Category Archives: Brexit

23 February 2022

Keir Starmer has voted 48 times to take the UK back into the European Union.

This is not correct. The figure appears to be based on how Mr Starmer voted in 48 votes related to Brexit. But some of these votes were not about whether Britain should be part of the EU, and all but three took place before Britain left the EU. Mr Starmer has often opposed the Government in Brexit votes, but has also voted a number of times in support of Brexit.

He [Keir Starmer] voted 48 times to take this country back into the European Union.

He [Keir Starmer] voted 48 times to take this country back into the EU.

The Leader of the Opposition not only voted 48 times to go back into the EU...

Boris Johnson has claimed at least three times in the House of Commons that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer voted 48 times to take the UK back into the European Union. This is untrue.

We first spotted Mr Johnson making the claim during Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) on 26 January 2022. He made it again in a statement to Parliament on 31 January and for a third time at PMQs on 9 February.

The claim appears to be based on an analysis of Mr Starmers participation in 48 votes in the House of Commons between 2017 and 2020. But while these votes were all related in some way to Brexit and saw Mr Starmer repeatedly oppose the Government, only a handful were directly about whether Britain should be part of the EU and some were not related to the main withdrawal agreement or process around it. All but three of the votes also took place before the UK formally left the EU on 31 January 2020. Mr Starmer has also voted a number of times in support of Brexit.

When we asked Number 10 what Mr Johnsons claim was based on, it told us this was a political question and referred us to Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ). CCHQ sent us a list of 48 votes and said: Through directly voting against, voting in favour of wrecking amendments and voting against eleven of the Statutory Instruments required for delivering Brexit, Keir Starmer voted to hinder our exit from the EU at least 48 times.

The 48 figure has also appeared in the media at least twice. It was the subject of an article by Camilla Tominey published by the Telegraph on 8 November 2021, headlined: Sir Keir Starmer: The self-styled bastion of democracy who made no fewer than 48 attempts to block Brexit. A similar article published the following day by the Express quoted Ms Tominey and appears to echo what she wrote. When we asked Ms Tominey about her analysis, she declined to reveal the source but provided a list of the 48 votes mentioned in her article. This list appears to be the same as the list sent to us by CCHQ.

The Telegraph and Express articles allege Mr Starmers votes were attempts to block various Brexit plans, while CCHQ said the votes served to hinder our exit from the EU. However, neither of these claims are the same as Mr Johnsons repeated assertion that Mr Starmer voted 48 times to take this country back into the European Union. We asked CCHQ for confirmation that Mr Johnson was referring to the same list of 48 votes, and why he claimed they show Mr Starmer was voting to take the UK back into the EU, but we have not received a response.

The 48 votes listed in the analysis shared by both CCHQ and the Telegraph cover a wide range of issues relating to Brexit. As the list does not appear to have been published, weve included it in full below. The votes span a number of different pieces of Brexit-related legislation, but appear to fall into three broad categories:

At least six of the votes were directly to do with whether or not Brexit should happen. Some of the 48 votes could be described as a choice between whether or not the UK would leave the EU, though as they took place while the UK was still in the EU, they were not about returning to the blocand some might argue they were as much about how the UK should leave the EU as whether it should.

Altogether, Mr Starmer directly voted six times against versions of the Brexit deal. In 2019, he voted against the deal put forward by then-Prime Minister Theresa May in what were known as the Meaningful Votesonce in January and twice in March 2019. (Mr Johnson also voted against it in January, but in favour of it twice in March.)

Once Mr Johnson had become Prime Minister, Mr Starmer then voted against his EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill at its second reading on 22 October 2019. And shortly after the 2019 general election, Mr Starmer voted twice against Mr Johnsons EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill, at its second and third reading, though the Bill passed due to the Conservatives majority.

Most of the votes were about how withdrawal would work and what the UKs future relationship with the EU would look like, not directly about whether the UK should be in the EU. To some, Mr Starmers votes on these questions could be seen as hindering the process of exiting the EU, but it would be inaccurate to say they amounted to voting to take the UK back into the EU.

For example, in March and April 2019 Mr Starmer voted for a confirmatory public vote on Brexit during the Indicative Votes process. This was narrowly defeated, but would have required a public vote on any Brexit deal before Parliament could ratify it.

He also voted for other procedural amendments such as the Cooper-Letwin Bill, which was designed to ensure that ministers could not allow the UK to leave the EU in a no deal scenario without parliamentary approval. This category also includes Mr Starmers votes on amendments to the withdrawal billsome on quite specific questions. For example, Mr Starmer voted in favour of the UK seeking full membership of the Erasmus student exchange scheme, voted for Europeans who had lived in the UK for more than five years to be granted automatic citizenship and supported a move for UK ministers to seek an agreement with Brussels to allow unaccompanied child refugees to join their relatives.

While many of these votes were on amendments to the withdrawal bill, none were directly on whether or not to return the UK to the EU.

At least eight votes were not on the main withdrawal bill or the parliamentary process around it, but on other pieces of Brexit-related legislation. This includes votes on the Customs Bill, the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill.The purpose of the Customs Bill (officially the The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill) was to allow the government to create a functioning customs, VAT and excise regime for the UK following Brexit.

The Trade Bill, in combination with the Customs Bill, was designed so the UK could continue its existing trade policy as far as possible immediately after Brexit.

The purpose of the Agriculture Bill was to design a replacement for the EUs agriculture policy, which the UK left as part of Brexit.

The topics covered by these bills were closely linked to some of the key issues surrounding Brexit, so it may be possible to argue, as CCHQ has, that they were votes that would hinder our exit. However, they were not votes on whether to continue with or subsequently resume membership of the EU, as Mr Johnson has suggested.

Its also worth noting that on two of the votes weve included in this category (the second and third readings of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill) Mr Starmer is not listed as having voted at all.

As the list of 48 votes related to Brexit shows, the Labour leader has repeatedly opposed the Government on its specific Brexit proposals. But we could find no evidence to support Mr Johnsons claim that Mr Starmer voted to take this country back into the European Union 48 times, or even that there were 48 opportunities to directly vote on such a matter.

Its also worth noting that there are some occasions which werent included in the list of 48 votes supplied by CCHQ where Mr Starmer voted in support of Brexit.For example, Mr Starmer voted in favour of triggering Article 50 (the legal mechanism which had to be triggered by the government ahead of our departure from the EU) twice, at both its second and third reading in the House of Commons in February 2017.

According to online voting records, the last vote explicitly relating to the European Union that Mr Starmer participated in appears to be the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill at its third reading on 30 December 2020, during which he voted alongside the vast majority of Labour and Conservative MPs to approve Mr Johnsons trade bill ahead of the end of the UKs post-Brexit transition period.

A spokesperson for UK in a Changing Europe, an independent and politically impartial research organisation which examines the relationship between the UK and the EU, told Full Fact: On no reading of parliamentary proceedings around Brexit can it be said that Keir Starmer voted to take the UK back into the EU 48 times.

He voted both to trigger Article 50 in February 2017 to start the Brexit process, and for the final Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

At various points he did oppose specific deals on offerbut he was joined in the opposition lobby twice on the so-called meaningful votes proposed by the May government by Boris Johnson. On other occasions he voted to try to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal, but that is not the same as voting to stop Brexit.

The list of 48 votes supplied by CCHQ does not appear to have been published, so were including it here for reference. We have removed the additional commentary supplied and simply listed the name of the vote and date, with either the link supplied or a corrected link where the link given no longer worked. There are a few cases where theres some uncertainty, either over which vote was being referred to or whether Mr Starmer actually votedwhere thats the case, weve indicated it.

Continued here:

Keir Starmer hasn't voted 48 times to take the UK back into the EU - Full Fact

Good morning, and welcome to our rolling coverage of the world economy, the financial markets, the eurozone and business.

UK businesses are calling on the government for more help exporting to Europe, after new research found that many firms believed the EU trade deal was not helping them grow or increase sales.

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has surveyed 1,000 businesses, and found that a majority said it has created problems such as pushing up costs, increasing paperwork and delays, and putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage.

Just 8% of firms agreed that the Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA) was enabling their business to grow or increase sales, while 54% disagreed.

For UK exporters 12% (or just one in eight) agreed that the TCA was helping them, while 71% disagreed.

The BCC received 59 comments on the merits of the TCA, which was agreed on Christmas Eve 2020, including:

But this was outnumbered by 320 comments criticising the deal, such as:

William Bain, head of trade policy at the BCC, said smaller firms are particularly suffering from the change to trading relationships between the UK and the EU.

This is the latest BCC research to clearly show there are issues with the EU trade deal that need to be improved.

Nearly all of the businesses in this research have fewer than 250 employees and these smaller firms are feeling most of the pain of the new burdens in the TCA.

Many of these companies have neither the time, staff or money to deal with the additional paperwork and rising costs involved with EU trade, nor can they afford to set up a new base in Europe or pay for intermediaries to represent them.

The BCC has made a number of suggestions, including moves to reduce the complexity of exporting food, and tackling limitations on business travel and work activities in the EU.

Last week, MPs on parliaments spending watchdog warned that Brexit red tape has damaged Britains trade with the EU. They fear the situation could worsen unless the government works with Brussels to reduce hold-ups at UK ports,

A Government spokesperson, though, says businesses are getting support to help with Brexit changes:

The Trade and Co-operation Agreement is the worlds biggest zero-tariff, zero-quota free trade deal. It allows businesses in Britain to trade freely with Europe while also being able to seize new trading opportunities with countries around the world.

Weve always been clear that being outside the single market and the customs union would mean changes and that businesses would need to adapt to new processes. That is why we are ensuring that businesses get the support they need, including through the free-to-use Export Support Service.

Goods exports to EU nations were 4% higher last year compared with 2020. However, given the Covid-19 pandemic, global recession and supply chain disruption, it is still too early to draw any firm conclusions on the long-term impacts of our new trading relationship with the EU.

But there is evidence that UK trade has weakened over the last few years. UK exports of goods to the EU were down 20bn last year compared with the last period of stable trade with Europe, according to official figures marking the first full year since Brexit.

Elsewhere today, companies such as Nestl , Reckitt Benckiser and Standard Chartered are reporting results.

European markest are set to open a little lower, with the Ukraine crisis firmly in focus.

The US has said that Russia has deployed another 7,000 troops to the border, while Ukraine has denied claims by Russian-backed separatists that it has conducted mortar attacks on their terrirory.

See original here:

Many UK exporters say Brexit trade deal not helping; more price rises loom business live - The Guardian

European Commissions UK Task Force Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier.

Thierry Monasse | Getty Images News | Getty Images

LONDON U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson must respect every aspect of the Brexit withdrawal agreements, former European Union Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier has urged.

Johnson and prominent members of his ruling Conservative Party have publicly called for the scrapping or radical overhaul of the Northern Ireland Protocol, a portion of the withdrawal agreements negotiated by the U.K. and the EU in 2019.

The protocol came into force last year and was designed to prevent customs checks and an effective land border between Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland, which remains in the EU. This is particularly important given the fragile peace in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

However, the protocol requires checks on goods traveling into Northern Ireland from the rest of the U.K., and has caused uproar among Northern Ireland's unionists who claim it poses a threat to the country's place within the U.K.

British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and European Commission Vice-President Maro efovi met in London on Friday for talks, but the impasse between London and Brussels shows little sign of abating.

The U.K. government has also bemoaned the bilateral agreement on fisheries contained within the Withdrawal Agreement, with the British fishing industry struggling to navigate post-Brexit license disputes.

Speaking to CNBC exclusively on Monday ahead of the French presidential elections, in which he is supporting center-right Les Republicains candidate Valrie Pcresse, Barnier said the British prime minister would need to honor agreements made with the European Union in order to preserve relations between the U.K. and France.

"The commitments made by Mr. Johnson in the Brexit negotiation in the first pact we negotiated, which includes the Ireland protocol, and the issue there is that of peace in Ireland, the stability of the island, and the second pact on Brexit's trade and industry where the fisheries treaty is found these two pacts that have been negotiated step by step, comma by comma, sentence by sentence by Mr. Johnson, and that he knows very well, must be respected, that the U.K. maintain its commitments with regard to the European Union, with regard to France," Barnier told CNBC's Charlotte Reed.

Despite differences over the existing agreements, however, he suggested that it is more important to "look ahead to the future" as far as relations between London and Paris are concerned.

"We have many reasons to work together, not only on a military scale, against terrorism, climate change, transborder cooperation, there are many reasons why France and the U.K. should greatly cooperate."

View original post here:

Boris Johnson needs to respect every single line of Brexit agreement, Barnier says - CNBC

Did something change this month? Having proclaimed the Brexit referendum triumph of 2016 as the unique achievement of Boris Johnson and praised his historic success in the election three years later with the slogan get Brexit done, did the wreckers of the European dream slowly begin to realise that if Johnson goes, it shifts the sands from beneath their feet?

Im the president of European Movement Andrew Adonis is chair and between us we agreed that this link needed a public airing. Learning from the direct and simple messaging of the anti-European newspapers, we felt the phrase: If Boris goes, Brexit goes said it clearly enough. Adonis duly tweeted it, to the horror of the pro-Brexit press.

The past few weeks have been a torrid time for the prime minister. He designed a set of restrictions he said were of critical importance for our safety and for the ability of the NHS to cope with the pandemic. He was right to do so. But disclosures since give the clearest impression that he not only broke the rules, but that he also misled parliament.

Johnson said he would accept the findings of Sue Grays inquiry, in stark contrast to his treatment of Sir Alex Allans report into the home secretarys behaviour in 2020.

I believe he is entitled to insist that matters are not prejudged prior to the release of the full findings of the Gray inquiry, and the completion of the Metropolitan police investigation. I do not believe in the rule of the mob.

But a great deal hangs on this. If the prime minister is found to have lied to parliament and to the people, what defence is there to the allegation that the Brexit cause mired in similar controversy over lies and dissembling was conducted with the same disregard for the truth?

We all have a clear memory of the Brexit campaign and what was said. That we were being run by Brussels. That European restrictions were holding back our economy and lowering our living standards. That we could keep all the benefits of the single market and customs union, while negotiating trade deals with faster-growing countries in a world that was shifting east. That we had to regain control over our borders. That there would be no new border between Northern Ireland and mainland Great Britain, and that the Good Friday agreement, having ended years of strife, would be fully honoured.

Theresa May became prime minister and immediately handed important offices of state to the three leading Brexiters. Boris Johnson went to the Foreign Office. David Davis went to the Department for Exiting the European Union, and Liam Fox to the Department for International Trade. They had their hands on the levers of power for two years before Johnson and Davis resigned, claiming their jobs were impossible.

Having ousted May, they claimed that a bare-bones trade deal without most of the benefits of the customs union and the single market was oven ready and would get Brexit done. In a straight contest with the unelectable Jeremy Corbyn, Johnson secured his mandate.

Except their deal didnt get Brexit done. Within months it had seriously frustrated trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the government threatened to tear up the very deal it had itself negotiated to safeguard the position of Northern Ireland. Lord Frost resigned from the cabinet as Brexit minister last December after less than a year, complaining of the Covid strategy but also bemoaning that, regarding Brexit, the correct agenda was not being pursued.

Characteristically, he gave no detail as to what that agenda should have been or who was holding it up, but the villains were familiar: the metropolitan elite, the civil service, the BBC, Brussels, the remoaners more or less anybody, and now including myself and Andrew Adonis. Everyone except the actual people in positions of power.

That is why February 2022 feels so significant. The cry has been growing louder. The right wing has been circling. Letters have been landing on the chairman of the 1922 committees desk. Something must be done. Reshuffle the pack, create a new government department and put yet another Brexiter in charge to pluck all those low-hanging plums that proved beyond the reach of predecessors.

Anyone with experience of Whitehall knows what happens next. The nameplates will change and the same civil servants will have new titles without actually moving their offices. But they will face exactly the same questions that have now been unanswered for five years. What is Brexit all about?

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lord Frosts spiritual successor in his new role as minister for Brexit opportunities, has a novel approach. He told the Sun last week that he is bypassing the civil service to ask if anyone else in the country has any ideas about Brexit benefits. Sun readers are invited to write to him with suggestions and he will see what can be done. But that too is revealing. One of the first tests officials apply to new ministers is to ask if they know what they want and to assess whether they have the ability to communicate that to them. I am afraid that Rees-Mogg has not passed this test, which is all the more surprising as he had plenty of time lounging on the government frontbench, listening to suggestions from Brexit-supporting Tory MPs.

So did something happen in February 2022? Maybe its just a feeling, a cloud no bigger than a mans fist, the first breath of wind before the storm when the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph employ two of their most renowned columnists to attack Andrew Adonis and myself, merely for making the point that their hero may have feet of clay and take the Brexit house down with him. Perhaps they have smelled the wind, just as I have.

See more here:

Why the panic among Boris Johnsons allies? Because they know Brexit is unravelling - The Guardian

The impact of the first year of Brexit on Ireland has been revealed after official data showed cross-border trade between Ireland and Northern Ireland jumped by 2.8bn (2.3bn) in 2021.

Full-year figures from Irelands Central Statistics Office show that imports to Ireland from Northern Ireland were up 65% to 3.9bn, a rise of 1.5bn compared with 2020.

Exports from Ireland to Northern Ireland also rocketed, up 54% to 3.7bn, an increase of 1.3bn compared with 2020 a total trade rise of 2.8bn.

The breakdown of figures show the biggest increase in trade in both directions was in food and live animals, with exports to NI up from 919bn to 1.35bn year on year, while imports to Ireland were up from 714m to 1.02bn. The past year also saw a tripling in the value of imports of chemicals and related products to Ireland from NI, up from 280m in 2020 to 850m in 2021, with big rises also in imports of fuel.

As no contemporary trade figures are published by the UK government or the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency for goods crossing the Irish Sea from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, it is impossible to tell how much of the increase in trade is a result of the new trade barriers created by the Northern Ireland Brexit protocol.

Nonetheless, they will be seized on by protocol critics, including unionist parties, as confirmation that Brexit has boosted Irelands trade with Northern Ireland.

The CSO figures, published on Tuesday, also show the impact of trade barriers erected between Ireland and Great Britain as a result of the UKs departure from the EU, with a fall in exports from Great Britain to Ireland.

Exports from Ireland to Great Britain were up 17% across the year to almost 14.4bn, but imports plummeted by 13% to 15.4bn.

There was a drop of just over 2.3bn in exports from Great Britain to Ireland.

The UK was Irelands single biggest trading partner before Brexit. The UK is now neck and neck with the US as the largest single non-EU source of goods imported to Ireland, accounting for 20% of trade at around 2bn apiece.

However, the CSO figures suggest traders are becoming accustomed to the Brexit barriers. They show a massive drop in imports from GB between December 2020 and January 2021, when the new rules came into force, but then a slow rise over the year.

Data for December shows that the decline in imports from GB slowed by the end of the year, down 4% compared with December 2020. The main decreases were seen in imports of food and live animals, machinery and transport equipment.

Levels of exports to GB were less volatile across the year, with no comparable sharp fall in January last year.

This may be down to better Brexit preparedness in Ireland compared with Britain. Exports for December 2021 compared with December 2020 were down 5%, with greatest decreases in exports of food and live animals.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

The steady export trade also suggests Brexit has not caused a diversion of trade to GB by the use of new Brexit-busting ferries that go direct to France and Belgium, allowing exporters to bypass the so-called land bridge to the EU.

Preliminary figures for 2021 show that Ireland enjoyed a bumper year with exports at highest on record, exceeding 165bn.

The largest increases were in medical and pharmaceutical products, a reflection of the strong presence of large companies such as Pfizer, one the of manufacturers of Covid vaccines, in Ireland.

Here is the original post:

Brexit: huge jump in trade between Ireland and Northern Ireland - The Guardian

BELFAST, Northern Ireland Michelle ONeill was forced to greet visitors this week in a drab upstairs meeting room at the rear of the Stormont Parliament Buildings in Belfast, its faded posters and scattered chairs a stark contrast to the classical grandeur of the chambers at the front of the complex.

A leader of the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein party, Ms. ONeill had just vacated her office as deputy first minister of Northern Irelands government after the first minister, Paul Givan, a member of the main unionist party that is, the main party supporting Northern Irelands current status as part of the United Kingdom abruptly resigned. Under the power-sharing agreement that governs the territory, she automatically lost her post as well.

But if the upheaval turned Ms. ONeill into a temporary vagabond, it also served to underline a momentous political shift in Northern Ireland: Assuming that current polls hold, Sinn Fein, with its vestigial ties to the paramilitary Irish Republican Army and fervent commitment to Irish unification, will become the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly after elections scheduled for May.

That could catapult the 45-year-old Ms. ONeill into the post of first minister, and it helps explain why Mr. Givan quit when he did.

His Democratic Unionist Party is desperate to rally its voters before the election. Its most emotive issue is the Norths trade status in the wake of Brexit, which is governed by a complex legal arrangement known as the Northern Ireland Protocol. Unionists complain that the protocol, which requires border checks on goods passing between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, has driven a wedge between the North and the rest of the United Kingdom.

By pulling their leader out of Stormont, the Democratic Unionists are trying to put pressure on the British government, which is in the process of renegotiating the protocol with European Union. Unless the trade rules are radically overhauled, unionists say, they will not return to the government and Northern Irelands on-again off-again experiment in power-sharing will collapse.

Weve had enough of being promised that this issue would be dealt with, said Gordon Lyons, 35, a Democratic Unionist who serves as economy minister in the government and who will stay in his position until the election. Theres a general sense that we unionists are always being asked to suck it up.

Ms. ONeill dismissed Mr. Givans exit as a reckless stunt. It came days after another unionist minister, Edwin Poots, declared that the government would stop inspecting agricultural goods coming in from Britain, a violation of the protocol. A judge ruled that the checks must continue until the issue was decided in court.

Theyve been on the wrong side of the Brexit debate, Ms. ONeill said. Now theyre bringing their dysfunction into this building.

Behind the theatrics, however, is a deadly serious contest for the future of Northern Ireland, one that could reverberate widely, destabilizing not just the island but also Britains relations with the European Union and the United States.

Nearly a quarter century after the Good Friday Agreement ended the sectarian violence known as the Troubles, Brexit has scrambled Northern Irelands politics. Few want a return to the bloody 30-year guerrilla war that set mostly Catholic nationalists and republicans, seeking unification with Ireland, against predominantly Protestant loyalists and unionists, who want to stay in the United Kingdom.

But the fallout from Brexit has left unionists angry and divided, and it has tilted the political landscape in favor of Sinn Fein, which opposed Brexit and seeks ever closer ties between the north and south of Ireland.

This does feel like a critical juncture, said Katy Hayward, a professor of politics at Queens University in Belfast. We cant avoid the fact that 100 years after its creation, Northern Ireland has fundamentally changed.

If Sinn Fein does win the largest number of seats it is currently eight points ahead of the Democratic Unionists in polls the most likely scenario would be a prolonged negotiation as the two parties tried to figure out how to live with each other. But some experts said they doubted the Democratic Unionists could ever take part in a government with a Sinn Fein representative as first minister.

As a practical matter, the first minister and deputy first minister have equal powers in overseeing the government an arrangement designed to force parties from opposing traditions to work together. But in the identity politics of Northern Ireland, symbolic details matter.

Unionists complain that Sinn Fein vetoed their plans to plant a rose bush at Stormont last year to mark the centenary of the establishment of Northern Ireland. Nationalists point out that the unionists opposed legislation that would give the Irish language similar status to that of English, as Welsh has in Wales.

Its about a sense of loss, said Monica McWilliams, an academic and former politician who was involved in the 1998 peace negotiations. The unionists say, If this is going to be good for the Irish economy, its going to be bad for us up north.

On its face, the Northern Ireland Protocol would not seem to have the visceral power of issues like language. It is a technical arrangement that grew out of a deal between London and Brussels to avoid resurrecting a hard border between Ireland, an E.U. member state, and Northern Ireland, which left the European Union as part of the United Kingdom. To achieve this, it requires checks on goods flowing across the Irish Sea from mainland Britain to the North.

Mr. Givans party enthusiastically supported Brexit, and when Prime Minister Boris Johnson struck the deal on the protocol, they grudgingly went along with it. But as the checks have begun to be enforced, unionists say they have imposed an onerous burden, with one widely quoted analysis estimating that Brexit adds 850 million pounds, or $1.15 billion, a year in costs. Other experts cast doubt on those figures and point out that Northern Ireland has bounced back more quickly from the pandemic than much of Britain.

Still, there is a palpable sense of betrayal at the hands of Mr. Johnson. First, he promised the unionists that the protocol would not disrupt trade across the Irish Sea. Then he told them that Britain would drive a hard bargain with the European Union, scrapping the protocol, if necessary, to remove barriers.

Now, however, Mr. Johnson, embattled by his own scandals at home, is wary of igniting a trade war with the European Union. He also recognizes that stirring up tensions over Northern Ireland would antagonize President Biden, who takes a particular interest in the preservation of the Good Friday Agreement.

When Mr. Johnsons hard-line trade negotiator, David Frost, resigned last December in part over concerns about this softer stance on the protocol he was replaced by a more emollient figure, Liz Truss, the foreign secretary. While the negotiations remain tough, Britain and the European Union are stressing progress and seem less likely to come to blows.

The least difficult option for Boris Johnson is to sacrifice Northern Ireland, said David Campbell, chairman of the Loyalist Communities Council, which represents a group of pro-union paramilitary groups that vehemently oppose the protocol.

Some of those groups were suspected of instigating clashes with the police in April last year when tensions over the protocol first boiled over. Mr. Campbell insisted in an interview that was not the case, though he warned that if London were to cut another deal with Brussels, The message it would send is that the only thing that works is violence.

In the short term, the protocols biggest threat is to the Democratic Unionists, who are being challenged by rival parties on both their right and left. How do you reward these people for all their blunders? Mr. Campbell said.

The Democratic Unionist Party, which was founded by the Rev. Ian Paisley during the height of the Troubles, has cycled through leaders and lurched sharply to the right as it struggles to shore up its base.

Someone in Europe needs to wake up to the reality that they are not doing this to assist the peace process, Mr. Poots declared in the Assembly on Monday. The political element of the peace process has had a bomb put in it, and it hasnt been by terrorists, it has been by the European Union.

Such fiery words pose a problem for both the European Union and Britain. While London could resort to imposing direct rule on the North as it has during previous breakdowns in relations between the Northern Irish parties that would further inflame tensions. To make the protocol work smoothly, both sides need a functioning administration in Belfast to set up and enforce much of the border checks.

It can, in theory, be overridden, but we shouldnt underestimate the political costs of doing this, said Raoul Ruparel, a former special adviser to the British prime minister on Europe. The U.K. government tramping into Northern Ireland just doesnt seem to be a reasonable request.

See the article here:

Upheaval in Northern Ireland, With Brexit at Its Center - The New York Times

Mr Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison formally sealed the deal in a video conference call on Wednesday. The move signifies yet another post-Brexit deal between the two nations. With this agreement, Mr Johnson is looking to turn the UK into the biggest European partner in the Indo-Pacific.

This pact comes with two major investments in both countries.

The UK will be welcoming Australian fintech firm PEXA, as it expands into the UK as its first international market.

Meanwhile, this deal has allowed Octopus Group, a major energy firm in the UK, to begin developing a major greenfield renewables project in Australia.

The statement read: In a boost for UK-Australia collaboration on cleantech, Octopus Australia is partnering with an Indigenous business group to create Desert Springs Octopus, a project worth 26billion over 10 years that will deliver wind, solar and hydrogen energy.

Ahead of the announcement, Mr Johnson said: The UK and Australia are working together to enhance regional security in the Indo-Pacific, drive innovation in science and green technology and boost opportunities for our businesses and citizens.

Our nations are forging a new partnership from a historic alliance, fit for the next century and grounded in our shared priorities on security, democracy and free and fair trade.

He also highlighted opportunities this comprehensive and wide-ranging deal will provide for British workers, businesses and consumers to reap the benefits.

George Freeman, the UK minister of Science said: Delighted to announce a new UK and Australia innovation collaboration using space observation to: support climate resilience, improve crop productivity, [and] create opportunities for spacetech SMEs.

READ MORE:Security ties with Australia beefed up

The UK and Australia partnership will also boost cooperation on science and technology through a new Science Partnership Series to bring our world-class research communities together.

Mr Johnson also stated that the UK will enhance the UK-Australia Space Bridge Agreement, which was agreed a year ago, with a new 1million commitment for Earth Observation in Agroclimate to help farmers deal with a changing climate.

This agreement, to create the worlds first space bridge will unlock improved access to trade, investment and academic research opportunities, better advice to businesses and innovative bilateral collaborations, Number 10 announced.

Both countries will once again reaffirm their commitments to delivering on the Glasgow Climate Pact and Paris Agreement to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees.

Britain will invest 25million for regional projects in the Indo-Pacific to counter security threats at sea, in the air and in cyberspace.

It comes after the UK was banned from the EU's 95billion (80billion) research funding programme Horizon Europe.

Business and Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng told the UKs Science and Technology Committee last Wednesday that Britain was ready to go "full steam ahead with setting up its own pioneering science programme, rather than pushing to rejoin Horizon.

The UK has announced a 6billion spending programme over three years as part of this new global science fund, to be rolled out if the EU refuses to allow association with Horizon programmes.

DON'T MISS:Macron fury as UK's Galileo replacement storms ahead

Link:

Five Eyes coup! UK strikes 26bn Australia deal after EU's ban: 'Reaping the benefits' - Daily Express

Boris Johnsons government has been urged to start building more lorry parks near Dover or face traffic gridlock around the port, as post-Brexit customs checks continue to cause disruption.

Desperate drivers caught in four-hour queues near Dover have been forced to s*** in the bushes and throw bottles of urine out of the window, The Independent has been told.

Logistics chiefs and local politicians have warned that road congestion in Kent will get worse when further checks come into force in July and September.

The government has asked National Highways to identify a new sites for lorries. But ministers have not yet committed to building an extra park despite a promise by chancellor Rishi Sunak at the Autumn Budget to spend 32.5m on driver facilities.

There are simply not enough lorry parking spaces, Rod McKenzie, director of policy at the Road Haulage Association (RHA). The facilities for drivers are inadequate. The government has promised in principle to do more but we lack specifics.

The RHA official added: Theres precious little room in Dover itself. So more infrastructure is needed near the port for checks. Theres a real urgency about this problem its not something that can be ignored much longer.

EdwinAtema, from the Dutch FNV union, which works hauliers from across the EU, told The Independent that drivers are increasingly angry about the time spent waiting in queues at Dover since full customs controls came into force in January.

There is a lot of time not working, just waiting, Mr Atema said. Drivers are suffering from the lack of proper facilities. They have to s*** in the bushes. Ive been there. You can see it, you can smell it. Its 2022 and this should not be happening.

Drivers have said they have been stuck in queues of up to 15km (9 miles) visible from satellites along the A20 near Dover since the start of January, when full customs controls came into effect.

Chris Precious an independent councillor on Kent town council said bottles of urine and plastic bags of human excrement are being thrown into peoples gardens and along the A20 roadside by desperate drivers. Its left for residents to clear up.

Calling for a new lorry park near Dover and a bypass for freight traffic, the councillor added: If nothing is done soon it will get much worse. We will have gridlock. Its impossible for the [A20] road to cope with this.

Conservative MP Huw Merriman, chair of the transport select committee, revealed last month that he accidentally stood in human excrement during a stop at a lay-by during a visit to inspect facilities at Dover.

Roads minister Baroness Vere said last month that she had asked National Highways to look at any and all landholdings to see if we can find any new places.

In December ministers hailed the opening of Ashford International Truckstop almost 25 miles away from Dover where up to 660 drivers can park and use the new facilities.

The site sits next to the governments inland border facility, where hauliers are sent for post-Brexit paperwork checks. Some drivers have been forced to wait for 24 hours for red tape issues to be resolved.

A much smaller site, made up of just 96 parking spaces, is being created just outside of Dover to allow officials to inspect trucks when additional agri-food checks come into force in July.

However, the RHA fears it will not be enough to ease the congestion around Dover in the months ahead. Mr McKenzie said it would take the best part of year to create a major new site.

The haulage policy chief added: The struggle to retain drivers is made more difficult by the shortage of infrastructure, the shortage of spaces to park, spaces to wash and spaces to go to the loo. Were just asking for decent facilities of the type found in Europe.

MrMcKenziehas said regular delays of three or four hours could be expected on busy days in the months ahead.

There is also mounting concern about the number of lorry drivers forced to sleepinlay-bys because of the long delays with Kent County Council warning of safety implications and disruption to residents.

Adrian Jones, Unites national officer for road transport, said: If drivers are going to be held up more regularly, there needs to be appropriate infrastructure and facilities available. It isnt good enough at the moment.

Last month the chief of Dover port Doug Bannister warned that the UK has just months to avoid further disruption when new EU biometric checks come into force in September.

As it stands, all car drivers would have to exit their vehicles to undergo biometric checks at the border, which could cause additional delays at the Kent port.

A government spokesperson said: We are spending 32.5m to improve lorry parking facilities across the country, and are working with industry on a detailed plan to help drivers feel rested and recharged to carry out their vital work safely.

Read more:

Brexit: Government warned of complete gridlock in Kent unless more lorry parks built - The Independent

As the legal, business and political communities continue to consider the implications and likely outcomes of the UKs governments proposal for a so-called Brexit Freedoms Bill (and associated policy paper on The benefits of Brexit), a few reflections are offered here on the direction of travel indicated. Whilst the contents of the actual bill remain unclear, some potentially troubling questions emerge from the initial rhetoric.

Data, tech and the regulatory landscape

Although the full wording of the bill has not yet been published, the governments press release proclaimed that [t]hese reforms will cut 1 billion of red tape for UK businesses, ease regulatory burdens and contribute to the governments mission to unite and level up the country.

At first blush, there appears to be some tension between the aim of cutting red tape (which implies a lighter regulatory burden) and another objective stated of transform[ing] the UK into the best regulated economy in the world with a high-standards regulatory framework. Scepticism has also been raised on this 1 billion headline figure (as well as the risks that cutting red tape can involve).

Of particular note for readers of this blog, the Prime Minister commented that the proposals would be pro-growth and give businesses the confidence to innovate, invest and create jobs in areas like cyber technology, artificial intelligence, and gene editing.

In the field referred to as Data and AI specifically, the bill aims to facilitate the UK moving in a faster, more agile way to regulate new digital markets and AI and creating a more proportionate and less burdensome data rights regime compared to the EUs GDPR. When placed in the context of the rhetoric of the press release as a whole, it is difficult to isolate concrete legal proposals from political grandstanding. Indeed, the language used here raises several questions, including:

Parliamentary scrutiny

On a more general note, there are concerns from within the legal community and beyond with the proposed mechanism for achieving these stated goals. The government notes that under current rules, reforming and repealing this pipeline of outdated EU law would take several years because of the need for primary legislation for many changes, even if minor and technical. As a result, the government proposes that [t]he Bill will make it easier to amend or remove outdated retained EU law.

The implication is that the draft legislation may give ministers powers to remove, amend or add legislation as statutory instruments. Given approximately 3,500 statutory instruments are made each year already (with many not subject to parliamentary scrutiny and a tiny fraction actually not being approved), there may be concerns at the scope of these proposed powers.

Indeed, this ambition is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the aim for Brexit to increase the role of the UK parliament in legislating: this contrasts with the press release's introductory remarks that many EU laws did not receive sufficient scrutiny in our democratic institutions and the comment by the Attorney General that the legacy EU rules in question often had limited meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.

Conclusion

Given the breadth of both the legislative reforms suggested and the powers which could be used to effect them, the draft bill itself will need very careful scrutiny once published in order (among other things) to safeguard the rights of data subjects and, more generally, the role of Parliament as the UKs legislature.

"The new legislation will ensure that changes can be made more easily, so that the UK can capitalise on Brexit freedoms more quickly."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-pledges-bre

Continued here:

Some reflections (and concerns) over the 'Brexit Freedoms Bill' - Lexology

UL architect dRMM has announced the opening of an office in Berlin to improve its access the post-Brexit EU market.

The office, which will be run by three native Germans, Jonas Lencer, Saskia Lencer and Judith Stichtenoth, comes after dRMM won the Neue Schleiermacherhaus civic centre near the Brandenburg Gate this month.

The architect added that it was also looking forward to working in a country where the use of wood in construction was considered mainstream rather than being treated with distrust.

The Neue Schleiermacherhaus, which will be built from engineered timber, will house the Cultural Council of Germany as well as providing space for work, events and community facilities.

According to dRMM, the bulding will not does not mimic its surroundings, but rather showcases an expression of the ideas behind the historic buildings, with circular materials, heavy faades and flexible interiors crafted from the studios engineered timber.

Read the original:

London-based dRMM launches Berlin office to boost work in post-Brexit Europe - GCR