Category Archives: European Union

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Britain lays down gauntlet to EU with ‘Brexit blueprint’

BREXIT

The British Prime Minister delivers her long awaited speech and blueprint for Brexit.

THERESA May has thrown down the gauntlet to Brussels by saying that the EU had a “shared interest” in making a success of Brexit.

In a long-awaited speech, the Prime Minister has set out a detailed blueprint for Brexit that would maintain trade links, while setting Britain free to decide its own destiny.

After Brussels accused her of “cherry picking” the parts of EU membership it likes, Mrs May pointed out that all trade deals work that way.

And, with the clock ticking down to Britain’s exit in March next year, she urged the EU to accelerate trade talks.

She said: “We know what we want. We understand your principles. We have a shared interest in getting this right. So, let’s get on with it.”

The speech, delivered last Friday at Mansion House in the City of London, follows weeks of Cabinet wrangling over how far to go in making a clean break with the EU.

In a decisive statement, Mrs May said she would lead Britain out of the single market, rejected calls to join a customs union, called time on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and vowed to end free movement of people.

The PM said Brexit would produce “a stronger, more cohesive nation”. And she dismissed calls for a second referendum, saying: “We won’t think again on Brexit. The people voted for it and it is incumbent on the Government to deliver it.”

But she also warned that making a clean break with Brussels would come at the price of reduced access to European markets. “I want to be straight with people – because the reality is that we all need to face up to some hard facts,” said Mrs May.

“We are leaving the single market. Life is going to be different. In certain ways, our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now. How could the EU’s structure of rights and obligations be sustained, if the UK – or any country – were allowed to enjoy all the benefits without all of the obligations? So we need to strike a new balance.”

Mrs May’s intervention does appear to have succeeded in uniting the warring factions of the Conservative Party without immediately alienating Brussels.

In a speech that was long on detail, Mrs May:

. Rejected “unacceptable” EU plans to keep Northern Ireland in the customs union after Brexit, which she warned would break up Britain.

. Said the UK may continue to respect EU state aid and competition rules – a move that could frustrate a future hard-Left government bent on imposing socialism.

. Pledged to maintain regulatory standards that are “as high as” the EU’s, even if they are achieved by different means.

. Warned that the European economy would lose out if it tried to punish the City.

. Set out two options for maintaining light-touch customs arrangements between Britain and the EU.

. Confirmed she was willing to walk away without a deal if the EU tried to punish Britain.

She also said that Britain could pay to remain in EU regulatory bodies in areas such as chemicals, medicine and aerospace – promised to negotiate a deal on fishing that would give British trawlermen a “fairer allocation” of fishing rights and said that Britain would demand “domestic flexibility” in areas like the emerging digital sector to prevent tech start-ups being held back by EU red tape.

On the critical balance between divergence from EU rules and access to the single market, Mrs May said she expected many regulations for traded goods to remain “substantially similar” in the immediate future.

But, critically, she said Parliament would be free to change them in future “in the knowledge that there may be consequences for our market access”. She said disputes would be settled by an “independent mechanism” – not EU judges.

Mrs May said she would not be knocked off course by hardliners on either side of the debate, saying she wanted the count.

In the run-up to the speech, Eurosceptic MPs were on red alert for any signs of backsliding.

However, most appear content that Mrs May had struck the right balance. Former Conservative leader and Brexiteer Iain Duncan Smith described the speech as “pretty good”.

And Tory ex-chancellor Lord Lamont said it was now time for diehard Remainers on the Tory benches to stop undermining Mrs May.

Sarah Wollaston, a leading Tory Remainer, described the speech as “pragmatic and positive”.

But diehard Remainer Anna Soubry struck a sour note, about Mrs May’s blueprint, saying: “It will not deliver the same benefits, the positives to our economy, as we currently have.”

The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier welcomed the “clarity” that Britain wanted a clean break, saying this would help Brussels finalise its negotiating guidelines.

 

AT the end of last week, and for the best part of an hour, Theresa May rattled off her Brexit objectives in a huge number of areas: agriculture, fisheries, migration, the Irish border, manufacturing, financial services, energy, science, haulage, nuclear safety, education and culture. People said they wanted more detail about her negotiating position prior to Britain leaving the European Union, and that’s exactly what she gave them.

What emerged was a pragmatic, common sense approach behind which she appears to have succeeded in uniting Cabinet colleagues as diverse as the Europhile Philip Hammond and the hardline Brexiteer Boris Johnson.

In some areas, Britain is bound to remain closely aligned with our partners’ rules and trading standards. But as Mrs May pointed out, this is true of every trade deal ever struck.

Crucially, however, the red lines the Prime Minister drew from the start remain intact. Come what may, we will be taking back control of our borders, laws and money – with British judges and a sovereign British Parliament no longer obliged to take orders from Brussels or the European Court of Justice.

For the avoidance of doubt, Mrs May spelled out yet again that this will mean withdrawing from the single market and customs union. There will be no second referendum.

. See also Britain will be entitled to walk away without a deal with the EU

Standard
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