PUBLISHED: 12:43 25 July 2020

Steve Anglesey

Gianluigi Paragone, the former Five Star Movement senator who is heading up the new 'No Europe for Italy' party. Picture: Andrea Ronchini/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Andrea Ronchini/NurPhoto

After Nigel Farages role in Brexit, STEVE ANGLESEY looks at why he might be tempted to try to pull off something similar in Italy.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

Mussolini can be quite funny, Nigel Farage told a Channel 4 reality show in 2014. I saw his granddaughter last week Pretty girl, pretty girl.

These are opinions Farage might want to keep on the QT now he appears to be acting as unofficial advisor to Italys version of the Brexit Party, which is due to launch this week. Since historians hold Mussolinis 20-year-long reign responsible for the deaths of one million of his countrymen, its just possible that not all Italians will chuckle along with Nigel at the thought of his memory.

Neither, youd imagine, would they be too impressed to learn that Hermann Kelly, who worked as a PR man for Farages EFDD grouping in the European parliament, used to refer to his boss as Il Duce (Thats just a bit of fun, isnt it, Nigel told Politico in 2018). Or to recall how in 2017, Farage was booed by Italian MEPs for comparing the EU to the mafia, later withdrawing his remark on the grounds of national sensitivities.

And you cannot see them looking too fondly on Farages speech in early March at the Daily Telegraphs Heroes of Brexit event, when he claimed Italys battle with Covid-19 presented a golden opportunity for Britain: This awful crisis and the way it is gripping parts of Italy makes a trade deal with the EU easier now than its ever, ever been. The collapsing Italian economy needs a deal with the UK desperately, he said.

None of this will matter much to Farage fanboy Gianluigi Paragone, the former Five Star Movement senator for who is heading up the new No Europe for Italy party names like Quitalia and Italexit having been deemed too Anglophone which is already polling around 7%. He calls Farage a true British patriot, hailing him for bringing the United Kingdom out of the European Union cage... the only one who sent away the technocrats from Brussels.

The former talk show host shares Farages awkward squad tendencies; public criticism of his partys fading commitment to Euroscepticism saw him kicked out of Five Star earlier this year. Paragone says the pair have discussed the present and future of a truly sovereign country which, even more so after Brexit, is able to give real answers to citizens in the midst of the post-Covid economic crisis.

Its hardly surprising to hear that Farage is interested in helping out. Along with the Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands and risibly Ireland, Italy is a country hes mentioned repeatedly as being prime for the next Brexit.

Until recently, the polls were firmly against him, with the Italian research institute Censis reporting late last year that only 25% believed leaving the EU was a good idea against 62% who thought it a bad idea. But the unions muddled response has been another silver lining from coronavirus for Farage; in April a Tecn poll put the numbers at an uncomfortable 51%-49% in favour of Remain.

Those polls are expected to move away from Leave after Italy became one of the key beneficiaries of the EU recovery fund that was finally agreed on Tuesday morning prime minister Giuseppe Conte says it will receive 28% of the 675 billion available in grants and loans but Farage has good reason to stay interested. Not only does it look like his lucrative private jet trips to the USA will become far more infrequent after Thursday, November 3, but Italy represents some kind of spiritual homeland for Brexit.

It was after discussions with Five Star co-founder Gianroberto Casaleggio in Milan in January 2015 that Farage resolved to make Facebook and data the key battlegrounds for pro-Leave campaigning, telling the political scientists Matthew Goodwin and Caitlin Milazzo: If I was starting UKIP today would I spend 20 years speaking to people in village halls or would I base it on the [Five Star co-founder Beppe] Grillo model? I know exactly what I would do.

Casaleggios methods attracted the eye of Arron Banks too, making the Milan meeting a fatal first step on the road to Leave just 17 months on. The Brexit Party, which toppled Theresa May and appears to have forced Britain into the kind of Brexit that in 2016 existed only in the wildest dreams of the wildest Leavers, was founded in Five Stars image.

Banks can now be found working for crotchety right-winger Winston Peters in his flagging New Zealand general election campaign against hugely popular incumbent PM Jacinda Ardern, telling website Newshub Nation this week that he is determined to deliver Winston on steroids a happy warrior.

Far cry, isnt it, from the days after Barack Obama delivered his pro-Remain Get to the back of the queue speech in March 2016? Back then, Banks organisation responded with a Back Off, Barack! petition and Farage warned him to butt out of the Brexit debate.

Honestly, the cheek of these foreigners trying to interfere in the democratic process of other countries...

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

Read this article:

Nigel Farage's attempts to spark another 'Brexit' in Italy - The New European

A petition has been launched calling for the European Union flag to be taken down from outside Scottish Government buildings following Brexit.

The petition lodged on the Scottish Government site calls for the Scottish peoples view to be tested on the issue post-Brexit.

It comes after a move to stop flying the EU flag at the Scottish Parliament was shelved following a backlash from MSPs after ministers said that the flag should be flown in recognition of the contribution of EU national in Scotland.

READ MORE:EU negotiator warns post-Brexit trade deal unlikely

The Scotsman reports that Holyroods petition committee is now considering the issue after the petition was lodged by Philip Smith this month.

The petition reads: This petition is necessary to ensure the Scottish Government stops flying the flag of an organisation that the United Kingdom is no longer a member of, he states.

READ MORE:Iain Macwhirter: It's clear BoJo still doesnt get Scots (and its not the economy, stupid)

Although we have left the European Union, Scotland is still a member of the Commonwealth.

The petition should be allowed to test the Scottish peoples view on whether to have the Commonwealth flag flying in place of the European at Scottish Government buildings.

An example of where this has already taken place is Gibraltar which is now proudly flying the Commonwealth flag.

Responding to the petition, ministers told The Scotsman that the EU flag is flownto provide a concrete and visible expression of the value that we place on the contribution that EU nationals have made to our country.

The UK ceased to be a member of the European Union at the end of January, with talks continuing about the relationship after Brexit.The UKs chief negotiator, David Frost, said talks have not yet reached any agreement following intensified discussions between the two sides.

Excerpt from:

Petition launched calling for European Union flag to be removed from outside Scottish Government buildings - HeraldScotland

Northern Ireland was at the centre of the Brexit negotiations last year when former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Prime Minister Boris Johnson decided to settle the dispute over the Northern Ireland backstop. They agreed to put up a customs border in the Irish Sea in a move called the Northern Ireland Protocol, which would protect the Good Friday Agreement and prevent tensions returning to the Irish border. This means Northern Ireland will stay in the customs union and single market, but will no longer be able to contribute to the governance of either.

However, Stormont will be able to vote on whether to maintain this system every four years with the issue seemingly resolved, the Withdrawal Agreement came into effect in January.

Yet, as post-Brexit trade talks are on the cusp of collapse this week after Britain threatened to walk away, theres concern that there has not been enough preparation for the new system that will come into place in the Irish Sea.

Professor Colin Harvey, from Queens University Belfast, wrote for Irish broadcaster RTE back in 2019 that Brexit could lead Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU.

He claimed Brexit has had a destabilising impact on relationships across these islands.

Prof Harvey continued: The border on the island becomes an external border of the EU after Brexit, will all the symbolism that this carries combined with the severe practical implications.

He added the border is still of profound concern to the Irish Government and the EU.

He also claimed that the decision of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to back Brexit divided Northern Ireland along unionist and nationalists.

Consequently, the DUP ended up on the opposite side of the table as the Remainers who made up the majority of the Northern Irish public by 56 percent.

READ MORE:Micheal Martins fury with UK for showing bad faith in Brexit demand

The Ireland expert added the likelihood of Irish reunification had been increased by Brexit.

He suggested that this was because the foundational objectives of the EU chime well with the values underpinning the peace process of the Good Friday Agreement.

Prof Harvey then said: The Good Friday Agreement contains a mechanism that would allow Northern Ireland to return automatically to the EU.

It is likely that interest in this will intensify.

He added that Northern Irelands status rests on the principle of consent which Mr Johnson attempted to address by allowing Stormont to vote on the matter every four years.

DON'T MISSFormer Taoiseach revived Project Fear with Northern Ireland warning[INSIGHT]EU hand laid bare: Ex-Irish PM admitted bloc is lobbying for no deal[EXPLAINED]How Northern Ireland turned on Boris Johnsons pilot project' in UK[REVEALED]

Prof Harvery continued: The EU has already provided clarification: the whole territory of a united Ireland would be part of the EU.

This opens a new dimension in the context of a society where a majority of people have voted to remain, and where many are profoundly worried about the impact of Brexit.

He pointed out how the arguments in favour of Irish unification will now include rejoining the EU, too.

Still, he conceded: The persuasiveness of this will depend on the type of Brexit that emerges, and much of this will have to be tested against what happens in practice.

He concluded: A no-deal Brexit or any form of hard Brexit will simply energise the unity discussion.

Prof Harveys piece in RTE was published just four days after Mr Johnson and Mr Varadkar claimed they saw a pathway to agreeing over Northern Ireland a pathway which led to the Northern Ireland Protocol.

However, Katy Hayward wrote in a blog post for LSE earlier this year that Stormonts consent on the Protocol did not have as much weight as previously thought.

She explained: In an effort to assure unionists in particular, the impression being given [by Westminster] is that, if they dont like the Protocol, they can invest efforts into getting rid of it via the democratic consent vote provided in Article 18.

The inclusion of Article 18 was itself an effort to assuage concerns in Northern Ireland (particularly those of unionists) that they would have no say over the Protocol.

She added: There are many aspects of it (e.g. articles on the protection of rights, safeguards and the Common Travel Area) that will apply regardless of how a majority of MLAs fall in a future consent vote.

To follow Prof Harveys logic, without consent in Northern Ireland for the post-Brexit arrangements, support for reunification and subsequently rejoining the EU could grow substantially.

See the rest here:

Brexit shock: How Northern Ireland could return to EU after UK departure - Daily Express

PUBLISHED: 11:00 27 July 2020

Piers MeylerLocal Democracy Reporter

Four Essex districts are losers from the Brexit vote including Uttlesford, new research suggests. Picture: PA/ PA WIRE

Archant

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Uttlesford, Southend, Rochford and Castle Point have all been performing worse financially after 2016 than models predicted Brexit had not happened, research from the University of Warwick has found.In Castle Point 72.7 percent of the electorate voted to leave, one of the highest leave votes in the country.Rochford voted 66.6 percent to leave.However, another four districts, namely Basildon, Brentwood, Chelmsford and Colchester have also performed worse than what otherwise would have been predicted without Brexit. All four voted to leave.Looking at the annual district-level data available up to 2018, the results suggest that among the 14 districts in Essex, eight recorded a 2018 gross value added that is smaller compared to their synthetic control while six report a higher value for 2018 compared to their synthetic control.Epping Forest is the biggest winner in Essex with an 18 percent difference in the gross value added compared to what would have been expected without Brexit.Thurrock, which voted 72.3 percent leave, was also categorised as a clear winner.In conclusion the researchers say: The research confirms existing work that has estimated that by 2018, Brexit has cost the UK economy at least two percent of real output.We find that these costs are far from evenly distributed across the UK. Within regions, districts whose regional economies depend heavily on manufacturing sector, appear to be particularly severely hit. Similarly, districts with relatively higher shares of residents with low educational attainment appear more exposed.Lastly, we also find that districts with higher support for Brexit in 2016 appear also more exposed to the Brexit-vote cost to date this highlights that quite likely, the cost of Brexit may exacerbate the already large regional economic disparities across regions in the UK.

This is particularly concerning as growing economic inequalities may further accelerate a trend that may result in the political disintegration of the United Kingdom.

If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Saffron Walden Reporter. Click the link in the orange box below for details.

Read the original here:

Uttlesford one of four negatively impacted by Brexit vote - Saffron Walden Reporter

UK prime minister Boris Johnson has said a Brexit trade deal can still be done by the end of the year, but warned he would not compromise on key issues like fishing rights, reports theScotsman.

He was speaking out after Brussels chief negotiator Michel Barnier said a trade deal between the UK and the EU was "unlikely" before the end of the year when the post-Brexit transition phase comes to an end.

The UKs chief negotiator David Frost also admitted after the latest round of talks that a deadline for a breakthrough by the end of July would be missed, adding that "we must face the possibility that one will not be reached".

But Johnson said he was hopeful a deal could be done before the end of 2020.

"[EU chiefs] are thinking 'my goodness thats a tall order'. But actually [no compromise on fisheries] is the right thing for the UK. In the early 1970s, we basically handed over control of our fisheries, we gave up our fisheries in the last throes of the Heath negotiations in a way that permanently disadvantaged UK fishers and Scottish fishers as well. Nows the time to change that and change that back."

Excerpt from:

UK PM again insists fishing rights will not be traded in Brexit deal - Undercurrent News

Last year, the steel company plunged into insolvency after Government funding was scrapped and the Chinese company promised a "new chapter in British steelmaking".

Jingye, which is run by a former Communist Party official, paid around 70million for the acquisition and saved around 3,200 jobs.

But as tensions with Beijing grow, the Brexit Party are demanding UK infrastructure should be own by UK firms.

Nigel Farages party conducted a survey of 37,000 people asking, "Are you comfortable that the Chinese firm Jingye acquired British Steel in March 2020, given that it provides key steel supplies for UK infrastructure?"

Out of those who voted between July 12 and July 18, around 96 percent said they were uneasy with the Chinese taking over the company.

Posting the results on Twitter, the party said: Of 37,000 who took part in a survey of our supporters, 96 percent were uneasy with Jingyes takeover of British Steel.

46 percent said key UK infrastructure suppliers should be majority-owned by UK firms; 45 percent said they should be wholly owned by UK firms.

Announcing the news back in March, business secretary Alok Sharma said: Jingye has reached a significant milestone in securing a deal for the future of British Steel.

Work continues towards completing the sale, which will give certainty to British Steels dedicated and talented workforce in Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and on Teesside.

READ MORE:British Steel made with Russian coal leaves North East miners jobless

The Brexit Party anger comes after tensions between Britain and Beijing continue to rise.

Despite China having the second-largest economy in the world and its own space programme, it has emerged 71million of taxpayers money was given to the super-rich country in just one year, sparking calls for an inquiry.

The staggering figure was buried in the Department for International Developments annual report, which was put out this week as MPs go on their summer break.

The money is also being spent on training primary school teachers and combating illegal trade in wildlife, despite numerous exotic meat farms still running throughout the Communist nation.

DON'T MISSTurn off the tap! Boris ordered to stop taxpayer handouts to China[COMMENT]Andrew Pierce rages at UK 'outrageous' aid bill to China 'Infuriating'[INSIGHT]China's debt rockets as Beijing tries to recover from coronavirus[REVEAL]

According to reports, the money is also used to support human rights despite Beijings crackdown of Uyghur Muslims.

In light of the coronavirus pandemic, which was first reported in the Chinese city of Wuhan, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said 3billion would be cut from the aid budget next year.

Last week, the UK suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in protest at the Chinese crackdown in the former British colony.

China responded with fury and warned they will make a forceful counter-attack, sparking fears of a World War 3 outbreak.

Mr Raab said the UK Government would not be re-activating the extradition treaty.

He said: We will not consider re-activating those arrangements, unless and until there are clear and robust safeguards, which are able to prevent extradition from the UK being misused under the new national security legislation.

The former British colony maintained its autonomy from Beijing since 1997 when the UK handed Hong Kong back to mainland China.

But in June, the Communist nation introduced a new security law viewed as an attempt to end Hong Kongs independence.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson condemned the move and promised to offer up to three million residents a route to UK citizenship.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, China has become an international outcast following allegations of hacking, national security fears and human rights controversies.

Read the original here:

Hands Off British Steel! Brexit Party fury over Chinese takeover of vital UK industry - Express

NewsOpinionColumnistsDonald Trumps administration is continuing to treat the UK as a member of the EU for the purpose of sanctions in the Airbus trade dispute and is about to extend its list of goods subject to prohibitive tariffs, writes Brian Wilson

Saturday, 25th July 2020, 7:30 am

Acting as faithful follower of American foreign policy has always carried risks as well as rewards.

The UK Government would do well to remember that historic truth before digging itself deeper into hostilities with China, in line with the current American way.

There was no shortage of reasons offered for pulling the plug on Huawei in the UK security initially topped the bill followed by Hong Kong and alleged human rights violations against the Uyghurs.

None of these is new and the general rule of international trade is that noses must be held if the show is to go on. Diplomacy rather than trade is the avenue for influencing errant states.

Ethical foreign policy is a noble concept but endlessly difficult to pursue consistently which is why it makes sense to separate it from trade, except in extreme circumstances.

The contention that these exist would have been more convincing if President Trump had not promptly informed the world that the UK ditched Huawei because he told them to, which is probably the truth of the matter.

One of the problems with pleading high-mindedness is that once started, there is no logical point to stop. If China is so awful, do we really want their students? Do we want them to control 25 per cent of the North Sea? Do we want them funding our infrastructure?

It is not as if China lacks options. They also have a fair grasp of their own history which does not necessarily predispose them to regard the UK as a font of virtue and righteousness, entitled to lecture them on how to conduct their affairs.

Presumably someone in Whitehall has noticed that Beijing is hoovering up soft power around the world with its astonishing Silk Road intiative which involves trillions of investment in scores of countries.

The Silk Road is not a geographically limiting term but flows from the concept of China as the worlds first global trader, regardless of oceans and borders. Via the Silk Road, it is seeking to regain that status from Africa to Latin America. Do they really need the UK that much?

A bellicose trade war with China in election year may be just what President Trump needs. It is less clear, as we walk away from the EU and reel from the Covid-19 aftermath, that it is what the UK needs.

And what of the United States on which we seem to be placing all available bets? It should not go unnoticed that, in the real world, our great ally across the water is currently waging a trade war against us not for us.

Though we are outside the EU, Washington continues to behave as if we are inside for the purpose of sanctions arising from the Airbus dispute. The World Trade Organisation authorised punitive US tariffs on random products in retaliation for illegal subsidies paid by Brussels.

Products targeted for prohibitive tariffs already include malt whisky, cashmere knitwear and shortbread. There is suspicion this selection reflects Trumps animus towards Scotland in light of the great fall-out which followed the great love-in. I know from personal experience remember the Banana Wars? that none of these things happen by accident.

Matters may be about to get much worse. By 12 August, the US will decide on an extension of the list which may include blended whisky and gin. Not everybody knows this, but 80 per cent of UK gin is now made in Scotland. If this happens, it is reckoned that 6,500 jobs are at risk.

It is surely time for the UK Government to call in whatever chips it holds in Washington to point out its not a good look to be attacked by your greatest ally at the same time as turning your back on past friends (the EU) and valuable partners (China).

Conversely, sorting this one out would be a decent advert not least in Scotland for taking back control. Failure to do so by 12 August will reinforce the alternative thought that with Trump as your best friend in the world, who needs enemies?

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to scotsman.com and enjoy unlimited access to Scottish news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit http://www.scotsman.com/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Go here to see the original:

Despite Brexit, Donald Trump's trade war with EU is putting thousands of Scottish jobs at risk Brian Wilson - The Scotsman

'The EU needs to stick something on the table first'

@Owen Thomas:

"If you ask for the world in a negotiation, and then try and compromise by asking for half of it, it's clearly bonkers to then say because the other side isn't agreeing with that they are inflexible.

"Their demand on fishing is ridiculous. Could I see it negotiated away? Yes, but the EU needs to stick something on the table first, not expect us to give it away for nothing.

"We know how they operate. As soon as we give them a sniff of compromise they'd zero in on it, ignore everything else and then salami slice us. David Frost isn't dumb."

@Jeremy Friend:

"I thought MrFrost put it very well and succinctly. He pointed out that our stance on the ECJ, fisheries and the level playing field are not negotiating positions but the norm which an independent country owns. They cannot therefore be bartered away. They are not up for discussion and unless the EU accepts that, as they have with all other countries with whom they have a free trade agreement, there can be no agreement.

"It is not a 'bill' for the EU to accept or reject. It is a sine qua non of a country's independence and sovereignty."

Following the positive results from the trials at Oxford University, Celia Walden fearedthe influence thatanti-vaxxers have on social media and discussedhow the potential Covid-19 vaccine could be made compulsory if too many people refuse to be vaccinated. While a number of our readers agreed with Ms Walden, others weremore cautious about rushing a vaccine to market.

@Helen King:

Im very pro-vaccine, Ive had all my vaccinations and so have my children. But no, I will not be taking a rushed vaccine and will be advising my children not to either. Id rather take my chances with the virus than a vaccine that because ofits rushed nature, we will have no indications of its long-term effects.

The selfish ones are those who want to force others to have a vaccine. Anyway, the vaccine is still unlikely to happen, so its all a moot point anyway.

@Charles Cole:

That there are even people discussing the idea of a compulsory vaccine shows how far we have sunk. How utterly incredible. If people want to take a vaccine which has been rushed to market with extraordinary haste, let them. The state is here to serve us, not the other way around.

@Derek Smith:

Civilised society is an imperfect system but it's all we have, and depends on both rules and conditions that are deemed reasonable and sensible by the majority. Vaccination has allowed the human race to mostly overcome the mass casualties associated with densely populated towns and cities largely through compliance. Remove this and these dormant mass killing machines such as smallpox, measles, typhoid and ad infinitum will rear up and once again kill and maim, usually innocent children.

Ignoring vaccination protocols is ignorant, dangerous and downright stupid, if you want to ignore your societal responsibility jog off and do so on your own, live in your own bubble but do not use public schools, hospitals or any communal area as you are definitely not welcome.

Tom Welsh argued that many young people feel cut off from colleagues and the wider corporate context by working from home during lockdown. Our readers drew from their own experiences to debate both the advantages and disadvantages of working from home, with many agreeing that businesses should opt for a more flexible approach.

@Peter Jackson:

I used to live 1.5 miles from my office. Having a separate space to work from where I lived allowed me to work without distractions, when needed, and I could talk to people when needed. Gradually everyone else in my group started working from home. The office became a lonely place to be.

Working from home would have meant setting aside space in my flat for working and being alone all day. Even lonelier than the office.

There are advantages and disadvantages to working from home for bothemployeesand employers. It is hard to build a team if people aren't meeting, or to train someone remotely.

Businesses should be able to choose what suits them best. The employees can choose whether or not an employer offers home working as a factor when looking for work.

@Keith Badger:

There is nothing 'woke' about allowing people to work from home. I run a business where many functions that were office-based such as accounts, marketing, customer services and sales are now donefrom home.

People are happier and more productive than before, we have no issues with parking or a lack of office space. It's a win win as far as I'm concerned. I have given people the option of returning to work in the office if they so wish, but so far nobody has taken me up on that offer. Good for them.

@Able Archer:

Before lockdown, I worked from home twodays a week and wentinto the office three days a week. Seeing people at work is good for office camaraderie and meant we could interact informally.

Some of my colleagues chose to WFH permanently, which meant that they seemed detached from the rest of us and were more likely to be left out of the loop on small matters.

It can also be very lonely sitting at home all day. Not everyone has the ideal home, some of us are stuck in small flats with poor sound insulation. We were created as social beings to interact with each other. Talking at someone down a screen with a slight time delay is not proper social interaction.

@Jay Bee:

A 'blended working' solution will become the norm after this something like two days a week in the office, three days at home.

Companies who aim to return to inflexible in-office work routines, will haemorrhage staff and fail. You just need to look at the opinion polls British office workers have had an awakening to the many benefits of a more progressive work/life balance.

Lewis Hamilton won the Hungarian Grand Prix on Sunday for the eighth time after a perfect drive. Luke Slater arguedthat whileHamilton and Mercedes brilliance has ensured their dominance,it is not what the sport needs.

The rest is here:

'It's time to walk away from Brexit trade talks' - Readers on this weeks talking points - Telegraph.co.uk

The first lesson we can learn from the way the government handled this report about the Russians trying to fiddle with our elections is its fine to have something ready, then wait nine months before letting anyone see it.

We would be so much more relaxed if we all did this. Kids could tell their teachers: Ive finished my geography homework. Ill hand it in next April.

In a cafe, the waiter could tell you the sausage and chips are ready, so theyll bring them out a few weeks after Christmas.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

The government seems just as calm about the Russians trying to influence our democracy. The prime minister answered Keir Starmers question about the report by saying, Youve had more flip-flops than Bournemouth beach.

This is an impressively chilled reaction to another country trying to alter your government. Maybe Boris Johnson learned this at a mindfulness class, where he was told, If youre prime minister, and the Russians try to muck about with your election, dont get stressed. Breathe deeply, chant were getting Brexit done 4 million times, and make a funny joke, such as You do more whining than a man who runs an active vineyard, to soothe your spiritual journey.

The report concluded the government had not seen or sought evidence of interference by Russia because they did not want to know. Thats a novel method for investigating a crime, to not want to find any evidence.

There should be a detective series, starring Boris Johnsons cabinet. They turn up to a murder scene, and theyre told, A man was seen shooting the victim. We caught him hiding in this cupboard. Here he is. So Boris Johnson says, Well never work out who did it. Close the case. The whole programme would be over in nine seconds, proving how efficient they are.

Boris Johnson also told us the real reason anyone was concerned about the report was they were an Islingtonian Remainer trying to undermine the referendum result.

This will be how everything works now for a couple of hundred years. The government could be caught setting up a series of brothels in Kuala Lumpur to fund the cabinets crystal meth habit. And when Keir Starmer says: Could the prime minister assure the house he will cease his forays into prostitution and partaking of class A narcotics? Johnson would reply: Ah, aha, what we have, indeed, Mr Speaker, is a flagrant attempt, er attempt, to undermine the historic vote of the British people.

In any case, Boris Johnson knows for a fact the Russians have no interest in winning influence in Britain, because he accepted 160,000 from Russian oligarch Lubov Chernukhin to play her at tennis.

So he must know that Russian business doesnt try to buy favours. She simply wanted to improve her tennis, and rather than do it the complicated way, by paying a tennis coach, she spent the money wisely and played Boris Johnson. She was lucky he could fit her in, between his sessions coaching Roger Federer.

You can understand why the government wouldnt believe the claims, as it seems implausible that Putins people would behave in an underhand or deceitful way. Its true they brought down a plane and lied about it, and poisoned one of our oldest cities and said they were there to admire the cathedral. But they wouldnt try more serious things like invent a Twitter account to say the EU had a negative effect on the British jam industry.

But the biggest revelation from this issue is that for 60 years there has been a misunderstanding between us all. For all that time, Conservative people would say to anyone slightly liberal: If you had your way, youd let the Russians run the country. We thought they were angry about the Russians, but in fact they were upset because we didnt want the Russians to run the country enough.

The Russians would fund the odd political campaign or pamphlet, but now we realise the Conservatives wanted the Russians to run our elections and dictate when our prime ministers play tennis.

There could be another reason the government is so dismissive about the report. It concludes the Russians tried to interfere through using TV programmes and social media. So Boris Johnson must think: My oligarch mates have bought a huge chunk of London and all the riverside apartments and a football club and shares in everything, so why are people in a flap because of some programmes on Russia Today and a bunch of Twitter accounts?

It seems unlikely that Russian social media made a decisive difference in the referendum. Or maybe it did, and Gary from Stoke said: Here mum, Ive just got a message from Anna3628710 on Twitter that says the EU are responsible for stealing 17 per cent of our mackerel. Sod that, Im voting Leave.

And Maureen from Sunderland meant to watch Homes Under the Hammer one day, but accidentally switched on Russia Todays misleading documentary about how EU salad subsidies are unfairly biased against British cucumber farmers.

Another possibility is the Leave Campaign had an effective message and the Remain Campaign had no message. And the stories that had the greatest impact were those about taking back control, and money saved by leaving would be spent on the NHS, and the number of immigrants had reached Breaking Point. These ideas werent spread by Russian Twitter accounts, they were on billboards and Facebook pages and buses, arranged by Dominic Cummings and Nigel Farage.

So the problem with the referendum was British interference. There should be another report, that should conclude wed have been better off only allowing foreigners to campaign in the referendum, and not let the British say anything.

See original here:

When it comes to Brexit, British interference got us into this mess - The Independent

FILE PHOTO: The Union Jack flags are seen above number 11 Downing street after Britain's prime minister Boris Johnson tested positive for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in London, Britain, March 27, 2020. REUTERS/Toby Melville

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will continue to engage constructively with the European Union in talks on a future relationship, but London is not willing to give up its rights as an independent state, a spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Monday.

The two sides will resume talks on Tuesday after Britains chief negotiator David Frost hosts his EU counterpart Michel Barnier for dinner later on Monday, but there has been little movement on the significant differences that divide them.

Britain left the EU in January and is in a status quo transition period until the end of the year, when some companies fear disruption if the two fail to secure a free trade deal.

Our position on our sovereignty, laws and fisheries is clear, we will not give up our rights as an independent state, the spokesman told reporters.

We will continue to engage constructively with the EU on these key issues and will work hard to reach the broad outline of an agreement, but as we have been clear all along we are not asking for a special, bespoke or unique deal.

Reporting by Elizabeth Piper; editing by William James and Alistair Smout

View post:

Britain will be constructive with EU in Brexit talks, says PM's spokesman - Reuters

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Claims that Holyrood powers are under threat by post-Brexit legislation are "absolute scaremongering", the Scottish Secretary has said.

Alister Jack told BBC Scotland plans for a UK "internal market" amounted to a "power surge" and not a "power grab".

The proposals have been set out in a white paper, with legislation to follow later in the year.

Scottish Constitutional Affairs Secretary Mike Russell said any assurances from the UK were "not true".

Plans for how a UK-wide "internal market" will operate after the country leaves the EU were published earlier in the week.

UK Business Secretary Alok Sharma said the move would see "the biggest transfer of powers in the history of devolution".

But the Scottish government has said the plan would "strip power" from the Scottish Parliament.

Speaking on BBC Scotland's Sunday Politics programme, Mr Jack said the objections raised by Mr Russell were a "confected red herring".

He said there was "absolutely no threat" to Scottish government policies like free university tuition or alcohol minimum pricing.

"There is not a single power being taken away from Holyrood or any of the other devolved administrations and when challenged in parliament this week, they couldn't come up with a single power they're losing," he said.

"This is absolutely a power surge for them, not a power grab."

Much of the debate over powers has focused on food standards and whether chlorinated chicken would ever be sold in the UK.

But Mr Jack said this was "not going to happen".

"Chlorinated chicken can't be sold in the UK. Nor can hormone-induced beef. We're quite clear about that. They are illegal products," he said.

"We're going to bring all the EU food standards into UK domestic law at the end of this year in the Withdrawal Act. And then we intend to increase our food production standards and our animal welfare standards which are already the highest in Europe."

Mr Jack told the BBC that the only future changes would be to improve food standards and not "diminish" them.

He added: "Were it ever to come to pass that a future government did something on food standards that didn't satisfy the other devolved administrations first of all there would be a bill to go through the UK Parliament on that trade deal and then there would be consent motions sought from the other administrations."

However, Mr Russell said he had "no doubt" that under the current proposals chlorinated chicken could be sold in Scotland, even if the Scottish Parliament did not want it.

Speaking earlier on the programme, he said the proposals were there because the UK wanted to be able to do "bad trade deals" with other countries as they were the "only trade deals left to them".

"To do so they want to make sure that neither the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Parliament or the Northern Irish Parliament can interfere with that," he said.

"That won't just be bad for consumers, it'll be very bad for business. It will put Scottish businesses out of business if they go ahead."

Mr Russell said he had heard many assurances in the past from the UK government but they had "come to nothing".

View post:

Alister Jack: 'No threat' to devolved power in post-Brexit laws - BBC News

Using the case of Britains 2016 vote to leave the European Union, James Wood andValentina Ausserladscheider challenge prevailing accounts explaining populism as political response to neoliberalisms negative impact on voters. Using a descriptive analysis, they explain how the antagonistic people vs. elite relationship at the core of populism has been mobilised by opposing British political actors as a discursive frame to generate voter support for their own policies.

Populism has come to dominate Britains political economy, which culminated in the 2016 vote to leave the political and economic project of the EU. Although there are various conceptions of what populism is, many definitions focus on a core antagonistic relationship between the people and a corrupt or incompetent elite.

Dominant explanations of the rise of populism in Britain argue that populist politicians appealed to a long-standing general will of the people by advocating anti-EU policies to mitigate the negative consequences of globalisation, such as increased immigration and inequality from international trade. Populism has also been considered a response to voter demands for greater state intervention in the British economy to challenge the market-based policies of neoliberalism, which have increased economic insecurity since the 1980s. However, we argue these accounts fail to adequately conceptualise what constitutes as populism in the case of Brexit.

The chart above from The Economist demonstrates that for a decade prior to the 2016 referendum, less than 10% of the British public believed the EU was a pressing political issue; this increased dramatically to over 50% shortly after the referendum announcement. Therefore, leaving the EU cannot be considered a long-standing voter demand that populist politicians adopted to appeal to voters. Rather, the referendum itself may be considered the referential moment where leaving the EU became a significant issue for British voters. Additionally, whilst populist political actors on the left, such as Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party, advocated increased state intervention in the economy to challenge neoliberalism, there were mainstream populist political actors in the Conservative Party supporting policies perfectly congruent with neoliberalism.

Our research provides an alternative explanation as to what constitutes as populism in the case of Brexit. We argue that what these populist political actors have in common is that they both present a challenge to Britains debt-driven neoliberal growth model, which is reliant on continuous house price increases and consumption.

Major shifts in macroeconomic policy paradigms occur rarely, and require the policies associated with the dominant paradigm to be framed negatively by political actors to the voting public. We argue that the elite/people relationship at the core of populism was used as a discursive frame by political actors looking to generate voter support for their own policies. Here, a current policy can be problematised by political actors by framing it as being detrimental to the people whilst benefiting an elite; alternatively, the converse framing can be used to highlight the benefits of their policies to voters as the people at the expense of the elite.

We explore this argument by examining two competing economic policy paradigms looking to challenge Britains debt-driven neoliberal growth model: the Liberal Economic Nationalists and the Democratic Socialists.

Britains modern Liberal Economic Nationalist policy paradigm looks to change Britains neoliberal growth model from being debt-driven to focus on increasing British exports, and is advocated by an influential group of politicians in the Conservative Party, such as Michael Gove, Liz Truss, and Boris Johnson.

The Conservatives used the populist frame to critique the EU for limiting Britains sovereignty and generate support for their own export-oriented trade policies. An example of this can be seen in Michael Goves announcement in support of the Vote Leave campaign:

The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people Every single day, every single minister is told: Yes Minister, I understand, but Im afraid thats against EU rules. I know it. My colleagues in government know it. And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.

After chastising EU elites for limiting British sovereignty that harms the British people, Gove then redeployed the populist frame in a different speech to show how leaving the EU resolves this problem for the people:

I am not asking the British people to have faith in me, I am asking them to have faith in themselves. I am asking the British people to take back control from those [EU] organisations which are distant and elitist. With trade it is really important that we take back control.

Therefore, for the Conservatives, Brexit provides an opportunity for British neoliberalism to be reoriented around an export-driven growth model supported by non-EU trade.

Rather than focus on the EU, the Democratic Socialists in the Labour Party directly critiqued market-based neoliberal policies for benefiting the few at the expense of the many: a clear transposition of the populist elite/people frame. One example comes from Jeremy Corbyns speech to the 2017 Labour Party Conference:

Ten years after the global financial crash the Tories still believe in the same dogmatic mantra Deregulate, privatise, cut taxes for the wealthy, weaken rights at work, delivering profits for a few, and debt for the many. Nothing has changed.

To rebalance inequalities in favour of the many, they propose a post-Brexit full paradigm shift towards socialism, by nationalising industries and limiting market activity. Corbyn promoted such policies to the public using the populist discursive frame in the 2017 Labour Party manifesto:

the distribution of ownership of the countrys economy means that decisions about our economy are often made by a narrow elite. More democratic ownership structures would help our economy deliver for the many and lead to a fairer distribution of wealth.

These examples demonstrate how these opposing political actors have used the populist discursive frame to construct a challenge to Britains debt-driven neoliberal growth model and generate voter support for their own economic policies. Therefore, rather than focusing on how different political actors adopt incongruent policies to appeal to the public, we argue it is the shared deployment of the elite/people discursive frame that provides a more complete account of constitutes as populism in the case of Brexit. This offers a more compelling generalisable constitutive theory to understand the phenomenon of global populism and how it manifests in specific cases.

__________

Note: the above draws on the authors published work in The Review of International Political Economy. All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Featured image credit: by Christian Lue on Unsplash.

See the rest here:

Populism and the manufactured crisis of British neoliberalism: the case of Brexit - British Politics and Policy at LSE

The Tnaiste Leo Varadkar has said the emergency COVID-19 payments can be repurposed in the new year to deal with Brexit if needed.

Under the July stimulus plan, the emergency Pandemic Unemployment Payment and the Wage Subsidy Scheme will be extended until April 2021.

However both will be tapered to lower levels during that time - with the unemployment payment eventually being reduced in line with jobseekers benefit.

Speaking to Newstalk's political correspondent Sean Defoe, Mr Varadkar said part of the decision to extend the fund was with Brexit in mind.

"There's extra money from my department in particular to help businesses that trade with the UK to prepare for Brexit."

"But more significantly, if you look at the way this package is structured, it runs through to the end of the first quarter of next year.

"The Pandemic Unemployment Payment, the Wage Subsidy, the VAT cut - all of those things run into February and March of next year, April in some cases.

"Why did we make that decision? Because Brexit's coming: at least in terms of trade Brexit, if you like, political Brexit already happened but trade Brexit will happen on the 31st of December this year.

"So if you look at what's happening for example in Britain, they're ending their wage subsidy in October - same in Northern Ireland - they're ending their VAT cut at the end of December.

"We thought 'no, we actually needed a plan that runs through to the spring of next year' - so that it covers Brexit as well as what's happening as a result of the pandemic".

It comes as the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said a trade deal between the bloc and the UK is now unlikely.

On Thursday, Mr Barnier said while some progress was made, issues around a level playing field and fisheries are still outstanding.

"The EU has always insisted that an economic partnership with the UK must include robust level playing field rules and an equitable agreement on fisheries.

"This means that, by its current refusal to commit to conditions of open and fair competition and to a balanced agreement on fisheries, the UK makes a trade agreement at this point unlikely", he added.

Meanwhile the Government's new staycation tax rebate can also be used to get tax back on meals in local restaurants.

Under the plan people can get up to 125 back on 625 spent on accommodation or food bills.

Mr Varadkar said the scheme can also be used to boost local business.

"I think this is going to benefit all parts of Ireland - essentially it's a 5bn injection into our economy, 7bn if you include loan guarantees.

"And it's all about getting businesses open, helping those that are open to stay open, getting people back to work and for those who won't be able to go back to their old jobs, there'll be about 75,000 opportunities in terms of education, apprenticeships, enterprise set up grants, courses, you name it.

"But I think one thing that'll be particularly beneficial for businesses in rural Ireland is that fact that the minimum restart grant has been increased to 4,000.

"Any business that is re-opening in rural Ireland, or any business that stayed open and saw a significant reduction in their turnover, will have a restart grant of 4,000".

"I think what will also be of particular benefit is that there'll be a commercial rates holiday for six months.

"The big companies will have to pay, but the smaller companies particularity in towns and villages won't have to pay".

He said he hopes people will take advantage of the spend and save initiative while holidaying at home.

"We're hoping that at least two million people will take advantage of it.

"Yes it's for domestic tourism encouraging people to take that weekend away or that night away during the winter.

"But also as well encouraging people to support local businesses in their towns.

"So if you can't afford, or you're not able to go away for the weekend, you can use that money in your local town - and if you do that'll be a good thing as well".

Reporting by Sean Defoe | Additionalreporting: Jack Quann

See the article here:

COVID-19 payments can be repurposed to deal with Brexit - Varadkar - Newstalk

CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to step up their fight to protect the NHS after a legal bid to prevent it being on the table in post-Brexit trade deals was voted down by Tory MPs.

A series of amendments to the Trade Bill aimed at protecting the NHS from control from outside the UK and allowing more parliamentary scrutiny of deals were rejected in the House of Commons last week.

More than 230,000 people have now signed a petition urging peers to introduce fresh amendments to the Bill when it goes to the House of Lords in the autumn.

Pascale Robinson, campaigns officer for anti-privatisation pressure group We Own It, said unless specific protections were in place for the NHS, there was the risk of the health service being opened up in trade deals to American healthcare firms and drug prices increasing.

She said the huge response to the petition in the space of just a few days showed how angry people were at the result of the voting down of the amendments.

It has shown that platitudes about protecting our NHS are a barefaced lie and that we will not forgive or forget those MPs who did not stand up for the NHS in that vote, she said.

READ MORE:Majority of Scots regret Brexit and would rejoin EU, eu+me finds

Robinson also pointed that while health was devolved in Scotland, the proposals around the UK internal market meant it would be impacted by any trade deal. She added: They call it levelling the playing field, meaning there is the same access what will happen is Scotland will have to accept goods and services of the same standard as the UK.

The British Medical Association said it was disappointing the amendments were voted down, adding it would have gone some way to protecting the health service and public health in trade agreements.

BMA council deputy chair and trade negotiations lead Dr David Wrigley said: The BMA is clear that the only true protection we have is if our health service and standards are protected by law. As the Bill moves on for consideration by the Lords, it is vital this pivotal point to do so is not lost.

Green MP Caroline Lucas had put forward an amendment to stop the health service being a part of trade deals, saying red lines were needed in the negotiations. The bid to give MPs and peers a say on any new trade deals signed by UK ministers was a rebellion led by Conservative MP Jonathan Djanogly.

Meanwhile, SNP MPs were among those who submitted an amendment to ensure Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could give their consent to trade regulations containing matters within their remit, which was also rejected.

All six Scottish Tory MPs voted against these amendments, which were backed by the SNP, Labour and LibDems.

READ MORE:Stephen Gethins's bid to strengthen Scotland-EU post-Brexit ties

Following Mondays vote, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine MP Andrew Bowie was one of a number of Conservatives who pointed to the partys manifesto commitment which pledged the NHS will not be on the table in any trade negotiations.

Just to be clear no one voted to sell the NHS last night. It is not for sale. It is not on the table, he tweeted.

But Gay Lee, a nurse and member of campaign group Keep Our NHS Public, said: That is the argument of well, we promised, so we dont need to put it in writing and we dont need to put it law.

The Government is not particularly trusted at the moment, so how they think that argument is going to wash with people I dont know.

The UK Government has also insisted that any changes affecting the NHS would have to come before parliament.

However, at present the role of Westminster in approving treaties is based on rules established 100 years ago, which means there is no systematic scrutiny and consent to ratification is given by default, with no debate or vote required.

Dr Brigid Fowler, senior researcher at think tank the Hansard Society, said the view of most constitutional lawyers who had examined the issue is that the current system is not fit for purpose and particularly now the UK is negotiating its own free trade agreements.

She said: This was the first time that a Conservative MP had put his head over the parapet and said we think we should amend this.

It was really significant that there are now clearly some Conservative backbenchers who arent happy but there werent enough of them.

At the moment theres nothing in law to stop a UK minister just signing a free trade agreement without MPs having seen it.

She added: Youre making a form of law when you sign an international treaty like that and youre also making economic policy.

It could have massive implications for different industries and for different parts of the country.

Nick Dearden, director of campaign group Global Justice Now, pointed out peers had successfully passed a democratic scrutiny amendment in the previous Trade Bill. The bill was subsequently dropped by the UK Government when Westminster was prorogued last year.

It is really interesting that this is one of the few areas where there has actually been a Tory rebellion, Dearden said.

The Government is really under the most enormous pressure on this.

Link:

Activists step up bid to protect the NHS from Brexit trade deal - The National

PUBLISHED: 14:30 24 July 2020 | UPDATED: 12:53 25 July 2020

Nicola McEWEN

Former Prime Minister Theresa May pledged to 'strengthen the precious European Union' when setting out her Brexit objectives in January 2017. Picture: Frank Augstein/PA

PA Wire/PA Images

Recently published plans on how the UKs internal market will work after Brexit hint at further tensions ahead, suggests NICOLA McEWEN.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

When Theresa May first set out her Brexit objectives at Lancaster House in January 2017, one of her top priorities was to strengthen the precious union, by ensuring that as we leave the European Union no new barriers to living and doing business within our own Union are created.

The recent publication of a UK government white paper gives the clearest indication yet of how her successor plans to uphold the UK internal market.

Although the details are unusually sketchy for a white paper, the proposals could have a profound effect on devolution.

They could place considerable constraints on the capacity of the devolved institutions to pursue some of the distinctive policy goals they have been able to take up hitherto, including those that were permissible within EU internal market regulations.

Once the transition period ends, the UK and devolved governments will no longer be obliged to conform to EU regulations.

Each will be free to develop new regulations within their areas of competence, subject to any level playing field commitments made in a UK-EU deal.

That opens up the possibility of greater policy divergence that, in principle, might disrupt trade across the UKs internal borders.

To guard against this possibility, the white paper proposes a Market Access Commitment. This will introduce in primary legislation both a principle of mutual recognition and a principle of non-discrimination to guarantee the continued right of all UK companies to trade unhindered in every part of the UK.

Mutual recognition ensures that goods or services that satisfy regulatory standards in one part of the UK are eligible to enter the market anywhere in the UK.

Non-discrimination prevents UK businesses or individuals trading across the UKs internal borders from being treated differently from local traders, either directly on the grounds of residence or geographical origin.

So, if the Scottish parliament decided to pass a law to limit the sugar content of goods produced in Scotland to tackle the problem of obesity, it could not impose those standards on goods coming into Scotland from other parts of the UK, nor could it prevent those goods from entering the Scottish market, provided these satisfy regulations set anywhere in the UK.

Such a law may also be challenged by Scottish producers as an unnecessary barrier to their ability to trade freely across the UK.

There are many uncertainties in the proposals. The devolved governments had been concerned that an independent regulatory body, potentially with little understanding of devolution, could be tasked with enforcing UK internal market rules.

The white paper seems to rule this out. That leaves open the issue as to how the Market Access Commitment will be enforced.

The implication is that businesses and consumers will be empowered to challenge any law or action that is perceived to impede their ability to engage in frictionless trade in any part of the UK.

The legislation could go even further, amending the devolution settlements, either to introduce a constraint that prevents laws from being passed that are incompatible with UK internal market law, or that empower the Secretary of State to prevent actions by the devolved institutions on grounds of incompatibility with the internal market.

Any of these enforcement mechanisms could represent a significant new constraint on devolved competence and would be met with considerable resistance.

In theory, the internal market principles would affect all four administrations. In practice, they will inevitably have an asymmetrical effect.

The paper acknowledges that traders in Northern Ireland, and goods entering that market, will have to comply with EU rules, as required by the Northern Ireland protocol.

Moreover, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the Westminster parliament cannot bind itself, and so its autonomy to make laws will not face the constraints that may be placed on the devolved institutions.

The sheer size of the English economy and population relative to the others is also likely to give English businesses and consumers, and the UK government making policies for England, considerably greater influence in determining regulatory standards across the UK.

No government in any part of the UK would seek to impose unnecessary barriers to trade and mobility. But who gets to determine the necessity, or otherwise, of distinctive regulations?

When the Scottish parliament passed legislation to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol, the disruption to trade in alcohol resulting from the policy was defended as a legitimate and proportionate means of tackling adverse health and social effects of alcohol abuse.

After lengthy legal challenges led by the Scotch Whisky Association, the Supreme Court sided with the Scottish government.

But it is not at all clear that public health, environmental or any other policy goals will be justifiable exemptions from UK internal market principles. The white paper seems to place the objective of frictionless trade above all other policy ambitions.

New governance arrangements are envisaged, building on existing intergovernmental relations (IGR), ensuring a strong basis for political decision-making, oversight, and dialogue in relation to the Internal Market. There is no detail at all about what these intergovernmental processes would entail.

The Joint Review of IGR, initiated by the four administrations in March 2018, has struggled to produce any recommendations to address the evident weaknesses in intergovernmental machinery or agree mechanisms for resolving dispute.

It is difficult to foresee agreement on shared governance arrangements for an internal market if its principles are designed and imposed by the UK government.

UK internal market legislation will affect devolved competences, and so under the Sewel convention, the consent of the devolved legislatures will be sought. That consent is unlikely to be secured. Will that matter? Recent experience suggests not.

In other Brexit-related legislation, the UK government has demonstrated its willingness to press ahead despite devolved institutions withholding consent. Setting aside the Sewel convention again would further undermine one of the core principles of UK devolution.

Without cooperation, consent and co-decision built into the development and governance of a UK internal market, further tensions between the UK and devolved institutions are inevitable. And for what?

The research in the annex to the white paper makes clear that, in comparison to trade between EU member states, between the Nordic states and within European federal states such as Germany, the UK is already highly integrated and the costs associated with cross-border trade are very low.

This suggests that EU regulations have not been the only factor supporting UK market integration. By using a legislative sledgehammer to crack a hypothetical nut, these measures are unlikely restore the trust between the UK and devolved governments that the Brexit process has eroded.

Instead, they may deepen the fractures that threaten the very Union the UK government is seeking to strengthen.

Nicola McEwen is a professor of territorial politics, a co-director of the Centre on Constitutional at the University of Edinburgh, and senior fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe, which originally published this article

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

Read the rest here:

Will Britain's post-Brexit plan deepen divisions within the Union? - The New European

BERLIN, July 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Following the conclusion of the sixth round of Brexit talks, BDI Director General Joachim Lang said: "A collapse in the negotiations on a partnership agreement is now all but inevitable."

"The sixth round of Brexit negotiations was more than a disappointment for the German economy. On key points, such as competition conditions in the future, London has repeatedly diverged from the political declaration. A collapse in the negotiations on a partnership agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom is now all but inevitable. Too many political and technical issues remain unsettled for them to be solved in time.

The imperative of the hour for the German government and the EU is to bundle all their forces and to focus all their attention on the essential emergency measures. Also business on both sides of the Channel must now prepare itself for bilateral trade without an agreement under WTO rules.

German industry does not believe that the United Kingdom will complete the public infrastructure for cross-border goods traffic in time. The latest plans on the part of the British are incomplete. This means that companies are faced with new customs duties, additional bureaucracy and an economic disaster."

The Federation of German Industries (BDI) is the umbrella organisation of German industry and industry-related services. It speaks for 40 trade associations and more than 100,000 enterprises with around 8 million employees. Membership is voluntary.

The Federationof German Industries Member association of BUSINESSEUROPE

Contact numbersT: +49 (0)30 2028 1450 F: +49 (0)30 2028 2450

Website http://www.bdi.eu

Email: bdi-presseteam@bdi.eu

Follow this link:

BDI on the conclusion of the Brexit round of talks: "A collapse in the negotiations on a partnership agreement is now all but inevitable" -...

25 July 2020, 14:05 | Updated: 25 July 2020, 14:18

Maajid Nawaz pleaded with Remainers to put their egos aside and accept that we need to work together towards a post-Brexit Britain, regardless of your opinion of the result.

Maajid Nawaz was speaking about Brexit as the deadline for a deal edges closer and closer. He was putting forward the argument that Brits have more in common than not, despite the divisive nature of Brexit.

"The human spirit is more binding and more lasting than political debate," said Maajid and used the example of how he was supported in his hunger strike by someone on the other end of the political spectrum to him, Nigel Farage.

"Sometimes it means holding your nose, holding your grudge," to work for the greater good Maajid said, and asked if "on the Brexit debate can we please start doing that."

He warned Remainers that if you don't contribute to the debate and discourse surrounding post-Brexit Britain, Brexiteers "will shape the future of this country without your input."

"Bury the hatchet, bury our egos and start trying to work out which kind of Brexiter we can work with," Maajid said.

He argued that "we need to develop a post-Brexit liberal vision for Britain" and this cannot be achieved if only one side of the debate is addressed.

Maajid went on to imagine "who can our allies be," in post-Brexit Britain and argued that the first place the UK should be looking is to begin "forging closer and closer alliances with the Five Eyes nations" who are the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK.

He argued that if the nations were to move further than just being an intelligence sharing bloc and a socio-economic one too, this would be an ideal place for the UK to start it's life outside of the EU.

Here is the original post:

Remainers must bury the hatchet and work towards a post-Brexit Britain - LBC

The Brexit saga is back with a vengeance. Michel Barnier, the European Unions chief negotiator says his negotiations with Britain are going nowhere. He and David Frost, the UK negotiator, agree that the transition phase could end in December without a deal. The prospect of breakdown is real, even if we are witnessing the kind of public sabre-rattling that tends to accompany the diplomatic end-game in tough negotiations. Either way, the drama of the next few months will be real.

If news editors groan that more Brexit stories will bore their readers and viewers, I can offer reassurance. Voters switched off from Brexit in the spring, but are switching back on again. Twelve months ago, when Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, 71 per cent of the public told YouGov that it was one of the most important issues facing Britain. Three months ago, when the Covid-19 crisis was at its peak, the number had fallen to 25 per cent. Its now back up to 45 per cent, not far behind health (56 per cent) and the economy (55 per cent). The salience of Brexit has oscillated, but what about public views on the issue itself?

A recent report, first published by Business Insider, caused a stir, when its headline proclaimed: Support for Brexit is collapsing as poll finds big majority of British people want to be in the EU. Sadly for pro-Europeans, its figures show no such thing. The data, from the biennial European Social Survey project, is eighteen months old. It tells us nothing about public attitudes since the UK left the European Union.

The truth is far less dramatic (as truth tends to be, to the frustration of journalists, politicians, campaigners and anyone who relies on excitement to generate attention). Since August 2016, two months after the Brexit referendum, YouGov has regularly asked the same question: In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU? Until May 2017, they tended to show slightly more people saying right than wrong.

Following Theresa Mays catastrophic election campaign, the public mood shifted: not much, but enough for voters to move, first to level-pegging and, from October 2017, a modest lead for wrong over right. And there it has remained. Four YouGov polls since Easter have shown an average of wrong 45 per cent, right 42 per cent. Their latest survey reports a 47-40 per cent lead for wrong. There might have been a slight shift; then again, recent polling movements might simply reflect sampling fluctuations.

So: a clear, if small, majority of us think Brexit was a mistake that means we would now vote to rejoin the EU, right? Wrong. YouGovs tracking question looks back, not forward. There may be people who think that, on balance, we were wrong to leave the EU but, now we are out, would prefer us to make the best of Brexit rather than embark on the arduous process of applying to return.

The polling evidence suggests that is, indeed, the case. Three recent polls have asked people how they would vote in a referendum held now on whether to rejoin the EU. Excluding dont knows, these are the results:

So, one poll shows a tiny shift to in, one a slight shift to out, and one no change. Taking account, again, of sampling fluctuations, the chances are that a referendum held now would produce much the same result as in 2016.

Of course, no referendum will be held anytime soon. If one were held in a few years time, it will be in circumstances that are very different and which, indeed, we cannot predict with any certainty. Public opinion then may have moved, very possibly a lot. The best way to view recent YouGov, Kantar and Panelbase polls is to say there is a modest amount of buyers remorse for leaving the EU, but not at least not yet enough remorse to undo Brexit.

The stability of recent times may not last. The outcome of the current negotiations could change the public mood. Or, rather, the experience of life next year, once the transition phase is over, could change the mood. A YouGov survey last month found that, by 63-15 per cent, we would prefer to end transition with a trade deal rather than without a deal. Even people who voted Leave four years ago would prefer a deal by a margin of almost two-to-one.

We should be cautious about interpreting these numbers. A deal would certainly boost the pro-Brexit poll numbers in the short run, while a breakdown in talks would probably dent those numbers. The real test, however, will be next year. Will the news show lorries delayed at Dover and Calais, or will trade continue to flow freely? Will imported food be dearer and harder to find in the shops, or as cheap and plentiful as it is today? What will happen to jobs and investment? Will the voters verdict be that Boris Johnson has redeemed or betrayed his promise to deliver a freer, fairer and more prosperous future?

Those questions could have a special potency in Scotland. Recent surveys have shown, for the first time, a modest but steady majority for voting yes in a new referendum on Scottish independence; and, as that Panelbase survey shows, a big majority of Scottish voters still want to be in the EU. Next May, if Scottish voters decide that Johnson has made a mess of Brexit, the elections to Scotlands Parliament could produce a thumping victory for the Scottish National Party and its likely demand for a fresh vote on whether to leave the UK.

The Westminster Parliament, with its big Conservative majority, has the power and the numbers to deny a new referendum on Scottish independence. Politically, however, would Johnson be wise in those circumstances to deny Scotlands voters the right to decide their destiny? Might that provoke a dangerous crisis in relations between London and Edinburgh?

One way and another and views will vary as to whether this as a blessing or a curse the Brexit saga has many more chapters to go.

See the article here:

What does Britain want from Brexit? - TheArticle

The former Labour MP insisted it was quite right the UK does not give an inch on the two issues, which are proving to be major stumbling blocks in post-Brexit trade talks between Britain and Brussels. Ms Hoey tweeted: The Brexiteer said on Twitter: Quite right that our Government will not give an inch on a Level Playing Field and fishing. This blog is no longer live, follow here for live updates.

How dare the EU complain about us wanting to take back control of our fishing waters?

Fishing communities devastated over years by the CFP @DavidGHFrost doing a splendid job.

It comes after the fifth round of negotiations ended in stalemate.

The EUs chief negotiator Michel Barnier said the UKs position on fisheries is "simply unacceptable.

Mr Barnier also warned of gaps between the two sides on the so-called level playing field.

FOLLOW BELOW FOR LIVE UPDATES:

3am update:Brexit trade deal 'deadlocked'

TheEU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier said a Brexit trade deal is not likely because of a dispute over thefishing rights and a level playing field.

UK's chief negotiator with the EU,David Frost,said discussions were ongoing.

1am update: Cost ofbaby food and formula milkset to rise after Brexit

TheGovernment is planning to impose higher tariffsof up to 17 percent on baby food and formula milk after Brexit.

Pureed food used for tube feeding for cancer and intensive care patients are other products facing increasedtariffs.

The plans to up tariffs were revealed byby theBritish Specialist Nutrition Association, which is pleading with the Government to avoid making life more costly for young families.

10pm update: Former MEP points out why UK is right to resist EU pressure

Ex-Conservative MEP and Brexiteer Daniel Hannan tweeted: Suppose the UK were to demand access to EU fishing grounds, a say over EU state aid and competition law and a role for British judges on the continent.

Would anyone expect the EU to agree? Would anyone call it unreasonable for holding out?

9pm update: Frost told to keep up the good work

A Brexiteer has told Boris Johnsons Europe adviser David Frost to keep up the good work following the fifth round of trade talks between the UK and the EU.

Former Brexit Party MEP Rupert Lowe tweeted: Latest round of Brexit talks have just finished.

Sounds like Frost is standing firm on fishing and the level playing field. 'Considerable gaps remain.'

@DavidGHFrost - keep up the good work. All brexiteers will raise a glass to you on December 31st if you can deliver!

7.30pm update: Truss insists UK will not sacrifice a good deal for speed in US negotiations

International Trade Secretary Liz Truss has insisted the UK will not sacrifice a good deal for speed in trade negotiations on a post-Brexit deal with the US.

She refused to set a deadline because it could be used to put pressure on the UK to sign an agreement.

Ms Truss told a House of Lords comittee: "We are commencing round three of the talks next week and we are making good progress.

"But we are very clear that we are not going to sacrifice a good deal for speed.

"We have expert negotiators who are tabling UK-specific texts across the whole agreement to ensure that it reflects our interests.

"We are not just going to accept photocopies of the US-Mexico-Canada agreement.

"We are also not going to budge from our red lines: the NHS remains off the table, our food standards must not be undermined and British farming must benefit from the deal.

"We also want to make sure that every region and nation of the UK benefits from the deal."

6.30pm update: Brexiteer blasts Barnier over fishing and level playing field demands

Former Brexit Party MEP Ben Habib has hit out at Michel Barnier after the EUs chief negotiator said a deal was unlikely due to the UKs refusal to bow to Brussels demands on fishing and the so-called level playing field.

Mr Habib tweeted: Pls simply listen to what @MichelBarnier says.

Do not over interpret it. Take his requirements at face value.

His demands require we give up our sovereignty and remain a vassal state.

@DavidGHFrost @michaelgove @BorisJohnson Where is our no-deal planning? WTO now.

5pm update: German MEP celebrates Brexit as he lays into EU spending plans

Leading eurosceptic Gunnar Beck has celebrated Brexit as a move that has saved Britain sending billions of pounds to the European Union's coronavirus recovery fund.

The Alternative for Germany MEP said the EU had used the global pandemic to launch a coup d'etat to seize more powers for Brussels.

Speaking in the European Parliament, he said: Good news! Brexit has saved Britain 80 billion roughly the sum the recovery fund would have cost Britain.

4.15pm update: Former MEP warns UK's 'only option is to walk away

Ex-Brexit Party MEP Belinda de Lucy said on Twitter: Here we are again its No Deal or a bad deal.

The has EU refused to give the UK a fair FTA as it has with other nations, so our only option is to walk away or its MAYS DEAL re-wrapped in new ribbons and no Brexit.

3.10pm update: Tice predicts partial deal could be struck late on

Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice tweeted: No deal is always better than a bad deal..... I detect a partial deal will emerge, late on, possibly using the WTOs Article 24 mechanism to buy time to document the detail.

We are watching closely for betrayal or unnecessary compromise.

2.43pm update: Boris stuns Barnier with demand for 'near total' BAN on EU vessels

Michel Barier was left stunned by Boris Johnson's refusal to back down on Britain's fishing demands, after he revealed that the UK wanted "near total exclusion of EU vessels" from its waters.

The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has revealed the UK will not back down from demands on fisheries. He said that David Frost has asked for a "near total exclusion of EU fishing vessels" which is "unacceptable" to the EU.

In his press conference today, Mr Barnier said that the United Kingdom had shown no willingness to break deadlock on the level playing field and fisheries issues, making reaching a new trade agreement "unlikely".

2.08pm update: 'A deal can be done' UK official

A senior UK Government official involved in the talks, when asked about whether the talks were closer to breakdown or breakthrough, said: "I think we are potentially closer to both, to be honest - I think it is hard to quantify.

"I can quite see how we can make a breakthrough relatively quickly if they do adjust their position in the most important areas and, if they don't, we won't.

"It really is in their hands to a large extent and it is related to the fundamental principles in these few areas."

On the prospect of a deal, they added: "I think it can be done, there is a way to do it, I can see how it can be done (but) you cannot be sure we will get there."

1.58pm update: ECJ remains 'sticking point'

No agreement has been reached over a dispute mechanism but the EU has recognised that the European Court of Justice is a sticking point for the UK, said a Government source.

Speaking to reporters, the senior source involved in the talks said: "No... we are in the talks process and we're both exploring where we are.

"But what I think is clear is that they have understood that the presence of the Court of Justice in an agreement between us is essentially a non-starter for us for all the obvious reasons.

"They have indicated flexibility on this - we don't know exactly what that means but they have obviously heard and understood that point of concern to us."

They added that there was "a lot of precedents" in free trade deals for the "kind of dispute resolutions we could have".

12.50pm update: EU and UK have until October to strike deal

Michel Barnier said the EU and UK have until "October at the latest" to strike a deal or risk the imposition of quotas and tariffs.

He said: "If we do not reach an agreement on our future partnership there will be far more friction. For instance, on trading goods, in addition to new customs formalities there will be tariffs and quotas.

"This is the truth of Brexit... and I will continue to tell the truth. If we want to avoid this additional friction we must come to an agreement in October at the latest so that our new treaty can enter into force on January 1 next year.

"This means that we only a few weeks left and that we should not waste it."

12.26pm update: Barnier hits out at UK

The European Union's chief Brexit negotiator said on Thursday that the United Kingdom had shown no willingness to break the deadlock on level playing field and fisheries, making sealing a new trade agreement "unlikely".

Michel Barnier said:"By its current refusal to committ to conditions of open and fair competition and to a balanced agreement on fisheries, the UK makes a trade agreement - at this point - unlikely."

Speaking after this week's round of negotiations in London, Barnier said there been no progress at all on the question of ensuring fairness on state aid.

He said: "The time for answers is quickly running out," he told a news conference, referring to the five months left before the end of Britain's transition period since it formally left the EU at the end of January

He added: "If we do not reach an agreement on our future partnership there will be more friction.

"We have tried to understand how these three red lines can be squared with our commitment to a comprehensive new partnership as set out in the Political Deceleration signed by Prime Minister Johnson on 17 of October last year."

He said the EU had engaged "sincerely", adding: "Over the past few weeks the UK has not shown the same level of engagement and readiness to find solutions respecting the EU fundamental principles and interests."

12.04Pm update: Brexit talks - 'considerable gaps' remain

The UK's chief EU negotiator David Frost said "considerable gaps remain in the most difficult areas" following the latest round of talks in London.

He said the UK and EU would not reach an agreement in July.

In a statement, he said: "It is unfortunately clear that we will not reach in July the 'early understanding on the principles underlying any agreement' that was set as an aim at the High-Level Meeting on June 15.

"We have also had constructive discussions on trade in goods and services, and in some of the sectoral agreements, notably on transport, social security cooperation, and participation in EU programmes. We have also continued to deepen our understanding of each other's constraints on law enforcement.

"But considerable gaps remain in the most difficult areas, that is, the so-called level playing field and on fisheries.

"We have always been clear that our principles in these areas are not simple negotiating positions but expressions of the reality that we will be a fully independent country at the end of the transition period."

11.07am update:Leading MEP names SEVEN nations heading for EU exits as they 'poison' Brussels bloc

MEP Phillipe Lamberts named and shamed the seven EU countries that are tearing Brussels apart from the inside and heading down the same path as the UK before the Brexit referendum.

He launched a scathing outburst against the seven countries he claims are ruining the EU from the inside.

The leader of the Greens in the European Parliament named and shamed the so-called "frugals" - the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Finland and Denmark - as well as the "pseudo-democratics" - Hungary and Poland. He claimed that their tactics during the European Union recovery fund talks last weekend resembled those from the British Conservative Party before the Brexit referendum.

10.40am update:Boris Johnson COUP: Tory MPs plot to oust PM before next election

Boris Johnson is facing a coup after it emerged some Tory MPs are already considering ousting their leader, with the Prime Ministers honeymoon period well and truly over ahead of his year anniversary in office.

Tory MPs are understood to be looking to get rid of Prime Minister Boris Johnson before the next General Election in 2024 as they grow increasingly frustrated at his approach to the coronavirus crisis, which has left behind a crippled UK economy.

Critics have accused Mr Johnson of being obsessed with Brexit and therefore not well equipped to deal with coronavirus as he reaches his 12-month milestone on Friday.

One Tory MP told The Guardian: If the economic downturn and the fallout from an inquiry into the pandemic put the party into freefall, some have even begun to think Johnson may need to be replaced before the next election.

The party has no emotional attachment to Boris because he does not give us something to believe in, apart from as a vehicle for power.

Read the original here:

Brexit LIVE: 'How dare they!' Brexiteer furious at EU whining as UK refuses to capitulate - Daily Express

Brexit will allow the UK to have "greater liberties" when it comes to its relations with China as the EU remains divided on how and whether to combat Beijing's threats against the West, claimed Professor Adrain Pabst, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Economics and Social Research. Speaking to Express.co.uk, the political scientist admitted it is difficult to say whether a future Brexit deal with the EU or a free trade deal with the US will materialise in the next few months and how they will help the UK thrive economically. But he argued being out of the European Union will undoubtedly allow Britain to make its own decisions on China more freely and to side with the US when necessary.

He said: "I think there's a certain trade off here, it's true. The UK has now greater liberty to decide in relation to the 27.

"However, it's also the case that the UK is as a result more dependent on the US politically and economically.

"So in that sense, you may be trading one form of dependency on the EU in the past for another one.

"Again, it's very, very early days. Because there isn't yet a deal with the EU for what comes after the transition period. So we'll have to wait and see what sort of deal if any, emerges in the next few weeks and months, there isn't yet a comprehensive free trade deal with the US.

"So we don't yet know what the concrete benefits of Brexit in that respect will be. But yeah, essentially, the UK is moving closer to the US and a little bit further away from the EU, in in political terms, and perhaps economically in future as well though, the EU being on the doorstep, it will always remain an important trading partner.

READ MORE:Patel vows to face down UKs enemies with tough laws

"And yes, the US is crucially important, but we also know that both politically and economically it is quite a different system.

"And of course, we don't know what will happen. I mean, for the moment, the US takes a very hawkish approach to China. We don't know what might happen in case Donald Trump is not reelected, and what a President Biden might or might not do vis-a-vis China.

"So the politics are very much in flux and everywhere, including in the US.

"The EU is itself divided over over China, some countries have very close relations with China economic and political like Germany in Italy.

"Other countries, including France are keen to take a tougher approach with Beijing.

"So, you know, the EU isn't one monolithic bloc. And of course, they're always rival interests in each country in China."

He added: "There are obviously different factions as well in the US there are those who want to take a very tough line on China and then others don't, you know.

"Wall Street and Silicon Valley has got close economic ties with China and want to develop them. In the UK as we know that there's a section of politics and the media that wants good ties with China and others who are much more critical.

"So, you know, it's just to say that there are many, many dividing lines here. But for the moment, yes, it's fair to say that the UK is moving closer to the US and a little bit further away from the EU on the China question."

European shares fell on Friday as global sentiment soured after Beijing ordered United States to close its consulate in a Chinese city in retaliation to similar action from Washington.

DON'T MISS:FTSE 100 LIVE: FTSE and EU markets plummet[LIVE BLOG]China fights back: Beijing threatens to stop recognising BNO passports[INSIGHT]China issues warning to US as it urges Trump to 'think carefully'[VIDEO]

The pan-European STOXX 600 index fell 1.5 percent, on track for its biggest one-day drop in a month, pushing it into losses for the week.

Technology stocks led losses following a sell-off in US peers overnight, while the China-sensitive basic materials sector lost 1.9 percent Investors will be on the lookout for euro zone manufacturing and service PMIs due at 0800 GMT.

After last month's rise, the numbers are expected to cross above the 50 point mark which separates contraction and growth, as businesses reopened after closures to stem the spread of the coronavirus.

This comes after data on Thursday showed euro zone consumer confidence fell in July.

British Gas owner Centrica surged 30% to top the STOXX 600, despite posting lower first-half earnings as it announced plans to sell its North American business Direct Energy to NRG Energy for $3.63 billion.

Norwegian energy company Equinor ASA rose 0.5 percent after reporting an 89 percent drop in operating profit, while analysts had expected a loss.

The world's biggest lighting maker, Signify NV jumped 4.5 percent after a 62 percent jump in second-quarter net profit, and on plans to pay down 350 milllion euros ($406 million) in debt this year.

Read more here:

Brexit Britain has 'greater liberty' to fight China than EU as row with Beijing escalates - Daily Express