Category Archives: Society

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Brexit: Boris Johnson’s 9 key points

BREXIT

IN a 4,000-word essay by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson which appeared in the Daily Telegraph over the past few days, critics have accused Mr Johnson of trying to bounce the Prime Minister into backing his version of Brexit. Supporters say his upbeat assessment is a vital antidote to the gloom of Remainers. This article examines what he said – and what he meant.

. Johnson’s Red Lines

“Before the referendum we all agreed on what leaving the EU logically must entail: leaving the customs union and the single market, leaving the penumbra of the ECJ; taking back control of borders, cash, laws. That is the programme that Theresa May set out with such clarity… and that is what she and her government will deliver.”

What he means: This might appear to be a simple restatement of government policy. But Mr Johnson’s decision to highlight it days before the prime minister makes a major speech on Brexit is designed to stop her moving an inch on his key red lines.

. Not A Penny More

“We would not expect to pay for access to their markets any more than they would expect to pay for access to ours. Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350million per week.”

What he means: This is the point on which Mr Johnson is most at odds with Mrs May. He appears to set himself against making payments during a transition out of the EU. And his claim that the UK will repatriate £350million a week leaves no scope for any ongoing payments to Brussels.

Boris Johnson, the British Foreign Secretary, has set out his vision of post-Brexit Britain.

. A Pledge To The NHS

“It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that [£350million a week] went on the NHS, provided we use that cash to modernise.”

What he means: Mr Johnson has been stung by claims that he lied about increasing funding for the NHS in last year’s EU referendum. He and other Cabinet Eurosceptics are pushing hard for an increase in NHS funding after Brexit.

. Slashing Red Tape

“As we take back control of our cash, and our borders, and our laws, we will of course not jettison what is good… But over time we will be able to diverge from the great accumulated conglomerate, to act with regulatory freedom.”

What he means: Mrs May is expected to use her speech this week to reassure EU leaders she will not lead a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’ after Brexit, giving the UK a competitive advantage over the EU. But Mr Johnson is anxious Britain does not abandon the opportunity to ditch decades of red tape blamed for stifling innovation and the economy.

. Taxes

“We should seize the opportunity of Brexit to reform our tax system. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, argued in 2015 that our system is currently skewed so as to discourage investment. He believes that reform could raise output by around 20 per cent.”

What he means: Mr Johnson is keen to ensure that Mrs May and Chancellor Philip Hammond do not lock Britain into following the EU’s high-tax model after Brexit.

. Border Control

“We will have an immigration policy that suits the UK, not slamming the door, but welcoming the talent we need, from the EU and around the world. Of course we will make sure that business gets the skills it needs, but business will no longer be able to use immigration as an excuse not to invest in the young people of this country.”

What he means: Taking back control of Britain’s borders was a key Vote Leave message. Mr Johnson is serving notice to business leaders that they will have to start training British youngsters rather than relying on an endless supply of cheap migrant workers.

. Don’t Trust Corbyn

“We have a glorious future, but hardly any of this would be possible under the bizarre and incoherent plans of the Labour Party. It seems that [Jeremy] Corbyn has chickened out. Now it appears he wants to remain in the single market and the customs union. He would… turn an opportunity into a national humiliation. It would be the worst of both worlds, with the UK turned into a vassal state – taking direction from the EU but with no power to influence the EU’s decisions.”

What he means: Mr Johnson saves his fiercest criticism for Labour, pointing out that Mr Corbyn’s flip-flopping on the issue has betrayed traditional Labour supporters who voted in vast numbers to leave the EU.

. Proud To Be British

“When people say that they feel they have more in common with others in Europe than with people who voted leave I want to say, ‘But that is part of the reason why people voted leave.’ You don’t have to be some tub-thumping nationalist to worry that a transnational sense of allegiance can weaken the ties between us; and you don’t have to be an out-and-out nationalist to feel an immense pride in this country and what it can do.”

What he means: This is very much in line with Mrs May’s attack on self-proclaimed ‘citizens of the world’ who end up being ‘citizens of nowhere’. Both believe Britain is in danger of being undermined by a lack of patriotism in sections of society and key institutions.

. Forget Project Fear

“I do not underestimate the scale of the task ahead as we take back control of our destiny. All I say is that they are in grievous error, all those who write off this country, who think we don’t have it in us, who think that we lack the nerve and the confidence to tackle the task ahead. They have been proved wrong before, and believe me they will be proved wrong again.”

What he means: Mr Johnson fears gloomy talk about Brexit will become a self-fulfilling prophecy unless challenged publicly. He notes that many of the ‘Project Fear’ claims made by the Remainers turned out to be utterly baseless.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Britain’s bright future

BREXIT

IT was twenty-five years ago to the day, on September 16, 1992, when Britain crashed out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) – the prelude to the euro. John Major’s government was humiliated, the pound was devalued overnight by 15 per cent and most economists predicted a protracted slump.

Yet, what happened? The lower pound led to a surge in exports and just three years later the economy was booming.

Following the Brexit result, a similar devaluation of pound sterling has happened and all the indicators are that it’s having the same effect, with figures published over the last few days showing that exports have risen by 9 per cent in the last year.

Despite this, not a day goes by that the BBC, Financial Times or Confederation of British Industry don’t paint an apocalyptic picture of Britain’s future outside the EU. These organisations are constantly talking this country down at the very time it’s crucial we should be showing unity.

For people like Sir James Dyson, arguably Britain’s greatest living entrepreneur, and for many other dynamic business leaders, Brexit is not a problem. It’s a massive opportunity.

Standard
Aid, Britain, Government, Politics, Society

Immoral aid rules as restrictions apply to victims of Hurricane Irma

FOREIGN AID

MINISTERS have been frantically trying to change rules that prevent Britain from spending its aid budget to help UK territories hit by Hurricane Irma.

Priti Patel, the International Development Secretary, fired off a letter to the global body which ruled that the UK cannot use its aid cash because the three overseas territories are too wealthy.

She wrote to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to demand reforms to end the farce.

But other ministers said she should go ahead anyway and use the aid budget to help the victims of Irma even if that means breaking the law.

A senior source within the Conservative Party said: “It’s a waste of time asking the OECD to change its mind. We’ve been asking them to change this stupid definition for years and they are not interested. We should just get on and do it ourselves.”

“Our law says we have got to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP on aid, which is good, but it also says we have to spend it according to a ridiculous definition, which is bad. The rules do not allow development spending on these islands because they are not considered poor enough. It is immoral and a lot of people are saying we should just ignore the rules and spend the money.”

Charlotte Petri Gornitzka, who chairs the OECD’s development assistance committee (DAC), suggested the door was open to change. “The DAC is always open to discussing issues of concern with its member countries,” she said.

Downing Street has made clear that Theresa May is “frustrated” with the OECD rules which excludes British Overseas Territories like Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos islands and the British Virgin Islands from receiving money from the aid pot.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson says Whitehall is working furiously to get the rules changed.

As MPs anger grew, one branded the OECD “out-of-touch morons” while a Conservative backbencher pledged to introduce a bill to change the law, whether or not the OECD gives the green light.

Miss Patel’s letter to the DAC has called for the current rules to be torn up. She said she had asked the committee “as a matter of urgency to develop options to ensure the aid rules reflect the needs of those impacted by natural disasters”.

She added: “We believe that the international rules should take into account the vulnerabilities of small island states.

“These rules were first established over 40 years ago. The world has changed dramatically since then, and we will work constructively with international partners to ensure the rules remain relevant and up to date.”

The UK has pledged £57million towards disaster relief and the public has helped to raise £1.3million. This figure would have been significantly higher without the strict international rules governing the allocation of the £13billion aid budget – but the Government disputes this.

A spokesperson for the prime minister insisted the UK’s aid effort had not been hampered by the OECD rules, saying: “The Prime Minister is frustrated with the rules as they stand. We began detailed work after the election to change the rules to prevent precisely this kind of scenario.”

It was indicated that the UK could be prepared to act alone if there was no agreement on changing the international rules.

Mr Johnson said the hurricane was “absolutely catastrophic” and that anybody with an “ounce of compassion” would want to see government spending to “get these people on their feet”.

“We are looking now across Whitehall at ways we can make sure that our aid budget is used in that way,” he said: “Priti Patel, all my colleagues are looking at how we can do that.”

James Duddridge, a former Foreign Office minister and now member of the Commons international development committee, said he would introduce a ten-minute rule bill to rewrite the law on the 0.7 per cent target.

“The Government should change development assistance rules, and if they don’t, they bring forward legislation to change the International Development Act,” he said.

“If they don’t, I will bring a bill to Parliament to redefine what our excellent 0.7 per cent commitment should cover.”

His colleague Philip Davis, who called the OECD “out-of-touch morons”, told the Commons: “It’s bad enough that we have a bloated and wasteful and unaffordable overseas aid budget but it’s even more ridiculous that we now learn that we cannot spend it on our overseas territories.”

Conservative MP Nigel Evans said: “These rules are grotesque if they prevent us from giving the right amount of money that is needed. If we can’t bend the rules then we have to go outside those rules.”

. Why we can’t spend it how we want

BRITAIN is free to spend its aid wherever it wants – what is at issue is whether it counts towards the Government’s 0.7 per cent of national income on international development. But aid money only counts towards the target if it meets rules set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

So under current rules, any money we give to the three overseas territories cannot count towards this total. Cash is only eligible if it goes towards a country on the OECD’s list of states which are deemed poor enough.

Countries are ranked according to need, which is intended to ensure the poorest countries take priority. While some UK territories are on this list, the three affected by Irma are not.

Britain has sent £57million to Turks and Caicos, Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands. But it cannot count towards “official development assistance”, the name for the total eligible under the rules.

COMMENT

AFTER inexorable stories of waste, mismanagement and corruption, it seemed as if there was nothing about Britain’s bloated foreign aid budget which had the capacity to shock.

Now we have learned that not one penny of the £13billion (and rising) which is earmarked for development can be used to help those small island states which were devastated by Hurricane Irma.

The reason? When David Cameron put the target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income into law, he signed Britain up to a Byzantine set of rules laid down by the OECD.

Perversely, this global body has decided that these British Overseas Territories do not qualify as recipients for aid because… they are too rich. To the thousands of people left without power or water, whose communities have been decimated by 180mph winds, will feel that the rules are nothing more than a sick joke.

They might not have been in dire poverty before the storm hit, but surely they are now, after losing everything?

It is bad enough that Britain hurls taxpayers’ money at economic powerhouses such as China, at corrupt regimes where money just disappears, while many public services in the UK are starved of cash.

But it is immeasurably worse that when a truly deserving cause comes along, ministers are forced to scrabble around to raid cash from other budgets or by further inflating our country’s debts.

Whilst it is true that Downing Street is promising to change these mindless rules, that could take months or years and depends on approval from other countries.

Far better would be for ministers to damn the consequences, tear up the rules and do the right thing: spend the money on our people who are – without doubt – in desperate need. The OECD might not applaud, but the public surely would.

Standard