Daily Archives: March 26, 2021

UK artists and figures from the British music industry have hit out at the government for leaving them in limbo, chaos and confusion in the wake of the Brexit touring fiasco.

The governments failureto negotiate visa-free travel and Europe-wide work permits for musicians and crew has sparked fears that artists will face huge costs to future live music tours of the continent which could create a glass ceiling that prevents rising and developing artists from being able to afford to do so.

It is also warned that thousands of jobs and millions in income for crew, haulage and production will also be lost to the EU.

When questioned by MPs last month,Culture Minister Caroline Dinenage was criticised for the governments lack of inaction in not already renegotiating terms for future touring with EU member states or for measuring the potential damage that Brexit could have on the UKs 111billion cultural industries or 5.2billion music industry. The government was also accused of treating the sector like an afterthought in Brexit negotiations compared to the 1.2billion fishing industry.

Now, many say that they are still none of the wiser as to what the future holds and that the lack of information is complicating their ability to book tours in Europe.

Optimism mixed with anxiety is the best way to describe how were all feeling, said Ross Patel, a manager from Whole Entertainment who is trying to navigate future EU tours for his acts Elder Island and Billy Lockett. Its great that were all going to be out of lockdown soon, but what does it actually mean for us?

Im trying to do the best detective work I can, in terms of speaking to international consulates, speaking to the government, signing petitions and just hoping that some information will drop into my inbox that will actually be useful. Ive got an album release campaign that should already have dates attached to it with tickets on sale, but doesnt.

While having some success in rerouting a lot of shows for a rescheduled 2022 tour, Patel told NME that the one thats a clear problem right now is Spain, and the lack of clarity around what the visa implications will be.

Neither the UK or the Spanish government have an answer, but whats being discussed is that playing there could potentially add thousands of pounds onto the tour, meaning that we cant play there at all, he said. The whole thing will need to be re-routed and the tour dates will change completely. Well need to re-order the buses and sort out everything that was put in place for a tour that was booked back in 2019.

While admitting that an act such as Elder Island were in a fortunate position in that they dont face the same issues as a new band would, he said that the problems he was encountering now would still lead to a significantly reduced tour.

For brand new artists going out to Europe for the first time, thats what scares me the most, Patel told NME. I know the impact that this is having on our business, so it fills me with dread to apply that to an act who hasnt been out there and doesnt have the same security in terms of streaming numbers or other support.Its going to make it incredibly difficult.

He added:I know a lot of other managers in the same position as me who are now looking at what their options are. Ive just drawn up a budget for this tour, and its now negative into five and half grand after a year of no shows and less streaming revenue because of it. We havent had any funding. Our acts havent been furloughed because they werent able to.

Within the music community theres a lot of advocating for these issues to be addressed, which gives me some confidence. As far as what Im seeing as a result of that, I havent seen any action. The government know how big music is for our economy, and I just cant understand how its been so sidelined.

John Robb on stage with The Membranes

Writer and punk legend John Robb of Goldblade and The Membranes had previously called for a waiver or some kind of amnesty for UK artists to allow them to tour through Europe with more ease in the face of Brexit. Now, he has told NME that hes in a weird limbo when making plans to tour the continent.

Theres no information and we dont what the battlefield looks like, said Robb. We dont know if we need if a carnet or not. We dont know if we need a visa or not. We had offers for festivals and we were planning shows for 2022 so we had someone look into everything for us and he just said, What is this chaos? We were quoted figures like 400 for carnets, but it didnt say what it was for, how long it lasted or which countries you could use it for.

What way is that to run anything? Everything comes with an if, a maybe or a but. How can you make long term plans? Music isnt as chaotic as it looks and things are usually planned a year or two in advance.

Credit: Getty

Robb said that the confusion is the worst problem and that it extended beyond artists and managers to promoters on the continent as well.

A lot of European promoters are still of the generation that love British pop culture its one of our prime assets as a country, he said. Its what were known for. Its one of the things that makes people smile when they think about the UK. Now the government is stood in front of our pop culture and stopping us from propagating it. Its madness.

On a business level its a nightmare, but on a cultural level its a disaster. We could end up with a case in five years time where UK music is just a backwater because European festivals have replaced all of the mid-tier of their line-ups with local and European bands. That will have a longterm effect. Its the cultural version of long-COVID.

Robb added: We need clarity, because at the moment its just chaos in a vacuum. If we knew what we were working with then we could either pay, work a way round it or just choose not to go. At the moment, we have no idea what the options will be.

Radioheads Ed OBrien is a member of the Featured Artists Coalition and has been a vocal critic of the Brexit deal (Picture: Getty)

CEO of the Featured Artists Coalition David Martin agreed that the effect of what is essentially a no deal Brexit for music is being felt now.

Artists are already turning down shows and tours in parts of Europe for later this year and early next, as they have become unviable due to increased cost and bureaucracy, he told NME. Emergency resource is required from government in the form of a dedicated Brexit fund to allow performers to navigate this immediate crisis, if our music industry hopes to maintain its leading position.

As we continue to work with government on many Brexit-related issues around work permits, visas, haulage and VAT, and on what a long-term sustainable solution may look like, we are losing ground. The problems created by the lack of provision for the music industry in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement are complex. As we delve further into them, that complexity is only increasing, however the impact is immediate and each day without clarity, support or solutions is another day of cancelled tours, lost income and business closures.

After this week saw the House Of Lords urge the government to seek reciprocal touring agreement with the EU, Martin also said that he welcomed Labour MP Harriet Harmans recently suggested 10-point plan for touring post-Brexit.

There is now universal recognition that the industry needs a drastic and rapid approach from Government to see off a further, compounded impact post-pandemic, said Martin. The measures outlined in the plan echo the calls that the industry has consistently been making. We are already seeing tours cancelled and offers being withdrawn for British talent. Without suitable remedies, we will see our world renowned industry start to wither.

Live crew setting up a stage. (Photo by Stefan M. Prager/Redferns)

Andy Lenthall, general manger of the Production Services Association representing crew workers and roadies, also called for urgent action and clarity to save any more damage being done.

The loss will be in the realm of tens of millions of pounds of turnover due to the companies that have relocated from the UK to Europe, he told NME. These are once-British companies that are now Dutch or Irish. Jobs have been lost too because EU-based companies have to hire EU-based drivers. There are thousands of jobs at risk, because well lose the supply companies too as theyll need to be where the transport is. Thats the lighting, the sound, you know its a domino effect.

He added: There is a realistic and pragmatic solution to this, but its time for the government to stop asking us what it is because they know what it is. Weve told them what it is, we just need them to tell us if its possible or not.

Responding to the latest criticisms regarding inaction and a persistent lack of clarity on what the future might look like, a government spokesperson told NME: Weve always been clear that the end of freedom of movement would have implications for professional mobility. However were working across government and with industry, including through a DCMS-led working group, on plans to support cultural and creative professionals who temporarily work in the EU.

The working group will provide new guidance to help artists understand whats required in different countries. We will also be engaging with Member States on the issue and looking carefully at proposals for a new Export Office that could provide further practical help.

European festival promoters have said that they could belikely to book fewer UK acts as a result, while figures from the UK music industry have expressed concern that the impact of the Brexit deal on musicians who might not be able to tour Europe could also potentially prevent them from acquiring a visa to play in the United States. Bookers in Europe have told NME that the effort should come from the UK to overcome this.

Last month, European promoters also said the current touring situation was quite worrying and urged the UK to negotiate a new touring deal.

Link:

UK artists left in limbo of chaos and confusion in attempting to book post-Brexit European tours - NME

The fact that the Caribbean has the highest concentration of territories classified as non-self-governing by the United Nations is a lasting reminder of the regions colonial past. At first glance, a political map of the Caribbean may seem like a kaleidoscope of independent microstates scattered among the remaining overseas possessions of postcolonial powers. In 2000, the Overseas Countries and Territories Association (OCTA) was founded in Brussels to promote cooperation between the European Union and the overseas dependencies of its member states. In the context of the Caribbean, the organization has played a vital role in the development of the otherwise isolated territories.

The finalization of Brexit, however, has resulted not only in the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union but also in the removal of the United Kingdoms Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA) from the rest of OCTA. While Gibraltarthe only territory that was allowed to vote in the 2016 Brexit referendumreceived considerable public attention during the withdrawal negotiations, the United Kingdoms five Caribbean territories have been largely overlooked.

A Geopolitical Kaleidoscope

Apart from the North and South American countries that comprise the regions continental periphery, there are a total of thirteen independent states in the Caribbean today. Both Cuba and the Dominican Republic are former Spanish colonies, while Haiti was once a colony of France. However, the vast majority of these statesAntigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, as well as Trinidad and Tobagoare former British colonies. All of them remain associated with the United Kingdom through the Commonwealth of Nations, although Barbados has voted to join Dominica and Trinidad and Tobago in removing the monarchy as its head of state at the end of 2021.

Compared to other regions of the world, the Caribbeans ratio of dependent territories to independent states is relatively high. The United States governs Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It also claims possession of Navassa Island as well as the Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla Banks, the first of which is disputed with Haiti and the latter two with Colombia. The islands of Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Saint Martin are all integral departments of France and thus members of both the European Unions Schengen area and single market.

Besides its overseas departments, France also governs the territory of Saint Barthelemy. Similarly, the Netherlands administers the territories of Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, Sint Eustatius, and Sint Maarten. The United Kingdom, for its part, rules over Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, as well as the Turks and Caicos Islands. Until Brexit, all of these territories were associated with the European Union through OCTA. Following the United Kingdoms formal break with the European Union, however, they now find themselves drifting in unchartered waters.

What Brexit Means for the British Caribbean

Due to their geographic isolation, small sizes, and limited natural resources, the OCTA members of the Caribbean have faced considerable issues with economic development. Through its cooperation with European Union institutions, OCTAs priorities are to make advancements in the following key areas: environment and climate change, renewable energies, financial services, trade and regional integration, as well as education and innovation. Like all OCTA members, the United Kingdom territories have benefited considerably from their relationship with the European Union.

Following Hurricane Ivan in 2004, the European Development Fund (EDF) allocated 7 million for the reconstruction of houses and an additional 4 million for the building of a weather radar on the Cayman Islands. Similarly, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Ike and Hannah in 2008, the EDF granted 6.25 million to the Turks and Caicos Islands for reparations. As part of its 2014-2020 budget, the EDF contributed 14 million to Anguilla, 18.4 million to Montserrat, and 14.6 million to the Turks and Caicos Islands to strengthen their respective private sectors. During this time, only Montserrat was receiving additional budgetary aid from the United Kingdom.

Of all the United Kingdoms Caribbean territories, Anguilla was perhaps the most dependent on its relationship with the European Union. Before Brexit, financial assistance from the EDF accounted for 36% of Anguillas total budget, while the Dutch territory of Sint Eustatius was the source of 90% of Anguillas energy supply. Food, medicine, bottled water, and even mail would arrive in Anguilla from the French department of Saint Martin. In fact, both islands are so close that they are visible from each others coastlines and share a marine border. No longer members of OCTA, Anguillan residents have lost their right to visa-free travel in the Schengen area.

What the Future Holds

The OCTA Ministerial Conference that took place in December 2020 made it a priority to emphasize the importance to maintain the long cooperation between UK territories and OCTs associated with the EU and decided to explore the future collaboration with the UK Overseas Territories with the objective of the finalisation and signature of a Memorandum of Understanding between UKOTA and OCTA by the end of March 2021. UKOTA has also declared that its priorities are having tariffs lifted, establishing a new relationship with [the] EU, and looking at what mechanisms the UK government will be putting in place to replace EU funding streams.

James Duddridge, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and supporter of the Leave camp, argued that an independent Britain can spend more time developing [its] historic ties rather than be shackled by the regulation and political infrastructure that is a federal union and added that OTs value the relationship with the UK more than the EU. This statement was made in 2016, the year that the future of the United Kingdoms overseas territories was decided in a referendum from which they were almost entirely excluded. Though the Brexit process is now complete, it is not too late for the United Kingdom to reconsider what is best for its Caribbean territories, whether that means playing a more active role in supporting them or renegotiating a relationship with OCTA.

If you're interested in writing for International Policy Digest - please send us an email via submissions@intpolicydigest.org

Continue reading here:

How Brexit Has Stirred Controversy in the Caribbean Kacper Grass - International Policy Digest

The UK government has conceded that Brexit has created barriers to business travel in a report published Wednesday by the House of Lords, the upper house of the country's Parliament. The report, written by the Lords' European Union Select Committee, warns that new restrictions on mobility will hinder the UK's dominant services sector.

"We recognise that there are now additional processes when traveling abroad for work, including potentially longer lead-in times and additional costs associated with attaining the required paperwork," said the UK's Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in a written submission to the committee. "The Government is committed to supporting individuals and businesses during this period."

Under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed by the United Kingdom and European Union on Dec. 24, 2020, many kinds of travel for work between the twonow require a visa. Additionally, UK passport holders only may visit the Schengen Areathe EU countries among which travel without border checks is permittedfor 90 days out of 180, while EU passport holders can enter the UK for up to six months at a time.

The report observed that Covid-19 travel restrictions mean the TCA's mobility provisions have not yet been tested, making their impact difficult to assess. A representative of the Department for Business told the committee it is "pulling together summaries of some of the guidance issued by different Member States on the visa and work permit arrangements that are in place."

The TCA's list of "permitted activities [without a visa] for short-term business visitors are limited and would 'exclude many activities,'" the report said, citing the UK's Federation of Small Businesses. The committee warned that "barriers to UK-EU business mobility are a threat to the UK's competitiveness and innovation, as well as to trade."

Services account for 80 percent of UK economic output, including 317 billion in exports to the EU, which in turn exports 217 billion of services to the UK. In 2019, 4.8 million UK nationals made business trips to the EU, while 5.6 million EU citizens made business trips to the UK.

The committee said it was especially "deeply concerned about the potential impact of mobility provisions in the TCA on the over two million people employed in the creative industries, which could make touring prohibitively bureaucratic and expensive. We call on the Government and EU to work together to remedy this situation before international travel resumes."

Continued here:

UK Government: Brexit Means More Paperwork, Higher Costs for Business Travel - Business Travel News

A Unionist leader is warning of violence returning to Northern Ireland, claiming Brexit is being used to force through huge political change without consent.

Peter Robinson, a former first minister at Stormont, said leaders must recognise the odour of betrayal in the air, saying: We all know where that leads.

The Northern Ireland Protocol which has created a trade border in the Irish Sea to protect the EU single market would lead to laws in the province being made in a Dublin-influenced EU, Unionists feared.

There are forces using the exigencies of Brexit to advance a programme of constitutional change through stealth and propaganda, Mr Robinson said, in a newspaper article.

My advice to those who are driving this agenda forward is as short as it is restrained. Take care.

Read more:

Some opposition would be vented more robustly than protest voting and be met with greater tolerance than it deserves, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) until 2015 said.

We are perilously close to a line which, when crossed, will lock us all into a pattern all too familiar to my generation, he added.

Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday

Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday

The article comes amid stalemate over attempts to solve the crisis affecting imports from the UK because of vast red tape created by Boris Johnsons EU withdrawal deal.

The EU has started legal action after the UK unilaterally delayed further checks and the two sides have not held direct talks involving ministers for one month.

Supply problems that emptied supermarket shelves have eased, but the UK government admitted they would return if grace periods were ended, as agreed under the 2019 Protocol.

Last month, food inspections at Northern Ireland ports were suspended following an upsurge in sinister and menacing behaviour and graffiti appeared to describe port staff as targets.

The DUP has demanded the Protocol be scrapped altogether, but the UK government has rejected that while experts warn there is no alternative to the rules it imposes.

Mr Robinson wrote: It is too easy to either be dismissed as a scaremonger or attacked for sabre-rattling.

Unionists believed their rights are being violated, he said, adding: They reflect on the commitments they were given, and which have been appallingly broken leaving the odour of betrayal in the air.

Those with wisdom who have their finger on the pulse should recognise the signals when a people become disenchanted with the system.

Mr Robinson said: It would be wrong to assume that in time Unionists will calm down and eventually acquiesce. That is not my assessment.

See the rest here:

Unionist leader warns of violence returning to Northern Ireland because of Brexit betrayal - The Independent

The EU has confirmed biscuits and chocolates will be exempt from the new layers of post-Brexit red tape that threaten to cost manufacturers millions of pounds in extra costs, a Defra official said Thursday.

The move will be of great relief to businesses like Cadbury and McVities, who faced costly export health certificates (EHCs) for every shipment to the EU from April. The FDF warned the additional bureaucracy could make it unviable for many businesses to keep supplying Northern Ireland.

The new EU legislation comes into force on 21 April and will significantly expand the range of products needing an EHC when arriving from third countries such as the UK. These are currently only required on goods that consist predominantly of meat or dairy.

The Chilled Food Association has estimated the change will increase the number of EHCs required by around a third.

One of the biggest concerns was whether foods containing pasteurised milk such as chocolate digestives or curry sauces would require an EHC, but the EU confirmed this week these foods could be shipped with a much simpler private attestation completed by the manufacturer, said David Kennedy, Defras director general for food, farming, animal and plant health.

Thats really important. If they had needed export health certificates it could have been disruptive, he told the environment, food and rural affairs committee on Thursday.

It is understood the commission had concerns over pasteurisation as an acceptable heat treatment for dairy elements in shelf-stable composite products, but these have been addressed.

Other shelf-stable products such as tinned rice pudding will also be exempt, however perishable foods containing low levels of dairy, a Victoria sponge cake for example, will need an EHC signed off by an official veterinarian.

Kennedy told the committee the EU is revamping its entire range of EHCs with 50 new certificates set to come into effect. While foods that dont require an EHC already will need to do so from April, products such as meat and cheese that have needed them since January will have until August to make the switch.

Defra secretary George Eustice said it was inconvenient that weve got these changes just as people get used to some of the previous ones although he recognised it was not due to the EU being more difficult. These changes have been in train for some time he said.

See the rest here:

EU saves biscuits and chocolate from fresh hit of Brexit red tape - The Grocer

Philip Woode, principal at Efficio Consulting, explains how a post-Brexit supply chain can be better focused on speed and agility

Procurement, finance and marketing teams must collaborate to achieve a more efficient supply chain post-Brexit.

Since Britains departure from the EU, the nation has been bombarded with news updates of port delays and cross-border friction, as businesses face the immediate shocks of Brexit. In fact, these Brexit teething problems could be symptomatic of widespread disruption that will force many organisations to restructure, or in some cases, will put them out of business altogether. It has become clear, however, that rather than take place as a single event, Brexit will continue as a series of smaller obstacles that businesses are yet to face. As supply chain managers continue to battle with the relentless post-Brexit changes over the months ahead, speed and agility will be essential to keep pace. In order to navigate the unknown landscape ahead, businesses will also need to implement quality procurement solutions as quickly as possible.

But, does a business truly understand how each of these moving parts is functioning and how effective they are being? And is there the ability to re-establish strategies and react quickly? This build-up of uncertainty has become a minefield following Brexit, and it has meant that supply chains have most definitely been stress-tested. In doing so, however, many revealed procurement weaknesses and inefficiencies that already existed. Continual change needs a more joined up business, and the ability to adapt quickly to create value. The following question must be asked: when confronted with an unavoidable incentive for change, such as Brexit, does that change signify more of a challenge or an opportunity for the chief procurement officer (CPO)?

Garry Jones, CEO of Perfect Channel, discusses the hidden procurement hurdles that must be cleared for UK vaccination to be truly successful, and how digital technologies can help. Read here

The answer, as ever, is probably a balance of the two. For many companies, early Brexit assessments indicated that only half of the risks discovered through stress testing the supply chain were exclusively Brexit related.

This largely reflects the evolution of procurement over the past decade, moving away from the idea of or even obsession with control. The right type of contract with suppliers and partners is therefore key. Its important to have a handful of key commitments from your suppliers and customers during any disruption, and businesses need to update contractual frameworks for such events. A joint approach with your key suppliers will help you to establish a more reliable supply chain and improve your strategic partnerships.

The reality is that nobody can predict exactly what will happen in the next 12 months. Brexit is just part of the puzzle that will impact supply risk management. There are other factors to consider, including the new President in the US, and the trade deal between the UK and US needing to be renegotiated, plus Covid-19 and how the vaccine, and the impact of new Covid variants will affect lockdowns. Each brings its own set of challenges, making it essential to be prepared, and this is where the processes put in place for Brexit will be an advantage to mitigate other change.

When challenges are being fired from all angles, its clear that the narrative, the approach, and general attitudes to the supply chain all need to change in order to survive a changing landscape. This requires both an external mindset change in how businesses compile and manage their supply chain networks and procurement channels and also an internal overhaul beyond procurement being a siloed operation.

Addressing the former, the CPO needs to completely rethink how the industry is evolving despite the unknowns. When youre struggling for complete clarity or precision in your forecasts, then there at least needs to be heightened agility and resilience to whatever trends you may face in the future.

Initially, this requires more of a conjoined outlook alongside the marketing director to attain a stronger picture of the supply and demand equation. A business cannot prepare for what it may need to procure in the future if it doesnt know what is likely to be in demand. It sounds simple, but at present this notion is often negated by a siloed approach.

Covid-19 has shone an additional spotlight on this above necessity, proving that demand volume, trends, prices and goods isnt a constant in any environment, and cant be based around historic data and individual decisions. By establishing stronger insights into market demands, organisations can then focus on preparing a more flexible and diversified network that will meet these needs, while also offsetting unforeseen challenges that could derail supply channels.

Traditionally, the CPO has tried to limit the number of suppliers across the network. Now, when faced with the prospect of increased tariffs, customs checks, lengthened supply times, data regulation clashes and a host of additional unknowns, the physical network and the terms being agreed have to become more diverse and malleable off the back of this more conjoined outlook.

Recent developments in EU data protection have created great uncertainty for businesses in relation to cross-border data transfers, according to Tim Hickman, partner at White & Case LLP. Read here

As alluded to already via a stronger connection between CPO and marketing director, the second phase of change needs to happen internally. The breaking down of department silos will be key in navigating supply chain challenges as it will present the most holistic and informed picture possible, even if that picture still isnt complete.

This needs to occur across procurement, marketing, and finance primarily, with stronger communication channels established. For example, marketing and procurement need to agree a better demand profile; procurement must then look at the incoming supply chain options and scenarios, including risk management; and finally, marketing, procurement, and finance must all agree a response to the changes in the supply chain. The result will be a better understanding that comes from solid procurement work, and means all areas of the business are in agreement on how to manage impacts. By proxy, improved communication with that inbound supply chain will ensure an additional layer of foresight and collaboration at a time where independent guesswork simply isnt viable.

Working together, from manufacturing to sale, again seems like an obvious strategy. But it has traditionally been avoided due to a sense of mistrust between each silo. Self-preservation and a desire to protect their own departments or interests, has created a hierarchal strain where the CPO often takes the brunt.

Times of crisis are a great time to forego these conflicts, however. And, by creating a more linear and collaborative dynamic between internal disciplines, and then the supplier portfolio, organisations can form a more united and robust defence in the face of unprecedented challenges.

Adrian Overall, CEO of CloudStratex, discusses his campaign for change within public sector IT projects and procurement. Read here

Many have learned that a business focus must be applied to the procurement function when reacting to a changing world. In essence, it is time to shake up the procurement department and prepare for the future. Upskilling procurement teams will be vital for this process, so that they are prepared to deal with the wide-ranging issues and variables heading their way to ensure they have the right knowledge and tools to navigate a post-Brexit supply chain.

The more open and aligned conversations that take place in the coming months, the more prepared businesses will be to manage procurement challenges triggered by both Brexit and Covid-19. And beyond that, it will be more likely that theyll be to set their procurement function on a better trajectory than has been in place over the past 10-15 years. So, not only are business working to overcome the challenges being presented today, but they are automatically putting plans in place to capitalise on tomorrows opportunities.

Those businesses that were previously failing to inject resilience and visibility into their supply chains have been given a free pass to start again. As the impact of Brexit becomes clearer, businesses that fail to adapt risk face a minefield of challenges. This could hinder your organisations progress even further once we come out the other side. Instead, reacting to the changes as a series of smaller obstacles with speed and agility will be instrumental in building an effective supply chain post-Brexit.

Read more from the original source:

A post-Brexit supply chain relies on speed and agility - Information Age

A UK honey exporter is within weeks of closure as hauliers refuse to transport its small loads to the EU due to post-Brexit red tape.

The issues are largely driven by groupage the consolidation of small loads into a single lorry in which paperwork errors on one load can end up delaying an entire trucks worth of goods.

Family Foods has asked more than 25 haulage companies to ship two pallets to Europe in recent weeks yet every one has rejected its requests.

The company will be shut within four to eight weeks if it continues as the EU makes up around 70% of its sales, said director Andrew Thain. He bemoaned a lack of government support in easing the barriers facing small companies in particular.

Its really emotional seeing your business crumble around you and the government doing nothing to help, he said. We just need a solution. We dont care what it looks like but at the moment we cant ship anything to Europe which is unacceptable.

While much has been made of the new post-Brexit bureaucracy a BMPA report out this week showed it is now a 23-step process to send a pork chop to Paris Thain said the paperwork is doable the issue is finding anyone to take it.

Small food producers have been shut out of sending produce to the EU since Brexit, according to trade analysis by the FDF this week. It showed food exports collapsed in January with salmon and beef exports almost stopping completely down by 98% and 92% respectively.

Anton Guntar, MD at freight forwarders Global Freight, said it was an absolute disgrace that willing exporters were unable ship their goods, and blamed the laziness of large international hauliers for not pursuing potential solutions.

These big, large hauliers have the resources to be able to sort this out, he said. I think its time they got their head out from the backsides and help the smaller guys. Theyre only interested in the big contracts and the easy freight.

Guntar is working with other exporters facing the same issue, but even when they offered to pay more to cover the potential disruption, many hauliers still rejected their loads.

A Lords committee said this week it was dismayed at the high trade frictions now facing agri-food exports, and Rod McKenzie, MD of policy & public affairs at the Road Haulage Association, suggested such barriers are pushing hauliers to favour the simpler jobs.

This work isnt being taken on because hauliers and freight forwarders think its too much faff, he said. They can do other jobs which are much less stressful and less bureaucratic elsewhere. Not travelling to Europe, for example.

Many in the industry are pushing for the UK to reach a veterinary agreement with the EU that could dramatically reduce the number of SPS checks on food heading to the EU and Northern Ireland. George Eustice publicly backed the plans last month, however it is understood that has been little further progress.

John Davidson, strategy and external relations director at Scotland Food & Drink, called on both sides to show some urgency in addressing the problems. They need to get going and inject some pace into these talks.

A Defra spokesman said the government is providing a range of support to help businesses adjust to the new trading arrangements and it is pleased to see the majority of businesses adapting well to the new requirements.

We are liaising with the European Commission, EU member states and GB hauliers to look at what further guidance can be developed to aid exporters of single pallets. We have developed a new groupage model across the agri-food sector that will help to alleviate some of the difficulties smaller businesses have faced with transitioning to these export arrangements.

Read more from the original source:

UK exporter faces closure within weeks due to Brexit - The Grocer

The Remainers who delivered Brexit: decisions by Tory PMs Theresa May and David Cameron led to the UKs EU exit. Credit: Andrew Parsons/Flickr

The roots of Brexit go deep. Within a few years of the UK joining the then-European Economic Community in 1973, Oliver Letwin a veteran Tory policy guru, MP and minister, known for providing astute advice in private and faux pas in public was among the Conservatives growing group of Eurosceptics.

For decades, says Letwin, he argued that the common market, the Single Market, was a good idea and beneficial to our trade and standing in the world. But the apparatus of central control from Brussels that was leading towards an emerging European state, while maybe very suitable for some other European countries, wasnt ever going to be acceptable here.

Letwin believed that the UK should retain its Single Market membership, while avoiding other forms of convergence. But his colleagues were adopting much more radical positions: by the time his party leader David Cameron won the 2015 general election, he says, many of them had got to the: We must get completely out of all of this forever and have nothing further to do with it position.

Nonetheless, Brexit let alone the hard Brexit ultimately secured by PM Boris Johnson was far from inevitable. Some of the missteps and omissions that shaped the UKs Brexit journey, and the challenges facing civil servants working for a divided party, have already been revealed in interviews with many of the key players published by research group UK in a Changing Europe (UKICE). And now weve returned for a third excavation of UKICEs archive.

In interviews with Letwin and four key Tory advisers, we unearth six key inflection points: particular decisions or behaviours which brought the UK to its current position. Here we cover three of these inflection points, and next week well pick out three more covering decision-making processes, 2016-19 prime minister Theresa Mays self-imposed red lines, and the Democratic Unionist Partys ill-judged hubris.

David Camerons 2013 decision to promise an in-out EU referendum was conceived as a way to secure Britains place in the EU once and for all. At the time, the PM felt he had little choice: Denzil Davidson then an adviser to the foreign secretary, and later Mays special adviser on Europe believes that the fight against the referendum had been lost in the Conservative Party, and it was perfectly clear that whoever succeeded David Cameron would be in favour of a referendum. Better, the PM thought, to keep the process in the hands of those whod back Remain.

Whats more, explains Letwin, Cameron feared that Nigel Farages UK Independence Party could deny his party a majority at the 2015 election; promising a referendum would rob them of electoral support. And some of Camerons allies were quietly hoping that theyd end up back in Coalition talks with the Liberal Democrats, being required to trade away their referendum pledge: I had prepared documents ready to sign on that basis, recalls Letwin.

Chris Wilkins, a veteran Tory speechwriter and Mays director of strategy during her first year in office, says the referendum had been injected for party management purposes and for political purposes. If wed come out of the election with the Coalition government that we were all expecting, it might well have been put on the back burner. For many people, he adds, winning the 2015 election was a surprise. And suddenly you were landed with this problem: this sort of unexploded bomb, which you werent expecting to have to deal with.

Camerons plan for defusing this bomb involved renegotiating the UKs terms of membership with the EU, securing guarantees that would calm peoples fears of an ever-expanding EU superstate. But his 2009 decision to pull the Tories out of the European Peoples Party the centre-right group of European parties had weakened his relationships with key national leaders, says Davidson: they didnt realise what David Cameron was up against, domestically, and did not appreciate his political needs. While the PM won some useful concessions, none were eye-catching enough to shift the debate.

At the time, Letwin thought the agreement would put a brake on further integration and shift the relationship subtly, but very importantly, between us and the European Court of Justice which I regarded as the main issue. But such constitutional nuances did not survive contact with a referendum campaign fought on the binary battleground of Leave or Remain. In Wilkins view, the referendum was never going to be about what he came back with in terms of the renegotiation. The outcome wasnt a bad package, he explains, but it was slightly irrelevant to the main question. Voters werent going to be going through it line by line: the debate was much more visceral and emotional than that and that was the game you had to engage in.

Brexiteers certainly understood that, and focused on immigration and the UKs history as a global trader and Empire-builder. A Remain campaign led by long-standing Eurosceptics people whod spent years downplaying the benefits of EU membership could never show the same passion. During the 2010-15 Coalition, recalls Davidson, the Brexiteers often successfully intimidated Number 10 into not broaching the positive arguments for the EU, for fear of the stink, the discord, that it would cause in the party when they had their eyes on winning the next election. The renegotiation achieved many of its tactical goals, but proved a strategic failure.

On losing the referendum Cameron resigned, called a leadership contest, and handed the task of preparing the ground for Brexit to Letwin who began talking to the opposition parties. Strong Remainers in Parliament, he felt, would seek to frustrate any exit talks, while hard Brexiteers simply wanted to be out full stop, with no compromise of any kind about the future relationship.

In his view, the only way to keep those two groupings under control was to have a solid phalanx of 400-plus members of Parliament who were joined in a single pursuit. By building a cross-party consensus around a relatively soft Brexit, he believed, one could wend ones way towards something that would be a unified, smooth transition to a different relationship.

Letwin was exploring the potential for continued alignment to the Single Market or a close trade deal. But when May came to power in July, she promptly sacked him. Im no doubt it was all of that thinking in part that led Theresa to think it was an urgent necessity to be rid of me, he comments. She took the view that it was necessary, if at all possible, to avoid the very thing that I thought it was necessary to promote: namely, cross-party governance of this issue.

Given the parliamentary strength of the European Reform Group (ERG) of backbench Conservative Brexiteers, Mays approach was risky even with the slender Commons majority she inherited from Cameron. And when she lost that majority in a disastrous 2017 general election, she doubled down: to avert a leadership challenge, she hardened her Brexit position securing a tiny majority through an alliance with Northern Irelands Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Wilkins would have liked to have seen May adopt a more consensual, more cross-party approach in the weeks after the election. I dont know how you could look at that election result and say the message the country is sending us is that they really want a really hard Brexit, he comments. But at that point, senior Brexiteers were terrified that their long-held goal might slip through their fingers. They got around the PM and my belief is, I think they said to her: You can stay as long as you drop everything else and just make our version of Brexit happen, says Wilkins. It stemmed from a fear that the whole thing was about to come crashing down.

It sounds obvious that she shouldve taken a slightly different approach and tried to build coalitions, comments Raoul Ruparel, then adviser to Brexit secretary David Davis. But had she done so, she probably would have been removed immediately. This is the fundamental tension with all of this. That persisted for a long time, and its why it took so long to get any kind of clarity on the approach. There was a bit of a paralysis of fear that, whichever way you move, youre going to get taken down.

For Letwin, Mays new Parliamentary weakness only deepened the need to find votes across the aisle. Perhaps it was already too late to build a consensus, he adds: Anyway, she didnt try. My level of anxiety about the lack of bipartisan governance of the matter increased from considerable to extreme at that point. Two years later, May did finally approve talks with Labour but by then, says Letwin, the dynamic within each political party, and in particular the dynamic of the two leaders, ultimately made it impossible.

That personal dynamic was certainly important. In Davidsons words, the centre right viewed Corbyn as a Kremlin-hugging terrorist cheerleader who has been against his country in every dispute: the mutual hostility between Conservative MPs and the Labour leader from the start, I think, shaped the evolution of Brexit. Had Labour still been led by Corbyns predecessor Ed Miliband, he believes, you could have had a smidgeon of a conversation where you might talk about the national interest.

By the end of 2018, recalls Letwin, I could only see around me positions hardening to the point where we were going to be faced with the cataclysmic choice between two evils: not leaving, or leaving without a deal. May was in big trouble: Almost everything that was happening to her was happening in a way that she didnt want and wasnt planning. I didnt think she was in control any more; I thought there were forces that were way beyond her capacity to control.

If May couldnt get an exit deal through Parliament by March 2019, the UK faced crashing out of the EU without arrangements for citizens rights, the Irish border and other crucial issues. I thought it was entirely possible that she would end up leaving without a deal because she couldnt find a way of not leaving without a deal except not leaving, which she couldnt do either, says Letwin, who rebelled for the first time in his 20-year Commons career to join fellow moderates trying to prevent a disorderly exit.

I hadnt ever even abstained: I could be counted on to vote for things that I very much disliked, because they were the things the party was doing and I recognised that a party is a coalition of interests and views, he comments. But at this particular moment, I thought the nation was faced with a particularly severe risk. The party and the country had got themselves into a position where they werent going to be able to deliver a reasonable solution.

After months of rancorous debate and two extensions to the exit date, May stepped down in 2019. Her successor, Boris Johnson, agreed a new exit deal addressing the Irish border issue by leaving Northern Ireland largely within the EUs regulatory ambit then won a large majority in a December election, and negotiated a thin trade deal with the EU.

His policy leaves exporters facing swathes of new non-tariff barriers, from the need for work permits to hefty new administrative costs, and offers little to the services businesses that dominate the UKs economy. Further restrictions and rules are on their way, as this weeks Institute for Government report makes clear. Does this represent Letwins reasonable solution?

Well, the hard Brexiteers are content but Remainers, moderates on both sides, the devolved administrations, and the DUP are very much not. And the public havent got what they were promised during the referendum campaign by Leavers, who maintained that British businesses wouldnt face new barriers to trade with the Continent.

Faced with this highly complex and divisive issue, the UKs political system has delivered a zero-sum, winner-takes-all result more extreme than anything proposed by the most hardened Brexiteers back in 2016. To the extent that democracy involves finding solutions to divisive issues that command the broadest possible public support, that system has clearly failed.

There are some strengths in the binary way our system works, but it is set up to foster division, says Davidson. The problems of a failure to look for consensus have been demonstrated over the past few years. And Letwin worries that these days, the UKs public debate is too rarely a discussion between grown-ups who accept that people can honestly and rationally hold differing views.

There is real merit in competitive democracy Theres real merit in debate, in bringing out the arguments on either side, he says. These things are built into our legal system, theyre built into our Parliamentary system and long may they remain.

But if that productive dialectic just turns into catcalling and a refusal to accept that the other side is motivated by anything other than low motives, the system will not work properly, Letwin concludes. We face many problems as a country at the moment, but I think thats the biggest underlying problem were likely to face over the next 20 or 30 years. If that lack of mutual respect in politics goes on being the case, we wont be able to tackle the very serious problems we all face because were just going to be having a continuous argy-bargy between people who arent recognising the force of each others arguments.

Read the rest here:

Secret story: inside the delivery suite with the reluctant midwives of Brexit - Global Government Forum

ITS not actually called the Festival of Brexit of course. The working title for next years extravaganza is, in fact, Festival UK* 2022. But when the first news of what might be on offer under its auspices emerged earlier this week every newspaper used the label Festival of Brexit somewhere in their reports. Usually in the headline.

Thats the baggage this particular festival will have to carry one of suspicion and division until it finally emerges blinking into the light.

The original idea for a festival was first announced by Theresa May when she was Prime Minister and was then backed by Boris Johnson. In the circumstances you can understand why any suspicion might be baked in.

May wanted the event to strengthen our precious union, something, you might argue, she had done her best to undermine thanks to her pursuit of Brexit. As a result, there are many who are not naturally inclined to embrace the festival.

The danger is Festival UK* 2022 will always be seen as too Brexity by angry Remainers and not Brexity enough by those who quite like the idea of a festival thats all flags, The Fizz (Bucks Fizz, as was) and Jim Davidson.

There are reasons to be hopeful for it, though. The chief creative officer is Martin Green who is widely seen to have done a fine job as head of Hulls City of Culture Year in 2017. He was also Head of Ceremonies for the London Olympics in 2012. All the devolved governments have bought into the project and plenty of notable arts organisations including the National Theatre of Scotland, Celtic Connections and Edinburgh International Festival have got involved.

Read More: My distaste for this Prime Minister is visceral

And given everything that has happened over the last 12 months any money for culture is to be welcomed. The arts have been decimated over the last year because of the pandemic, so 120 million is not to be sniffed at, wherever its coming from.

Plus, frankly, the UK government owes the creative industries. After all, it has done its best to undermine them via its inept Brexit deal one that has thrown up serious challenges for musicians and the fashion industry in particular.

As an aside, you do wish they offered help with a little more grace, right enough. Instead, this is a government that too often sees culture as something to be weaponised. When the Culture Recovery Fund was announced last year, reports emerged that organisations who benefited from it had to announce their gratitude to the government via social media.

Whether what emerges next year will enthral us remains to be seen. I find it difficult to get too excited at previews that flag up a celebration of the British weather or Glasgow-based Aproxima Arts promising the largest grow-your-own food project of modern time. But it may be wonderful. Time will tell.

That said, its difficult to see how it can ever quite be the unifying celebration thats desired. As a country we are divided more than ever. The idea that a festival will offer an effective sticking plaster to cover the gaping wound seems more than a bit hopeful.

So, in the end, you do have to ask whats it actually for? In a year that will not be short of festivals there will also be the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham and a Platinum Jubilee to be getting on with too how can it stand out?

The people behind it would no doubt say by producing good work. Heres hoping.

Link:

Teddy Jamieson: Do we really need a 'Festival of Brexit'? - HeraldScotland

Brexit is a massive opportunity for criminals, a webinar on serious and organised crime in the UK and Ireland was told on Wednesday.

Professor Gloria Laycock, of University College London, made the remark when saying she believed the UK leaving the EU was among the issues that those concerned with fighting organised crime in Ireland and the UK had to contend with.

The Professor of Crime Science said that the nature of crime was changing dramatically and that policing also needed to change.

One of the ways to reduce crime was to increase the risks for criminals, and reduce the rewards, she said.

If I was in charge, Id double the amount of money being given to the Criminal Assets Bureau. Go for the money. Its a really great idea.

Prof Laycock said there would be no point in CAB seizing criminals assets but not telling people about it. Offenders needed to be made feel less comfortable, she said.

Anarine McAllister, a solicitor with Michael Staines & Co, said the fact that the UK was no longer part of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system would have potentially serious consequences for the prosecution of serious and organised crime in the future.

Irelands largest trading partner in terms of the EAW system has been the UK. The two jurisdictions need to retain a fluid extradition system if we are to harbour any hope of combating organised crime in the future, she said.

The EAW system has been described as being three times faster, and four times less expensive, than the alternatives.

Because the UK is no longer subject to the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it may over time develop its own law in relation to extradition, she told the webinar.

The webinar, which was organised by Sar Consultancy,with support from the British embassy in Dublin, was also addressed by the Chief Bureau Officer of CAB, Det Chief Supt Michael Gubbins, who spoke about the bureaus role in seizing the proceeds of crime.

Det Chief Supt Gubbins said CAB had trained 471 people outside the bureau, most of whom were members of An Garda Sochna but some were with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection, to act as asset profilers.

They are trained to be the eyes and ears of CAB around the State and to look out for potential targets for CABs attention.

Man caves, houses with excessive spending on renovations, bulletproof glass, expensive cars, repeat exotic holidays and the ownership of high-value goods, such as bags, jewellery, watches and store cards, are among the clues that local profilers are trained to look out for, he said.

The bureau targets small and medium-sized crime groups, as well as larger organisations, as this helps to prevent criminals progressing to more serious crime, and sends out an example to others.

He encourages the bureau to take part in events such as the webinar as he thinks it is important to let citizens know what law enforcement is doing.

See more here:

Brexit is a massive opportunity for criminals, conference hears - The Irish Times