Category Archives: Brexit

Speaking ina Parliamentary debateon Monday, April 24,Sarah backedcalls for an independent inquiry into the impact of Brexit.

She said:The impact of our exit from the European Union has been wide-ranging, and the many members of the public it has affected both personally and financially deserve honesty and accountability from the Government.

We cannot begin to fix things until we have an honest appraisal of Brexits impact, which is why we need an independent inquiry.

The MP then went onto explain what impact Brexit has had on local businesses.

Business owners are facing additionalcosts directly because of Brexit," she said.

For small businesses who cannot afford to outsource or employ someone to deal with the additionalred tape, the strain can be immense.

More than one small business owner locally told me that they were on the brink.

The most recent Buckinghamshire Business Barometer report showed that 42 per centof Bucks businesses are paying higher costs due to increased red tape, with nearly athird facing extra tariffs or taxes and a quarter paying more due to supply chain changes.

Mondays debate was triggered by an e-petition calling for a public inquiry into the impact of the UKs departure from the European Union, which was signed by more than 300 Chesham and Amersham residents.

See the rest here:

Chesham and Amersham MP says Brexit has harmed local ... - Bucks Free Press

My former colleague Faisal Islam has got quite a scoop; an interview with the boss of Unipart, who says that he may have to move some investment to the USA or the EU due to the subsidies that they are willing to offer his company.

Unipart is a giant component supplier and logistical company, which is a crucial part of British manufacturing industry and especially the car industry but its boss John Neil now says UK companies are not competing on a level playing field.

The industrys big problem is that the Biden administration is throwing hundreds of billions of dollars to help change its industrial base and turn towards producing semiconductors, green energy, and electric vehicles. All the signs are that the EU is going to follow suit.

Meanwhile, the British government has yet to publish a strategy apparently, it needs to wait and see what Brussels does first before deciding what to do.

Lets face it, the UK is a bit-part player in many of these industries and now it is a bit-part player caught between two giants. The car industry in the UK seems to be in terminal decline. While the EU right on our doorstep is rapidly expanding its vehicle battery capacity, the UK let BritishVolt go to the wall with hardly a whimper.

While the USA is introducing what Mr Neil calls a completely game-changing set of incentives and fiscal support the UK is having a good hard think about whether to publish a plan, let alone whether to put any money on the table.

The government is, of course, fighting with one hand tied behind its back, as many of its own members seem to think that any industrial strategy is just picking winners and that the market should be allowed to decide, on its own, what products and sectors to invest in.

This is part of the Lord Frost and Jacob Rees-Mogg agenda which I wrote about only earlier this week.

The consequence of that blind adherence to free market economics is that firms like Unipart which insists that it is committed to Britain and many others will go to where the grass is greener.

You cannot expect whole industries to change direction almost overnight without helping them, you cannot expect them to stay in your country when much larger and more prosperous economies are offering to lay out the red carpet for them and you cannot hope to secure the industries of the future with a shrug of the shoulders and the occasional White Paper.

But for Brexit, the UK would be part of the EUs response to the USAs huge change of course, it would be able to coordinate research and development, attract a fair share of money for its car industry, have seamless access to a huge domestic market and even lead the European fightback.

But it cant. It does not even have a plan except to threaten to tear up the EU regulatory framework that it spent 40 years developing, which industry wants to keep and which it now wants to destroy out of sheer spite.

As John Neil told the BBC: For us to invest we need to understand what Britains strategy is and what our regulatory framework is going to be. And were not clear about any of that.

He added that Neill said while it goes against the grain we want to invest in Britain, subsidies in the US and Europe have led Unipart to consider its future investment strategies abroad.

The UK does not have the money or even the political will to respond and seems intent on making things worse for industry not better.

It is out in the cold and it is getting colder.

See the original post:

Unipart takes apart post-Brexit Britain's lack of investment strategy - The New European

A long-standing commercial truth is that its optimal to trade with those closest to you. Its common sense really the costs of moving goods are lower, synergies are better, the economies of scale kick in and so on. Africa, for example, is banking a great deal on the benefits that the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) agreement will bring to growth and prosperity.

Yet by lurching into Brexit, the UKs Conservative government has defied all that by turning the country away from the biggest, richest single market in the world; one with whom we have had fully half our trade for decades.

And its turned out to be what many of us predicted at the time of the 2016 referendum: a monumental act of national self-harm.

In the run-up to the 2016 Brexit vote, the phrase Global Britain was frequently heard, to tunes of imperial nostalgia, jingoistic nationalism and ideas of sovereignty, spurious as they are in todays intricately connected world. We also heard what turned out to be downright lies about Britains ability to thrive alone.

Covid-19, rocketing transport costs and security of supply issues such as in May 2021, when a single giant ship containing vital manufacturing parts became grounded in the Suez canal for six days have undermined the age of hyper-globalisation where supply-parts were outsourced to the cheapest places, however far away.

Countries are increasingly seeking to re-source global supply chains to friendly neighbours. The UK faces multiple crises, which can only be overcome in cooperation with our immediate European neighbours: these include catastrophic climate change, the Ukraine war, economic decline, energy affordability and security.

As a leading member of the European Union, the UK was a critical player in a powerful and wealthy bloc alongside the US and China and now finds itself isolated outside of these global blocs. With its economy flatlining, the UK is having to come to terms with its lack of global influenceas a relatively small country with limited economic and political power.

UK government agencies report a post-Brexit reduction in long-run productivity of 4%, with trade estimated to be 15% lower, relative to remaining in the EU, and a loss of business investment since the 2016Brexit referendum worth 29bn, or 1,000 per household.

Car production has more than halved and Brexit is generally considered the main reason why the UK is the only economy in the richest G7 countries still below its pre-pandemic size.

Amongst the fantasies of Brexiteers was an idea, known as Empire 2.0, that trade with the Commonwealths far flung 53 nations could replace that with the EUs neighbouring 27.

So what lessons might there be for African countries from the UKs rollercoaster Brexit?

The Covid pandemic and Russias war in Ukraine have underlined the risks for Europe of dependence upon Chinese supply chains and Russian oil and gas.

The resilience of the EU is proving to be an asset as it cooperates with NATO in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and tackles the mammoth task of ending dependence upon Russian energy.

Similar risks exist for Africa, where both Russia and China are fast extending their influence. According to the Peace Research Institute Oslo, a new Cold War dynamic has heightened the competition for control of Africas vast natural resources and strategic trade routes.

Russia offers a false anti-Western colonialism discourse, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visiting South Africa in January, hoping to lay the groundwork for the second RussiaAfrica summit, which has been rescheduled for late July 2023 in St. Petersburg.

There is speculation that this is designed not only to compete with the US-Africa Leaders Summit held in Washington in December 2022, but also to demonstrate to China the value of Russias connections on the continent.

Meanwhile there are concerns about the impact of Chinas Belt and Road Initiative on local industries, and also the erosion of sub-Saharan African countries sovereignty.

The strength of the EU could prove to be an example to Africa, as the continent tries to improve regional integration through the AfCFTA. If Africa wishes to take control of its own destiny, then strengthening AfCFTA will enable it to achieve economies of scale and to wield more collective bargaining power in the global marketplace.

Coming into force in 2019, AfCFTA includes all African countries except Eritrea. Members have pledged to eliminate import tariffs on 97% of goods traded between African states by 2064. However, because of the pandemic, and an associated recession, it has made a slow start. In 2021, intra-African trade accounted for just 17% of African exports, which was low compared to 59% for Asia and 68% for Europe, according to theWorld Economic Forum (WEF).

AfCFTA, however, wants to do more than just boost trade in goods, and also cover services, investment, intellectual property rights and competition policy.

There are also currently eight regional economic blocs recognised by the African Union which are expanding their own regional integration: the Arab Maghreb Union (UMA); Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA); Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD); East African Community (EAC); Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS); Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS); Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD); and Southern African Development Community (SADC).

It has been estimated that because of deeper market integration, AfCFTA, if fully implemented, could raise incomes by 9% by 2035 and lift 50m people out of extreme poverty.

The decisions which Africa will make about its economic development will be critical to its own future and that of the world as a whole. Some 600m Africans still live without electricity and, without a focus on its massive potential for developing clean energy resources, the continents carbon emissions are bound to rise dramatically with growth and progress.

Therefore richer countries need to provide concessional finance to boost Africas renewable energy in the spirit of COP27, hosted in Egypt in 2022.

If properly enforced, a robust carbon tax would also help, and might support preserving the rainforests, which are clearly threatened. Africa has the worlds greatest solar energy potential and the continent also has huge potential for green hydrogen production through electrolysis.

Africa deserves to take control of its own future and learn from the success of the EU, by deepening economic integration amongst neighbours across the continent, through AfCFTA and its regional trading blocs.

Its extreme vulnerability to climate change witness disastrously destructive flooding and droughts is an incentive to act on continent-wide net zero strategies. To protect Africas citizens from the global warming weather extremes, economic integration strategies should also be based upon robust clean energy technologies.

Meanwhile there is a stark message for Africa from Britains deepening Brexit plight. Dont turn your backs on your neighbours for fools gold fantasies of trade deals with far-flung nations.

Beware false friends who seek to emulate the era lauded by Britains deluded Global Britain Brexiteers, harking back to the long-lost times of imperial power and its ill-gotten gains. Equally, dont be seduced into replacing European colonialism and US imperialism with their modern Chinese or Russian variants.

Instead cooperate to ensure that the huge AfCFTA becomes a strong player in global markets.

Continue reading here:

What Africa should learn from Brexit - African Business

Its fair to suggest that most of us will have worked in offices or places of employment where we have encountered bullies.

Youll know the type. Big mouthed. Think they know it all. Chums one moment, ogres the next. Their management style will likely consist of favouring the few and browbeating the rest. And their narcissistic behaviour makes even going to work cause the nausea to build as nerves play havoc with your stomach.

More often than not, the easiest way to deal with them is to look for another job. But if you cant move, you pray that they will and soon. Or get their comeuppance.

The sharp and the barbed

But this column isnt about workplace woes. No, its about the bully that is Dominic Raab, up to last week before his resignation, the Deputy Prime Minister in the government of Rishi Sunak.

Raab is a sharp character. In his work, Raab was sharp. Barbed too. Pointed. And downright rude and arrogant.

He is a Member of Parliament who has a penchant for judo, black belt and all, and rose quickly through the ministerial ranks during these 13 years of Conservative rule, holding some of the highest offices of state in the UK.

-

Just because you hold some of the highest offices of state doesnt necessarily mean youre good at what you do at least not in British politics anyway. And from what I know of other political systems in Western Europe and beyond, the cream doesnt necessarily rise to the top.

Raab, you might recall, was the Foreign Secretary, the man responsible for running British foreign policy and its diplomatic teams around the world. But now it transpires, Raab was about as diplomatic as a flying hammer when it comes to how he dealt with his staff.

Remember those chaotic scenes at Kabul Airport two summers ago, as tens of thousands of Afghans tried to flee as the Taliban returned to power? Well, you cant blame Raab, can you.

Sunak under fire over Raab

No. He was on holiday at the time. He deemed the crisis not worthy of cutting his fortnight in the sun short so as to actually coordinate the evacuation of an estimated 15,000 Afghans who had ties to the Brits there and faced likely retaliation from the Taliban for simply trying to feed their families and build a better future for the troubled nations.

But the staff at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a huge Georgian office complex just off Whitehall in central London told an inquiry into his behaviour that their boss was little better than one of those despots that they so often come in contact with during the course of their overseas work.

In Justice too, where Raab was responsible for all things legal in the UK, it turns out his behaviour failed to meet the standards one would expect from the Crowns highest law officer.

In all, staff in four departments complained of bullying, demanding behaviour that led some to quit. And who, in their right mind, would quit a civil service job? which in itself goes to show that their minds werent right as a result of the workplace tantrums thrown by Raab.

In all, Raabs behaviour was questioned in four government departments. There was a consistency of behaviour that led to many complaints about the minister.

Its worth noting that four departments seems like a lot, but that speaks to the chaos that has been at the heart of the British government since Theresa May was in Downing Street and was seeking a Brexit deal with her European counterparts. But then again, think of if too, and there have been four prime ministers too over that time.

-

The report into Raabs behaviour was handed to Sunak the day before it became public. While it was detailed, it showed that the second-in-charge in the UK created a toxic environment in the workplaces he was responsible for, and undermined and cajoled the public servants who worked for the government.

Criticism has now been levelled at Sunak that he was indecisive in getting rid of Raab.

But Raab went down swinging, claiming in his scathing resignation letter that the bar had been set too low, and there was a difference between bullying and simply wanting to get things done.

The professional body that represents civil servants pointedly noted that the tone of Raabs resignation letter underscored the points found during the six-month investigation. He was obdurate.

Sunaks little deal with EU

This Raab scandal is one of many distractions that Sunak has had to weather during his short tenure so far in Downing Street. Try as he might to be effective and quietly work away on the business of government, the noise of politics just gets in his way, it seems.

While the Raab furore was playing out, Sunak had been working on a little deal with the European Union to allow UK passport holders to use automatic e-gates at airports and points of entry. Because of Brexit, the Brits are treated as other passport holders, and often face long lines for their documents to be checked and scanned by border officials. Since coming to office, Sunak has proven himself to be far more pragmatic in dealing with the EU than Boris Johnson or Liz Truss if indeed Truss was there long enough to have any dealings with anyone at all.

But Sunak is effective at getting things done. The problem, as the Raab matter shows, is that the others in the cabinet room are nowhere near as effective. And that in itself speaks to the decimation of talent caused by the purge of senior Conservative figures who were against the madness that is Brexit.

See the original post:

Britain, Brexit and the Dominic Raab scandal - Gulf News

LET me ask you the same question I asked voters in the Red Wall this week. Do you think immigration is under control?

If I was a betting man, which I am, then Id bet that, like them, you answered no. And youd be right to think so.

Contrary to what the British people were promised, immigration is now totally out of control.

Illegal immigration on the small boats is making a mockery of Britains borders and its claim to be a self-governing, sovereign nation.

Nearly 100,000 people have crossed since 2018 and 65,000 are forecast to join them this year.

And now you, the taxpayer, are paying 7million a day to house the growing numbers of migrants in hotels.

On top of that, the amount of legal immigration into Britain just hit a record high.

Net migration has soared to an eye-watering 504,000 meaning half a million more people are coming into Britain than leaving each year.

Think weve got a housing crisis and an NHS crisis now?

Just wait until 2041 when, unless things change, our population is forecast to surge by another five million people, the equivalent to five cities the size of Birmingham.

And contrary to talk about high skill immigration, many of the people coming in are not high skill at all.

The salary thresholds people need to meet to get a work visa are as low as 23,000, well below the average wage of 33,000, while a large and growing number of migrants are simply relatives of international students.

Instead of Taking Back Control, weve Completely Lost Control.So why is this happening?

Wasnt the whole point of Brexit to not just leave the EU but lower immigration, so we can invest in British workers?

One part of the story is that the British people have been led up the garden path by a succession of leaders who routinely over-promised and under-delivered.

While Tony Blair transformed Britain into a country of mass immigration, every Conservative Prime Minister since 2010, from David Cameron to Boris Johnson, has promised to lower immigration only to then see it rise.

And most MPs went along with this because, whether they are Conservative or Labour, they all lean much further to the cultural left than most voters.

Our political class, in other words, simply does not represent the rest of the country on this issue; it is in thrall to the liberal graduate class in the cities who benefit far more than others from mass migration.

Despite Brexit, both parties have remained firmly committed to mass immigration to a hyper-globalised economy which, like a drug addict, has become hooked on importing cheap migrant workers to satisfy an alliance of big business and London liberals.

But the failure to shatter this consensus also reflects something that has taken place outside of the political elite the rise of who I call radical left progressives.

Representing 15 per cent of Britain, they are highly educated, financially secure if not wealthy, come from families in the managerial and professional class and live in the big cities or university towns.

They are the academics, think tankers, creative, media, marketing and BBC-types, lefty lawyers, judges, NGOs and other professionals who either make a lot of money or work in low-income but high-status jobs which allow them to wield considerable influence.

One study describes them as highly opinionated, frustrated, cosmopolitan and politically left-wing.

Two-thirds vote for Labour and three-quarters voted to Remain in the EU.

They absolutely hate Brexit and they absolutely loathed Boris.

They get their news from The Guardian, Channel 4, podcasts, BBC Radio 4 and Twitter.

They are six times more likely than the average voter to spend their days on Twitter, where they preach their political views and berate those who disagree.

They are the #FBPE (Follow Back Pro European) types who shriek about Brexit, compare Britain to Nazi Germany, impose their views on others and try to cancel anybody who dares to disagree with them.

The problem with progressives is that when it comes to their views they are utterly adrift from the rest of us.

They are fanatical in their support of immigration and diversity, which, like a religious belief, are considered sacred, never to be questioned or criticised.

While only 40 per cent of people think immigration changed Britain for the better, nearly 90 per cent of progressives do.

While most voters want less of it, they want to keep the status-quo or even increase it.

Or take the Governments policy of relocating asylum seekers and illegal migrants to Rwanda, in East Africa.

While only 27 per cent of people oppose it, nearly 80 per cent of radical progressives do.

Were you to listen to their podcasts and debates, you might be left with the impression that only a fringe minority want to clamp down on immigration.

But in fact it is they who are the fringe minority, adrift from everybody else.

Nor is this the only issue which makes them distinct.

They are also the most likely to want to prioritise minorities over the majority, to think Britain is very racist and to think rights for women, minorities and trans people have not gone far enough.

Theyre the least likely of all to feel attached to the British majority and the nation and the most likely to feel ashamed of our shared national identity.

While most of us feel proud of Britain, only one in four progressives do they simply dont see Britishness as an important part of who they are.

And they are utterly consumed with historic injustices with what they see as the urgent need to tear down statues, rewrite history, revise books and repudiate our cultural inheritance.

While only 41 per cent of all voters think Britain cannot move on unless it deals with its past mistakes, 84 per cent of progressives think this way.

And while most people are mature enough to grasp that British history contains a mixture of the good and the bad, progressives only want to talk about the bad.

Theirs is a world where they simply want to erode and tear down the established barriers in society.

You can see this too on sex and gender.

They are the most likely to believe there are dozens of genders and that women can become men and men can become women.

While less than half the country believe a transgender woman is a woman, 71 per cent of progressives hold this view.

And they are the most likely to want to expose our children to these highly contested ideas, which often have no serious basis in science.

While not even one in three voters think it is appropriate for children to be taught about trans issues in primary school, 61 per cent of progressives do.

And theyre the only group who think political correctness has not gone too far and support further restrictions on our speech and expression.

If you want to explain why voters have not been given what they asked for, in other words, then you need to look at the radical progressives.

Increasingly, they are wielding growing influence over the institutions over the schools, the universities, much of the media, the civil service, the courts, the NGOs and the activist groups.

But the enormous gulf which separates them from the rest of the country cannot remain in place for ever.

As those voters in the Red Wall reminded me, when the ruling class loses touch with the rest of the country the result is often a seismic political earthquake.

The only question, when it comes to immigration, is what form that political earthquake will take and when it will arrive?

Read the original post:

Our politicians are in thrall to a tiny cabal of Brexit and Boris hating progressive liberals who are out... - The US Sun

There has been so much debate in recent years over the Scottish Governments relationship with, and attitude towards, business.

Mr Borland, director of devolved nations for the Federation of Small Businesses, has been among the more moderate and constructive voices on this front. He has acknowledged the positives as well as highlighting areas of difficulty.

He is not alone in such an approach. At times, however, there have been other voices in the Scottish business community which have been a little more shrill, and often wide of the mark with their criticisms.

Several of my own columns have, taking in the whole picture, challenged the orthodoxy that has developed that the Scottish National Party administration has been bad for business.

READ MORE:SNP Prestwick Airport backing pays off, with critics quieter

In contrast to the SNP, the Conservatives at Westminster have since 2010 surely been very bad for business indeed. The Tory errors have included, but by no means been limited to, hampering the economy greatly with ill-judged and counter-productive austerity and the utter folly of Brexit, which is hitting living standards hard and will continue to do so in the years ahead.

The SNP administration, which can obviously do little about Brexit other than highlight the folly and has only had powers to offset in a relatively small way some of the Tories savage austerity, has meanwhile been at the helm at a time when Scotland has been proving very attractive to overseas investors. Such external perception of attractiveness would seem like a good gauge, especially given the distortions sometimes created by the goldfish-bowl nature of politics in Scotland.

Save on a full year of digital access with our lowest EVER offer.

Subscribe for a whole year to The Herald for only 24 for unlimited website access or 30 for our digital pack.

This is only available for a limited time so don't miss out.

Click here to subscribe

Accountancy firm EYs latest annual survey published last May showed Scotland outpaced UK-wide progress on foreign direct investment dramatically in 2021. EY declared Scotland had made great strides as a destination for FDI in 2021, as its survey revealed the nations attractiveness rating from potential future investors had hit a record.

READ MORE:Ian McConnell: Sorry tale for Scotland as yet another major company faces takeover

Notwithstanding this, many in the business world, not just the strident and sometimes politically motivated lobbyists but also more thoughtful voices such as Glasgow Chamber of Commerce chief executive Stuart Patrick, have highlighted perceived issues with the Scottish Governments interaction with the sector.

Against this backdrop, the following observation from Mr Borland in his column in The Herald on Monday seemed all the more noteworthy: We may have witnessed a watershed moment in the way the Scottish Government interacts with business.

Mr Borland reflected on Humza Yousafs early days in his new post and offered the view that the First Ministers statement on his governments priorities contained a lot that deserves our attention.

READ MORE: Denial after denial from brass-necked Tory arch-Brexiter

The FSBs director of devolved nations added: Most notably, after months of sustained campaigning from the Federation of Small Businesses and other industry bodies, Mr Yousaf announced a postponement of the much-maligned deposit return scheme (DRS). Furthermore, he sent the equally controversial anti-alcohol advertising and promotion plans, which I think many now accept should never have seen light of day, back to the drawing board.

In doing so, the First Minister signalled there will be a renewed focus on meaningful engagement with business to guard against similar episodes in the future.

Mr Borland noted that the first test of this new approach to business engagement will be the review and reform of DRS.

The specific proposals for and uncertainty around the DRS, which is aimed at encouraging more people to recycle plastic and glass bottles and aluminium cans, have undoubtedly caused much angst.

There will no doubt be many tests of the perceived new approach ahead and it will be interesting to follow the various views on how Mr Yousaf and his administration are seen to be performing in these.

My column for The Herald on Wednesday reflected on how Mr Yousaf had acted swiftly and significantly on the DRS, and in sending the proposals on restricting alcohol advertising, which had seemed likely to result in absurd effects if implemented in their original form, back to the drawing board. The column concluded it was a case of so far, so good from Mr Yousaf (whose ascension to First Minister would not have been the choice of some company bosses) on matters business and economic but noted the importance of what came next.

It will be fascinating to see how things evolve from here.

My Friday column for The Herald meanwhile looked at two major constraints for Scotlands tourism sector, which are particularly lamentable given the UKs economic woes.

The shortage of affordable housing in remote and rural areas of Scotland is a key challenge for many hospitality operators, with the owners of The Seaforth seafood restaurant, bar and fish-and-chip shop in Ullapool having taken the innovative step of buying the nearby Morefield Motel to provide staff accommodation.

Mr Yousaf has identified affordable housing as a priority for his administration and it will be interesting to see how he tackles the situation and what results are achieved.

The other dispiriting constraint is of course the impact of Brexit in fuelling the skills and labour shortages crisis in the hospitality sector.

Sadly, it is clear that the Conservatives at Westminster, who have the power to deal with this problem, will not be doing so on ideological grounds. After all, it is their clampdown on immigration from European Economic Area countries to the UK, through their hard Brexit, which has caused this problem in the first place. And they most definitely have a predisposition towards not owning up to, or fixing, their sorry Brexit mess.

Go here to read the rest:

Ian McConnell: Will SNP deliver, as Tories refuse to fix mess? - HeraldScotland

Brexit, the United Kingdoms withdrawal from the European Union (EU), which formally occurred on January 31, 2020. The term Brexit is a portmanteau coined as shorthand for British exit. In a referendum held on June 23, 2016, some 52 percent of those British voters who participated opted to leave the EU, setting the stage for the U.K. to become the first country ever to do so. The details of the separation were negotiated for more than two years following the submission of Britains formal request to leave in March 2017, and British Prime Minister Theresa May, whose legacy is inextricably bound to Brexit, was forced to resign in July 2019 after she repeatedly failed to win approval from Parliament for the separation agreement that she had negotiated with the EU. Ultimately, Brexit was accomplished under her successor, Boris Johnson.

In 2013, responding to growing Euroskepticism within his Conservative Party, British Prime Minister David Cameron first pledged to conduct a referendum on whether the U.K. should remain in the EU. Even before the surge of immigration in 2015 that resulted from upheaval in the Middle East and Africa, many Britons had become distressed with the influx of migrants from elsewhere in the EU who had arrived through the EUs open borders. Exploiting this anti-immigrant sentiment, the Nigel Farage-led nationalist United Kingdom Independence Party made big gains in elections largely at the expense of the Conservatives. Euroskeptics in Britain were also alarmed by British financial obligations that had come about as a result of the EUs response to the euro-zone debt crisis and the bailout of Greece (200912). They argued that Britain had relinquished too much of its sovereignty. Moreover, they were fed up with what they saw as excessive EU regulations on consumers, employers, and the environment.

The Labour and Liberal Democratic parties generally favoured remaining within the EU, and there were still many Conservatives, Cameron among them, who remained committed to British membership, provided that a minimum of reforms could be secured from the U.K.s 27 partners in the EU. Having triumphed in the 2015 U.K. general election, Cameron prepared to make good on his promise to hold a referendum on EU membership before 2017, but first he sought to win concessions from the European Council that would address some of the concerns of those Britons who wanted out of the EU (an undertaking Cameron characterized as Mission Possible). In February 2016 EU leaders agreed to comply with a number of Camerons requests, including, notably, allowing the U.K. to limit benefits for migrant workers during their first four years in Britain, though this so-called emergency brake could be applied only for seven years. Britain also was to be exempt from the EUs ever-closer union commitment, was permitted to maintain the pound sterling as its currency, and was reimbursed for money spent on euro-zone bailouts.

With that agreement in hand, Cameron scheduled the referendum for June 2016 and took the lead in the remain campaign, which focused on an organization called Britain Stronger in Europe and argued for the benefits of participation in the EUs single market. The leave effort, which coalesced around the Vote Leave campaign, was headed up by ex-London mayor Boris Johnson, who was widely seen as a challenger for Camerons leadership of the Conservative Party. Johnson repeatedly claimed that the EU had changed out of all recognition from the common market that Britain had joined in 1973, and Leavers argued that EU membership prevented Britain from negotiating advantageous trade deals. Both sides made gloom-and-doom proclamations regarding the consequences that would result from their opponents triumph, and both sides lined up expert testimony and studies supporting their visions. They also racked up celebrity endorsements that ranged from the powerful (U.S. Pres. Barack Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde on the remain side and former British foreign minister Lord David Owen and Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump on the leave side) to the glamorous (actors Benedict Cumberbatch and Sir Patrick Stewart backing the remain effort and actor Sir Michael Caine and former cricket star Ian Botham being in the leave ranks).

Opinion polling on the eve of the referendum showed both sides of the Brexit question fairly evenly divided, but, when the votes were tallied, some 52 percent of those who voted had chosen to leave the EU. Cameron resigned in order to allow his successor to conduct the negotiations on the British departure. In announcing his resignation, he said, I dont think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.

Although Johnson had appeared to be poised to replace Cameron, as events played out, Home Secretary Theresa May became the new leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister in July 2016. May, who had opposed Brexit, came into office promising to see it to completion, On March 29, 2017, she formally submitted a six-page letter to European Council Pres. Donald Tusk invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, thus opening a two-year window for negotiations between the U.K. and the EU over the details of separation. In the letter, May pledged to enter the discussions constructively and respectfully, in a spirit of sincere cooperation. She also hoped that a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement would result from the negotiations.

Attempting to secure a mandate for her vision of Brexit, May called a snap election for Parliament for June 2017. Instead of gaining a stronger hand for the Brexit negotiations, however, she saw her Conservative Party lose its governing majority in the House of Commons and become dependent on confidence and supply support from Northern Irelands Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Mays objective of arriving at a cohesive approach for her governments Brexit negotiations was further complicated by the wide disagreement that persisted within the Conservative Party both on details related to the British proposal for separation and on the broader issues involved.

Despite forceful opposition by hard Brexiters, a consensus on the nuts and bolts of the governments Brexit plan appeared to emerge from a marathon meeting of the cabinet in July at Chequers, the prime ministers country retreat. The working document produced by that meeting committed Britain to ongoing harmonization with EU rules and called for the creation of a joint institutional framework under which agreements between the U.K. and the EU would be handled in the U.K. by British courts and in the EU by EU courts. Although the proposal mandated that Britain would regain control over how many people could enter the country, it also outlined a mobility framework that would permit British and EU citizens to apply for work and for study in each others territories. Mays softer approach, grounded in policies aimed at preserving economic ties with the EU, looked to have won the day, but in short order the governments apparent harmony was disrupted by the resignations of Britains chief Brexit negotiator, David Davis (who complained that Mays plan gave up too much, too easily), and foreign secretary Johnson, who wrote in his letter of resignation that the dream of Brexit was being suffocated by needless self-doubt. Confronted with the possibility of a vote of confidence on her leadership of the Conservative Party, May reportedly warned fellow Tories to back her Brexit plan or risk handing power to a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour government.

In November the leaders of the EUs other member countries formally agreed to the terms of a withdrawal deal (the Chequers plan) that May claimed delivered for the British people and set the United Kingdom on course for a prosperous future. Under the plan Britain was to satisfy its long-term financial obligations by paying some $50 billion to the EU. Britains departure from the EU was set for March 29, 2019, but, according to the agreement, the U.K. would continue to abide by EU rules and regulations until at least December 2020 while negotiations continued on the details of the long-term relationship between the EU and the U.K.

The agreement, which was scheduled for debate by the House of Commons in December, still faced strong opposition in Parliament, not only from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and the DUP but also from many Conservatives. Meanwhile, a call for a new referendum on Brexit was gaining traction, but May adamantly refused to consider that option, countering that the British people had already expressed their will. The principal stumbling block for many of the agreements opponents was the so-called Northern Ireland backstop plan, which sought to preserve the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement by maintaining an open border between Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland after Brexit. The backstop plan called for a legally binding customs arrangement between the EU and Northern Ireland to go into effect should the U.K. and the EU not reach a long-term agreement by December 2020. Opponents of the backstop were concerned that it created the possibility of effectively establishing a customs border down the Irish Sea by setting up regulatory barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K.

The issue came to the fore in the first week of December, when the government was forced to publish in full Attorney General Geoffrey Coxs legal advice for the government on the Brexit agreement. In Coxs opinion, without agreement between the U.K. and the EU, the terms of the backstop plan could persist indefinitely, leaving Britain legally prevented from ending the agreement absent EU approval. This controversial issue loomed large as the House of Commons undertook five days of debate in advance of a vote on the Brexit agreement scheduled for December 11. With a humiliating rejection of the agreement by the House of Commons likely, on December 10 May chose to dramatically interrupt the debate after three days and postpone the vote, promising to pursue new assurances from the EU regarding the backstop. The opposition responded by threatening to hold a vote of confidence and to call for an early election, but a more immediate threat to Mays version of Brexit came when a hard-line Brexit faction within the Conservative Party forced a vote on her leadership. Needing the votes of 159 MPs to survive as leader, May received 200, and, under Conservative Party rules, she could not be challenged as party leader for another year.

The longer it remained unsettled, the more the matter of Brexit became the defining issue of British politics. With opinions on Mays version of Brexit and on Brexit in general crossing ideological lines, both Labour and the Conservatives were roiling with internecine conflict.

In pursuit of greater support in Parliament for her revised Brexit plan, May secured new promises of cooperation on the backstop plan from EU leaders. Agreement was reached on a joint legally binding instrument under which Britain could initiate a formal dispute with the EU if the EU were to attempt to keep Britain bound to the backstop plan indefinitely. Another joint statement committed the U.K. and the EU to arriving at a replacement for the backstop plan by December 2020. Moreover, a unilateral declaration by Mays government stressed that there was nothing to prevent the U.K. from abandoning the backstop should negotiations on an alternative arrangement with the EU collapse without the likelihood of resolution. According to Attorney General Cox, the new assurances reduced the risk of the U.K.s being indefinitely confined by the backstop agreement, but they did not fundamentally change the agreements legal status.

On March 12 the House of Commons again rejected Mays plan (391242), and the next day it voted 312308 against a no-deal Brexitthat is, leaving the EU without a deal in place. On March 14 May barely survived a vote that would have robbed her of control of Brexit and given it to Parliament. On March 20 she asked the EU to extend the deadline for Britains departure to June 30. The EU responded by delaying the Brexit deadline until May 22 but only if Parliament had accepted Mays withdrawal plan by the week of March 24.

In the meantime, on March 23 hundreds of thousands of demonstrators filled the streets of London demanding that another referendum on Brexit be held. On March 25 the House of Commons voted 329302 to take control of Parliaments agenda from the government so as to conduct indicative votes on alternative proposals to Mays plan. Eight of those proposals were voted upon on March 27. None of them gained majority support, though a plan that sought to create a permanent and comprehensive U.K.-wide customs union with the EU came within six votes of success. That same day May announced that she would resign as party leader and prime minister if the House of Commons were to approve her plan. On March 29 Speaker of the House John Bercow invoked a procedural rule that limited that days vote to the withdrawal agreement portion of Mays plan (thus excluding the political declaration that addressed the U.K. and EUs long-term relationship). This time the vote was closer than previous votes had been (286 in support and 344 in opposition), but the plan still went down in defeat.

Time was running out. By April 12 the U.K. had to decide whether it would leave the EU without an agreement on that day or request a longer delay that would require it to participate in elections for the European Parliament. May asked the EU to extend the deadline for Brexit until June 30, and on April 11 the European Council granted the U.K. a flexible extension until October 31.

After failing to win sufficient support from Conservatives for her Brexit plan, May entered discussions with Labour leaders on a possible compromise, but these efforts also came up empty. May responded by proposing a new version of the plan that included a temporary customs relationship with the EU and a promise to hold a parliamentary vote on whether another referendum on Brexit should be staged. Her cabinet revolted, and on May 24 May announced that she would step down as party leader on June 7 but would remain as caretaker premier until the Conservatives had chosen her successor.

Mays successor as party leader and prime minister, Boris Johnson, promised to remove the U.K. from the EU without an exit agreement if the deal May had negotiated was not altered to his satisfaction; however, he faced broad opposition (even among Conservatives) to his advocacy of a no-deal Brexit. Johnsons political maneuvering (including proroguing Parliament just weeks before the revised October 31 departure deadline) was strongly countered by legislative measures advanced by those opposed to leaving the EU without an agreement in place. In early September a vote of the House of Commons forced the new prime minister to request a delay of the British withdrawal from the EU until January 31, 2020, despite the fact that on October 22 the House approved, in principle, the agreement that Johnson had negotiated, which replaced the backstop with the so-called Northern Ireland Protocol, a plan to keep Northern Ireland aligned with the EU for at least four years from the end of the transition period.

In search of a mandate for his vision of Brexit, Johnson tried and failed several times to call a snap election. Because the election would fall outside the five-year term stipulated by the Fixed Terms of Parliament Act, Johnson needed opposition support to achieve the approval of two-thirds of the House of Commons required for the election to be held. Finally, after the possibility of no-deal Brexit was blocked, Labour leader Corbyn agreed to allow British voters once again to decide the fate of Brexit. In the election, held on December 12, 2019, the Conservatives recorded their most decisive victory since 1987, adding 48 seats to secure a solid Parliamentary majority of 365 seats and setting the stage for the realization of a Johnson-style Brexit. At 11:00 pm London time on January 31, the United Kingdom formally withdrew from the European Union. The freedom to work and move freely between the U.K. and the EU became a thing of the past.

Although Britains formal departure from the EU was completed, final details relating to a new trade deal between the U.K. and the EU remained to be resolved. On December 24, 2020, the December 31 deadline for that resolution was only barely met. The resultant 2,000-page agreement clarified that there would be no limits or taxes on goods sold between U.K. and EU parties; however, an extensive regimen of paperwork for such transactions and transport of goods was put in place.

In June 2022 Johnson sought to jettison part of the trade agreement, introducing legislation in Parliament that would remove checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from elsewhere in the U.K. The Johnson government averred that overly stringent application of the customs rules by the EU was undermining business and threatening peace in Northern Ireland. Unionists had complained that these customs checks were jeopardizing Northern Irelands relationship with the rest of the U.K., and the DUP refused to re-enter Northern Irelands power-sharing executive until the checks were eliminated. Opponents of Johnsons action, including May, argued that the move was illegal, and the EU threatened retaliation.

Originally posted here:

Brexit | Meaning, Referendum, Date, & Consequences | Britannica

1. Brexit: What can we expect from an NI Protocol deal?  BBC
2. Why are the U.K. and E.U. still fighting over Brexit and Northern Ireland?  The Washington Post
3. Sunak facing threat of Tory rebellion over Northern Ireland protocol plans  The Guardian

See the rest here:

Brexit: What can we expect from an NI Protocol deal? - BBC

If men become too feminine theres going to be a problem: Vincent Cassel on violence, Brexit and Andrew Tate  The Guardian

View original post here:

If men become too feminine theres going to be a problem: Vincent Cassel on violence, Brexit and Andrew Tate - The Guardian

Dont be misled: leaving the single market and customs union was a Tory decision  The Guardian

Here is the original post:

Dont be misled: leaving the single market and customs union was a Tory decision - The Guardian