Author Archives: markdowe1

Britain, European Union, Government, Legal, Politics, Society

The ‘single market’ of the European Union

What is the single market?

A trade agreement that allows different countries within the EU to trade across borders as easily as they can within their own country, with no extra tariffs or negotiations.

What kind of trade?

The rules of the single market are governed by the “four freedoms”: the free movement of goods, people, services and capital from one EU member country to another. This idea was integral to the original EEC Treaty in 1957.

What happens when the laws of two countries differ?

If something being traded compromises one country’s national laws regarding public policy, security or health, the national rules take precedence. Otherwise, the EU will usually create a single market law which will legislate for EU-wide rules – for example on the noise made by electrical devices.

What are minimum and maximum standards?

A minimum standards EU law allows individual countries to add tougher rules on top to govern their own country. A maximum standards law means that the EU law trumps national laws.

Can non-EU countries be in the single market?

Yes, but the EU will usually impose a customs tariff on imports from non EU-member countries

BREXIT

Brexit Secretary, David Davis, has said Britain could continue paying into Brussels after it has left the European Union to secure access to the single market.

Mr Davis told MPs the Government wanted to “get the best possible access for goods and services to the European market” post-Brexit.

It is the first time a Government minister has openly signalled money could be handed over to Brussels to secure favourable trading terms with the remaining 27 member states.

Downing Street said his comments were consistent with the Government’s stated position that it was for the UK to decide how its taxpayers’ money was spent.

Chancellor Philip Hammond said he was “absolutely right not to rule out the possibility that we might want to contribute in some way to some form of mechanism”.

But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said they showed the Government’s plans for Brexit were in “chaos” with ministers sending “mixed signals” about future arrangements outside the EU.

Mr Davis’s remarks came during Commons Brexit questions when he was asked if ministers would consider making a contribution “in any shape or form” for access to the single market.

He told the House: “The simple answer we have given to this before is, and it’s very important because there is a distinction between picking off an individual policy and setting out a major criteria, and the major criteria here is that we get the best possible access for goods and services to the European market.

“If that is included in what you are talking about then of course we would consider it.”

Mr Farron said his comments underlined the need for ministers to spell out clearly what their plans were for Brexit.

“The Government are in an absolute mess. We are seeing chaos over their Brexit plans as they keep sending mixed signals on where they stand on basic, fundamental questions like access to the single market, payments to the EU budget and freedom of movement,” he said.

“How can the Government claim they have a mandate for their Brexit deal when they don’t even know what it is themselves?”

But Mr Hammond said: “What matters is that at the end of the day the package we get is a package that maximises the benefit to the UK economy, allowing British businesses, British workers to continue selling the goods and services that they produce into the European Union, and vice versa of course.

“You can’t go into any negotiation expecting to get every single objective that you set out with and concede nothing along the way. It will have to be a deal that works for both sides.

Pro-Brexit Conservative Steve Baker played down the significance of Mr Davis’s comments, suggesting they had been “over-interpreted”.

“Paying for market access would not be free trade but the Government is right not to speculatively rule ideas in or out, however left field those ideas may be. Ministers’ comments seem to have been over-interpreted. I am not concerned,” he said.

And former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith insisted there was no way of reaching a deal to pay the EU for access to the single market.

Mr Duncan Smith told BBC Radio 4’s The World At One: “What he’s talking about here is how do you get a deal that allows British and Europeans to access each others’ markets without the necessity of tariff barriers or artificial barriers against service etc.

“I don’t think there’s any way in which you can reach a deal whereby you say ‘I’ll pay some money in and therefore you allow us access’, because you might as well have tariff barriers at that point.”

Prime Minister Theresa May’s official spokeswoman said: “What he (Mr Davis) said in the House this morning is consistent with what we have said to date, which is that it will be for the UK Government to make decisions on how taxpayers’ money will be spent.

“We’ve said, as we approach these negotiations, we want to get the best possible access for British businesses to trade with and operate within the single market, while also taking back control on immigration.”

During his appearance at the Despatch Box, Mr Davis also indicated the Government was open to some form of transitional arrangement with the EU as part of its Brexit strategy.

“We are seeking to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union, and it would not be in the interests of either side, Britain or the European Union, to see disruption,” he said.

“To that end, we’re examining all possible options, focusing on the mutual interests of the UK and the European Union.”

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Among the rubble seize the chance of peace in Aleppo

SYRIA

aleppo-rubble

Rubble from destroyed buildings blocks a street in Aleppo. The scene is all too common across the country.

Intro: As Aleppo has been subjected to Russian bombardment over the past two weeks, the city has been left in a condition that can only be described as inhumane and beyond belief

RUSSIA has said that forces loyal to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad are in possession and are controlling a third of the city of Aleppo.

What in fact they are in possession of is a lot of rubble from the devastation that the fighting has caused. The city is almost destroyed and is horrendous for the inhabitants that remain in this besieged city. In Aleppo, very little is left.

The situation has undoubtedly been made far worse since Putin’s forces have stepped in, with their military fighter jets and bombers and their boots on the ground. Russian intervention in Syria has been decisive, hard though it may be for the West to accept. The near annihilation and stomach wrenching images being beamed back from Aleppo is a very clear signal that we have been backing the losing side. That backing was only ever partial and delicately targeted to specific anti-Assad militant groups. There is no political appetite in the West – or in the UK – to increase our military resources that would inevitably lead to a face-off with Russia and Assad’s well equipped forces. We must now accept that the Syrian tyrant has won.

The best we can now do is to persuade the groups who we do back to call a ceasefire and try to end this brutal and destructive war. It has been raging now for more than five years.

As Aleppo has been subjected to Russian bombardment over the past two weeks, the city has been left in a condition that can only be described as inhumane and beyond belief. Hospitals have been flattened, babies have been taken out of their incubators as doctors desperately try to protect them, and aid agencies have been blocked in their task of reaching those most in need with medical and food stocks. About 250,000 people have been left without vital supplies; more than 450,000 people are believed to have died in the conflict to date.

As much as the West may detest the idea of Assad still being in power, we need to convince people to negotiate so that Syria can be rebuilt. This is essential not only for the besieged people of the country, who have had their lives disrupted for so long, but for the whole of Europe and other countries in the Middle East, many of which are struggling to cope with a huge influx of refugees.

This is all we can now hope for.

Standard
Arts, Books, Britain, History

Book Review: ‘The History Thieves’…

BOOK REVIEW

the-history-thieves

In this important new book, Ian Cobain offers a fresh appraisal of some of the key moments in British history since the end of WWII.

THIS carefully written and well-researched book takes deadly aim at the official version of modern British history. During our school years, we are taught that we are a decent and tolerant nation, and that the state does not assassinate its opponents, use torture or commit atrocities. Ian Cobain argues that this picture is both complacent and untrue, and he provides chilling evidence and testimony that the British state has routinely committed appalling crimes. Many of them, he argues, have been fought in wars well away from the public eye.

How many people know, for instance, that it was Britain – not the French or Americans – who launched the Vietnam conflict, airlifting the entire 20th Infantry Division of the British Indian Army to Indo-China in 1945 with orders to suppress a Vietnamese attempt to form their own government?

Who knows, too, about the four-year-long war fought by the British in Indonesia in the Sixties, or the decade-long counter-insurgency campaign in Oman on the Arabian Peninsula?

Cobain methodically calculates that British forces have been engaged somewhere in the world every year since at least 1914. Between 1949 and 1970, Britain initiated 34 foreign interventions. No other country, not even Russia or the United States, has such a record.

Yet, for the most part, British people are blithely unaware of any of this. Cobain argues that the reason for their ignorance is a culture of national secrecy more thoroughgoing than that of France or the U.S. He shows that the brutal Oman war went unreported for many years. And when wars did get reported, it was by tame journalists passing on doctored version of events.

Many of these events and wars also remain a mystery to historians. Cobain proves the British authorities have arranged the suppression – or destruction – of documents that portray Britain in a bad light. Thousands of incriminating files have been incinerated or dumped at sea, while others remain hidden in secret archives.

Cobain calls this “an extraordinary ambitious act of history theft”. He maintains “the British state of the late 20th and early 21st century was attempting to protect the reputation of the British state of generations earlier, concealing and manipulating history – sculpting an official narrative – in a manner more associated with a dictatorship than a mature and confident democracy”.

The author explains that the problem is getting worse because of recent legislation pushed through by the Coalition enabling suspects to be tried in secret courts, meaning that defendants do not even know the charges being made against them. The real reason for much of this secrecy, suggests Cobain, is not to ensure justice, but rather to protect the reputation of intelligence officers complicit in crimes such as torture and rendition.

Cobain is an honest and accurate reporter, but there is one serious criticism of the book. It does not give enough voice to the Whitehall figures whose job it is to fight terrorism and make sensitive decisions about British foreign policy.

They have the grave and very difficult task of ensuring atrocities are not carried out on the streets of Britain – and, in recent years, they have been successful in this vital and largely thankless task. Their need to work in secret is all too understandable.

Whilst we have nothing in our recent history comparable to the appalling atrocities committed by the French in Algeria, or the Belgians in the Congo – let alone the mass murders of Stalin, Mao or Hitler – most Britons should continue to believe that we live in a fair and honest country.

Nevertheless, Ian Cobain has written an important book which deserves to change the way we see our recent past. It warns us against complacency, and exposes why we should challenge what we have been taught from a young age.

–     The History Thieves by Ian Cobain is published by Portobello for £20.

Standard