Daily Archives: November 5, 2021

The Government is readying itself for a very difficult period in Anglo-Irish relations and a further deterioration in the already fraught situation between the European Union and United Kingdom.

It is universally expected in Dublin that the British government will trigger article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, suspending its operations, in the near future. That view is widely shared in Brussels. UK sources do not demur, even if they downplay the significance of the move.

Nobody is buying that in Dublin or Brussels, where the triggering will be taken as final and irrevocable proof that British prime minister Boris Johnsons administration does not negotiate in good faith, and cannot be trusted. Brexit is going back to the future.

We are now in the worst period of Dublin-London relations since then prime minister Margaret Thatcher and taoisech Charles Haughey glowered at one another in the 1980s. Things have deteriorated in recent months. Both Tnaiste Leo Varadkar and Taoiseach Michel Martin have tried to cultivate personal relationships with Johnson. Senior officials now wonder if there is any point in this. I have never heard such gloom about it all, one senior figure tells me. Its very, very, very dark.

The alarm bells rang in Dublin on Tuesday evening when the Financial Times posted a story that reported the British government had sought external legal advice on the protocol, taking the unusual step of going outside its own legal advisers whose approach may have been more cautious.

This was taken as a sign triggering article 16 was imminent. The working assumption in recent times had been that it was likely once Cop26 was out of the way, but now officials wondered if the timetable had been moved up.

They fretted it could happen within a few days.

In the Dil, Martin made his most explicit and direct statement on the matter yet, warning that triggering article 16 would be irresponsible, it would be unwise and it would be reckless. There would be, he said, far-reaching implications for the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. I think it would also have implications for relationship between the United Kingdom government and the Irish Government. This is as blunt a warning as youre likely to see.

So what happens if and when article 16 is triggered? At one level, not all that much. A months notice is required under the treaty to invoke the provision. And article 16 is not, despite what some people appear to believe, a magic wand that causes the protocol to disappear. Instead, a new stage of consultation and arbitration commences. Now that you have met article 16, its time to meet our new friend, annex 7, which lays out the process, its requirements and so on. As part of those processes, the agreement allows for rebalancing acts by the EU, which could involve the imposition of some tariffs on UK goods, say officials.

But for Brussels and Dublin, triggering the article after the public and private appeals, after the proposals made by European Commission vice-president Maros Sefcovic, which meet an awful lot of the practical concerns of unionists and the British (they are refusing to take yes for an answer, one senior official tells me) and with the consequences spelled out in the advance will change things fundamentally from the EUs perspective.

There is a complete disconnect between the way the British see the move and the way Brussels sees it. As Mujtaba Rahman, one of the best analysts of EU-UK hostilities put it last week, the British see this as a limited tactical move; the EU will see it as a nuclear strike.

The EU may take the view that the British are in open breach of the EU-UK agreement and give notice that it intends to suspend the entire trade and co-operation pact. Because that requires a years notice, it would mean that 2022 sees a rerun of the countdown to a no-deal Brexit that we saw previously, with the EU and UK wrestling with each other to reach an agreement to avoid such an outcome, and Northern Ireland again the sticking point.

It would be different this time, though. There would be basically zero trust on the EU side, making any new deal that much harder. How could you make an agreement with someone who has walked away from a deal you made with them two years ago?

There will definitely be some sort of trade war between the EU and the UK, a sources familiar with discussions on the matter at the highest levels of Government here tells me. Another person in similar position says there will 100 per cent be a trade war. Nobody in Brussels believes otherwise. Later, he adds: And we will be stuck in the middle.

The twin concerns in Government Buildings will be the effect of all this on the situation on the ground in the North where protests against the protocol turned ugly this week and the need to protect Irelands place in the single market.

As a general principle when trying to figure all this out, we should be careful about putting on the green jersey or reflexively taking the side of our own country. We see enough cheerleading masquerading as journalism in the UK. But it is impossible to conclude that the UK has behaved honourably and decently in this affair. The Irish Government will find itself in a horrible situation through no fault of its own. It will hard to extricate us all from this mess.

See the original post here:

Pat Leahy: Brexit goes back to the future - The Irish Times

Boris Johnson was forced into an extraordinary U-turn during yet another sleaze storm following his attempt to save a Conservative MP from suspension while trying to rip up conduct rules.

Owen Paterson resigned as Tory MP after No 10 promised the Commons a fresh vote on his suspension over a breach in lobbying rules as well a retreating on plans to overhaul the disciplinary system.

It is not this governments first big climbdown. The Independent took a closer look at Mr Johnsons major reversals on everything from Brexit plans to Covid rules since taking charge of the country in 2019.

Owen Paterson and the sleazy mess November 2021

Boris Johnsons government performed a screeching over its move to block Mr Patersons suspension by pushing its own plan to create a Tory-led committee to rewrite standards rules.

Faced with an almighty 24-hour backlash over Wednesdays successful vote Tory MPs spoke out and Labour decried the sleazy mess No 10 said there would be a fresh vote on the matter, accepting it could not push ahead without cross-party support.

Rather than face a likely defeat, suspension and possible recall petition, Mr Paterson decided to quit as the Tory MP for North Shropshire, saying he wanted to leave the cruel world of politics.

Matt Hancock resignation June 2021

Mr Johnson initially accepted an apology from Matt Hancock after his health secretary was revealed to have kissed an aide in his departmental office. On 26 June Downing Street said the prime minister considered the matter closed.

But only a day later following a huge public backlash Mr Hancock had announced his resignation and was replaced by Sajid Javid. The minister said he come to accept that he had breached social distancing guidance by kissing his colleague.

Replacing the protocol July 2021

Boris Johnson signed up to the Northern Ireland protocol which featured a series of checks on GB-NI trade designed to avoid a hard border in Ireland as part of the withdrawal agreement finally done with the EU in January 2020.

But in July 2021, his Brexit minister Lord Frost announced that the UK government did not want to stick to the protocol and put forward significant changes it wanted to make to the deal.

Lord Frost later claimed the protocol was always a little bit provisional, and senior DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr said Mr Johnson had made him a personal promise to tear up theprotocol once aBrexit deal with the EU was agreed.

National lockdown measures October 2020

Mr Johnson repeatedly ruled out the misery of a second national lockdown for England, claiming in mid-October that Sir Keir Starmers support for a shutdown was the height of absurdity.

However, less than two weeks later Mr Johnson was forced to accept a major change, announcing on 31 October that England would go into a month-long lockdown, closing venues and telling people to leave home only for specific reasons.

Speaking at a hastily-assembled address on a Saturday, he said: Models now suggest that unless we act, we could see deaths in this country running at several thousand a day, a peak of mortality, alas, bigger than the one we saw in April.

Working from home September 2020

Mr Johnson was forced to abandon his governments drive to get Britons back in the workplace following the first wave of coronavirus.

Cabinet minister Michael Gove admitted the governments call for people to return to the workplace a measure deemed critical for the survival of cafes and other businesses which rely on commuters had been dropped.

He said there was a shift in emphasis, telling Sky News: If it is possible for people to work from home then we would encourage them to do so.

A-levels and the algorithm August 2020

With just one day to go before A-level results based on a controversial system using an algorithm were published, Mr Johnsons government announced a partial U-turn.

But the initial U-turn, which allowed pupils to use their mock results as the basis for appeals, also descended into confusion when the exams regulator admitted it could not clarify how the new system would work.

Mr Johnson insisted that the exam results would be dependable. But under intense pressure, the government said results would be based on teachers predictions after all. Education secretary Gavin Williamson apologised for the distress the fiasco had caused pupils.

Huawei and 5G July 2020

Only six months after approving the involvement of Chinese tech giant Huawei in the development of Britains 5G network, Mr Johnson U-turned and slapped a ban on UK operators purchasing any of the companys equipment after the end of 2020.

No 10 insisted it was a purely technical decision forced by US sanctions, but it followed intense pressure from Sino-sceptic Conservative backbenchers including former party leader Iain Duncan Smith.

Free school meals June 2020

The first of two big free school meals reversal came after a summer campaign launched by the footballer Marcus Rashford gained momentum with MPs and the public.

Downing Street had rejected the England stars plea for the government to keep paying for the 15-a-week vouchers over the summer, sending ministers out to defend the plan. Only 24 hours later, the government decided it would, in fact, extend the free school meals scheme.

Mr Johnson called the England striker to congratulate him on changing polic. I thank him for what hes done, he said. But the PM failed the learn his lesson. The pattern repeated itself in November when the government U-turned on Rashfords demand that low-income families were supported during the winter holidays.

Read the original:

Boris Johnsons U-turns: From Brexit to sleaze, a timeline of indecision - The Independent

Masked men hijacked and torched a bus in Northern Ireland early Monday in an attack linked to British unionists opposition to the post-Brexit trade protocol.

Unionist leaders condemned the attack as counterproductive. Democratic Unionist Party chief Jeffrey Donaldson said such threats and destruction would only cement the protocol more firmly in place.

Police said two masked and armed men stopped the bus and ordered the driver off, before dousing the inside of the otherwise unoccupied vehicle with fuel and setting it on fire. Such roadside hijackings, particularly of buses, were common during the three decades of conflict over Northern Ireland known as the Troubles, but are a rarity today.

The attack in Newtownards, an overwhelmingly unionist town 10 miles east of Belfast, comes weeks after Donaldson warned he would withdraw his party from Northern Irelands cross-community government triggering its collapse to be followed by new elections unless Britain won fundamental concessions from the EU over enforcement of the trade protocol at Northern Irelands ports.

Monday was widely viewed as Donaldsons deadline for such action. But Donaldson suggested that his partys withdrawal threat was unlikely to proceed this month because Londons own threats to trigger Article 16 of the protocol treaty had produced fresh proposals from Brussels.

Serious negotiations have reopened with the U.K. government. No reasonable person could deny that this represents significant and positive progress, Donaldson said. That progress was secured through political action and not violence.

Police said at least one of the hijackers was carrying what appeared to be a handgun, although there was no way to determine whether the firearm was real.

The hijackers reportedly told the bus driver they were protesting against the protocol, but no paramilitary group claimed official responsibility for the attack.

Newtownards has been a focal point this year for several public protests against the protocol. It also is a power base for the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Both are outlawed loyalist paramilitary groups that are internally divided over whether to stir up violence as part of unionists wider anti-protocol protests.

Loyalists mounted 10 days of street clashes with police in April, when many rioters said they were protesting against the protocol as well as the police and power-sharing with Sinn Fin, the main Irish nationalist party.

Read the rest here:

Northern Ireland bus torched in protest against Brexit sea border - POLITICO Europe

Ted Heaths legacy, self-evidently, is centered around our European relationship, and it is not fanciful to suggest that his legacy has been shattered beyond recognition.

We have had control now for two years but, more significantly, five and a half years have passed since the EU referendum more than enough time to plan that bonfire of controls that were said to be so damaging to our economy.

A central promise of Boris Johnsons 2019 election campaign was that electing him would enable the government to get Brexit done. One can be forgiven now for wondering if Johnson had any idea what lay in store, as we remember the queues for petrol, are warned to buy early for Christmas, view the gaps in the supermarket shelves, wait in queues in doctors surgeries, beg builders to spare someone to fix a leaking tap or broken window, read that well over a million European workers have gone home, and see the containers stacked up at Felixstowe.

Covid would have stretched the capabilities of any government to the extreme, but nothing reveals the nature of the relative impacts on our economy more than the assessment last week by the Office for Budget Responsibility that the long-term effects of Brexit were twice as damaging as those of Covid.

The attempt by George Eustice, secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs, to dismiss these findings as old hat fell rather flat when Nick Robinson on the Today programme pointed out that they had only been published the day before. It is important to remember that Brexit was conceived, designed and secured before the word Covid ever entered our vocabulary.

The campaign to leave the European Union was deeply divisive. It played on peoples anxieties, fanned their resentments, conjured up memories of an imperial independence long since past. Specifically, it focused on several long-standing grievances. Sweeping aside the fact that many British fishermen had sold the quotas allocated to them in 1973 to European fleets, the idea of taking back control of our seas was targeted at our fishing industry. I quote the verdict of the National Federation of Fishermans Organisations: The flags flying over our vessels had a slogan, Fishing, No Sell Out. Those flags now seem prescient because thats what happened.

The legacy of former prime minister Ted Heath has been shattered beyond recognition

(PA)

The common agricultural policy has been a long-standing target for the Eurosceptics. I must declare an interest here. My company has extensive agricultural and horticultural interests. Liz Truss has negotiated deals with Australia and New Zealand that, unlike virtually every other trade deal negotiated as a consequence of Brexit, are new as opposed to simply rollovers. They have a common factor: they are being phased in over a significant period of time. I have been in politics a long time; I know what that means. Someone is going to get hurt. Kick the hurt down the road, and hope it will be lost to sight in the details of an agricultural horizon still shrouded in uncertainty.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices newsletter by clicking here

I turn now to the effect of Brexit on the United Kingdom. We are greater together than ever we could be apart. I come from South Wales. It will always be my home. My eyes fill as the choirs sing. It never occurred to me that Wales should split from the United Kingdom. It is one of the most perverse aspects of Brexit that the very arguments its advocates used to separate from Europe are those the nationalists use to divide the United Kingdom. Brexit fuels separatism. Can anyone today claim that the United Kingdom, its monarchy and its constitution are more secure now that we have got back control?

I deplore the prospect of an independent Scotland. Its people have made such a significant contribution to what we are. The human giants in academia, engineering and culture are part of British culture. As a young schoolboy I made models of the tanks of the Black Watch fighting in the deserts of north Africa. Our defence is their defence. Brexit has handed Nicola Sturgeon one more potent weapon.

The Northern Irish situation is fragile. Debate rages about the creation and implementationof a border within the United Kingdom that we were told no prime minister could contemplate. What the government signed and what its ministers said are incompatible. There is one uncomfortable explanation: Brexit was more important than the truth. Britains word matters, and is a key to our reputation across the world. People must believe that what we sign, we will deliver.

Huge numbers of Europeans have chosen to return to their over-regulated, too-centralised, Brussels-dominated, sclerotic economies, leaving us with glaring holes in both our public services and the private sector. The prime minister advocates a high-wage, high-productivity economy without explaining that the high productivity has to precede the high wages. This failure has made him the shop steward for every inflationary wage claim that will, over the coming months, lead to growing inflation, rising interest rates and falling living standards. Not quite the dividend Brexit promised.

The City of London had established itself as the pre-eminent European financial centre before Brexit was a serious feature on the political agenda. Under the terms of the single market, its position was unassailable. The Brexit negotiations did not cover these crucial service industries, and companies are now forced to anticipate what discriminatory measures Europeans will adopt to shift part of this lucrative business to the continent.

Brexit: Boris thanks Cameron

In an articlein the Insurance Journal it is claimed that 440 relocations have been decided, with 135 destined for Dublin, followed by Paris with 102. The prizes are obvious and we should expect to see persistent attempts to undermine our market leadership. There will be those who accuse our former partners of being cheats and worse, ignoring all the while that our talk of creating a Singapore on Thames, slashing taxes and tearing up regulations, was designed to achieve precisely that outcome at their expense.

This brings me to another of the easy targets of the Brexiteers: regulations, coupled with images of anonymous officials in Brussels. The market knows no morality. Left to its own devices it is a jungle. Everyone for themselves. Civilisation depends on the constraints imposed by politicians to protect the weak, impose standards, and frustrate criminals.

Regulations are often intrusive and detailed, but that is because long experience has taught the officials who design them that there is a small percentage of the population with clever lawyers looking for loopholes they can exploit.

Last week it was revealed that we have the dirtiest beaches in Europe because we allow the discharge of raw sewage onto them. A group of Conservative MPs forced the governments hand. Regulations will follow. If all those facile claims for deregulation had had any validity, the chimneys of Whitehall should today be belching white smoke. At least our environment benefits from its absence.

Too much of the Remain campaign made the mistake of concentrating on detailed threats that were then all lumped together under Project Fear by its opponents. The argument that attracted too little attention was that which concerned the extraordinary achievements of the European Community in changing the course of the continents history. Debate, negotiation and compromise became the essence of political behaviour. Three wars in 75 years gave birth to the founding vision that it must never happen again, and led to three-quarters of a century of peace. Twenty-seven nations sharing sovereignty, each with their own liberal democratic accountability as a condition of community membership, have turned their backs on centuries of bloodshed. Their shared political endeavour has levelled up the condition of their people and preserved the countryside.

A political entity with the resources to compete with the superpowers of the United States, China, and, shortly, India, opens horizons that would be denied to those of us dependent on national resources alone. A British voice at its heart, speaking for generations of young people about the social, commercial, cultural and environmental world of tomorrow. That was Teds legacy.

For what purpose did we throw it all away? Does Britain stand taller in the world today? Should we not have listened to President Obama when he warned that in seeking a trade deal we would be at the back of the queue? Our relations with China are clouded by understandable disagreements. European politicians are at the wrong end of name-calling in a war of words that anyone who deals in business knows has to be overcome in order to clinch a deal. Across the world there is incomprehension at what we have done. At home there is a growing understanding that we were deceived.

I have not mentioned Nigel Farage, but I want to allow him the last quotation. In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way. Thinking he was about to lose, he was preparing for the fight ahead. The last opinion poll I saw showed that this narrow Brexit vote has been replaced by a 10-point lead for those who took the opposite view. I agree, therefore, that it is unfinished business. It will take time. It will require energy and leadership.

There is a lesson to be learnt from the Brexiteers: they never gave up. Our purpose is clear. We must restore Britains position in the corridors of European power. That is our natural home, and where our history lies. Any vision of our future must be built around the realities of world power. We have so much to contribute: our tolerance and fair-mindedness; a political sophistication that has converted colonies into the Commonwealth; a reputation of trust, as reliable friends. We will play our part more effectively by sharing the power and sovereignty of modern Europe.

Every Conservative prime minister for whom I have worked, since Winston Churchill himself, has understood this. Ted Heath gave substance to the words. It is sad beyond measure that this government, by contrast, will bequeath to our younger generation an empty chair, voiceless, devoid of influence over European affairs. They will come to reject such a diminished role for our country. Europe will welcome them back.

This is an edited version of Michael Heseltines Edward Heath Lecture at the University of Nottingham

Michael Heseltine is president of the European Movement and a former defence secretary

Continue reading here:

The next generation will reject Brexit and the way it diminished our country Europe will welcome us back - The Independent

A little under four years after the referendum, the UK finally left the EU at 11pm on January 31, 2020 and entered a transition period, during which the final details of Brexit were negotiated. The transition period ended on December 31, 2020, and the UK officially left the EU single market and customs union at 11pm that day.

From that point the UK became whats known as a Third Country, one thats defined by the EU as a country that is not a member of the European Union as well as a country or territory whose citizens do not enjoy the European Union right to free movement.

There have been wide-ranging implications for travellers as a result of these changes, including updates on passport validity, increased roaming charges and of course how long you can stay in an EU country without a visa.

Heres what you need to know.

Main photo: passport control at Athens airport (Getty Images)

For tourists there are minimal travel restrictions at the moment, although you may have to provide evidence of a return or onward ticket, and that you have sufficient funds to cover your stay.

The one key change is that if you visit most EU countries, or Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein on holiday, you can only stay for a maximum of 90 days in any 180-day period. This is a cumulative number so if you spend 90 days in France, you may need a visa if you want to enter another EU country, or wait until a new 180-day period starts.

Each country has its own rules on this, so you should double check with the Foreign Office. Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania have their own 90-day limits, which means you can visit these four countries without adding to your total stay across EU countries. Travel to Ireland is exempted.

From the end of 2022, however, there are plans to introduce the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (Etias) for British travellers. It will work in a similar way to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (Esta) that is used to enter the United States and is expected to cost 7 (6). There are no concrete launch dates yet, or details on how to apply.

Since becoming a Third Country, the rules for passport validity have also changed, which means you can no longer use your passport until the last day its valid unless youre travelling to Ireland. The government now advises renewing your passport if it is more than 10 years old (even if its valid on paper for longer), or if less than three months remain on your passport.

For passports that are more than 10 years old, it is crucial to check. Traditionally, in the UK, up to six months of validity on your current passport is added to your new passport when you renew but the EU doesnt recognise this extra validity for Third Countries, so youll need to renew your travel documents before they expire.

When the UK left the EU, the guarantee of free mobile phone roaming in the EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway ended. Before Brexit, all major mobile phone network providers promised to keep free roaming in place, but many have since updated their policies by either introducing new charges or reducing usage allowance.

You should check with your provider on exactly what applies to you as different mobile networks have different policies for different tariffs. The government has introduced a law to cap mobile data charges to 45, though, so if you accidentally switch on roaming, you wont be charged more than this unless you opt in.

If you have a photocard driving licence issued in the UK then you dont need an international driving licence (IDP) to drive to countries in the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein. However, you may need one if you have an older paper driving licence, or if your licence is issued in Gibraltar, Guernsey, Jersey or the Isle of Man.

If you do need an IDP, there are actually three different versions 1926, 1949, or 1968. Which one you need will depend on the country youre travelling to the government provides a list of these. Alternatively, you can check with the embassy of the country youre visiting, or the car hire company youre using.

If youre travelling through multiple countries, you may need to have more than one. And if youre taking your own car, make sure you have valid insurance and your car has a UK sticker on the rear. Different versions are accepted, but you should check the details for the country or countries youre travelling to as the rules may be different.

State healthcare is still available for UK citizens in Europe, but the system has changed (Getty Images)

British citizens can get free healthcare cover for travelling to Europe. It doesnt replace travel insurance, but it does entitle the holder to state healthcare thats either free or discounted. This system was known as the European Health Insurance Card (Ehic).

Since Brexit, two free alternatives have been introduced. Which one youre issued will depend on your eligibility, and their validities are slightly different. Both of these will cover emergency treatment, visits to A&E and routine maternity care, unless youre going abroad to give birth.

The UK Global Health Insurance Card (Ghic) is the one thats issued to most people and it works in the EU and Switzerland, but not in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The government says more countries may be added to this list in future.

In Norway, you can use your UK passport to gain medically necessary healthcare but for Iceland and Liechtenstein, youll need to make sure you have suitable travel insurance, especially for pre-existing conditions.

The second alternative is the UK Ehic, which can be used in the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

Youre only eligible for this if, before Brexit transition ended, you were a citizen of the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein living in the UK; a British state pensioner, or family of one, living in the EU, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Switzerland; or a UK student living and studying in the EU, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Switzerland.

You can check your eligibility and apply for both documents for free via the NHS website.

Here is the original post:

How will Brexit affect my holiday? - Times Travel - The Times

The move would be a significant post-Brexit boost for the City and would come as a major blow to French President Emmanuel Macron, who has attempted to lure global banks away from the city. Macron invited an elite group of global banking heads such as JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sachs' David Solomon to a Choose France event in June this year, to make the case for investing in his country.

This came when Britain still had very restrictive quarantine measures in place as a result of the pandemic.

According to the Telegraph, senior executives were becoming increasingly frustrated with the rules.

Speaking to Bloomberg TV this week, the London stock exchange chief David Schwimmer said: My expectation is that the European Commission will find a way to continue allowing EU-domiciled member banks and other institutions to continue to access [London clearing houses].

Its clearly recognised that it is a critically important service for the EU institutions who are using it, so it would be bad for them if they were cut off from it.

"Well continue to engage with the various stakeholders.

"I expect well see something probably early in the new year.

The move marks a major Brexit victory, as, before the referendum, finance chiefs warned that clearing - along with more than 200,000 jobs in the City - would be collateral damage in our exit from the EU.

However, a mass exodus of finance jobs out of London has failed to materialise.

LIVE UPDATES:Brexit LIVE: Frost victory after high-stakes Paris talks

According to EY's Brexit tracker, only around 7,500 jobs and 1.2 trillion in assets have left the City since the UK voted to quit the EU in 2016.

The figure is vastly below projections, such as that proposed by Xavier Rolet, former chief executive of the London Stock Exchange, who claimed more than 230,000 jobs could be lost.

JP Morgan, whose parent companys chief executive previously claimed Brexit may cause 4,000 British jobs to be lost, will have relocated fewer than 400 by the end of this year, while Morgan Stanley has relocated just 150 roles.

Mr Schwimmer's comments came just weeks after EU financial services chief Mairead McGuinness promised that there would be no cliff edge over EU banks access to UK clearinghouses, which act as middlemen in trading and play a crucial role in financial stability.

DON'T MISS:Britons lash out at showboating Macrons fishing tantrums[REACTION]Macron trust in Scott Morrison destroyed by leaked text[REVEAL]Beaune takes on 'bonecrusher' stance with Frost[INSIGHT]

She said the Commission would not engage in any sudden twists and turns on a decision over the licence that allows European banks to clear deals worth billions of euros in London.

A clearinghouse is an intermediary between buyers and sellers of financial instruments.

It is an agency or separate corporation of a futures exchange responsible for settling trading accounts, clearing trades, collecting and maintaining margin monies, regulating delivery, and reporting trading data.

The UKs clearinghouses were given permission to continue to operate in the EU on a temporary basis until June 2022 in order to secure financial stability post-Brexit.

President Macron's relationship with the UK has been increasingly rocky over the last few weeks, as a result of the fishing row which has dominated UK-France relations.

However, Mr Macron showed signs of mellowing when he withdrew threats of sanctions on the UK, which he had issued in response to a lack of fishing licences being issued to French fishermen.

He said: Since this afternoon, discussions have resumed on the basis of a proposal I made to Prime Minister Johnson. The talks need to continue.

My understanding is that the British were going to come back to us tomorrow with other proposals.

"All that will be worked on. Well see where we are tomorrow at the end of the day, to see if things have really changed.

My wish is that we can find a way out on all these issues.

See more here:

City of London boss predicts Brexit victory in blow for Macron - Daily Express

Its David Frosts big day out. The unelected Brexit minister has hopped across the channel into enemy territory thats what France is in the minds of the Brexity people he pals around with to talk fishing.

In theory, this is aimed at resolving the damaging spat over licences in a tiny, but nonetheless highly symbolic, sector of the economy. Its a row that most of us probably have only a dim understanding of, and I include (most) politicians in that.

In practice put it this way: given the egg Boris Johnson has managed to get all over his face by suspending the sleaze watchdog MPs had previously voted on, and approved, to police their activities before being forced into an extraordinary U-turn it wouldnt be terribly surprising to see Frost huffing and puffing about the perfidy of the dastardly French at the end of an unproductive set of discussions.

The best outcome would clearly be a pragmatic compromise. But cross-channel pragmatism, pragmatism regarding anything to do with Europe, is anathema to the current government at the best of times. Events at Westminster make this anything but that.

Theres really nothing like a continuing a cross-channel punch up to divert peoples attention from scandalous behaviour and sharp practice at Mother of Parliaments, where Johnson has once again been demonstrating that its one rule for him and this mates and one rule for the little people who dont get 9k-a-month lobbying deals.

What emerges from the talks, bad or less bad, will inevitably be greeted by Britains business community with a weary shrug of the shoulders. Theyve become used to this sort of thing by now. They are the supposed beneficiaries of Frosts tub-thumping in the name of the British interest. Trade is their thing. Its what they generate and benefit from.

In practice, theyll end up with the short end of the stick. Businesses prefer, if they can, to deal with people who shoot straight, and people who are governed by people who shoot straight. Boriss Britain doesnt do that.

The fishing row, like the one over the Northern Ireland Protocol that Frost is at the centre of, is poisoning a well already full of contaminated water. It is being conducted this way because there is a political benefit from doing so. It generates nice headlines in the Daily Express and cheers from Tory Twitter. But there is a cost, too.

It will be paid for in lost jobs, lost growth, lost prestige, lost trade. With the exception of a small band of EU-hating ideologues, who still exist but arent taken terribly seriously, what the business community would desperately like is a period of calm.

There is a widespread recognition that being outside the biggest possible market with the fewest possible barriers thats part of a now infamous quote of Frosts hailing the European single market dating from his time as CEO of the Scotch Whisky Association will inevitably lead to periods of friction. But it would like for it to be minimised as much as possible, as it indeed could be, and for as co-operative relationship as possible to be fostered.

That looks unlikely from a government that behaves like an unruly queue at the Eton tuck shop. So business leaders are stuck with constant diet of conflict and confrontation, which is making their lives extraordinarily difficult. They are left sighing and shaking their heads when their peers from around the world ask why a few small French boats have become as explosive as a defence contractors latest product innovation.

Theyre starting to realise that when Boris Johnson said f- business it was no off the cuff comment. He meant it. Their influence with a party they used to think of as their own is now not that much greater than that of the unions.

How Britains capitalist kingpins respond to this will be one of the more interesting developments to watch over the coming years.

See the original post here:

Businesses are becoming increasingly frustrated with Brexit but Frost cant solve that - The Independent

SUPPLY chain problems which followedthe Tory government's hard Brexit have been felt by three-quarters of UK high-street firms, new research has suggested.

A survey of 1000 business found lost orders or delayed deliveries had affected the vast majority of firms.

Other issues reported included acute shortages of staff due to the impact of Boris Johnson's Brexit regulations and the pandemic.

Four out of five respondents to the poll by risk management and insurance brokerage Gallagher said they were set to simplify their supply chains, with many switching to more localised solutions.

READ MORE:WATCH: Tory minister claims he 'didn't catch' SNP MP's questions on Brexit

Businesses have turned customer orders down or absorbed increased costs due to a lack of supply driving up prices, said the report.

Neil Hodgson, of Gallagher, said: Often operating behind the scenes, supply chains have been unusually visible to the public in the past year, with high-profile shortages causing disruption.

Business leaders clearly see further problems on the horizon and are keen to put the lessons of this year to use and make long-term changes, like looking closer to home for suppliers.

Supply issues have hit popular restaurant chains across the UK including Nando's, McDonald's, KFC, and Gregg's - while fuel shortages on forecourts caused chaos in late September and early October.

Read the original here:

Three in four UK high-street firms hit by post-Brexit supply issues, poll finds - The National

As Prime Minister Boris Johnson prepares to address on Monday the opening at Glasgow of the COP26 summit on climate change, it seems that the Brexit spirit has not been exorcised from the United Kingdom.

It rises from the grave to take on the British equivalent of the Green New Deal. And just in time for Halloween. In answer to the Conservative Governments net zero agenda in response to anthropocentric climate change, Britons are stirring in indignation.

The idea of a referendum to set their representatives straight as in Brexit is starting to percolate. So suggests a poll commissioned by CAR26 (Climate-Analysis-Reason). It found that 42% surveyed support a national referendum with 30% opposed. Excluding the dont knows, that translates into 58% in favor of a referendum. They are not ready to give up the ghost of British independence, whether from bureaucrats in Brussels or presumptuous pols at home.

They are on to those intent on shutting down the most prosperous economic advances in human history. Mr. Johnson is reportedly prepared to imperil Britain to meet controversial targets making the country carbon neutral by 2050. Setting aside the science, which is far from being settled or conclusive, what are the consequences from the perspective of political economy?

Rather dire, particularly for low wage earners. The Government plans to mandate measures for the removal of gas boilers and the installation of low-carbon alternatives pumps expenditures costing as high as 20,000 a household, when additional decarbonization renovations are added. Thats just to retrofit housing.

How will electricity be generated? Coal-fired plants are out; solar- and wind-sources of energy are in. Never mind that their efficacy at both generating power, of sufficient strength and duration mind, the moon wont power solar panels is unreliable. Add to this the transportation costs when combustion engines are outlawed. In shops, stock shortages and empty shelves will become the new normal.

Mr. Johnson has no qualms about staking Britains survival in service of an empty ideology. Fortunately, others are not so sanguine. Like the hero of Brexit, Nigel Farage. This could well be my latest campaign, Mr Farage tweeted. Ive been saying that the rush to Net Zero and the way in which it is being done is going to be ruinous, he told his audience on the GB news network.

Itll lead, Mr. Farage added, to yet more huge transfers of money from the poor to the rich . . . And yet, just like the European Question, my growing sense of its been that out there in the Shires, people are asking, hang on whos paying for all of this?

Harkening back to his success in forcing the EU referendum in 2016, Mr Farage was forthright: Clearly, a lot of you out there feel this shouldnt be done without you being asked and actually, this wasnt really what you voted for in 2019, when Mr. Johnson won a staggering parliamentary majority to get Brexit accomplished.

Will the Government acquiesce to a referendum? Conservatives cannot be ignorant of David Camerons cynical agreement to a vote on EU membership. Having so alienated large segments of the population with lockdowns and threats of vaccine passports, Parliament would be hard pressed to ignore calls for a vote on Britains future.

If the Government were to win, battle lines will have formed for future contests on behalf of personal liberty. What, though, if the Government were to lose? Would Boris resign, taking Mr. Camerons departure from Downing Street as a precedent? Dont bet on it. Were he shamelessly to hold on to power, though, the Prime Ministers days at Number 10 would be numbered.

No less momentous would be the effect upon the Royal Family. So confident are Prince Charles and Prince William in the righteousness of their cause, it is difficult to believe they would sit out the referendum. Were they to lose, the British monarchy could well be discredited to its foundations.

Now that the idea of a climate-shutdown referendum has been run up the flagpole, all can read its signal. Britons are unhappy with Westminster. Preliminary poll numbers bear this out. Rivals to the Johnson ministry, whether climate-skeptical Tories in the Net Zero Scrutiny Group or opposition parties, will challenge the ruling Conservatives. Minor parties on the right could see fertile ground on which to rally Brexiteers repelled by Boriss antics.

We may even begin to see some common sense brought to bear on the whole question of environmental anthropocentrism. A defense of traditional British culture might no longer be considered politically impossible.

________

[emailprotected] Image: A cloud study done in oil on paper in 1824 by John Constable. From the Yale Center for British Art, via Wikipedia Commons.

Read more:

In a Halloween 'Boo,' Britons Are Eying a Brexit-Type Referendum on the Green New Deal - New York Sun

It is slowly dawning on the Conservative Party that it is becoming the party of taxation, and it really does not like it.

I wrote last week that when the Chancellor found he had more money than previously forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the only real question for his Budget was how that was going to be distributed between higher spending and lower borrowing.Lower taxes even after 40bn worth of tax rises had been announced earlier this year was never in the reckoning.

The ConservativeHome ratings of cabinet ministers suggest that the Budget and spending review has seen Rishi Sunaks popularity take a hit: he has fallen from his customary position of second place to 12th. Among his critics appears to be the Chancellor himself, given that he inserted a section into his Budget speech that espoused the virtues of a limited state after he had spent the previous 40 minutes expanding it. If the Chancellor is not convinced by his economic strategy, it is not altogether surprising if party members start to have doubts about it too.

The unfortunate reality for those demanding lower taxes is that the current situation is in part inevitable and in part self-inflicted. The inevitability is the consequence of an ageing population. The demands on our health and social care systems will only increase and, unless we shift the burden from taxpayers to users of these services (and with social care, we are going in the opposite direction), tax will have to go up.

It is also the case that we have come through a long period of significant restraint in public spending that it is no longer politically possible to maintain. Some areas of public spending evidently need more the justice system springs immediately to mind even before we address the challenges created by the pandemic.

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Green Times A weekly round-up of The New Statesman's climate, environment and sustainability content.

This is all in the context of a government elected with the support of voters who have previously voted Labour, and whose instincts on economic issues lean more to the left than the right. Small-state conservatism is unlikely to appeal to the Red Wall.

The demands for higher spending could be much more easily dealt with without resorting to tax increases if the economy was growing strongly. But, discounting the Covid bounceback, this is not likely with growth forecasts of 1.3 per cent in 2024 and 1.6 per cent in 2025.

The OBRs assessment of the permanent economic scarring caused by Covid might be reduced below the current estimate of 2 per cent, but there is no reason to believe that the damage done by Brexit will be anything less than the estimated 4 per cent (see graph above) the emerging trade data is consistent with the OBRs previous analysis. If anything, these numbers will prove an underestimate if the UK provokes a trade war by triggering Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol (as many in the EU expect once Cop26 has concluded).

Government ministers dismiss the 4 per cent number as old news, almost a matter of bad taste in even raising it, but it is an extraordinary sum. In terms of tax revenue, it constitutes approximately 30bn per annum, which as it happens is the amount George Osborne warned would need to be raised in additional tax if we voted for Brexit. This is the self-inflicted element.

The combination of these factors means that high taxes are here to stay and, given the demographic pressures, the tax burden is likely to increase over time.

There are three questions that all political parties should be asking themselves. How should we raise this revenue in a way that is fair, efficient and sustainable? How should we deliver high-quality public services as efficiently as possible? And how do we increase economic growth?

These are, of course, perennial questions, and hard ones at that. There is little evidence that they are at the forefront of the governments mind. Tax increases have been driven by political expediency (higher corporation tax rates is an economically damaging way to raise revenue), as is spending policy. Crowd-pleasing input targets (20,000 more police officers!) and pots of cash for marginal seats are unlikely to deliver good value for money.

As for encouraging growth, this could be an important contested field. Labours critique that we have high taxes because we have low growth is a promising one for them if pursued vigorously. The challenge for all parties will be to answer the question: what will you do to deliver higher growth?

This is not an easy question to answer credibly. High on the governments list of policies is free ports, which has been dismissed by the OBR as an irrelevance.

Giles Wilkes has recently made a convincing case that increasing the growth rate is very difficult for a government to do but that it is relatively easy to reduce it. This is one reason why the 4 per cent of GDP Brexit hit is so significant it would require a very long list of politically brave and contentious measures to even begin to compensate for it.

Here is a suggestion. If opposition parties want a growth strategy, their most credible approach is to point to that 4 per cent number, identify the cause a hard Brexit and promise to reverse as much of it as they can. If we really want lower taxes, there is no alternative.

[See also: Britannia Chained: why the legacy of Brexit threatens Boris Johnsons Global Britain]

Go here to see the original:

The best way to boost economic growth is to reverse hard Brexit - New Statesman