Category Archives: Politics

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

Brexit: The Single Market & Related Options

BREXIT – ACCESS TO MARKETS

Single-Market

Brexit Briefing: The Single Market

AS Brexit negotiations begin to extricate the UK from the European Union, one of the biggest factors ministers will have to contend with is the issue of the single market. The EU has said that Britain will not be allowed to benefit from the free-trade arrangements once it has left the bloc, a major part of why the EU exists for the mutual benefit of constituent members. So, if the UK were forced to leave the single market (very much against its wishes), what could we end up with?

. The Norway Model

MEMBERSHIP of the European Economic Area (EEA) would put Britain alongside Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, and is what Remainers mean when they talk about staying in the ‘single market’. It would keep existing trading rules but take Britain out of the Common Agricultural Policy. However, we would also have to swallow EU laws without being able to influence them, accept rulings by European judges and carry on paying into the budget (Norway’s fee is estimated at around 90 per cent of the UK’s per person). Uncontrolled immigration would continue. Unacceptable to Tory Eurosceptics.

. The Swiss Model

A SORT of EEA minus. The Swiss are members of the European Free Trade Association but not the EEA. They have a series of bilateral trade deals with the EU, which cover trade in goods but very little in services such as banking. The Swiss can negotiate trade deals with third countries, but also make a huge financial contribution to the EU. They are inside the passport-free Schengen zone and have to accept free movement. This option is also toxic for Eurosceptics.

. The Ukraine Model

A JANUARY 2016 agreement between the EU and the Ukraine could form the basis for the UK deal. It includes trade market access and co-operation on defence and security but doesn’t require free movement or the application of EU law. However, the UK would also require a deal on financial services.

. PM’s ‘free trade deal’

IN JANUARY, the Prime Minister said she wanted a ‘deep and special partnership’ covering trade and security. At the same time she says – echoing the Leave campaign – that Britain should take back control of its laws, borders and money. That means no acceptance of EU laws, no more free movement and an end to ‘vast contributions’ to the EU budget. Open issues include immigration rules, how much the UK pays to belong to EU agencies such as Europol, the ‘divorce bill’ and what the new trade rules are. The time it takes to implement such a deal could give Mrs May room for manoeuvre.

. No deal

BRITAIN would revert to World Trade Organisation rules – meaning tariffs on some goods and services. Likely to mean no ‘passporting’ rights for the City of London to trade on the continent. It would create a legal and administrative vacuum on the rights of EU nationals in the UK and British ex-pats, the Irish border, security co-operation, and deals on aviation, agriculture and fishing. Chaotic in the short term.

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics

Theresa May’s costly miscalculations will be her undoing

BRITAIN

If the Prime Minister manages to survive what is undoubtedly the most turbulent period in British political history in over 40 years, the words ‘strong and stable’ will haunt the rest of Theresa May’s career in public office – particularly after promising us stability.

If things weren’t so serious they would be laughable. Several warning signs over the past few years now look in hindsight to have been more like sirens. Mrs May backed the Remain campaign, until she launched her leadership campaign with the slogan ‘Brexit means Brexit’. There was no need for a general election, she insisted, until she changed her mind. In an attempt to garner support from undecided voters, the Conservative Party wheeled out the sensitive subject of social care costs and how they intended to seek a bigger contribution from those who need support. Appearing without warning after the Conservative manifesto had been launched, the policy was then re-written just as abruptly following an outcry from traditional Tory voters.

But what we have in place of stability is inconsistency, and a real sense that Mrs May will do whatever she thinks necessary to protect herself. Whilst her immediate shift on Brexit was a recognition of a scenario she could not change because of the EU referendum result, no benefit of the doubt can be given over her about-turns on holding an election, and the so-called dementia tax. These reversals were motivated by her desire for power, rather than what was best for the country.

May’s self-interest was again to the fore over the last few days as her political advisers paid the price for electoral failure. The threat of a leadership challenge hovered over the Prime Minister if she did not remove them: many questions have been asked over the level of power these unelected advisers have been wielding, who were also central in the writing of the disastrous social care policy. And now we have the Prime Minister attempting to negotiate a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party . . . to keep her in power.

Yet, this posturing and scrambling around to find a way of securing a Commons majority is likely to be her undoing. The DUP maybe popular in Northern Ireland, but many in the rest of the UK will find the party’s values unpalatable. This includes senior figures in Mrs May’s own party, including former prime minister Sir John Major, and Scottish leader Ruth Davidson and Scottish Secretary David Mundell who have both voiced concern over the DUP’s position on gay rights.

Others, too, will likely object to the DUP’s opposition to women’s rights to have an abortion, and the influence of a party which attracts support from a loyalist paramilitary group.

There is a danger for the Conservative Party that the longer Mrs May clings on the more she will alienate the electorate, and the more attractive an opposition Jeremy Corbyn becomes. And with a further general election looking likely, the Prime Minister’s desperate measures are storing up trouble.

Assembling her Cabinet yesterday before attending a 1922 Committee meeting, the Prime Minister has endeavoured to press on with business as usual. Mrs May told her MPs she would serve them as long as they want her. As the full consequences of a deal with the DUP become clear, including the concessions to be given, she is likely to find that her own future, like most of her recent actions, doesn’t have many prospects beyond the short-term.

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics

Theresa May on borrowed time

BRITAIN: GENERAL ELECTION 2017

myview

When Theresa May walked from her prime ministerial car on Friday afternoon towards the waiting media – after having met Her Majesty The Queen – and told the nation she was ready to ‘provide certainty and lead Britain forward at this critical time for our country’, who was she kidding?

Mrs May has neither the competence nor the authority to carry out the mission she describes. Her days as the occupant of 10 Downing Street are surely numbered.

It would be easy to sketch a narrative in hindsight and say that May’s decision to call a snap general election just seven weeks ago was a mistake, that she was doomed to failure the moment she announced her plan. But we cannot say this with confidence.

What we can allude to is that the Prime Minister ran a spectacularly, jaw-droppingly mute campaign. She called the election and didn’t have the guts to debate anything with her political opponents. It seems as if the Tory party have totally forgotten what democracy actually is. To suggest May ran a bad campaign would be putting things lightly. She shattered her reputation as a safe pair of hands by letting us see the real her.

The Prime Minister also kept away from members of the public as often as she could, preferring instead tightly controlled events where she would repeat the words ‘strong and stable’ for the cameras.

When she had to interact with voters, her demeanour was comically awkward. She grinned and nodded and occasionally shrieked with uncomfortable laughter. In interviews, she was wooden and monotonous, delivering drab staid bromides and displaying reticence to engage that would have further undermined her.

May sought our trust that she would be the best person to deliver on the Brexit deal. But what materialised was the polar-opposite: we were shown just how unfit she is to perform that mammoth task.

The consequences for the Prime Minister are acutely critical and she will not be the only victim of her own ineptitude.

The UK enters Brexit negotiations far from a position of strength. The remaining members of the EU owe the UK nothing and, politically, it is in their interests to make this clear. With nationalist parties across the EU agitating for similar referenda, our former partners will be keen to show that departure from the bloc has significant consequences. There are those European leaders who clearly think the best outcome would be for the UK to pay heavily, a measure that would deter other populist countries from pursuing a similar route.

On what basis could Theresa May be considered the right person to enter these negotiations? She has been humiliated by an election disaster of her own creation. Her credibility has been severely damaged with every other leader across the EU sensing her political vulnerability.

A myriad list of other implications also exist that give cause for concern.

The political solution to years of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland is young and fragile. To date, the most important role the UK government has been able to play is that of honest broker when things have grown fraught between unionists and nationalists at Stormont.

In matters devolved to the Northern Ireland assembly, the neutrality of the UK government is self-evidently important. Mrs May’s dependence on the Democratic Unionist Party to help her minority administration get legislation through the House of Commons will certainly be bad news for the power-sharing agreement at Stormont. At almost a stroke, the DUP finds itself with considerably more political power than the republicans of Sinn Fein. This disturbance in the equilibrium cannot be seen in a wholly positive light, despite Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, seeking some concessions for Northern Ireland as part of the agreement in supporting Theresa May’s government.

Then there is Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson who has sought immediate assurances that any dealings with the socially conservative DUP would not mean the diminution of LGBT rights. Whilst it was reported that Miss Davidson had received promises she was seeking on these issues her disdain for the arrangement was palpable. There has even been some talk of the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to form their own party and constitution.

Many will understand that the Conservative Party did not earn its deserved reputation for resilience without displaying a considerable degree of ruthlessness when it was required. Many others, however, will equally argue that austerity cuts on those who could least afford it has now come back and hit the Conservative Party hard. There has hardly been a fair redistribution of wealth under Conservative rule. It may be best that once a leader becomes a liability they are put out of their misery as soon as possible. Expect another Conservative Party leadership challenge, if not another general election, sometime soon.

A certain amount of fate awaits. Senior Conservatives say May is safe until after the party have delivered a Queen’s Speech and re-established themselves in government. After that, it will be a matter of when, not if, she is invited to step down or face a bruising leadership challenge.

The Prime Minister might have won most parliamentary seats but she has squandered a majority and revealed herself to be far less able than her predecessor. We should be surprised if she has the stomach to fight any challenge to her leadership.

Despite Jeremy Corbyn not having the disastrous outcome that many had predicted for Labour, Mr Corbyn still didn’t come close to beating a heavily weakened Tory party. Even if all other parties are added to Labour’s the magical 326 seats needed in forming a government is still not reached.

Those in the Labour Party treating the result as a victory should think carefully about what they achieved. Yes, Mr Corbyn is in a more secure position than he has ever been as Labour leader, but he remains a divisive figure whose appeal is lost on a significant number of those voters whose support Labour needs if it is to win a general election.

With the SNP also wounded by the loss of 21 seats in Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon still leads the biggest party north of the border. The SNP’s 35 seats are more than all the other parties put together. But the party have admitted that its fixation on independence was a significant factor in the loss of so many SNP MPs, including former deputy leader Angus Robertson and former first minister Alex Salmond. Their seats both fell to the Conservatives.

Ruth Davidson has been the only clear winner from this election. She is gaining pre-eminence among fellow Conservatives and finds herself now with considerable authority in the Tory Party, both north and south of the border. Socially liberal and pro-EU, we should expect her to influence the direction of Brexit.

As things stand, it would be apt to ask whether the current Prime Minister will be involved in the final Brexit settlement. Her colleagues will probably dictate that she won’t be. Britain finds itself in a precarious position as it starts these talks in a few days from now.

Standard