Category Archives: Brexit

Opinion

PUBLISHED: 16:47 13 July 2020 | UPDATED: 17:35 13 July 2020

Layla Moran

The government's new Brexit media blitz. Photograph: UK Government/PA.

Archant

Liberal Democrat MP LAYLA MORAN points out the governments information Brexit blitz comes from the same politicians who have spent years spinning and lying about the reality of the UKs withdrawal from the EU.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

Even by the standards weve come to expect from this government, the latest announcement of a 93 million Brexit publicity campaign is particularly brazen. At a time when the NHS urgently needs more support and people who rely on welfare are struggling to pay the bills, ministers are spending millions of pounds on a self-indulgent advertising blitz. This comes on top of another 705 million being spent on new infrastructure at the border to cope with leaving the EU customs union at the end of the year.

This is a shockingly irresponsible use of taxpayers money at a time we should be focusing our resources on tackling this pandemic. Ministers had to be forced kicking and screaming to spend 120 million on free school meals for deprived children over the summer. Yet when it comes to promoting the supposed benefits of Brexit, it appears that no expense is being spared. The government sadly seems more interested in promoting Brexit propaganda than helping vulnerable families get through this crisis.

The reality is though that no amount of slick marketing can cover for the fact that the governments stubborn pursuit of Brexit is going to cost us all. The new campaign talks about ensuring we are all ready to seize the opportunities that the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 will bring. But if you look at the detail, the only real opportunities being offered are to pay higher travel insurance and mobile roaming charges when going on holiday to the EU.

Back during the referendum in 2016, the Vote Leave campaign claimed that warnings about Brexit making holidays abroad more expensive was talking Britain down. Now this Vote Leave government is spending millions of pounds telling UK citizens thats exactly whats going to happen. You really couldnt make it up. This is a government led by people who built their careers on spin and lies. Its vital that all progressive parties work together to hold them to account.

First of all, that means continuing to fight to stop a no deal Brexit at the end of the year. I have tabled legislation in Parliament that has received cross-party backing and which would give MPs a vote on extending the transition period. The official deadline to request an extension may now have passed, but as academics have pointed out there are still imaginative solutions that could be found to get round this issue. I am strong believer that in politics, where theres a will theres a way. We must not let the government steamroller us into a damaging no deal Brexit that the majority of the public dont support and that nobody voted for.

Second, we must continue protecting the rights of EU nationals and others from abroad who have made the UK their home, including the thousands working in the NHS and social care. The announcement that care workers will not qualify for the governments new Health and Care visa was a worrying sign of what is to come. It is disgraceful that those risking their lives each day helping vulnerable people during this pandemic are being told theyre not skilled enough to qualify for a visa. Our social care system relies on overseas carers, we should be welcoming them in not shutting them out.

Finally, we must keep up the fight to maintain close ties with our European neighbours, including in securing the medical supplies our NHS needs. On Friday, the Government inexplicably announced it would be walking away from a joint EU vaccination scheme that could have helped drive down costs and secure supplies of a vaccine once one is developed. Its crucial that these decisions are properly scrutinised, and that opposition MPs work together to ensure ministers cannot get away with putting political dogma over public health.

Layla Moran is a Lib Dem MP and a contestant in the partys leadership race.

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

See the article here:

Layla Moran: Government's costly Brexit media blitz shows 'Project Fear' is becoming reality - The New European

It is possible that Boris Johnson meant it when he said last year that Brexit would not involve checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but only if he did not understand the deal he had signed. His position made sense as dishonesty or ignorance. It was never true.

As Brexit talks continue in London this week, it turns out the government has submitted to the EU its application to put border control posts at Irish Sea ports. That is a necessary act of compliance with the Northern Ireland protocol in the withdrawal agreement.

Since Brussels demands that the single market boundary be policed, and the UK made a commitment not to police it on the island of Ireland, a sea border was inevitable. That did not stop Mr Johnson pretending otherwise. On Wednesday a leaked cabinet letter revealed that the border risks being dysfunctional even after the prime ministers scheme is enacted. The root of these problems is the failure to grasp the importance of the single market to the European project and a refusal to acknowledge the cost of Britains departure from it.

Eurosceptic arguments asserted the primacy of markets elsewhere in the world, in search of which Britain needed release from burdensome Brussels rules. The fact that more than 40% of UK exports go to the EU was dismissed as a relic of membership. The geographical proximity of those markets was belittled as an obsolete 20th-century metric.

But proximity matters to the EU, which sees in Brexit the prospect of commercial rivals trading into the single market from a low-cost entrept on their doorstep. Brussels wants to write guarantees against that scenario into a trade deal. UK negotiators resent conditions that they say are more onerous than those applied to Canada, for example. But Canada is thousands of miles further away.

Setting aside the question of how reasonable the two sides are being (each could yield a little), the essential problem is that distance matters to trade, and a Brexit model that was conceived in denial of that fact puts the UK at a disadvantage in the negotiations. Fantasy still stalks UK trade policy, as evidenced in Downing Streets nomination of Liam Fox as a candidate to be director general of the World Trade Organization. Dr Foxs cabinet record of resignation in disgrace, then rehabilitation through ineffectual jet-setting, will not be taken seriously in the competition.

Mr Johnson defers encounters with reality, but cannot avoid them indefinitely. He will compromise over Brexit, just as he did last year. The only question is whether it happens before or after transitional arrangements end in December. The terms of a deal with Brussels are not so different either side of the deadline, but the cost is higher if it is missed. In either case, Brexit is proving to be a slow and expensive way to teach the prime minister about geography.

See the original post here:

The Guardian view on Brexit and trade: an expensive geography lesson - The Guardian

The UK Government is planning to withhold power from Scotland and Wales when the Brexit transition ends, according to reports.

The Financial Times reports a 'state aid proposal' is expected to appear in a bill this autumn which would give Westminster statutory powers to control policies for the entire UK.

The potential legislation could see state aid policiesfor all evolved nations controlled solely by Westminster.

READ MORE:Opinion: Mark Smith: Scottish independence is not inevitable, but we all need to change the way we look at it

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said this would be 'a full-scale assault on devolution'.

She tweeted on Monday morning: "Make no mistake, this would be a full-scale assault on devolution - a blatant move to erode the powers of the Scottish Parliament in key areas.

"If the Tories want to further boost support for independence, this is the way to do it."

FT reports the legislation would enable Westminster to force both Scotland and Wales to accept whatever new standards regarding food, environment and animal welfare it agrees in future discussions and agreements with other countries.

The transition period ends on December 31, and state aid remains to be one of the most contentious issues in UK negotiations with the EU.

READ MORE:Scottish economy performance worst in the UK in June amid slower reopening from coronavirus pandemic lockdown

The governments in Scotland and Wales have said that this policy should be devolved to them, however, the UK government insists it should be down to them.

Scotland's Constitution Secretary Mike Russell has previously said plans to enshrine a UK "internal market" after Brexit would seriously undermine devolution, describing them as a potential "power grab".

In a letter to Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, Mr Russell said he is concerned about proposals for an external body that would "test" whether a bill in Holyrood affected the UK's internal market and plans for a "mutual recognition regime", which he said could lower regulatory standards beyond what the Scottish Parliament found acceptable.

In response, Mr Gove accused him of trying to "confect" a political row.

Commenting, SNP Westminster Leader Ian Blackford MP said: "Boris Johnson's outrageous plan for a power grab on the Scottish Parliament is another shameless Tory attack on devolution - and we will resist it every step of the way.

"Yet again, Scotland is being completely ignored by Westminster. If the Tory government goes ahead with this attempt to roll-back devolution they will drive support for independence up even further.

READ MORE:Opinion: Iain Macwhirter: Does Nicola Sturgeon still want independence? Some in the SNP aren't so sure

"Westminster has proved itself to be utterly incapable of acting in Scotland's interests. With the exception of the Scottish Tories, who have completely isolated themselves, the Scottish Parliament is united against moves to erode Scotland's devolution settlement.

"It's time for Jackson Carlaw to come out of hiding, find a backbone, and join the SNP in opposing this completely unacceptable move. Otherwise he will prove the Scottish Tories only exist to do Boris Johnson's bidding - however damaging.

"Scotland has been ignored throughout the Brexit process, shut out of the trade negotiations, and now our interests are being bulldozed for a Tory-Trump deal. It is clearer than ever that the only way to protect Scotland's interests and our place at the heart of Europe is to become an independent country."

Original post:

UK Government 'planning to withhold power from Scotland after Brexit transition' - HeraldScotland

File Photo: Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon reacts after delivering a speech on 'Scotland's European future after Brexit', in Brussels, Belgium, February 10, 2020. REUTERS/Yves Herman

(Reuters) - The Scottish government has warned it would defy a proposed UK legislation that will allow Westminster unilaterally to set food and environmental standards, the Financial Times newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The Scottish National Party will challenge in the courts the legislation that will give London unilateral control to police the UK's "internal market", Michael Russell, Scotland's cabinet secretary for constitutional affairs, told the newspaper on.ft.com/3favMWy.

The proposed UK internal market bill is going to give London the powers to force Wales and Scotland to accept whatever new standards were agreed in future trade agreements on environment, animal welfare and food, the report added, citing a source.

Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru; Editing by Christian Schmollinger

View post:

Scotland threatens to defy UK's post-Brexit legislation - FT - Reuters UK

BRUSSELS Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, in his first direct talks with Brussels about Brexit since his country left the European Union at the end of January, agreed with European leaders on Monday to push ahead with intensified talks in July and August to try to reach a trade deal by the end of the year.

Mr. Johnsons remarks came in a videoconference with the unions three presidents Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission, Charles Michel of the European Council and David Sassoli of the European Parliament.

In a brief joint statement after the videoconference, the two sides praised their negotiators but agreed nevertheless that new momentum was required.

With negotiations at an impasse, both sides agreed to intensify the talks this summer, with the aim of concluding and ratifying a deal before the end of 2020, the statement said, including, if possible, finding an early understanding on the principles underlying any agreement.

Speaking later in London, Mr. Johnson said, I dont think were actually that far apart, but what we need now is to see a bit of oomph in the negotiations.

The faster we can do this, the better, and we see no reason why you shouldnt get this done in July, Mr. Johnson added. I certainly dont want to see it going on until the autumn, winter, as I think perhaps in Brussels they would like. I dont see any point in that, so lets get it done.

Britain has legally left the European Union, but both sides agreed on a transition period until at least the end of this year, so nothing has fundamentally changed. The idea was to give time for both sides to negotiate their future relationship, with the possibility of an extension to the talks. But Mr. Johnson, eager to fulfill his Brexit promises and to stop paying into the European Union budget, has ruled out any extension.

With both sides concentrating on how to manage the coronavirus pandemic, talks so far have been slow to progress. Heightened and even angry rhetoric from the chief negotiators David Frost for London and Michel Barnier for Brussels has contrasted to what officials on both sides describe as polite and professional staff-level talks involving as many as 150 people on each side.

Mr. Barnier said last week that there had been no significant areas of progress at the last negotiating round. Mr. Frost said that progress remains limited, with negotiators reaching the limits of what could be achieved in formal talks.

Without key political decisions, the talks after four rounds were faltering. Mr. Johnson and Ms. von der Leyen have agreed on an accelerated series of negotiations to run through July and part of August. Both sides say that any agreement must be made before the end of October, to allow the British and all the European parliaments to ratify the deal and for both sides to prepare.

But that is not much time, and some believe that faced with the prospect of no deal, some form of modest extension could be arranged if the two sides were close to an agreement.

The two sides have adopted a posture of being open to an outcome with no deal, rather than to make too many concessions. Both want an agreement though, because the economic disruption of a brutal break would be significant.

Given comparable size and the flow of goods, it would probably be worse for Britain, which sends more than 40 percent of its exports to the European Union and gets more than 50 percent of its imports from the bloc. But the pain would be felt on the continent as well.

The remaining roadblocks to a deal are significant, both political and economic. Europe wants a comprehensive agreement, as suggested in the nonbinding political declaration both sides signed as part of the withdrawal agreement. Britain, especially with time so short, wants a more modest free trade agreement, with side deals to handle issues like fishing, which has a larger political than economic importance for both sides.

There is a fundamental disagreement on governance, with Europe regarding the European Court of Justice as its ultimate authority and Britain saying that its Parliament and courts must remain supreme. So how future disagreements would be adjudicated or arbitrated remains a serious area for dispute.

Brussels and Mr. Barnier insist on preserving the coherence and integrity of the European Unions single market. To ensure that, they want an agreement on what has been called a level playing field, to prevent Britain from loosening its regulations and lowering its taxes to make European goods less competitive.

British officials say that their regulations are now the same or even tougher than those of Brussels, so its good intentions should be assurance enough. In any case, they add, any of its goods entering the European market must meet European standards.

Britain would like access with zero quotas and zero tariffs. But that, Brussels says, would require a legally binding agreement to keep to the regulations of the single market the level playing field.

But in a February document outlining Britains red lines, the government said that, we will not agree to any obligations for our laws to be aligned with the E.U.s. Instead, Mr. Johnson proposed some kind of independent monitoring system, perhaps arbitration.

Brussels also wants commitments on state aid and subsidies to British companies, so that they do not undercut European ones.

Brussels says that without a deal on fishing and on competition rules, there can be no deal at all.

On the one hand, the British complain, the Europeans say that Britain is a smaller economy and needs to be realistic, and on the other, that Britain is a serious economic threat. By that logic, Europe would have difficulty with any relatively large economy close to its borders.

And it is absurd, the British say, for an independent country to promise to mirror Brussels rules forever, or to pretend that fishing quotas should not change over time, given that fish move and fish stocks change.

But the Europeans complain that Britain wants to cherry pick bits of previous trade deals with countries that are not comparable, like South Korea or Canada, given their geographical separation.

Stefaan De Rynck, a senior adviser to Mr. Barnier, said last month that the U.K. will always be special to us, but it is also right next door, and proximity matters in trade. Every deal is custom-made, he said. The U.K. cant say I want a little bit of South Korea, a little of Mexico, Canada and Japan on the side.

Brussels also complains that Mr. Johnson is backtracking on the existing agreement governing the island of Ireland to ensure that the land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic now the border between the United Kingdom and the European Union remains as open as it is now. While the deal allows European officials to be present during checks at Northern Irish ports and airports, Britain has objected to those officials keeping an office in Belfast.

Neither side is really ready for what will be in the end a hard Brexit, let alone a no-deal Brexit, said Fabian Zuleeg, head of the European Policy Center, a think tank in Brussels. As an indication that Britain wants to avoid too much disruption, the government announced last week that full border controls on goods entering from the European Union would not apply until at least July 2021.

That approach will allow most importers of standard goods up to six months to complete customs declarations and to pay tariffs, if any apply. The announcement was praised by British trade associations, because it would reduce the expected backlog at British ports.

The European Union, however, has said that in the case of a no deal, it would apply complete customs and tariff controls from Jan. 1 of next year. That would most likely mean extended delays on the European side.

See the original post:

With Brexit Trade Talks at an Impasse, Boris Johnson Finally Engages - The New York Times

King's College London Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs and Director of UK in a Changing Europe, Anand Menon, predicted a potential Brexit breakthrough. During an interview with Express.co.uk, Mr Menon noted the UK could see France's President Emmanuel Macron drop his demands regarding access to UK fishing waters. Mr Menon added this could happen as soon as the autumn time as pressure grows for the EU the closer to the end of the transition period both sides get.

However, the European politics expert claimed Britain may have to compromise on other issues like trade standards.

Mr Menon insisted a compromise from both Britain and the EU was needed to ensure a trade agreement could be reached.

He said: "If we are going to get a deal then by the time we get into the autumn political leaders on both sides are going to have to make some trade-offs.

"It might be that the French will say they will ask less about fish.

DON'T MISS:Brexiteers were right! -Boris' 'plan B' could see UK triumph says Tice

"It may be the British side saying we are going to accept some minimum standards from the EU.

"Unless there is some ground given it looks like there won't be an agreement."

Mr Menon explained the difficulty in predicting whether a trade deal would eventually be reached at this stage.

He said: "In order for there to be a Brexit deal, one or both sides of the negotiations are going to have to give ground.

"What we don't know yet is whether either side is willing to give ground.

"I think one of the things about the Brexit trade talks to date is because of COVID-19 the political leaders on both sides have not been engaging in the Brexit talks.

"Remember, on the UK side the negotiations are being solely carried out by a special adviser, there is no direct political involvement."

Mr Menon also explained tensions were rising in the EU camp as Brexit trade talks intensify.

READ MORE:

Boris' Brexit plane plan defended by Mike Parry 'Investment needed!'[VIDEO]Merkel could inspire last-gasp deal VDL said she would never walk[INSIGHT]Brexiteers were right! -Boris' 'plan B' could see UK triumph says Tice[EXCLUSIVE]

Mr Menon claimed chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier was growing frustrated with the member state leaders.

He insisted that Mr Barnier was asking for more leeway from member states on demands in hopes of more smoothly moving talks along with the UK.

Contrary to Mr Barnier's hopes and wishes after speaking to leaders, some were tightening their mandate ultimately making the Brexit trade talks more difficult for Mr Barnier.

Originally posted here:

Brexit victory: Macron WILL cave to UK fishing stance by autumn - but there is a catch - Express

The Brexit transition period will not be extended according to Cabinet minister Michael Gove. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said there is a very good chance of getting a trade deal by December. But if a deal cannot be done, what would this mean for the UK after December?

At the end of last year, a No Deal Brexit was a topic of discussion, but now the term has returned to common usage.

The UK formally left the European Union on January 31 and now the country is in a transition period until the end of the year.

This means the UK is still part of the EU single market and the customs union currently, and therefore all the rules and regulations, as well as budget payments, remain the same.

The UK has decided not to take up the option of extending the transition period for one to two years to enable negotiations to continue regarding a future free trade deal.

READ MORE:EU finally admits UK fishing waters 'sovereign'

If negotiations do not lead to an agreed deal by the end of the year, a new version of No Deal would take place.

This would mean trade with the EU would automatically fall back on the basic World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

The WTO is the global body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade.

In total, there are 164 members in the WTO and if they do not have their own free trade agreements with one another, they trade under WTO rules.

Every WTO member has a list of tariffs and quotas which apply to other countries with which they do not have any free trade agreements.

These deals are known as their WTO schedules.

Under WTO rules, cares would be taxed at 10 percent when they cross the UK-EU border after the end of the transition period.

Agricultural tariffs would rise to an average of more than 35 percent for dairy products.

DON'T MISSFly the flag for the UK! Boris Johnsons plan for RAF plane rebrand[INSIGHT]UK fishermen infuriate Dutch with response when entering waters[EXPLAINER]Brexit fury: EU gears up to challenge Gove's Northern Ireland plan[PICTURES]

The Government has published a guide to UK tariffs from January 1, 2021.

The UK Global Tariff (UKGT) will replace the EUs Common External Tariff from January 1 and will apply to all goods imported into the UK unless:

An exception applies, such as a relief or tariff suspension.

The goods come from countries that are part of theGeneralised Scheme of Preferences.

The country youre importing from has a trade agreement with the UK.

It only shows the tariff that will be applied to goods at the border when they are imported into the UK.

It does not cover:

The Government is removing all tariffs below 2.5 percent which it refers to as nuisance tariffs.

In total, 47 percent of all products will have zero tariffs, compared with 28 percent when in the EU.

Among the biggest tariff cuts will be types of preserved mushrooms, which will have their tariffs cut from 18.4 percent to zero and yeast, which will have its tariff cut from up to 14.7 percent to zero.

The following items are having their tariffs to cut from the following current tariff rates to zero:

There are also likely to be non-tariff barriers such as product standards, safety regulations and sanitary checks on food and animals.

The UK and EU will need to find ways to work with each others regulations.

The UK has announced that with or without a deal, checks on EU goods coming into the UK will be phased in the next year to give firms time to adjust.

Non-tariff barriers would have an even greater impact on the service sector, which makes up about 80 percent of the UK economy.

The rest is here:

Brexit news: What would ending the transition period with no deal really mean? - Express.co.uk

As the world economy experiences its biggest downturn for a century (Gopinath 2020), it is widely agreed that the policy response to Covid-19 must be decisive and coordinated (Baldwin and Weder di Mauro 2020). Meanwhile, in the UK, where 50% of companies reported a fall in business in April 2020 relative to the past three months, the government continues to negotiate its exit from the EU its biggest trading partner aiming to complete the transition by the end of the year.

Both Covid-19 and Brexit will have a profound impact on economic activity in the UK, but there may be big differences in terms of which sectors they affect. In this column, we show new evidence that the sectors that have been initially most negatively affected by Covid-19 are generally different to those that are affected more by Brexit (De Lyon and Dhingra 2020).

To measure the effects of Covid-19, we use firm-level survey data for April 2020 made available to us through the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). We aggregate this to the sector level to compare with measures of the economic effects of Brexit across UK sectors taken from previous work.

Table 1 shows that there is a negative, if any, correlation between changes in business volumes in April 2020 and the ongoing and expected impacts of Brexit as captured by three different measures. This means that generally the sectors hit by Covid-19 in the first month of lockdown have been different to those expected to be affected by Brexit. This is true regardless of which Brexit measure is used, despite each varying in the time period covered and nature of the specific effect caused by Brexit.

The first of the Brexit measures captures each industrys exposure to the sharp depreciation in the value of the pound on the night of the EU referendum in June 2016. The world trading system has developed over recent decades so that now the majority of world trade is in intermediate goods and services that are used as inputs into production by businesses. Therefore, the devaluation of the pound meant that companies with a high share of imported inputs faced increasing costs to production (Costa et al. 2019). This measure therefore captures effects of Brexit that occurred immediately following the referendum.

The second measure Brexit uncertainty captures business responses to the Decision Maker Panel conducted by the Bank of England concerning uncertainty due to Brexit and the ongoing negotiations in the period following the referendum (Bloom et al. 2019). This measure is contemporary and broad, although it is restricted to highly aggregated industry categories.

The third measure is the outcome of a state-of-the-art trade model and captures the predicted long-term impact of the expected trade relationship between the UK and EU after Brexit (Dhingra et al. 2017). It ignores adjustment effects and focuses only on trade omitting other factors such as foreign investment and migration. It is similar in nature to the governments own economic model but, crucially, contains more detailed industry predictions, allowing for a more thorough comparison with the effects of Covid across sectors.

Table 1 Correlation coefficients for changes in business volume in April with three measures of the current and future effects of Brexit

Notes: The net change in volume of business is the percentage of businesses reporting an increase in volumes in April 2020 relative to the past three months minus the percentage reporting a decrease. The measure is then de-trended by subtracting the corresponding measure for 2019 to account for pre-existing trends. Responses are weighted by firm-size according to employment. We correlate this variable with three measures of Brexit effects. First is the intermediate import value-weighted measure of depreciation on the night of the referendum (Costa et al. 2020). Second is the long-term industry-level forecast of the CEP trade model (Dhingra et al. 2017) and third is the measure of Brexit uncertainty reported by firms (Bloom et al. 2019). Correlations are weighted by industry size and use the relative rankings of each industry. In all cases but one, the weighting and de-trending of the Covid measure does not affect the sign of the correlation.

To explore these cross-industry correlations in detail, Table 2 presents the full ranking of industries according to how positively (top) or negatively (bottom) they have been performing in April 2020 relative to the past three months and their trend of business volumes a year before. We colour each row according to the predicted long-term effect of Brexit with green being the least negatively (or positively) affected sectors and red being most negatively affected with blue being those in between.

One obvious difference that emerges from the list is that Covid has hit hard domestic services such as recreation, hotels and restaurants, which are a large employer in any developed economy, while these are less likely to be directly affected by Brexit policy except through knock-on changes in demand and labour services. Most manufacturing sectors and transport have been less negatively affected, although again there are exceptions within these sectors. The table highlights the double impact that Brexit and Covid can have on the economy. Sectors that have not yet been hit by the lockdown are generally expected to be hit negatively by Brexit.

Table 2 Change in business volume in April and predicted effect of Brexit by industry

Notes: Industries are ranked in terms of net increase in business volume in April 2020 (see notes of Figure 1 for details on this variable). The rows are shaded according to the predicted long-term effect of Brexit (Dhingra et al, 2017): green for top, blue for middle, and red for most negatively affected. Sectors with fewer than 5 businesses in the data in April 2020 are omitted. Industries are ranked from least negatively affected (1) to most negatively affected (20).

In many ways, this is not surprising. The rapid spread of Covid-19 has caused countries across the world to enter lockdown. This has had a huge impact on the functioning of economies on both the demand and supply sides (del Rio-Chanona et al. 2020). Some sectors, such as in-person services, have ceased completely while others, like distribution and some manufacturing, have needed to step in to meet urgent needs arising from the pandemic.

Brexit, on the other hand, will mainly affect the UK economy and will introduce new barriers to trade, migration, and investment with the EU, and a change in its relationship with other countries outside the EU (Baldwin 2016). Tariff and non-tariff barriers that may arise in sectors like automotive, food and professional and financial services could significantly affect the structure and size of the UK economy in the long run, as well as create costly short-term adjustments.

Our analysis highlights the importance of granular economic analysis during these extraordinary times.

As early as 2017, the government had announced that Brexit negotiations would be guided by granular impact assessments across sectors. Sound impact assessments are crucial for good policy design and this is what the government had rightly put forward. Yet the most detailed quantitative impact analysis available from the government to date gives details for just ten broad sector categories.

For example, all of services is split into just three categories. This makes the evidence too scant to adequately guide policymaking and it isnt a surprise that the new policies that the government has announced in its Brexit plans, such as the tariff schedule published recently, have little justification on why certain policy objectives have been chosen.

The changed circumstances due the pandemic make the need for detailed sectoral analysis even more important. It is clear that some sectors are going to see a reduction in market access after the UKs exit from the EU. While they may have withstood a bit of a setback in trade with the EU, a much harder hit at a time of a national and a global slowdown may push them towards being unviable. The current conditions in these industries will be useful in drawing up Brexit plans that are informed by existing circumstances.

The large negative hit from the pandemic has reduced the capacity of the UK economy to take further shocks. The UK is highly integrated with Europe and these linkages are likely to be even more important throughout the pandemic (Baldwin and Freeman 2020). The slowdown of the world economy has also cast another shadow on the idea of a global Britain making up for reductions in EU market access by pursuing opportunities outside the EU.

Our analysis shows that the sectors that will be affected by Brexit and those that are suffering from the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown are generally different from each other. Rushing Brexit through this year without a new deal in place would therefore broaden the set of sectors that see worsening business conditions.

The EUs Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has suggested that an extension to the transition period would be possible. The UK Government should think carefully about its policy priorities now; adding Brexit to the table only increases the importance of getting these policies right. Beyond the economics, the EU offers opportunities to help deal with the spread and response to the virus, such as the large-scale scheme to obtain personal protective equipment, which the UK reportedly missed the opportunity to join on three occasions.

As the Covid impacts continue to become clearer over time, the government must move beyond its broad assessment of Brexit impacts to much more finely tuned plans that account for the differences in market conditions and constraints faced by UK businesses in the biggest slowdown of our lifetime.

Authors note: The views expressed in this column are those of its authors and not those of the CBI.

Baldwin, R (2016), Brexit Beckons: Thinking ahead by leading economists, a VoxEU.org eBook, CEPR Press.

Baldwin, R and R Freeman (2020), Trade conflict in the age of Covid-19, VoxEU.org, 22 May.

Baldwin, R and B Weder di Mauro (2020), Introduction, in Mitigating the COVID Economic Crisis: Act Fast and Do Whatever It Takes, a VoxEU.org eBook, CEPR Press.

Bloom, N, P Bunn, S Chen, P Mizen, P Smietanka and G Thwaites (2019), The Impact of Brexit on UK Firms, NBER Working Paper 26218.

Costa, R, S Dhingra and S Machin (2020), Trade and Worker Deskilling: Evidence from the Brexit Vote, CEP Discussion Paper.

De Lyon, J and S Dhingra (2020), How is Covid-19 affecting businesses in the UK?, LSE Business Review, 7 May.

del Rio-Chanona, R M, P Mealy, A Pichler, F Lafond and F Doyne (2020), Predicting the supply and demand shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic: An industry and occupation perspective, VoxEU.org, 16 May.

Dhingra, S, H Huang, G Ottaviano, J P Pessoa, T Sampson and J Van Reenen (2017), The costs and benefits of leaving the EU: trade effects, Economic Policy 32(92): 651705.

Gopinath, G (2020), The Great Lockdown: Worst Economic Downturn Since the Great Depression, IMG blog, 14 April.

Go here to read the rest:

Covid-19 and Brexit: Contrasting sectoral impacts on the UK | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal - voxeu.org

The French President is said to have claimed failure to reach a quick agreement over the blocs pandemic rescue fund could see talks complicated by trade negotiations with Britain. He added that market sensitives required EU leaders to accelerate the process towards a face-to-face showdown next month. Brussels sources said the Frenchman said the fund must include at least 500 billion in grants made available to pandemic-stricken industries and regions.

Mr Macron's efforts to broker a deal were echoed by Angela Merkel, who warned EU leaders that they face the worst recession since the Second World War.

The German Chancellor is said to have expressed concern that her EU colleagues hadnt yet come to terms with the grave situation they find themselves in.

Sources said the veteran leader said the EU faces very, very difficult times in the coming months, and should have the recovery fund in place by the summer.

She added that leaders must organise an in-person summit as soon as possible.

Ahead of the video summit, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pleaded with EU leaders to back her recovery plans.

She said: This proposal is ambitious and it is balanced.

Im convinced that for common success, we must stay focused on the big picture. We must all pull together, we cannot afford any delay.

Under the Germans blueprint, eurocrats will borrow 500 billion on international markets before distributing the money as cash grants to the worst-hit countries, regions and industries.

A further 250 billion will be dished out in the form of low-cost loans.

The fund will leave the blocs taxpayers saddled with the debt burden of the coronavirus recovery, with the borrowing expected to be paid back over the next 38 years.

The Commission also wants to introduce a series of new EU taxes, including a level on single-use plastics, a digital tax or a tax on multinationals, to help foot the bill.

MUST READ:Ursula on der Leyen red-faced as EU summit ends with NO deal

The so-called Frugal Four Austria, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have questioned whether cash should be distributed in loans and not grants.

Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the recovery fund could create a backdoor to a debt union.

He said the proposed recovery fund must not be a backdoor entry into a debt union.

He added: There must be a time limit.

There must also be a discussion about who pays how much, who benefits most and what conditions are attached to aid.

DON'T MISSDesperate Ursula von der Leyen issues final plea to EU[VIDEO]Macron turns on Boris after visit with claim UK desperate for deal[INSIGHT]EU breakdown: MEPs in final bid to win over Frugal Four to save bloc[VIDEO]

In a bid to unlock the talks, Mr Macron suggested he could support cash rebates for the biggest contributors to the EUs long-term budget.

But the French President said he would only back the plan if it is absolutely necessary to get a deal on the recovery plan, according to an EU official.

Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte took aim at the frugal states, insisting the Commission plan is fair and well balanced it would be a serious mistake to fall below the financial resources already indicated.

The combination of loans and grants is also well constructed. This combination will help us make investments and reforms in order to strengthen the convergence and resilience of the whole Union, he added.

At the start of the video conference, European Parliament President David Sassoli the proposed recovery fund only scratches the surface of what needs to be done.

He said MEPs would not support the deal if aid is offered solely in the form of loans.

He added: "Time is a luxury we cannot afford. We need to act urgently and courageously, as EU citizens, businesses and economies need an immediate response. Our citizens expect bold action. Now it is time for us to deliver."

Continued here:

EU FURY: Macron unleashes new Brexit threat in bid to force through 750billion bailout - Express.co.uk

Former Brexit Party MEP Ann Widdecombe attacked the EU's stance in the Brexit trade talks with the UK. While speaking on Youtube channel Brexit Watch, Ms Widdecombe insisted the EU was afraid of the UK becoming a financial powerhouse, similar to that of Singapore. She argued the EU is negotiating with the intention of protecting itself for the future.

She added the British Brexit negotiators should be aware of this and refuse to bow down to these demands to ensure the UK gets the best deal for itself.

Ms Widdecombe said: "I will tell you exactly what the EU has been afraid of.

"I will tell you what the EU has been terrified of throughout Brexit even before coronavirus.

"They are terrified of a Singapore on their doorstep.

DON'T MISS:EU MUST cave: Expert hits out at Brussels 'extreme' stance on fishing

"They are afraid of a Singapore right on the doorstep of the EU."

Ms Widdecombe expressed how she felt about the EU's demands for a level playing field agreement by the UK.

She said: "Because they are afraid that is why they are insisting on a level playing field.

"Level playing field my foot, we have left and we are not on a level playing field.

"That is why it is trying to insist on that, they are trying to ensure that we are not going to be able to compete on unequal terms."

She added: "They want to protect their own position, what it is all about, protecting the EU.

"Well frankly no, I want to protect Britain."

READ MORE:

Labour's 'alienation' of Brexit voters forced 'red wall to crumble'[VIDEO]EU MUST cave: Expert hits out at Brussels 'extreme' stance on fishing[VIDEO]Brexit breakthrough: EU 'backing off' on fishing demand as UK confident[EXCLUSIVE]

The Brexit trade negotiations between the UK and EU have been a standstill for the past few weeks with no major leeway being made.

However Prime Minister Boris Johnson has insisted he intends for the talks to speed up.

He has claimed both the UK and EU must ramp up discussions to keep to the current timetable and ensure an agreement is made.

Despite this, it still remains clear when breakthroughs will come during the talks as both sides remain firm on their demands and expectations.

The rest is here:

EU 'terrified' of successful UK 'on its doorstep' says Widdecombe in brutal Brexit warning - Express.co.uk