Category Archives: Brexit

Get Brexit done! Majority AGAINST Brexit transition extension in close poll

Daily Express, 17 May 2020

Britains faces 380billion bill if Brexit is delayed beyond December

Sun, 17 May 2020

Extension to Brexit bill could cost 378bn

Mail Online, 17 May 2020

After the UK left the EU on 31 January, it entered a transition period lasting until the end of this year. During this period, the UK remains in the customs union and single market, meaning that things like trade, travel and regulations continue to work as they did before the UK left.

As part of its Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, the UK can extend the transition period for up to two years provided it agrees this with the EU before 1 July 2020. The UK government has said it will not apply for any extension.

A report published recently by the Centre for Brexit Policy (CBP) warned that the public did not want to see an extension, and that it could cost 378 billion.

Neither of these claims is based on credible evidence. The report presents a one-sided viewpoint on the costs of transition, and most studies into the economic impacts of Brexit show leaving the customs union and single market will mean the UK economy is smaller compared to remaining.

The study also reports findings from an opinion poll selectively, which does not fairly reflect what we know about the UK publics views on the transition period.

The CBP commissioned ComRes to poll public opinion on the transition period. The CBP reported that: The public wants the Government to either shorten the transition period or stick to its current timetable by a small margin (44 per cent to 40 per cent)

The Express incorrectly reported this as showing that a majority of the public were against extending the transition period.

In any case, the CBPs summary isnt a fair reflection of all of the polls findings.

The question thats being referred to was: As a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, there have been some suggestions that the transition period for the UK to leave the EU should be extended beyond 31 December 2020, into 2021 or beyond. Others say that the transition period should remain as already agreed between the UK and the EU, and end 31 December 2020, while others say that the transition period should be shortened so that it ends sooner than 31 December 2020. Any change to the transition period would require Parliament to agree. Which of the following statements best represents your view on the length of the transition period?

35% of respondents said the period should stay as it is, 40% said it should be extended, and 8% said it should be shortened (with the remainder saying they didnt know). This rounds to 44% either wanting the period to remain the same or being shortened.

On its own, this might suggest, by a narrow margin, that more people are opposed to extending the transition period than support it, as the CBP said. However findings from other questions in the same poll muddy those waters:

In other words, people agreed to pretty much every question that was put to them, regardless of whether it implied support or opposition to extending the transition period. So reporting the results of one question alone paints a misleading picture of public opinion. Weve discussed this hazard when reading opinion polls before.

Other polls that have been conducted in recent months have consistently shown that more adults in Great Britain are in favour of extending the transition period than are in favour of sticking to the timetable or shortening the transition period, whether or not the context of the coronavirus pandemic is mentioned. These are all older than the ComRes poll used by the CBP, so we cant say definitively what the public currently thinks.

We dont seek to fact check the CBP reports findings in their entirety, but we can set their figures in context.

The report is largely based on assumptions that sit at the extreme end of those which have been made by studies into the economic impacts of Brexit.

By far the largest components of the CBPs estimate are the potential for economic loss which stem from delaying better regulation outside of the single market and customs union (176 billion) and delaying free trade agreements with non-EU countries (132 billion).

Its true that leaving the single market and customs union open up new options in terms of reaching trade agreements with non-EU countries, and of allowing the UK more choice over regulations for businesses. But both figures offered by the CBP appear unrealistic in the context of the weight of evidence provided by other studies.

The CBPs figure on savings from deregulation is based on an assumed boost of 4% of GDP just below the middle of a range from studies it features in the reportbut well above what most estimates have been in the past.

In its own analysis of the economic impacts of several Brexit scenarios in 2018, the Treasury found that there is significant uncertainty around the potential impacts of regulatory flexibility. It highlighted that external studies had produced a wide range of estimates, ranging from a negative or zero impact, to a benefit of 1.3% of GDP.

That higher figure assumed scaling back regulations that might not be politically feasible (for example, scrapping regulations in a way that was at odds with the governments commitments on climate change).

The CBP also estimates economic benefit from new free trade agreements which would be delayed if the transition period was extended. Featuring studies showing impacts ranging from no change to GDP up to an 8% increase, the report arbitrarily assumed a 3% increase to GDP.

Again, this sits in contrast to the bulk of studies which have tried to estimate this.

According to the Institute for Government in 2018: Much has been made of the UKs ability to offset losses in trade with the EU with new FTAs with other countries. But all the studies that have attempted to quantify the benefits of such deals conclude that they are likely to be relatively modest.

It also said that: Most economic analyses of Brexit predict that leaving the EU will result in higher trade barriers. Based on past evidence on the relationship between trade barriers and economic growth, the studies predict that this increase in tariff and non-tariff barriers would lead to lower economic growth.

The analysis by CBP also does not mention any potential gains from extending the transition period that would come from retaining free trade with the EU. Its highly likely the UK will face additional barriers to trading with EU countries after leaving the single market and customs union.

Also, the CBP says that extending the transition period by two years would mean the UK loses out on two years of tariff revenue from EU imports, amounting to 26 billion. Thats because the CBP assumes the UK would leave the transition period without a free trade agreement with the EU, and so both sides would impose tariffs on each others imports.

But it doesnt try to estimate any direct economic gain from keeping tariffs on imports from non-EU countries for an additional two years. While the UK was an EU member, and during the transition period, the UK gets some income from tariffs (like taxes) the EU places on imports from countries from the rest of the world. This tariff income would be lost if, as the CBP advocates, the transition period ends as scheduled and the UK signs free trade agreements with other countries sooner.

Ultimately its still unclear what kinds of trade barriers the UK will face whenever the transition period ends, as the UK and EU have not agreed the terms of their future relationship. That alone means we should place limited trust in specific numbers that represent the supposed cost of remaining in the transition period.

Read the rest here:

Claim that extending the Brexit transition period could cost 380 billion is not credible - Full Fact

LONDON: Britain has applied to become a dialogue partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), the government said on Friday, as it seeks to boost post-Brexit ties in the region.

Asean has 10 existing dialogue partners including the European Union, which Britain left at the end of January, as well as Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States.

Britain said it hoped partnership status with the 10-member Asean, which seeks to accelerate economic growth, social progress and collaboration in the region, would lead to new opportunities across trade, education, science and security.

"As Asia grows in importance, global Britain will cooperate even more closely with our friends in the region," British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab said in a statement.

"By becoming one of Asean's Dialogue Partners, we can strengthen our ability to cooperate across the Indo-Pacific region, as a force for good, on everything from climate change to regional stability."

Britain already has an ambassador to Asean, whose members include Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam, and said being a dialogue partner would allow Britain to attend annual Asean summits and ministerial meetings.

Read the rest here:

UK seeks to boost post-Brexit ties with Asean partnership - Bangkok Post

The Northern Ireland assembly has unexpectedly voted in favour of calling for an extension to the Brexit transition period, arguing that the UK government cannot impose complex border checks down the Irish Sea while Britain is occupied with the coronavirus crisis.

In a surprise development, nationalist, green and social democratic parties held sway in Stormont, saying business cannot prepare for a no-deal Brexit in the middle of a pandemic.

The motion proposed Matthew OToole, the SDLPs Brexit spokesman, had not been expected to carry after opposition was expressed by the Democratic Unionist and the Ulster Unionist parties.

OToole, a former Downing Street adviser, said London would have to take the vote seriously as the assembly was uniquely recognised as a named party in the withdrawal agreement and Stormont had a substantial role in the implementation of the Ireland and Northern Ireland protocol.

He said: This is not about rerunning the referendum, its about accepting that we are in the middle of the most serious public health crisis in living memory. We are also facing a significant economic recession that will put businesses and jobs at risk. This is not the moment to attempt to rupture and renegotiate our largest trading relationship.

OToole added that the Stormont vote would send a powerful message to Boris Johnson in relation to his implacable opposition to extending the transition period without consent from Northern Ireland.

The special protocol on Northern Ireland was agreed in January after a deal struck by the prime minister and his Irish counterpart, Leo Varadkar, to avoid a border on the island of Ireland.

It involves checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea which will come into effect as soon as the transition period ends, whether there is a trade deal or not. Under the withdrawal agreement, these checks would hold for at least six years.

Businesses have said there is simply not enough time to put IT systems for new customs arrangements, VAT and regulatory checks in place.

Both the DUP and the UUP voted against the motion, having argued on Monday that it would be better to postpone such a move until the outcome of this weeks Brexit talks between Brussels and London was known.

Green party MLA Rachel Woods said businesses were already facing survival issues with the Bank of England foreseeing the worst recession in 300 years.

The government must take account of the shockwaves the Covid-19 crisis has sent throughout our entire society and the fact that Northern Ireland as a whole is not ready or adequately prepared for the protocol [Brexit arrangements] coming into effect in January, she said.

The EU and the UK embarked on the fourth round of talks on Tuesday but few expect any breakthrough with both sides sticking to their rpositions.

Johnson has already made it plain that he will not seek an extension to the transition period by the legal 1 July deadline for such a request, raising the possibility of no deal at the end of the year.

Go here to see the original:

Stormont backs calling for extension to Brexit transition period - The Guardian

Britain is failing to cope with the Covid-19 epidemic as well as other countries in Europe and East Asia have. Out of 62,000 excess deaths in the UK, says former chief scientific officer Sir David King, 40,000 excess deaths could have been avoided if government had acted responsibly.

The failure is devastating: on a single day this week, 359 people died from coronavirus in the UK more than the number of deaths in all 27 EU countries over the same 24 hours. The UK is starting to exit lockdown while the epidemic has not been brought under control, despite all the economic self-destruction.

Two main reasons explain why the crisis in Britain turned into a calamity. Firstly, the political consequences of Brexit turn out to be more lethal and swift than any potential economic damage. It is now clear that the worst outcome of the turmoil over leaving the EU has been to land Britain with a leadership of spectacular incompetence during one of the worst crises in British history.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Boris Johnson emerges, when he does emerge these days, as the sort of shallow self-promoting buffoon that his critics, including many who know him well, have always said that he was. As his governments failures multiply, his default position is evasion and denial: on the very same day that Britain (population 66 million) outpaced the whole of the EU (population 446 million) in fatalities, Johnson told the House of Commons that he was very proud of what we have achieved.

Much of the time it does not matter much who is nominally running a country with an effective civil service, but this is not one of those times. Judgements crucial to the lives and livelihoods of millions must be made, but at this critical moment, Britain is finding that it is run by a Gilbert-and-Sullivan type administration. The analogy is all too appropriate: Johnson, with his fake-patrician bombast and shady dealings, strongly resembles the Duke of Plaza Toro in The Gondoliers who led his regiment from behind/he found it less exciting. The sinister character and dubious doings of Dominic Cummings strongly recall those of the Grand Inquisitor in the same opera.

Almost everybody outside the government believes that at no point during the epidemic has the government been ahead of the game. It has always lagged behind and frequently headed in the wrong direction. The list of errors is long: underestimating the threat posed by the virus; failure to prepare for it through accelerated procurement; late and inadequate testing and tracing; sending untested Covid-19 carriers into care homes; failing to introduce face masks early on; chaotic preparation for a return to normal life and resumed economic activity. In combination, these mistakes may keep Britain in semi-lockdown for the foreseeable future.

Once, Britain had a reputation for having one of the worlds most astute political classes operating through one of its most effective administrative machines. No longer: the pandemic marks the turning point. Johnson and mediocre ministers have throughout conveyed a frightening sense not of malignancy but of amateurs at work, lightweights baffled by what is happening and unable to learn from experience.

Britain is paying a high price for the whole bizarre Brexit project, not so much because of the undoubted economic damage it will do to the country, but because of the inadequacy of the leaders whom it elevated into power. Anybody who seriously believed that Britains troubles stemmed primarily from membership of the EU was either a crackpot, a careerist or simply misinformed. Though claiming to see a golden future for global Britain, the Brexiters were unashamed Little Englanders, their isolationism neatly expressed in the apocryphal weather forecast, Fog in channel, continent isolated.

From the beginning of the crisis this attitude has hobbled cooperation with other countries or even learning from their experience. The Brexiters instinct to stand proudly alone in defiance of reality presumably explains the decision to impose a 14-day quarantine period on travellers arriving in Britain, where coronavirus is still rife, though they may be coming from countries where it has been largely suppressed. This reminds me of travelling to Russia and Iraq in the 1990s, at a time when the health systems in both countries had collapsed and diseases were spreading unchecked, and finding that all arrivals had to have an Aids test.

The second cause of Britains all too world beating fatality rate, to adopt Johnsons famous boast, is the degree to which the operational capacity of the UK government has withered in recent decades. Ministers make self-confident claims about the delivery of testing, tracing, PPE equipment, an app to prevent the spread of the illness and other initiatives, but nothing happens or delivery is halting and unreliable.

Britain is discovering the hard way how far its administrative machine has been weakened by cuts and outsourcing. Central government has monopolised authority and resources and starved local authorities of both, though they should be on the cutting edge of test and trace. An editorial in the British Medical Journal of which the lead author is a professor of European public health, Martin McKee, succinctly sums up what has happened: A hollowed out civil service has long turned to outsourcing companies, despite their repeated failures. Companies with little relevant experience have struggled to organise viral testing or contact tracing. The task of coordinating activities with existing organisations, such as NHS laboratories or local public health departments, is too complex for their business model.

Boris Johnson pleads for people not to gather indoors in rainy weather, warning it could spark a second coronavirus wave

Testing and tracing are central to the governments bid to contain the epidemic. This is scarcely surprising since Dr John Snow, one of the founders of modern epidemiology, first mapped cholera victims in Soho in London in 1854 in order to identify the origins of a cholera outbreak (it was a water pump producing polluted water). More sophisticated trace and track campaigns have since been used to suppress or contain epidemics. Such detective work needs well trained and experienced interviewers to get total strangers to disclose their movements and contacts. German health officials today credit a well-organised test and trace system for their success in bringing the epidemic under control in Germany by 17 April, just six weeks after the first death there from the virus.

In Britain, the recruitment of 25,000 contact tracers has been partly outsourced, 10,000 of them being recruited by Serco and its subcontractors. Directors of public health only learned on the morning of the announcement that the test and trace effort was being launched four days early. It will now only be fully operational by September or October according to its chief operating officer.

The main explanation of the government is that it, along with all the governments in the world, was surprised by the speed and ferocity of the virus. This excuse might have had some validity in February or even March, but not now. Coronavirus has now killed almost twice as many people as died in the Blitz 32,000 and most of them should still be alive.

Go here to read the rest:

The Brexit crisis led to totally incompetent leadership at a time of unprecedented calamity. Now we are paying for it - The Independent

Northern Ireland faces a potent threat to its prosperity and stability if reduced business confidence due to uncertainty over post-Brexit trading rules compounds the economic damage from coronavirus, a Lords committee has warned.

A fourth round of talks between the UK and EU over a permanent deal begins this week, with little apparent progress made, and the looming deadline of 1 July for the UK to seek an extension to the transition period beyond this year.

Boris Johnson has repeatedly ruled this out, while the EUs chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has urged the UK to stick to its commitments, saying Brussels will not be pushed into agreement at any cost.

If no agreement can be reached, the greatest impact could be felt in Northern Ireland, which will follow EU rules on agriculture and manufactured goods, and where there will be some checks on shipments from England, Wales and Scotland.

In a report the House of Lords European Union committee said the continued uncertainty could prompt businesses in the rest of the UK to think again about investing in Northern Ireland.

There is a real danger that businesses based in Great Britain could conclude that it is economically unviable to continue to operate in Northern Ireland, leading in turn to reduced choice and higher costs for Northern Ireland consumers, thus undermining Northern Irelands economic model, its future prosperity and, potentially, its political stability, the peers said.

Northern Irish businesses have also been hampered in their preparations for the new potential trading regime by the impact of coronavirus, the report said.

It concluded: The combination of uncertainty, lack of momentum and lack of time, compounded by the shock of the Covid-19 pandemic, is a potent threat to economic prosperity and political stability in Northern Ireland.

Arlene Foster, Northern Irelands first minister, called on Sunday for any checks on goods entering to be as limited as possible.

What we have to do now is minimise those checks and make sure that they do not damage the economy of Northern Ireland, the DUP leader told BBC Ones Andrew Marr Show.

The best way to protect the Belfast agreement and the people of Northern Ireland is to make sure that there are not unnecessary checks and the economy suffers as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol.

The last round of talks saw seemingly minimal progress, with Barnier and his UK counterpart, David Frost, exchanging bad-tempered letters.

Frosts letter in particular raised hackles in Brussels by accusing the EU side of treating the UK as an unworthy partner in offering a trade agreement that would force the country to bend to EU norms.

Speaking to the Sunday Times ahead of the next round, Barnier appeared similarly pugnacious, saying failing to reach a deal would bring even more consequences than before given the coronavirus pandemic.

So, I think we have a joint responsibility in this very serious crisis, which affects so many families, with so many deaths, so many sick people, so many people unemployed, to do everything we can to reach an agreement and I very much hope that we will do so, he said.

Barnier said Britain had been taking a step back two steps back, three steps back from the commitments made in the departure deal signed by Boris Johnson.

The UK negotiators need to be fully in line with what the prime minister signed up to with us, he said. Because 27 heads of state and government and the European parliament do not have a short memory.

Originally posted here:

Northern Ireland faces 'potent threat' from Brexit and Covid-19 - The Guardian

If you are someone who believes that Brexit is absolutely marvellous, or a complete disaster, then the question of whether the coronavirus pandemic justifies an extension of the transition period is presumably a no-brainer. But what about those who think the issues are more delicately balanced? This piece is pitched at them. In particular, I will argue that the Covid crisis actually reduces the short-term economic costs of leaving the EUs single market and customs union.

To keep it simple, lets assume that the completion of Brexit will involve some economic costs, notably an increase in barriers to trade with the EU, and some benefits, including lower barriers to trade with the rest of the world, increased regulatory independence, and potentially some budget savings too.

Lets also assume that the costs would be larger if the transition period ends without a free trade agreement (FTA) in place. The alternative of leaving with no deal would mean new tariffs on EU trade, as well as higher non-tariff barriers.

Of course, some would prefer a relatively clean break on WTO terms (see Brexit Delayed is Brexit Denied, published by the Centre for Brexit Policy). Nonetheless, Im going to assume here that leaving with an FTA would be better for the UK economy than leaving without one.

The question of how the coronavirus crisis is relevant to the decision on the transition period can then be broken into three parts.

First, does the crisis make it more or less likely that the UK and EU will be able to complete the talks on time? Some have argued that an extension is now inevitable simply because social distancing and travel restrictions make it harder for negotiators to meet face-to-face. This is unconvincing. Other organisations have somehow been able to find ways to continue working remotely, often using new technologies which are already familiar to the average teenager.

It has also been argued that political leaders are too busy dealing with coronavirus. But the idea that neither side has enough bandwidth to do more than one thing at a time does not hold water either. The UK and EU parliaments are now up and running again, and the EU has been able to make other big decisions during the crisis. There is no good reason why agreement cannot be reached in the coming months, if the political will is there.

Second, does the pandemic make it more or less likely that the talks will conclude with a deal? Assuming the practical problems can be overcome, sticking to the existing timetable should help to focus minds and make sure there is some sense of urgency. Indeed, the pandemic could actually mean that the chances of getting a deal done are now higher, because both sides will be even keener to avoid any additional economic shocks.

A further delay would therefore be a missed opportunity to get the talks over the line at last four years, and counting, after the UK voted to leave the EU.

Third, how does the pandemic affect the costs and benefits of Brexit? Many supporters of an extension argue that the double impact of coronavirus and the completion of Brexit would be too much for many businesses and that it would cripple the economic recovery. But this is a weak argument, even if we accept that leaving the economic institutions of the EU would bring more costs than benefits in the short term.

For a start, just think about the relative magnitudes. Any impact from the completion of Brexit will be dwarfed by the impact of coronavirus. Indeed, the swings in GDP due to the Covid crisis could easily be ten times as a large as any costs of leaving the EUs single market and customs union.

Whats more, it would be wrong simply to lump the potential economic impacts of coronavirus and Brexit together without thinking properly about the interactions between the two. Unfortunately, a recent paper from the Social Market Foundation (SMF) was particularly guilty of this.

The SMF report did note two ways in which the Covid crisis could affect the costs of leaving the EU but, in my view, it drew exactly the wrong conclusion in both cases.

On the public finances, the report argued that the surge in spending in response to coronavirus would make it more difficult to provide additional financial support to any industries or communities particularly hard hit by Brexit. In fact, the governments cost of borrowing has fallen as a result of the economic downturn and the prospect of an extended period of very low interest rates. Indeed, gilts are now being sold with negative yields. If the government does need to borrow more because of Brexit, the Covid crisis may actually have made it easier and cheaper to do so.

The SMF reports other point here is that the Covid crisis could increase the economic costs of any reduction in immigration under the new points-based system, because there may be a shortage of workers willing to migrate internationally. But again, this point could and probably should be argued the other way. The jump in UK unemployment means that labour shortages are now far less likely to be a problem.

Supporters of an extension to the transition period argue that the Covid crisis will both increase the costs and reduce the benefits of leaving the EUs single market and customs union in other ways too. This is debatable

On the cost side, if economic activity is indeed still depressed as a result of Covid, this might in fact be a better time to implement any new trading arrangements, because reduced trade flows mean there will be less pressure on borders. It certainly seems odd to worry that a no-deal Brexit will disrupt the flow of medical supplies needed to tackle Covid when overall trade volumes are likely to be much lower than normal.

Whats more, there will be some value in ending the uncertainty about what the new arrangements might be. Many businesses will be rebuilding supply chains that have been disrupted by Covid and already incurring costs in doing so. Knowing what is coming should avoid the need to rebuild these supply chains twice.

Greater clarity here may also help businesses to make other investment decisions that have been put on hold because of Brexit uncertainty. As the CBIs Carolyn Fairbairn noted on BBCs Newsnight on 4th June, businesses will not want an extension of the Brexit transition period because that is uncertainty magnified.

There will be swings and roundabouts in other respects too. For example, it has been suggested that the Covid crisis will make it harder to recruit and train additional customs specialists. But the surge in unemployment could actually make that task at least somewhat easier.

There are also arguments either way on the benefit side. Reduced trade flows and a more protectionist global mindset may undermine or delay the gains from new trade deals with the rest of the world. But leaving the EUs customs union will finally allow the UK government to implement the planned unilateral reductions in tariffs, which will be a clear win.

In addition, the benefits of increased regulatory independence may be much more important when the economy needs all the support it can get. Finally, extending the transition period is only likely to increase the UKs exposure to the mounting fiscal and financial problems in the EU, even if additional budget contributions can be capped.

In summary, any short-term economic costs from a change in our relationship with the EU are likely to be trivial compared to the swings in GDP due to coronavirus. Indeed, these costs may actually be smaller as a result of the Covid crisis, and some of the benefits will be larger. The chances of getting a good deal may also have improved. Given that we will be leaving the EUs single market and customs union eventually, it therefore makes sense to stick to the existing timetable rather than extend the uncertainty even further.

Julian Jessop is an independent economist. He was formerly Chief Economist at the Institute of Economic Affairs, where he remains an Economics Fellow.

Related

Continued here:

The Economic Case Against Extending the Brexit Transition - briefingsforbrexit.com

Video

PUBLISHED: 17:10 04 June 2020 | UPDATED: 17:29 04 June 2020

Adrian Zorzut

Jacob Rees-Mogg during a debate in the House of Commons. Photograph: Parliament TV.

Archant

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.

The former European Research Group chair evoked the former Tory prime minister when he flatly denied any hopes of an extension, telling MPs: No, no, no.

Quoting sections of the Thatchers 1990 speech amid calls for greater central control in Europe, he said: Ensuring we leave the transition period successfully in full by the end of this year is one of the governments and, even more importantly, the British peoples highest priorities.

An extension to the transition period would be neither in the UKs nor the European Unions interests.

He went on to say: To quote Margaret Thatcher - will we have an extension? No, no, no.

Rees-Moggs speech came as SNP home affairs spokeswoman Joanna Cherry urged cabinet minister Michael Gove to swallow his pride and seek an extension before the end of the June deadline.

The deadline at the end of this month is a very real deadline because after the end of this month it wont be possible to extend under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, and no other plausible route to an extension has been put forward, she said.

Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman Alistair Carmichael said new trade deals could mean food produced to a lower standard - like chlorinated chicken - may end up on British supermarket shelves.

He said: Now in fact we hear that as a consequence of the so-called dual tariff process it is quite possible we will see such products being imported to this country.

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.

Read the original here:

Jacob Rees-Mogg conjures Thatcher while dismissing calls for a Brexit extension - The New European

Key English election battlegrounds in the north-west and Midlands will be severely exposed to a double economic hit from Brexit and coronavirus should the UK fail to secure an EU trade deal by the end of the year, new analysis has warned.

Boris Johnson has continued to rule out any extension to Britains EU transition deal, which expires from January. It comes despite a deadlock in talks about a future trade deal, before the final round of talks this week.

However, an impact assessment of ending the transition period found that manufacturing, banking, finance and insurance sectors would be severely exposed to a double economic hit from Brexit and coronavirus.

The Social Market Foundation analysis divided the country into areas and then placed each in a category between 1 and 5, with 5 representing those most exposed to a double hit. Half of those in the north-west are in category 5 and a further 40% in category 4. It said that the West Midlands, where the Tories made major gains in last years election, was also exposed.

There have already been warnings that new border arrangements in the Irish Sea will not be ready by Johnsons end-of-year deadline, but Downing Street is adamant that the transition period, which gives Britain access to the EUs single market, will not be extended.

James Kirkup, the SMF director, said: In some cases and some places, that double impact will be severe. At base, this report demonstrates the simple fact that leaving a developed free-trade agreement with our nearest and largest trading partners at the same time as facing a pandemic will expose many local areas of the UK to a painful double economic impact.

The study was funded by Best for Britain, which is campaigning for a comprehensive EU trade deal. Naomi Smith, its chief executive, said: This report, which maps the impact of both shocks, definitively rebuts any speculation that the impact of leaving the transition period could be masked by the coronavirus recession. The data is clear: when you scratch beneath the surface, so many key sectors will be exposed to a dangerous double whammy of economic hits.

View post:

Key election battlegrounds face double hit from Brexit and coronavirus - The Guardian

Former taoiseach Bertie Ahern has said the "stakes on a no-deal" Brexit will be based a lot on what happens this week.

Speaking on RT Radio 1 to Brendan O'Connor he said this week is a "crucial week" as it is the last negotiating session of Brexit.

"If there is no progress on Brexit this week, the withdrawal agreement says at the end of June, that you have to have it. If you don't, you go into the Autumn with a no deal."

He thinks a thing that is missed a lot is if you go into Autumn with no deal you have to back to each country to see if you have an extension.

"The issue is as simple as this. Is there going to be an extension past beyond the 31st of December or is there not?"

Mr Ahern said he thinks British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is not the most difficult person to do business with as he will "switch his position to make a deal."

He said he is a "guy who will look for solutions rather than problems."

Read:Latest Brexit stories

Meanwhile, Northern Ireland's First Minister Arlene Fostersaid she is concerned that there will be checks on some goods going between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but work is with the British government on these issues.

"What we have to do is minimise those checks and that they do not damage the economy of Northern Ireland".

She said the best way to protect the Belfast agreement is make sure there are not unnecessary checks.

Here is the original post:

Crucial week ahead in Brexit negotiations, says Ahern - RTE.ie

On Wednesday night, Mr Johnson asked those European workers who had left the UK following the outbreak of the coronavirus to come back to Britain as the lockdown begins to be eased. Schools started to reopen at the beginning of this month while non-essential shops will prepare to reopen on June 15. With that in mind, Mr Johnson asked those who had returned to their European countries to come back to the UK to begin the economic recovery.

In response to the Prime Minister, MEP for Belgium and former EU Parliament Brexit Coordinator Guy Verhofstadt aimed yet another dig at Mr Johnson.

Mr Verhofstadt said: But I thought that foreigners stealing British jobs was one of the reasons you wanted Brexit?

However, many online commentators were left furious at his remark and took to Twitter to fire back at the MEP for misunderstanding Brexit amid the coronavirus pandemic.

One person said: No, thats your only line of defence, propaganda.

We just want the control of our country back so we can decide who comes and goes, not you.

Another said: You misunderstood, it is now our choice, not your choice.

That's what sovereignty is.

A third said: We love Europe but not the EU!

JUST IN:EU plea: Bloc urged to resolve horror housing row in Greece crisis

A fourth said: No, that was the false narrative you and Remainers pushed to scare people into voting Remain lest they be labelled xenophobes.

Luckily, a vast majority did not buy it.

Under Mr Johnsons plan, the UK is currently within the second phase of the lockdown strategy.

However, with the mortality rate falling the Government has indicated the UK will soon move to the third phase.

DON'T MISSMichel Barnier's savage swipe at Boris Johnson revealed[Latest]Brexit POLL: Should UK walk away from negotiations in September?[Poll]Brexit trade talks ignoring 80 PERCENT of UK economy[Update]

Under the third phase, parts of the hospitality industry will begin to reopen.

This, however, will not happen any earlier than July 4.

Pubs and restaurants will be under this bracket although as indicated by the Government, the plans may be changed if the infection rate begins to rise.

The infection or R-rate has been maintained below one for some time.

The R-rate is crucial in the UKs plan against the virus and represents the rate of secondary infections.

Some scientists, however, have claimed the infection rate is still too high to begin easing lockdown restrictions.

Professor Catherine Noakes, part of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has hit out at claims that removing the two-metre social distancing measures can now take place.

She told The Times: There are too many cases in the community for us to consider going below two metres.

There is transmission happening already, when we've been applying the two-metre distancing.

If we reduce it, essentially, you double the risk.

Where you have a poorly-ventilated room and someone is four metres away - if there's a high viral shedder in that room, that could cause an infection.

Visit link:

Brexit backlash: Guy Verhofstadt savaged after yet another attack on Boris Johnson - Express