Category Archives: European Union

Britain, Defence, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

The EU is reducing Britain’s defence contribution to a Brexit bargaining chip

BREXIT

Intro: Brussels is threatening to limit our role in a series of programmes and ban UK firms from bidding for contracts. Given the importance of Britain to continental security, this beggars belief

TERROR incidents provide us with a stark reminder of how we remain in the cross hairs of a diverse spectrum of threats by those who challenge our values and wish us harm. It is therefore essential we remain resilient, unified and fully prepared to respond.

The evolving character of conflict, which now extends to terrorism, cyber-attacks, energy manipulation, cash disruption, information warfare and election interference, collectively reflects the constant, aggressive, sub-Article 5 challenges we now face. To compound matters, we are witnessing the start of long-term shifts in the balance of power away from Europe to regions less supportive of the global order we helped to create.

Changes in demographics and technology present further challenges. Africa, soon to be the home to a quarter of the human race, is creating just one fifth of the jobs it needs to fill. In ungoverned spaces, this is a perfect recruitment ground for radicalism. Extreme global weather patterns bring the dangerous consequences of rising sea levels and crop failures are progressively leading to large-scale migratory movements.

5G, the next generation of cellular technology, heralds almost unthinkable implications for digital innovation that will transform all our lives. It will also revolutionise the art of conflict, such as swarm drone warfare. Whichever state (or states) harness 5G first is likely to claim the prize in data ownership and the commensurate leap in defence capabilities. China is in the lead.

The world is changing, and fast. However, none of these challenges is insurmountable and we can be in the driving seat. They require understanding, international leadership and teamwork. It is therefore disconcerting that Britain’s military, intelligence and policing contribution to European security could be drawn into the never-ending vortex of Brexit tit-for-tat. Let the Brexit talks continue apace – but European security should be unconditional.

For those who have said “let us just focus on Nato” must recognise its precise remit. Nato provides hard power, a collective defence based around Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Security wise, working with the EU provides political and diplomatic leverage (for example, through sanctions) and agencies such as Europol that coordinates national policing and intelligence to help share live data on hostile and illegal activity.

To truly leverage our collective abilities, for the UK cannot deal with all these challenges alone, we must respect the structures through which our collective security is exercised, in tandem with our European partners.

The quid pro quo is a recognition of Britain’s considerable offering. We are Europe’s most formidable defence power, with the largest military budget, with privileged access to the US and one of only two European states possessing “full spectrum” military capabilities, including a nuclear deterrent. Britain has proved its willingness to step forward as a force for good when other nations hesitate. Our overseas aid budget, again the largest in Europe, provides capacity to engage post-conflict or to bring stability or thwart a future conflict.

Alongside our soft and hard power is genuine expertise. Our response to the Novichok attack in Salisbury is a striking example. Thanks to our world-class intelligence services, we not only exposed the agent and its origins but provided compelling evidence to convince more than 20 nations to expel Russian diplomats.

And so it beggars belief that Britain’s ability to contribute to European defence could be reduced to a bargaining chip on the Brexit negotiation table with a threat of limiting our participation in a series of programmes and prohibiting UK businesses from bidding for contracts.

The Galileo positioning navigation project has become the totemic example. Britain pioneered this project and, with our military providing a quarter of Europe’s total defence force, we will arguably utilise its functionality more than any other nation. Yet we are to be demoted to “observer status”. We may now be obliged to go it alone and to build our own system. The Russians must find this all extremely amusing.

. See also The Galileo satellite project

It is only with a united voice that we can influence global events. Look at our hesitation over Syria. Keeping pace with global challenges and evolving threats will require even greater collaboration, not less. We should revisit the security partnership across Europe and not use our pre-eminent military expertise as a pawn in negotiations. Brexit or no Brexit, Britain should be unconditionally committed to the security of Europe – and so should the EU.

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Brexit: Preparations for a ‘no-deal’

BREXIT

BRITAIN will recognise some EU regulations in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Government says this is to ensure that the country does not grind to a halt.

Ministerial papers setting out what will happen if the UK leaves without a deal make clear that Britain will adopt a “flexible” approach to ensure EU medicines, automotive parts and chemicals are still available in the UK.

Several of the papers which are due to be published on Thursday say the “permissive” nature of the plans are based on an undercurrent of “project no fear”.

Previously, concerns have been raised that the M20, for example, could be turned into a giant lorry parking bay because of the anticipated huge disruption to cross-channel trade caused by the EU in the event of a no-deal.

However, away from customs, the documents offer a constructive way for Britain to continue trading with the EU after a no-deal Brexit. On medicines which are made in the UK, the papers indicate that the UK regulator would take steps to keep market access for importers open to avoid any disruption.

But this approach will leave the UK open to claims that it is giving up yet more negotiating strength by agreeing to accept EU goods without ensuring British goods will be accepted on the Continent in a reciprocal fashion.

EU exit talks have restarted in Brussels between Dominic Raab, the Brexit Secretary, and Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. Mr Raab, who will give a speech on Thursday, will set out the Government’s plans for a no-deal.

Over the last few days, the Brexit Secretary said: “It is the responsibility of the EU to ensure its consumers and businesses are not harmed.

“The UK Government believes this is best achieved by both sides taking a non-disruptive approach and will be encouraging cooperation with the EU on no-deal planning.

“Securing a deal is still by far the most likely outcome, but we want to make sure that we clearly set out the steps that people, businesses and public services need to take in the unlikely event that we don’t reach an agreement.

“It’s the responsible thing for any government to do, to mitigate the risks and make sure the UK is ready to make a success of Brexit.”

Each of the 84 papers to be released follow the same format, opening with remarks that a “no-deal” Brexit is unlikely, but that “we are a responsible government and we should be prepared”.

The papers – which will be published in batches – then set out “how it works now” and “how it works in a no-deal scenario”, with examples given to allow companies to prepare.

Government insiders have described the papers as “sensible, proportionate, and part of a common-sense approach to ensure stability whatever the outcome of talks.”

A source said: “The truth is in some sectors there won’t be much change, it is a mixture… It is not a case of ‘worse for us and better for them’.”

Mr Raab will outline in his speech how the Government will mitigate the potential risks of leaving the EU without a deal and ensure continuity and stability for businesses and the general public.

 

THIS is the week when we will finally discover what the consequences will be in the event of the Brexit talks failing: the Government’s no-deal papers are to be published on Thursday. Project Fear is largely responsible for any public panic, but the Conservatives it must be said have made things worse. By threatening that the only options are Chequers or no-deal (which is untrue), that have cast no-deal as a cliff-edge rather than a challenge we can handle. And the Government’s rhetoric of doom hasn’t even been clear in its target: is it Britain that should fear more, or Europe?

It would be very rough for both sides, which is why no-deal ought to be avoided as far as possible. But, for many, a no-deal is also a reality. If Britain doesn’t get what it wants – if it is told it must adhere to EU laws, open borders, restrictions on trade and diminished sovereignty – then it must walk away. That warning was clearly laid out in the Conservative Party manifesto.

The only mystery is why the Government has waited for so long to prepare properly and openly for a no-deal outcome. It should have promised that there would be agreements in place on such necessities as medicines and air-travel, or that the technology would be ready to deal with customs and goods movement. It should also have emphasised that whatever short-term hit the UK takes to its economy, in the long-run it may well be Europe that suffers the greater damage, while the UK reorientates towards global trade. And if there is no-deal, we are under no obligation to pay £39billion as a divorce bill. In such circumstances, Brussels should wave goodbye to our cash.

Britain isn’t the only one accused of playing with fire. Brussels might attempt to even turn defence into a bargaining chip. Defence is one area where the EU clearly needs us more than we need them. The Government’s no-deal rhetoric should ram this point home on all fronts: Brussels would be unbelievably stupid to drive away a partner as rich and influential as the UK.

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Treasonous myths of the Brexiteers’

BREXIT

JUST as an alliance with the EU is important to the UK, European immigrants are also vital to the British economy.

Many people will remember the insidious campaign during the EU referendum debate in 2016 of Nigel Farage standing in front of a poster showing a queue of refugees with the slogan: ‘Breaking point: The EU has failed us all’ – an image that was rightly compared to Nazi propaganda – while others were allowed to peddle the myth that EU immigration had helped to cause austerity. It must surely be a matter of profound regret among leaders of the Remain campaign that they allowed the effects of immigration to be so utterly misrepresented in the run-up to the Brexit vote.

Since that fateful day, various employers appear to have woken up to the serious risks posed by a shortage of labour if the UK leaves the Single Market and ditches freedom of movement (as Theresa May insists will happen).

The latest sign of trouble comes from our schools, with the number of teachers from other EU countries – like Greece, Poland, Spain and Ireland – applying to work in Scotland “falling off a cliff”.

In 2017, some 186 teachers from the EU sought registration with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, but so far this year just 14 have done so. This comes at a time of teacher shortages with some 700 vacancies in Scotland at the start of the year.

Nine out of ten UK employers report they are struggling to recruit staff with the skills they need, threatening the ability of the UK economy to compete. Wages could rise as employers are forced to compete for a smaller pool of available workers, but this may prove to be a short-lived boon if firms with fewer skilled staff and higher costs start to lose business and trade to their EU rivals.

The economic chaos that could be caused by a no-deal Brexit could further exacerbate what is already an alarming situation.

What is equally important is the attitude adopted by our elected politicians towards the EU, described recently by President Trump as a “foe” while he cosied up to Vladimir Putin of Russia.

In a further twist and wholly unacceptable language, Conservative MEP David Campbell-Bannerman has claimed the Treason Act should be amended to apply to “those in future actively working undemocratically against the UK through extreme EU loyalty” because, “like extreme jihadis”, they were “seeking to destroy or undermine the British state”.

We should have welcomed immigrants to this country by freely acknowledging the massive contribution they have made to our society, but instead we have turned them into scapegoats for austerity. What a pitifully poor and degrading accusation.

Now there is a serious risk of another dangerous myth gaining a foothold in the public’s imagination – that the friendly democracies of the EU are in some way our enemy.

BRITAIN will be unable to forge a new trade deal with fast-growing Pacific countries unless it makes a clean break with the EU, a report has warned.

The Government’s White Paper on Brexit says the UK will “potentially seek accession” to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) after leaving the EU.

The 11-member organisation, which aims to eliminate 98 per cent of all tariffs, is seen as a major potential growth market.

But a study by the Policy Exchange thinktank warns that Theresa May’s Chequers deal could make membership impossible.

The controversial deal commits the UK to following a “common rulebook” with the EU on goods and farm products, limiting the room for manoeuvre with trade negotiators.

The report warns that joining the partnership would require the UK to have more flexibility over its regulations.

Report author Geoff Raby, a former Australian ambassador to the World Trade Organisation, said: “By aligning UK policy to EU policy on agriculture and manufactured goods, the White Paper will constrain the opportunities that the UK has to pursue an independent trade policy.

“Without being able to participate fully in the agricultural and manufactured goods dimension it is most unlikely that the UK would be able to join, but if it did it would not be able to get the full benefits.”

The Chequers deal has caused uproar in the Conservative Party and prompted the resignations of Boris Johnson and David Davis.

The PM has insisted that it will not constrain the UK’s future trade policy. She told MPs this month: “We specifically looked at whether the plan that we were putting forward would enable us to accede to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and it will.”

But the report threatens to reopen the row over the potential impact on trade of the Chequers agreement. Donald Trump has warned that the restrictions would “kill” hopes of a US trade deal – although he rowed back following talks with Mrs May.

The CPTPP’s members include Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico and New Zealand, with South Korea, Indonesia and Taiwan among those set to join.

Policy Exchange chairman Alexander Downer, the former Australian high commissioner to the UK, said Britain would be “a welcome addition” to the bloc, which would give it “unfettered access to many markets that represent a large part of the future of the world’s economy”.

Standard