Category Archives: Politics

Britain, European Union, Government, Legal, Politics, Society

The ‘single market’ of the European Union

What is the single market?

A trade agreement that allows different countries within the EU to trade across borders as easily as they can within their own country, with no extra tariffs or negotiations.

What kind of trade?

The rules of the single market are governed by the “four freedoms”: the free movement of goods, people, services and capital from one EU member country to another. This idea was integral to the original EEC Treaty in 1957.

What happens when the laws of two countries differ?

If something being traded compromises one country’s national laws regarding public policy, security or health, the national rules take precedence. Otherwise, the EU will usually create a single market law which will legislate for EU-wide rules – for example on the noise made by electrical devices.

What are minimum and maximum standards?

A minimum standards EU law allows individual countries to add tougher rules on top to govern their own country. A maximum standards law means that the EU law trumps national laws.

Can non-EU countries be in the single market?

Yes, but the EU will usually impose a customs tariff on imports from non EU-member countries

BREXIT

Brexit Secretary, David Davis, has said Britain could continue paying into Brussels after it has left the European Union to secure access to the single market.

Mr Davis told MPs the Government wanted to “get the best possible access for goods and services to the European market” post-Brexit.

It is the first time a Government minister has openly signalled money could be handed over to Brussels to secure favourable trading terms with the remaining 27 member states.

Downing Street said his comments were consistent with the Government’s stated position that it was for the UK to decide how its taxpayers’ money was spent.

Chancellor Philip Hammond said he was “absolutely right not to rule out the possibility that we might want to contribute in some way to some form of mechanism”.

But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said they showed the Government’s plans for Brexit were in “chaos” with ministers sending “mixed signals” about future arrangements outside the EU.

Mr Davis’s remarks came during Commons Brexit questions when he was asked if ministers would consider making a contribution “in any shape or form” for access to the single market.

He told the House: “The simple answer we have given to this before is, and it’s very important because there is a distinction between picking off an individual policy and setting out a major criteria, and the major criteria here is that we get the best possible access for goods and services to the European market.

“If that is included in what you are talking about then of course we would consider it.”

Mr Farron said his comments underlined the need for ministers to spell out clearly what their plans were for Brexit.

“The Government are in an absolute mess. We are seeing chaos over their Brexit plans as they keep sending mixed signals on where they stand on basic, fundamental questions like access to the single market, payments to the EU budget and freedom of movement,” he said.

“How can the Government claim they have a mandate for their Brexit deal when they don’t even know what it is themselves?”

But Mr Hammond said: “What matters is that at the end of the day the package we get is a package that maximises the benefit to the UK economy, allowing British businesses, British workers to continue selling the goods and services that they produce into the European Union, and vice versa of course.

“You can’t go into any negotiation expecting to get every single objective that you set out with and concede nothing along the way. It will have to be a deal that works for both sides.

Pro-Brexit Conservative Steve Baker played down the significance of Mr Davis’s comments, suggesting they had been “over-interpreted”.

“Paying for market access would not be free trade but the Government is right not to speculatively rule ideas in or out, however left field those ideas may be. Ministers’ comments seem to have been over-interpreted. I am not concerned,” he said.

And former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith insisted there was no way of reaching a deal to pay the EU for access to the single market.

Mr Duncan Smith told BBC Radio 4’s The World At One: “What he’s talking about here is how do you get a deal that allows British and Europeans to access each others’ markets without the necessity of tariff barriers or artificial barriers against service etc.

“I don’t think there’s any way in which you can reach a deal whereby you say ‘I’ll pay some money in and therefore you allow us access’, because you might as well have tariff barriers at that point.”

Prime Minister Theresa May’s official spokeswoman said: “What he (Mr Davis) said in the House this morning is consistent with what we have said to date, which is that it will be for the UK Government to make decisions on how taxpayers’ money will be spent.

“We’ve said, as we approach these negotiations, we want to get the best possible access for British businesses to trade with and operate within the single market, while also taking back control on immigration.”

During his appearance at the Despatch Box, Mr Davis also indicated the Government was open to some form of transitional arrangement with the EU as part of its Brexit strategy.

“We are seeking to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union, and it would not be in the interests of either side, Britain or the European Union, to see disruption,” he said.

“To that end, we’re examining all possible options, focusing on the mutual interests of the UK and the European Union.”

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Among the rubble seize the chance of peace in Aleppo

SYRIA

aleppo-rubble

Rubble from destroyed buildings blocks a street in Aleppo. The scene is all too common across the country.

Intro: As Aleppo has been subjected to Russian bombardment over the past two weeks, the city has been left in a condition that can only be described as inhumane and beyond belief

RUSSIA has said that forces loyal to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad are in possession and are controlling a third of the city of Aleppo.

What in fact they are in possession of is a lot of rubble from the devastation that the fighting has caused. The city is almost destroyed and is horrendous for the inhabitants that remain in this besieged city. In Aleppo, very little is left.

The situation has undoubtedly been made far worse since Putin’s forces have stepped in, with their military fighter jets and bombers and their boots on the ground. Russian intervention in Syria has been decisive, hard though it may be for the West to accept. The near annihilation and stomach wrenching images being beamed back from Aleppo is a very clear signal that we have been backing the losing side. That backing was only ever partial and delicately targeted to specific anti-Assad militant groups. There is no political appetite in the West – or in the UK – to increase our military resources that would inevitably lead to a face-off with Russia and Assad’s well equipped forces. We must now accept that the Syrian tyrant has won.

The best we can now do is to persuade the groups who we do back to call a ceasefire and try to end this brutal and destructive war. It has been raging now for more than five years.

As Aleppo has been subjected to Russian bombardment over the past two weeks, the city has been left in a condition that can only be described as inhumane and beyond belief. Hospitals have been flattened, babies have been taken out of their incubators as doctors desperately try to protect them, and aid agencies have been blocked in their task of reaching those most in need with medical and food stocks. About 250,000 people have been left without vital supplies; more than 450,000 people are believed to have died in the conflict to date.

As much as the West may detest the idea of Assad still being in power, we need to convince people to negotiate so that Syria can be rebuilt. This is essential not only for the besieged people of the country, who have had their lives disrupted for so long, but for the whole of Europe and other countries in the Middle East, many of which are struggling to cope with a huge influx of refugees.

This is all we can now hope for.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Brexit and immigration…

BRITAIN

1-1

Immigration was a central argument during the Brexit vote. But now the Government in Britain must make clear to EU nationals resident in the UK what the position will be before Britain departs the European Union.

Intro: The status of around three million EU citizens in the UK when we leave is still uncertain

Since June 23, the day 17.4 million voters in Britain decided that the UK would leave the European Union, the persistent refusal of the UK economy to collapse in ruins following the vote must be rather frustrating to diehard Remainers. For those who advocated Brexit, statistics showing unemployment at an 11-year low must be quite cheering. That more people in Britain have jobs than ever before – almost 32 million – is another indicator of just how successful open markets and labour laws can be when overbearing bureaucracy such as the power of the trade unions are curbed.

No-doubt, some of the rise in employment will be accounted for by people from outside the UK. The number of Eastern European migrants employed in Britain rose by almost 50,000 between July and September. That can only be attributed to the strength of the UK economy, but must raise the question as to whether EU citizens are coming to the UK to qualify for residency before Brexit.

The status of around three million EU citizens in the UK when we leave is still uncertain. Some suggest that any EU national resident in the UK on the day we leave should be entitled to stay; others argue that right should only be conferred on those individuals’ resident in the UK prior to June’s referendum.

The prime minister still holds the line that we must first have assurances about the future status of Britons living elsewhere in the EU before the UK can commit on how Europeans here will be dealt with.

While the British Government is protective of its negotiating hand before Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is enacted, there is a clear risk of unintended consequences: not just by encouraging migrants to enter the UK before the legal position is decided, but also in causing angst and uncertainty for those people who live and work here legally. Many have families with children at school and are holding down full-time jobs with securities such as mortgages tied to their homes. The distress for such people has become palpable.

Theresa May faces allegations from EU leaders that her Brexit policy lacks clarity, hypocritical insinuations when we consider the political crisis gripping the continent. A recent remark, too, by German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, was also telling. Even as Mrs Merkel hinted at changing EU welfare rules to deny benefits to migrants, she insists that the basic right of free movement cannot be compromised to suit Britain, “because everyone else will then want these exceptions”. But that is an admission that voters across Europe want to end the free movement laws their leaders insist on upholding.

Westminster has held firm to the view that “Brexit means Brexit”, and, despite legal anomalies to still be worked through, such as when and how Article 50 can be triggered, Britain alone has the chance to create an immigration system that allows it to admit and retain the best talent while meeting the public’s demand for better control. Mrs May should prevaricate no longer and should set out the principles that will underpin that system. This should include a clear and unambiguous statement about the status of EU nationals currently resident in the UK.

Standard