Boris Johnson news live: PM given fresh no-deal Brexit warnings, as No 10 puts full confidence in under-pressure minister – The Independent

PM urged deliver fresh package for tourist industry

Boris Johnson is coming under pressure to deliver a fresh multi-million pound package of support for the tourismindustry with the PM warned the sector is set to suffer three winters in a row because of the pandemic.

A cross-party group of MPs are joining with industry bodies in calling for an extension of chancellor Rishi Sunaks support schemes such as grants, loans and furlough payments for as much as six months to the spring of 2021, when they can expect revenues from bookings to start flowing again.

The tourism industry has specific problems because it operates on a feast and famine basis, with businesses making enough during the spring and summer to see them through the winter, said Lib Dem MP Tim Farron.

Covid-19 came just at the end of the famine, and it closed everything down just as the feast should have been beginning when we get to November when the support schemes have all run out, they are knackered, because the usual summer feast has just been a picnic and you are really in a three-winters-in-a-row scenario.

Read the original post:

Boris Johnson news live: PM given fresh no-deal Brexit warnings, as No 10 puts full confidence in under-pressure minister - The Independent

Boris to take on EU’s Galileo with BETTER system US could join ‘we have an opportunity’ – Express

Boris Johnson is expected to scale back plans for a sovereign satellite system to allow the UK to compete with the EU Galileo system once Brexit is completed. Lord Willets, a board member of the Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, suggested the Prime Minister could take the opportunity to invest in a "better" system that could win over international investors. Speaking to the Today programme, the Conservative peer said: "It looks as if what the Government is now considering doing something different, and I think better.

"It would move ahead into the new technology of small satellites in lower constellations instead of a few bigger satellites locked further up.

"And, at that point, because its a contrast with the existing systems, you find the Americans and others might well like to join in because it adds resilience.

"Its a much stronger signal, its not subject to jamming like the old technology."

The UK had hoped to maintain access to the European Galileo system despite Brexit but Brussels struck down the suggestion citing security concerns after Britain's departure from the bloc.

JUST IN: No chance! Brexit talks in danger of DERAILING as EU makes outrageous demand

Asked about the need for an independent satellite system for the UK, Lord Willetts said: "We happen to have an opportunity.

"It does look as if the world is heading to these new constellations, many more smaller satellites in low-Earth orbit and it so happens one of the worlds main companies in this one web is headquartered in Shepherd's Bush, west London."

According to reports in the FT last week, ministers are seeking to scale down the 5 billion satellite project and have been airing the possibility of using UK satellite operator OneWeb.

The operator pledged to relocate its activities from its current headquarters in Florida to the UK if management secures the support of the British Government.

READ MORE: Piers Morgan's Tory 'vendetta' enrages GMB viewers 'there's been a TERROR attack'

The plans for an independent satellite system had previously attracted the criticism of several MPs, with Tory MP Tobias Ellwood branding the plan as madness.

Mr Ellwood told Express.co.uk earlier this month: With respect to the spheres of influence, the power bases the world is moving towards, you've got the United States, clearly, you've got Europe as a force for good, then you've got east Asia led by China, and Russia fitting in under that umbrella.

"The idea that Europe then fragments into two separate capabilities, going against the grain of NATO, is just madness.

"It's got caught up with the politics of the EU."

DON'T MISS

How Nicola Sturgeon 'descended into chaos' with Scotland-EU claim [INSIGHT]EU fisheries: Dutch fishermen's desperate plea amid Brexit trade talks [ANALYSIS]Brexit outrage: Emmanuel Macron's demand to 'overhaul deal' exposed [INSIGHT]

Mr Ellwood added: "Galileo was an EU project but it was essentially a British project, it was Surrey Satellites and Airbus and now because of the silliness of the Brexit fallout, we are now building a rival system, at huge cost, which we simply can't afford.

"Ultimately security should be above the politics of Europe.

"If you put France and Britain together, we have the military might of the rest of Europe combined."

Mr Ellwood, asked whether he believed a UK system would amount to a vanity project, agreed, adding: "The trouble is with all this, to make these things stand, they need to be commercially viable and the market we are in is already very congested.

"I've asked for it to be reviewed and I've asked for defence to be taken out of the Brexit discussions for this exact reason.

Original post:

Boris to take on EU's Galileo with BETTER system US could join 'we have an opportunity' - Express

France does not rule out a post Brexit no deal with UK, but those who need it most are the British – MercoPress

A senior French official said she could not rule out the European Union's trade talks with departed ex-member Britain ending without a deal though it was in the British interest to reach one.

I am not ruling out anything, Junior European Affairs Minister Amelie de Montchalin told Europe 1 radio, when asked if she could rule out a no-deal Brexit.

Those who need a deal the most are the British. They cannot withstand a second shock after the epidemic. They wouldn't have access to the security net that is Europe, they wouldn't have access to the stimulus fund, she added, alluding to the economic hit to European states caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told visiting French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday that talks on a post-Brexit deal cannot drag on into the autumn.

Montchalin said: We will not yield to this deadline pressure, this final sprint that Britain want to impose on us in the hope we will cave in. We do not want a deal for the sake of having a deal but we want a balanced deal.

Britain left the European Union on Jan 31 but talks on a future relations have so far made little progress. Johnson and EU leaders say a deal is achievable, but both sides say time is running out and the prospect of no-deal remains.

Original post:

France does not rule out a post Brexit no deal with UK, but those who need it most are the British - MercoPress

Brexit revives unionist and nationalist divide in Northern Ireland – The Guardian

Brexit has squeezed the political middle ground in Northern Ireland and pushed more people into their unionist and nationalist trenches.

A post-Brexit opinion poll has found that those in the region deeming themselves neither unionist or nationalist has fallen to 39%. The Northern Ireland Life and Times (NILT) survey revealed that this figure was the lowest in 15 years. As late as 2017, 50% surveyed said they were neither.

The poll of 1,200 people taken from September 2019 to February this year also reveals that more Catholics now describe themselves as nationalist since Brexit. Just under 60% of Catholics in Northern Ireland now categorise themselves as nationalist compared with 50% two years ago.

At the same time, the researchers from Queens University Belfasts Ark project found 67% of Protestants now classified themselves as unionist compared with 55% in 2018.

The Brexit effect however has not created any real sense of existential threat to the union among unionists, according to the NILT.

Among unionists, 62% think a united Ireland is unlikely within the next 20 years. Significantly, 37% of nationalists also think there will not be Irish unity within the next two decades.

The report concludes: we are seeing a retrenchment of identity positions in relation to traditional political allegiances.

Brexit has not dramatically affected unionists thinking, even among those who were pro-EU in the 2016 referendum. While there was a slight increase of 7% among unionists who said dont know to the prospect of a united Ireland, Brexit made no difference to the overwhelming majority of those in favour of remaining British.

Yet all three political categories unionist, nationalist and neither appear to continue to support the devolved institutions at Stormont.

Just under 70% of the population still support the Good Friday agreement and power-sharing government. The poll showed that 35% were happy with the agreement and did not want it changed; 33% were positive about the peace accord but wanted minor changes.

The authors of the report found this robust backing for devolution surprising given that for three years the local assembly was deadlocked with the main parties, Sinn Fin and the Democratic Unionists, unable to form a government.

Despite widespread cross-community anger over the three years of deadlock at Stormont, only 10% of those surveyed said they would like to see the UK parliament in London make all the decisions for Northern Ireland.

Among the overall population, only 30% said a united Ireland was likely within the next 20 years, while 46% said Irish unity was unlikely in the same time frame.

Dr Paula Devine, the co-director of Ark from the school of social sciences, education and social work at Queens, said: From this data, we can see that support for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and the devolved institutions has been maintained among people of all backgrounds.

However, it is striking that 2019 also saw a strengthening of unionist and nationalist identities and growing pressure on the so-called middle ground.

The Ark NILT survey has been running since 1998 and provides an important source of data on how opinions in Northern Ireland have changed over the past 21 years.

Go here to read the rest:

Brexit revives unionist and nationalist divide in Northern Ireland - The Guardian

Post-Brexit and what it means for your intellectual property rights – Intellectual Property – UK – Mondaq News Alerts

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The UK is officially leaving the European Union(EU) after 47 years, but what does this mean foryour intellectual property rights in Europe, such as registeredtrade marks, pending application and designs? We set out a summarybelow outlining the main effects to be cognisant of goingforward.

A transition period has been put in place which allows the UK toremain part of the EU intellectual property system until 31December 2020 (Transition Period). This means thatthe laws governing intellectual property in the EU will continue toapply to the UK for the Transition Period. However, whilst the lawswill continue to be applicable, the UK will have no further say inany European policy or change in legislation.

In summary, whether you have applied directly via the EU, orthrough an international platform, (such as the Madrid protocol)you should be aware of the following implications post 31 December2020:

Until the end of the Transition Period, there will be no changesto EU trade mark applications, design applications, registrationsor proceedings. However, once the Transition Period expires, EUtrade marks will no longer have any effect in the UK.

From 1 January 2021, all registered EU trade marks will beautomatically granted the equivalent rights to those that currentlyexist within the UK, at no charge.

Should you be the registered owner of any existing EU trade markunder the Madrid Protocol (which includes the EU as a relevantdesignation), your marks will also be automatically granted theequivalent UK trade mark rights for the registered period.

It is important to note that any newly registered UK trade markswill require a separate renewal application with the IntellectualProperty office in the UK once expired. Therefore, renewal feeswill become payable in both the EU and the UK.

In order to avoid any negative outcomes, it is essential tocheck all newly registered corresponding UK trade marks to ensurethat the details have been accurately transferred across from theEUTM registration.

Until the end of the Transition Period on 31 December 2020, nochanges are required.

From 1 January 2021, any pending EU trade marks will not beautomatically granted equivalent rights in the UK as per registeredtrade marks. Should you have any pending applications, you willhave the option to register an equivalent UK trade mark within ninemonths from 31 December 2020. If you proceed with this approach,you will have the opportunity to claim priority from the earlierfiling date in Europe.

To avoid potentially missing the nine month cut-off date (being30 September 2021), you may wish to consider filing separatecorresponding UK trade marks now, at the same time as filing any EUtrade marks. This will avoid any risk where your EU trade mark isnot registered before the end of the Transition Period.

Throughout the Transition Period, no changes are required.

Upon expiration of the Transition Period, any .eu domain namesthat are registered in the name of an entity that is not an EUentity (including a UK entity) will be automatically withdrawn.

We recommend changing the registrant details to an EU entitybefore the end of the Transition Period, if practical.

In order to successfully maintain the protection of yourintellectual property, whether it be pending or registered trademarks, designs, or .eu domain names, the following steps arerecommended:

This publication does not deal with every important topic orchange in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitutefor legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader'sspecific circumstances. If you have found this publication ofinterest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advicerelevant to your circumstances please contact one of the namedindividuals listed.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Intellectual Property from UK

Goldman Sloan Nash & Haber LLP

A recent decision of the UK Court of Appeal raises some interesting issues concerning trademark infringement and passing off relating to the sale by the defendant of genuine goods...

Marks & Clerk

The English novel Watership Down has long been subject to criticism from those that consider themes of ecological destruction too dark for children. Yet English writer G.K. Chesterton explained...

Khurana and Khurana

The Patent Box is a special corporate tax regime in which the patent revenues are taxed differently from other commercial revenues. This was first introduced in Ireland in the early 1970s...

J A Kemp LLP

The High Court has issued its decision in the Sky v SkyKick case. The judgment follows the Advocate General's opinion and the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) decision...

See original here:

Post-Brexit and what it means for your intellectual property rights - Intellectual Property - UK - Mondaq News Alerts

Unpopular fund sector trumps UK funds four years on from Brexit vote – Money Observer

European funds are seldom flavour of the month with retail investors, but four years on from the Brexit vote they have notched up eye-catching returns with the average fund in the Investment Associations (IA) Europe ex UK sector up 42.8%.

The sector has comfortably outpaced UK funds, according to research by Chelsea Financial Services, with the IA UK all companies sector up just 14% - over the period of 23 June 2016 to 21 June.

Commenting on the findings, Darius McDermott, managing director of Chelsea Financial Services, says: There has certainly been a mismatch in performance between the UK and Europe over the past four years since the referendum.

"Brexit and the ongoing uncertainty have made the UK unattractive to investors. The concentration of oil and gas, basic materials and financials in our top 100 companies - all 'value' and out of favour areas - has not helped performance either. Even lower down in the mid 250, sector bias has not helped, particularly in recent months as travel, tourism and leisure companies are highly represented.

In contrast, the weak pound against the euro has boosted overseas holdings. Thankfully, a number of well-managed funds have been able to buck the trend.Over the four-year period, the top five European funds are: LF Miton European Opportunities (117.5%), Baillie Gifford European (96.5%), Comgest Growth Europe ex UK (81.6%) and ASI Europe ex UK Equity (80.3%).

While the average UK fund is up just 14% over the period, there have been some strong performers, particularly those that are smaller company specialists. The top five fund performers in the IA UK All Company sector are: TM Cavendish AIM (94.6%), MI Chelverton UK Equity Growth (78.9%), FP Octopus UK Micro Cap (74.6%), Liontrust UK Micro Cap (70%) and TB Amati UK Smaller Companies (64.6%).

European funds, though, rarely top the sales charts. In fact, over the past year the IA European ex UK sector has seen more money withdrawn than invested in every month bar one December 2019.

Professional investors have also been reducing exposure to European funds, includingJohn Chatfeild-Roberts, head of strategy for the Jupiter IndependentFundsteam, and Andrew Bell, chief executive of Witan investment trust.

Ben Yearsley, directorof Shore Financial Planning, notes Europe is being avoided by investors because its seen as stodgy and old-fashioned with lots of moribund sectors - banking for example.

He adds: Europe is not seen as high growth or at the cutting edge of technology, which of course has been driving markets globally. Add in the problems in Europe and Italy, especially with paying for the stimulus measures to do with coronavirus, and it is no wonder investors have shunned Europe. This is despite the fact there are some great managers and companies in Europe.

The rest is here:

Unpopular fund sector trumps UK funds four years on from Brexit vote - Money Observer

Northern Irish firms to be reimbursed for tariffs if Brexit talks fail – Tina Massey

London, UK: The government will reimburse Northern Irish businesses if they are subject to tariffs due to a collapse in Brexit talks, says cabinet minister Michael Gove.

We want to make sure that in the event of there not being a free trade agreement of whatever kind with the EU that we are in a position to indemnify and reimburse companies for tariffs, he told the Northern Ireland affairs select committee.

A special arrangement for Northern Ireland kicks in if there is no Brexit deal, under which EU tariffs are payable on goods circulating within Northern Ireland but with rebates on all goods that do not cross into the Republic of Ireland.

Legislation is needed for the tariff arrangements but this would be put in place before January, Gove told the committee. Business leaders described the move as significant but expressed concern about the lack of detail.

Gove was unable to say whether entry summary declaration forms would be needed for mainland British businesses selling into Northern Ireland. These are currently needed for goods brought into the UK from outside the EU.

Continued here:

Northern Irish firms to be reimbursed for tariffs if Brexit talks fail - Tina Massey

Covid and Brexit the challenges that face new FCA boss Nikhil Rathi – Belfast Telegraph

The new chief regulator of the City will take over at an often criticised organisation with a major new path to chart after Brexit.

ikhil Rathi was unveiled as the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority on Monday.

Mr Rathi will face a battle to only take over the job and leave behind some of the baggage of his predecessor Andrew Bailey.

Mr Bailey, who has gone on to lead the Bank of England since stepping down from the FCA in January, was long a punching bag for many of his critics.

He had made so many enemies during his time in charge of the regulator that campaigners demanded a rethink after Mr Bailey was unveiled as the UKs top banker.

At the time he stepped down, Brexit seemed to be the biggest challenge that Mr Baileys successor would face.

Leaving the EU will create a new political, legal and economic environment for firms and regulators, chairman Charles Randell and interim chief executive Christopher Woolard said in April as they laid out the FCAs business plan for the coming year.

It will now fall to Mr Rathi to fulfil the vision laid out by his new boss to keep the UK at the centre of the global financial markets.

But the economy has changed in ways that no-one could have predicted at the beginning of the year and while Mr Bailey has been forced to take big decisions to prop up the economy, so too Mr Rathis first months will be dominated by the coronavirus pandemic.

The regulator has been forced to put several schemes on hold as it focused all its attention on the mitigating the impact of the outbreak.

The FCA says it has been focused on keeping markets open during the massive economic downturn, ensuring that people still have access to bank services and helping consumers weather the immediate shocks.

The watchdog will also need to look out for unscrupulous people and businesses trying to take advantage of the crisis.

It will need a plan for how to deal with the years-long fallout that is likely to come from Covid-19.

But Mr Rathi will also have to deal with the fallout from some of the skeletons left in Mr Baileys office.

Later this year, former Court of Appeal judge Dame Elizabeth Gloster is set to publish a report into the FCAs handling of London Capital and Finance.

Investors face losing up to 237 million that is trapped in the failed scheme and have attacked the FCA for ignoring repeated warnings.

The FCA was the cause of this collapse because they kept this under wraps, one angry investor told Dame Elizabeth during a meeting in January.

In April, the FCA set out its key priorities for the next three years. They include making faster and more effective decisions, helping retail investors make the right decisions and ensuring that payments are safe and accessible.

PA

Follow this link:

Covid and Brexit the challenges that face new FCA boss Nikhil Rathi - Belfast Telegraph

Brexit risk to waste and resources increasing, says Greener UK – Resource Magazine

The risk posed to the waste and resources sector by Brexit has increased over the last few months, with the UK falling further behind EU standards and ambition, according to Greener UKs latest Brexit Risk Tracker.

Greener UK, a coalition of 13 major environmental organisations co-ordinated by think tank Green Alliance, has been tracking the progress of Brexit and the risk posed to environmental protections since June 2017, with the latest update making for grim reading as the end of the Brexit transition period in December approaches.

Released on Friday (19 June), the Risk Tracker labels the waste and resources sector at high risk over the potential impact of Brexit, with that risk continuing to increase.

It now seems unlikely that any headline targets from the CEP, including a 65 per cent recycling rate by 2035, will be transposed into UK law by the EUs July deadline.

Further consultations on elements of the 2018 Resources and Waste Strategy, including on an EPR scheme for packaging, a deposit return scheme (DRS) for drinks containers and recycling consistency, have been delayed, along with the revision of the 2013 National Waste Prevention Plan, which was due in 2019.

The government has also delayed the introduction of its ban on plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds until October 2020 to allow businesses more time to adjust while the Covid-19 pandemic continues.

The Covid-19 crisis has, of course, complicated matters, causing unprecedented disruption to public life even the passage of the governments landmark Environment Bill has been suspended due to the crisis and is not due to enter committee stage until September.

Greener UKs Risk Tracker states that the risks facing the UKs resources and waste sector are being exacerbated by the pandemic, but that these risks were evident before the coronavirus pandemic.

Nevertheless, Greener UK has found that the Environment Bill has been significantly strengthened by the government, with a new framework for legally-binding targets and the extension of the Office for Environmental Protections (OEP) remit over climate law both introduced. However, the Bill remains delayed and the OEPs board and budget is set to fall under ministerial control, casting doubts over its independence.

While the UK delays, the EU is moving further ahead on waste and resources matters. It has introduced its Single Use Plastics Directive, rejecting calls to delay, while releasing its Circular Economy Action Plan in March, including ambitious measures such as a ban on in-built product obsolescence, introducing the right to repair faulty products and restricting the use of single-use products.

The UKs chemicals sector also remains at high risk, with the UK Government confirming in February that it would not seek associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) or to participate in the EU REACH regulatory framework for chemicals.

Crucially, this could prevent the UK from accessing the ECHAs chemicals database, leaving a UK database essentially empty for two years until companies deliver the required safety data for their chemicals, with the lack of data potentially making it difficult for the UK to implement controls on hazardous chemicals.

Commenting on the Brexit Risk Tracker, Sarah Williams of the Greener UK coalition said: For all the governments good intentions, it has still not committed to maintain our existing high standards in either domestic law or trade negotiations. Without urgent action, it will be harder to enforce environmental laws in January than it is now.

Ministers have promised again and again that our environment will not be compromised. From the food on our plates to the products on our shelves, time is running out to prove it.

You can view Greener UKs latest Brexit Risk Tracker on the Greener UK site.

Read the rest here:

Brexit risk to waste and resources increasing, says Greener UK - Resource Magazine

Unions Warn Trump and Brexit May Smash the Scottish Whisky Industry – Gizmodo UK

The many Scottish whisky makers are teetering awkwardly between two deadly highlands precipices at the moment, according to one key workers' union; to the left, the bottomless chasm of Brexit, and to the right a hole singlehandedly dug by warring US president Trump.

Both menaces could ruin the whisky industry that's done so much to benefit rural communities where every town now has its own little distillery knocking out the golden stuff to various levels of acclaim, with GMB Scotland leader Gary Smith saying: "We are facing the Covid crisis and work paralysis in the hospitality sector, the Trump tariffs and if there is a botched Brexit we could turn the success story of whisky into an absolute disaster in terms of job creation and protection. We need action from the UK Government to get those tariffs removed."

The tariff in question is the addition of a huge25 per cent levy on single malt Scotch whisky exports to the US, ordered into being last October by Trump in some spam-fisted retaliatory spat of fury over EU subsidies handed to Airbus. And Brexit, you may have heard, is the process by which old people get to feel like they're in charge of their decaying lives by not being told what to do by people in authority, even if it means their grandchildren live poorer lives as a result. [Herald]

Image credit: Unsplash

See more here:

Unions Warn Trump and Brexit May Smash the Scottish Whisky Industry - Gizmodo UK

Johnson & Brexit Patronising Etonian Alienates the World Byline Times – Byline Times

The Prime Ministers attempts to show his understanding of Aussies and New Zealanders fell flat this week as have his attempts for post-Brexit trade

While campaigning to become leader of the Conservative Party last year, Boris Johnson made a fascinating and telling remark in an interview with the Spectator that was largely missed at the time.

Brexit, he said, had been informed byloads of people in parts of Oppidan Britain [having] a sense that their lives and their futures werent important.

Before you start reaching for Google, let me explain.

At Eton, Johnson was a Kings Scholar one of the 70 boys who make up the elite within the elite of the most gifted and thus entitled pupils in arguably the most exclusive private school on Earth. Kings Scholars call other boys Oppidans from the Latin word oppidum meaning townie. At other public schools, that derogatory term is used to refer to the local people who dont attend the institution. At Eton, it is used by the academic crme de la crme to describe those who they deem to be intellectually if not socially inferior.

Now of course when Johnson used the word he was not referring to Old Etonian Brexiters. He was using Oppidan in its broader sense to suggest that the Conservative Party had to reach out to the working people of Britain who had voted to leave the European Union. His use of the term is telling because it suggests that our Prime Minister views this 52% and perhaps all of us as little more than townies.

This week, the Prime Minister addressed us Oppidans directly in two films that set out the Governments plans for free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand.

It was classic Johnson. The nation may have lost 42,000 lives to COVID-19 according to the Governments figures and be facing down the real possibility of a catastrophic no deal Brexit. But there is always time for frivolity.

The first broadcast kicked off with Johnson waving a packet of Aussie Tim Tam biscuits while helpfully informing us that we already trade with Australia and even drink their wine. The address was light on detail and big on absurdity. The humorous contempt in which public schoolboys hold townies is as nothing compared to that which they reserve for Antipodeans.

The Prime Minister is an unserious man at the best of times, but in his hands this deal was reduced to a series of crude tropes and caricatures. His reference points conjured up images of a Crocodile Dundee Australia, dotted with lovable idiots in dangly cork hats, drinking VB and tossing shrimps on barbies.

Then he turned to New Zealand and things got even worse. Its exports to the UK included orcs and hobbits and Oyster Bay wine, he said, before claiming that there is so much more that we could do together.

No mention of any detail was made in either video and there was a reason for that.

The Tim Tams and the Orcs were for domestic consumption a desperate attempt to divert from two deals that have all the substance of a packet of fairy cakes.

The Brexiters always claimed that we would only be able to trade with the rest of the world and reconnect with the Commonwealth if we broke free from the clutches of the EU, but it was a lie.

Since 2018, the EU has been negotiating FTAs with both New Zealand and Australia and talks are fairly advanced. By quitting the EU, the UK has removed itself from those negotiations to begin again from a weaker position, further back in the queue.

That presents a massive headache for New Zealand and Australia. Both nations want to prioritise a deal with the much larger EU but now have to go through the unnecessary rigmarole of more negotiations, simply to satisfy Britains imperial vanity.

Johnsons patronising tone and Tim Tam waving wont have helped matters. Twitter users in Australasia, including the veteran New Zealand actor Sam Neill, took offence at the British Prime Ministers condescending tone which seemed to sum up all the very worst excesses of British colonial arrogance.

The Brexit Conservatives are desperate. Desperate for good news and desperate to sell the line that a deal with our old Commonwealth friends is a replacement for our relationship with the EU. Unfortunately, the numbers simply dont add up. However it is spun, there is no equivalence to be made.

Total UK exports to the EU are worth 297 billion a year. Total UK exports to Australia and New Zealand are worth just 6.5 billion. The UK does 10 times more trade with Ireland than it does with New Zealand. And, while all trade is to be welcomed, FTAs dont always benefit both parties equally. In the case of New Zealand, the UK probably wont benefit economically at all. A Government commissioned strategic outline has suggested that, while benefitting the Kiwis, a UK-NZ FTA will have close to zero effect on British GDP and might even make it shrink.

A deal with Australia would fare slightly better, perhaps adding as much as 900 million to the UK economy, in a best-case scenario. That sounds great until one works out that this is an increase of just 0.03% in GDP roughly akin to the turnover of Harrods department store in Knightsbridge.

There is anyway little appetite for increased trade with the UK in either Australia or New Zealand. Both nations now see their destiny in trade with east Asian nations and the EU FTA promises to open up a far larger market than anything the UK can offer. The Ladybird libertarians who set out the case for Brexit were so busy staring at their navels and dreaming of Cecil Rhodes statues that they forgot to ask the members of the Commonwealth if they were on board with the whole Empire 2.0 plan. And they clearly are not.

Brexit was always based on shoddy economics and sold by a wealthy elite to people who didnt understand numbers. None of it or any of these deals are rooted in logic or even common sense. But, as Boris Johnson flies about the world in his Brexit jet surveying the Oppidans beneath him, one has to wonder if he really gives a f*ck. Hes head boy now and thats all that matters.

Read more from the original source:

Johnson & Brexit Patronising Etonian Alienates the World Byline Times - Byline Times

With Brexit Trade Talks at an Impasse, Boris Johnson Finally Engages – The New York Times

BRUSSELS Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, in his first direct talks with Brussels about Brexit since his country left the European Union at the end of January, agreed with European leaders on Monday to push ahead with intensified talks in July and August to try to reach a trade deal by the end of the year.

Mr. Johnsons remarks came in a videoconference with the unions three presidents Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission, Charles Michel of the European Council and David Sassoli of the European Parliament.

In a brief joint statement after the videoconference, the two sides praised their negotiators but agreed nevertheless that new momentum was required.

With negotiations at an impasse, both sides agreed to intensify the talks this summer, with the aim of concluding and ratifying a deal before the end of 2020, the statement said, including, if possible, finding an early understanding on the principles underlying any agreement.

Speaking later in London, Mr. Johnson said, I dont think were actually that far apart, but what we need now is to see a bit of oomph in the negotiations.

The faster we can do this, the better, and we see no reason why you shouldnt get this done in July, Mr. Johnson added. I certainly dont want to see it going on until the autumn, winter, as I think perhaps in Brussels they would like. I dont see any point in that, so lets get it done.

Britain has legally left the European Union, but both sides agreed on a transition period until at least the end of this year, so nothing has fundamentally changed. The idea was to give time for both sides to negotiate their future relationship, with the possibility of an extension to the talks. But Mr. Johnson, eager to fulfill his Brexit promises and to stop paying into the European Union budget, has ruled out any extension.

With both sides concentrating on how to manage the coronavirus pandemic, talks so far have been slow to progress. Heightened and even angry rhetoric from the chief negotiators David Frost for London and Michel Barnier for Brussels has contrasted to what officials on both sides describe as polite and professional staff-level talks involving as many as 150 people on each side.

Mr. Barnier said last week that there had been no significant areas of progress at the last negotiating round. Mr. Frost said that progress remains limited, with negotiators reaching the limits of what could be achieved in formal talks.

Without key political decisions, the talks after four rounds were faltering. Mr. Johnson and Ms. von der Leyen have agreed on an accelerated series of negotiations to run through July and part of August. Both sides say that any agreement must be made before the end of October, to allow the British and all the European parliaments to ratify the deal and for both sides to prepare.

But that is not much time, and some believe that faced with the prospect of no deal, some form of modest extension could be arranged if the two sides were close to an agreement.

The two sides have adopted a posture of being open to an outcome with no deal, rather than to make too many concessions. Both want an agreement though, because the economic disruption of a brutal break would be significant.

Given comparable size and the flow of goods, it would probably be worse for Britain, which sends more than 40 percent of its exports to the European Union and gets more than 50 percent of its imports from the bloc. But the pain would be felt on the continent as well.

The remaining roadblocks to a deal are significant, both political and economic. Europe wants a comprehensive agreement, as suggested in the nonbinding political declaration both sides signed as part of the withdrawal agreement. Britain, especially with time so short, wants a more modest free trade agreement, with side deals to handle issues like fishing, which has a larger political than economic importance for both sides.

There is a fundamental disagreement on governance, with Europe regarding the European Court of Justice as its ultimate authority and Britain saying that its Parliament and courts must remain supreme. So how future disagreements would be adjudicated or arbitrated remains a serious area for dispute.

Brussels and Mr. Barnier insist on preserving the coherence and integrity of the European Unions single market. To ensure that, they want an agreement on what has been called a level playing field, to prevent Britain from loosening its regulations and lowering its taxes to make European goods less competitive.

British officials say that their regulations are now the same or even tougher than those of Brussels, so its good intentions should be assurance enough. In any case, they add, any of its goods entering the European market must meet European standards.

Britain would like access with zero quotas and zero tariffs. But that, Brussels says, would require a legally binding agreement to keep to the regulations of the single market the level playing field.

But in a February document outlining Britains red lines, the government said that, we will not agree to any obligations for our laws to be aligned with the E.U.s. Instead, Mr. Johnson proposed some kind of independent monitoring system, perhaps arbitration.

Brussels also wants commitments on state aid and subsidies to British companies, so that they do not undercut European ones.

Brussels says that without a deal on fishing and on competition rules, there can be no deal at all.

On the one hand, the British complain, the Europeans say that Britain is a smaller economy and needs to be realistic, and on the other, that Britain is a serious economic threat. By that logic, Europe would have difficulty with any relatively large economy close to its borders.

And it is absurd, the British say, for an independent country to promise to mirror Brussels rules forever, or to pretend that fishing quotas should not change over time, given that fish move and fish stocks change.

But the Europeans complain that Britain wants to cherry pick bits of previous trade deals with countries that are not comparable, like South Korea or Canada, given their geographical separation.

Stefaan De Rynck, a senior adviser to Mr. Barnier, said last month that the U.K. will always be special to us, but it is also right next door, and proximity matters in trade. Every deal is custom-made, he said. The U.K. cant say I want a little bit of South Korea, a little of Mexico, Canada and Japan on the side.

Brussels also complains that Mr. Johnson is backtracking on the existing agreement governing the island of Ireland to ensure that the land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic now the border between the United Kingdom and the European Union remains as open as it is now. While the deal allows European officials to be present during checks at Northern Irish ports and airports, Britain has objected to those officials keeping an office in Belfast.

Neither side is really ready for what will be in the end a hard Brexit, let alone a no-deal Brexit, said Fabian Zuleeg, head of the European Policy Center, a think tank in Brussels. As an indication that Britain wants to avoid too much disruption, the government announced last week that full border controls on goods entering from the European Union would not apply until at least July 2021.

That approach will allow most importers of standard goods up to six months to complete customs declarations and to pay tariffs, if any apply. The announcement was praised by British trade associations, because it would reduce the expected backlog at British ports.

The European Union, however, has said that in the case of a no deal, it would apply complete customs and tariff controls from Jan. 1 of next year. That would most likely mean extended delays on the European side.

Link:

With Brexit Trade Talks at an Impasse, Boris Johnson Finally Engages - The New York Times

Its official: U.K. wont require an extension of Brexit talks, even as negotiations with EU hit gridlock – MarketWatch

The U.K. reiterated Friday, two weeks before the expiration of a deadline upon which it had to make its intentions clear, that it would not seek an extension of the current extension period that binds the country to the European Union until Dec. 31.

We have informed the EU today that we will not extend the transition period, U.K. Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove tweeted. The moment for extension has now passed.

The government separately said that it would delay implementing full-scale border controls for goods entering Great Britain from Europe, originally scheduled to start Jan. 1, until July. Controls will instead be gradually introduced in three phases in January, April and July to take into account the pressures on businesses triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The U.K.s final decision not to request an extension is in line with the consistent position of the prime minister, Boris Johnson, who had Parliament translate his electoral promise into law last year after the December general election.

The U.K. legally left the EU on Jan. 31 but has been since then in a transition period with the same rights and obligations of any member state save for a presence in institutions where decisions are being made.

Before Goves announcement, the Welsh and Scottish first ministers had written to Johnson demanding an extension, which the European Union has said it is open to.

Opinion: No-deal Brexit raises its ugly head again

The EU and U.K. are currently negotiating a treaty on their future relationship, with talks seemingly at a dead end. Major disagreements persist on future access to the U.K.s fishing waters and on the level playing field requested by EU negotiators in areas such as state aid, competition law, and labor and environmental regulations.

The U.K. separately began negotiating a free-trade agreement with the U.S. on May 5.

Chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier wrote in May to indicate that the European Union was open to extending negotiations, but said on Twitter on Friday that the commission took note of U.K.s decision not to extend.

To give every chance to the negotiations, we agreed to intensify talks in the next weeks and months, he added.

Read:Pound slips as lead U.K. negotiator says little progress made in Brexit talks

Fridays announcement increases the likelihood of the transition period ending with a no-deal Brexit, meaning an exit from the European Union without an agreement in place.

By ruling out any extension decision now, the U.K. is basically saying that transition ends this year, Michael Dougan, professor of European law at the University of Liverpool, told MarketWatch.

The chances of reaching a meaningful deal, ready to enter into force by 1 January 2021, appear very slim, i.e. given the fundamental differences between the EU and U.K. positions and bearing in mind the unprecedented nature of the task at hand as well as the time scale available, he said.

Johnson is expected to meet European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other EU leaders on Monday to discuss the disagreements and try to jump-start Brexit talks.

View original post here:

Its official: U.K. wont require an extension of Brexit talks, even as negotiations with EU hit gridlock - MarketWatch

Brexit victory: Macron WILL cave to UK fishing stance by autumn – but there is a catch – Express

King's College London Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs and Director of UK in a Changing Europe, Anand Menon, predicted a potential Brexit breakthrough. During an interview with Express.co.uk, Mr Menon noted the UK could see France's President Emmanuel Macron drop his demands regarding access to UK fishing waters. Mr Menon added this could happen as soon as the autumn time as pressure grows for the EU the closer to the end of the transition period both sides get.

However, the European politics expert claimed Britain may have to compromise on other issues like trade standards.

Mr Menon insisted a compromise from both Britain and the EU was needed to ensure a trade agreement could be reached.

He said: "If we are going to get a deal then by the time we get into the autumn political leaders on both sides are going to have to make some trade-offs.

"It might be that the French will say they will ask less about fish.

DON'T MISS:Brexiteers were right! -Boris' 'plan B' could see UK triumph says Tice

"It may be the British side saying we are going to accept some minimum standards from the EU.

"Unless there is some ground given it looks like there won't be an agreement."

Mr Menon explained the difficulty in predicting whether a trade deal would eventually be reached at this stage.

He said: "In order for there to be a Brexit deal, one or both sides of the negotiations are going to have to give ground.

"What we don't know yet is whether either side is willing to give ground.

"I think one of the things about the Brexit trade talks to date is because of COVID-19 the political leaders on both sides have not been engaging in the Brexit talks.

"Remember, on the UK side the negotiations are being solely carried out by a special adviser, there is no direct political involvement."

Mr Menon also explained tensions were rising in the EU camp as Brexit trade talks intensify.

READ MORE:

Boris' Brexit plane plan defended by Mike Parry 'Investment needed!'[VIDEO]Merkel could inspire last-gasp deal VDL said she would never walk[INSIGHT]Brexiteers were right! -Boris' 'plan B' could see UK triumph says Tice[EXCLUSIVE]

Mr Menon claimed chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier was growing frustrated with the member state leaders.

He insisted that Mr Barnier was asking for more leeway from member states on demands in hopes of more smoothly moving talks along with the UK.

Contrary to Mr Barnier's hopes and wishes after speaking to leaders, some were tightening their mandate ultimately making the Brexit trade talks more difficult for Mr Barnier.

Read this article:

Brexit victory: Macron WILL cave to UK fishing stance by autumn - but there is a catch - Express

After Brexit: Will the U.S.-UK Deal Get Tariffs Down to Zero? – Yahoo News

Click here to read the full article.

U.S.-UK trade talks are in progress, although conducting them over Zoom or Skype (or however they are doing it), rather than in person, is likely to slow things down. At aHouse Ways and Means Committee hearing yesterday, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizerindicatedthat these talks were unlikely to be completed this year.

Nevertheless, these are real, substantive talks, and its worth paying attention. When it gets done, what kind of trade deal will this be exactly? Some of the Trump administrations early trade renegotiations (NAFTA, the KoreaUS FTA) added more protectionism than liberalization, and its completed negotiations (with Japan and China) did not liberalize very much. What would aU.S.-UK trade agreement do?

One of the strongest protrade voices in Congress, Senator Pat Toomey, tried to get at this point in aSenate Finance Committeehearingwith Lighthizer yesterday (he had abusy day!). In particular, Senator Toomey want to know the degree to which tariffs would be cut in aU.S.-UK FTA. Heres what he asked (1:18:40of the video):

Id like to get alittle bit better understanding of your plans and your goals with the US/UK freetrade agreement, which as you know Im enthusiastic about. Id like to betterunderstand what your goal is, what youd like to see as the outcome.What would be the ideal arrangement? Ithink Iheard you say that were not likely to get to zero tariffs on everything, and Iwonder is that just apractical reality, given the inevitable reluctance on the part of the UK to give up tariffs on certain things, or do you go in with the goal of not having zero tariffs on certain things, and if so which are those things. Id just like to get abetter understanding of how youre approaching this agreement and what you would like to get out of it.

When you hear references to free trade agreements, you might think that means all tariffs are eliminated. In reality, while NAFTA got pretty close to zero tariffs, most trade agreements actually leave many tariffs in place. Senator Toomey made reference to practical reality here, and he is certainly right about how things tend to work. But Iliked how he also said this: do you go in with the goal of not having zero tariffs on certain things. With the Trump administration and its negotiating record, that is definitely worth asking.

Story continues

Heres how Lighthizer responded:

In terms of the goal on the US-UK, from our point of view we want an agreement that goes across all sectors thats as high astandard as one can have. Do Ithink well go to zero tariffs, no, Idont, andwill Isupport zero tariffs in all areas, no Iwont either. For example, Ithink were going to find agricultural areas, and there are sensitive areas in both our economies. The secret is to have as much, be open and free as we can, given the political circumstances in each country. And Ithink that alot of the fight is going to be over SPS issues and things like that, the kinds of stuff where you and Icompletely agree.

In asense, Lighthizers answer is correct and simply acknowledges political realities. At the same time, Im fairly confident that if Senator Toomey were leading atrade negotiation, he would be pushing for both sides to lower their tariffs as much as possible, and we would get pretty close to zero. As they say, personnel is policy, in trade policy just like everywhere else.

This article by Simon Lester firstappearedinCATOon June 18, 2020.

Image: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Britain's Prime MinisterBorisJohnsongreet U.S. PresidentDonaldTrumpat the annual NATO heads of government summit at the Grove hotel in Watford, Britain December 4, 2019. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls/Pool

.

Click here to read the full article.

View post:

After Brexit: Will the U.S.-UK Deal Get Tariffs Down to Zero? - Yahoo News

Brexit and coronavirus are stoking the fires of Welsh nationalism – The New European

PUBLISHED: 21:00 20 June 2020

Matt Withers

Brexit and coronavirus is making the the Welsh think twice about their membership of Britain. The feeling has been welcomed by Plaid Cyrmu leader Adam Price (left). Photo: Archant

Archant

Adam Price, leader of Plaid Cymru, talks to MATT WITHERS about his partys long march to independence and how recent catalysts mean its aim of a referendum by 2030 is a realistic prospect

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.

It is a sign of the ignorance of devolution in both much of the media and the higher echelons of the UK government that it has taken a global pandemic for people to realise it means different nations not only being able to do their own things but actually doing them. Its something that Adam Price, the leader of Plaid Cymru, muses on as we speak via Zoom from the Carmarthenshire home where he has been in lockdown for longer than most, his son having shown signs of symptoms in mid-March (all are well).

The 51-year-old hopes to lead his party to victory in next years elections to the Senedd and lead a Welsh government which a surprising amount of Conservative commentators appeared largely ignorant of until its approach to lockdown diverged from that of Boris Johnson.

Never in the last 21 years, post-devolution, have we ever seen such a high level of awareness of the fact that we have, you know, four different health ministers in the UK, says Price, leader of the Welsh nationalist party since 2018.

Were even starting to hear the phrase the English government or the English health secretary. So that really is a huge change.

Even within Wales, because we have a weaker media landscape in Wales in terms of home-grown newspapers etc, I think the fact that theres been daily press conferences by the Welsh government and the fact that there are distinctive policies mean that even in Wales theres a greater awareness of the significance and the reach of the national government of Wales than weve ever had in the last 21 years.

I think its OK to look for positives even in the most challenging of times. So I think that is certainly one of them.

Polls have shown people in Wales think the Labour-led Welsh government has handled the crisis better than the Westminster government. Plaid was initially critical of first minister Mark Drakefords approach, but have been more supportive since it started to differ from Johnsons.

I think that the early stage of the crisis, the Welsh government tended to follow the similar policy decisions to the Westminster government, says Price, whose pre-political career was in business.

And I think that during that phase the Westminster government were making a lot of mistakes and the Welsh government, in aligning themselves very, very closely this sort of four-nation approach that was talked about were inevitably then making the same mistakes.

The more that theyve been prepared to show their independence of mind, if you like, then the more theyve been backed by the public in Wales. So when they have shown that kind of independence of mind weve backed them and not only have we backed them but theyve been backed by the Welsh public as well.

He thinks there is no chance of things returning to normal post-pandemic. The so-called Overton window the breadth of policies acceptable to the mainstream having shifted. State intervention at a vast scale, but also, I think, an acceptance more generally of a central and positive role for the government in shaping economic policy and industrial policy and the rest of it.

And yet Wales, to many peoples surprise, voted for Brexit. A country which benefited disproportionately from EU structural funds, and which commentators saw as sharing Scotlands broad pro-Europeanism, voted to leave by 52.5% to 47.5%. Quick question then, Adam why?

God, yes, he sighs. There isnt a single answer to that and there are probably as many answers to that as there were people who voted to leave the European Union. And I wouldnt presume to speak on their behalf.

But, you know, in that mix of motivations and reasons there has been somewhere, certainly, that feeling of economic and political neglect that many people felt particularly in post-industrial communities like the former coalfield of south Wales but also some of the rural areas as well that have felt a similar sense of political detachment and economic decline.

So in that context for many people Brexit will have seemed like a change project, and obviously my fear is on the record that that change will end up not being a very positive one for many people in those very same communities. He wants a pragmatic and common-sense extension to the transition period.

We talk about the state of Welsh politics. As a correspondent based in the Senedd a decade ago I would occasionally rage against the chumminess of it, with four political parties all broadly social democratic (arguably even the Welsh Tories then) and whose members drank together at Cardiff Bays Eli Jenkins pub every evening. But friends still there tell me, I say, that its now as ugly and rancorous as everywhere else.

Price an MP from 2001 to 2010 says: There has been, since that time, a greater ideological divergence, certainly within the Senedd. Obviously [the] Brexit [Party] and whats left of UKIP are out on their own, really, but there has also been, I think, a shift in the Conservative Partys politics in the Senedd reflecting developments in the Conservative Party more generally.

I think its important to have genuine political diversity in any country, I think thats a good thing. You wouldnt want a collaborative political culture which I think is a positive, I think the ability to engage with each other, you know, civilly and have a fruitful dialogue I think is a good thing but you dont want that to turn into some kind of soggy centre where theres no critical challenge whatsoever.

So I think it is possible to have both a civil political culture but on the other hand to provide people with real political choices as well.

Second quickfire question, then: why has the desire for Welsh independence so lagged behind that of Scotland?

Its a great question and the subject of a good PhD thesis, says Price.

Go to the fact that Scotland, of course, even after its Act of Union of 1707 retained many of the other key institutions of Scottish society. An entirely separate education system, an entirely separate legal system. So many of those trappings of statehood, if you like, continued in Scotland, whereas in Wales the last vestiges that remained in 1536 were got rid of, by and large.

Wales is an ancient country but a very new nation, in a political sense. The Welsh state is only 20 years old. The confidence in Welsh political statehood, if you like, is going to be lower and that reflects itself in the support for independence.

Its easier to conceive of an independent Scotland because all these other institutions already exist, whereas in Wales we werent starting from scratch but we were starting at a lower level of peoples kind of understanding or belief in our ability to do things for ourselves in a whole variety of different arenas.

Yet earlier this month a Welsh Barometer poll showed the highest-ever level of support for independence, at 25%. Something is stirring. Price, ironically, thinks Brexit here was a catalyst, that asking people if they want an independent Wales within the EU produces an even bigger score.

Yet anecdotally, and not altogether surprisingly, the handling of the coronavirus crisis has also, in a way, become a national question with, Price says, people looking at the two institutions and despairing of Westminster.

It is interesting, at least in social media what people say themselves. You have a lot of people saying I never supported independence before but I am now, you know?, he says. People are on that journey.

What you get as well is the classic line from the last few years theyll use different words, but people say Im not a nationalist, Ive never regarded myself as a nationalist, but. And theres a but. But Im now supporting independence or Im indy-curious or Im interested, you know?

Theres almost like a sense of surprise at their own journey, and that shows me that this is deep and this is real. This is beyond ordinary politics in some ways, this is something that people are discussing amongst themselves.

Wales is now where Scotland was 10 years ago, he says. Plaids stated aim is for a referendum by 2030. And these are strange times.

Im in the fortunate position compared to other Plaid Cymru leaders that, actually, independence now is more popular than Plaid Cymru, says Price. If you look at it in pure electoral terms then actually, you know, if everyone who supported independence now voted Plaid Cymru then I would become the first minister. That hasnt been true in the past.

It says much of Plaids journey that a party with its origins in a socially conservative Welsh-language pressure group has the first openly gay male leader of a UK political party and it is barely remarked on (Here I am, leader of Plaid Cymru, Im a gay dad, he says. These things are part of the diversity of experience in modern Wales).

And yet, speaking as we are, amid recent protests against racism, including in Cardiff and Swansea, those self-same roots mean that Plaid has, he admits,got to do a lot more to reflect modern Wales.

Its something Im very keen on involving and giving a leadership role for our Plaid Cymru BAME section on, because obviously they can speak far more compellingly from their own experiences as members of the BAME community in Wales.

I think that if we as a party want to be the party of Wales then we have to be the party of all of Wales and Wales in all its diversity.

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.

View original post here:

Brexit and coronavirus are stoking the fires of Welsh nationalism - The New European

Covid-19 and Brexit: Contrasting sectoral impacts on the UK | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal – voxeu.org

As the world economy experiences its biggest downturn for a century (Gopinath 2020), it is widely agreed that the policy response to Covid-19 must be decisive and coordinated (Baldwin and Weder di Mauro 2020). Meanwhile, in the UK, where 50% of companies reported a fall in business in April 2020 relative to the past three months, the government continues to negotiate its exit from the EU its biggest trading partner aiming to complete the transition by the end of the year.

Both Covid-19 and Brexit will have a profound impact on economic activity in the UK, but there may be big differences in terms of which sectors they affect. In this column, we show new evidence that the sectors that have been initially most negatively affected by Covid-19 are generally different to those that are affected more by Brexit (De Lyon and Dhingra 2020).

To measure the effects of Covid-19, we use firm-level survey data for April 2020 made available to us through the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). We aggregate this to the sector level to compare with measures of the economic effects of Brexit across UK sectors taken from previous work.

Table 1 shows that there is a negative, if any, correlation between changes in business volumes in April 2020 and the ongoing and expected impacts of Brexit as captured by three different measures. This means that generally the sectors hit by Covid-19 in the first month of lockdown have been different to those expected to be affected by Brexit. This is true regardless of which Brexit measure is used, despite each varying in the time period covered and nature of the specific effect caused by Brexit.

The first of the Brexit measures captures each industrys exposure to the sharp depreciation in the value of the pound on the night of the EU referendum in June 2016. The world trading system has developed over recent decades so that now the majority of world trade is in intermediate goods and services that are used as inputs into production by businesses. Therefore, the devaluation of the pound meant that companies with a high share of imported inputs faced increasing costs to production (Costa et al. 2019). This measure therefore captures effects of Brexit that occurred immediately following the referendum.

The second measure Brexit uncertainty captures business responses to the Decision Maker Panel conducted by the Bank of England concerning uncertainty due to Brexit and the ongoing negotiations in the period following the referendum (Bloom et al. 2019). This measure is contemporary and broad, although it is restricted to highly aggregated industry categories.

The third measure is the outcome of a state-of-the-art trade model and captures the predicted long-term impact of the expected trade relationship between the UK and EU after Brexit (Dhingra et al. 2017). It ignores adjustment effects and focuses only on trade omitting other factors such as foreign investment and migration. It is similar in nature to the governments own economic model but, crucially, contains more detailed industry predictions, allowing for a more thorough comparison with the effects of Covid across sectors.

Table 1 Correlation coefficients for changes in business volume in April with three measures of the current and future effects of Brexit

Notes: The net change in volume of business is the percentage of businesses reporting an increase in volumes in April 2020 relative to the past three months minus the percentage reporting a decrease. The measure is then de-trended by subtracting the corresponding measure for 2019 to account for pre-existing trends. Responses are weighted by firm-size according to employment. We correlate this variable with three measures of Brexit effects. First is the intermediate import value-weighted measure of depreciation on the night of the referendum (Costa et al. 2020). Second is the long-term industry-level forecast of the CEP trade model (Dhingra et al. 2017) and third is the measure of Brexit uncertainty reported by firms (Bloom et al. 2019). Correlations are weighted by industry size and use the relative rankings of each industry. In all cases but one, the weighting and de-trending of the Covid measure does not affect the sign of the correlation.

To explore these cross-industry correlations in detail, Table 2 presents the full ranking of industries according to how positively (top) or negatively (bottom) they have been performing in April 2020 relative to the past three months and their trend of business volumes a year before. We colour each row according to the predicted long-term effect of Brexit with green being the least negatively (or positively) affected sectors and red being most negatively affected with blue being those in between.

One obvious difference that emerges from the list is that Covid has hit hard domestic services such as recreation, hotels and restaurants, which are a large employer in any developed economy, while these are less likely to be directly affected by Brexit policy except through knock-on changes in demand and labour services. Most manufacturing sectors and transport have been less negatively affected, although again there are exceptions within these sectors. The table highlights the double impact that Brexit and Covid can have on the economy. Sectors that have not yet been hit by the lockdown are generally expected to be hit negatively by Brexit.

Table 2 Change in business volume in April and predicted effect of Brexit by industry

Notes: Industries are ranked in terms of net increase in business volume in April 2020 (see notes of Figure 1 for details on this variable). The rows are shaded according to the predicted long-term effect of Brexit (Dhingra et al, 2017): green for top, blue for middle, and red for most negatively affected. Sectors with fewer than 5 businesses in the data in April 2020 are omitted. Industries are ranked from least negatively affected (1) to most negatively affected (20).

In many ways, this is not surprising. The rapid spread of Covid-19 has caused countries across the world to enter lockdown. This has had a huge impact on the functioning of economies on both the demand and supply sides (del Rio-Chanona et al. 2020). Some sectors, such as in-person services, have ceased completely while others, like distribution and some manufacturing, have needed to step in to meet urgent needs arising from the pandemic.

Brexit, on the other hand, will mainly affect the UK economy and will introduce new barriers to trade, migration, and investment with the EU, and a change in its relationship with other countries outside the EU (Baldwin 2016). Tariff and non-tariff barriers that may arise in sectors like automotive, food and professional and financial services could significantly affect the structure and size of the UK economy in the long run, as well as create costly short-term adjustments.

Our analysis highlights the importance of granular economic analysis during these extraordinary times.

As early as 2017, the government had announced that Brexit negotiations would be guided by granular impact assessments across sectors. Sound impact assessments are crucial for good policy design and this is what the government had rightly put forward. Yet the most detailed quantitative impact analysis available from the government to date gives details for just ten broad sector categories.

For example, all of services is split into just three categories. This makes the evidence too scant to adequately guide policymaking and it isnt a surprise that the new policies that the government has announced in its Brexit plans, such as the tariff schedule published recently, have little justification on why certain policy objectives have been chosen.

The changed circumstances due the pandemic make the need for detailed sectoral analysis even more important. It is clear that some sectors are going to see a reduction in market access after the UKs exit from the EU. While they may have withstood a bit of a setback in trade with the EU, a much harder hit at a time of a national and a global slowdown may push them towards being unviable. The current conditions in these industries will be useful in drawing up Brexit plans that are informed by existing circumstances.

The large negative hit from the pandemic has reduced the capacity of the UK economy to take further shocks. The UK is highly integrated with Europe and these linkages are likely to be even more important throughout the pandemic (Baldwin and Freeman 2020). The slowdown of the world economy has also cast another shadow on the idea of a global Britain making up for reductions in EU market access by pursuing opportunities outside the EU.

Our analysis shows that the sectors that will be affected by Brexit and those that are suffering from the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown are generally different from each other. Rushing Brexit through this year without a new deal in place would therefore broaden the set of sectors that see worsening business conditions.

The EUs Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has suggested that an extension to the transition period would be possible. The UK Government should think carefully about its policy priorities now; adding Brexit to the table only increases the importance of getting these policies right. Beyond the economics, the EU offers opportunities to help deal with the spread and response to the virus, such as the large-scale scheme to obtain personal protective equipment, which the UK reportedly missed the opportunity to join on three occasions.

As the Covid impacts continue to become clearer over time, the government must move beyond its broad assessment of Brexit impacts to much more finely tuned plans that account for the differences in market conditions and constraints faced by UK businesses in the biggest slowdown of our lifetime.

Authors note: The views expressed in this column are those of its authors and not those of the CBI.

Baldwin, R (2016), Brexit Beckons: Thinking ahead by leading economists, a VoxEU.org eBook, CEPR Press.

Baldwin, R and R Freeman (2020), Trade conflict in the age of Covid-19, VoxEU.org, 22 May.

Baldwin, R and B Weder di Mauro (2020), Introduction, in Mitigating the COVID Economic Crisis: Act Fast and Do Whatever It Takes, a VoxEU.org eBook, CEPR Press.

Bloom, N, P Bunn, S Chen, P Mizen, P Smietanka and G Thwaites (2019), The Impact of Brexit on UK Firms, NBER Working Paper 26218.

Costa, R, S Dhingra and S Machin (2020), Trade and Worker Deskilling: Evidence from the Brexit Vote, CEP Discussion Paper.

De Lyon, J and S Dhingra (2020), How is Covid-19 affecting businesses in the UK?, LSE Business Review, 7 May.

del Rio-Chanona, R M, P Mealy, A Pichler, F Lafond and F Doyne (2020), Predicting the supply and demand shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic: An industry and occupation perspective, VoxEU.org, 16 May.

Dhingra, S, H Huang, G Ottaviano, J P Pessoa, T Sampson and J Van Reenen (2017), The costs and benefits of leaving the EU: trade effects, Economic Policy 32(92): 651705.

Gopinath, G (2020), The Great Lockdown: Worst Economic Downturn Since the Great Depression, IMG blog, 14 April.

More here:

Covid-19 and Brexit: Contrasting sectoral impacts on the UK | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal - voxeu.org

EU FURY: Macron unleashes new Brexit threat in bid to force through 750billion bailout – Express.co.uk

The French President is said to have claimed failure to reach a quick agreement over the blocs pandemic rescue fund could see talks complicated by trade negotiations with Britain. He added that market sensitives required EU leaders to accelerate the process towards a face-to-face showdown next month. Brussels sources said the Frenchman said the fund must include at least 500 billion in grants made available to pandemic-stricken industries and regions.

Mr Macron's efforts to broker a deal were echoed by Angela Merkel, who warned EU leaders that they face the worst recession since the Second World War.

The German Chancellor is said to have expressed concern that her EU colleagues hadnt yet come to terms with the grave situation they find themselves in.

Sources said the veteran leader said the EU faces very, very difficult times in the coming months, and should have the recovery fund in place by the summer.

She added that leaders must organise an in-person summit as soon as possible.

Ahead of the video summit, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pleaded with EU leaders to back her recovery plans.

She said: This proposal is ambitious and it is balanced.

Im convinced that for common success, we must stay focused on the big picture. We must all pull together, we cannot afford any delay.

Under the Germans blueprint, eurocrats will borrow 500 billion on international markets before distributing the money as cash grants to the worst-hit countries, regions and industries.

A further 250 billion will be dished out in the form of low-cost loans.

The fund will leave the blocs taxpayers saddled with the debt burden of the coronavirus recovery, with the borrowing expected to be paid back over the next 38 years.

The Commission also wants to introduce a series of new EU taxes, including a level on single-use plastics, a digital tax or a tax on multinationals, to help foot the bill.

MUST READ:Ursula on der Leyen red-faced as EU summit ends with NO deal

The so-called Frugal Four Austria, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have questioned whether cash should be distributed in loans and not grants.

Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the recovery fund could create a backdoor to a debt union.

He said the proposed recovery fund must not be a backdoor entry into a debt union.

He added: There must be a time limit.

There must also be a discussion about who pays how much, who benefits most and what conditions are attached to aid.

DON'T MISSDesperate Ursula von der Leyen issues final plea to EU[VIDEO]Macron turns on Boris after visit with claim UK desperate for deal[INSIGHT]EU breakdown: MEPs in final bid to win over Frugal Four to save bloc[VIDEO]

In a bid to unlock the talks, Mr Macron suggested he could support cash rebates for the biggest contributors to the EUs long-term budget.

But the French President said he would only back the plan if it is absolutely necessary to get a deal on the recovery plan, according to an EU official.

Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte took aim at the frugal states, insisting the Commission plan is fair and well balanced it would be a serious mistake to fall below the financial resources already indicated.

The combination of loans and grants is also well constructed. This combination will help us make investments and reforms in order to strengthen the convergence and resilience of the whole Union, he added.

At the start of the video conference, European Parliament President David Sassoli the proposed recovery fund only scratches the surface of what needs to be done.

He said MEPs would not support the deal if aid is offered solely in the form of loans.

He added: "Time is a luxury we cannot afford. We need to act urgently and courageously, as EU citizens, businesses and economies need an immediate response. Our citizens expect bold action. Now it is time for us to deliver."

More here:

EU FURY: Macron unleashes new Brexit threat in bid to force through 750billion bailout - Express.co.uk

Brexit news: What would ending the transition period with no deal really mean? – Express.co.uk

The Brexit transition period will not be extended according to Cabinet minister Michael Gove. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said there is a very good chance of getting a trade deal by December. But if a deal cannot be done, what would this mean for the UK after December?

At the end of last year, a No Deal Brexit was a topic of discussion, but now the term has returned to common usage.

The UK formally left the European Union on January 31 and now the country is in a transition period until the end of the year.

This means the UK is still part of the EU single market and the customs union currently, and therefore all the rules and regulations, as well as budget payments, remain the same.

The UK has decided not to take up the option of extending the transition period for one to two years to enable negotiations to continue regarding a future free trade deal.

READ MORE:EU finally admits UK fishing waters 'sovereign'

If negotiations do not lead to an agreed deal by the end of the year, a new version of No Deal would take place.

This would mean trade with the EU would automatically fall back on the basic World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

The WTO is the global body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade.

In total, there are 164 members in the WTO and if they do not have their own free trade agreements with one another, they trade under WTO rules.

Every WTO member has a list of tariffs and quotas which apply to other countries with which they do not have any free trade agreements.

These deals are known as their WTO schedules.

Under WTO rules, cares would be taxed at 10 percent when they cross the UK-EU border after the end of the transition period.

Agricultural tariffs would rise to an average of more than 35 percent for dairy products.

DON'T MISSFly the flag for the UK! Boris Johnsons plan for RAF plane rebrand[INSIGHT]UK fishermen infuriate Dutch with response when entering waters[EXPLAINER]Brexit fury: EU gears up to challenge Gove's Northern Ireland plan[PICTURES]

The Government has published a guide to UK tariffs from January 1, 2021.

The UK Global Tariff (UKGT) will replace the EUs Common External Tariff from January 1 and will apply to all goods imported into the UK unless:

An exception applies, such as a relief or tariff suspension.

The goods come from countries that are part of theGeneralised Scheme of Preferences.

The country youre importing from has a trade agreement with the UK.

It only shows the tariff that will be applied to goods at the border when they are imported into the UK.

It does not cover:

The Government is removing all tariffs below 2.5 percent which it refers to as nuisance tariffs.

In total, 47 percent of all products will have zero tariffs, compared with 28 percent when in the EU.

Among the biggest tariff cuts will be types of preserved mushrooms, which will have their tariffs cut from 18.4 percent to zero and yeast, which will have its tariff cut from up to 14.7 percent to zero.

The following items are having their tariffs to cut from the following current tariff rates to zero:

There are also likely to be non-tariff barriers such as product standards, safety regulations and sanitary checks on food and animals.

The UK and EU will need to find ways to work with each others regulations.

The UK has announced that with or without a deal, checks on EU goods coming into the UK will be phased in the next year to give firms time to adjust.

Non-tariff barriers would have an even greater impact on the service sector, which makes up about 80 percent of the UK economy.

Follow this link:

Brexit news: What would ending the transition period with no deal really mean? - Express.co.uk

Letter: Brexit extension would be a leap in the dark – East London and West Essex Guardian Series

On 23 June it will be four long years since the people of Britain voted to leave the European Union. Yet were not out, instead, were stuck in round after round of negotiations, bogged down in a transition that entrenched interests are seeking to turn into a cul-de-sac.

But matters are coming to a head. If there is to be an extension to the transition, it must be sought and agreed before the end of June. The EU has already said it will agree to one, if we ask for it.

And you can see why they want us to. They need our money, and they need our markets. The European Commission wants member states to agree to its borrowing 750 billion on the currency markets to finance (mostly) a Covid-19 recovery fund to be doled out by the Commission.

In 2018 the last year for which there are final figures Britain had a balance of payments deficit of 66 billion with the EU. (Compare that with a balance of payments surplus with the rest of the world of 77 billion.)

Amid the chaos, the one clear fact is that an extension to the transition period would be a leap in the dark. There is no way that we would or could know what we would be letting ourselves in for.

Potentially, probably, we would be liable for our share of 750 billion of debt. And that on top of all the other uncertainties of remaining under the EUs diktat, paying unknown contributions and being bound by unknown future commitments.

Four years, and still no final agreement. If agreement with the EU were possible, it would have taken place already. No transition extension! Walk away, as we should have done four years ago. Lets get on with the tasks that face us as an independent country at last,

Will Podmore

Clavering Road, Wanstead

Continued here:

Letter: Brexit extension would be a leap in the dark - East London and West Essex Guardian Series