Category Archives: European Union

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

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

BREXIT

brexit

When the 27 EU leaders met to review their Brexit talks guidelines last Friday, it took them less than a minute to approve the draft. They then burst into open applause – the grandstanding almost akin to a Soviet-era meeting of Warsaw Pact comrades. The guidelines are provocative and blatantly breach the UK’s own red lines. Britain, in turn, must spell out that it is prepared to walk away if it is unsatisfied with the deal that the talks produce.

The EU’s mask of collegiality and high ideals is slipping. As it does, so the decision of the British voters to walk away last year looks even wiser. Britons should be aware that walking away is a valid and legal option that the UK is entitled to exercise if talks with the EU irretrievably break down.

Extracts from Yanis Varoufakis’s memoir of the 2015 Greek crisis depict an EU where the Germans dominate and the Union, they insist, must be preserved at all costs. He claims that Emmanuel Macron, probably France’s next president, described the EU’s deal for Greece as a latter-day “Versailles Treaty”. Angela Merkel apparently overheard and barred Mr Macron from talks.

But Greece is not Britain: a great deal more for the Union is at stake this time around given the UK’s historic position of generating handsome contributions to EU coffers in Brussels.

Theresa May attracted shrill criticism for pointing out that continental security might be affected by the course of negotiations, yet the EU has shamelessly put absolutely everything on the table: the cost of the so-called divorce, from which they are determined to wring every penny, Gibraltar, UK bases in Cyprus and, in a concession to the French, an effort to stop any financial deregulatory drive by Britain.

The UK cannot accept a settlement that would, say, tie its hands on tax and regulation after it leaves the EU: the country voted to get out in part to liberate its economy. And there are matters on the table that have nothing to do with the EU – such as the future of Ireland. Britain therefore has to make it absolutely clear that it will not be drawn into diplomatic traps or be landed with bills and commitments that reduce its status and undermine the raison d’être behind Brexit.

The EU needs to be reminded that it relies so much on the UK’s markets, intelligence and military that it would be foolish to act so bullishly over the terms of settlement. It is in everyone’s interests to separate amicably and agree as soon as possible on a new trade arrangement. That is what Britain should aim for. If the Europeans will not play ball, however, they must be in no doubt that Britain has the strength and will to go it alone.

Brexit | Some of The European Union’s draft negotiation principles

 . The EU wishes to have the United Kingdom as a close partner in the future

. Preserving the integrity of the Single Market means that the UK will not be able to participate on a sector by sector basis

. The EU “four freedoms” are indivisible and there can be no cherry-picking

. A non-member of the Union cannot have the same rights and benefits as a member

. The EU will negotiate as a bloc, rather than 27 individual countries, so as not to undercut the position of the Union

. Brexit negotiations will take place as a single package. They will only be considered settled when all individual items are agreed

. The United Kingdom and European Union must agree on their future relationship, but these discussions can only take place when there is sufficient clarity on the process of the UK’s withdrawal from the Union

. The Union is open to a transitional membership agreement, but this must be very clearly defined, time-limited and dependent on the UK maintaining EU membership obligations

. Negotiations must be completed by 29 March 2019

. No part of these negotiations can affect Gibraltar without an agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Foreign aid spending now includes the black economy

FOREIGN AID BUDGET

The foreign aid budget soared by £1.2billion last year – because EU rules added prostitution and drugs to national statistics.

Under targets brought in by the former prime minister David Cameron, ministers are committed to sending 0.7 per cent of our national income overseas every year.

With the Brussels-led accounting change raising estimates of the size of the UK economy, the foreign aid bill has gone up.

Figures recently released showed spending jumped by 10 per cent to a record £13.3billion last year. The surge will raise pressure on the Government to scrap the aid promise at a time when vital services at home are being so tightly controlled.

Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell insists the 0.7 per cent target must go. He has said that the UK should play its part in global development when there is a genuine need, but we should not be tied to this arbitrary figure, which increases year by year – while at the same time we reduce funding for essential services in Britain.

‘There is little public support for this policy now and it’s time to ditch it.’ Other MPs have also criticised the way officials have included illegal activity such as prostitution when working out the size of the economy, meaning the aid spending also had to rise. As we should realise, the black economy does not pay tax.

The Department for International Development is the only government department that is judged by how much money it shovels out the door. Conservatives judge the effectiveness of government policies on outcomes, not on how much is spent. The foreign aid budget clearly runs contrary to this.

The ultimate irony is that this giant leap in aid spending is partly due to illicit activities such as drug dealing. Such a huge jump in the already bloated budget will cause outrage among many British taxpayers. We should not have targets that are measured purely on spending money.

Britain was last year one of only six major donors that met or exceeded the UN’s target for international aid spending. Our aid budget has more than doubled from the £6.4billion spent in 2008.

Foreign aid is calculated according to gross national income (GNI), which reached £1.9trillion last year after the economy grew and officials tweaked the way it was estimated, to follow EU accounting rules. The new calculations have given more weight to financial services and activities such as research and development – which the UK does well. They also include the value of the black-market economy such as drugs and prostitution.

Around £525million of the rise was because of economic growth and about £685million was because of the change in the accounting method. The £1.2billion boost to the aid budget is the biggest annual increase since 2013, when ministers raised spending by £2.6billion to meet the legal 0.7 per cent target.

As the GNI figure rose by 10 per cent compared with 2015, spending on aid had to rise by the same proportion.

A Government spokesman said: ‘Our international development budget only increases when the UK economy grows, a sign of our economic success. This money is an investment in Britain’s own security – ensuring the world is more prosperous, developed and stable.

‘Whether it’s stepping up our support for Syrian refugees, tackling the legacy of landmines or giving life-saving aid to stop people dying of hunger in East Africa, UK aid is keeping Britain safe while helping the world’s poorest.’

OPINION

With no end in sight to austerity and budgets cuts at home, the country’s ever-increasing overseas aid budget was always an affront to common sense. But the recent revelation that it grew last year by a staggering 10 per cent – outstripping economic growth five times over – takes it far beyond parody, and into the realms of the morally offensive.

We face huge financial pressures at home, while the wider world looks ever more dangerous. Yet drowning in debt, we’ve cut defences to the bone – and now there is even speculation that the strength of the Royal Marines will be slashed from a strength of 7,000 to a mere 5,000.

Yet aid spending keeps growing inexorably, pegged at 0.7 per cent of the country’s output by a law introduced by the coalition government of David Cameron and Nick Clegg to make them feel good about themselves.

Piling on the absurdity, the latest massive increase – to £13.35billion – is due to a nonsensical change in the way we calculate Britain’s output. Ordered by the EU, the new formula insists prostitution and drug-dealing must be taken into account – trades not noted for their contributions to income tax.

Yet even before this change, aid ministers had more money than they knew how to spend, splashing out £1.34billion to private contractors, filling the pockets of Third World dictators and even doling out ATM cards to citizens of Third World countries in their desperation to meet the target.

The British are a law-abiding people. But if this kind of insanity persists, whereby the elderly of this country suffers while our taxes are squandered so indiscriminately abroad, many should begin to question why they pay those taxes in the first place.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

The sinister tone for Brexit has been set with security warning

BREXIT

Most people would have expected Prime Minister Theresa May to strike a conciliatory tone following the invoking of Article 50. Despite being one of the most significant junctures in British political history, the record indicates that she took the opposite stance.

On a day when Mrs May should have reached out to Europe, she instead issued a thinly veiled threat by raising the spectre of weakened security relations post Brexit.

Any failure to reach agreement between the UK and EU, she said, ‘would mean our co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.’

In her letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, which contained no fewer than 11 references to security issues, she added: ‘In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek.’

While there can be little doubt that Britain’s security and military apparatus – coupled with its close ties with U.S. intelligence agencies – is the envy of Europe, such remarks were felt as being ill-judged. In some EU countries, such as Belgium and France, who have a reasonably friendly relationship with the UK, and who have borne the brunt of terror attacks in recent years, Mrs May’s remarks risk being seen as crass and insensitive.

If, as seems to be the case, she sincerely believes trading security for prosperity is an acceptable opening salvo in what will be long and torturous negotiations, her reading of the situation is clumsy and damaging. There will be many across Europe, as well as here in the UK, who will clearly see it that way.

Terrorism, as the west well knows, does not respect borders or constitutions, and whatever form the UK’s future relationship with the EU takes, working closely with our European neighbours will be fundamental to tackling a global problem.

As Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, pointed out: ‘Security is too important to be used as a bargaining chip and this will backfire in any negotiations, which rather than building up alliances will leave Britain even more isolated.’

After widespread criticism of Ms May’s letter, Downing Street attempted to backtrack, insisting it referred only to security arrangements agreed via the EU, such as the European Arrest Warrant and Europol.

But by then, the damage had been done. Less than 24 hours after Article 50 was triggered, the UK finds itself on the back foot and a needlessly aggressive tone has been set.

Given the hostile contents of Ms May’s letter, the frosty reception on the continent was entirely predictable. A sombre-looking Mr Tusk delivered his own farewell message to the UK. ‘We already miss you,’ he said. ‘Thank you and goodbye.’ If nothing else, it was a remark which ought to impress upon British negotiators that Mr Tusk’s considerable armoury includes sarcasm.

The next two years will shape Britain’s future standing in the world. This week’s developments may be symbolic in more ways than one.

Standard