Dominic Cummings said in a provocative series of tweets that he had always intended to get “the trolley” – his derogatory nickname for the Prime Minister – to “ditch the bits we didn’t like” after beating Labour in the 2019 general election.

His latest intervention came after Brexit minister Lord Frost set out the UK’s demands for fundamental changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol contained in the agreement which Mr. Johnson signed in January 2020.

Dominic Cummings@Dominic2306
Oct 12, 2021
Replying to @Dominic2306

For all those whining, you try solving a once-a-century constit crisis starting on 10% in polls with totally fkd negotiating situation, SW1 hysterical, joke Cabinet, mutinous GLS & a fkd for PM who only understood even vaguely WTF the Customs Union was in 11/20 – not easy!

Dominic Cummings@Dominic2306

No what I’ve said does NOT mean ‘the PM was  lying in GE2019’, he never had a scoobydoo what the deal he signed meant. He never understood what leaving Customs Union meant until 11/20. In 1/20 he was babbling ‘I’d never have signed it if Id understood it’ (but that WAS a lie)

He said that when Mr. Johnson finally realized the true implications of the deal, he claimed he would never have agreed to it – although Mr. Cummings said that was a lie.

During the election campaign, Mr. Johnson repeatedly boasted that the “divorce” settlement he had negotiated with Brussels – including the Northern Ireland Protocol – was a “great” deal that was “oven ready” to be signed.

Mr. Cummings said: “What I’ve said does NOT mean ‘the PM was lying in General Election 2019’, he never had a scoobydoo what the deal he signed meant.

“He never understood what leaving Customs Union meant until November 2020.”

When the Prime Minister did finally comprehend, “he was babbling ‘I’d never have signed it if I’d understood it’ (but that WAS a lie)”.

Dominic Cummings@Dominic2306

We took over a party on ~10%, worst constitutional crisis in century, much of deep state angling for BINO or 2REF. So we wriggled thro with best option we cd & intended to get the to ditch bits we didn’t like after whacking Corbyn. We prioritized.

Mr. Cummings, who was credited with masterminding the successful Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum, said that, when Mr. Johnson entered No 10 in 2019, the country was facing the “worst constitutional crisis in a century” with much of what he called the “deep state” angling for “Bino” (Brexit in name only) or a second referendum.

“So we wriggled through with best option we could and intended to get the trolley to ditch bits we didn’t like after whacking (Labour leader Jeremy) Corbyn. We prioritized,” he said.

He dismissed suggestions that abandoning those elements of the Withdrawal Agreement would mean breaking international law.

“Our priorities meant e.g. getting Brexit done is 10,000 times more important than lawyers yapping re international law in negotiations with people who break international law all the time,” he said.

“EU membership infantilized SW1 (Westminster) as yapping re ‘international law’ clearly shows.”

Source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-did-not-understand-brexit-deal-dominic-cummings-b960229.html

The post Boris Johnson did not understand his own Brexit deal, says Dominic Cummings first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

It would be prioritizing “EU internal processes over relieving turbulence in Northern Ireland”, he told diplomats on Tuesday while blasting the Protocol’s effect on the Good Friday Agreement.

He set out the UK’s new legal text for the Protocol, with the EU’s own proposals for a revised Protocol to be unveiled on Wednesday.

The UK’s proposals include changing the legal basis of the Protocol to that of a Treaty governed by international law, not EU law policed by the European Court of Justice. The current Protocol, he said, meant the EU could “make laws which apply in Northern Ireland without any kind of democratic scrutiny or discussion.”

Speaking in Lisbon, ahead of intensive talks later this month, the Brexit minister claimed that the “balance” created by the Good Friday Agreement “is being shredded by the way this Protocol is working”.

“The Northern Ireland Protocol is the biggest source of mistrust between us and for all kinds of reasons we need to fix this problem,” he added.

The Protocol was implemented to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the wake of Brexit by keeping Northern Ireland in the EU’s single market for goods.

“The protocol is not working, it has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland… it is doing the opposite of the thing it was set up to do, protect the Belfast Good Friday Agreement”.

Lord Frost also accused the EU for using Northern Ireland as a route to overturn the referendum result.

The Brexit minister said: “There’s a widespread feeling in the UK that the EU did try to use Northern Ireland to encourage UK political forces to reverse the referendum result, or at least to keep us closely aligned with EU.”

He emphasized that the UK-EU deadlock over the deal must be resolved so the western nations can cooperate against threats from China and Russia.

The UK and the EU “would have a chance to move forward to a new, and better, equilibrium,” he explained, if the bloc would accept that the European Court of Justice must be removed from its oversight role.

He said Brexit was a “democratic project” and argued that it meant the UK no longer had an interest in coalition-building across the EU to reform its rules, despite having a strong interest in the prosperity of EU member-states.

He claimed that leaving the EU offered “genuine competition”, which he described as the historic precondition to innovation.

He also reaffirmed his comments made to the House of Lords in September, in which he said that it would be a “significant mistake” to assume the UK would not trigger Article 16 – the part of the Northern Ireland Protocol which permits elements of the deal being temporarily suspended if they are evidenced to be causing “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade.”

Last week it was reported that the European Commission would offer an exception to the Protocol which would permit “national identity goods” such as sausage to enter the region, despite general EU rules restricting chilled meats from non-EU countries.

Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission Vice-President, is expected to set out the bloc’s proposals tomorrow.

Source: https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2021/10/12/lord-frost-accuses-eu-of-historic-misjudgment-over-northern-ireland-protocol/

The post Lord Frost accuses EU of ‘historic misjudgment’ over Northern Ireland Protocol first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The promise of freedom to “take back control” of the UK’s borders, money and laws struck a chord with many voters in the run-up to the Brexit referendum.

Nearly 18 months after the UK left the EU, and half a year since its new independence took effect, what has Boris Johnson’s government done with its new autonomy? And what does it plan for the future that is different from its previous life as an EU member?

In some areas, such as immigration policy, the changes are striking, now that the EU’s “freedom of movement” rule no longer applies. Farming too is bound for a shake-up outside the Common Agricultural Policy.

But in other matters, the extent of real change is unclear. New trade deals have been hailed as among Brexit’s most tantalizing prizes. Yet the likely impact of the UK’s first such accord — with Australia — is hotly debated, and details remain to be thrashed out.

The ability to sever ties from the EU’s rulebook has also been much vaunted. The UK is free to set its own regulations, subject to conditions imposed by the Brexit trade deal. Some of the government’s supporters have called for a “bonfire” of Brussels red tape. So how far will it go in practice?

“Perhaps the most striking feature of post-Brexit Britain is how similar it looks to pre-Brexit Britain,” Simon Usherwood, Professor of Politics at the Open University, told Euronews. “For all the talk in the years since the referendum about taking back control, there have been relatively few clear examples of this resulting in radical change in policy.”

Immigration: stricter rules, fewer workers

Before Brexit, millions of EU citizens moved to the UK to work and settle. Those already living in the UK by the end of 2020 have had to register, and the deadline has now expired for them to apply for formalized residency.

But new arrivals into the country from Europe now fall under the same rules as people from the rest of the world; they no longer have preferential treatment. Instead, the government is implementing a new points-based system to attract skilled workers.

The impact of coronavirus pandemic restrictions on movement and the new post-Brexit rules have resulted in fewer job candidates from the EU. One labour market survey in June found that worker availability had plunged at the fastest rate since 1998, supply unable to meet surging demand as pandemic restrictions are eased and the economy opens up.

In particular, sectors such as hospitality and agriculture that used to rely heavily on EU workers have reported serious recruitment problems.

In June, logistics and food and drink industry groups wrote to the prime minister warning that a chronic shortage of lorry drivers could disrupt supplies as coronavirus restrictions were eased. The UK’s departure from the EU was one of several factors listed.

As well as the pandemic, “the uncertainty of Brexit and future rights to live and work in the UK” has forced many of the thousands of drivers from the EU who used to be based in the UK to go back to their countries of origin, the joint letter said. “The vast majority have not returned nor are they expected to.”

The government’s response to the shortage has been to allow drivers to work longer hours temporarily, a move opposed by transport industry groups.

The end of the free movement principle has led to thousands of Europeans being refused entry to the UK, while some were even detained and deported on arrival, prompting an outcry and a pledge from the authorities to stop the practice.

The government has published a bill to tighten UK asylum rules post-Brexit. However, the UK has left the EU’s Dublin scheme, which allows countries to return asylum seekers to an EU state they passed through. It is now struggling to reach new agreements with countries willing to accept those it wishes to deport.

The post Six months on from Brexit, has the UK really taken back control? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Britain’s prime minister Boris Johnson (2R) and his wife Carrie Johnson (R) walk with US president Joe Biden and US First Lady Jill Biden prior to a bilateral meeting at Carbis Bay, Cornwall. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty

If relations between the three points of the Brexit triangle of Dublin, London, and Brussels were dodgy before this week, they have deteriorated further in recent days as the temperature rises over the Northern Ireland protocol.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simon Coveney, admitted that there was “some strain in the relationship between Dublin and London” over the protocol. Understatement of the year. Relations between the two governments have not been as poor since the days when Margaret Thatcher was in Downing Street and Charles Haughey was in Merrion Street.

Privately some senior officials, who, prior to Brexit, delighted in the diplomatic and political achievement of better relations between Ireland and the UK than at any time since Independence, are aghast at the state of play.

But it is what it is. Politicians are taking pot-shots at each other, officials are briefing against each other’s governments with accusations that the other is endangering the peace process and charges of sheer hypocrisy. Some senior figures are aghast at the state of Anglo-Irish relations and old hands warn that the peace process only flourishes and Northern Ireland only makes progress when the two governments are working in lockstep; right now, it looks like the opposite of that.

Reneging

The connected relationship between the EU and the UK is even worse. The EU is accusing the UK of reneging on an agreement and warns that it will take legal steps to seek redress. The UK’s position is that the EU has adopted a more legalistic and nitpicking approach than the UK thought it would when it agreed the protocol. “They have taken an approach that is less discretionary than we thought they would,” says one senior Downing Street official. The UK’s Brexit minister David Frost says that Britain “underestimated the effect” of the Northern Ireland protocol.

But this is completely dismissed on the Irish and the EU side. Even some formerly at the heart of the British government eye it with skepticism. Former permanent secretary at the department for exiting the EU Philip Rycroft told Times Radio this week: “Take that with a large pinch of salt. The UK side knew exactly what they were signing up to. The UK has to accept responsibility.”

But the UK side is clear in its accusation that it is the EU that is failing to take account of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, and say that the EU’s understanding of the North – and indeed, of the wider UK – is sketchy. The EU doesn’t realize – or doesn’t care – that the checks on goods entering the North make unionists “feel less British”, says one senior UK official.

EU negotiators often refer to Northern Ireland as being in the EU, the British say, with barely concealed irritation. They describe an approach characterized as “we decide who gets access to our market and Northern Ireland is now part of our market”, in the words of one senior official.

Irish and EU officials almost shout: this is what you agreed.

Coveney put it more sharply on Thursday: “When we have Lord Frost visiting Northern Ireland and saying the protocol is not sustainable, that is a problem, when he was the person who negotiated the protocol,” he said.

“It’s impossible to overstate the annoyance with the British behaviour on the North,” says one senior Irish official. Another says that the Irish Government has conveyed the message to the British: “If you’re seeking to push things to the limit, you’re nearly there.”

Seething

And London is seething that Dublin persuaded US president Joe Biden to intervene, sending an unprecedented diplomatic rebuke to Boris Johnson’s government over its treatment of the protocol, and the implications for the peace process.

The message followed a lengthy meeting between Coveney and the US national security adviser Jake Sullivan at Shannon Airport recently. Internal Irish Government readouts of the meeting suggested that the American tone was “what can we do to help?”

The British reaction can be gauged by the headline in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday: “Joe Biden should keep his sneering anti-British, anti-Brexit views to himself.”

Having applied a wrecking ball to the UK-Ireland and the UK-EU relationship, Brexit is now taking its toll on the “special relationship”. As it hosts the G7 meeting this weekend, the UK looks more isolated than ever.

Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ni-protocol-tensions-threaten-uk-ireland-uk-eu-and-uk-us-relations-1.4589953

The post NI protocol tensions threaten UK-Ireland, UK-EU and UK-US relations first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

In January 2020, as Britain was about to exit the EU, a post appeared on the London School of Economics (LSE) blog musing about the mechanism and conditions that might apply if Britain ever wanted to re-join.

The author, Anthony Salamone, suggested that before any future application, the EU would look for a “significant, stable and long-lasting majority public opinion in favour” and should be of the order of 60–65 percent or more for several years as a minimum. This would avoid “an unstable member state or risk another Brexit down the road”.

I’ve read similar elsewhere. It’s a typically logical EU position that makes the prospect of reversing Brexit in the short term all but impossible.

However, that is not to say that Brexit is settled, far from it.

How stable and sustainable is Brexit?

Given that there has never been anything like a 60–65 percent majority in favour of Brexit and a lot of evidence that most people actually now think it was a mistake, how sustainable will it be in the long term?

Despite Johnson banning the use of the ‘B’ word by ministers, the question is still finely balanced and will remain so until a “significant, stable and long-lasting majority public opinion in favour” emerges, one way or the other. That majority is unlikely to be for Brexit.

In the years leading up to the referendum, there was little evidence that the UK population when asked what the most important issues facing Britain were (out of a choice of 36), thought the EU was anywhere near the top.

Ipsos Mori have run these monthly polls for years and in 2008, the year after the Lisbon treaty was signed, right up to 2010 when the Tory/Liberal coalition came in, an average of between 2 and 3 percent thought the common market/EU/single currency was a big issue. By comparison, crime and the economy were sometimes well over 50 percent, even 70 percent at times.

As late as 2015, with talk of the promised referendum growing and Cameron touring EU capitals to renegotiate Britain’s terms, less than 9 percent on average thought it important.

Since there seemed no natural appetite for Brexit, UKIP, and Conservative Eurosceptics together with the British press, manufactured one and satisfied it with the success of the Vote Leave campaign.

The Irish writer Finton O’Toole has described the leave victory as the UK winning imaginary freedom from imaginary oppression. In other words, the pressure for Brexit in 2016 he claimed, was largely mythical and didn’t stem from any tangible, rational or widespread anti-EU sentiment.

However, pressure to reopen talks is now growing amid major trade disruption and a flight of business and capital to the EU. The impact on the UK so far has been far from imaginary.

Nobody’s happy with Johnson’s deals

Remainers are clearly not pleased. Unionists in Northern Ireland who voted for Brexit are now deeply unhappy with the Northern Ireland protocol and are pressing for it to be renegotiated. Paramilitary loyalist groups have gone as far as renouncing the Good Friday Agreement, while one of its architects, Lord Trimble, joins a legal challenge against the protocol.

Members of the food industry are calling for a new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU to align standards and ease problems with exporting meat and breeding stock.

Scotland Food and Drink has joined in calls for the trade and cooperation agreement (TCA) to be renegotiated with mutual recognition of food standards. The BBC say pressure is mounting to ‘reopen’ the deal.

Even Shanker ‘snake-oil’ Singham, the so-called ‘brain of Brexit’ thinks we need at least a bespoke EU/UK veterinary deal, based on a similar one with New Zealand, using common standards to help reduce the number of checks required.

Amidst calls to restart talks with the EU, some ardent Brexiters are warning that any such move would simply be BRINO or Brexit in name only. They warn of “an alliance of UK remainers and protectionist agricultural interests” forcing the government into the alignment which the food industry says is needed.

Even the UK government may not be totally happy

We know that Theresa May’s preference was for an agreement that avoided as far as possible disruption to UK-EU trade. This was an implicit acknowledgment that close trading ties were essential for British industry.

The EU rejected her proposals as cherry-picking. Johnson came to office determined on the surface to prioritise sovereignty at all cost. However, even in May 2020, Barnier was still noting the UK’s continued demands for “a simple Canada-type trade deal” while retaining single market advantages “in innumerable sectors” but the EU would not yield.

The day before signing the trade deal on Christmas Eve 2020, the UK was still trying to present the EU with a legal text which Barnier claims was “peppered with traps, false compromises, and backwards steps”.

Does this sound like a deal that the UK government is genuinely satisfied with?

Fishing: Norway, Brexit, and unfulfilled promises – Richard Carden3 May 2021

Brexit was always destined to end in disappointment for the majority

The 2016 referendum result saw the 48 percent who wished to remain, losing to a 52 percent Vote Leave ‘coalition’ that believed they were all voting for the same thing. In fact, they were voting against a variety of different things, all blamed rightly or wrongly on the EU.

Note this is the reverse of how UK general election decisions are made. In our ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) system, supporters of a range of different parties with wholly different aims usually cast the majority of votes against the winning party, but are deemed to have lost. In the referendum, they won.

This was always likely to make reaching a consensus about the UK’s post-Brexit status difficult if not impossible, and so it has proved. Johnson seems to have satisfied almost no one and without a significant majority to support it, Brexit will remain an issue.

Professor Chris Grey who writes extensively about Brexit and is seemingly the foremost authority on it, has a forthcoming book: Brexit Unfolded: How no one got what they want (and why they were never going to). The title is an astute observation on where we are.

Is there a realistic prospect of changes being negotiated?

The answer is no, at least in the short term. As several trade experts have pointed out, this is not how trade deals work. Those in British industry looking to the partnership council, the joint body which will oversee the TCA, to provide relief are likely to be disappointed.

These joint bodies are common in EU trade deals and meet infrequently to resolve minor technical issues or ‘clarify’ matters. They do not and cannot change the basic terms of the deal.

There is also little pressure on Brussels to renegotiate a deal which preserves and probably increases their huge trade surplus in goods with Britain.

And Lord Frost, questioned about it in the House of Lords at the end of March, appeared to rule out any changes to help the food and drink sector because it would mean accepting “the laws of the European Union” which he said was “quite a considerable downside”.

So, there appears no foreseeable prospect of substantial change.

The problematic Northern Ireland protocol is here to stay

The two sides are putting considerable effort into finding ways of making the controversial Northern Ireland protocol more acceptable to citizens in the province. The Financial Times ran a recent article suggesting the UK government was “throwing [the] kitchen sink” at making the deal work.

Johnson, in one of his confused metaphors, talks of “sandpapering the barnacles” off his protocol like a demented ship repairer.

Tony Connelly at the Irish broadcaster RTE, reports the beginnings of what may be an agreement offering some easements to reduce disruption at Ulster’s ports. But the EU is taking a hard line. It is offering the UK government a choice between small ‘piecemeal’ easements or a wider ‘structural’ change where the UK aligns with EU SPS rules – something the UK will not contemplate as we have seen.

One possible solution being discussed is for any alignment to be temporary until one or other of the sides decided or needed to diverge, due to a US trade deal for example. This would push the problem into the future but wouldn’t resolve it.

The ‘risk-based’ approach favoured by many pro-Brexit politicians, where foodstuffs entering Northern Ireland would be assessed on the likelihood of them entering the EU single market, has been emphatically ruled out.

It seems loyalists and those calling for the Northern Ireland protocol to be scrapped, will be disappointed, at least in the short term.

The “duping delight” of manipulator Johnson – Anthony Robinson 5 May 2021

How did we get here and is the past a pointer to the future?

Britain has had to accept a lot of unpalatable truths, of which perhaps the most difficult is the fact that the EU had the upper hand from the outset.

In October 2016. Theresa May said Britain would not be a supplicant in talks with the EU, but in the last five years, despite of a lot of tub-thumping rhetoric, we have barely stopped bending the knee.

The ‘row of the summer’ on the sequencing of the talks ended in humiliation as Britain caved in to the EU demand that a withdrawal agreement covering money, citizens’ rights and the Irish border question be signed before any trade talks could even begin.

We paid and will continue to pay, the divorce bill that Brexiters claimed we had no legal obligation to settle. Two Conservative prime ministers assured the DUP that they would never allow a border to divide the nation. We now have a trade border in the Irish Sea.

Michael Gove similarly assured Scottish fishermen that an agreement on fish would not be part of any trade deal. It was and is now stacked heavily in the EU’s favour.

Britain has finally granted the EU’s ambassador the same diplomatic immunity as ambassadors from nation-states, after refusing to do so because the EU was just an “international organization” and recognizing the EU’s envoy would supposedly create some kind of precedent.

These events and plenty of others are characteristic of a highly asymmetrical relationship, with the UK as the junior partner.

Why so many capitulations?

The stark truth is that threats to leave without either withdrawal or trade agreements were always empty ones. The desperate need to keep the bare minimum of access to the single market meant that was never a realistic position.

Almost all the concessions needed to reach both agreements came from the UK side and in exchange all we have is a fractured nation and a thin tariff and quota-free trade deal for qualifying goods plus basic agreements on various sectors important to the EU, like aviation, road haulage, and energy.

We are only marginally above rock-bottom World Trade Organization terms. The sovereignty red line has come at considerable cost and there is no evidence that the UK-EU future relationship will be any more symmetrical.

The UK fooled itself into thinking it was the equal of the EU

When the European Parliament ratified the TCA, Lord Frost welcomed the decision with a tweet and hailed the start of a new chapter “characterized by friendly cooperation between sovereign equals”.

Michael Dougan, professor of European law at the University of Liverpool quickly pointed out that the EU “isn’t sovereign. And the UK isn’t its equal”. It does however point to one of the many delusions behind Brexit.

Under May, in 2018, the British government put out a series of ‘future framework’ papers, many of which looked like requests from an accession country, talking of a “deep and special partnership”. This culminated in the White paper in July that the EU rejected as cherry picking. David Davis and Boris Johnson both resigned over it.

Around this time, Crispin Blunt, then chair of the defence select committee, was hawking ideas around Europe for a common defence and security policy (CDSP) after Brexit. This came to nothing as we know, but an EU sub-committee produced a report in May 2018 that gives a fascinating insight into EU skepticism of May’s approach and why it failed.

The report by EU officials was about the CDSP but it went much wider:

“It is an issue [the UK continuing to shape EU policies after Brexit] that ultimately reflects all of the difficulties in the Euro-British divorce. If, as a third country, the British should remain involved, one way or another, in the decision-making bodies of the CFSP/CSDP, as they are in fact calling to be allowed to do, they will end up with a status that is equivalent to that of the whole EU.

“Which means that London would carry the same weight as 27 capitals. Ultimately, this is exactly what May meant when she said, in her speech in Florence, that her country wanted to ‘work hand in hand with the European Union, rather than as part of the European Union’.”

Make no mistake, May, and those in favour of leaving the EU, believed they could continue to wield influence in Brussels after Brexit, and perhaps even more influence than we had as a member. We saw ourselves, not as the sovereign equal of each of the EU member states but as the equal of all 27 put together.

Many who voted for Brexit still do.

What of the future and how will things develop?

Anand Menon and Matt Bevington have an excellent account (highly readable) about the future relationship with the EU.

They conclude the two Brexit treaties mean we will be in near-continuous negotiation for the foreseeable future and “as these negotiations drag on, so too can we expect that the direct and indirect impacts of Brexit on British policy, politics and the UK polity itself will continue to make themselves felt”.

In other words, Brexit is not done.

The Tory party seems to think it will be in power for eternity but as Matthew Parris pointed out in his Times column last week, Voters will tire of living in a one-party state.

Parris, a former Tory MP, and aid to Margaret Thatcher, was calling for a new centre party but whatever happens, another party or coalition will inevitably be elected one day. It will find itself subject to all of the same pressures that Frost, Johnson, and many other Brexit supporters are currently resisting, but crucially without the ideological baggage preventing a closer relationship with the EU.

If closer ties or even membership of the single market was a future manifesto commitment by an opposition party, even a smaller party in a coalition, Brexit would again rise to the very top of the political agenda.

And to see how things might change over time, we only need look at the hugely different approaches the UK has taken to the EU under two different leaders of the same party in the last three years. Small factions have made significant policy differences and can do so again if circumstances allow.

The Brexit-supporting professor of politics at the University of Kent, Matthew Goodwin, has suggested that Brexit Britain will provide the “ultimate benchmark” for the EU. In a tweet, he challenged what he called the “dominant assumption post-Brexit […] that the EU will push ahead while the UK will gradually decline”.

He asked what if over the next five–ten years the UK “grows faster, is more flexible, dynamic and more willing to make the most of divergence?” On this point, Professor Goodwin is like many who voted to leave the EU: in a small minority, and betting against perceived wisdom.

The better question for him is, what if it doesn’t? No serious economic forecaster believes Brexit will ever fulfil the inflated promises made for it.

Scotland will be key

Any nation that regularly elects, by a huge margin, a pro-independence party whose entire raison d’être is to break away from another nation, will surely succeed one day.  Most commentators think this is inevitable, although Brexit has given it fresh impetus.

In the Holyrood elections this week, the SNP came within two seats of achieving a majority under an electoral system expressly designed to prevent a single party becoming dominant. A coalition with the Greens will see a pro-independence majority in the Scottish parliament which will be a huge problem for the prime minister.

Independence, or moves towards it, are going to raise many important constitutional issues, one of which is the trade border with England.

Note that some Brexiters have called for Irexit (or Irish exit from the EU) as a solution to the Irish Sea border, with Ireland then aligning itself with Great Britain, something no Dublin government could ever agree to.

But Scottish independence would surely see the reverse pressure on England to re-join the EU as a way of resolving two intractable border issues overnight.  It would be the ideal solution and hard for a future government to resist.

No, whatever Boris Johnson believes, Brexit is going to be with us for a very long time yet.

Source: https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/brexit-is-it-sustainable/

The post Brexit: is it sustainable? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post-Brexit fallout came faster than many had expected. On January 4, the first trading day of 2021, almost €6 billion of EU share trading left London for other European capitals.

Then earlier this month came the news that Amsterdam had overtaken London as Europe’s biggest share trading centre, as daily volumes fell sharply in the City and surged in the Dutch capital.

In 2019, when the United Kingdom was still inside the European Union and its single market, 43% of trading in EU stocks took place in the UK. The first few weeks of this year have seen the proportion plunge to just 4%, according to analysis by the think tank New Financial.

The City’s commanding position on the global financial stage is not in doubt — but recent events in Europe raise questions as to how far the balance of power may shift from London to other capitals.

“You can lose liquidity very quickly, and finance is very adaptive,” says Nicolas Véron, Senior Fellow with the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank and the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “So the fact that London has so much liquidity and has had so much liquidity in recent times doesn’t mean that liquidity will stay there.”

“Basically the established position of a financial centre is not to be taken for granted going forward, if the conditions that created that position are no longer there,” he told Euronews.

Amsterdam’s post-Brexit boost

The sudden flight in trading activity is the most striking example of financial sector movement from the UK to the EU since the end of the post-Brexit transition period at New Year.

But Amsterdam is picking up business from London in other areas too. Analysis by data provider IHS Markit shows a shift in euro-denominated derivatives trading to the Dutch capital, with the figures showing the UK losing market access to the EU in nearly all categories.

The Netherlands has reported a general drop in inward foreign investment in 2020 due to the pandemic. But so-called “Brexit companies” — UK firms seeking to offset disruption and extra red tape by setting up operations in the EU — are an exception.

Annual results published on February 18 by Invest in Holland and the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency reported an increase in the number of such companies focusing on the Netherlands.

Nearly 80 made a partial move last year and the NFIA says it is talking to 550 about relocation or expansion — including in the Dutch financial sector.

“Before we start becoming euphoric about this, Brexit is not good for the Netherlands… In the end, the Netherlands has lost their second trading partner,” says NFIA spokesman Michiel Bakhuizen. Nevertheless, he told Euronews, the country is attractive for financial companies as it helps offer solutions to Brexit-related problems.

“So for instance, when we talk about traders or FinTech companies, we have a multilingual, highly skilled workforce, we have the right infrastructure, both in terms of travelling in and out of the country to direct destinations in and outside of Europe, close digital connections with a fast network in and around specifically Amsterdam, and a very good working and living environment.”

Sunlight is reflected off a building onto a bicyclist in Amsterdam’s Zuidas, or southern axis, business district, October 30, 2013.AP Photo/Peter Dejong, FILE

The EU’s specialist cities

Research by New Financial suggests that more than 400 UK-based financial services firms “have moved something somewhere to the EU in response to Brexit”. Of these, 128 have chosen Dublin, while Paris has attracted 88, Luxembourg 84, Frankfurt 56, Amsterdam 47, and Brussels 10.

The think tank’s founder and Managing Director William Wright says the relocations reveal a clear tendency for cities to specialize across different financial sectors.

“The vast majority of the relocations to Dublin are in asset management and to a lesser extent, alternative investments. The vast majority of firms moving to Frankfurt are banks, or investment banks; the vast majority of firms moving to Amsterdam, exchanges, trading platforms, brokers,” he told a Peterson Institute panel discussion.

“Paris is the only one that doesn’t have that deep-sector profile. It’s already the largest centre in terms of insurance and asset management in the EU, and it would like to build on both of those, but the distribution of firms that are choosing Paris is much broader.”

Such trends suggest no particular race among European cities to dominate the scene or become the continent’s number one financial hub post-Brexit.

“The reason why not all will gather in one place is very simple: there isn’t really an incentive for that,” adds Véron. “There is a lot of activity to absorb and it’s more economical for firms to scatter it across different centres than all go to the same place and have a kind of overheating effect.”

A picture taken on February 17, 2021 in Suresnes, shows the buildings in the business district of La Defense near Paris. STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN / AFP

The UK’s battle for ‘equivalence’

UK firms had long known that as a result of Brexit they stood to lose full “passporting rights”, stripping away the blanket access to operate in Europe they had before.

However, so far the EU is also refusing to grant the UK a much lesser form of access known as “equivalence” — given when Brussels considers a third country’s regulation to be as robust as its own. Being deprived of this further hinders the City’s ability to trade unhindered in Europe. Instead, UK firms have to comply with individual states’ requirements.

Financial services were never scheduled to be part of the post-Brexit trade agreement, and duly took a back seat while negotiations focused on the likes of fishing rights.

In the deal itself, both sides merely agreed to agree at a later stage. This did not prevent Boris Johnson from putting a typically shiny gloss on its provisions.

“There’s some good language about equivalence for financial services, perhaps not as much as we would have liked, but it is nonetheless going to enable our dynamic City of London to get on and prosper as never before,” the British prime minister said on Christmas Eve, the day the agreement was struck.

The “good language” he referred to, set out in an annex to the main deal, amounts to no more than a commitment to cooperate on regulation and preserve financial stability. By March 2021 both sides aim to agree a “Memorandum of Understanding” to establish a framework, but expectations as to the content are low.

Brussels has control

The UK has granted the EU equivalence, meaning that EU banks can operate in UK markets. But whether the EU does likewise will be entirely up to Brussels.

The European Commission’s assessment of the Brexit deal bluntly says the EU “will consider equivalence (decisions) when they are in the EU’s interest”. So far it has granted the UK just two temporary agreements from a possible 39.

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said since that more clarification is needed on British plans. National authorities will be on the lookout for UK firms seeking to get around new restrictions, he added.

“I think there is a widespread narrative in the UK that there will be somehow a negotiation about financial services, but I don’t see that happening,” says Bruegel’s Véron. “Equivalence, as the Joint Declaration (attached to the Brexit trade deal) made extremely clear, is not a negotiation, equivalence is a unilateral decision.”

And, he adds, he does not expect that to come any time soon. “The one thing that has a deadline in terms of the equivalence process is equivalence on clearing houses which only runs till May 2022, so the Commission must decide to extend or not, that’s a very significant market segment. Otherwise there’s nothing in the pipeline,” he told Euronews.

In a speech this month, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey said it would be unfair of the EU to impose tougher rules on the UK than it has on other non-EU countries, insisting that Britain could not accept becoming a “rule-taker”.

There have also been warnings that if the EU is too hard on the UK, the main winners may not be on the continent but in other global financial centres such as New York.

The post Brexit capital gains: Will Europe’s financial hubs steal London’s crown now the UK has quit the EU? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“How fitting it is to be in the Land of the Rising Sun to welcome in the dawn of a new era of free trade,” British International Trade Secretary Liz Truss told reporters at a signing ceremony in Tokyo.

Appearing with Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi, Truss called the agreement a “landmark” as the first major trade deal for Britain since it returned as an independent trading nation.

The deal, estimated to boost British trade with Japan by £15 billion (US$19.5 billion), will also make it easier for British companies to operate in Japan.

Financial services make up Britain’s biggest export to Japan, now at 28 percent. English sparkling wine, made-in-Britain coats, and shoes, Stilton cheese, as well as pork and biscuits from Britain, will become cheaper in Japan.

Motegi said the bilateral deal ensures continuity from the preceding European agreement while adding new areas for cooperation such as e-commerce and financial services.

Source: AP/dv

Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/japan-britain-uk-free-trade-deal-fta-brexit-13349464

The post Japan, Britain sign free trade deal for post-Brexit era first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Boris Johnson has told the French president the UK wants to “explore every avenue” to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU, days before the PM’s self-imposed deadline.

Mr. Johnson told Emmanuel Macron “intensive talks” were needed to “bridge significant gaps” remaining across the negotiating table.

A disagreement over fishing has been one major sticking point of talks.

Informal discussions will continue in Brussels next week.

The UK left the EU on 31 January and entered a transition period until the end of the year – with all the rules, regulations and budget payments staying the same until then.

Both sides are now trying to negotiate a trade deal – which would decide, among other things, the tariffs (taxes) applied when buying and selling each other’s goods.

A No 10 spokesman said in the call on Saturday, Mr Johnson “confirmed the UK’s commitment to exploring every avenue to reach an agreement”.

“He underlined that a deal was better for both sides, but also that the UK was prepared to end the transition period on Australia-style terms if an agreement could not be found,” the spokesman added.

An “Australia-style” agreement means trading on World Trade Organization terms, with no specific free trade deal.

It comes after Downing Street said the latest round of discussions between chief negotiators Michel Barnier and Lord Frost, in London, had been “useful”.

• ‘Put cards on table’ over trade deal, says EU
• PM and EU chief ‘agree importance of Brexit deal’

What is the UK’s Brexit ‘deadline’?

One thing that both sides have agreed on is that a deal needs to be struck in October to ensure sufficient time for ratification, before the end of the transition period.

But negotiators are unlikely to get until the end of the month.

Mr. Johnson has previously said he wants to agree a free trade deal by the time of an EU summit in the Belgian capital – which is next week, on Thursday 15 October.

Mr. Johnson has said the two sides should “move on” if nothing is agreed by then.

What have been the main sticking points?

The No 10 spokesman said that during the phone call, “the prime minister emphasized that progress must be made in the coming days to bridge the significant gaps, notably in the areas of fisheries and the level playing field”.

The issue of fishing is one that has cropped up time and again throughout talks. The UK wants full access to EU markets to sell its fish, but in return the EU wants full access for its fishing fleets to UK waters – which the UK does not want to provide.

The “level playing field” is the idea that there should be measures in place to ensure businesses on one side of the deal do not have an unfair advantage over their competitors on the other side.

All trade agreements have such measures, but the EU wants the UK to stick particularly closely to EU rules on things like workers’ rights, environmental regulations and particularly state aid – that is, financial assistance given by government to businesses.

The UK, on the other hand, says the whole point of Brexit was to break free from following common rules.

• What are the sticking points in Brexit trade talks?

What happens if there’s no trade deal?

If no deal is reached, the UK and EU would do business under World Trade Organization rules, which would mean tariffs on goods.

The UK government has started referring to this outcome as an “Australia-style deal” because it would mean the UK trading with the EU in roughly the same way Australia does.

But, as our Reality Check correspondent Chris Morris points out, it is important to consider geography.

Australia is on the other side of the world, so does not rely on the EU for the operation of just-in-time supply chains in sectors such as cars, pharmaceuticals and food.

Border checks and delays therefore have far less impact on EU-Australia trade than they would on EU-UK trade.

In other words, going to WTO rules for trade with the EU – without any other deals in place – would be a huge change.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54493246

The post Brexit: Boris Johnson calls Emmanuel Macron as deadline looms first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The British government won initial approval in parliament this week for a bill that would give ministers the power to breach the Brexit divorce treaty agreed last year.

The EU has demanded Britain scrap those parts of the bill by the end of September, and said that if not, there will be no trade deal at the end of the year when a transition period expires and Britain leaves the bloc’s orbit.

Asked in parliament whether the EU should stop talks on the trade deal immediately, the French minister, Clement Beaune, said: “At this stage, we’re right to continue to discuss with the British.”

“Some on the other side of the Channel could be trying to push us into making mistakes,” Beaune told lawmakers. “Then they will say: ‘it’s the Europeans who don’t want a deal, we in Britain have made our best efforts’.”

He added: “We shouldn’t fall into the trap”.

The post EU shouldn’t ‘fall into trap’ by ending Brexit talks now, France says first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post The UK Falls Into an Elephant Trap of Its Own Making on Brexit first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.