I posted this not long ago as a Twitter thread:
The more I read it the more I am perplexed by the Brexit deal.
It is an OK deal for trade in goods. Except for a mountain of very expensive and burdensome red tape, that is. And red tape and burdens on business are the thing the Tories always supposedly hated.
And the priority on the trade in goods also makes no sense for a service economy, which we are since the Tories abandoned manufacturing.
Plus, the deal leaves financial services, that are supposedly our greatest success story, and the biggest suppliers of funds to the Tories, in limbo.
The professions, barring lawyers, are meanwhile stuffed without mutual recognition. Many career paths will fall apart as a result of that. And the professions have been the backbone of Tory support for generations.
Most people have lost freedom of movement and have won in exchange riskier, and more expensive, holidays as a result.
Practically, we won nothing on migration.
We certainly did not seem to win on fish.
Students lost Erasmus.
And Universities will lose out on research funding.
We lost sovereignty in Northern Ireland. The UK is now in the extraordinary position of having an internal border and part of its territory within a trading bloc and the rest not.
Scotland has been alienated, I suspect forever.
International relations are weaker.
And what did we win for all this? Freedom from the European Court of Justice? Was there anything else?
Oh yes, there are going to be freeports, which are something we had within EU rules until 2012 and gave up because they provided no obvious benefits then.
And just in case anyone wants to know what a freeport is it's a place where goods can move without tariffs and excise duties at its international border, which is something we're just giving up in the rest of the UK.
Why then is this a good deal?
Why is anyone backing it?
And why is Labour voting for it?
I wish I knew. But I don't, because objectively it's an awful deal that we're going to long regret. And from that fact (for fact it is) it's going to be hard to move on.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Labour want the Tories to own this deal, so why not abstain? They often do that.
All other parties could do the same.
Unionists and many media commentators are asking why the SNP are voting against.
If SNP abstained or voted for the deal, they’d also be taken to task for not following their principles.
Funny old world.
It is a poor deal, and it will look increasingly poor the longer it is looked at. It is better however than no deal.
It’s being supported because the alternative is no UK-EU deal.
We are where we are. Yet there are a remarkable number of people who would choose the no formal deal option over this.
Bizarrely the EU nations have unanimously supported this deal in the last 24 hours over the alternative of no formal deal, and yet those political parties who are mostly likely to claim that they support the EU do not agree with their decision in this case.
2020 – the year that you could not make up.
Labour by abstaining would not be voting no deal, because an abstention guaranteed a deal would happen
It would be saying it does not support this deal
That’s how Parliament works
And that’s just fine
@August The EU ambassadors have “approved” the deal, which is gleefully reported in the media as the EU agreeing the deal.
In fact, it’s a provisional agreement –
“From the EU perspective, the European Commission has stated that the Agreement requires the unanimous consent of the Member States in the Council of the EU and the consent of the European Parliament. However, given that time is short, the Commission has proposed to apply the Agreement on a provisional basis, for a limited period of time until 28 February 2021. This provisional application would allow the Agreement to come into force ahead of being formally ratified on the EU side. On 28 December, the Council unanimously approved the EU-UK post-Brexit trade deal, paving the way for it to be provisionally applied.”
Thank you
And given the deal was within their own parameters and favourable to the EU it was hardly ever going to be otherwise, was it?
Anything new here? Thought you were moving on?.. sounds like usual rhetoric
I am moving on….now I know it’s a bad deal
Moving on requires a compass and knowledge of charting new trade deals outside the EU jurisdiction.
It also necessary to look at the bigger picture with rise of China as a major economic power with deep tentacles in Global South. Brexit has always been an English nationalist project irrespective of the left versus right divide in British body politic.
The key question in the coming years is whether the multifarious bilateral trade deals signed by Boris & Co with the connianvance of transnational/multinational corporations results in enhancing the global importance of UK. Our contention is that nationalist discourses take many forms. During the decade of decolonization it took the form of National Liberation Struggles in the Global South. As we enter 2021, riddled with Corona pandemic and emergence of vaccine nationalism; the reconfiguration of UK’s influence in global political economy largely depends on the symbiotic relationship between India and Great Britain. The latter under the sway of a peculiar form of English Nationalism while the former is governed by Hindu Nationalist cyst named Hindutva under Narendra Modi and the BJP. Both Rishi Sunak and Priti Patel among many others has deep links with Indian corporate sector as well as governing BJP party networks. The omen for a trade and political pact with India is the apple in Boris’s cart.
In the final analysis, when two elephants fight it the grass that gets hurt. The Scramble for African Resources and Land remains the strategic and tactical agenda of the Global North with India as an alia to offset Chinese investments in Africa.
You say ‘Moving on requires a compass and knowledge of charting new trade deals outside the EU jurisdiction.’
Sorry, but I do not agree. That’s to play their silly game.
Moving on requires rebuilding the relationship with Europe, and with ourselves. It does not require a new colonialism
This so called Brexit Agreement is NO MORE a Tsunami watering down version of the:
Canadian Deal.
This the worst case scenario for BOTH SIDES the EK/UK
The shear weight of RED TAPE as of the 1st January 2021 and for years to come …………….
OH what have our Lords & Masters let us in For
Labour should abstain.
Agreed
As should SNP, LibDems and all other parties: the bill will pass unless massive Tory defections occur, and if that doesn’t happen, the only way for everyone else to make their opposition obvious is abstention.
As should SNP, LibDems and all other parties: the bill will pass unless massive Tory defections occur, and if that doesn’t happen, the only way for everyone else to make their opposition obvious is by abstention.
It’s a triumph! For bigots, racists, closet imperialists, and (key) the gullible.
(Completely by-the-by, I’m a life-long Eye reader. Sometimes I fantasise that a philanthropist would fund a free copy to every household in the country. If only 1% bothered to read the ‘serious’ content, I’d be a happy bunny. It’s depressing stuff, but I console myself that the corruption is, really, no worse than it was way back when. Current favourite is RIshi Sunak’s failure to declare his personal & spouse’s financial interests, and the complete lack of interest to investigate. Latest in a long line of conmen, and snake-oil salesmen.)
Labour want the Tories to own the Deal, so perhaps it would be better if all opposition parties abstained?
I have some sympathy (not much) with their predicament, given all the occasions in the lead up to the Deal when BBC commentators and others have demanded to know if they would support the Deal – a clear ploy to generate anti-Labour headlines.
SNP MP’s will vote against the Deal – so Unionists, Brexiteers and many mainstream commentators have accused them of being in favour of No Deal. There is no doubt that, if the SNP voted for the Deal or abstained, they would be accused of betraying their principles.
Opposition MP’s in the House of Commons spend most of their time on –
1) opposing bills they don’t like, despite knowing they will lose.
2) discussing bills in committees, sometimes committees of the whole house.
The Scottish Parliament will debate the Deal, which is like (2). Again, they are accused of being in favour of No Deal. They are also accused of having no skin in the game because this is an international treaty. Hence my sympathy with Labour.
It’s a funny old world.
Apart from fishing there are no quotas. Contrast that with the Mercosur-EU deal which is crawling with more quotas than cocottes in Ilfracombe.
Richard mentions the loss of access to Erasmus for students, which is of major significance for present and future UK students except for those from NI. In a very shrewd initiative, which has largely been ignored by UK MSM, the Irish Gov will pay for NI students to access Erasmus. Straight off this wins the moral high ground for the Irish Gov and, given the higher level of support for reunification among the younger age groups in NI, will further tip the scales in favour of reunification. Karma!
Similar loss of access will limit the effectiveness of the science community in UK, the professions, policing etc and I’m sure more will emerge in time as the full implications of the agreement become clear. Much of my accountancy work prior to retirement was in international corporate turnaround work, but now I’d have been deprived of much of my income if I were still working. This madness of shutting ourselves off from the world in order to enforce an illusional standard “Britishness” on all the inhabitants of these isles can only lead to the destruction of the UK or, more sinisterly, a Chinese-style programme of enforced “re-education” to eliminate all Celtic influences. My money’s on UK dissolution.
It is just so bizarre that to win whatever these new supposed freedoms are that so much has been lost
It isn’t even a finished deal – but a perpetual negotiation so Government / civil servants time is going to be endlessly spent on this utter farce.
This agreement is not the end of Brexit, it is a five year political truce
by David Allen Green
28th December 2020
More is now becoming apparent of the nature of the draft trade and cooperation agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom.
This post looks at two fundamental issues: structure and duration.
*
In regard of structure, let us start with what is expressly stated as the ‘purpose’ of the agreement:
‘This Agreement establishes the basis for a broad relationship between the Parties […]’
The word ‘broad’ is significant, especially when one looks at the following provision.
This provision expressly provides that it is envisaged that there will be ‘other’ agreements that will both ‘supplement’ this agreement but will be subject to this agreement.
The key word here, at the end of the numbered paragraph, is that this agreement is a ‘framework’.
As such it is not, and is not intended to be, a once-and-for-all agreement, setting out all the terms of the post-Brexit relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.
This will not surprise many (no doubt they are already scrolling down to type ‘why is this a surprise?’ in the comment box below) but it is significant – and consequential – and needs spelling out.
This is explicitly not an agreement which shows that the United Kingdom has, in one single bound, ‘taken back control’ and become free.
The agreement instead shows, even in its first two substantive provisions, that Brexit will be an ongoing negotiation, maybe one without end.
All this agreement does – expressly and openly – is provide a ‘broad…framework’.
*
Once this is understood then other parts of the agreement make sense.
For example, there are numerous specialised trade committees set up for various sectors.
Loads of talking shops.
But some have rightly noted that some sectors do not have specialised trade committees.
This really is extraordinary. For many years financial services was at the heart of the UK’s EU policy. The U.K. had a significant role shaping policy for the whole region. And now not even a committee..! https://t.co/0js6S5XCmE
– Charlotte Moore (@charlotsmoore) December 26, 2020
The specialised trade committees which have been set up, however, oversee certain parts of the agreement.
So, if a sector is not the subject of other provisions in the agreement, then there will not be a specialised trade committee to oversee that sector.
(This is akin to, say, parliamentary select committees that are set up to mirror government departments.)
The reason, therefore, there is not a financial services specialised trade committee under this agreement is that there are no substantive provisions under this agreement on financial services (yet) for that committee to monitor.
If and when there is a ‘supplementary’ agreement on financial services, for example, there will be a corresponding new specialised trade agreement.
That new committees can be formed is expressly provided for in the powers of the partnership council, that can ‘by decision, establish Trade Specialised Committees and Specialised Committees’.
The agreement, therefore, envisages both new supplementary agreements and new specialised committees.
(And these envisaged potential extensions are elsewhere in this agreement.)
In other words, this agreement is intended and designed to be a dynamic arrangement between the parties, where areas of trade and cooperation can change and indeed become closer (or less close) over time.
This means one consequence of Brexit is that the United Kingdom has swapped the dynamic treaties of the European Union which envisages things becoming closer (or sometimes less close) over time for a new ‘broad…framework’ dynamic agreement that also envisages things becoming closer (or sometimes less close) over time.
And this is part of the design, as the examples above show.
*
There is more.
Not only is the agreement envisaged and designed to be dynamic over time, it will also be subject to five-yearly reviews.
So slow, incremental changes within five periods will be complemented by possible far more substantive shifts every five years.
This again is part of the design.
Buried on page 402 of the agreement:
“The Parties shall jointly review the implementation of this Agreement and supplementing agreements and any matters related thereto five years after the entry into force of this Agreement and every five years thereafter.”
And once you realise there is this five year cycle, you notice it elsewhere in the agreement.
There are numerous references to ‘2026’ and ‘five years’.
And as John Lichfield has pointed out in this significant and informative thread, 2026 is also a significant date on the fisheries question:
Fish thread.
Having read the Brexit deal, I believe B. Johnson misled the nation on Thurs when he said Britain could catch “all the fish that it wants ” in UK waters in 5 years’ time. The clear presumption in the text is that EU fleets will have similar access after 2026.1/12
– John Lichfield (@john_lichfield) December 26, 2020
*
Five year periods, of course, accord neatly with the five year cycles of the European Union.
The European Commission is appointed for a five year term, for example, and the European Parliament is elected every five years.
Each President of the European Council also tends to serve a five year term.
So this five year cycle of reviews is convenient for (and is no doubt designed to be convenient for) the European Union.
Each Commission, each European Parliament, and each President of the European Council, will have its turn to shape the relationship with the United Kingdom, before handing it onto the next.
The five year cycle also may suit the United Kingdom.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act provides that each parliament should last five years – though, of course, this statute is set for repeal.
But, in any case, the politics of the United Kingdom generally tends to follow cycles of four to five years.
And if Fixed-term Parliaments Act stays in place, the next general election is in May 2024, just in time for the run-up to the next review of the agreement.
*
The trade and cooperation agreement is expressly and openly designed to have both small changes within five year cycles and potentially big changes every five years.
As such, this agreement is not the end of Brexit.
The agreement is not (and is not intended to be) a once-and-for-all settlement of the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.
It is instead – deliberately – a dynamic agreement, capable of enabling closer union (or less close union) over time.
The five year cycles accord exactly with the convenience of the terms of the European Union and also roughly match the political cycle of the United Kingdom.
This agreement does not bring Brexit to an end, it is instead a five year political truce.
*****
BrexShit was not about us, the people gaining anything personally. It is however about us personally losing what we currently have.
The architects of BrexShit wanted one thing above all – an escape from the legal treaties and laws that binded the tax evaders and money launderers that have resided here for centuries. No longer able to hide behind the UK’s veto as Cameron confirmed.
These architects are happy to let the people here (and indeed themselves and their children ) return to the full freedoms that they have and NEED as Europeans!
That is why as soon as they have set up the independent free state they will legally be able to keep it out of the EU and let the rest of the U.K. return to the EU.
The internal border much smaller than NI will be around this new city state (and Freeport’s).
The EU leadership knew that as did the chief negotiators and elites.
It is galling that we still believe the parameters and restrict ourselves to the Narratives constructed for all the non-democratic manipulation and Perception Management.
Sovereignty? Wtf does that really equate to in mine or anyone’s daily & personal life?
The EU HAS invested in the most deprived areas of its member states. I remember the difference it made to us in the North West in the 80’s. It HAS improved working standards and hours in all member states.
The deal is from their point of view robust enough to restrict the pirate enclave from robbing it blind.
The Pirates on the other hand know they are free of the previous contract and believe they can do what they want. They will use the English Courts against the CJEU.
I do not buy that
I do not see a plan
sorry
Thank you. Very interesting, but not at all surprising. The devil is in the detail, and as we know, Johnson doesn’t do detail, any more than he does honesty. So this does not really settle our relationship with the EU for years ahead; we are less tightly involved, but there still needs to be negociation with the economic behemoth on our doorstep on a vast range of issues. Welcome to reality Brexiters and leave voters.
Presentation rather than policy yet again. It can be demonstrated to “Workington man” that Brexit is done, and prices will not rise thanks to the deal on goods tariffs/quotas. Longer term effects on balance of payments, service sector viability, inward investment, employment, bureaucracy, are not of interest to the vital part of the electorate.
Tom Hayes put it elegantly that instead of a rose garden, the UK has ended with a weed patch.
@ Alan
“Weed Patch Brexit” rings a bell with me. The endless struggle as Shakespeare reminds us:-
“Sweet flowers are slow and weeds make haste.”
Richard III, Act 2, Scene 4
No sooner said than up pop some pesky weeds:-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/brexit-customs-duties-to-apply-to-eu-goods-worth-more-than-390
Alan, prices will rise though due to those non-tariff barriers Boris declared didn’t exist. They’ll rise too due to scarcity as it will become near impossible to get products in or out of the UK till the necessary infrastructure is in place at some (probably distant) date on the future.
They will rise, but not by as much as we feared
And I’ll be honest and say I am pleased about that
It’s also why I think Johnson did a deal
Three years ago Starmer said that Labour would vote against any deal that did not meet his six tests.
I can understand why he said it, as a fudge to keep Labour Remainers on board. He must just have hoped he would never have to deliver on his pledge.
The current deal in no way meets the six tests, but Starmer will whip Labour to vote it through.
Again, I can understand why.
But showing that Labour will lie when it suits will have knock-on effects.
A Labour government with a good understanding of economics could achieve far more than most people believe possible.
The same people will assume that any Labour promise of a better future is just another lie.
It will set back by years the work of Richard and others.
Michael G
It does seem that the six tests were to meet the debate of 2017 ( seeking to show up Davies’ “exact same benefits) rather than what was likely to emerge.
For those who have forgotten, they are here
https://labourlist.org/2017/03/keir-starmer-labour-has-six-tests-for-brexit-if-theyre-not-met-we-wont-back-the-final-deal-in-parliament/
Its a Good Bad deal .Britain will look to Ireland for its Low tax rate ie Level playing field and to Greece for its minimum wage level playing field .Im living in ROI and I see Britain poaching a lot of middle income manufacturing jobs from all over Europe .Best of all worlds for Britain Inc .Free Trade with the EU and Free Trade with third countries .Why would Foreign Direct Investors set up any where else in Europe If Britain have lower taxes and match seed funding that the EU offers to FDIs .Cant see wage reduction in fact I foresee wage increases in manufacturing as the reduced corporate tax take will have to be made up in indirect taxes expect to see increases in VAT,Motor ,Carbon ,Poll taxe income tax .More jobs ,more wages less take home pay .Britain Inc.wins British workers ?.
Have you read the point of origin rules? If you had you’d realise how absurd your claim in FDI is
If you knew anything about tax you’d know the OECD is gunning fir Ireland with minimum effective tax rates
And the minimum wage claim is just absurd
With respect, you are going to have a massive wake up call very soon
On the minimum wage issue, and how the UK compares for the ‘level playing field’ part of the agreement It seems that there is not an EU minimum wage but variations by country e.g. Bulgaria is €312 per month & Luxembourg is €2,142 per month. The UK is
€1,583. Source https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Minimum_wage_statistics#General_overview
This seems to be an issue with regard to the Employment issues.
With respect, you are going to have a massive wake-up call soon. You’ve been feeding fairies. And now you’re listening to them. You are the tax world’s version of the anti-vax brigade’s leader. And I bet a good number of the people reading and writing on this blog are anti-vax! Why don’t you do one of your ‘scientific surveys’ by asking a few hundred people their position on anti-vax? And then publish a paper on it? Hell – you could even put it in for peer review, heaven forbid!!!!
I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about – and because of the incoherence of what you have written assume you have not either
I, for the record, think the anti-vax brigade are utterly misguided right-wing libertarians whose activities I oppose.
I think Brexit only makes sense in terms of its own long history and the history of the country where it was born.
Some people never accepted losing the Empire and deeply resented mid-2oth century history. For these people, let’s call them the sovereigntists, Brexit was about undoing the wrongs of the loss of Empire and of global power. There was also some resentment of the way the Commonwealth was abandoned – it was really tough on, for example, New Zealand farmers that we just shut them out.
This movement was skillfully able to co-opt other grievances. A generalised dislike of left wing politics gave Leave a lot of appeal and set up a culture war which many on the left played really badly. I remember interview after interview where Farage set out a position which was anti-migrant enough to goad the Lefties into shouting at him but not obviously racist, or even not racist at all. So it drew sympathy that there were these privileged TV people yelling racist at him when he asked a question about how many more people we were prepared to let into the country which is actually quite a reasonable thing to discuss. It’s similar to what Gillian Duffy asked Gordon Brown about in the bigotgate fiasco.
To people who are liberal as distinct from Left it’s weird, even repellant, to see a topic shut down when liberalism is supposed to tolerate horrible opinions but then beat them with better arguments. Farage spearheaded the driving of a wedge between liberal and Left.
But this coalitions of various resentments and frustrations never had a plan, the overarching scheme of Brexit has always been this original sense of outrage that Britain somehow lost the peace after WW2. That’s why it’s so hard to change people’s minds – generally Leavers believe that Brexit is a statement of faith in their country and asking them to adjust their ambitions to being a medium size and rather ordinary European country is both insulting and ahistorical.
When we Remainers resent Brexit, resent this bonfire of rights and trade wealth, we signal that we have no faith in Britain as far as these people are concerned which is why they get so angry. It’s the same impulse that saw people give white feathers to young men in WW1 who were in civvies and not at the front.
The huge problem with this is that there isn’t and never has been a plan. Brexit isn’t an ideology, it isn’t a scheme, it’s simply a complex set of attachments to a glorious Britain and resentments of modern social phenomena that undermine that Britain.
So we’ve got this obviously bad deal after an obviously bad withdrawal process. And it will get patched up over time and over the decades the sense of why we needed Brexit will fade among the population, mostly as older people die off.
Over time it will fix itself although lost prosperity will never be made up for.
Years of mindless monetary system illiterate Austerity and Barge Economics policy indulged in by politicians from both main parties clearly made similarly illiterate UK voters resent economic migrants who were joining them to fight over scraps.
Why accept the Govt’s set up – ‘this deal or no deal’ . Have the courage to vote against ‘the worst trade reduction deal in history ‘ (Adonis) and let them sort the mess they have created – brinkmanship has suited them very well so far . This is their brink , let them deal with it.
Yet more Brexit weeds:-
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-roaming-charges_uk_5fe98c8ec5b6ff7479825086
Now that is going to hurt a LOT. In this modern world nobody and especially the kids go anywhere without plentiful cheap data – they play games/ watch Netflix etc and live sport wherever they are.
I expect the EU to develop a big internal industry for pay as you go data sims for ‘visitors’ to the EU., sharpish.
What really is if greater significance is GDPR.
Our personal data will happily and now legally go sit on servers in many a third country – to be relentlessly used to directly market against us. It is already happening with massive harvesting by SalesForce/Iqvia and other such major foreign corporations.
I think the IPPR are scaremongering on this. The ‘big 4’ networks (3. O2, EE, Vodaphone) have all stated that they have no plans to change their existing roaming tariffs.
For example, 3 (which I have used) has a system called Go Roam which makes no charges for roaming in 71 countries (including EU) for voice and text. Regarding data they currently have a ‘fair use’ proviso and a scale of charges which apply if a limit is passed. This is the current policy both within & without the EU. They have committed to maintaining this policy after Brexit.
So?
What about a compromise, temporary immigration controls to get the Job Guarantee implemented, and rejoin EU only when EU Common Treasury and EU Job Guarantee implemented.
MMT is not a reason for racism
Sorry Richard, this time I have to forcefully disagree with you. To equate immigration concerns to racism is the sort of ‘dog whistling’ that pushes people towards the Johnson/Brexit camp.
My concerns re immigration aren’t based on racism but on overloading our already bursting at the seams capacity.
When Nicola Sturgeon repeatedly insists that Scotland will always welcome incomers, she should add the caveat.
‘As long as you’re prepared to leave your car behind and live at the top of a mountain’.
I believe that, even before the pandemic, Jacinda Ardern tightened NZ immigration controls, not out of racism but because the country was full up.
The idea of full up is just nonsense
Where is the evidence?
Apologies for posting this here but I couldn’t work out how to post it in the comments section of your recent “Inequality” blog. Just wondering if you’ve seen this recent LSE paper on the trickle down myth and its effects on inequality:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf
I found it as part of this article:
https://www.salon.com/2020/12/27/50-year-study-of-tax-cuts-on-wealthy-shows-they-always-fail-to-trickle-down/?fbclid=IwAR2fzw5Lf3G7MY6q3_k-gYS9_pvAWU2jFHFxzXcJemNPx85mETf-Y3h1wko
Hi
Thanks for the link
I’ve read the paper but think time meant I had not covered it
So appreciated
It would be funny if it was …but it’s not.
I’m constantly amazed at how some folks try to skew this mess into being the fault of the SNP! If the SNP vote against this so-called ‘deal’, that means they’re in favour of No Deal. If they abstain, that means they are betraying their principles, etc.
Was it Gove (probably) a month ago, who suggested that the failure of the negotiations was the fault of the SNP? The SNP–a party that represents a portion of the so-called United Kingdom that wasn’t even allowed to participate in the negotiations? So, the SNP’s magic wand nearly screwed up Boris Johnson’s benevolent plans? I will not say sweary words. I will not….
Folks need to be reminded that the SNP are the ONLY party standing up for the way the Scottish people voted in the EU Referendum. They are actually representing the people who elected them. Hard to believe, but there it is.
Scotland voted 62 to 38 to Remain. The SNP (and the Scots majority) have accordingly been anti Brexit from Day One. And rightly so.
If the SNP were in charge of the UK government, we wouldn’t be in this mess now, would we? Now there’s a thought. Richard isn’t the only entity to be rightly angry at not being listened to–back when listening to common sense would have made a huge difference to the result we now seem to be stuck with.
The SNP is calling this one right – for them and for Scotland
A Labour Party member based in London tweeted yesterday –
“The Scottish LP seem to think it’s sensible to hammer the SNP for voting against a deal they don’t agree with. And their voters oppose.
The grounds? The “threat” of no deal. It suits some ppl to present the vote in Parliament as a deal versus no deal choice but it’s not true /1
With the U.K. and EU agreeing a deal, the only way to get to a “no deal” would be to replace the U.K. govt with one committed to it.
Why? Parliament has extremely limited power in relation to trade deals and international treaties more broadly /2”
The thread goes on with more details, but his reference to the House of Commons Library pretty much covers it –
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-parliaments-role-in-ratifying-a-uk-eu-future-relationship-treaty/
The whole of this HoC Insight is worth reading, but the following quotes explain the basics –
“This Insight explains that, although the UK Parliament normally has a statutory period to scrutinise and potentially debate any new UK-EU treaty, it won’t necessarily vote on whether to approve it. The UK Government could also reduce or remove that scrutiny period if it wished.”
“Before a treaty can be ratified, a copy must be laid before Parliament. This allows MPs and Peers to see what has been negotiated, for committees to take expert advice on its contents (should they wish), and for parliamentarians to reach an informed view on the treaty’s overall merits. At this stage it is too late to amend the treaty.”
This was published on 11 November, so you would think the (one and only) Scottish Labour MP Ian Murray would be aware. The referenced thread ends with this, directed at Ian Murray –
“As an illustration of the constitutionally illiterate arguments animating the Scottish Labour Party’s attack on the SNP check out the below. And I say this as a Labour member. Honestly the absolute state of this illogical tweet…”
Hear, hear
Will not the financial sector benefit from tax haven activities anyway Richard? Maybe it is that which is winding its way towards them?
All I see really is a load guff – promises of things for further discussion or knowing Boris & the ERG a set of issues that know they will renege on when the time is right.
I agree with you fundamentally – on this agreement, time is going to be the revelator.
I’m sure that there are certain parts of the finance sector that will benefit, the hedge funds betting against the U.K. economy and vulture capitalists looking to pick up distressed businesses at knock down prices. Other areas such as fund managers will just move as Rees Moggs outfit already has, and European banks moving back to their home countries. As a whole though the City will become a less important financial centre, losing out to NY and the European capitals. The loss of mutual recognition of qualifications will hurt City services – not sure whether the potential growth in tax dodging services will make up for that.
I’d agree with all the opposition parties voting against the deal making it clear that the Tories own this. To misquote Corbyn, this is a 2/10 deal compared to the 9/10 deal we had before, or the 1/10 deal that WTO would have been. There needs to be continuous, relentless exposure of the negative consequences of this ‘deal’, what the country has lost and how people were deceived. That applies especially to those voters in the so called Red Wall seats; they will be told that their problems are still caused by the EU and immigrants and those falsehoods need to be challenged loudly and directly.
That means accepting that there is a section of voters who are quite explicitly racist as has been clearly exposed. A Labour Party with any integrity should be standing up to those voters. Confronting them as Margaret Hodge did with the BNP and not ‘listening’ to them as Lisa Nandy unfortunately suggested.
Agreed Robin
Lisa Nandy?
Have you read Paul Embery (‘Despised’)? I’m just starting that now – he is a member of the fire brigade union, a fire fighter who I thing has just been suspended for his views on Europe or something else. He seems anti – EU and uses the language of ‘woke-dom’ and that lovely phrase ‘the liberal elite’ to argue that Labour has forgotten the conservative culture of working class people and fails to represent their concerns.
I’ve made myself read his book to see what this ‘true Lefty’ has to say about the future of the Labour party.
The UK’s biggest “win” in the negotiation was to erode labour and environment protections. At UK government insistence, reductions in standards are prevented only if these affect “trade and investment between the Parties”.
So protections which don’t directly affect trade and investment can be taken away – despite earlier government promises that standards would not be eroded. The government might argue that it does not intend to reduce standards. If so, why have they insisted on including the the “affecting trade and investment” stipulation in the Agreement?
Even the briefest look at the track records of most of the cabinet along with the lead Brexiters shows that these are people who believe in massive deregulation and cutting standards for the environment, labour rights, health and safety and the rest.
Anybody who believes otherwise and still accepts what the likes of Gove say about protecting standards is extraordinarily misinformed or just gullible.
Richard, pre Christmas you said you believed Johnson and his cronies were aiming for no-deal rather than a deal, and that, amongst other things, they would pin the blame for this on the EU.
I’m glad to say that for once, you were wrong. I wouldn’t have been surprised if you’d been right, such is the contempt I hold this ‘government’ in, but it seems Johnson has been forced to get a deal by economic and political reality. The disruption caused by no-deal on top of his Covid disaster, the pressure from business, and the less loony members of the Cabinet have forced him to face reality, and, essentially, give the EU nearly everything it wanted. Surprise, surprise. The larger, infinitely better organised and rational partner in the negociations won.
Naturally, Johnson and his supporters in the press are trying to claim this as a success. But as you say, although its better than no-deal, we’re still far worse off. Services aren’t covered at all even though they are 80% of the UK economy, There’s no Erasmus any more, travel in Europe will be far more difficult, and the fishermen are already claiming they’ve been ‘betrayed’. Not that I have much sympathy. Trusting Johnson is like believing those conmen who cold call you and try to sell you some ‘amazing’ investment opportunity that only they know about, and is only available for a limited time. Caveat Emptor chaps?
The only people who’ve won are the hard right nationalist and libertarian ideologues who hate the ECJ and want the low or no regulation capitalism like Freeports. Given this government’s desire to reduce the opportunities for judicial review, and get rid of the Human Rights Act, they’ve won. Terrible for those wanting to hold authority to account of course, but great for an increasinglly corrupt Tory government and its backers.
And those who’ll use freeports for illicit activites, tax evasion and money laundering will also benefit. Well done Leavers.
I genuinely thought he was daft enough to let this go
The hard core of Suna and Gove probably forced it through
But there is no upside in that, just less of a downside
As you say Richard, Gove (a lying creep) and Sunak probably had something to do with this. Given that however much we disagree with or dislike them, they are both clever men, they had the intellectual ‘firepower’ to overcome the no-deal idiots in the Cabinet and persuade Johnson to avoid disaster.
And as you say, there’s no upside, just less of a downside. Now let’s see how long it takes for all the downsides of Brexit to become clear, and watch the buckpassing and scapegoating begin.
I actually think I’ll get a copy of the FTA (if this is possible) just to see how bad it is for the UK, so that if I ever get into a discussion with a Leaver I’ll be able to point out how daft they’ve been.
I suspect Erasmus is a waste of money and Frost figured that out in the negotiation. From the 2019 report Uk has 22k outbound places out of 420k. Doesn’t make sense via gdp, population or eu budget contribution. Much better to fund this directly and open up student opportunities to the world.
I definitely don’t think Erasmus should be justified as a subsidy for Uk universities.
That’s a depressingly narrow analysis
Are you an economist?