Category Archives: Politics

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, Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Brexit and the devolution settlement

BREXIT

For most of the two decades following Scottish devolution, nobody would have anticipated for a moment that the UK would be leaving the European Union or that this would have consequential effects on relations between Edinburgh and London.

But, given we have had two years of dithering as the UK Government decided what kind of Brexit it wanted, there was surely a time when a sensible compromise could have been delivered that respected the devolution settlement and one that did not undermine the UK’s own internal market.

. See also Scotland’s EU Continuity Bill now being tested in Supreme Court

Instead, what we have witnessed is relations descending into a bitter row over what the SNP has described as a “power grab” over issues that are currently controlled by the EU (but which would otherwise be devolved).

In the context of the arguments, both the UK and Scottish Governments had a point. Westminster wants to make sure the UK doesn’t leave the wealthiest single market in the world and end up with further sub-divisions inside the UK. Yet, it’s not unreasonable for the SNP to be concerned that matters which are supposed to be devolved might end up being controlled in London. Whilst the UK Government insists this will not happen and that powers transferring from the EU will all be sorted out eventually, it does feel like ministers ran out of time to sort out a deal in advance of Brexit.

What has transpired since is the potential start of a constitutional crisis. The Scottish Parliament passed its own Continuity Bill in an attempt to safeguard the disputed powers of which the bill’s legitimacy is currently being considered by the UK Supreme Court.

An indication of the reason behind the chaos has emerged in a report by MPs that says Whitehall officials don’t actually understand devolution. This is all the more surprising given that the committee is chaired by Sir Bernard Jenkin, a prominent Conservative Brexiteer.

Scotland’s Constitution Secretary Mike Russell remarked it is an “astonishing state of affairs” and one that should be rectified as soon as possible (which will only happen after Brexit now). There is perhaps, though, a silver lining that stands out from the conclusions of the report, in that the UK Government hasn’t been deliberately trying to grab powers that should be devolved. It’s simply been struggling to understand what to do.

Might this just be the basis for a general cooling of tensions between Holyrood and Westminster and a chance to find a reasonable way forward? In these turbulent times, that would certainly help.

Standard
Britain, Government, Legal, Politics

An inquiry is needed into torture

RENDITION & TORTURE

Former cabinet minister David Davis is pressing the Prime Minister to order a judge-led inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the mistreatment of terror suspects – or face the prospect of a legal challenge.

In a major intervention, the former Brexit Secretary calls on Theresa May to set up an independent probe to investigate UK complicity in “wicked” torture and rendition during the so-called “war on terror”.

Failing to fulfil the Tory party’s pledge to hold an inquiry, chaired by a senior judge, into the abuse of captives will mean never discovering the truth about some of Britain’s “darkest days”, he says.

Mr Davis has backed a hard-hitting letter to Downing Street on torture signed by senior MPs.

It comes just weeks after he quit the Cabinet in disgust at Mrs May’s Chequers blueprint for leaving the EU.

He claims that Government inaction following confirmation that Tony Blair’s New Labour and the security services colluded with the US’s torture programme after 9/11 also contributed to his decision to walk out.

Mr Davis condemns Mrs May for hindering the search for the truth by preventing British agents from giving crucial evidence to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

He says: “If the Government rejects the cross-party calls then they will open themselves up to being challenged in the courts. That is an outcome none of us wants to see. We have to hope common sense prevails.”

He also says it was “amazing” that Mr Blair and his ministers appeared not to have questioned spy chiefs about their actions, which raised the prospect that they were “deliberately avoiding asking them to maintain deniability”.

The letter, written by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rendition, argues that a judge-led inquiry is the “only way to get to the bottom of this shameful episode in our recent history and draw a line under it”.

A damning ISC report in June said British spy chiefs tolerated “inexcusable” mistreatment of terror suspects in the years after 9/11. The 152-page dossier, which took three years to compile, laid bare in unprecedented detail the UK’s complicity in torture and “extraordinary rendition”, where suspects are flown to another country for imprisonment and interrogation.

Mrs May said the security and intelligence agencies “regretted” not recognising sooner the “unacceptable practices”. But the Government said only that it would give “careful consideration” to holding a judge-led inquiry and make a decision within 60 days – around August 27.

Former prime minister David Cameron supported such an inquiry and appointed judge Sir Peter Gibson in 2010 but the probe was scrapped in 2012 before completing his work.

A spokesperson for the human rights charity Reprieve said: “The Prime Minister should listen to her colleagues and call an independent judge-led inquiry, to ensure Britain learns from its mistakes.”

MR Davis says any government that permits UK involvement in torture should be held to firmly account. Unfortunately, he declared, this has not happened in cases where UK ministers and officials got mixed up in “war on terror”- era torture.

That is why Theresa May should deliver on the Government’s long-standing commitment to launch an independent judge-led inquiry into these matters. That is the only way we can ensure we don’t become complicit ever again.

The reports revealed Tony Blair’s ministers planned and bankrolled score of illegal kidnap operations and allowed the UK to become involved in hundreds of cases where officials knew of or suspected abuse.

In one incident cited an MI6 officer took part in the questioning of a detainee alongside US personnel before witnessing the man being driven in a “6ft sealed box” to be illegally rendered on an American plane.

The report also details the account of one British agent describing an American “Torture Centre” in Iraq, to which the UK military were no longer allowed to send detainees as a result of what went on there.

In what the ISC report condemns as an unacceptable “workaround”, MI6 simply took detainees held there to an adjacent cabin, where they could be interviewed, before being sent back to their abuse.

In another incident, an MI6 officer was assisting with a US interrogation – until being asked to leave the room, so that the US official could “rough up” the detainee without any witnesses present. When the UK officer returned, the ISC report describes the detainee as visibly hurt.

These revelations, Mr Davis says, represent only the tip of the iceberg, as the Parliamentary committee investigating UK involvement in torture was barred by Downing Street from following critical leads.

Roadblocks thrown up by No 10 meant the ISC was able to question 13 times fewer witnesses than it sought. This led to its chairman, in his own words, to “draw a line” under the committee’s efforts.

This interference by government means that despite the reports’ damning findings there are too many gaps and unanswered questions. The need for a full, independent, judge-led inquiry is clear.

When the Conservatives entered government in 2010, the party rightly promised that it would get to the bottom of Britain’s involvement in these practices, and make whatever changes were needed to stop them happening again. The job has been started, but it remains incomplete. Mr Davis says this is not about blaming individuals who were undoubtedly operating under extreme and highly pressured conditions, but that we will never be able to understand what those on the ground understood their orders to be unless they can be asked.

What were they being told? What information were they feeding back? And what questions were they raising with their supporters?

 

ALSO central to understand is what ministers at the time knew about the operations they were signing off on. Amazingly, it seems that they were not asking questions of the agencies about what was being sanctioned.

Did they fail to do this because they wrongly assumed everything was in order? Or were they deliberately avoiding asking them to maintain deniability?

An inquiry into these issues must be led by someone untainted by a connection to the intelligence services. It is also clear that the chair must have full legal powers to compel the production of evidence.

Measures will, of course, need to put in place to protect genuinely sensitive material, but it is perfectly possible for this to be done while ensuring that relevant testimony is publicly heard.

If the Government rejects the cross-party calls then they will open themselves up to being challenged in the courts.

Standard