Category Archives: Brexit

Mar 27th 2021

SINCE BECOMING prime minister in July 2019, Boris Johnson has often referred to EU countries as our friends and partners. Many of his fans believed that, once Brexit was done, a more co-operative relationship between the two would be possible. Even those who criticised Mr Johnsons December trade deal for its thinness hoped closer collaboration on issues ranging from the environment to foreign policy would allow Britain and the EU to build on it. Yet three months on, the relationship seems scratchier than ever.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

The year began badly with bigger barriers to trade than many exporters had expected. Covid-19 and stockpiling in the run-up to Brexit make the figures harder to analyse. But in January goods exports to the EU were down by over 40% from December, whereas they rose marginally to non-EU markets. For fish and shellfish, exports fell by a massive 83%; for food and drink, by 75%. Services exports are also likely to have dived.

Covid-19 vaccine wars now cast another shadow. For much of 2020 the story was of Britains slower response than the EUs to the pandemic. This year it has turned into one of British nimbleness in rolling out vaccines, against the EUs woeful sluggishness. Indeed, many Brexiteers trumpet this as proof that they were right to want to leave the bloc.

The government has been careful not to crow over its success with vaccines, and has shown restraint in the face of the EUs vaccine nationalism. Frances Emmanuel Macron cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine produced by AstraZeneca, an Anglo-Swedish firm, and a groundless scare over blood clots, which encouraged vaccine resistance, led many European countries briefly to suspend its use. At the same time, EU leaders complained about AstraZenecas failure to deliver contracted doses. The European Commission is now taking powers to control vaccine exports, including to Britain; though on March 24th, in an attempt to defuse the row, the two sides issued a joint statement saying they were working together to create a win-win situation.

Differences over vaccines may be resolved more easily than those over Northern Ireland. Under the Northern Ireland protocol that is included in Britains withdrawal treaty with the EU, the province remains in effect part of the European single market and customs union. Although Mr Johnson has often denied it, this necessarily entails border and customs controls for goods moving between the province and the rest of the United Kingdom. The resulting obstacles have hindered trade between the two, notably of anything that falls under the regulations covering food, drink and plants, and are threatening the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland.

Unionists, including Northern Irelands first minister, Arlene Foster, hate the protocol because the border in the Irish Sea widens the gap between these two parts of the United Kingdom. They want it scrapped. But if the protocol went, a hard border would be needed between north and south to protect the single market. Not only would this be near-impossible to police; it would also antagonise republicans, who would dislike the land border as much as unionists dislike the sea border.

The government remains keen to soften the harshest effects of the protocol. But negotiations in the joint committee supervising it have faltered since Lord Frost, who has replaced Michael Gove as British minister in charge, unilaterally extended grace periods for the application of some controls. The EU has initiated legal action against Britain for this apparent breach of the withdrawal treaty, which follows one first proposed in the internal market bill last September. Lord Frost retorts that the EU itself briefly considered breaching the treaty over vaccine exports in January. With such cavalier behaviour on both sides, trust is in short supply.

One possible solution to the Northern Ireland conundrum would be for Britain to align formally with the EUs veterinary and food-safety standards, thus minimising checks on food, drink and plants travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland while helping British exports to the EU. Simon Hoare, Tory chairman of the Commons Northern Ireland committee, claims it would solve 80% of the regulatory problems associated with the protocol, but the government is reluctant, partly because of its instinctive aversion to red tape and partly because it thinks that accepting EU food standards would scupper the chances of a free-trade deal with America. Yet if it does not come up with a solution, a US trade deal is scuppered anyway: President Joe Biden and Congress are clear that any breach of the Northern Ireland protocol would kill it.

Inevitably, in the wake of Brexit, there are other niggles. The European Parliament is deferring its ratification of the December trade deal. Britain is refusing to accord full diplomatic status to the EUs ambassador in London. Still, most Britons want to get on with their big neighbour. A poll this week by Ipsos MORI for the Brussels-based EU-UK forum found 78% of respondents in favour of close relations. However, only 41% expect them. The attitudes of both sides do not give much ground for hope.

The EUs vaccine mess has made it pricklier. That will pass, but one of its main concerns will not: it believes that, if Brexit were seen as a success, it might encourage others to follow suit. That is a reasonable fear; but in Britain, its failure to take into account Northern Irelands particular characteristics looks insensitive.

Mr Johnson takes the view that, in the long term, loosening ties with a chronically slow-growing continent and looking instead across the Atlantic and to Asia is the best way of ensuring Britains future prosperity. In the meantime, keeping a greater distance also makes it easier to blame problems arising from Brexit on European red tape and protectionism. Those wanting a closer relationship across the channel are likely to be disappointed.

Dig deeper

All our stories relating to the pandemic and the vaccines can be found on our coronavirus hub. You can also listen to The Jab, our new podcast on the race between injections and infections, and find trackers showing the global roll-out of vaccines, excess deaths by country and the viruss spread across Europe and America. For more coverage of matters relating specifically to Brexit, visit our Brexit hub.

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "Cross-channel conflict"

Read the rest here:

Hopes of a better post-Brexit relationship with the EU are fading - The Economist

Press play to listen to this article

This article is part of the special report Brexit and the City.

The City of London is an integral part of Britains economic engine: As a global financial services hub, it made up almost 7 percent of Britains economic activity in 2019.

With the U.K.s departure from the EU, effective from January, some have raised alarm bells that this lucrative industry could take a big hit. Already, thousands of U.K.-based jobs and trillions of pounds worth of trades have moved across the Channel.

This shift is largely down to the fact that the U.K. has left the blocs single market and needs special permission to offer financial services to EU companies permission it does not yet have.

But if these losses look dramatic on paper, theyare unlikely to make much of a dent in Londons status as a leader in financial services.

Heres a breakdown of what is changing or not as a result of Brexit.

Want more analysis from POLITICO? POLITICO Pro is our premium intelligence service for professionals. From financial services to trade, technology, cybersecurity and more, Pro delivers real time intelligence, deep insight and breaking scoops you need to keep one step ahead. Email [emailprotected] to request a complimentary trial.

See more here:

Europe's Brexit dividend is a small one - POLITICO.eu

Brexit, the United Kingdoms official exit from the European Union after nearly half a century, has brought new challenges for the biopharmaceutical industry and, for those based in the United Kingdom, the potential for regulatory reforms that enhance their business opportunities, according to Maria Manley, LLM, a London-based partner with Sidley Austin and a widely respected expert on the life sciences.

In an interview with The Center for Biosimilars, Manley discussed the complex regulatory and business restructuring adaptation to the new Brexit landscape, the significance for biosimilars producers, and the British governments goals for this new arrangement.

A lot of pharmaceutical companies had to make significant changes to the way they were operating in the United Kingdom and in the European Union, she said. For example, companies that wanted to continue marketing their products in the European Union had to make sure the corporate entities holding European marketing authorization for products were properly domiciled, so they had to transfer their marketing authorization from the UK entity into an EU entity. Packaging labels had to be changed, too, and clinical trials had to be managed differently, among other changes.

No Tariffs or Quotas

Although it was costly and complicated for the corporate sector, Brexit meant certain advantages also. It led to a free trade agreement with no tariffs and no quotas, and an accord was reached on product certification and good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspection between the United Kingdom and European Union. The acceptance of natural recognition of GMP inspection and certification are obviously very important to the industry because they avoid duplication and extensive cost, she said.

What still represents a problem for companies that do business across national boundaries is the Northern Ireland Protocol, a subsection of Brexit that allowed Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, to continue following some EU rules. This affected the movement and border checks of goods from Great Britain into Ireland. Two sets of legislation apply: one to what we call Great Britain [Wales, England, Scotland], and another one to Northern Ireland, and this is a complete nightmare to the industry, Manley said.

Despite the stress and complexity of Brexit, there has been minimal effect on the supply of drugs, and this is partly because the United Kingdom has temporarily acknowledged marketing authorizations previously granted to drugs in the European Union, which makes it possible for continued distribution in the United Kingdom. Affected companies have a period of 1 year to submit the essential [clinical/regulatory] baseline data to the regulatory body, the Health Research Authority, and to establish a presence in the United Kingdom if they didnt have it, and that is until January 2023, Manley said.

Life Sciences Investment

Protecting the interests of the pharmaceutical sector in the United Kingdom was paramount because not only do patients need continuity of quality health care, but the life sciences sector in the United Kingdom employs 260,000 individuals and contributes $41 billion annually to the local economy, Manley said. Having been an essential EU partner for so many years, the United Kingdom needs to make sure that they offer a legal environment that stimulates both innovation and also investment.

There remains close alignment between the UK and EU regulatory systems for biological products, according to Manley. However, the United Kingdom and its Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have simplified the legal framework for biologics and biosimilars companies to apply for marketing authorization. In the United Kingdom, the new guidance and legislation make animal toxicology studies unnecessary for biologics developers, as these studies are rarely considered necessary, and comparative clinical efficacy studies will not be required unless there are very good reasons for doing them.

The new approval pathway for biologics is designed around accelerating the progress to market for experimental innovative medicines, and further, the United Kingdom has signaled that regulators would be eager and willing to accept real world evidence in support of regulatory submissions. Thats quite an interesting new pathway, because it also involves other stakeholders who are crucial for having effective market access, which are the payers and other entities we have in the United Kingdom who assess the cost-effectiveness of a product, Manley said.

The "Rolling Review"

Another feature of Britains now-independent medicines approval process is the rolling review that UK regulators employed to do a controversially rapid assessment of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty) in 2020. UK countries became the first in the world to begin vaccinations with Comirnaty, and in defense of the rapid approval process, UK regulators insisted that it never got ahead of the availability of confirmatory data.

Rolling review is meant to reduce the risk of failure at the final stage and to ensure that the application is moving as fast as possible and addressing any potential issue that the regulators may have, Manley said. This review is available for any new active substance, including biosimilars and other biologics.

Also defining the UK system of approvals is the Accelerated Access Collaborative (ACC), which is a multistakeholder partnership (patients, industry, payers, regulators) to speed up patient access to innovative new treatments. This was established prior to Brexit, but the ACC is now the umbrella organization for support of UK health innovation, particularly focusing on medicinal products, including biologics and biosimilars, Manley said.

Although challenging for the United Kingdom, separating its medical products regulation from the European Unions has engendered optimism that systems are in place to spur investment and enable Britain to retain the position of one of the best life sciences platforms in the world, and this involved the United Kingdom listening to what the industry was saying about its difficulties, Manley said.

Theyve been extremely good in realizing that if the market of the European Union was going to be challenging, the rest of the world was available. Were looking toward being more global, trying to avoid duplication, reducing the time for procedures, and making it very attractive to the industry. We also have a pool of technologywhether genomics, artificial intelligence, or first class scientistswhich is there to stimulate this innovation. And obviously, if were successful with this, there would be more drug development investment in the United Kingdom.

A key development that sets the United Kingdom apart from the European Union is the way Britain has responded to an EU stance that the market for medicine is not sufficiently competitive and doesnt fully address the needs of patients for access and affordability. In Europe, fears are rising that pricing and other data disclosure requirements will be broadened and intellectual property rights diminished. The United Kingdom via the trade and cooperation agreement (TCA) established for Brexit has styled itself as a haven from these potential changes.

There is concern by the industry that the market exclusivities for orphan drugs and pediatrics medicines which are currently in place may change and may be reduced by the European Commission in the years to come, while the United Kingdom has made sure, in the negotiation of the TCA, that companies get the possibility to depart from Europe, in the sense that they keep a very high level of protection of those rights, Manley said. The United Kingdom has also confirmed that they want to protect the confidential nature of commercial pricing discussions with companies.

Read more here:

The Brexit Rollout From the Biosimilars Perspective - The Center for Biosimilars

By James Coombes26/03/2021

It has been three months since the UK left the EU, yet the worrying reality is that thousands of firms are still struggling to adapt to the new requirements for importing and exporting.

And while its encouraging to see that the government has decided to delay checks on imports from the EU, its also further evidence that the impact of Brexit continues to rage on.

There are examples of this disruption on a daily basis. Companies are experiencing long delays at ports while many are seeing perishable goods go to waste. The financial fallout is huge; some businesses face the very real threat of going under. The extra workload and the extra stress caused by the additional requirements is almost certainly harming peoples wellbeing.

Part of the problem here is that those responsible for managing these requirements have largely been left unsupported, on the assumption that eventually they will adjust to the extra processes. This couldnt be further from the truth.

Understanding and actioning customs information alone demands hundreds if not thousands of employee-hours which could otherwise be spent on improving customer service, reducing costs or identifying new areas for growth.

In total, it is estimated businesses will need to process an extra 200 million customs declarations every year, compared with roughly 55 million before Brexit. To put this into context, a seafood exporter now has to fill in 71 pages of documents for just one lorry of fish. These outdated and cumbersome processes are plainly causing significant delays and disruption in our supply chains.

Perhaps most worrying is the fact that this isnt even the full Brexit effect. Further customs requirements will come into force later in the year, requiring any business importing animal products, live animals or plants to wade through even more documentation.

For stressed and overburdened workers throughout the supply chain, this could be the final straw. They are already faced with rising monotonous tasks on a daily basis, and we have heard of business owners who are on the verge of a breakdown due to the sheer volume of paperwork required.

Without some sort of further, extensive trade agreement, this problem of excessive bureaucracy isnt going to go away. And while the most sensible approach would be to work towards the introduction of a global standard for all documents, the reality is that, in the current highly fragmented market, no single party holds the power or permission to dictate a new, singular digital standard.

In the interim, many firms will attempt to hire more people to deal with the increase in processes and procedures easier said than done when the supply chain industry is facing a serious skills shortage. Last year, the government announced its intention to recruit 50,000 customs agents to help process the extra forms. To date, just 10,000 have been recruited.

Were certainly seeing more of our customers looking to recruit people to take on some of the heavy lifting. One of the freight forwarders we work with has been forced to hire 40% more staff since the start of the year. Even if other firms follow suit, its uncertain whether this will be enough to handle the extra restrictions when they come into force.

It is time for a different approach.

We must look to help businesses address the burden of managing customs transactions in a more sustainable, less resource-intensive way. Better technology is needed to handle the processing of paperwork which, quite frankly, remains stuck in the dark ages. The bill of lading, for example, dates as far back as the late 1300s, and yet is still widely used in transporting goods worldwide today. This is in addition to the invoices, air waybills, certificates of origin, packing lists, arrival notices, customs declarations and export health certificates required for processing cross-border transactions.

Businesses cant be expected to just get on with it alone. Its time we acknowledged the archaic processes that still exist in the supply chain and seek out new and creative ways to overcome them. Yes, the new customs processes are vital, but they can be made far easier and stress-free for example, using technology to automate monotonous tasks and, crucially, give organisations powerful intelligence which they can use to improve operations and drive growth.

With the Brexit burden set to increase, and no sign of an extended trade deal on the horizon, this has to be the moment to embrace technology and alleviate the operational burden that sits heavy on the shoulders of our supply chain workers giving them precious time back to actually enjoy their jobs and, quite frankly, put their skills to better use.

This is guest post by James Coombes, chief executive of vector.ai

Mr Coombes is an entrepreneur and trade and commodities finance professional who founded vector.ai in response to the operational challenges in the supply chain, and is helping firms process the mountain of Brexit paperwork.

See the original post here:

Technology is key to cutting through the reels of post-Brexit red tape - theloadstar.com

LARNE, Northern Ireland (Reuters) - The deep anger among some pro-British unionists in Northern Ireland over post-Brexit trade barriers that cut it off from the rest of the United Kingdom is emblazoned along the road from Belfast to the mainly Protestant port town of Larne.

A sign reading 'EU hands off Ulster' is seen affixed to a lamp post in the Port of Larne, Northern Ireland, March 6, 2021. REUTERS/Clodagh Kilcoyne

Posters demanding No Irish Sea Border, Scrap NI Protocol and EU Hands Off Ulster cover much of the 35-km (20-mile) route, their opposition to the new trading arrangements emphasised by the flying of Britains Union Jack flag every few lampposts.

A dispute between Britain and the European Union over the implementation of the so-called Northern Ireland protocol - designed to prevent a hard Irish border - has raised fears that the outrage it has caused among some caught in the middle could spill over into violent protest in the coming months.

The only thing that gets any results in this country is violence or the threat of violence, said Alex, a 72-year-old Larne resident who described himself as a proper unionist. He declined to give his surname.

We are part of the United Kingdom, we were born British, we live British and we will die British.

The British-run region remains deeply split along sectarian lines, 23 years after a peace deal largely ended three decades of bloodshed. Many Catholic nationalists aspire to unification with Ireland while Protestant unionists want to stay in the UK.

Preserving that delicate peace without allowing the United Kingdom a back door into the EUs single market via the border between Northern Ireland and EU-member Ireland was one of the most difficult issues of nearly four years of tortuous talks on the terms of Britains exit from the bloc.

The protocol aimed to solve this by keeping Northern Ireland in both the UKs customs territory and the EUs single market.

However, the subsequent disruption at Northern Irish ports to trade in everyday goods such as cheese originating in Britain since the UK left the EUs orbit on Dec. 31 mean the matter is far from settled.

Unionists say that, in its effort to avoid border checks between Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland and so allay nationalist concerns, the Brexit deal has instead cut them off from the rest of the UK with an effective border in the Irish Sea.

STRENGTH OF FEELING

Many unionists say they feel part of their identity is being erased.

This month, Northern Irish loyalist paramilitary groups - who killed Catholics during the years of violence in what they saw as retaliation for Irish Republican Army (IRA) aggression - said they were temporarily withdrawing support for the 1998 Belfast Agreement, also known as the Good Friday Agreement.

While they pledged peaceful and democratic opposition to the Brexit deal, the groups, which include the outlawed Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association and Red Hand Commando, warned British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a letter not to underestimate the strength of feeling.

David Campbell, chairman of the Loyalist Communities Council, which represents the views of loyalist paramilitaries, said a Pandoras box of protest and political crisis would be opened unless the EU agreed to significant changes to the deal.

He said unionist anger was running at the highest level since the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement, which gave Dublin a consultative role in Northern Irish affairs and prompted mass protests and a rise in loyalist violence.

The current leaderships of the loyalist organisations are under extreme pressure from, lets just say, the young Turks who perhaps see an opportunity to go to war on their terms, he told Reuters.

Britain acknowledged the depth of feeling on Friday, when Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said unionist disillusionment with the deal could put the province in quite a dangerous place in terms of stability.

The loyalist groups statement needs to be taken seriously, said Billy Hutchinson, a former Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) prisoner who is now the leader of the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP), a small loyalist political party with links to the UVF.

While Northern Ireland voted 56%-44% to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum, many unionists, who largely backed Brexit, thought it would enhance their Britishness, according to Hutchinson.

Johnsons government had pledged there would be no new barriers to trade within the UK.

If there hadnt been a pandemic, Im absolutely confident that people would have gone on the streets, said Hutchinson, who served 15 years in prison for the murder of two Catholic half-brothers in the 1970s.

If the political parties on the unionist side dont try to head that off by giving them some sort of hope, some sort of leadership, then you will have violence.

Few believe the region will return to the bombings and tit-for-tat killings of the Troubles, the period that left more than 3,600 people dead. The loyalist groups, though not formally parties to the 1998 accord, endorsed the peace deal and decommissioned their weapons in the years that followed.

However, a repeat of the 2013 protests, when petrol bombs and guns returned to the streets of Belfast after a vote by local councillors to end a century-old tradition of flying Britains flag from City Hall, is seen as a distinct possibility.

Although the unionist anger is aimed mainly at London, outnumbered nationalists in towns such as Larne fear they could be the target if demonstrations turn ugly, according to James McKeown, a local councillor for the largest pro-Irish party, Sinn Fein, formerly the IRAs political ally.

McKeown grew up in Larne but in 1998 his family were told by police to leave after their home was repeatedly shot at and petrol bombed. He moved to nearby Carnlough, a picturesque, mainly Catholic village where the Irish flag flies in the harbour.

Unfortunately in towns like Larne, there is always that element of tension. Has it heightened it? Yes it has, McKeown said. There are a lot of people on both sides of the community apprehensive and fearful about where we could go from here.

Reporting by Padraic Halpin; Editing by Alex Richardson

Read the original here:

Brexit reality stokes fears for the peace in Northern Ireland - Reuters

Nearly three months into the post-Brexit era, over half of UK businesses say they have faced disruption.

According to new polling from YouGov shared exclusively with Sky News, that figure rises to 80% among firms that do a "moderate" or "large" amount of trade with the EU.

The survey of 2,046 businesses found that large organisations were more likely to have been affected than SMEs (small and medium enterprises).

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Three-quarters of all firms that reported having experienced disruption said they expected the impact to last a long time.

The Brexit withdrawal agreement came into force on 1 January.

While it agreed that there would be no tariffs or quotas on goods traded between the EU and the UK, businesses now face customs procedures at the border and safety checks on some goods.

Although the worst predictions of border description have been avoided, firms have had to adjust to new costs and delays, which for some has resulted in a drop-off in orders - all while dealing with the impact of the pandemic.

The survey found that just over half of businesses (52%) had faced disruption, with one in eight (13%) saying it had been a large amount.

A further one in six (17%) say the impact has been moderate, with a fifth reporting a small amount of disturbance (22%).

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The impact was greater among those that do a "moderate" or "large" amount of trade with the EU.

Two in five respondents were in this category - and of this group, 80% said they had faced problems, 72% said the problems were substantial and 60% said they expected the situation to get worse.

Attitudes were mixed among the businesses polled in relation to whether Brexit will affect them negatively overall. While 46% say it would, about a third (36%) say it won't have an impact and 12% believe it will benefit them.

Bearmach is one of many UK businesses that has been affected.

The south Wales-based business exports car parts suitable for Land Rovers to 130 countries around the world, with between 25% to 30% of its business done with the EU-based customers.

"We're about 20% down," director Stuart Truckel explained.

"The EU customers understand now that there is additional cost, but still with the delay of getting the goods they're more nervous about placing orders due to those delays.

"There's an appetite still to buy from us, but there's a nervousness."

"For example, one of our Spanish customers this morning, we've had to chase because he's still waiting for a shipment from the second week of February."

Exports to the EU from Britain have been subject to customs controls since 1 January, but the government has implemented a phased approach on EU imports to give hauliers and businesses more time to adapt.

That introduction of import checks has been delayed a further six months to January 2022, with the government blaming the extra pressure caused by the pandemic.

According to the YouGov research, the COVID-19 is having an impact on more businesses than Brexit.

Seven in ten surveyed (71%) say the pandemic will affect them negatively.

Only one in seven (14%) say it will not have any consequences for their company, while 12% believe it will be beneficial.

Most companies impacted by both the pandemic and Brexit expect that the former will matter in the short-term, while the implications from the latter will be lengthy.

While 47% of those negatively impacted by COVID-19 said they thought it would have a long-term impact, that number rises to 73% for those negatively impacted by Brexit.

"From my experience so far, in the first three months, it does get better day by day," Mr Truckel said.

"Do I think we'll be back to normal in three months' time? No I don't, but I do think we should be close to where we were pre-Brexit by the end of the year."

He added that managing Brexit on top of the pandemic this year has been "very, very stressful".

Speaking on behalf of the government in the House of Commons on Thursday, Penny Mordaunt MP, the paymaster general, said she was sorry to hear businesses are still having difficulties.

But she added: "Frictionless trade would have required regulatory alignment with the EU, which would have undermined our own autonomy in that area and our sovereignty as an independent trading nation.

"That was not a price that we were prepared to pay.

"However, we do recognise that these are ongoing difficulties.

"We will be bringing forward further practical measures to address these issues and to provide business with more support."

Visit link:

More than half of UK firms have faced disruption due to Brexit, poll finds - Sky News

Having spent almost five years living in Brexit Britain, the tabloids' hostility towards the EU comes as no surprise to me. However, I was surprised to discover the theories surrounding the suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine, in which European countries are accused of deliberately punishing the UK.

Even pro-European friends sent me messages exasperated at the 'short-sightedness' and 'dirty tactics' of the Europeans, blinded by a hatred of the 'Oxford jab'.

But where did the belief that the suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine was about Brexit come from?

One explanation highlights the tabloid-constructed narratives which have massive influence over public opinion, where isolated quotes by European officials were used to suit ideological agendas.

One such quote was given by Nicola Magrini, the head of the Italian medicine regulator, in which he describes the suspension as a 'political' choice on the 15 March.

On 16 March, the Daily Mail explained Magrini's comments with reference to an anonymous Conservative MP who claimed that "Brexit sulk" motivated the decision.

One day later, the same quote is used to substantiate the argument that a hypothetical 'Heidelberg' or 'Toulouse' vaccine would not have received the same treatment as the Oxford vaccine.

Finally, on 18 March, Magrini's comments are transformed into "Italy admit[ing] the decision was a political one", reinforcing the narrative of European attacks on the UK as 'smokescreen' to hide their own failings.

The Sun also picked up on Magrini's comments. On the 17 March, the quote was placed directly under a "Brexit Sulk'" subheading with no context and separate from the rest of Magrini's statement.

Immediately after, unrelated comments by the French Europe minister about separate supply issues with AstraZeneca were used to create the false impression that the French government admitted the suspension was both political and Brexit related.

A closer look at the events, however, shows that instead of a conspiracy the decision was old-fashioned bureaucratic caution.

The main protagonist in this narrative is the Paul-Ehrlich Institute, the German independent body in charge of monitoring vaccinations equivalent to the Medical and Heathcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK.

After identifying blood clots from people who had taken the vaccine, the institute advised the government to suspend AstraZeneca vaccinations until further investigations had been completed, a heavily-criticised move.

Angela Merkel's coalition in Berlin faced a conundrum.

Ignoring the advice would have made them vulnerable to accusations of disregarding their own independent experts as well as lowering trust in the AstraZeneca vaccine further.

On the other hand, suspending vaccinations would slow down an already-mismanaged vaccine rollout and do little to shore up confidence in the safety of the 'Oxford' jab. The latter option was, again, viewed as the more cautious one.

Soon after, Germany's decision to suspend vaccinations was replicated by other European countries.

Importantly, Magrini's comments about "political" choice was a critique of European governments giving in to the pressure from their constituents who were worried about the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine, not because of a political agenda to punish the UK.

In the end, the Paul Ehrlich institute caused a chain reaction, culminating in an outcome that has hampered European vaccine rollouts.

The implication that the German government cares more about punishing the UK for Brexit than vaccinating its own population is false.

If the Daily Mail and Sun are correct, the German government would have had to pressure its own independent regulators to manufacture fears over blood clots and then use these as an excuse to halt AstraZeneca vaccinations - for a week - to attack the UK.

Furthermore, the supposed benefit of the suspension for Germany is elusive.

Damaging the reputation of a British-Swedish pharma company does little to reduce the evident success the UK has had in vaccinating its population.

Instead, scrutiny of the contrasting vaccination outcomes was actually reinforced by the suspension.

Meanwhile, the downside of the move is obvious. Pressuring an independent regulator would risk a much greater political scandal than any MP corruption affair currently embroiling the CDU.

Slow vaccine rollouts have seriously harmed the German government in the polls and the AstraZeneca suspension has certainly not helped.

Is it plausible that the German government is so obsessed with harming the UK that it plunged its own vaccination rollout into chaos?

The alternative explanation - an overly cautious regulator putting the government in a difficult position - is much less exciting, but much more likely.

The British tabloids' obsession with framing every relevant decision made in the EU as a hostile act to constrain the UK's post-Brexit ascendancy hurts UK-EU relations.

With the end of the Brexit negotiations, those who value good relations need to continue challenging the same false narratives - peddled for ideological reasons - which caused the Brexit mess to begin with.

Just because Brexit has happened does not make them any less damaging.

See the rest here:

Brexit, tabloid 'sulks', and AstraZeneca - EUobserver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Robb on stage with The Membranes

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

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

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

Credit: Getty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link:

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

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

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

A Geopolitical Kaleidoscope

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

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

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

What Brexit Means for the British Caribbean

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

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

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

What the Future Holds

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

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

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

Continue reading here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued here:

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