Category Archives: Government

Africa, Aid, Britain, Business, Economic, G7, Government

Britain: Aid cash to be used in boosting trade with Africa

FOREIGN AID BUDGET

THERESA May has pledged to use Britain’s overseas aid budget to boost post-Brexit trade with Africa.

She told an audience in Cape Town that she is “unashamed” of her ambition to ensure the multibillion-pound pot “works for the UK”.

The Prime Minister said that from now on Britain’s foreign aid budget will not only help combat poverty, but support “our own national interest”.

It comes after the bloated aid budget – now standing at almost £14billion a year – has come under fire as officials struggling to spend the money quickly enough have donated to a series of increasingly controversial projects.

Mrs May said funds will be specifically used to “support the private sector to take root and grow”. This means Britain will employ its aid to help create the conditions for UK businesses to have confidence to invest in Africa.

She also said the funds should go towards boosting security and tackling terrorism in the continent – a move to which she insists will make the UK safer.

The money will also be used to encourage potential migrants to stay in Africa so they are not tempted to make the dangerous journey to Europe.

The commitment comes amid the UK’s huge foreign aid budget struggling to maintain public support. Critics have long opposed David Cameron’s controversial policy and target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on overseas aid.

The target has meant huge increases in aid spending in recent years – and guarantees it will continue to grow.

Public anger has grown given some of the examples of how the money is spent. These include a £5.2million grant to girl band Yegna, nicknamed the “Ethiopian Spice Girls”, whose funding was only halted last year.

Downing Street will now hope that the announcement of a realignment of spending will help convince voters of its worth.

The Department for International Development gives around £2.6billion a year in bilateral aid to Africa. The Prime Minister has also announced a new ambition to make Britain the G7’s largest investor in the continent within four years.

At present the U.S. is the largest contributor to African investment, but Mrs May aims to leapfrog it by 2022.

In Cape Town, the Prime Minister talked about changing the face of the UK’s aid spending in Africa both to reflect the continent’s rapid growth and to benefit Britain. There is a huge opportunity for British trade in a post-Brexit world. Mrs May’s three-day trip to the African continent will also take in visits to Nigeria and Kenya.

The PM said: “It is the private sector that is the key to driving that growth – transforming labour markets… And the UK has the companies that can invest in and trade with Africa to do just this.

“The private sector has not yet managed to deliver the level of job creation and investment that many African nations need.

“So I want to put our development budget and expertise at the centre of our partnership as part of an ambitious new approach – and use this to support the private sector to take root and grow.

“I am unashamed about the need to ensure that our aid programme works for the UK.

“I am committing that our development spending will not only combat extreme poverty, but at the same time tackle global challenges and support our own national interest.

“This will ensure that our investment in aid benefits us all, as is fully aligned with our wider national security priorities.”

The Prime Minister also set out why working with Africa to deliver jobs, investment and long-term stability is in the interests of Britain and the wider world.

Mrs May pointed out that Africa needs to create millions of new jobs every year to keep pace with its rapidly growing population, adding: “The challenges facing Africa are not Africa’s alone.

“It is in the world’s interest to see that those jobs are created, to tackle the causes and symptoms of extremism and instability, to deal with migration flows and to encourage clean growth. If we fail to do so, the economic and environmental impacts will swiftly reach every corner of our networked, connected world.

“And the human impacts . . . will be similarly global.”

Addressing the issue of British trade, Mrs May said: “As Prime Minister of a trading nation whose success depends on global markets, I want to see strong African economies that British companies can do business with in a free and fair fashion.

“Whether through creating new customers for British exporters or opportunities for British investors, our integrated global economy means healthy African economies are good news for British people as well as African people.

“I want the UK to be the G7’s number one investor in Africa, with Britain’s private sector companies taking the lead in investing the billions that will see African economies growing by trillions.”

Standard
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