Britain is failing to cope with the Covid-19 epidemic as well as other countries in Europe and East Asia have. Out of 62,000 excess deaths in the UK, says former chief scientific officer Sir David King, 40,000 excess deaths could have been avoided if government had acted responsibly.

The failure is devastating: on a single day this week, 359 people died from coronavirus in the UK more than the number of deaths in all 27 EU countries over the same 24 hours. The UK is starting to exit lockdown while the epidemic has not been brought under control, despite all the economic self-destruction.

Two main reasons explain why the crisis in Britain turned into a calamity. Firstly, the political consequences of Brexit turn out to be more lethal and swift than any potential economic damage. It is now clear that the worst outcome of the turmoil over leaving the EU has been to land Britain with a leadership of spectacular incompetence during one of the worst crises in British history.

Boris Johnson emerges, when he does emerge these days, as the sort of shallow self-promoting buffoon that his critics, including many who know him well, have always said that he was. As his governments failures multiply, his default position is evasion and denial: on the very same day that Britain (population 66 million) outpaced the whole of the EU (population 446 million) in fatalities, Johnson told the House of Commons that he was very proud of what we have achieved.

Much of the time it does not matter much who is nominally running a country with an effective civil service, but this is not one of those times. Judgements crucial to the lives and livelihoods of millions must be made, but at this critical moment, Britain is finding that it is run by a Gilbert-and-Sullivan type administration. The analogy is all too appropriate: Johnson, with his fake-patrician bombast and shady dealings, strongly resembles the Duke of Plaza Toro in The Gondoliers who led his regiment from behind/he found it less exciting. The sinister character and dubious doings of Dominic Cummings strongly recall those of the Grand Inquisitor in the same opera.

Almost everybody outside the government believes that at no point during the epidemic has the government been ahead of the game. It has always lagged behind and frequently headed in the wrong direction. The list of errors is long: underestimating the threat posed by the virus; failure to prepare for it through accelerated procurement; late and inadequate testing and tracing; sending untested Covid-19 carriers into care homes; failing to introduce face masks early on; chaotic preparation for a return to normal life and resumed economic activity. In combination, these mistakes may keep Britain in semi-lockdown for the foreseeable future.

Once, Britain had a reputation for having one of the worlds most astute political classes operating through one of its most effective administrative machines. No longer: the pandemic marks the turning point. Johnson and mediocre ministers have throughout conveyed a frightening sense not of malignancy but of amateurs at work, lightweights baffled by what is happening and unable to learn from experience.

Britain is paying a high price for the whole bizarre Brexit project, not so much because of the undoubted economic damage it will do to the country, but because of the inadequacy of the leaders whom it elevated into power. Anybody who seriously believed that Britains troubles stemmed primarily from membership of the EU was either a crackpot, a careerist or simply misinformed. Though claiming to see a golden future for global Britain, the Brexiters were unashamed Little Englanders, their isolationism neatly expressed in the apocryphal weather forecast, Fog in channel, continent isolated.

From the beginning of the crisis this attitude has hobbled cooperation with other countries or even learning from their experience. The Brexiters instinct to stand proudly alone in defiance of reality presumably explains the decision to impose a 14-day quarantine period on travellers arriving in Britain, where coronavirus is still rife, though they may be coming from countries where it has been largely suppressed. This reminds me of travelling to Russia and Iraq in the 1990s, at a time when the health systems in both countries had collapsed and diseases were spreading unchecked, and finding that all arrivals had to have an Aids test.

The second cause of Britains all too world beating fatality rate, to adopt Johnsons famous boast, is the degree to which the operational capacity of the UK government has withered in recent decades. Ministers make self-confident claims about the delivery of testing, tracing, PPE equipment, an app to prevent the spread of the illness and other initiatives, but nothing happens or delivery is halting and unreliable.

Britain is discovering the hard way how far its administrative machine has been weakened by cuts and outsourcing. Central government has monopolised authority and resources and starved local authorities of both, though they should be on the cutting edge of test and trace. An editorial in the British Medical Journal of which the lead author is a professor of European public health, Martin McKee, succinctly sums up what has happened: A hollowed out civil service has long turned to outsourcing companies, despite their repeated failures. Companies with little relevant experience have struggled to organise viral testing or contact tracing. The task of coordinating activities with existing organisations, such as NHS laboratories or local public health departments, is too complex for their business model.

Testing and tracing are central to the governments bid to contain the epidemic. This is scarcely surprising since Dr John Snow, one of the founders of modern epidemiology, first mapped cholera victims in Soho in London in 1854 in order to identify the origins of a cholera outbreak (it was a water pump producing polluted water). More sophisticated trace and track campaigns have since been used to suppress or contain epidemics. Such detective work needs well trained and experienced interviewers to get total strangers to disclose their movements and contacts. German health officials today credit a well-organised test and trace system for their success in bringing the epidemic under control in Germany by 17 April, just six weeks after the first death there from the virus.

In Britain, the recruitment of 25,000 contact tracers has been partly outsourced, 10,000 of them being recruited by Serco and its subcontractors. Directors of public health only learned on the morning of the announcement that the test and trace effort was being launched four days early. It will now only be fully operational by September or October according to its chief operating officer.

The main explanation of the government is that it, along with all the governments in the world, was surprised by the speed and ferocity of the virus. This excuse might have had some validity in February or even March, but not now. Coronavirus has now killed almost twice as many people as died in the Blitz 32,000 and most of them should still be alive.

See the original post:

The Brexit Crisis Led to Totally Incompetent Leadership at a Time of Unprecedented Calamity. Now We are Paying for It - CounterPunch

PUBLISHED: 13:34 09 June 2020 | UPDATED: 13:41 09 June 2020

Nigel Farage. Photograph: TOLGA AKMEN/AFP/Getty Images.

Archant

The Brexit Party has taken almost 2 million worth of donations in the first quarter of 2020 - despite failing to gain a single seat at the general election weeks before.

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.

Nigel Farages political organisation reported accepting monies worth 1.95 million between January and the end of March, despite celebrating Brexit getting done in January.

Figures released by the Electoral Commission revealed the Conservative Party accepted the highest amount of donations and other public funds in the same time period - receiving 4.04 million.

The 17 political parties registered in Great Britain and Northern Ireland reported accepting a total of 11.79 million during the years first quarter, up from 9.16 million during the same period in 2019.

Labour reported receiving 3.88 million, the Liberal Democrats 1.27 million and the Scottish National Party 418,305.

Louise Edwards, director of regulation at the commission, said: Publishing this data allows voters to see clearly how parties in the United Kingdom are being funded, enhancing public confidence and trust in our democratic processes.

We welcome the fact that many parties have delivered their donation reports to us on time despite the current challenging circumstances caused by Covid-19.

Where parties were unable to meet the deadline for reasons relating to the pandemic, we will continue to work with them to ensure transparency of their donations.

Farage has previously talked about creating of a new organisation - recently issuing a warning he may try to emulate successes of the Brexit Party in the future.

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.

Go here to see the original:

Brexit Party took almost 2 million in donations in first quarter of 2020 - The New European

This article first appeared in The Venezuelan Journal of Legislation and Jurisprudence, May 2020.

Current Dominance

Choosing the seat of arbitration is often a fundamental component of international trade. The importance of this choice was neatly stated by the US Supreme Court in Bremen vs. Zapata Off-Shore Co 407 U.S 1, 13-14 (1972): "the elimination of all such uncertainties by agreeing in advance on a forum acceptable to both parties is an indispensable element in international trade".

The choice of arbitral seat has critical importance in relation to the arbitral procedure that will apply and the availability of court measures to support arbitration and regulate appeals against awards. Commercially astute parties generally want to arbitrate in a place where they know they will receive a fair, impartial and expeditious arbitration with a skilled arbitrator and representatives in a process that will be supported, if necessary by the local courts who also recognise the finality of awards.

London has undoubtedly been the most dominant choice as the seat for international arbitration taking a 45% share of the market, according to a survey done by Queen Mary University of London in 2015. Parties frequently chose to resolve international disputes by London seated arbitrations even where they have no connection to, and where the contract was not made or performed in the United Kingdom.

English law is the most commonly used law in international business and dispute resolution worldwide with 27% of the worlds 320 legal jurisdictions using English common law for the dispute resolution according to the survey. The popularity of London seated arbitration is largely attributable to the prevalence of English law given that the choice of English Law as governing law generally goes hand in hand with the dominant choice of London as the seat.

Reasons for this dominance include:

The Brexit Effect

One of the core features of the Brexit vote was the desire to take back control of UK law and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice of the European Union when the UK leave the European Union the transition period is currently set to end on 31 December 2020. Brexit undoubtedly poses a threat to Londons dominance in the area of international arbitration. While many commentators (particularly those involved in international arbitration in London) contend that Brexit will not impede international arbitration in London and some in fact argue that London may become more popular given the ability of English Courts to revert back to Anti-Suit Injunctions (which the Courts of Justice of the European Union outlawed in Alliance SpA & Others vs. West Tankers Inc. Case C-185/07) and its continued ability to enforce arbitration awards under the New York Convention which they contend will remain unaffected by Brexit.

It is true that Brexit cannot affect the UKs long established laws of contract and tort and its Arbitration Act 1996 which is a beacon of influence on how to attract to international arbitration. Notwithstanding this, Brexit will affect some parties attitude to choosing London as the seat of arbitration. In a recent Thomson Reuters Practical Law survey, 35% of respondents considered that Brexit had affected their approach to the selection of jurisdiction and choice of law clauses (including arbitration). Of the remaining 65%, 39% said that they would review these clauses in their contracts if there was no significant progress on addressing these issues in a Brexit deal. One of the principal reasons for this was a concern over enforcement of court judgments post Brexit.

Close Scrutiny & Enforcement

While the arbitration community in London is confident about its future and indeed has good reasons to maintain that confidence, one area of particular importance which may affect parties choosing London as a seat of arbitration is the ability to enforce the resulting award or related courts orders against the losing party in respect of its assets outside the jurisdiction of the seat of arbitration.

Indeed, the UK Ministry of Justice, in a survey completed in 2015, noted that the enforcement of a Judgment as against the assets of the counterparty was a significant and contributing factor in parties determining to choose English law and the English jurisdiction for dispute resolution. However, upon the UK leaving the European Union, it will suffer a 31% reduction in the number of jurisdictions with whom it has reciprocal enforcement arrangements.

Traditionally, arbitration awards made in the UK have been easily converted into an English Court Judgment pursuant to Section 66(2) Arbitration Act 1996. This Court Order could then be easily enforced in other jurisdictions pursuant to international agreements held by the UK with those other jurisdictions.

Within the European Union, the Recast Brussels Regulation (introduced on 10 January 2015) provides for a very simple, streamlined enforcement procedure whereby a judgment creditor is now only required to present a copy of the Judgment and a Standard Form Certificate issued by the Court which granted the Court Order and it can then begin whatever enforcement measures are available under the local law of the Member State in which it will be automatically recognised and enforceable.

Following completion of the Brexit process, the UK will be unable to rely upon this regime for recognition and enforcement of its Judgments and Orders in other Member States and it is currently not clear whether an equivalent regime can be agreed between the UK and the EU. However, the UK can continue to rely upon the New York Convention for enforcement of the arbitral award. The Convention is subscribed to by 157 States including all 28 European Union Member States.

While this is a viable mechanism for enforcement, there are a number of important considerations and potential shortcomings:

It is conceivable that if the Courts of England and Wales were to resurrect the Anti-Suit Injunction type order in conflict to the Courts of Justice of the European Union in West Tankers, then enforcement of the arbitration award in a Member State of the European Union thereafter, could be refused under the New York Convention on the basis that it is contrary to European Union law.

Similarly, in the event that the arbitral award made in London does not have proper regard for mandatory laws of the European Union in circumstances where they may have produced a different outcome in the case (on the basis that England and Wales will be no longer subject to those laws), then that could also be deemed a reason for refusal to recognise and enforce the resulting arbitral award in a European Union Member State.

In addition, the English Courts have broad powers in support of arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996 in terms of facilitating the appointment of an arbitral tribunal, ordering interim measures such as injunctive relief, hearing challenges to the validity of any award and upholding the finality of an award. How far such court orders in support of arbitration will be enforceable in other Member States and beyond remains to be seen and will depend upon the arrangements agreed after Brexit. Certainly, in the event that such orders are in conflict with provisions of European Union law, then one can see difficulties in relation to the enforcement of such orders within the European Union.

Other Practical Concerns

It is unclear as to how or to what extent the UK Courts, when called upon to provide support in relation to arbitral proceedings in the UK, will have any proper regard to European Union legal issues arising.

Where the English Courts are called upon to support an arbitral process in terms of making a variation to an arbitral award under Section 71 Arbitration Act 1996, enforcement of this varied award may prove difficult and not easily enforced in other jurisdictions.

The English Courts have also provided very useful assistance to complex international arbitrations under Section 45 Arbitration Act 1996 by determining preliminary points of law or seeking guidance from the Courts on a point of European Union law. One must seriously doubt whether that can be done post-Brexit. It is generally the case that arbitral tribunals themselves are not permitted to refer a point of law to the Courts of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling on the application of European Union law. This may well leave a deficit in relation to resolution of points of European Union law.

One of the great attractions of London as a seat for international arbitration is the availability of highly rated legal specialists including those practising in the area of European Union law. It must be acknowledged that there is a real threat to the exodus of such specialists from the UK post-Brexit. On top of that, basic travel arrangements to and out of the UK will become more complicated as a result of Brexit.

Arbitration in Ireland

Most of the factors that commend the English legal system to international arbitration may also be found in Irish law and the Irish Courts system. That is not to say that Ireland has anything remotely like the experience of London as a place for international arbitration.

The Irish legal system, like its English counterpart, is rooted in common law with much of its statute law reflected in UK statutes. English and Irish case law are regularly cited in each others courts. The procedures operated by the Irish Courts and the remedies available under Irish law are similarly commercially focused to those which pertain in the UK legal system. It is also of importance that English, the lingua franca of business is the de facto language of the Irish Courts system.

Ireland will continue to be a member of the European Union and legal proceedings before the Irish Courts continue to enjoy the benefits of the Recast Brussels Regulation and also the Lugano Convention, which will provide for:

Ireland as a seat for international arbitration post-brexit

Ireland has a long history of arbitration, its first Arbitration Act having been passed in 1698. Article 29(2) of the Irish Constitution 1937 states that "Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination". In 1981, Ireland became a contracting party to the New York Convention. In 2010, Ireland adopted a modern Arbitration Act which incorporated unCitral Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985).

In this way, Ireland has effectively modernised its arbitration laws to conform to international commercial arbitration features and practices and it has harmonised its arbitration laws with other modern arbitration countries.

Perhaps most importantly, the Irish Arbitration Act 2010 and the various pronouncements by the Superior Courts in Ireland clearly demonstrate the minimal power of the courts to intervene in the arbitral process and they exhort and mandate that Irish courts are supportive of the arbitral process. Even prior to the introduction of the 2010 Act, it was stated by the Supreme Court in Ireland in Keenan vs. Shield Insurance Company Limited [1989] IR 89 that:

"Arbitration is a significant feature of modern commercial life; there is an International Institute of Arbitration and the field of international arbitration is an ever expanding one. It ill becomes the Courts to show any readiness to interfere in such a process; if policy considerations are appropriate, as I believe they are in a matter of this kind then every such consideration points to the desirability of making an arbitration award final in every sense of the term."

The following features in the Arbitration Act 2010 show that Ireland treats international arbitration with absolute deference and its Courts are very reluctant to intervene:

Concluding Remarks

Broadly, there are two fundamental elements for consideration in deciding upon the seat for international arbitration. The first involves consideration of the national legal system and arbitration law and the attitude of the courts within that country. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the advent of Brexit brings uncertainty to Londons continued dominance as a forum for international arbitration, particularly having regard to the enforceability of Ireland as a seat for international arbitration post-Brexit awards where there may be differences between the laws of England and Wales and those of the European Union or where a related court order is required to be recognised and enforced in another State.

The second element involves a consideration of non-legal and practical factors such as logistics, neutrality, convenience and familiarity and the qualifications of arbitrators and practitioners. While this element is more subjective, it is common case that being an English speaking common law jurisdiction remaining within the European Union with a well-respected legal system with many similarities to the UK legal system, Dublin as a seat for international arbitration would represent the closest comparator to London.

In the final analysis, while there is no question of Dublin replacing London as the forum of first choice for international dispute resolution, Dublin will nonetheless be an attractive alternative seat post-Brexit particularly having regard to simplified recognition and enforcement of awards within the European Union. In this way, Dublin may not so much compete with, but rather complement London as a forum for international arbitration.

Read more:

Ireland as a seat for International Arbitration Bost-Brexit - Lexology

Photo credit: Adobe Stock

Belgian MEP Kris Peeters, the EPP Groups representative in Parliament's negotiating team for the new EU-UK agreement, said that after four long rounds of Brexit talks, there were still too many files to be addressed.

At the forthcoming high-level conference we expect Boris Johnson to finally move forward. He must stop playing political games with the situation of millions of citizens on both sides of the Channel.

Let me be clear: the EPP will not give the green light to an agreement if the UK - in return for market access - does not accept EU market rules. This means the same standards on workers rights, the environment or state aid.

RELATED CONTENT

We also need a stable framework for fisheries, clear provisions on the role of the European Court of Justice and on the respect of fundamental rights, Peeters added.

Even if Boris Johnson's timetable for the agreement is extremely ambitious, our duty is and will remain to properly protect European interests. The UK chose to be a third country. As a consequence, it will not have the same rights and benefits as a member state of the EU.

Let me be clear: the EPP will not give the green light to an agreement if the UK - in return for market access - does not accept EU market rules. This means the same standards on workers rights, the environment or state aid Kris Peeters MEP

But this was not our choice at all. UK negotiators should now take a more result-oriented approach. If not for the Europeans, they should do it for their citizens, because a no-deal scenario will lead to huge UK job losses of more than half a million, he said.

A divorce is already a disappointment. But let's at least try to have an amicable divorce and not leave behind a broken home.

Peeters praised EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier for a tremendous job in trying to reach an agreement but warned the UK that if it wants access to the EU market, it must respect EU market rules.

David McAllister, a German MEP who heads Parliaments UK Coordination Group, said, There has been no significant progress made this week on EU-UK negotiations. Both sides have jointly agreed on the Political Declaration on future relations so the UK should urgently clarify whether they stand by the commitments made in the PA.

There are less than five months remaining to negotiate but Parliament will not consent to an agreement that does not include provisions on level playing field, fundamental rights, robust governance and a stable framework for fisheries David McAllister MEP

There are less than five months remaining to negotiate but Parliament will not consent to an agreement that does not include provisions on level playing field, fundamental rights, robust governance and a stable framework for fisheries.

On June 12, Parliaments draft recommendations on the ongoing EU-UK negotiations are set to be approved by the Foreign Affairs and International Trade committees, which will also include input from 17 other committees, each in its own remit.

Further reaction to the continued failure to broker a deal came from Polish EPP member Danuta Hbner, who told this website, One more weekly video conference behind us. This time, one day shorter maybe because there was not much sense in spending one more day on time consuming presentation of well-known positions instead of moving toward finding solutions where there is disagreement.

I hope these negotiations made it clear to the UK that the EU is very serious about fisheries and level playing field measures. A change of heart on these issues is impossible on the EU side. It is equally impossible to accept a la carte access to the single market Danuta Hbner MEP

Hbner, a member of the former Brexit Steering Group in Parliament, said, What matters for the EU is to look for solutions and not wait for the negotiations to collapse. This weeks round has been about differences and how to move forward. We did not expect anything final from this fourth round, but we have proof that negotiations go on. It is also good news at a time when the sky is falling in on our heads.

I hope these negotiations made it clear to the UK that the EU is very serious about fisheries and level playing field measures. A change of heart on these issues is impossible on the EU side. It is equally impossible to accept a la carte access to the single market.

The former European commissioner added, It is also good that the EU is looking anew at preparedness activities [for a possible No Deal].

View post:

Boris Johnson told to 'stop playing political games' with millions of citizens - The Parliament Magazine

The head of Nissan's global operations has reiterated the importance of a Brexit agreement for the future of its Sunderland operations.

The company's president and CEO Makoto Uchida has given an interview to American broadcaster CNBC which says the company will "cautiously monitor the negotiations.

He says that any tariffs on cars made at Sunderland "would have a lot of influence in our operation" but adds that the company "would like to keep up our brand in Europe".

His words come not long after the Japanese company gave its Wearside operation a vote of confidence at the end of last month when the plant escaped a global restructuring plan that saw a site in Barcelona, Spain, earmarked for closure.

But a week later Nissan warned it would not be able to sustain operations in the North East if Brexit negotiations failed to establish a trade deal and the UK fell back on World Trade Organisation tariffs for cars.

In the interview, Mr Uchida also outlines how he hopes a new arrangement with its Renault and Mitsubishi alliance partners - in which Renault would take the lead in Europe, while Nissan focusses on Japan and the US - will help the company recover from huge losses.

Asked about Sunderland and the possibilities of a hard Brexit, Mr Uchida said: We need to cautiously monitor how the Government was going to make a deal in terms of Brexit, when it comes to the tariff agreement, because this would have a lot of influence in our operation.

But again, I would like you to focus and emphasise that we would like to keep up our brand in Europe and how we can keep the brand knowing that the anticipation in the future is something that we are building today. So, this is what I can say today.

The motor manufacturer announced its Nissan Next transformation plan at the end of May after announced a net loss of nearly 5bn.

The plan will see it focus on key vehicles and key markets, as well as majoring on new technologies that will meet demands from customers.

But less than a week later global chief operating officer Ashwani Gupta warned the company would not be able to stand by its commitment to the Sunderland plant if the UK left the European Union without a trade deal that enabled tariff-free EU access, saying the business would not be sustainable.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been adamant he will not seek any extension to the current Brexit transition period which ends on December 31, despite warnings the coronavirus outbreak means it will be impossible to conclude a new free trade agreement with the EU by that date.

The latest round of Brexit negotiations, which ended on Friday, failed to break the deadlock, with EUs chief negotiator Michel Barnier saying there had been no significant areas of progress while UK counterpart David Frost said there was a need to intensify and accelerate the process if there was to be any chance of an agreement.

Read more from the original source:

Nissan chief says firm is monitoring Brexit negotiations and warns on tariffs - Chronicle Live

Northern Ireland faces the "challenge of a generation" as it confronts the economic difficulties of Brexit and Covid-19, a business boss has said.

aeve Hunt, new chairperson of Chartered Accountants Ulster Society, was speaking at its annual general meeting, which was held online.

Ms Hunt is following in the footsteps of her father, Seamus, who chaired the society in 1990. She is the fourth woman to lead the organisation.

Ms Hunt, who is employed as an associate director for audit and assurance at business advisory firm, Grant Thornton, said: "Around the world, people are still coming to terms with the impact and effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.

"Our key aim will be to support our members and their pivotal role in business and the public sector during these unprecedented times.

"Bouncing back from this health crisis while dealing with the realities of Brexit will be the challenge of a generation.

"The skills and leadership of our profession are needed now more than ever. We will be there to give our support."

It comes as the economy marked another step towards reopening as small retailers were told by the Executive that they could reopen on Friday.

Roger Pollen, head of external affairs at the FSB in Northern Ireland, said the announcement was welcome news.

"Small businesses have been frustrated during lockdown to see larger businesses being able to continue to trade in products which they sell, while they were forbidden from opening. The Economy Minister's announcement will be music to the ears of many business owners, who are eager to open the shutters."

He added: "At FSB, we have made the case throughout the coronavirus crisis that the criteria which determine whether a business can open should be focused on safety, rather than what you sell, or the size of your business.

"We are grateful that the Executive has recognised this principle and small retailers will be relieved that they will soon be permitted to re-open their business, and play their part in re-starting the economy. We would also urge the public now to get behind our smaller businesses."

Belfast Telegraph

Read the original post:

Northern Ireland facing 'challenge of a generation' as it confronts Brexit and Covid-19, says accountants society's new boss - Belfast Telegraph

In Irish mythology, the salmon was a symbol of wisdom andknowledge. In early Christianity, the fish was a symbol used byChristians to identify themselves to fellow Christians. In thecurrent phase of Brexit negotiations, the fish is emerging as asymbol of the differences between the UK and the EU in terms ofstrategy, perspective and approach.

This week, what is only the second substantive round ofdiscussions between the EU and UK taskforces on Brexit, areunderway. While little clarity has thus far emerged on how thesides are likely to resolve their differences, it appearsincreasingly clear that an extension of negotiations beyond the 31December deadline using the mechanism agreed in the WithdrawalAgreement is highly unlikely. Speaking to the House of CommonsBrexit Committee, UK Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove spoke ofdeadlines concentrating minds. The deadline of 31 December seemsset to remain.

During the Brexit debate, there were many nostalgic referencesto the days when Britain's fleet opened and supported new traderoutes from the UK. In the emerging tactical battleground of thecurrent negotiations, the positioning by the UK of the fishingfleet suggests that preparations are well underway for a period ofbrinkmanship, with enormous potential consequences. While none ofthe UK position papers submitted to the EU to date have beenpublished, it is clear that no paper has been submitted onfisheries. The UK wants to be treated, in Michael Gove's words,"as an independent coastal state, like Norway,Icelandandthe Faroes". In short, the UK favourslimiting access to UK waters for EU vessels and agreeing theavailable quota of fish on an annual basis. The EU fundamentallywants continuance of the Common Fisheries Policy, arguing that anannual negotiation of the quota is impractical.

Those in the UK arguing for a reduction in the level of accessto UK waters granted to EU vessels point to the fact that vesselsfrom other EU member states land many times more fish from UKwaters than UK vessels land from EU waters. Those arguing for moreopen access note that some studies suggest that the UK imports mostof the fish it eats and exports most of the fish it lands. Thisdifference of perspective over fish mirrors the differingperspectives on many of the other outstanding issues between thesides. Many in the UK would argue that its position on how muchcertainty can be granted on fish quotas is akin to the EU'sposition on financial services equivalence. Politically andsymbolically, how and when agreement is reached on the issue offishing rights is important. It will speak to how and when progresson other matters is likely to be achieved.

Three countries, Canada, Australia and Ukraine, are alsoemerging as code words for the gap in perspective between the EUand the UK. The UK wants a Canadian or an Australian style tradedeal. It wants to use existing agreements the EU has with thosethird countries as the basis for agreement. In Mr Gove's wordsby relying on precedent "we can cut and paste in order toensure that we can reach agreement.". The UK regards issueslike fisheries as being issues which can be agreed on a case bycase basis rather than as part of one comprehensive agreement.

The EU wants a comprehensive agreement which upholds EUstandards on social, environmental, climate, tax and state aidmatters for the future. Michel Barnier's mandate is to reach anagreement which provides for continued reciprocal access tomarkets, and to waters, with stable quota shares. "The more wewill have common standards, the higher-quality access the EU willbe able to offer to its market" was Mr Barnier'ssummation.

The UK's reaction to the EU approach is that it is beingtreated more like a state seeking accession to the EU, likeUkraine, than one which is leaving the EU. The EU has equaldifficulty in accepting the comparison to Canada or Australia,because the UK is geographically closer and a much larger tradingpartner than Australia or Canada, sending 40% of its exports to theEU. Distance imposes natural quotas of its own.

There is at least agreement on what Michael Gove characterisedas the major obstacles to agreement so far. These are the levelplaying field, fisheries, governance and criminal justice. I willreturn to each of these in future blogs. The critical point,however, is that the EU is determined that the integrity of thesingle market is protected, and that future divergence in standardsor laws is not a backdoor for unfair competition whichdisadvantages the EU27.

Many in the UK argue that they are not interested in a 'raceto the bottom' on standards, that decades of EU membershipmeans that they are already aligned with the EU on those standardsand that UK law transposes many of those standards to UKlegislation. In a webinar which Matheson hosted with the BritishIrish Chamber of Commerce last week, Hilary Benn, the Chair of theHouse of Commons Committee on the Future Relationship with theEuropean Union suggested that the focus for some was on theprinciple of independence, as opposed to a desire to immediatelydiverge from the EU standards in many areas. Michael Gove expressedit as a "broad set of non-regression principles, as there arein all free trade agreements" but not the type of levelplaying field provisions that the EU is requesting of the UK. Onesuspects that the EU's appetite to rely on non-binding anddifficult to measure assurances on these issues will no doubt beinfluenced by its perception of the conduct of the negotiations todate.

The scale of the philosophical differences between the sides,the impact of COVID-19 on progress and the absence so far of anyreal sectoral negotiations prompted many to assume an extension tothe transition period was likely. What seems more likely now, isthat there will neither be the time nor political capacity tofulfil the EU negotiating mandate as set out in February by 31December.

In this game of brinkmanship, the UK is seeking to make time itssecretary. In telescoping negotiations into the second half of theyear, it appears to want to create an inevitable outcome where onlya few areas can be agreed. Others must be left for futureconsideration if a no-deal, hard Brexit is to be avoided. Thisseems to be the emerging tactical plan, in pursuit of what areclear strategic goals. It wants sectoral arrangements, not anoverarching arrangement, aligned with EU rules and arbitrated by EUinstitutions. The choice facing the EU next autumn will be one withfundamental consequences. Keep fishing and land what they'vecaught by 31 December, or prepare to raise anchor and sail awayinto the gathering storm.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

Read the original here:

Brexit Blog: Crucial Times Ahead - Will the Gap Narrow Between the Sides as Negotiations Continue - Government, Public Sector - Ireland - Mondaq News...

Over a year ago, Ms May, then Prime Minister, announced she would resign and not take Britain forward in the next phase of Brexit negotiations. It came after she suffered a string of Brexit deal defeats in the House of Commons, effectively locking the UK in a bind.

A combination of pressure within her own party and the fact she was not a democratically elected Prime Minister resulted in her being held in poor regard in politics and public.

Eventually calling an election in 2017 after refusing to do so for nine months, Ms May was forced to broker a deal with Northern Irelands Democratic Unionist Party after a hung Parliament ensued.

In April 2019, it was announced that leaders of 70 Conservative Associations had signed a petition calling for a vote of no confidence in Ms May.

Just one month later, Ms May confirmed that she would be resigning as leader in the following month of June.

It was nothing short of a calamitous period as Prime Minister, achieving little.

During his Oxford Union address in February, Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite the Union, said just as much, revealing how Ms May had met so many dead ends she turned to the trade unions in hope of support from somewhere.

It was the first time since Margaret Thatcher, who led the UK from 1979 to 1990, that a Conservative Prime Minister had engaged with a trade union.

Mr McCluskey said: The first Tory Prime Minister I spoke to since Thatcher decreed that no Conservative Prime Minister should talk to the unions - was Theresa May.

JUST IN:Len McCluskeys Brexit swipe at Keir Starmer exposed

It has been rejected by the House of Commons three times. Its demise is testament to the Prime Ministers failure to act as a national rather than a Party leader.

Her efforts to reach out beyond the ranks of the Tory hard right have been too little and too late.

Shortly after during his Oxford Union address, Mr McCluskey revealed how he thought the Labour Party should have stayed in line with its initial Brexit strategy - that it would take the Uk out of the EU.

He said:That Labour slide into being a perceived Remain party gave us some real problems in our northern and midlands heartlands.

There was a feeling of betrayal over Brexit.

Ive been trying for over a year to stop the Labour leadership from allowing the party to be pushed to abandon our 2017 election pledges.

Wed gone then to the electorate on the basis of respecting the 2016 referendum and pledging to take us out of the European Union if wed won.

We shouldve stuck with that while setting up about winning over Remainers.

The rest is here:

Theresa May humiliation: Ex-PM's grovelling plea to union bosses amid Brexit vote exposed - Express

Just because Michael Gove says it, it does not follow that it is necessarily preposterous. Reporting to the Future Relationship Select Committee on last week, the Cabinet Office Minister acknowledged that there remain serious differences between the EU and the UK perspectives on the shape of any Future Trade Agreement. Mr Gove suggested that these differences flow from a fundamental difference in philosophy.

On a superficial reading of philosophy, he is quite correct: the UK sees itself as a sovereign state; the EU sees us as a supplicant. And it sees us like that for two reasons. The first is that what can fairly be called our lackey status, for the period of transition, is precisely what is implied for us by the Johnson-May Withdrawal Agreement, with its mechanisms of continuing membership. Secondly, the Covid-19 crisis has shown that the concept of national sovereignty is not really part of the EU worldview. For M. Barnier we are being impertinent to argue on the basis of national self-interest; for his counterpart, David Frost, it ought to be unthinkable to proceed on any other basis.

On a deeper reading of what counts as a philosophy, Mr Goves observation is also one worth making. The two parties to this negotiation have vastly different conceptions of what the process is about, because they operate within incommensurable metaphysical frameworks.

This is best illustrated by the very different views about the nature of law, which on the European model is something which is formulated and handed down. In the Anglo-Saxon model, it arises when real people settle real differences and thereby establish precedents. There is no fact of the matter that can establish which of these models is the correct one; and they are irreconcilable. You might just as well stipulate that pro-lifers and advocates of right to choose are given a time-limited opportunity for negotiation in which to settle once and for all the abortion issue. You notice, by the way, how important it is in that debate to control the language of the discussion. Likewise, with the ongoing EU-UK negotiation where, for example, the insistence that the other side be prepared to put on a metaphorical straitjacket is described as a request for a level playing field.

But the EU project is based not so much on a philosophy as on a theology. It sees itself as the engine of a historically inevitable redistribution of power from the nation state to a centralised managerial elite. If sometimes, as part of this process, it is helpful to pose as a facilitator of economic improvement, then so be it. If at other times it is theologically necessary to impoverish the citizenry then that is OK too. The EU appropriates the language and symbols of nationhood for itself, while at the same time crafting the dissolution of the idea of the sovereign nation state. It demands forms of allegiance to which it is not entitled those which are owed to family and country. It is, in short, an attempt to grow a country out of a set of political institutions, which is sort of the wrong way around.

The incoherence at the heart of the EU project has been illuminated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Its constituent member states have rediscovered their national identities as the best means of responding to the crisis. They have responded at the level of the nation while the EU nomenklatura have looked on, uselessly, like the bewildered priest who cannot understand why the parishioners have given up on Mass just because something more urgent is happening outside the church.

Of course, everything is being recontextualised by the pandemic. But those who advocate that Covid-19 requires an extension to our transition period need to accept that the burden of proof is on them. They need to explain how it can be right for us to remain de facto members of a set of institutions we have de jure left, when those institutions are facing an existential crisis of their own making one which has only been amplified, not created, by the C-19 catastrophe.

The problems that are being thrown up by the transition negotiations are indeed philosophical. That is why they cannot be resolved without one of the parties abandoning its default assumptions. This will not happen even if we extend the process by ten years. And why, in any case, should either side be required to do that?

Mr Goves intervention was timely, appropriate and welcome. Now he must, like any philosopher, embrace the logic of his position. The grounds for leaving on December 31st are only strengthened, not weakened, by the current philosophical differences.

Follow this link:

Brexit: don't extend the transition period - TheArticle

Blustering Boris doesnt like talking about the trick that swept him into power.

His officials even banned the word Brexit from official communications. The job is done, he thinks.

Oh no, it isnt. Its only half-done, if that.

Legally and constitutionally we have left the European Union, but we are a very long way from charting a new relationship with our biggest trading partner.

While were still in transition and accepting EU rules, negotiations are under way.

They are due to conclude by the end of the year, and in Prime Ministers Questions, Johnson ruled out any extension of the deadline.

But the talks are stalled over UK strategy standing firm or intransigence, depending on your point of view.

Our government insists that we are now an independent, sovereign state, free to do whatever we like.

The EU of 27 nations demands that we must closely align with their way of doing things if we want zero-tariff trading. Brussels chief Michel Barnier will today brief the European Parliament on the stalemate.

This fight is coming down to Boris versus Barnier, the irresistible farce meeting the immovable object.

And Downing Street has floated a new hurdle: fear that extending negotiations would embroil us in EU legislation to counteract the coronavirus.

This manufactured threat is yet another fig-leaf behind which to hide the Tory Brexiteers true intention leaving Europe without an agreement, whatever the cost to jobs and businesses.

Thats the goal of the Eurohaters, led by Mr Rentagob, Iain Duncan Smith.

Hundreds of civil servants are engaged in virtual talks across the Channel, with only weeks before a draft deal should be in place.

Our ministers have yet to get off their ample backsides, so theres zero prospect of meeting the timetable for agreement.

Whether you think thats a good thing or a bad thing, at least the politicians should be straight with us.

More:

Paul Routledge: Tories want us to forget Brexit and crash out - Mirror Online

NewsOpinionLettersFrom: John Cole, Oakroyd Terrace, Baildon, Shipley.

Thursday, 14th May 2020, 11:50 am

IN 2017 I had operations for a hip and two knee replacements. This was elective surgery in that, between us, the NHS and I chose to do it. My conditions were not life-threatening,

If I had been suffering from acute appendicitis with the threat of peritonitis, the NHS would have given me emergency surgery. Not a matter of choice.

The Covid-19 pandemic is the worlds most severe crisis since the Second World War. Dealing with this has to be the top priority. Brexit is an elective issue we can choose to go ahead with it or we can choose, under changed circumstances, to give up on it.

It is absolutely crazy for the UK to go ahead with Brexit in current circumstances.

To wish to proceed, you would need to be a swivel-eyed ideologue or a self-promoting narcissist.

Editors note: first and foremost - and rarely have I written down these words with more sincerity - I hope this finds you well.

Almost certainly you are here because you value the quality and the integrity of the journalism produced by The Yorkshire Posts journalists - almost all of which live alongside you in Yorkshire, spending the wages they earn with Yorkshire businesses - who last year took this title to the industry watchdogs Most Trusted Newspaper in Britain accolade.

And that is why I must make an urgent request of you: as advertising revenue declines, your support becomes evermore crucial to the maintenance of the journalistic standards expected of The Yorkshire Post. If you can, safely, please buy a paper or take up a subscription. We want to continue to make you proud of Yorkshires National Newspaper but we are going to need your help.

Postal subscription copies can be ordered by calling 0330 4030066 or by emailing subscriptions@jpimedia.co.uk. Vouchers, to be exchanged at retail sales outlets - our newsagents need you, too - can be subscribed to by contacting subscriptions on 0330 1235950 or by visiting http://www.localsubsplus.co.uk where you should select The Yorkshire Post from the list of titles available.

If you want to help right now, download our tablet app from the App / Play Stores. Every contribution you make helps to provide this county with the best regional journalism in the country.

Excerpt from:

It's crazy for UK to go ahead with Brexit given pandemic crisis - Yorkshire Post

David Cameron and Nick Clegg (CC BY 3.0)

Mike Parker

Last weekend, in a sterling attempt to keep the political nerds out from under everyone elses feet, the BBC Parliament channel kindly laid on a repeat of their coverage of the 2010 general election. The whole thing: from exit poll to exhausted speculation about the mathematics necessary to forge a coalition, in what transpired to be the first hung parliament since 1974. It was only ten years ago this month, yet had the sheen of antiquity you generally associate with Boxing Day movies: It Could Have Been a Wonderful Life perhaps.

No surprise, Ifan Morgan Jones (of this parish) was watching too. Once the bulk of the results were in, and daylight had broken over the hollow-eyed pundits in the studio, he tweeted: theyve begun discussing coalitions and Im yelling no, dont do it! at the LibDems as if they were a teenage couple sneaking into a haunted house in a horror movie.

Ah, the LibDems. Remember them? They were huge news ten years ago. After the first-ever leaders debate in British election history, I agree with Nick Cleggs party soared in the polls, topping a few. On the weekend after that debate, the Sunday Times declared that according to their polling, Clegg was the most popular British political leader since Churchill (the prime minister that is, not the nodding dog; that was to come much later at Facebook).

The election night coverage was all about the LibDems. When the exit poll was published as the clocks struck ten, the only talking point was that no-one believed its prediction of the party actually losing seats. How the pundits, normally so right about almost nothing, scoffed at that one. But it was true: for all the heady Cleggmania, they slipped back, even managing to lose Montgomeryshire, a seat that theyd held continuously (bar four years) since 1880.

Despite the setback, they were still the focus of discussion for days, as the Tories and Labour both wooed them furiously. Nick Clegg fluttered like a heroine in a Victorian melodrama, before spurning Gordon Heathcliff Brown, and caving in to the wily charms of David Flashman Cameron. After professing undying love in the number 10 rose garden, Flashman took Clegg home and inflicted years of psychological torture on him, and on us all. He was always careful to leave no visible scars.

Was this when the die was cast for the horrible mess that is our politics today? There is a case to be made, I think. Of course, there would still be a pandemic regardless of who was in government, and populism, that slithery codeword for assorted shades of actual fascism, would still have risen all over the globe. But 2010 marked a watershed, and its one thats worth unpicking.

Monster

Firstly, it did for the LibDems. In some ways, they deserved it, for their utter hubris: that they could buck two hundred years of history and somehow tame the Tory party, the most ruthless political machine in western Europe; that they were fobbed off so easily with nonsense like the AV referendum; that many of them so clearly loved the baubles of power way more than its judicious application.

Trouble is though, they took down with them (at least in the short term) the flame of liberalism, one needed so much right now, but which is sputtering badly in these harsh winds. They gave Cameron an easy run and six clear years to demonise and then decimate the public sector, the effects of which we are so painfully grappling with in the current emergency. The coalition gave Farage and his fellow travellers all the oxygen they could handle and more; it birthed Brexit and the brutal tribalism that went with it.

In Wales, the 2010 election inadvertently acted as a catalyst for another key ingredient in the unpalatable political diet of the past decade, the endlessly circular blame game. A new Conservative-LibDem coalition at Westminster coincided with the final year of a Labour-Plaid coalition in Cardiff Bay; suddenly, everyone and no-one was in power. It was a perfect storm for scapegoating, and through the middle sailed the wreckers. They couldnt believe their luck.

Yet those were the nice guys, and the good old days! Since 2016 the Tories have shape-shifted into an even freakier monster. Theyve eaten UKIP and the Brexit party alive, their full banquet of fruitcakes and racists included, made ever more explicit their fundamental dislike of devolution, booted out anyone with experience or a bit of a conscience, sold what was left of their soul to the darkest operatives in the game, and in December, filled parliament with people so grim, any contact will have you wanting to scrub your hands for hours. On that at least perhaps, they seemed to know what was coming.

Read this article:

It's 10 years since the Lib Dem-Tory austerity coalition birthed Brexit and our brutal tribalism - Nation.Cymru

Video

PUBLISHED: 13:27 14 May 2020 | UPDATED: 16:17 14 May 2020

Gina Miller meets a pro-Brexit internet troll as part of a BBC documentary. Photograph: BBC.

Archant

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.

Miller met with Alan before the coronavirus outbreak for the BBC as part of a documentary into internet trolls.

The man, who simply gave his name as Alan, had left comments calling for the businesswoman to be deported.

One deluded fat ****, go away now you lost, Johnsons got the majority, all you can do is **** and moan, said another message.

The single father, who works as a concierge, explained his comments were literally because of Brexit.

He said after the vote he felt there was no point in sitting back and being passive as he explained why he had trolled politicians.

People who are disenfranchised are people like myself, white single fathers. If you want disenfranchised in the world... I get nothing from nobody, he told her.

Everybody else can get seemingly what they like. So it got to the point where I thought Im going to stand up and say something.

But Miller explained the impact that the attacks had on her life - which escalated to verbal attacks in real life, and her needing security around her 24 hours a day.

She said: In the beginning I thought it was just words, just on social media. But I was out with my daughter recently, standing outside on a road to cross to my car.

And this car stopped, window rolled down, shouting You know black ****, you should be hung, traitor. You know, dying is too good for you.

She added: What I find really frustrating is that people think they know me because of whats in the media. I often read it and think, who is this woman?

Miller said that the comments about Brexit had stopped - but she has said now its about being a woman of colour, that I look like an ape.

She added: I actually get told worse things now than I was before.

In the segment, to be broadcast on television, the pair found some mutual understanding over their tougher experiences, and having sons of similar ages.

Miller was forced to flee from her second husband, who she claimed was a drinker who beat her badly, forcing her to sleep in her little blue car in a multistorey car park.

Alan said: Sleeping in a car, I did that for two years, because they couldnt house me. So I know exactly how it feels to be sleeping in the front of a car. I get that.

Now Ive met you and heard where youre at, its a wrong thing for me to do.

I never knew at the time, it was just angering. It was who do these people think they are? Youre all f****** rich and elite. What do they know about my life?

She hopes that Alan will become a messenger to other internet trolls.

She said: All I worry about is my son and your son. I dont want them to be in a country full of hate.

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.

Here is the original post:

WATCH: Gina Miller meets online troll who sent hateful, racist and threatening messages over Brexit - The New European

The Irish border question threatens to derail Brexit talks again as the depth of the row over the EUs desire to have an office in Belfast is revealed.

The UKs paymaster general, Penny Mordaunt, has written to the EU to firmly reject a repeated request for an office in Northern Ireland: The UK cannot agree to the permanent EU presence based in Belfast, she wrote.

Mordaunt was responding to a second request this year from the EU for permission to open an office in Belfast on the grounds it was needed to oversee the implementation of new customs and regulatory checks that will apply to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland from next year.

According to the Irish national broadcaster, RT, the secretary general of the EUs external action service, Helga Schmid, wrote in February that there were very particular capabilities and competences required on the ground, distinctive from the more traditional competences of any other EU delegation.

She hoped the office would be up and running by June in order to bed down the new processes for traders, the detail of which has been the cause of major political rows. Boris Johnson has insisted there will be no checks and no new paperwork for traders operating across the Irish sea.

The permanent undersecretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Simon McDonald, refused Schmids request in March, but she argued in a follow-up letter on 25 March that an office would be necessary.

At least during the initial phase of the application of the protocol, the EU will want to avail of these rights on an ongoing basis. To do so effectively, an office in Belfast staffed by technical experts is indispensable, she wrote.

Mordaunt rejected her argument, saying such a presence would be divisive in political and community terms.

The government said in a statement on Saturday: There is no reason why the commission should require a permanent presence in Belfast to monitor the implementation of the protocol.

The row over the office in Belfast has been simmering for months with no sign of a resolution.

Theresa Mays former Brexit adviser Raoul Ruparel tweeted on Saturday:

He rejected reports that the UK had agreed to an EU office in February 2019 and was now backtracking.

As Mays adviser at the time, he said no such agreement had been signed off on a political level. He pointed out that it would have been anathema to the Democratic Unionist party, which May was trying to keep onside ahead of a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement.

Even if the UK had agreed to an office last year, it would have had different functions, because Mays Irish border solution was a UK-wide arrangement that would not have involved customs and tariffs on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain, he said.

The row illustrates the EUs concerns that the UK will try to row back on the deal signed in January and not implement customs and regulatory checks on animals and food entering the island of Ireland.

This would cause a major international headache because it would force checks back to the Irish border, something many have said could jeopardise peace.

Continued here:

Row over EU office in Belfast threatens to derail Brexit talks - The Guardian

The UKs last judicial member of the European court of justice is suing the council of the European Union and the EU court over her removal from office because of Brexit.

Eleanor Sharpston QC, advocate general to the court in Luxembourg, has lodged two claims challenging her replacement by a Greek lawyer before her term in office was scheduled to end next year.

Her departure will not necessarily end direct British involvement with the ECJ. A claim has been submitted by a team of London-based lawyers arguing that even though the UK as a nation is leaving the EU, its citizens cannot be deprived of EU citizenship without their consent.

Sharpston, whose mandate was due to end in October 2021, has submitted two claims against the council of the European Union, which represents the remaining 27 EU states, and against the ECJ itself.

At the start of the year, Brussels issued a statement saying the mandates of all UK-related members of EU institutions would automatically end on 31 January. Sharpston was the exception to the rule and was told that she would stay on until a successor could take over.

A Greek replacement for her has now been found. The number of advocates general, who advise the courts judges, is fixed at 11.

A fellow of Kings College, Cambridge and a former joint head of chambers in London, Sharpston has been at the ECJ since 2006. Earlier this year, contemplating the possibility of legal action, she told the Law Gazette: It may be that the very last service I can render to my court is to see whether there is something I can do to push back against the member states intruding into the courts autonomy and independence.

She is understood to be arguing that she should be be allowed to stay in office until her current six-year term expires and that her removal undermines the judicial independence of the court. Court rules, it is said, ensure that judges and advocate generals can only be removed when they reach the end of their mandate or reach the obligatory retirement age.

The ECJ told the Guardian it could not confirm the identity of claimants in the two cases submitted. The courts last British judge, Christopher Vajda, lost his seat in February despite the UK remaining within the single market and customs union until the end of 2020. There are 27 judges sitting on the ECJ one for every member state.

A separate action legal action has been lodged at the ECJ this month by lawyers acting for Prof Joshua Silver, a physicist at Oxford University. The claim is being led by Prof Takis Tridimas of Matrix Chambers and lawyers from the London firm DAC Beachcroft.

They argue that while the withdrawal agreement between the UK government and the EU has resulted in the UK as a nation leaving the EU, the fundamental status and rights of the British citizens of the European Union cannot be removed without their consent.

Stephen Hocking, a partner at DAC Beachcroft, said: In the withdrawal agreement, the EU council purported to remove fundamental individual rights from a group of citizens of the European Union, namely UK nationals, without any due process and without any reference to them. In doing so it acted unlawfully.

EU citizenship is a citizenship like any other, and it confers individual rights on citizens that cannot be taken away by an agreement between governments.

If he is successful, UK citizens would retain their rights as EU citizens, for example the right to live and work in EU member states.

This week Guy Verhofstadt, the former Brexit coordinator for the European parliament, tweeted in support of the legal action: People received European citizenship with the treaty of Maastricht. Will be interesting to see, if a government decides to leave, its citizens automatically lose their European citizenship. They shouldnt do!

The case, for which more than 67,000 has already been raised, is being supported by crowdfunding through the website Crowdfunder.

Here is the original post:

British lawyer sues EU over her removal from its court due to Brexit - The Guardian

Opinion

PUBLISHED: 14:24 01 May 2020 | UPDATED: 14:24 01 May 2020

The New European

Prime Minister Boris Johnson stands outside 10 Downing Street as he joins in the applause to salute local heroes during Thursday's nationwide Clap for Carers. Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA Wire.

Government negligence over coronavirus comes as a result of Tory preoccupation with Brexit, and we are all paying the price.

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.

Thousands of deaths in the Covid-19 pandemic is a tragic if inevitable statistic. Dozens of deaths of NHS frontline staff and care workers, however, represents negligence of stupefying dimensions. Now that a leaked Department of Health and Social Care report has confirmed the May and Johnson governments total failure to act on the conclusions of the 2017 Exercise Cygnus report, responsibility for the deaths of so many health workers lies firmly on the heads of the 2017-2019 government and its successor.

The prime minister now refers to the NHS as the beating heart of the nation but he leads a Conservative government and served in the cabinet of its predecessor, both of which have gone some way to starving this beating heart of the oxygen it needs to function properly.

Even Leavers cannot in all honesty deny that the preoccupation with Brexit has contributed to the governments negligence in failing to make adequate preparations for the current pandemic. It is an appalling tragedy that many NHS staff and care workers have paid the ultimate price for these shortcomings.

Anthony West

Kent

While Priti Patels statement hailing the drop in shoplifting has elicited quite a bit of ridicule, it has also done something much worse.

It has deflected attention from the fact that 20,000 people in the UK have died in hospital from coronavirus. That is one of the worst performances in the world and is a damning indictment of this governments tried-and-tested approach of using egregious nonsense to distract people.

People are dying because this government made bad decisions and wasted time while Italy and Spain struggled. They condemned and ridiculed those countries and did nothing to protect the people here.

Do not let them gaslight you into believing that they have achieved anything of merit by seeing a drop in shoplifting or that it would be very unreasonable to hold them accountable for thousands of deaths.

Audrey Christophory

Covid-19 is another one of those epochal moments when immense change happens in a short period of time. The Tories dont have the noddle to see this because it is the (now) utter irrelevance of Brexit that they think is the real story of our time.

Keir Starmer (Starmers battle on three fronts, TNE #191) should be setting up a task force to prepare for the post-Covid-19 and post-Brexit country Labour will surely inherit. The UK cant get left behind again like it did after the Second World War.

Will Goble

Rayleigh

Boris Johnsons experiences in ICU will have had a profound effect on him psychologically. Are we sure he is fit to return to lead a government 18 days later?

In rugby or football where a player on the pitch has suffered a head injury, the rules are that for the safety of the player and the wellbeing of the team, the victim cannot self-declare his own fitness to return to the field of play.

What process is there to safeguard the nation from a situation where an unfit prime minister returns to the head of government?

This is not just a medical question,

this is a constitutional question. Where are the checks and balances in the system?

John Edwards

Shoreham-by-Sea

Have your say by emailing letters@theneweuropean.co.uk

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:

Coronavirus: We are all paying the price for the Tory government's preoccupation with Brexit | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European

British officials expect a lot of noise between the two sides before Brussels eventually drops its hardline negotiating position. Talks between the UK and European Commission continued last week but ended with the bloc accusing Britain of refusing to engage on its plans for a regulatory level playing field and upholding existing fisheries access. But sources close to the UK negotiating team said a deal can be completed before the post-Brexit transition period expires at the end of the year.

Officials have suggested the row over the two sides redlines must first escalate before they can reach a compromise.

A source said: Im quite positive. I do believe in the core areas of this theres a good understanding between negotiators.

Im confident we will get over the disagreements. Probably a bit more noise has to happen before we get to that point.

Another round of online trade negotiations is scheduled for May 11.

Downing Street is expected to push for more one to one talks between Michel Barnier and David Frost, the EU and UKs chief negotiators, in an attempt to break the deadlock.

No10 wants senior Government officials to be able to open new channels of communications alongside the formal negotiations.

But the source said the UK would not budge on its approach to the talks and would reject the EUs continued access to Britains waters and attempts to lock the country into the blocs rulebook.

The source said: "What is slowing us up is the EU's insistence on extra provision, notably the level playing field area, aspects of governance, and of course there is no meeting of minds on fisheries.

"If they continue to insist on their position on a so-called level playing field and on continuing the Common Fisheries Policy, for example, we are never going to accept that. Draw your own conclusion from that, but I hope they will move on."

"There are some fundamentals that we are not going to move on because, not so much that they are negotiation positions, as they are what an independent state does, they added.

It is understood that British and EU negotiators hope virtual bonding sessions could help build the camaraderie needed to strike a deal.

MUST READ:Brexit snub: UK rejects Brussels' attempts to open embassy in Belfast

British officials remain confident that a deal can be struck despite the COVID-19 outbreak hindering the process.

I don't think the crisis makes any difference, the source said.

"It is a big and horrible thing to affect us but I sense that European Union chief negotiator Michel Barnier himself would like to get a deal and I sensed that before the crisis started."

Read the original here:

Brexit trade deal WILL be struck this year say UK negotiators - but only after EU tantrum - Express

Video

PUBLISHED: 11:34 01 May 2020 | UPDATED: 12:16 01 May 2020

Adrian Zorzut

David Davis listens in the House of Commons, London. Photograph: PA.

PA Archive/PA Images

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.

Davis made the claim on LBC radio with Nick Ferrari, arguing the EU were lunatics if they did not accept British demands for a no-tariff, no-quotas-style trade deal.

He said: What the European Union should do, if it has any sense at all, is to go for the option we are talking about of which is no tariffs and no quotas.

Youd have to be a lunatic to put tariffs and quotas on under the current economic circumstances so now is the time to do it. That is what we should do.

He said prolonging negotiations would create more uncertainty for UK businesses: The one time, apart from whats happening now, that we had an economic downturn since the [2017] election was when we delayed departure.

The uncertainty made all the businesses, even though claiming they didnt want to leave, suffer. You dont want to change that. You dont want to have another level of uncertainty.

The UK has ruled out seeking an extension to Brexit transition period, which ends on December 31. Recent talks in April failed to reach a breakthrough, causing the EU to ramp up preparations for a no-deal Brexit.

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.

See the rest here:

Tory MP David Davis urges government capitalise on coronavirus outbreak to seal a Brexit deal | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European

Boris Johnson must extend the UKs transition out of the EU for up to two years to avoid compounding the economic damage of the coronavirus pandemic with a hugely disruptive and disorderly Brexit, according to a close ally of Angela Merkel.

In an interview with the Observer, Norbert Rttgen, chair of the Bundestags foreign affairs committee, said it was now impossible to see how the UK and other EU countries could agree even a minimal outline free trade agreement this year because the talks were so behind schedule.

The transition period is due to end on 31 December unless the UK asks for a prolongation by 30 June. The maximum extension would be two years, under the terms of the withdrawal agreement. Rttgen said he could not see any sensible option other than for the UK to apply for the extension to avoid even more damage to the British and European economies. On Friday, Michel Barnier said there had been limited progress in the initial stages of virtual negotiations, which he said was disappointing.

Rttgen, a member of Merkels Christian Democratic Union party, said: Before the current coronavirus crisis, I think it would have been possible to have a minimum agreement with the UK on the broad outlines to avoid a crash [the UK crashing out with no deal], with more detailed negotiations then taking place afterwards.

I cant imagine now that this is possible, given the fact that all the EU countries, Brussels and London are so absorbed by the pandemic and this will go on. Given this situation, I dont believe that there is a realistic possibility any longer to even achieve the necessary minimum. So you have to extend.

But he said it would be up to Boris Johnson to realise the consequences of a disorderly exit amid this pandemic.

The pandemic will cause more economic damage than we can now imagine. To think that you could then add to this extraordinary situation a very disorderly exit, to me is not imaginable. I think everyone will say that this is not in the British interest or in the interest of any of us.

The Brexit transition began when the UK left the EU on 31 January. The arrangement under which the UK is outside the EU but continues to be subject to its rules and a member of the single market and customs union was negotiated by both sides to smooth the UKs exit.

The transition was also designed to allow the UK to continue much of its previous relationship with the EU while the fine details of a future trading relationship and security co-operation were negotiated.

Barnier cited an alarming lack of progress in four of the most crucial areas of the talks. Sources said he was greatly frustrated that the UK did not appear ready either to discuss detail or make compromises.

The four areas of difference were the so-called level playing field (the extent to which the UK would adopt EU standards to have access to the single market); fisheries, particularly EU access to UK waters; security co-operation and governance issues.

The German MEP David McAllister, who chairs the UK co-ordination in the European Parliament (correct) said both sides were now under enormous time pressure to organise a half-way orderly exit of the UK from the single market and the customs union.

It had been hoped that an outline deal could be concluded over the coming months, in time for it to be signed off over the summer by EU leaders. But talks between the UK and EU sides are well behind schedule, although the second set of discussions, effected by video link, ended last week.

I think there is a recognition by some of the UK side that they will have to extend but no one knows how to do it

EU officials have said that concluding deals on such complex issues already a lengthy and tortuous process is far more difficult without face-to-face meetings. One high-level EU source said: You can get so far but what you cant do is go away into small groups of six or eight people in a dark room and hammer out the final, vital details. That is not possible in a virtual meeting.

The UK is also understood to have redeployed some of its staff who were posted to the EU trade talks to coronavirus duties since the Covid-19 pandemic developed.

The issue of whether to apply for an extension is now emerging as a huge additional problem for Johnson, who prides himself on having got Brexit done. Until now, Downing Street has said it will not contemplate asking the EU for an extension under any circumstances.

To do so, Johnson would have to reverse legislation that, in effect, bars him from seeking an extension, and he would have to agree additional financial contributions to the EU to pay for that extension.

Another senior EU politician involved in the talks said there were signs of division appearing on the UK side, with some civil servants and Tory MPs believing the UK had to find a way to abandon its opposition to extending the transition: I think there is a recognition by some on the UK side that they have to extend but no one knows how to do it. The question is what Johnson will decide when he returns to Downing Street after his illness. It is a big political problem for them.

The terms of the withdrawal agreement allow a UKEU joint committee to extend the transition period by up to two years, but it must sign off on the length of any extension before 1 July. EU lawyers say that once that window is missed, EU law makes it very difficult to agree to any extension.

Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, who is regularly in touch with diplomats in EU capitals, said: It will be very hard for both sides to reach the outlines of a free trade agreement by autumn, or indeed by June, which is when the PM wants to take a decision on whether it is worth pursuing a free trade agreement.

Last week should have been the fifth round of negotiations, but it was the second. The bottom line is that on both sides the top politicians attention is focused on coronavirus, not Brexit, which makes a deal in the short term highly unlikely.

Link:

UK will need to extend Brexit transition, Merkel ally warns Britain - The Guardian

Downing Street has reportedly agreed for negotiations to kick off on Wednesday despite the coronavirus crisis. Donald Trump is said to be desperate to reach a deal ahead of the US presidential election in November.

A source told The Sun: No10 gave the green light late this week for the talks to start.

The process has been significantly speeded up.

The talks will be carried out remotely while coronavirus travel restrictions are in place.

The first round, which will last two weeks, will be held between International Trade Secretary Liz Truss and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

Boris Johnson is said to have put off trade talks with the US until now due to ongoing negotiations with the EU.

The UK is in a transition period with Brussels until the end of 2020 as the two sides thrash out a free trade agreement.

READ MORE:UK/EU fishing plan on table 'in weeks' - but Barnier MUST give ground

The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted he will not push back the deadline despite claims the timeframe is too tight.

Mr Trump promised to strike a massive trade deal with the UK after Mr Johnsons general election victory in December.

The US President said the agreement could be far bigger and more lucrative that any deal with the EU.

DON'T MISSBrexit deal now much more likely says Gove as he makes bold prediction[VIDEO]Former MEP reveals why Boris Johnson will not extend transition period[INSIGHT]EU WILL collapse to UK demands over no deal Brexit threat[POLL]

He tweeted: Congratulations to Boris Johnson on his great WIN!

Britain and the United States will now be free to strike a massive new Trade Deal after BREXIT.

This deal has the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative than any deal that could be made with the E.U. Celebrate Boris!

Stumbling blocks in a trade deal between the UK and the US could include food standards and the NHS.

Mr Trump sparked a backlash during his state visit last year when he suggested the health service could be on the table in an agreement.

But the US President later rowed back on the comments.

Go here to read the rest:

Boris gives green light for Brexit Britain to start formal US trade talks NEXT WEEK - Express