Daily Archives: May 1, 2022

Ukraines former president Petro Poroshenko has asked Boris Johnson not to compare the UKs Brexit vote to his countrys fight against Russia, saying zero citizens died because of the decision to leave the European Union.

Johnsons comparison, when he suggested British people backed Brexit with 52% of the vote because, like the Ukrainians, they choose freedom every time, was greeted with disbelief.

Downing Street has denied the prime minister was seeking to make a direct comparison between the devastation and loss of life in Ukraine and the UK vote to leave the EU.

Asked by ITV News about the comparison, Poroshenko, speaking in military uniform from the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, responded: How many citizens of United Kingdom died because of Brexit? Zero.

Can you imagine how many Ukrainians died [when] they met Putin aggression? Only today we have 150 children killed by Russian soldiers and by Russian artillery. Only during the last week 2,000 children from Mariupol were captured and delivered back to Russia.

Can I ask you how many houses were destroyed because of Brexit? We have whole cities that were completely erased with this situation please no comparison.

Delivering a speech to the Conservative spring conference at the weekend, Johnson said: I know that its the the instinct of the people of this country, like the people of Ukraine, to choose freedom every time.

I can give you a couple of famous recent examples. When the British people voted for Brexit in such large numbers, I dont believe it was remotely because they were remotely hostile to foreigners; it was because they wanted to be free.

The remark was heavily criticised, including by some in the Tory ranks, while Labour has called on Johnson to apologise to both Ukrainians and Britons.

Poroshenko, who was president of Ukraine from 2014 to 2019, called for British offers of support to be delivered faster and sooner.

He told ITV News: Your hypersonic anti-aircraft system, which Prime Minister Johnson just a few days ago promised us we will receive that will be the only possible way to stop Russian missile technology.

Please, you promised it one week ago, they need to be here now. Stop any bureaucratic war, stop any political blah blah blah.

He warned against trusting the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, or any of his promises and said Ukrainians did not need permission from him for their country to exist.

Visit link:

Please dont compare Ukraine to Brexit, Petro Poroshenko ...

Reflecting on the depressing economic prospects facing this country and many parts of the world, I am reminded of a line in PG Wodehouses Much Obliged, Jeeves.

The narrator that Boris Johnson-like figure Bertie Wooster sinks back in his chair, face buried in hands. It is always my policy to look on the bright side, he says, but in order to do this you have to have a bright side to look on

Well, in my view, the result of last weekends French presidential election offers a peep of a bright side. The concerns about the rise of the extreme right have been well aired, and there has been plenty of commentary about the fractured nature of the French polity and the mountain of problems confronting a re-elected Emmanuel Macron, who, it is to be hoped, has learned the lessons of his past mistakes.

But to read a lot of the commentary, a visitor from outer space could be forgiven for concluding that Macron had actually lost the election, instead of winning by a greater margin than had been predicted. As Francisco, one of the sentinels, says in the opening scene of Hamlet: For this relief much thanks.

Although Madame Le Pen had softened her anti-European stance for electoral reasons, there was much at stake. After Brexit, there had been a great deal of speculation about Frexit. And although the idea of France, a founding and pivotal member, leaving the EU had been formally dropped, it was obvious that Le Pens programme would have come pretty close to leaving the EU in all but name.

As more and more citizens of this country are realising, leaving the EU is not such a great idea. In common with other economies, this country is experiencing the inevitable and damaging losses to national and therefore individual income from a sharp deterioration in what economists call the terms of trade. This is the ratio of export to import prices, which is reflecting the sharp increase in the cost of imported energy, grain and other essentials as a result of the invasion of Ukraine.

On top of this we have Brexit; the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe calculates that the trade barriers we have imposed upon ourselves through the folly of leaving the EU have directly raised food prices in this country by 6%. Meanwhile, thanks to the arduous task of coping with all the red tape resulting from Brexit, the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance finds that trading relationships between UK and EU companies have declined by a third since the introduction of the EU-UK trade deal in January 2021. This largely reflects the blows to small- and medium-sized firms, which are supposed to be the lifeblood of the entrepreneurial economy to which this benighted government is supposed to aspire.

Moreover, having seen the difference between the promise and reality of Brexit, the public seems to be having a serious rethink. The campaign group European Movement UK has recently conducted a poll which suggests, in the words of its chair, Lord Adonis, that 98% do not want to leave the EU in its entirety.

The phrase in its entirety obviously leaves all sorts of scope for argument. There has been much discussion among those who were Remainers about what sort of relationship can be developed with our former partners. But do we really have to go back to the 1950s, when alternative relationships were experimented with as substitutes until it became obvious that the only sensible thing was to apply to join properly?

I was surprised to find my colleague, the estimable Rafael Behr, dismissing those who wish to rejoin the EU as only a fanatical minority. I can tell him that in my experience there is a growing number of these fanatics around, and they hardly constitute a minority. And I was especially struck by the remark of the novelist Julian Barnes, when in a recent interview he described himself firmly as a Rejoiner, not a Remainer.

Back to President Macron. He thinks Brexit is crazy and would surely be in favour of acknowledging the UKs historic mistake and inviting us back. The Ukraine crisis assuredly underlines the importance of his vision of a stronger and more united Europe.

It would help if the Tory party came to its senses, ejected Johnson and did not replace him with another Brexiter or at least chose a former Brexiter who had seen the error of his or her ways. In Guys and Dolls, the ensemble sings: But the passengers they knew right from wrong/For the people all said to Nicely-Nicely Johnson Sit down, sit down, youre rocking the boat.

In the case of the Johnson we have suffered for far too long, it is surely time to throw him overboard.

Read more here:

France turned its back on the far right. Brexit Britain can too - The Guardian

According to reports, the former Brexit Minister has been approached by several friends and allies to put his name forward to succeed Mr Parish as the new Tory candidate for the Devon seat.

The Telegraph reported that one ally described Lord Frost as a proper Conservative with star quality, who could even be a potential successor to Boris Johnson.

Lord Frost, who quit the Government last year, is understood to have indicated to friends that he would consider contesting the seat if Conservative headquarters want him to do it.

Lord Frost, who has been deeply critical of the direction of Mr Johnson's Government, warned that Britain had developed a strongly established culture of dependency, where people look to the state to solve their problems rather than making efforts themselves, and where business faces ever-growing practical obstacles to normal commercial activity.

REAM MORE

Originally posted here:

Brexit LIVE: 'Reality!' Economist says UK GDP growth to outpace EU by more than DOUBLE - Express

The British dealer Steve Shovlar has been selling art for the past 15 years. He mainly deals in Old Master paintings priced between 100 and 1,500not enormous sums, but enough for his small business to be worth 1m.

But, he says, his firm is now in ruins thanks to Brexit. And he sees no way out.

Since the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, Shovlars income has dropped by 60%. He says trade with the EU, where 99% of his clients are based, is now virtually impossible and the 30 to 50 sales he was making a week have dwindled.

Before Brexit, selling to European collectors was just like selling to a customer in Hull, he says, but now Shovlar has to fill out multiple invoices and customs declarations, while shipping delays of around four to six weeks are not uncommon.

As he puts it: A parcel costing 14 inc VAT to Italy before Brexit now costs 22 with no VAT. Instead of a customer receiving the painting and hanging it on their wall, they receive a customs notification demanding import duty, handling fee and 20% VAT before they get it. Approximately 230 extra for a 1000 item.

Collectors and other dealers who would routinely buy hundreds of paintings from Shovlar now tell him its just not worth the hassle.

With the added costs and onerous red tape, Shovlar says he can no longer compete with dealers in the EU. Brexit has wrecked small businesses trading with Europe, he says. Why on earth would an EU citizen buy from a UK business when it entails extra expenses and delays? Brexit has made trading with our closest customers extremely challenging and I am sure I am just one of many thousands who have had the heart ripped out of what was once and very successful and lucrative small business.

The only solution, Shovlar believes, is for the UK to rejoin the customs union or for a better trade deal to be struck with the EU. At the moment these trade barriers are killing our business, he says.

See more here:

'Brexit ruined my business almost overnight': UK dealer says his income has plummeted by 60% since Britain left the EU - Art Newspaper

Following the PMs visit to India last week, hopes have been raised of a possible free trade deal with the rapidly-growing economy by 2035.

The value of such a deal is currently estimated at 28billion - but industry expert Gauruv Singh predicts it to be much higher.

Mr Singh argued the massive growth experienced in India and its existing ties with the UK make it the perfect economic ally for Brexit Britain.

He toldExpress.co.uk: How I look at trade is, I look at it more in terms of an investment on both sides of the corridor, because ultimately, it has to lead to a better economy and better jobs.

India is currently marked as a 3 trillion dollar economy - but with the growth that it is experiencing, by 2040 that is going to see quantum leaps.

You have to take into account that there are 1.4 billion people in India, and a huge proportion of them are under the age of 30. Theres huge potential there.

More than 50 percent of Indias population is below 25, while over 65 percent are under 35.

According to statista, the countrys economy saw 9.5 percent GDP growth last year, and is projected to experience 8.52 percent this year.

Meanwhile, the EU is predicted to grow just 4 percent this year, while the UK is predicted to grow 3.8 percent.

Asked what is different about a trade deal with India than with the EU, Mr Singh said: Every ecosystem has its benefits, but there are things which set India apart.

There are two parts. One is that India is producing millionaires and billionaires at a faster rate than anywhere else in the world.

India is currently home to 6,884 ultra-high-networth individuals and 113 billionaires, according to international property consultancy Knight Frank.

READ MORE:GB News slanging match over Keir Starmer and Partygate[REVEAL]

They predict the number of billionaires in India is expected to increase by 43 percent to 162 by 2025.

The other is that India already has great ties with the UK. India is already the second largest investor in the UK after the US.

He stated that as time goes on, the two countries working together would only exponentially improve their innovation and technology.

British technology has very good regard in India.

As we grow, that investment will grow too.

Other partners might be going steady, growing a few percent a year - with India, its unrestrained growth.

Theres trillions in untapped potential.

DON'T MISS:Brexit LIVE: 'Never made sense' Lord Frost throws down gauntlet at EU[INSIGHT]

Go here to see the original:

India trade deal has trillions of 'untapped potential' for Brexit Britain compared to EU - Express

He also hit out at 'foot dragging' by the Westminster Government, which he claimed has added to the issues of inflation and soaring food prices.

Brexit and the UK Governments inaction have exacerbated the cost-of-living crisis, a Scottish Government minister has said.

Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson said the effects of Britains exit from the EU have been highlighted as rising bills leave families struggling in food and fuel poverty.

He also hit out at foot dragging by the Westminster Government, which he claimed has added to the issues of inflation and soaring food prices.

His comments follow a report by the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance which said Brexit-related trade barriers have driven a 6% increase in UK food prices, adding to the squeeze on consumer spending power.

The study covered two years to the end of 2021 and attempted to strip out the effect of the pandemic.

Scotland's Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson Andrew Milligan

Commenting exactly one year after the UK Governments Brexit agreement came into full legal force, the MSP said: Brexit has made the cost-of-living crisis worse for the UK and Scotland in particular since we did not vote for this damaging policy.

It has brought into sharp focus how Scotland has a cost of living with Westminster crisis.

Inaction and foot dragging by the Westminster Government compared to other countries is already making this crisis worse for ordinary people, but their Brexit plays a big part in exacerbating the problems people face.

Brexit has hit businesses with increased costs, paperwork and border delays and our food and drink sector is being unfairly disadvantaged, just as we warned it would be; and it is but one of a number of industries suffering worsening labour shortages as a direct consequence of Brexit and the pandemic.

Scotland voted against Brexit and wanted no part of this disarray, but still we are living with the consequences of the Westminster Governments hard Brexit deal.

By its actions during the Brexit process and in its aftermath, the Westminster Government has shown it is not interested in a partnership with the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government.

A view of EU flags outside The Berlaymont building, the Headquarters of the European Commission in Brussels. Aaron Chown

Independence, he added, is the only realistic route for Scotland to regain EU membership and escape from repeats of a cost of living with Westminster crisis.

A UK Government spokesperson said businesses are being supported to trade effectively with Europe, while seizing new opportunities as trade deals are struck around the world

The spokesperson said: We are also acutely aware of the pressures people are facing with rising costs of living and continue to do everything we can to help those who need it most.

This month alone, weve provided immediate help with energy bills through the 150 council tax rebate, an uplift to incomes of the lowest paid through the National Living Wage, and the biggest cut, in cash terms, on fuel duty on top of a range of other support worth 22 billion this year.

People in Scotland rightly want to see both of their governments working together with a relentless focus on the issues that matter to them.

That means, amongst other things, working to drive down NHS backlogs, protecting our long-term energy security and supporting our economic recovery so that everyone has access to the opportunities, skills, and jobs for the future.

See more here:

Robertson: Brexit and UK Government inaction exacerbating cost-of-living crisis - GB News

The purpose of Brexit was to strengthen Britains ties with both the world beyond Europe and with Europe itself, but in a more democratic way that carries popular support.

It was clear to Boris Johnson and to the Leave campaign that the EU ideal of free movement of people, an idea forged in the 1990s, had become difficult to reconcile with the reality of the contemporary world. High-skilled immigration made more sense than low-skilled, they thought, and a new system was needed to deal with 21st-century challenges while strengthening national cohesion.

Johnsons critics, naturally, portrayed the supporters of Brexit as xenophobes and knuckle-draggers who were afraid of the modern world and sought to return the country to the 1950s. But the reverse was and is true. Most supporters of Brexit simply wanted the freedom to implement immigration policies suitable for the modern world. The vision that this magazine supported in both the 1975 and 2016 referendums was summed up by the words we used on our cover both times: Out, and into the world. Two years on from Brexit, it seems right to ask whether it is working.

The first test is about restoring faith in democracy. Has Brexit succeeded in making voters feel more empowered? Leaving the EU, while painful, has certainly realigned mainstream political parties with public concerns. Today Britain is pretty much the only European country with no populist parties in parliament or with any serious support. Theres no British version of Marine Le Pen attracting 42 per cent of the vote.

Those who saw Brexit as a project of political reform this reuniting of mainstream parties with voters in a way that would leave no room for populism can claim success. Immigration is no longer a major issue of public concern, yet not because Brexit has somehow raised the drawbridge. Its true that the endless supply of cheap labour has slowed, which means employers must pay a higher wage or offer training if they want more skilled workers.

But Brexit, it seems, has succeeded in keeping Britain open under this new system, with immigration now above pre-2016 levels. Movement from the EU has (naturally) fallen but the number of incomers from elsewhere in the world has swelled by 50 per cent, taking the total of new arrivals last year to 843,000. This year, the numbers could be even higher. Some 70,000 Ukrainians have been granted visas and there are a possible 150,000 emigrants from Hong Kong.

Since the plan for Brexit was to swap low-skilled EU migrants for more highly-skilled ones from further afield, in this respect it has succeeded. The number of work-related visas issued to non-EU citizens is up 20 percent on 2016 levels. The number of graduate visas which allow students to work in Britain for up to two years after graduation is up 41 per cent. This increase doesnt trouble anxious voters because it is controlled via a points system. A sense of fairness and order has been restored.

The notable exception are the boatloads of migrants crossing the Channel in the hope of claiming asylum. It remains a very visible problem, and the government has attracted much criticism for its proposal to try to deter incomers by sending them to Rwanda. While offshore migration processing can make sense if done speedily and efficiently, it is hard to reconcile leaving successful applicants in Rwanda with Britains international obligations. This is a mess that the government will eventually have to fix.

Nonetheless, if globalisation is defined by movement of people, then Britain can claim in many ways to be doing it well. But successful globalisation means trade too, and here the figures have been disappointing. Trade with the EU was always going to fall, but the hope was that this would be more than offset with trade from the rest of the world. This has not (yet) happened in a way that tallies with the Global Britain agenda. And while figures were affected by lockdown, its also true that the trade deals agreed so far have been tentative and uninspiring.

Too many exporters small ones especially have found themselves tangled in red tape when attempting to send goods to the EU. British customers buying from EU suppliers have ended up being stung for unexpected customs duties. And then, of course, theres the huge blot on Brexit that is the Northern Ireland protocol which the government keeps promising to solve but has so far failed to. That failure could have grim consequences for the Union if, as the polls suggest, it leads to a Sinn Fein victory in next weeks Stormont elections.

Britain has always been a country with its eyes lifted to distant horizons: a worldview that was hard to reconcile with an increasingly parochial and protectionist EU. There is much work to do in exploiting the free-trade opportunity perhaps addressing the cost of living by taking down our own tariffs now we have the power to do so. Yet it is already possible to see the outlines of the vision put forward many times during the Brexit campaign: that of a Britain open to the world. The process was never going to be painless, or quick. But we do, after two years, have clear Brexit successes that can now be built upon.

View post:

Brexit's potential is beginning to be realised - The Spectator

The definition of a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. So ruled the veteran Washington journalist Michael Kinsley, who would surely take delight in the textbook example of the form served up on Thursday by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the satirically titled minister for Brexit opportunities.

On a visit to the Eurotunnel terminal at Folkestone, hi-vis gilet over his double-breasted suit, Rees-Mogg announced that the government was delaying yet again the imposition of post-Brexit border checks on imports from the EU. He asked the public to celebrate this decision, on the grounds that it would save 1bn a year and help hard-pressed consumers by avoiding an increase in the cost of imported food. Enforcing post-Brexit checks, said the minister, would have been an act of self-harm.

You read that right. Jacob Rees-Mogg, arch-leaver and longtime loather of the EU, is now parroting lines from the remain campaign. He is admitting that implementing Brexit in full, honouring the 2016 promise to take back control of Britains borders, would be an act of self-harm.

Theres plenty to attack here, starting with the nerve of hailing this move as saving Britons 1bn, when this was 1bn that Britons would never have had to spend at all if it hadnt been for Brexit. Or you could share the outrage of British farmers, appalled that, thanks to Brexit, they have been left at a serious competitive disadvantage: they now face onerous and costly checks when they ship their goods across the Channel, while French, Italian or Spanish farmers face no such hassle moving their products in the other direction. Or you could worry along with the British Veterinary Association, which warns that not checking food imports leaves Britain exposed to catastrophic animal diseases such as African swine fever a risk that was reduced when Britain was part of the EUs integrated and highly responsive surveillance systems. Or you could join the lament of the UK Major Ports Group, whose members have spent hundreds of millions of pounds building checking facilities, which now stand unused as bespoke white elephants.

But put all that aside for a moment and grasp the full meaning of Rees-Moggs admission. He and his fellow Brexiters once looked forward to these border checks, seeing them not merely as a price worth paying for leaving the EU but as a genuine benefit. Britain would at last be free to set its own food standards, superior to the EUs. And yet now the minister admits that putting up barriers just makes food more expensive for British consumers and risks bankrupting British farmers: precisely the act of self-harm remainers always said it would be. The irony of hearing Rees-Mogg declare that free trade is hugely advantageous to consumers after he and his comrades pulled us out of the largest, most successful free trade bloc in the world the European single market would be funny if it werent so bitter.

At a stroke, the minister for Brexit opportunities has implicitly admitted that there are none or, at the very least, any opportunities are outweighed by costs so great they represent economic self-mutilation. In the long story of Britains needless, pointless departure from the EU, the Rees-Mogg admission should count as a milestone.

Which is not to say the Conservatives wont keep banging the Brexit drum, hoping it will rally the electoral coalition it summoned back in 2019. But the sound, always hollow, will now be hollower still: thanks to Rees-Mogg, the Brexiters themselves have admitted as much.

This matters not just as a twist in the Brexit saga but for the life expectancy of this government. For Brexit was this governments founding purpose. When the best that even the loudest advocates for that project can promise is a delay in its realisation, its clear: the drive has gone. And without such a goal, a destination to aim for, governing parties drift and become vulnerable.

If the two usual determinants of an incumbent administrations popularity are the economy and the personal standing of the leader, those now combine dangerously for the Tories. The cost of living crisis is both deep and wide, reaching into families that had previously been getting by, albeit with a struggle. Its the mother living off a tin of soup for herself so her children can eat; its the parent getting the kids to change into pyjamas when they get home from school, to avoid wearing out their uniforms.

But this crisis runs in parallel with Partygate, each revelation of indulgence in Downing Street affronting not only those who followed the rules and denied themselves contact with loved ones during lockdown, but all those who do not have the money to put bread on the table, let alone pay for a suitcase full of booze. This is a Marie Antoinette government, pampering itself while too many of its people go hungry.

The usual alibis are no longer working. The much trumpeted vaccine rollout is increasingly offset in the public mind both by Partygate and the handling of the first phase of the pandemic: witness this weeks high court ruling that discharging people from hospitals into care homes was irrational and unlawful. A new poll shows a sharp decline in the number of voters ready to forgive those early decisions just because theyre glad they got the jab.

Nor does law and order any longer offer its traditional comfort to Conservatives, not when new figures show overall crime has increased by 18% in the past two years, with the proportion of those charged down to just 5.8%. On almost every issue, from inflation to immigration, tax to housing and the NHS, big majorities think the government is handling things badly. Only on defence and terrorism do the Tories get positive marks. No wonder they like to hail Boris Johnson as a leader on Ukraine, though that is of limited political value: most voters surely sense that todays Labour party would not be doing anything different.

In normal circumstances, you would say this spells doom for Johnson. He lags behind Labour and Keir Starmer on the two big ones: the economy and leadership. People are far worse off than they were, and they have lost all trust in him. His government is stripped of its defining purpose, leaving it exposed to daily squalls and scandal.

And yet, while the evidence is strong that voters are making the break from this government, they are not yet fully sold on the alternative. The old line says its governments that lose elections, rather than oppositions that win them. But changing governments is a two-stage process: first, the electorate moves away from the incumbent party; then it moves towards the challenger. Labour and Starmer have work to do on that second stage. But the first phase is well under way and Rees-Moggs accidental truth revealed one reason why.

Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist

Join Jonathan Freedland for a Guardian Live online event on 21 June, when he will talk about the story of a 19-year-old who escaped Auschwitz and helped to save more than 200,000 lives. Book here

Follow this link:

Jacob Rees-Mogg has given the game away even this government knows Brexit is a disaster - The Guardian

Britains hopes of a favourable post-Brexit trade deal with the US risk being undermined by the governments lack of engagement on workers rights, trade unions have warned.

As a second round of US-UK talks begins this week, union leaders from both countries said Washington would push for a worker-centred approach to trade to help unlock a deal.

Accusing Boris Johnsons government of failing to grasp the importance of labour rights, the TUC and the AFL-CIO, the biggest union federations in the UK and the US, said a change of tack was urgently required.

It comes as ministers push to build new ties around the world after leaving the EU, with a US trade deal considered a prize target for the government as it attempts to demonstrate benefits of Brexit.

After opening a dialogue on the future of Atlantic trade last month in Baltimore, talks resume this week in Aberdeen and London between the UK trade secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Katherine Tai, the US trade representative.

At the first round of meetings Trevelyan pledged she would strengthen the protection of labour rights and the environment and tackle forced labour globally.

However, the US and UK union leaders said the British government had too often hurtled into deals with unsavoury regimes that had no respect for fundamental human and labour rights.

The government had promised a role for union representatives in powerful post-Brexit trade advisory groups, which are consulted on negotiations. However, the TUC warned its nominees for the posts had not yet been confirmed by ministers, meaning unions did not have a place at the table.

In a joint statement, the two groups representing more than 17 million workers, called on the US and UK governments to work together to protect employment standards.

Frances OGrady, the general secretary of the TUC, said the UK government had rushed into post-Brexit negotiations with countries that readily abuse fundamental human and labour rights such as Colombia and Turkey.

Trade deals can lift labour standards, promote decent work and reduce inequality around the world. But the UK government has agreed too many deals that leave working people worse off, she said.

Enough is enough. Its time for a truly worker-centred trade approach. That means meaningfully consulting with trade unions and acting on our concerns. Only then is the US government likely to consider closer trade ties with the UK.

Eric Gottwald, a trade policy specialist at the AFL-CIO, said: For too long, the voices of working people have been shut out of trade negotiations or discussions. We need the TUC and its unions at the table to shape a fair agreement that lifts wages and standards on both sides of the Atlantic.

The groups said that under Joe Bidens administration, the US had increasingly involved protections for workers rights in trade negotiations in recent years, including in the latest US-Mexico-Canada agreement.

The leaders said as a result of trade union involvement in the USMCA negotiation, the agreement contains one of the strongest labour rights enforcement chapters ever agreed, with possibilities for sanctions to be introduced against companies that are abusing workers rights.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

A Department for International Trade spokesperson said: Trade unions attended the first UK-US trade dialogue in Baltimore last month, and tomorrow the TUC general secretary is speaking in the plenary session of the second dialogue which were hosting in Aberdeen.

The UK has a strong trading relationship with the US, worth over 200bn per year, and through our joint trade dialogues we can deliver a broader and even more ambitious trade agenda.

We are committed to listening to trade unions and a wide range of voices to ensure our trade policy delivers for the whole of the UK.

Go here to see the original:

Britains hopes of post-Brexit US trade deal depend on workers rights - The Guardian

One day, when Boris Johnson is no longer prime minister and the full catalogue of his frauds is compiled, a special place will belong to one that got him elected in the first place. Before he attended any lockdown parties, before there were pandemic rules to break or lies to tell about the breakage, there was the promise to Get Brexit Done.

It is not done. That is why Johnsons government is drafting a law that would give ministers the power to override the Northern Ireland protocol of the Brexit deal. This is the very treaty that Johnson hailed as great, excellent, a fulfilment of all his negotiating ambitions. If that were true, he would not now be planning to set it on fire.

Sound familiar? It should do. It is the latest sequel in a hackneyed franchise with a formulaic plot. In the Brexiteer imagination it is an action adventure movie. Brussels has taken a portion of UK sovereignty hostage. Plucky Boris must go in, all guns blazing, to retrieve it. In such escapades of derring-do, playing by the rules and respecting treaties is for remoaner softies.

A recap from previous episodes: to avoid reimposing a hard border on the island of Ireland, a special customs regime was agreed for the North that requires checks on some goods crossing from the British mainland. Johnson signed up to this. Ministers now claim it was never meant to be a permanent solution, by which they mean Johnson lied to his European counterparts as well as his voters. He never intended to honour the deal.

Until now, the governments agitation has been expressed by fingering, but never quite pulling, the trigger on article 16 the break clause written into the Brexit deal. But article 16 is a route to more negotiation and mediation within the scope of the treaty itself. It is a conventional weapon. The new device being assembled in the Downing Street bunker goes nuclear.

Will it be detonated? Veterans of past Brexit wars will be familiar with the cost-benefit equation. It comes down to a test of where Johnson thinks his short-term self-interest lies. The theory is that it takes a proper crisis for Brussels to take notice of British grievance. Currently, the EU is addressing the Northern Ireland question in technical, legal terms, via the commission. Johnson wants to escalate it to a deal between political leaders. He thinks a British prime minister shouldnt have to haggle with bureaucrats. He should be stitching something up with Paris and Berlin. Thats how it worked in the old days. But in the old days Britain was a member of the EU. That isnt how it works for third countries.

A downside to confrontation is that it would be divisive at a time when western nations are striving for solidarity over Russias attack on Ukraine. On that front, Johnson thinks his credentials as a stalwart friend of Kyiv are sufficiently well established and noted in Washington that he has wriggle room to make demands over Northern Ireland, a subject on which the Americans might previously have slapped him down.

But status as the most pro-Ukrainian leader in the room doesnt get Johnson as far as he thinks in Brussels, where he isnt in the actual room. He needs goodwill from Emmanuel Macron to shift diplomatic dials for him on the European council. The French president, with a newly acquired domestic mandate but a lot of trouble in his in-tray, wont spend any political capital doing favours for a man he mistrusts, having dealt with him before.

The prime minister has never been one for cultivating foreign alliances, since it requires consistency and reliability. His interests are more parochial. Also, wounded by Partygate, his focus is now on the bare-knuckle fight for survival. To that end, a conflagration of EU issues might help to thaw relations with the rightwing faction that traditionally settles the fate of Tory leaders. It would irritate moderate MPs, but they arent as ruthless or as organised.

No rival for the leadership will risk criticising an act of hardline Brexit revivalism. Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, fancies the top job and is notionally in charge of negotiations over Northern Ireland. She would not have chosen a manoeuvre as wantonly vandalistic as the protocol override bill, but she is said to be reconciled to the move. The chancellor has previously been an obstacle whenever No 10 has wanted to pick fights with Brussels, channelling Treasury anxiety about the cost of a trade war. But Rishi Sunak is badly diminished by recent political missteps around tax the ones he raised for voters and the ones his non-domiciled spouse avoided paying. Johnson no longer sees him as a threat.

Cabinet has not discussed the plan to sabotage the Brexit deal in law. Much depends on elections next week. The Stormont assembly poll in Northern Ireland could trigger a crisis by making Sinn Fin the largest party. Unionists would then lose the right to name the first minister a loss of political primacy that would be mostly symbolic, but culturally intolerable for that reason. Meanwhile, if council elections in England reveal massive discontent with Johnson, Tory MPs may be spurred to move against him.

Then there would be double temptation to go all in with a Brexit bust-up. Johnson would say that only scrapping the protocol could ease tensions in Northern Ireland (although in reality the election there will probably show a majority in favour of keeping it). The override law might not even need to be passed. The prime minister would be most interested in the spectacle a battle with Brussels, obstruction in the House of Lords, the fulminations of remain-supporting liberals; a fireworks display to get the old Eurosceptic core vote oohing and aahing in appreciation, just like the old days.

Would it work? Probably not. The pledge to Get Brexit Done had such breadth of appeal because it raised hope of ending the toxic, self-involved national drama over an issue that most people had not considered all that important before a choice was forced on them in a referendum. Only a fanatical minority misses the fight enough to restart it. And todays Johnson has lost the knack that his former self had for turning crisis into carnival. His levity no longer gets him leniency from an audience that has heard just a few too many lies. Still, there would be a certain tidy symmetry if his downfall included a Brexit bill that offered false resolution to a crisis without end his last great dishonesty in office being a mirror of the first.

Here is the original post:

Boris Johnson is flailing so he is reviving his Brexit greatest hits - The Guardian