Category Archives: European Union

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Brexit: Boris Johnson’s 9 key points

BREXIT

IN a 4,000-word essay by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson which appeared in the Daily Telegraph over the past few days, critics have accused Mr Johnson of trying to bounce the Prime Minister into backing his version of Brexit. Supporters say his upbeat assessment is a vital antidote to the gloom of Remainers. This article examines what he said – and what he meant.

. Johnson’s Red Lines

“Before the referendum we all agreed on what leaving the EU logically must entail: leaving the customs union and the single market, leaving the penumbra of the ECJ; taking back control of borders, cash, laws. That is the programme that Theresa May set out with such clarity… and that is what she and her government will deliver.”

What he means: This might appear to be a simple restatement of government policy. But Mr Johnson’s decision to highlight it days before the prime minister makes a major speech on Brexit is designed to stop her moving an inch on his key red lines.

. Not A Penny More

“We would not expect to pay for access to their markets any more than they would expect to pay for access to ours. Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350million per week.”

What he means: This is the point on which Mr Johnson is most at odds with Mrs May. He appears to set himself against making payments during a transition out of the EU. And his claim that the UK will repatriate £350million a week leaves no scope for any ongoing payments to Brussels.

Boris Johnson, the British Foreign Secretary, has set out his vision of post-Brexit Britain.

. A Pledge To The NHS

“It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that [£350million a week] went on the NHS, provided we use that cash to modernise.”

What he means: Mr Johnson has been stung by claims that he lied about increasing funding for the NHS in last year’s EU referendum. He and other Cabinet Eurosceptics are pushing hard for an increase in NHS funding after Brexit.

. Slashing Red Tape

“As we take back control of our cash, and our borders, and our laws, we will of course not jettison what is good… But over time we will be able to diverge from the great accumulated conglomerate, to act with regulatory freedom.”

What he means: Mrs May is expected to use her speech this week to reassure EU leaders she will not lead a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’ after Brexit, giving the UK a competitive advantage over the EU. But Mr Johnson is anxious Britain does not abandon the opportunity to ditch decades of red tape blamed for stifling innovation and the economy.

. Taxes

“We should seize the opportunity of Brexit to reform our tax system. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, argued in 2015 that our system is currently skewed so as to discourage investment. He believes that reform could raise output by around 20 per cent.”

What he means: Mr Johnson is keen to ensure that Mrs May and Chancellor Philip Hammond do not lock Britain into following the EU’s high-tax model after Brexit.

. Border Control

“We will have an immigration policy that suits the UK, not slamming the door, but welcoming the talent we need, from the EU and around the world. Of course we will make sure that business gets the skills it needs, but business will no longer be able to use immigration as an excuse not to invest in the young people of this country.”

What he means: Taking back control of Britain’s borders was a key Vote Leave message. Mr Johnson is serving notice to business leaders that they will have to start training British youngsters rather than relying on an endless supply of cheap migrant workers.

. Don’t Trust Corbyn

“We have a glorious future, but hardly any of this would be possible under the bizarre and incoherent plans of the Labour Party. It seems that [Jeremy] Corbyn has chickened out. Now it appears he wants to remain in the single market and the customs union. He would… turn an opportunity into a national humiliation. It would be the worst of both worlds, with the UK turned into a vassal state – taking direction from the EU but with no power to influence the EU’s decisions.”

What he means: Mr Johnson saves his fiercest criticism for Labour, pointing out that Mr Corbyn’s flip-flopping on the issue has betrayed traditional Labour supporters who voted in vast numbers to leave the EU.

. Proud To Be British

“When people say that they feel they have more in common with others in Europe than with people who voted leave I want to say, ‘But that is part of the reason why people voted leave.’ You don’t have to be some tub-thumping nationalist to worry that a transnational sense of allegiance can weaken the ties between us; and you don’t have to be an out-and-out nationalist to feel an immense pride in this country and what it can do.”

What he means: This is very much in line with Mrs May’s attack on self-proclaimed ‘citizens of the world’ who end up being ‘citizens of nowhere’. Both believe Britain is in danger of being undermined by a lack of patriotism in sections of society and key institutions.

. Forget Project Fear

“I do not underestimate the scale of the task ahead as we take back control of our destiny. All I say is that they are in grievous error, all those who write off this country, who think we don’t have it in us, who think that we lack the nerve and the confidence to tackle the task ahead. They have been proved wrong before, and believe me they will be proved wrong again.”

What he means: Mr Johnson fears gloomy talk about Brexit will become a self-fulfilling prophecy unless challenged publicly. He notes that many of the ‘Project Fear’ claims made by the Remainers turned out to be utterly baseless.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

UK firms alarmed over Government crackdown on migrants

IMMIGRATION/BREXIT

BUSINESS leaders have clashed with the Government over Brexit following the pledge by Theresa May to curb the flow of cheap, low-skilled labour from Europe.

Business lobby groups reacted with fury to leaked Government proposals outlining a tough new immigration system after Britain leaves the EU.

Downing Street hit back, saying business needs to end its reliance on cheap migrant labour and do more to train British workers. Mrs May said ministers had a duty to curb immigration after last year’s EU referendum, and restated her pledge to slash net immigration to the “tens of thousands”.

But the Government was in disarray as Cabinet ministers, including Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Business Secretary Greg Clark are understood to have concerns about slashing immigration from the EU too quickly.

Damian Green, the First Secretary of State and one of Mrs May’s closest allies, is also thought to have misgivings, and believes the plan can be toned down.

It has also emerged that FTSE 100 leaders have refused to sign a letter backing the Government’s Brexit strategy. Downing Street quietly asked executives to sign an open letter saying they wanted to “make a success of Brexit”, and welcoming the Government’s push for a transitional deal.

But this was not welcomed by some, with one executive reportedly saying: “There is no way we could sign this given the current state of chaos surrounding the talks.”

It is understood the letter, drafted by No. 10, was due to be made public as Mrs May tries to create support for the legislation going through Parliament about our EU withdrawal.

The row followed the leak of a Home Office document setting out plans to curb immigration from the EU after Brexit.

The Prime Minister said: “Immigration has been good for the UK, but people want to see it controlled as a result of our leaving the EU.

“The Government continues to believe it is important to have net migration at sustainable levels, particularly given the impact it has on people at the lower end of the income scale in depressing their wages.”

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: “We have always welcomed to this country those who can make a contribution to our economy, people with high skills.

“On the other hand, we want British companies to do more to train up British workers, to do more to improve skills of those who leave our colleges. So, there’s always a balance to be struck. We’re not closing the door on all future immigration but it has to be managed properly and people do expect to see the numbers coming down.”

The document, which has caused uneasiness among some ministers, suggests low-skilled workers from the EU would only be allowed to stay for a year or two, and EU citizens would be barred from moving to the UK to look for a job. Ministers are also considering a ‘direct numerical cap’ on the numbers who come here from Europe after the UK leaves in March 2019.

Big businesses reacted angrily to the proposals. The chief executive of the British Hospitality Association said the proposals would be “catastrophic” for the industry, one which relies heavily on cheap EU labour.

The executive said: “We understand the wish to reduce immigration but we need to tread carefully and be aware of the unintended consequences – some businesses will fail, taking UK jobs with them.”

A spokesperson for the Confederation of British Industry, said: “An open approach to our closest trading partners is vital for business, as it attracts investment to the UK. It also helps keep our economy moving by addressing key labour shortages.”

The Institute of Directors said business leaders would not welcome the proposals and its members would be hoping for changes in the Government’s final position.

The National Farmers’ Union said a cut in migrant workers could cause “massive disruption” for the industry. Its deputy president said 80,000 seasonal workers a year are needed “to plant, pick, grade and pack over 9 million tonnes of fruit, vegetable and flower crops”.

But Migration Watch, a think-tank, said ministers were right to pressure businesses to wean themselves off cheap foreign labour.

In a statement, it said: “We want to encourage employers to train local people and make more of an effort to prepare for a time when there won’t be all these people coming in with readymade skills prepared to work for lower wages.”

The leaked document was a draft of proposals due to be published this autumn.

Sources said a further six drafts have since been produced and it has not yet gone to ministers for approval. Senior figures in Brussels raised concerns about the document.

Gianni Pittella, leader of a large group within the European Parliament, said it revealed the “nasty side of Theresa May’s Government”, adding: “Should the British Government follow the position outlined, it will certainly not help the negotiations. It adds uncertainty and confusion.”

German MEP Elmar Brok, an ally of Angela Merkel, said he was “shocked by the language and content of this paper”, adding: “I think we are in a situation that EU citizens are seen as an enemy for the UK. This is not an atmosphere where you can find solutions.”

. How other countries control their borders

In the United States immigration law provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 newcomers, with certain exceptions for close family members.

The Immigration and Naturalisation Act allows a foreign national to work and live lawfully and permanently in the States.

Each year it admits foreign citizens on a temporary basis. Annually, Congress and the president also determine a separate number for admitting refugees.

Immigration to the States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the US economy, protecting refugees and promoting diversity. In Australia, a tough immigration points system is credited with keeping numbers under control while ensuring the economy has the skills it needs.

Extra points are given for factors such as experience, qualifications and age. But critics argue there is no guarantee it would bring numbers down, pointing out that Australia has proportionately higher immigration than the UK.

Since 1967, most immigrants to Canada have been admitted on purely economic grounds. Each applicant is evaluated on a nine-point system that ignores their race, religion and ethnicity and instead looks at age, education, skills, language ability and other attributes.

Standard
Britain, European Court, European Parliament, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

EU law may have precedence over UK courts for years after Brexit

BREXIT

The position paper was released by David Davis’s Department for Exiting the EU.

The UK Government has denied watering down its Brexit plans as officials have admitted EU judges could have jurisdiction over Britain for years after it leaves the bloc.

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, insisted the UK would ‘take back control’ of its laws, saying: ‘When we leave the EU we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.’

But a position paper published by the Government suggested the ECJ could continue to have control over Scots and English law for up to three years after Britain leaves at the end of March 2019.

That could mean EU judges will continue to pass down rulings on key issues until an independent new body is established to adjudicate on post-Brexit rows over trade or immigration.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP for North East Somerset, said: ‘If the ECJ has jurisdiction, you are part of a European superstate. Once you leave, it cannot have jurisdiction – that is the simple test.’

Officials have not been able to rule out the possibility that European judges could still have some influence even after the end of the three-year transition period. They highlighted the fact that trade deals that the EU has reached with other countries including Moldova force them to take account of European law.

Justice minister Dominic Raab admitted the Government would continue to keep ‘half an eye’ on EU laws after Brexit.

The prime minister said that after leaving the EU, ‘Parliament will make our laws – it is British judges who will interpret those laws and it will be the British Supreme Court that will be the arbiter of those laws’.

Mr Rees-Mogg welcomed the fact that the position paper made it clear the UK will eventually leave the influence of the ECJ.

But he added: ‘I would oppose the continuation of ECJ jurisdiction from the moment we leave the EU. If it continues beyond that, it is a problem. Once the European Communities Act is repealed, there will be no legal basis for ECJ jurisdiction.’

The position paper released by David Davis’s Department for Exiting the EU ruled out any ‘direct’ ECJ jurisdiction over Scots and English law after Brexit. It said legal disputes involving individuals and businesses should in future be decided in the UK judicial system, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

It added a new dispute resolution mechanism – which could involve a joint committee or arbitration panel – will have to be created to deal with disagreements over the interpretation and application of the Brexit deal.

But it did not rule out the ECJ maintaining its authority during the transitional period, expected to last a number of years after the March 2019 deadline for Brexit, saying only that Britain will ‘work with the EU’ on the design of interim judicial arrangements.

It set out a range of existing arrangements involving the ECJ that could act as possible models for the new mechanism. These include the EU’s agreement with European Free Trade Association states such as Norway and Iceland and a treaty with Moldova.

Norway has its own EFTA Court to rule on disputes with the EU but it has to ‘pay due account’ to all relevant ECJ decisions.

The EU-Moldova agreement requires that, where a trade dispute concerns an interpretation of EU law, an arbitration panel must refer the question to the ECJ and be ‘bound by its interpretation’.

The Government document makes it clear that Britain is not committed to following any of the existing models, but it does not explicitly rule out any scenario other than direct ECJ jurisdiction.

The main job of a resolution body would be to adjudicate on disputes between the EU and the UK on how a trade deal will operate. It could also have to pass judgment on immigration matters.

Remain-backing groups accused the Government of a climbdown for saying there would be no ‘direct’ jurisdiction of the ECJ compared with its previous position of no jurisdiction whatsoever.

UK officials said that Britain would seek ‘legal autonomy’ but that the remaining power of the ECJ to rule on UK matters depended on the ‘scope’ of the transition period, which could last until 2022.

. More on Brexit UK Government threatens to get tough if Brussels bars trade deal

Standard