Daily Archives: May 27, 2022

He accused the EU of wanting a solution that was "theoretically watertight" and unlikely to therefore ever be sustainable. Since the end of the EU transition period at the end of 2020, the EU has imposed strict customs checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea from Britain to Northern Ireland.

The bureaucratic checks were implemented as part of the 2019 Brexit withdrawal agreement but Unionists believe the heavy-handed nature of Brussels' approach is undermining the integrity of the UK.

Ministers have been in negotiations with the EU for months on the impact of the Protocol, but the bloc has so far refused to compromise.

Speaking to a parliamentary committee this morning, Mr Cleverly said ministers had solutions that should satisfy both sides in the talks.

He said: "There are a whole load of practical fixes which address the real world concerns of the EU in terms of integrity of the single market without introducing onerous or excessive checks or bureaucracy or delays in time with East-West trade across the Irish Sea between different parts of the United Kingdom."

READ MORE ON OUR BREXIT LIVE BLOG

The minister said the proposal "also protects the North-South trade between the UK and Ireland".

He added: "We think we're there. We think we've got proposals that do it in the real world."

Both the UK and EU agreed in Brexit withdrawal talks not to impose customs checks on goods travelling between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the south.

There were fears checks on the land border would undermine the Northern Ireland peace process and risk a return to the dark days of the troubles.

Brussels therefore demanded checks be carried out on goods crossing the Irish Sea in order to avoid products which do not comply with EU rules entering the bloc's single market via Northern Ireland.

The UK's plans would see customs checks eradicated on goods that were likely to remain in Northern Ireland and the introduction of a "trusted trader scheme" for big firms who pledge not to exploit the relaxing of the red tape.

DON'T MISS:Rejoiner alliance threat: Boris warned Brexit could be REVERSED[REACTION]France's new foreign minister says UK 'too aggressive'[UPDATE]Now you know how we feel!' Pelosi blasted as Turkey takes UK's side[INSIGHT]

Any firm which abused the system would be hit with heavy fines.

Brussels has rejected the plans because it means a risk remains of a small number of goods could end up in the EU.

"Our position is we genuinely think that with a big dose of goodwill and trust and with a big dose of technology we can actually get through and address both our sets of concerns," Mr Cleverly added while giving evidence to the House of Lords Northern Ireland committee.

"It strikes me for the level of reassurance the EU seeks on the integrity of the single market, they are looking to put in processes which are not just practically but also theoretically water tight."

Britain has vowed to introduce legislation to override the Protocol unilaterally if the EU continues to refuse to negotiate.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss unveiled the plans for the new law earlier this month and has pledged to start voting it through Parliament in a matter of weeks.

Ministers say they will continue to hold talks with the EU in parallel with the legislation.

They will abandon the new Bill if a compromise can be found with Brussels.

Go here to read the rest:

'We have real world solutions!' EU blasted as Brussels makes unrealistic Brexit demands - Express

Sam Hall is Director of the Conservative Environment Network.

With inflation rising steeply, the Government is urgently seeking ways to ease the soaring cost of living. Increasing direct financial support for households struggling with rising energy bills will be essential. Another component of the Governments response will be regulatory reform, which could cut costs for businesses, lowering consumer prices without adding to the deficit.

Regulatory reform neednt come at the expense of the governments environmental goals. In fact, outside the EU, there are numerous opportunities to improve regulation while delivering better outcomes for the environment. In particular, there is potential to simplify complex and prescriptive EU environmental regulations, moving from a rules-based approach towards a more outcome-based approach.

Supporters of EU membership wrongly assumed that Brexit would be harmful to the environment. On the contrary, we must not be afraid of reforming EU laws, nor insist on preserving them in aspic.

The phaseout of the blocs Common Agricultural Policy now underway will reduce wasteful, regressive, and environmentally harmful public spending that was forced upon us by the EU. The new farm payments system in England will instead spend taxpayers money on buying things the public values, but which the market doesnt currently deliver, namely environmental benefits like cleaner rivers, while investing in the natural assets that guarantee our food security, such as healthy soils.

The Genetic Technology Bill, also announced in the Queens Speech, is another example of environmentally beneficial post-Brexit regulatory reform. Enabling gene-edited crops will help farmers produce more food with fewer biodiversity-harming, climate-warming, and expensive inputs. Its a win-win for food security and the environment.

A similar approach should be taken with regards to protections for our most significant habitats. Having developed incrementally over decades, the current national and EU-derived habitat designations are confusing and incoherent. This partly explains why a mere 38 per cent of protected habitat is in good condition, alongside poor enforcement.

In a Green Paper published a few months ago, Defra proposed to modernise this system of designations to deliver their target to halt species decline by 2030. Streamlining could have a number of benefits, such as greater understanding among the public and clarity about land management objectives for landowners. But its vital the net effect of these reforms is positive for the natural environment.

And to continue confounding the Brexit pessimists, ministers must make sure regulatory reform promised in the Brexit Opportunities Bill enhances rather than damages the environment. Concerningly, a Government source quoted in the Times suggested that this Bill could include a weakening of environmental rules for infrastructure projects.

Without a clear green direction of travel across all these policies, there could be negative political consequences. The local election results were particularly bad for the Conservatives in so-called blue wall seats in the South of England. Some recent polling for Unchecked UK shows that there is no majority support for weakening environmental protections in these Conservative heartland areas. Just 18 per cent of voters in the blue wall feel that reducing environmental and animal welfare standards is acceptable in order to secure post-Brexit trade deals, for example.

The polling suggests that environmental policies generally could be a good way to appeal to these voters. Environment is a top three concern in the blue wall and the third most important issue for voters when selecting which party to support, ahead of housing, immigration, and tax. Similarly, half of these voters say they are more likely to vote for the party with the most ambitious environmental plans.

These findings are reinforced by the prominence of green issues during the local election campaign and the impressive performance of the Green Party, which won 35 council seats off the Conservatives.

This dynamic is likely to be repeated in the Tiverton and Honiton by-election on 23rd June. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning hard on sewage pollution in rivers and exploiting fears among rural communities about high UK environmental standards for food production being undermined by trade deals. They will make the environment central to their attempt to win back parliamentary seats in the South West in 2024.

Retaining blue wall seats in the South of England while consolidating progress in the red wall will be critical to keeping the Conservatives in power beyond 2024. The environment can help in both cases. By marrying strong environmental protections with a big focus on job creation and investment in new clean industries, the party can set itself up for electoral success in 2024.

See original here:

Sam Hall: Brexit is bringing benefits to the environment. As will regulatory reform if done well. - ConservativeHome

Boris Johnson and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss remain embroiled in negotiations with the EU as they pursue their ideal Brexit. Over the last few months, the pair have hit numerous snags with bloc officials over several issues, with little noteworthy process. Express.co.uk has identified the key sticking points and potential consequences for millions of people living in the UK and EU nations.

The most pertinent issue facing diplomats on both sides of the English Channel is the Northern Ireland Protocol, which binds goods destined for the country to Single Market regulations.

Officials designed the protocol to navigate the differing trade rules on either side of the north-south divide.

The protocol's Irish Sea dividing line has become a point of significant contention for the unionist-based Conservative Party and Northern Ireland's ex-largest Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

READ MORE:Europeans return to continent as UK bids farewell to THOUSANDS

They have called on the EU to alter rules governing goods transportation by creating distinct paths for goods bound to Ireland and those staying within the UK.

Under the proposals, products bound for Northern Ireland from mainland Britain would only have to adhere to British standards.

Those destined for the Republic of Ireland would need to comply with the EU's rules and regulations.

The bloc proposed plans that would cut checks by 80 percent and relax other rules, but the UK has rejected them.

The Government has also called for the EU to rescind the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) role as an ultimate dispute arbiter.

With no resolution in sight, the Government is now preparing to unilaterally rewrite parts of the protocol.

Ministers have proposed legislation that would change aspects of the agreement without the EU's agreement.

Ms Truss will likely seek to publish draft laws laying the groundwork for these efforts before summer should negotiations fail.

DON'T MISS

One significant issue impeding the smoothness of the final Brexit framework is checks for lorries preparing to cross the English Channel.

Disaster relief charity RE:ACT Disaster Response, which works in war-torn countries, has signed a deal with Kent County Council to aid lorry drivers stuck in miles-long queues as they head for the Port of Dover.

The truckers had little access to toilets, food or drink on the M20 and M2, with gridlock expected to continue for nearly two months.

Kent County Council said the issue was of "extreme urgency" as it awarded the emergency contract.

Recent research from York University has found that the Government has struggled to deliver for the fishing industry.

Despite forming a central pillar of the Brexit campaign, a study conducted by the university and its colleagues at the University of Lincoln, ABPmer marine consultancy, and New Economics Foundation found it faces new challenges.

Dr Bryce Stewart from York's Department of Environment and Geography said: Most of the significant increases in catch quotas are for just a few fisheries such as western mackerel and North Sea sole and herring.

"Most fishermen, particularly those in small boats, have seen few if any benefits, so due to new challenges around trade are likely to be worse off."

Visit link:

Where Brexit stands now - three key obstacles facing the UK as fishermen 'worse off' - Express

At west London's Hooked Fish and Chips, Bally Singh is struggling to keep the tills ringing for a British tradition, with prices sky-rocketing for fish, potatoes, cooking oil and even the flour used for the batter the dish is cooked in.

Cranking up their bubbling oil friers only to see customers stay at home, Singh and thousands of other normally thriving "chippies" across the island nation are navigating the economic fallout of the Ukraine war, the coronavirus pandemic and Brexit.

"Fish prices have gone up extortionately; oil prices have gone up extortionately; and everything across the whole spectrum that we sell has gone up extortionately," Singh told Reuters.

Fish and chips in hand, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson once promised to "build back batter" from the pandemic.

Now though, rising prices are veering Britain's economy further off course.

A third of fish and chip shops are at risk of going bust this year due to a "perfect storm" of price pressures, according to insolvency firm Company Debt.

In just a year, prices for Britain's favourite fish cod and haddock are up 75 per cent, sunflower oil is up 60 per cent, and flour is up 40 per cent, Company Debt said.

Inflation reached a 40-year peak of nineper centin April, the highest among the G7 nations, and is projected to rise further. British consumers are more pessimistic than peers in Europe, leading to criticism of both government and Bank of England efforts to keep a lid on the cost of living.

Cod and chips in Singh's shop now costs 9.50 pounds (more than $15 Cdn), compared to 7.95 pounds (less than $13 Cdn) a year ago. And Singh says if he passed on all the higher costs, the price would be closer to 11 pounds (more than$17Cdn).

"We're finding it a struggle to keep our prices reasonable and competitive compared to other fast foods that are in the area, and we've actually seen a decline in fish sales and customers walking through the door."

In the southern seaside town of Swanage, customers said Britain's inflation problem meant making hard choices.

"It's all right for me to go in there and get one portion for myself, but that was eleven pounds just for one person," said Paula Williams, 66, a carer from Weymouth, on a bench outside the Fish Plaice shop.

"When you've got a group of five or six, that's probably more expensive than going to a restaurant."

Battered fish and fried chips, the chunky equivalent of fries in the United States, have fuelled Britons since the combination was invented 160 years ago.

The meal is such a staple that unlike other food in Britain, it was not rationed during the world wars. Chippies, with their distinctive smell of oil and vinegar, remain a presence in most towns.

Some of the recent difficulties for fish and chip shops began after Brexit, distant-waters trawler company U.K. Fisheries said, estimating that the amount of Arctic cod Britain is allowed to catch in 2022 reduced to around 40 per centof what it was before leaving the European Union.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has driven up fuel and electricity prices, further increasing the cost of catching,and frying, fish. The war has sent cooking oil, fertilizer and flour prices higher too.

Cod and haddock are sourced in the Barents Sea, north of Norway and Russia, and the war has heightened uncertainty over those supplies.

In March, the British government listed Russian white fish as among goods to be hit with a 35 per centtariff as part of sanctions in response to the invasion of Ukraine. It has paused the move, for now, while the impact is investigated.

Sunflower oil is the principle agricultural commodity the U.K. imports from Ukraine and the government says it is working to substitute it with other vegetable oils: for instance, receiving extra rapeseed shipments from Australia after a strong harvest there.

A spokesperson for Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs said it was "working closely with industry, including the U.K. National Federation of Fish Friers(NFFF), to mitigate the challenges that they are facing."

However, the federation said fish and chip shops were facing their biggest ever crisis.

"I'm getting daily phone calls from people that are worried that they're going to go out of business," NFFFpresident Andrew Crook told Reuters.

Data from Springboard shows shopper numbers in British high streets are 15 per cent down from 2019, pre-pandemic, levels.

Fish and chip shops are more exposed than some bigger businesses, Yael Selfin, chief economist at KPMG U.K. told Reuters, because they lack buying power to strike a better deals when global prices rise.

"We are expecting consumers and households to reassess what they're spending on and potentially cut down," Selfin said.

In his smart, recently refurbished shop in West Drayton, a suburb in Johnson's own parliamentary constituency, Singh is looking to cut costs and has added cheaper hake and pollock on the menu. But the energy-intensive cookers have to stay on.

"If nobody's coming in, we're losing money and we need to keep the oil hot," he said.

In Swanage, builder Malcolm Petherick, 73, worried changes he has seen over his lifetime might result in Britain losing a part of its cultural heritage.

"When I was growing up, it was a poor man's meal," he said.

"Now, just bought two lots of fish and chips: 23 quid. What family can afford that?"

See the original post here:

How COVID, Brexit and the war in Ukraine are driving up the price of fish and chips in Britain - CBC News

Industry leaders say the UK could become the world leader in cultured meat production thanks to Brexit. Lab-made meat is created by growing animal cells in a bioreactor. EU regulation requires at least three years to approve the technology needed but as the UK is finally unshackled from the bloc, the Government is planning to publish a white paper on the matter this month that would speed up the process.

Robert Jones, the head of the Cellular Agriculture Europe trade association told the Guardian: Theres definitely an opportunity for the UK to become one of the primary innovation hubs for these sorts of novel technologies.

The UK is a large market and every company will be looking at it as an incredible commercial opportunity."

Mr Jones is also an executive for the Dutch startup Mosa Meat.

Peter Verstrate, its co-founder, said that the UK would be at least a year ahead of the EU.

A Defra spokesperson said: We want to create the best possible environment for innovators, investors and consumers, and encourage safe innovation in the sustainable protein sector.

The technology will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A quarter of the world's emissions come from agriculture, most of which is attributable to livestock production.

The news comes as ministers from the world's wealthiest democracies will wrangle over how to keep climate change goals on track as they meet in Berlin today for talks overshadowed by spiralling energy costs and fuel supply worries sparked by the war in Ukraine.

Energy, climate and environment ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) countries want to reaffirm a commitment to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius and protect biodiversity at the May 25-27 meeting.

READ MORE:Putin puppets warn Russia now has 'only one target' in nuclear strike

The group will also consider committing to a phase-out of coal power generation by 2030, according to a draft communique seen by Reuters, though sources suggested that opposition from the United States and Japan could derail such a pledge.

The draft, which could change considerably by the time talks conclude on Friday, would also commit G7 countries to have a "net zero electricity sector by 2035" and to start reporting publicly next year on how they are delivering on a past G7 commitment to end "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has triggered a scramble among some countries to buy more non-Russian fossil fuels and burn coal to cut their reliance on Russian supplies, raising fears that the energy crisis triggered by the war could undermine efforts to fight climate change.

Campaigners urged the ministers of the G7 to make clear commitments that the fallout of the Ukraine war would not derail their targets.

DON'T MISS:UK issues global alert as Russia 'expanding'[ANALYSIS]'There is no love' UK and US warned China will not back down[REACTION]Rejoiner alliance threat: Boris warned Brexit could be REVERSED[INSIGHT]

"We have a new reality now. The G7 need to respond to that, and they should respond through renewables, and not through fossil fuel infrastructure," said David Ryfisch, climate policy expert at non-profit Germanwatch.

While seeking consensus on an oil embargo on Russia, the European Union is pushing to accelerate the bloc's pivot to renewable energy while finding fossil fuel alternatives to Russian supplies.

Alden Meyer, senior associate at climate think-tank E3G, said tackling climate change was the best and quickest way for countries to achieve energy security.

"Climate impacts are worse than scientists originally predicted and there's far worse ahead if we don't cut emissions rapidly," Mr Meyer said. "Delivering on climate promises really becomes even more vital in this tense geopolitical environment."

Ahead of the meeting, the B7 group of leading business and industry federations of the G7 states called on the group to back a plan along the lines of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's "climate club" to harmonise standards on emissions and CO2 pricing.

Mr Scholz had suggested the idea to try to avoid trade friction in areas including green tariffs, the development of markets for decarbonised products, carbon pricing and removal methods.

Continued here:

UK to outclass EU with major food revolution in Brexit win as bloc hampered by own rules - Express

Baroness Hoey has robustly defended Boris Johnson in the House of Lords in the midst of the Partygate storm threatening to sweep the Prime Minister out of Number 10. The Brexit supporting peer took a firm stand against the lockdown breaching parties in Whitehall and the behaviour of the Prime Minister himself, but also delivered a clear slap down on critics of the Prime Minister who she believed held a grudge over Mr Johnson's leading role in Brexit.

Ms Hoey told the House of Lords: "The public were clearly very, very angry when they first heard about what had been going on in Whitehall.

"Now we've had to Sue Gray report and I commend her diligence, we've had the full apology from the Prime Minister, we've had the Metropolitan Police Report, and we've seen changes in Downing Street.

"I think outside this place and perhaps some elements for the media, many, many elements of the public, probably the majority of the public not really do want to draw a line under all of this so that we can get on with the issues that are really affecting the country."

She then turned to the Government Minister and asked: "Does she agree with me that there will be some people who will never ever give up criticising the Prime Minister because they don't like the fact that the Prime Minister took us out of the European Union, and that is still underplaying a huge amount of now, particularly in some elements of the media?"

Mr Johnson's hopes of drawing a line under the partygate row suffered a blow on Thursday after a string of Tory MPs called for him to quit in the wake of Sue Gray's report.

Four Tories have gone public since the publication of the damning report which laid bare the extent of raucous behaviour in No 10 at a time when millions were forced to cut off contact with loved ones during coronavirus lockdowns.

Former minister Stephen Hammond and fellow MPs David Simmonds and John Baron spoke out on Thursday, following Julian Sturdy who demanded MrJohnson's exit on Wednesday.

Mr Hammond said he "cannot and will not defend the indefensible" and indicated he had sent a letter of no confidence to the Tory backbench 1922 Committee.

Mr Simmonds, the MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner - his constituency is next to MrJohnson's - said: "It is clear that while the Government and our policies enjoy the confidence of the public, the Prime Minister does not.

"Accordingly, it is time for him to step down so that new leadership can take forward the important work of the Government in ensuring that our people and country prosper."

The publication of Ms Gray's report followed the conclusion of the Metropolitan Police's Operation Hillman investigation into parties in No 10 and Whitehall.

The force handed out 126 fines for rule breaches in No 10 and Whitehall, with the Prime Minister receiving a single fixed-penalty notice for his birthday party in June 2020.

Read this article:

'It's because he took us out of EU!' Labour baroness says Brexit bashing behind Boris coup - Express

Thursday 26 May 2022 9:57 am

Former Brexit secretary David David claimed when he resigned from the cabinet in July 2018, I knew that it would be the end for Theresa May as PM.

The veteran politician and Brexiteer hit out at the former leader, while also taking a swipe at the current resident of Number 10, reiterating his call for Boris Johnson to quit over lockdown breaches.

Speaking to former MP Gloria De Piero on GB News, Davis said he stepped down as Brexit secretary after the former PM conceded ground to the EU during negotiations over the north and Republic of Ireland.

Her plans promoted a UK-EU free trade area and closely-linked customs relationship, and at the time, he said she was giving away too much and too easily in talks.

What she conceded, in my view, wasnt the first thing she did to undermine our negotiations, but this one would cripple our negotiations.

It would mean wed have to keep Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland on a par, which meant we couldnt do all the things we wanted to do elsewhere. It handicapped everything.

And I very nearly resigned on the spot, there and then. But I thought no, Im going to try, I owe her the duty of loyalty and the country the duty of loyalty to try at all costs to make it work.

The six months between that point and when I actually did resign was the hardest struggle of my life, he said. Trying to pull the policy back, you know.

In the extended interview, he spoke about his decision to quit in 2018, which was shortly followed by resignations of Boris Johnson and Steve Baker.

I won the first two rounds of arguments in January and February, so much so that then she and Number Ten started doing a completely separate policy from me which, when I discovered it, I thought that that was it, that I could do no more, and I resigned.

When I resigned, Im afraid I knew that it would be the end of her Prime Ministership.

In fact, it took longer than I thought, it took two years.

But it was obvious: the moment I went, she was going to fall. And that was a necessary part because we would not have delivered Brexit if I had stayed.

Davis also stood by his infamous decision to tell the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, In the name of God, go, during Prime Ministers questions.

Asked if he regretted his words in January amid the Partygate scandal, he said: No, not at all.

When he appeared to blame his subordinates. All this they didnt tell me, all that sort of stuff, he decided to call him out publicly.

Davis also hit out at Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnsons former right-hand-man, who quit Number 10 before becoming a whistleblower about rule-breaking.

He called Cummings jibe that he was thick as mince and lazy as a toad was not very original.

Read more from the original source:

Ex-Brexit chief David Davis boasts he forced previous PM out: "I knew my resignation would be the end for May" - City A.M.

By Cnaan Liphshiz

During a visit to a synagogue in Belfast, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised to fix bureaucratic complications connected to Brexit that have caused kosher food shortages in Northern Ireland.

There is no need for laborious checks on products uniquely important to the Jewish community being moved from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, Johnson said on Monday. We will see this situation resolved.

Northern Ireland has remained in the European Unions single market despite the fact that the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a part, pulled out of the bloc in 2020. This fact hascomplicated shipments of food and other products from the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland, resulting in kosher food shortages, among other issues.

The Jewish community of Manchester in England is the main kosher food supplier for the Belfast Jewish Community Synagogue, which services that community of a few hundred people.

Continue reading here:

Boris Johnson Vows to Solve Northern Ireland's Brexit-related Kosher Food Shortages - Jewish Exponent

Brexit contributed to a reduction in the import of food and live animals from Great Britain, valued at about 1.2 billion in 2021, according to a recently published report from the Irish Maritime Development Office (IMDO).

This represents a decline of 36% in such imports, when compared to the previous year.

The report revealed that Great Britain was the only major import partner to record a decline in import value in 2021.

It noted that the imposition of customs controls on trade between Great Britain and members of the EU Single Market, as a result of Brexit constitute barriers to trade, making it more difficult for Ireland to trade with its largest importing partner. These barriers contributed to the significant decline in imports from Great Britain in 2021.

And it was case of Great Britains loss is Canada and the Netherlands gain.Image source: The Irish Maritime Transport Economist

A closer look at the import categories and from where they came revealed that, in the case of cereals, there was a 36% drop in imports from Great Britain in 2021 when compared to 2020. However, imports of cereals from Canada grew by 34% in the same period.

Imports of vegetables and fruit from Great Britain dropped by 52% from 2020 to 2021, but went up by 42% from the Netherlands.

Food and live animals what is the composition?According to the report, in the food-and-live-animals category, five products consistently make up 90% of the overall grouping: animal feeds; cereals; vegetables and fruit; dairy products and eggs; and sugar products.

According to the report, the value of imports, generally, from Great Britain fell by 13%, or approximately 2.4 billion.

This decline came, predominantly, from categories such as food and live animals, and manufactured goods.Image source: The Irish Maritime Transport Economist

In 2021, imports of food and live animals declined by 8%, generally, equivalent to 740,000 tonnes.

The largest decline was in cereals, which fell by 13%, or 313,000 tonnes.

Imports of vegetables and fruit fell by 9%, or 100,000 tonnes, while imports of dairy products and eggs fell by 15%, or 140,000 tonnes.

When combined, these three products accounted for 75% of the overall decline in this category in 2021.

In all, this is the lowest volume of food and live animal imports since 2016.

Much of this decline was driven by fewer imports of these products from Great Britain in 2021.

Northern Ireland

Outside of construction materials, imports of animal feed increased by 17%from Northern Ireland equivalent to an additional 97,000 tonnes in 2021.

Alongside the significant decline in imports from Great Britain, imports from Northern Ireland in 2021 rose at their fastest pace, however, in more than a decade by 25% or 572,000 tonnes.

This raised the question as to whether some Irish imports from Great Britain were indirectly transiting through Northern Ireland, via Northern Irish ports, the report stated.

Under the Northern Ireland protocol, goods entering Northern Ireland must continue to follow EU product standards, which means Northern Ireland, effectively, remains in the EU Single Market for goods.

Goods arriving in Northern Ireland from Great Britain must submit declarations for those goods and pay an EU tariff/duty, if applicable.

USImports of non-energy products from the US were driven predominantly by animal feed, which grew by over 160,000 tonnes.

The volume of Irish merchandise imports has fluctuated in recent years, according to the report.

In 2018, import volumes rose to record levels, due mainly to a national fodder crisis that necessitated agricultural stockpiling of bulk products such as animal feed.

In 2019, volumes underwent a correction and declined by 5%.

Dry bulk refers to raw materials for industrial or agricultural purposes, such as fertiliser, animal feeds and iron ores.

In the dry bulk sector, one million additional tonnes were handled in 2021 compared to 2007 an increase of 7%.

This has been driven in part by the increase in Irelands population, which accordingto the CSO, is estimated to have increased by 15% between 2007 and 2021.

A larger population will increase the countrys need for essential raw materials in the dry bulk market, such as grains and fertiliser for food production.

Originally posted here:

Brexit contributes to 36% drop in imports of food and live animals from GB - Agriland

Molly Scott Cato discusses the link between post-Brexit energy and security policy, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine.

In the light of Russias war in Ukraine, we are all searching our consciences to ask what we could have done differently to take European history onto a different path. We can find many mistakes made by both the UK and the EU. Merkels policy of peace through trade, though laudable and understandable, underestimated Putins barbarity. Meanwhile, the UK accepted Russian gold and provided a comfortable home for oligarchs, including some of those who were at the centre of the Putin regime.

It was no coincidence that Putin supported Brexit. He rightly saw the EU as a union of independent democratic nations, united in a collaborative project to defend peace in our continent. And he quite rightly saw that as a threat to his authoritarian instincts. We may get frustrated at times about the legalistic nature of EU institutions, but this process makes it simply impossible for leaders to flout their constitutional obligations. And how important it is that the standards are defended strongly now that they are under threat within EUs borders.

Loss of foreign policy cooperation

Brexit makes it clear that we have forgotten that peace in Europe up until now has not been a happy coincidence but was built consciously and deliberately by the founding fathers of the European Union. Foreign policy, external security, and defence cooperation was not explicitly covered by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Hence, in the words of the European Commission, since 1 January 2021 there has been no framework in place between the UK and the EU to develop and coordinate joint responses to foreign policy challenges, for instance the imposition of sanctions on third country nationals or economies.

The Withdrawal Agreement came with a Political Declaration setting out an agreed framework for the future UK-EU relationship. In it, both sides committed to establish a broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership that would allow them to work together on evolving threats, including serious international crime, terrorism, cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, hybrid threats, the erosion of the rules-based international order and the resurgence of state-based threats. It provided for both sides to coordinate on sanctions, to share intelligence, to work jointly on a number of issues, andeven for Britain to attend some EU ministerial meetings.But Johnson reneged on that commitment once Brexit was ratified, which is why the Trade and Cooperation Agreement contains no provisions on a security partnership. This is another example of how the ideological narrowness of Brexit has been so damaging since such provisions would have been tailor-made for the situation we are now facing.

We shouldnt exaggerate the situation because some important aspects of foreign and security cooperation did survive into the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, including provisions supporting democracy and the rule of law, others concerning human rights and war crimes, climate change and nuclear non-proflieration. But it is clear that the UK is no longer involved in the formal structures of cooperation. Rather than a treaty-based or institutional framework we are left with informal and ad hoc arrangements.

Of course, much of the narrow defence coordination has always been undertaken by NATO. But I cant be alone in suffering distress to see the UK Foreign Minister travelling to Brussels to visit NATO headquarters but not being part of the Council meeting where the future of our own continent was being shaped. And the emphasis on the role of NATO to the exclusion of the EU is an example of the continuing bias against EU institutions in our media. Because most of the tools actually used in response to the Ukraine crisis have beenEU rather than NATO mechanisms: the successiverounds of sanctions, waiving import duties on Ukrainianproducts, financial assistance, cooperation on welcoming refugees, and so on.The view in some British circles that only NATO matters is plain wrong.

Instead of this detailed and conscientious policy framework that was torched by Brexit, we have the fantasy of Global Britain, with Johnson seeking allies, any allies, who are willing to fill the gap left by his policy of burning bridges with European friends. Given his own willingness to play fast and loose with the constitution and the rule of law, perhaps we should not be surprised that this means cosying up to authoritarian leaders. Indias Prime Minister Modhi is the latest, a leader who shares our own Prime Ministers willingness to shut down opposition and sow division to bolster his own position.

Given that our foreign policy has been rooted in our EU membership for the past 40 years it was always going to be difficult to reimagine it outside that framework. But at least in terms of trade and investment, the world has already delivered its verdict.At an event organised by UK in a Changing Europe, former member of the Bank of Englands Monetary Policy Committee Adam Posen presented some very disturbing statistics:Brexit has reduced UK trade openness indeed it was intended to do just that (see Figure 2 here). Posen also presented data that Brexit has significantly and suddenly reduced FDI inflows and immigration growth. There are really no surprises here and all the economists who had not taken the Brexit shilling predicted this. It was inevitable that deliberately introduced border frictions and higher transport costs would pose new barriers to trade. Posen predicts that FDI inflows are unlikely to return to levels reached in the 1990s and 2000s. That means ever. We have shot ourselves in the foot at just the time when there is increasing competition from Asian countries.

Energy security

The link between this and the war in Ukraine is obvious: our addiction to fossil fuels left us dependent on Putin and gave him the confidence to defy NATO. And of course, we have been funding both his kleptocratic regime and his war in Ukraine. In the first two months of the year, EU countries have sent about a billion euros per day to Russian coffers. In the UK, the failure of energy policy has led to us repeatedly missing climate targets and to domestic consumers facing unpayable bills or even dying as a result of living in cold homes.

But here I think we do have more of a positive future to sketch out. Because making ourselves independent of Russian energy as rapidly as possible gives us another incentive (if one were needed) to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels from our economies. Simon Evans of Carbon Brief has calculated that there are 649 onshore wind and solar projects in the UK that already have planning permission, meaning they could be built rapidly. If they all went ahead, theyd save more gas than we currently import from Russia. He also calculated that Camerons decision to cut green crap now costs each household in England 150 a year: ending onshore wind projects, solar subsidies and energy efficiency schemes has added to inflated bills.

The German Greens negotiated an energy transition as part of the demands from the coalition deal, and Robert Habeck is establishing a super-ministry within the finance ministry to enable Europes largest economy to go fossil free. But war in Ukraine has massively boosted ambition to go much further much faster. The revised German package announced this spring doubles the target for renewable energy from 40% to 80% of the electricity generation mix with renewables being explicitly acknowledged as being a public security requirement for the first time. The countrys Renewable Energy Sources Act also includes a goal for offshore wind energy to reach at least 30 GW by 2030 equivalent to the capacity of 10 nuclear plants and at least 70 GW by 2045.

The European Green Deal is similarly ambitious and has also been given a boost by the Ukraine War. The nature of renewable energy means that cooperation between neighbours with interconnectors to Norway, Belgium, and Ireland already supplying a significant portion of our electricity and us repaying in kind as the souwesterlies cross the continent.

Lets compare this with the flimsy series of UK announcements I hesitate to call an energy strategy. Nothing for people struggling with fuel bills; no wind-farms because Tory backbenchers find them unsightly; and a fake 120m support for nuclear power which will leave us with a big hole in our electricity supply when private finance fails to fill the gaps. This is a political failure.

Meanwhile, in Germany, the super-ministry is now working on legislation to raise the energy efficiency requirement of buildings and reduce emissions from transport. The government has already announced a proposal to introduce a flat-rate public transport fare to address rising cost of living as encourage people away from private transport and towards public transport. For me, the most exciting aspect of Habecks department is that he is taking charge of the transition of not just energy efficiency, energy supply and transport but also Germanys massive and energy-intensive industry. We are going to watch as Germany leads Europe into the green economy of the future while we are languishing in the past.

We have to find a way to build a similar government with similar ambition in the UK. There is a bright future here:

The cheapest energy bill is the one you dont have to pay because your home is so well-insulated that it needs little or no heating.The public agrees: insulating homes is the top public priority with 84% of those surveyed saying this was the best way to reduce the use of Russian gas.

Conclusion

Although it is frightening to be living through a climate emergency, I think this is hopeful note to conclude on. Because tackling the climate crisis makes cooperation inevitable. And it is closely aligned to resist the authoritarian power of those who control fossil fuels, whether in Moscow or Riyadh. But we need to recognise these connections and recognise that our failure to address this crisis is a sign of the malaise of democracy. Without revitalising democracy we cannot address the crises facing us.

___________________

Note: the above is an edited version of the authors Julian Priestley Memorial Lecture.The author wishes to pay tribute to Julian Priestley and the many other British public servants who contributed to shaping the EU and sends thanks to Richard Corbett, Jan Royall, Mike Shackleton and Belinda Pike for their support for the Julian Priestley lectures.

About the Author

Molly Scott Cato is Professor of Green Economics at the University of Roehampton. She was a Green MEP for South West England and Gibraltar from May 2014 until January 2020.

Photo by Andrew Stutesman on Unsplash.

See more here:

Energy, security, and climate: rethinking the UK's place within Europe - British Politics and Policy at LSE