Tag Archives: Brexit

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

Britain’s exit from the EU. Getting down to it.

BRITAIN & THE EUROPEAN UNION

eu-ballot

On June 23, 2016, Britons voted to leave the European Union. The two-year process for negotiating Britain’s departure will soon begin.

Intro: It has been six months since the referendum vote on Brexit. Thus far, the debate has been more about process and procedure than substance. In 2017, as negotiating talks get underway, the going will get much tougher. As we edge closer to Article 50 being triggered, where does Britain stand?

SOME THINGS have already changed since Britons decided to withdraw from the European Union following the Brexit vote on June 23rd. The country has a new government led by Theresa May. Two new government departments have been set up For Exiting The EU (under David Davis) and for International Trade (under Liam Fox). After several years of austerity cuts, the civil service is beginning to grow again. It is being geared up in tackling the numerous challenges of disentangling Britain from the bureaucracy of Brussels. In the Government’s most recent Autumn Statement, Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, softened previous plans to cut the budget deficit by 2020.

But on another level, and on Brexit itself, however, Mrs May has done little beyond repeating her mantra that ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and ‘We’re going to make a success of it’. The prime minister has promised a Great Repeal Bill to enshrine most exiting EU rules into UK law for continuity. And she has said she will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the legal clause that sets a two-year time limit for Brexit, by the end of March (2017).

Indeed, most public discussion and debate on Brexit has been procedural, not substantive. Discourse in Parliament has revolved around how much information MPs will be given. The courts have become involved: this month the Supreme Court will decide whether triggering Article 50 requires prior authority through an act of Parliament, as the High Court has already ruled. There have been disputes over just how much Mrs May should reveal over her negotiating objectives. Yet, all of this has taken place even before there is an internal agreement within the government over what form of Brexit to aim for when negotiations begin.

For some MPs, such as Neil Carmichael and Mr Davis himself, there is hope that a government white paper on Brexit will be published before Article 50 is triggered. Mr Davis has recently said, though, that the government would not publish anything until February. Protagonists say that would still leave time for a white paper and a short parliamentary act before Article 50 is sanctioned.

The substance of Brexit is likely to prove far more difficult than the procedure. One reason is that it will involve trade-offs the government has so far avoided debating. The most obvious is that in which maximising barrier-free access to the EU’s single market will make it hard to take back full control of migration and laws relating to freedom of movement. That’s because it is invariably and directly linked to the free movement of capital and services. There is also the issue of ceasing contributions to the EU’s budget.  Several more difficult dilemmas await: for instance, the desire to maintain security and intelligence cooperation with the EU may be almost impossible to achieve if Mrs May continues to insist on escaping completely from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

The substance of a Brexit deal will also be more difficult than procedure because Britain’s 27 EU partners are likely to put a premium on unity. It is possible Britain will need to pay an exit fee of some $63bn, as well as negotiating separately any future trade relations which would not run in parallel with the strict terms of exit. Other EU leaders face political pressure at home: France, Germany, the Netherlands, and possibly even Italy, will all have elections in 2017.

The ominous and gloomy signs are that a harder version of Brexit will prevail, but there are some flickers of hope that also point in the other direction. Mr Davis and Mr Hammond appear to be working as one in minimising the shock of departure. Mr Davis has not completely ruled out making payments into the EU budget after Brexit. Several other government ministers have floated the possibility of continuing partial membership of the single market, the customs union or both. The Scottish government, too, has said it wants to stay in the single market regardless of what happens elsewhere in Britain. Negotiating a final deal for Brexit with so many added complexities will become more divisive and problematic as the clock starts ticking.

Of late, a growing recognition has emerged of the economic risks of Brexit. Leave campaigners have long claimed that economic forecasts and predictions by Mr Hammond’s predecessor, George Osborne, were too pessimistic and overly cautious. But the Autumn Statement made clear that Brexit has a cost. Public and private consumption has held up reasonably well but investment continues to be cut. Banks and others in financial services are talking of major job losses as institutions restructure and positions are transferred to continental Europe.

Prodding ministers towards a softer Brexit must be on the table because the economy matters. A recent poll for Open Britain, a pro-EU lobby group, found that half of Leave voters are not ready to be made worse off as a result of Brexit.

More realism over immigration should also be a factor. To date, this has only been presented in terms of the relationship between the single market and the four freedoms of movement of capital, goods, services and people. The implication has been that to keep the first may require concessions on the second. Several companies, however, in industries ranging from financial services to agriculture, have made clear that migration is crucial in its own right. Indeed, some are more concerned about migration controls than they are about barrier-free access to the EU’s single market because of the effect such controls will have on the availability of labour for their industries.

A view is also emerging among politicians who see the need for a transitional deal with the EU – to avert a hard landing in March 2019. Transition is being talked up, as a string of recent reports from the House of Lords EU committee highlight. They say this is particularly important for financial services. The fact that transition was ever controversial is, in the words of Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister, “symptomatic of a strategy-less approach to Brexit”. That it is now widely accepted as a sign of common sense.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Legal, Society

The Brexit vote and the Supreme Court

BREXIT

supreme-court2

The government is to appeal against the High Court’s ruling that Article 50 cannot be invoked without Parliament’s support, so that means the case will now be heard in the Supreme Court. The Court comprises 11 senior judges.

Intro: Increasingly, it is not so much Brexit that divides the country as the bitter struggle to prevent it

ON Monday, 5 December, 2016, one of the most important questions of British constitutional history will be examined.

Eleven judges of the Supreme Court will hear the Government appeal against a High Court decision that 17.4 million votes in the EU referendum had no force in law. The High Court ruled that Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 can be triggered and negotiations with the EU begin; the Government believes that the referendum rendered that unnecessary. The Supreme Court will begin four days of hearings and a judgment is expected in January.

The 11 Supreme Court judges are faced with a highly political decision. With no written constitution to guide them, this is not a mere question of law, to be solved like a mathematical equation, with a definite correct or incorrect answer. Yet, this was precisely the spirit in which the High Court tried to approach the case, citing centuries-old precedents and ignoring the fact that the June referendum was an unprecedented historic act.

The free press should make no apology for shining a light on the Supreme Court. It is their job to scrutinise the powerful, and most voters have become aware just how powerful these 11 judges really are. With so little to help them in the law books, the clear risk is that the judges may be influenced by their personal opinions, no matter how assiduously they try to set them aside.

It is not a question of attacking the integrity and intelligence of our judges. But, on political matters, it is no more possible for judges than for anyone else to be perfectly neutral, uninfluenced by their own views or those of the people with whom they share their lives.

With only a simple majority needed for a ruling, it will be disturbing for Brexiteers to note that no fewer than five Supreme Court judges have publicly expressed their views which appear to be sympathetic to the EU, while six have close links with people who have publicly attacked the Leave campaign.

This matter should have been dismissed by the High Court. The last government held an in/out referendum on membership of the EU with the explicit promise that the result would be binding. While it is true that Britain is a representative (as opposed to direct) democracy, the EU vote was a rare exception to our political norms, an exception in which the people were asked to instruct the government what to do. Remainers cannot be motivated by concern for parliamentary sovereignty, because, if they were, they would have opposed the transfer of its powers to Europe since the Seventies. Militants see Parliament as an impediment to Brexit, a way of talking it out or watering it down. The application that has led to the current impasse was based on disgruntled mischief.

It is no fault of the Supreme Court justices that they find themselves in such a position of responsibility. They are only doing their job. And their job is a critical part of our constitution – testing laws and ensuring government actions adhere to them. However, there is no escaping the political nature of this case. The judges are being asked to rule on whether the Brexit-backing voters or Remain-backing MPs should have greater authority.

On numerous issues, the courts have defied Parliament and ministers; amending the ‘bedroom tax’, for example, or by outlawing extended solitary confinement for jihadists on grounds of human rights law. In such instances, they have become judicial activists. Which is all very well, but they cannot then complain when their decisions are questioned and their backgrounds and views analysed publicly.

The Government’s case is a good one and the Supreme Court may well agree. We should hope that the judges will remember the legitimacy of the referendum and its verdict, and not as the Government’s senior legal officer, Attorney General Jeremy Wright, has said that the vote be relegated ‘almost to a footnote’ as the Remain camp would hope for.

Increasingly, it is not so much Brexit that divides the country as the bitter struggle to prevent it. Most Remainers have probably accepted defeat and want to get on with their lives. Businesses need to know what is going to happen next. The world is waiting for EU negotiations to begin. It is in the national, even global, interest to proceed.

If the Supreme Court disagrees and says that Parliament must become involved, so be it. In that instance, it seems likely that Theresa May will smooth a Bill through Parliament to trigger Article 50 and limit any unnecessary delay. Of course, such developments would then attract dissenters who would attempt to dilute and frustrate any bill proceeding.

When governments ask the people what to do, they must follow their instructions. They are duty bound to follow through the mandate that has been raised. That’s the nature of how a democratic society operates.

Standard
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