, while giving his evidence, Frost was ready to lay blame at a number of different doors. Whilst his comments and suggestions on how future negotiations might be improved were welcomed, his failure to take responsibility for the current sad state of play cannot have gone unnoticed.

Parliamentary scrutiny and involvement

Frost suggested that parliament should have more scrutiny and be more actively involved in future trade negotiations. They should be given time to express their views and should have the opportunity to vote yes or no on any significant international trade deals, ahead of their ratification. So far, so good.

However, parliament was apparently at fault during the Brexit negotiations. Firstly, they were “conflicted” and were “not clear” what they wanted from the negotiations in 2019. Frost criticised parliament for what he called the “Surrender Act” – the bill that prevented the UK leaving the EU without a deal. Running things from parliament was a “Cromwell-style takeover”, and legally blocking a no-deal Brexit had hampered his negotiating efforts.

According to Frost, this “hugely undermined” the UK negotiating hand. This then resulted in the UK having to “agree more or less what was imposed on us in order to be able to move forward and deliver the referendum result”. Frost said parliament seemed not to want to deliver on that result, describing the whole situation as “extremely unsatisfactory”.

John McDonnell MP told Frost that it seemed as though he thought “parliament was blocking the ‘will of the people’”. In fact, McDonnell said, parliament was merely “trying to get the best deal possible”

Lack of resources

Frost suggested that negotiations were hampered by a lack of experts and a lack of support staff. The fact that, for the last 40 years, the EU had done all the negotiating for us, meant a lack of relevant experience. But the issue was not just about numbers, or levels of expertise. Those pesky civil servants were “political”, and not necessarily on the same Brexit page as the government. Far better to recruit special advisers, presumably at considerable expense, who wouldn’t question government plans, motives or orders.

 

Lord Frost says that he thinks Parliament will need to increase the resources and support in order for Committees to properly scrutinise international agreements, including legal expertise, trade expertise and greater domestic expertise.

— PACAC Committee (@CommonsPACAC) June 7, 2022

 

May and the meaningful votes

In time-honoured Conservative fashion, the previous administration was clearly going to come in for criticism and blame. Theresa May’s ill-advised, and pointlessly self-inflicted, general election was a significant factor. Having destroyed her own majority, getting Brexit through parliament then proved to be impossible. A series of “meaningful votes” undermined the UK’s position, Frost said, and encouraged the EU to believe reversing Brexit was not only desirable, but possible.

The worst criticism of May’s handling of Brexit, however, was Frost’s interpretation of it being a “soft” Brexit. It certainly didn’t feel very soft at the time. But to Frost, the ‘backstop’ arrangement – that allowed the UK to stay in the customs union and parts of the single market – was several steps too far. May’s commitment to Northern Ireland alignment had been “damaging”. All would have been fine, Frost suggested, if he had not “inherited stuff”.

A “fundamental misunderstanding” by the EU

Frost directed much of the blame at the European Union. There was plenty about the withdrawal agreement that the government didn’t like, but efforts were concentrated on changing the backstop. Johnson’s comments regarding Northern Ireland were “not misleading”, Frost said, but were “misinterpreted”. Frost described his “brutal and confrontational” approach as appropriate and effective. “In the end, it worked”, he said.

With regards to negotiating a trade deal, Frost claimed that a zero-tariff free trade agreement was “very desirable” but not at any cost. Some things, he said were more important. Such as, “sovereignty, removing the [European] courts, no legal constraints”. He added that, “we weren’t willing to sacrifice those to get zero tariffs”. On this matter, there was a “fundamental misunderstanding” by the EU. Unlike the fundamental misunderstanding of the British government as to the type of Brexit the public wanted, or voted for.

Not my fault

The final, and most bizarre, scapegoat for Brexit negotiation failures was the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Frost described the act as “one of the factors” preventing the negotiations from running smoothly. A bemused McDonnell said this was “an interesting new theory about who to blame for some of the negotiating problems that we had”.

Frost is not responsible, it seems, for the deal he negotiated, praised, resigned over and now criticises at every opportunity. It was the lack of resources, the EU, parliament and Theresa May. Like Johnson, he refuses to accept personal blame or responsibility for where we are or where we are heading.

Karin Smyth MP asked Frost if his approach had been “honourable”. The fact that the government is imminently planning to override the UK/EU trade deal with controversial, and likely illegal, legislation would rather suggest otherwise.

If the PACAC committee really wants advice on how to improve future international treaties and agreements, maybe they should ask some real experts. Ones who admit their mistakes, learn from them and put co-operation ahead of confrontation. Brussels might be a good place to start.

Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood calls for UK to join the single market

Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood calls for UK to join the single market

Jun 4, 2022 | Bylines, News

Ellwood says the government’s choice of Brexit is damaging and could be softened by the UK joining the single market – the Norway option, writes Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Brexit has not turned out how “most people imagined”. That’s according to senior Conservative MP, and chair of the defence select committee, Tobias Ellwood. After months of ignoring the blindingly obvious – to British business owners at least, if not to British politicians – Ellwood has dared to suggest the UK should rejoin the single market.

Ellwood, who recently spoke out against the prime minister, said the government’s choice of a “hard Brexit” has done significant damage to UK exporters. In his statement, he said it would be a “dereliction of duty” if the government failed to re-evaluate the UK/EU relationship under present circumstances.

All the current challenges, such as extra bureaucracy and issues over the Northern Ireland protocol, “would disappear if we dare to advance our Brexit model by re-joining the single market”, he said. A move to join the European Economic Area (the Norway option) would ease the cost-of-living crisis and bolster the UK economy.

With Brexit reducing the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 4 percent, according to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, clearly urgent action is needed.

The Brexit we voted for?

Ellwood quoted a recent YouGov poll that said this was not the Brexit most people had envisaged, and that the majority of the public now believe Brexit has gone badly. Meanwhile, minister for Brexit opportunities, Jacob Rees-Mogg, continues his search for elusive Brexit benefits, whilst insisting that replacing the prime minister right now would “be a real risk” to those imagined opportunities.

Brexiter MPs, of course, would have us believe that the Brexit we have now is exactly the one that was voted for. But the reality is that ‘leaving the EU’ could have been done in many different ways while still delivering on the referendum mandate. Clearly the interpretation of the public’s choice of Brexit was viewed differently by the current prime minister than by the last one, for example.

Indeed, although both Boris Johnson and his predecessor Theresa May chose a hard Brexit, their execution was rather different. And it was several months after the referendum before May announced that Brexit would mean the UK leaving the single market. This was not an inevitable consequence of leaving the European Union, it was a choice made later, and not by the British public.

Brexiters supported staying in the single market

Although they may now claim otherwise, numerous Brexit-supporting politicians previously insisted that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market or the customs union. In fact, many were adamant that the UK would retain all the benefits of membership of both, and even of the EU itself.

Founder of Leave.EU, Aaron Banks, even said that “the Norway option looks the best for the UK”. Former MEP Daniel Hannan was quoted as saying that “absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market”. And Owen Paterson MP went one step further by insisting that “only a madman would actually leave the market”.

While the reasons people voted for Brexit are many and varied, many were reassured that the benefits of single market membership were not at risk. Significantly, Boris Johnson himself said he was in favour of the single market and would vote to stay in it.

Deny, deny, deny

If the Leave campaign’s vision of Brexit – the one they sold to the British people – was to leave the single market and the customs union, then this should have been made clear at the time. The story these politicians are now telling is a rather different one, where the British public all knew they were voting to leave the European Union and the single market and the customs union – otherwise known as the hardest Brexit possible.

According to Mark Harper MP, the UK voted to leave the EU and “that meant leaving the single market and putting an end to freedom of movement. The end.”

Despite having negotiated the Brexit deal, before trashing it and resigning as Brexit minister, Lord Frost could not resist adding his usual unhelpful opinion. Referring to Ellwood’s statement, and seemingly unaware of the irony, he claimed that Brexit was “not safe in his hands”. Being in the single market, but outside of the EU, “means accepting lots of law set by people we didn’t elect”, said the unelected member of the House of Lords.

Support for joining the single market

There has been widespread support for Ellwood’s comments from those who favoured remaining in the EU. Former Conservative MP, David Gauke tweeted, “Tobias is right. Extraordinary that this point has become almost unsayable”. Lord Andrew Adonis said he was all in favour of “upgrading Brexit” with a return to single market membership. And CEO of Best for Britain, Naomi Smith, noted how single market membership would “soothe inflation, workforce shortage and supply chain woes”.

What was notable by its absence was any comment from opposition parties, most of whom are still avoiding the ‘B’ word at every opportunity. Criticism of Brexit by Labour is seemingly as elusive as Rees-Mogg’s Brexit benefits.

A less-painful Brexit would be a popular choice

The majority of the British public do not support this hard Brexit. A softer approach, that maintains access to, and the benefits of, single market and customs union membership, would have been a workable compromise. It would not have satisfied the extremists on either side, but it would have softened the blow, done considerably less damage, and would have helped to heal the painful wounds of a divisive campaign. It still could – if our politicians would only be brave enough to say so.

Ellwood has been praised for showing courage in speaking out. But it shouldn’t take courage to speak the truth, especially when there is so much evidence to back it up – as detailed in the Detriments of Brexit document published by Yorkshire Bylines.

The time for ignoring the ‘B’ word is over. It’s time for a constructive debate about our future relationship with the EU, and with the truth. It’s not too late to undo much of the damage or to change the course of this punishing Brexit. Let’s not wait until it is.

Bremainers Ask ….. Alexandra Hall Hall

Bremainers Ask ….. Alexandra Hall Hall

May 31, 2022 | Bremainers Ask, News

Alexandra Hall Hall is a former British diplomat with over 30 years’ service, including postings to Bangkok, Washington, New Delhi, Bogota and Tbilisi, where she was the British Ambassador from 2013 – 2016.

Her most recent assignment was as Brexit Counsellor and spokesperson at the British Embassy in Washington from 2018. She resigned from that position, and from the Foreign Office altogether, in December 2019, after concluding she could no longer represent the British Government’s position on Brexit with integrity.

She is now a frequent commentator and writer on British politics and foreign policy post-Brexit.

Valerie Chaplin: Is the Conservative party now beyond redemption and what would need to happen to restore it to a less extremist position?

I do not think any political party is beyond redemption. There is always the chance to remake oneself, learn from mistakes, revise policies and adapt to new times. The usual way for this to happen is for a party to lose an election and be forced to spend many years in opposition, reflecting on why. However, as long as the Conservative party believes it has the formula for winning elections, there will be no incentive for it to change. So, it is really up to voters to send a message if they want it to change.

The Conservative party also needs to be willing to be honest to itself about the consequences of its policies. What has astonished me most about the party in recent years is less its willingness to deceive the public (though that is bad enough), but its willingness to lie even to itself.

Steve Wilson: Having worked in a variety of countries, do any of the systems of government you’ve witnessed offer lessons to the UK on how to govern well or badly?

Of course. One advantage of working overseas is that you get some distance and perspective on your own country, and how it is seen by others. You also get to observe the systems of other governments, and gain insights into what works well, or not.

For most of my career, I genuinely found the UK system compared very favourably in comparison with the governments in the countries where I was posted. In my experience, I would also say there is absolutely no failproof system for ensuring integrity and competence in government. Each country has its own traditions and structures, and what may work well in one country, might not in another. So I can’t directly suggest that any model from other countries is the right one for the UK.

Democracy at least offers a chance to throw out a government which has lost its way. But democracy is not just about elections every few years, but a whole system of delicate checks and balances which interact with each other to prevent overreach by any one branch of government. It also relies on public trust between the government and voters. Voters will forgive governments some mistakes, if they believe them to be honest ones, and based on decisions taken in good faith.

While the UK’s system has some strange anomalies (such as the unelected House of Lords) and systems which not everyone supports (e.g. FPTP) I never thought our system was fundamentally undemocratic. However, that confidence was shaken by Brexit. It was not the result of the referendum per se, but the way in which the government claimed a mandate to implement the very hardest form of Brexit, overriding the concerns of significant sectors of our economy, society and different regions of our country. It was also the government’s ability to wilfully mislead the British public about the implications, with no accountability.

What Brexit exposed is that our system is too reliant on our government acting with self-restraint, and policing itself to uphold standards of public office, including the core obligation to be honest. When this is absent, trust begins to break down, and that erodes confidence in all parts of the system. We are witnessing this breakdown in the UK.

 

Lawrence Baron: Have there been any changes or differences between other governments and diplomats dealing with British diplomats and British government ministers? In other words, are British diplomats as well respected as they were pre-Brexit?

British diplomats are as capable as they ever were. But British diplomacy is not. British diplomats have to work twice as hard to maintain the same position and influence as we had before. For example, we are no longer included in EU meetings, not just in Brussels, but in fora, embassies, conferences and other EU organised gatherings around the world. We are dependent on invitations, and what they choose to brief us on afterwards. We have less insight into what drives EU policy, and therefore how best to influence it. We can also no longer rely automatically on EU colleagues having our back if we get into a bilateral spat with any other country (as risks now being the case with the US over UK threats to renege on the Northern Ireland Protocol).

British diplomats also have to spend much more time defending and explaining what is going on in the UK, rather than keeping the focus on the country to which they are posted, as used to be the case. Their ability to lobby other countries on various human rights, refugee and other international legal matters is undermined by the growing perception that the UK is willing to waive its own obligations when it suits. This perception also undermines trust in the UK, and countries may become more reluctant either to engage with us, or sign formal deals with us, if they fear we may misrepresent the details, or go back on our word.

The fraying of our bonds with the EU, and the damage done to our international reputation by the way in which the government pursued Brexit, has left us more isolated on the world stage, and more vulnerable to countries no longer respecting our positions, or playing hardball with us. It’s a shame, because on many issues, such as the conflict in Ukraine, or climate change policy, the UK has genuinely had a lot to offer. But the blind spot around Brexit undermines all our other diplomatic efforts.

In short, our diplomatic hand is weakened, and other countries know it.

Keith Glazzard: You have clearly stated the role of conscience for yourself and possibly for others who decided that they could no longer serve. Can it be the case that Brexit has empowered a government without conscience?

Yes. Just as autocracies don’t spring into being overnight, but gradually erode checks and balances on their way to amassing absolute power, nor does dishonest government necessarily happen overnight. But each time a government gets away with an abuse of power, or outright lie, it is encouraged to do it again. In the case of the current British government, lying about the UK’s relationship with the EU, the costs and benefits of leaving or staying in the EU, and the implications of the various forms of Brexit open to us, has so far turned out to be an electorally successful strategy.

Serial lying has also been a successful career strategy for the Prime Minister personally, starting from when he used to tell lies about the EU when he was a journalist in Brussels. The members of the Conservative party are in turn forced to lie, to cover up his lies. So, the government and its supporters have steadily gone down a path of lying, then lying about the lying, until reaching the current state, where we do indeed have a government without conscience. As long as they keep winning elections, they will see no reason to change.

Lisa Burton: The UK government has pushed through some controversial bills in rapid succession, i.e., the Policing, ,Elections, and Borders and Nationality Bills. Do you agree these bills have deeply worrying elements and are an example of executive overreach?

Yes, I believe they are deeply worrying bills. Just as I mentioned above, autocracies don’t spring into being overnight, but chip away at the rights and freedoms of citizens, often under the guise of “protecting security” or “fighting crime”. Each measure might sound plausible or justifiable by itself, but, taken together, they add up to a fundamental erosion of liberties. By the time the electorate realises how much has been lost, and how much power the government has accumulated, it may be too late.

All the measures are worrying, but the most concerning one to me is the plan to circumscribe the powers of judicial review, because with our Head of State essentially being only a ceremonial position, so much of the press in cahoots with the government, and the government by definition able to count on a majority in parliament, the courts remain the best independent institution we have to protect against an overreaching executive. Take away judicial review, or go even further and curtail the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, and what is to prevent a future government proroguing parliament, reneging on treaties, and rewriting laws to suit its own purpose at will?

However, though I personally believe the government is on a path to eroding democracy in this country, what is truly troubling is that – under our current system – it has the technical powers to do this. It is not formally executive overreach. The government’s actions just demonstrate that our current constitutional arrangements are not strong enough. There are many examples of other ostensibly democratic governments going down the same path – e.g., in Hungary, or Brazil, or the Philippines. They have the outward appearance of democracies – hold elections, allow certain limited forms of political rights, etc. – but in practice tighten their control over so many aspects of society, that they become “illiberal democracies”. This is the path the UK is on. I personally believe it is time to review our entire constitutional arrangements.

Anonymous: Was there a specific event or government policy that preceded your resignation from the FCDO or was it the result of a cumulative effect?

Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament in September 2019 was the defining moment for me. I will confess to feeling deeply uneasy when he was appointed Prime Minister (and had in fact taken a career break while he was Foreign Secretary, because I was so worried about working for such an unprincipled person, with a track record of dishonesty in both his personal and public life), but I was prepared to give it a go.

The prorogation of Parliament confirmed my worst fears – that there would be no limit to what he would be prepared to do, to drive through Brexit, even if it meant overriding the right of Parliament to scrutinize his government’s approach. From then on, it was really just a matter of time. Things just got worse from there on. I found I was simply unable to look American contacts in the eye, and deliver the messages I was instructed to deliver, as Brexit envoy in the US, with a straight face, when I knew them to be so misleading.

As I wrote in my resignation letter, it became untenable professionally, and unbearable personally, for me to continue in the role. I could have asked to be reassigned, or be allowed a career break, but that seemed the coward’s way out, given that this was a matter of conscience, about the ethics of our government, on a policy with such massive implications for our nation.

In next month’s newsletter, we will be hearing again from three former contributors to our Bremainers Ask feature, who will give us their views on recent events and the UK’s road to rejoining the EU: European Movement Chair Lord Andrew Adonis, the EM’s CEO Anna Bird, and campaigner and journalist Jon Danzig.

UK unilateral action over protocol

UK unilateral action over protocol

May 25, 2022 | Bylines, News

This was not the first time we have heard from the UK government that the negotiated Brexit deal – and the protocol – is not fit for purpose, writes Bremain Chair Sue WILSON MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

When Brexit opportunities minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg, gave evidence to the European scrutiny committee, back in April, he announced the government’s plans to act unilaterally over issues relating to the Northern Ireland protocol. It was “widely accepted”, he claimed, “that the protocol is not working and needs reform”.

This was not the first time we had heard from a government minister, or indeed the prime minister himself, that the negotiated Brexit deal is not fit for purpose. Despite the deal being hailed as a huge triumph, and sold to parliament and the public as such, it seems that the only motivations were getting Brexit “done”, and getting Boris Johnson re-elected.

According to Rees-Mogg, the deal was only signed “on the basis that it would be reformed”, and if the EU wouldn’t reform it, then the UK government would do so unilaterally.

Unilateral action proposals

The EU is sadly familiar with UK government attempts to threaten, blame and bully. Threats to act unilaterally, such as by triggering Article 16 – the safeguarding mechanism within the protocol itself – are hardly new. Regarded largely as empty threats by the EU, they have only succeeded in destroying any remaining trust between the two parties and harming EU/UK relations.

This latest threat, however, is the worst yet. This time the UK government aims to pass legislation that would, according to government lawyers, allow them to override parts of the protocol itself. Rather than use the mechanism provided by the protocol itself, the government aims to break international law.

The supposed justification for doing so, according to the foreign secretary, Liz Truss, is “upholding the Belfast Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and restoring political stability”. With the exception of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), other parties, other countries, and especially the EU and USA say the only way to achieve both those desirable aims is to implement the protocol. The protocol is not the problem. The protocol is the solution – the only one possible. The problem is the hard Brexit the government – not the country – chose.

The EU response

The drastic – and illegal – plans have been widely criticised across Europe. Maroš Šefčovič, vice president of the European Commission and chief EU Brexit negotiator, said plans to suspend parts of the protocol were “simply not acceptable”.

Although it hopes to avoid such action by UK authorities, the EU is preparing plans to retaliate if necessary. These plans could include a trade war, with tariffs being applied, suspending parts of the trade and cooperation agreement, or terminating the trade agreement in its entirety.

Not for the first time, the EU has reiterated that renegotiation of the protocol is not on the table.

 

Criticism from the island of Ireland

Foreign affairs minister for Ireland, Simon Coveney, called the UK government’s plans “obscene”. He said “compromise and dialogue” were required to solve any outstanding protocol issues. Unilateral action by the UK government “breaches international law and further damages trust”.

 

First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, said unilateral action to denounce the withdrawal agreement or disapply the protocol, was “reckless”. She added that Johnson was “feeding political instability and economic uncertainty”.

Sinn Féin president, Mary Lou Macdonald, claimed that Johnson was “in cahoots with” and facilitating the DUP in a “game of brinkmanship”. The DUP, who are deliberately blocking power-sharing at Stormont, have welcomed the UK government’s proposals. They insist that the protocol is damaging the economy of Northern Ireland, and the protocol does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland. The results of the recent elections disprove that claim. As do the Northern Irish business groups pleading with the prime minister not to take unilateral action.

Though not without Brexit-related problems, Northern Ireland has benefitted from the ability to trade freely with both unions – the UK and the EU – a point the UK government would prefer went unnoticed. Northern Ireland’s continued membership of the European single market has brought many benefits and opportunities, though not the ones Rees-Mogg is still searching for. Scotland, Wales, and probably England too, can only look on with envy.

Rumblings from across the pond

The American authorities are so concerned about the latest threat to the Good Friday Agreement that they sent a delegation of senators to London, Brussels, Belfast and Dublin.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi had recently warned that Congress would not back any trade deal with the UK if the UK government discards the protocol. President Biden has made similar comments and takes the US role as guarantor of the GFA very seriously. Following a meeting between the US delegation and the EU, a joint statement was issued confirming US solidarity for the EU position – no renegotiation of the protocol.

One of the many misleading and disingenuous claims the Brexiters made about Brexit was the freedom for Britain to stand on its own two feet. It is perhaps one Brexit promise that has come closest to being realised, though perhaps not in the way the government, or the public, visualised. The UK is alone, but as a result of being isolated, side-lined and distrusted by those it needs to work with, and trade with.

Although clearly on the government’s agenda, the planned legislation aiming to override the protocol did not make the Queen’s Speech, which sets out the legislative agenda for the coming year. Yet a week later, it was back on the table. Did even this government – with seemingly no qualms about making the country more extremist – draw the line at having the head of state present plans to break international law?

Even our government now admits that it signed the protocol in bad faith. While Johnson is still in charge, any head of state thinking of signing a deal with the UK, would be well advised to count their fingers following any handshake with our PM.

Johnson is not to be trusted. Which sadly means, neither is Britain.

Working from home under attack by out-of-touch and out-of-date government

Working from home under attack by out-of-touch and out-of-date government

May 16, 2022 | News

With their attack on WFH, Johnson and Rees-Mogg have proved just how far the Conservatives have strayed from being the ‘party of business’.

Sue Wilson MBE

by Sue Wilson MBE

When the pandemic forced employees all over the world to work from home (WFH) – many for the first time ever – remote working was regarded as an efficient and useful tool. Companies were quick to embrace the philosophy, provide the necessary tools and benefit from the cost-effectiveness working from home can bring.

Fast forward to post-lockdown Britain and WFH is no longer regarded by the government as a suitable method of working. In response, companies and individuals benefitting from remote working practices are less WFH and more, WTF?

Efficiency minister living in the past

Having encouraged the British public to ‘stay home, save lives’, it seems the government has made another about-turn. The first obvious criticism of WFH came from the Brexit opportunities and government efficiency minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg, back in April. He insisted civil servants should immediately return to their offices, claiming it was important for the public to see that the government was working properly. I can’t argue with the reasoning – we’d all like to see evidence of the government ‘working properly’ – but I suspect we’re all far more concerned with the efficiency and decision-making abilities of our politicians than our civil servants.

An ‘insulting’ note left by Rees-Mogg for civil servants not at the desks drew widespread condemnation, not least from Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA trade union, responsible for civil servants and public service professionals. Penman said, “With every pronouncement and display like this, he demonstrates that he has no clue how the modern workplace operates and cares little about the effective delivery of vital public services”.

When a photograph of Rees-Mogg recently appeared in The Telegraph, sat behind a neat desk, free of modern technology, his lack of understanding of the modern workplace was again brought into question. Who, in this modern age, doesn’t have a computer on their desk? Personally, I found the lack of a quill more of a surprise.

WFH doesn’t work, says workshy PM

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has a rather different take on why we should all be back in the office. WFH simply doesn’t work, apparently. Speaking as one whose job it is literally to work from home, his entire justification is based on personal experience – that of being a lazy, easily distracted, workshy laggard. Rather than demonstrate how inefficient home-workers are, Johnson has reaffirmed his own inadequacies to the nation.

Once again, a fridge was to feature largely in this PM story. Apparently, cheese is a terrible distraction from the business of running the country (into the ground). Coffee too. Then there’s the slow walk to and from the fridge, wasting more valuable work time. This surprised me frankly, as I rather assumed the PM would have a fridge under his desk. But perhaps that one is just for wine.

Whether the PM spoke with cabinet members before making his anti WFH pronouncement is unclear. It’s hard to imagine that those ministers rarely seen in Westminster – Gove springs to mind – would be comfortable having to be in the office on a regular basis. Nor will the likes of former attorney general Geoffrey Cox be too delighted, I imagine, preferring to conduct his business from the Caribbean.

WFH: the pros

Regardless of the ramblings of a behind-the-times minister supposedly responsible for ‘government efficiency’, or a lazy workshy PM, there are considerable benefits for employers and employees alike.

For the individual, perhaps the most obvious benefit is the ruling out of expensive, time-consuming and stressful commuting. While saving countless hours, and in many cases thousands of pounds, a year, the removal of unnecessary travel also benefits the environment. Something that, supposedly, is high on our government’s agenda (not so’s you would notice).

Another considerable benefit is the impact on work-life balance. Working from home provides more independence and flexibility. This can be demonstrated by the freedom to work in your pyjamas or to time-shift your day to start/end when it suits. That flexibility also means the avoidance of being tied to a particular location, suitable for travel to and from the office. To not exploit the opportunity, should you so choose, to work from a remote location, or even another country, would seem a terrible waste of modern technological advantages.

You could also develop new skills while working at home, such as self-discipline and communication. Thanks to the pandemic, many home-workers have become experts in virtual meetings by necessity. The avoidance of more formal in person meetings is also widely regarded as a benefit, alongside the freedom from interruption by work colleagues.

Employers benefit from having staff work remotely too, with considerable cost-savings and efficiencies. Those efficiencies help keep profits up and prices down, which also benefits their customers.

WFH: the cons

Of course, the freedom from working with others can also be seen as a negative – not everyone works best, or efficiently, in isolation. The lack of opportunity to collaborate with or to learn from others may make some employees feel as though they are missing out.

A common complaint from remote workers is the risk of forgetting to ‘clock off’, resulting in working longer hours. Work life can blur into home life, especially if you don’t have the luxury of physically separating your work area from your living area. That may also cause the appearance of being unprofessional, when the delivery driver rings the doorbell or the dog barks in the middle of an important Zoom meeting.

The recent announcement that 90,000 civil service jobs are to be axed may be a significant factor in the return to the office for public service professionals. For private businesses, and their employees, decisions on future WFH arrangements will be made based on common sense, business needs and cost-benefit analyses. The pronouncements of the PM and the efficiency minister will be largely disregarded as out-of-date, out-of-touch postering.

All that Johnson and Rees-Mogg have achieved with their comments on WFH is to prove just how far the Conservatives have strayed from being the ‘party of business’. They have failed business over Brexit, they have failed business over covid, they have failed business over the economy. WFH is just more proof that they don’t listen, they don’t learn and they don’t act. This government does not represent the needs of business. In fact, it’s difficult to see whose needs they do represent. Apart from their own.

EU-UK Relations Deteriorating Rapidly

EU-UK Relations Deteriorating Rapidly

May 16, 2022 | News

Sue Wilson MBE

by Sue Wilson MBE

Liz Truss on Twitter 12 May
Liz Truss on Twitter 12 May – https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1524681502537265152?s=20&t=l3kBvGC-hHUQs00w8YMmYQ

In the run up to the Stormont elections in Northern Ireland, UK/EU negotiations were put on hold, so as not to interfere with the democratic election process. Now those elections are behind us the UK government have wasted no time in ramping up the rhetoric and further damaging relations with the European Union.

Minister for Brexit Opportunities, Jacob Rees-Mogg, recently let the cat out of the bag about government plans to bring forward a bill to override the Brexit deal. Despite the government signing a legally-binding international treaty, supposedly in good faith, it seems they never meant to abide by it. Although the new legislation did not appear in the Queens Speech on 10 May, it appears to still be in the legislation pipeline.


James O’Brien – Twitter – https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1524407554004164611?s=20&t=GYxCMeG6qzTvVshwDz3dOA

Northern Ireland Protocol – signed in bad faith

The deal that the UK signed, the same deal that was presented to parliament and the public as the best thing since sliced bread, is now widely despised by the Brexiters. Steve Baker MP, claimed the Protocol was signed “under duress”, while Rees-Mogg insisted the deal was only signed “on the basis that it would be reformed”. Strange that nobody told MPs that at the time of rushing the deal through parliament with little scrutiny.

Threats of unilateral action by the UK government over the Protocol are not new. We have heard it all before from various Brexit negotiators and from the Prime Minister himself. The supposed justifications for overriding the deal are similarly old excuses. However, this time around does feel less of a bluff. Judging by the response from Brussels, it would seem the EU think so too.


Maros Sefcovic on Twitter – https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1524705876577239040?s=20&t=rTlvEw2EStOCIrIcteTqOw

The response from Brussels

On 12 May, European Commission Vice President, Maroš Šefčovič, issued a statement following “tetchy” talks with Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss.  In his statement he said,

“… it continues to be of serious concern that the UK government intends to embark on the path of unilateral action … effectively dis-applying an international agreement is simply not acceptable”.

Šefčovič, who is also the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, drew attention to the fact that the EU have already proposed “wide-ranging and impactful solutions” following intensive discussions with the people of Northern Ireland. The UK government, on the other hand, seems only to be talking to the DUP, who are refusing to join the new N.I. executive unless the Protocol is scrapped.

Any unilateral action, Šefčovič said, “would undermine trust between the EU and UK as well as compromise our ultimate objective – to protect the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement”. The UK government continue to insist that their planned actions would protect peace and the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). They seem to be the only ones who believe that. As the EU have pointed out on numerous occasions, the Protocol is the solution – to Brexit, especially the hard Brexit the UK government chose – not the problem.


Simon Coveney – Twitter 12 May – https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1524805318697529347?s=20&t=rTlvEw2EStOCIrIcteTqOw

Condemnation of UK’s unilateral destructions plans has come from further afield too, not least from Biden’s America. A delegation of influential US Congress representatives is set to arrive in Europe within days, amid growing concerns about rising tensions. They are expected to visit, London, Brussels, Dublin and Belfast, and will be underlining the US commitment to the GFA of which they are guarantors.

The new ‘no-deal’ Brexit?


Ian Dunt – Twitter – https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1524754368909750272?s=20&t=rTlvEw2EStOCIrIcteTqOw

It is no longer a secret – except to the deluded Brexiters – that Brexit is going badly. Nor is it a secret that the Prime Minister’s popularity has hit rock bottom. What better time to ramp up the rhetoric, make false accusations or cause further division, in an attempt to appeal to their right-wing voter base?

Threatening to scrap the Protocol is the new ‘no-deal’ Brexit. For many of the more extreme Brexiters, no deal was always the aim. Having failed to attain their goal the first time around, perhaps they see another opportunity to grasp that nettle. After all, the Brexiters do seem to see Brexit opportunities everywhere, despite their invisibility to the rest of us.

Meanwhile, as Brexit continues to damage the country, the government seems determined to damage relations with our neighbours. It could hardly have happened at a worse time, when Europe should be working together to defeat out common enemy.


David Henig – Twitter – https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1525001600074407937?s=20&t=rTlvEw2EStOCIrIcteTqOw

Not only will pursuit of this policy cause untold damage to European relationships, it will make other countries think twice before trusting the word, or the signature, of our PM. Having just signed security pacts with the UK, Finland and Sweden must already be wondering if they are worth the paper they are printed on.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the UK will back down. They have plenty of form of doing just that, which rather makes a nonsense of all the posturing and bad temper. But, if they proceed down this dangerous path, they need to do so with their eyes wide open to the possible consequences.

The EU have run out of patience. If the UK takes unilateral action, they will act, as they did with Trump’s America. A trade war threatens and there can only be one loser. And it won’t be the EU.