More stories

  • in

    The Risk of a No-Deal Brexit Remains

    The risk that we will wake up on May 1 to find we have a no-deal Brexit after all has not disappeared. The deadline for the ratification by the European Parliament of the trade deal between the European Union and the United Kingdom was due to be February 28. But Parliament postponed the deadline to April 30. It did this because it felt it could not trust the UK to implement the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) — as the deal is formally known as — properly and as agreed and ratified. 

    This distrust arose because the implementation of the Ireland and Northern Ireland Protocol of the withdrawal agreement — the treaty that took the UK out of the EU — had been unilaterally changed by the British government. If a party to an international agreement takes it upon itself to unilaterally alter a deal, the whole basis of international agreements with that party disappears.

    Brexit Trade Deal Brings Temporary, If Not Lasting, Relief

    READ MORE

    The matters in dispute between the UK and the EU — the protocol and COVID-19 vaccines — remain unresolved. The European Union is taking the United Kingdom to court over the protocol, but the court is unlikely to decide anything before the new deadline of April 30.

    In the normal course of events, the TCA between the UK and the EU would be discussed in the relevant committee of the European Parliament, before coming to the plenary session of Parliament for ratification. The next meeting of the Committee on International Trade is due to take place on April 14-15, and the agenda for the meeting has been published. It includes a discussion on the enforcement of trade agreements, the general system of preferences and, significantly, trade-related aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. It makes no mention of the TCA with the UK.

    Trade-related aspects of the pandemic will inevitably include a discussion on vaccine protectionism, which is a highly contentious issue between the EU and the UK that has poisoned relations and led to bitter commentary in the media. The fact that the committee has not included a discussion of the TCA with the UK on its agenda for what may well be the only meeting it will have before the April deadline is potentially very significant.

    Ratifying the Trade Deal

    The TCA is a 1,246-page document, and its contents, if ratified, will take precedence over EU law. To ratify such an agreement without proper scrutiny in the relevant committees could be seen as a dereliction of the European Parliament’s responsibility of scrutiny. We should not forget the scrutiny that was applied to the much more modest EU trade agreement with Canada. The same goes for the deal with Mercosur states (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay).

    .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
    .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
    .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
    -webkit-user-select: none;
    -moz-user-select: none;
    -ms-user-select: none;
    user-select: none;
    order: 1;
    color: #ffffff;
    font-weight: normal;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
    right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
    .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

    Furthermore, the TCA would, if ratified, set up a network of committees to oversee its implementation. These will meet in private and their work will diminish the ongoing oversight by the European Parliament of a host of issues affecting all 27 EU member states. The TCA also contains a system of dispute-resolution mechanisms that will quickly be overwhelmed by work. The TCA has many items of unfinished business, on which the European Parliament will want to express a view. It is hard to see how any of this can be done before the end of April.

    The UK government led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson has adopted a deliberately confrontational style in its negotiations with the European Union. The more rows there are, the happier the support base that Johnson is seeking to rally for his Conservative Party. Johnson’s European strategy has always been about electoral politics, not economic performance. This has led to almost complete confusion between the British government and the EU.

    If the European Parliament ratifies the TCA without there having been seen to be a satisfactory outcome to the EU-UK negotiations about the Ireland and Northern Ireland Protocol and over the export of vaccines, it will be a political setback for Parliament and a source of immense satisfaction for Johnson.

    Yet one should never underestimate the role emotion can play in politics. The entire Brexit saga is a story of repeated triumphs of emotion over reason — and the European Parliament is not immune to this ailment. Boris Johnson could be pushing his luck a bit far this time.

    *[A version of this article was posted on John Bruton’s blog.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • in

    A New European Financial Landscape Is Emerging

    The United Kingdom’s exit from the European single market on January 1 has sent trade in goods plummeting amid much confusion. By contrast, Brexit was carried out in an orderly manner in the financial sector, despite significant movement of trading in shares and derivatives away from the City of London.

    The Brexit Deal Presents Opportunities for a New Partnership

    READ MORE

    After five years of radical uncertainty, it has become clear that the European Union and the United Kingdom will be taking separate paths on financial regulations — a financial “decoupling” that means a significant loss of business for the City. Whether the EU financial sector can gain much of what London loses will depend on the EU’s willingness to embrace further financial market integration.

    Smart Sequencing Ensured an Orderly Brexit

    As with the Y2K problem, the Brexit transition could have gone worse. It took more than luck to avoid financial instability along the way.

    First, financial firms on both sides of the English Channel (and of the Irish Sea) worked hard and were able to preempt most of the operational challenges.

    Embed from Getty Images

    Second, despite all the recurring high-stakes drama between the UK government and the European Commission, the technical cooperation between the authorities actually in charge of financial stability, primarily the Bank of England and the European Central Bank (ECB), appears to have run smoothly.

    Third, the negotiators phased the process in a smart way. The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement of January 2020 helped reduce uncertainty by ensuring that the UK government would meet its financial obligations to the EU, avoiding what would have been akin to selective default. That agreement kept the United Kingdom in the single market during the transition period beyond the country’s formal exit from the European Union on January 31, 2020. It also set a late-June deadline for the British government to extend the transition period beyond December 31, 2020. As London decided not to do so, that left six months of effective preparation.

    To be sure, whether an EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) would be concluded remained unknown until late December. But that mattered comparatively little for financial services, since trade agreements typically do not cover them much. By one count, the 1,259-page TCA (which is still unratified by the European Union) contains only six pages relevant for the financial sector.

    The resulting legal environment for financial services between the European Union and the United Kingdom is unlikely to change much any time soon. Contrary to occasional portrayals in the United Kingdom, no bilateral negotiations on financial services are going on, except for a memorandum of understanding expected this month that is not expected to bind the parties on substance.

    From the EU perspective, the United Kingdom is now a “third country,” in other words an offshore financial center, following decades of onshore status. UK-registered financial firms have lost the right, or “passport,” to offer their services seamlessly anywhere in the EU single market. From a regulatory standpoint, they have no better access to that market than their peers in other third nations such as Japan, Singapore or the United States.

    Equivalence Status for UK Financial Market Segments

    Some segments of the financial sector in these other third countries actually have better single market access than British ones, because they are covered by a category in EU law allowing direct service provision by firms under a regulatory framework deemed “equivalent” to that in the European Union. The equivalence decision is at the European Commission’s discretion, even though it is based on a technical assessment. As a privilege and not a right, equivalence can be revoked on short notice.

    So far, the European Commission has not granted the UK any such segment-specific equivalence, except in a time-limited manner for securities depositories until mid-2021 and clearing services until mid-2022. For the moment, the commission appears to be leaning against making the latter permanent. In most other market segments, the commission will not likely grant equivalence to the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future. This may appear inconsistent with the fact that almost all current UK regulations stem from the existing EU body of law. But the UK authorities (including the Bank of England) have declined to commit to keeping that alignment intact.

    Embed from Getty Images

    The commission’s inclination to reduce EU dependence on the City of London is understandable. No comparable dependence on an offshore financial center has existed anywhere in recent financial history. Such dependence entails financial stability risk. In a crisis, UK authorities would not necessarily respond in a way that preserves vital EU interests. Think of the Icelandic crisis of 2008, when Reykjavik protected the failing banks’ domestic depositors but not foreign ones. It is hardly absurd for the European Union to try to reduce such a risk, even if — as appears to happen with derivatives — some of the activity migrates from the United Kingdom to the United States or other third countries as a consequence, and not to the European Union.

    At the same time, the argument that keeping EU liquidity pooled in London is more efficient than any alternative is unpersuasive given the European Union’s own vast size. In addition, the European Commission also follows mercantilist impulses to lure activity away from London, even though these generally do not make economic sense. Added up, these factors provide little incentive for the commission to grant equivalence status to more UK financial market segments, unless some other high-level political motives come into play. None are apparent right now.

    The UK Is Unlikely to Regain Lost Advantage

    How the European Union and the United Kingdom will decouple will not be uniform across all parts of the financial system. Regulatory competition between them may become a “race to the bottom” or “to the top,” depending on market segments and the circumstances of the moment, without a uniform pattern. In any case, such labels are more a matter of judgment in financial regulation than in, say, tax competition.

    In some areas, the European Union will be laxer, while in others, it will be the United Kingdom, as is presently the case between the EU and the US. For example, the European Union is more demanding than the United States on curbing bankers’ compensation but easier when it comes to enforcing securities laws or setting capital requirements for banks. At least some forthcoming UK financial regulatory decisions may be aimed at keeping or attracting financial institutions in London, but they are still not likely to offset the loss of passport to the EU single market.

    All these permutations suggest that the medium-term outlook for the City of London is unpromising, although the COVID-19 situation makes all quantitative observations more difficult to interpret. Once an onshore financial center for the entire EU single market, and a competitive offshore center for the rest of the world, the City has been reduced to an onshore center for the United Kingdom only and has become offshore for the European Union. That implies a different, in all likelihood less powerful, set of synergies across the City of London’s financial activities.

    The few relevant quantitative data points available reinforce this bleak view. Job offerings in British finance, as tracked by consultancy Morgan McKinley, have declined alarmingly since the 2016 Brexit referendum. The ECB (as bank supervisor) and national securities regulators coordinated by the European Securities and Markets Authority are tightening requirements for key personnel to reside mainly on EU territory rather than in the United Kingdom.

    .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
    .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
    .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
    -webkit-user-select: none;
    -moz-user-select: none;
    -ms-user-select: none;
    user-select: none;
    order: 1;
    color: #ffffff;
    font-weight: normal;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
    right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
    .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

    As noted by Financial Times columnist Simon Kuper, many financial firms’ Brexit policy until this year had been to “sit tight and do nothing until post-Brexit arrangements for finance forced [their] hand.” That phase has ended. Firms that drag their feet face regulatory disruption, as happened to broker TP ICAP in late January. Tussles between regulators and regulated entities, rather than between the European Commission and the UK government, are where most of the financial-sector Brexit action is likely to be in 2021. These disputes typically happen behind closed doors, and the regulators typically hold most of the cards.

    For all the optimistic talk in London of “Big Bang 2.0 or whatever,” the United Kingdom’s comparative advantage as the best location for financial business in the European time zone is unlikely to recover to its pre-Brexit level. The macroeconomic losses could be moderated or offset by cheaper currency and less expensive real estate in London, making the city a more attractive place to do nonfinancial business. Even so, a gap will likely remain for the UK government, which has for years depended heavily on financial sector–related tax revenue.

    The European Union stands to gain financial activity as a consequence of Brexit. How much and where is not clear yet. As some analysts had predicted, Amsterdam, Dublin, Frankfurt, Luxembourg and Paris are the leaders for the relocation of international (non-EU) firms. Dublin and Luxembourg specialize in asset management, Frankfurt in investment banking and Amsterdam in trading. But EU success in terms of financial services competitiveness and stability will depend on further market integration, the pace of which remains hard to predict.

    The European banking union is still only half-built because it lacks a consistent framework for bank crisis management and deposit insurance. The grand EU rhetoric on “capital markets union” has yielded little actual reform since its start in 2014. Events like the still-unfolding Wirecard saga may force additional steps toward market integration, even though a proactive approach would be preferable.

    The one near certainty is that London’s position in the European financial sector will be less than it used to be.

    *[This article was originally published by Bruegel and the Peterson Institute.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • in

    Independent Scotland would wait up to 10 years to join EU, says report

    Scotland would have to wait up to 10 years to re-join the EU if it decides to opt for independence from the UK, according to the Institute for Government (IfG).The think tank said it would require the best part of a decade for the process to be sorted out, and would “inevitably” lead to the emergence of a hard border with England.The SNP has argued that Scotland has been taken out of the EU “against our will”, with first minister Nicola Sturgeon claiming her country’s future lies as an “independent European nation”.However, a new report from the IfG found that an application to join the bloc would almost certainly mean a long wait and Scotland having to adopt the Euro as its currency.“The EU would probably welcome an application from an independent Scotland, but only if Scottish independence were based on agreement with the UK government,” the think tank’s report states.“Under EU law, Scotland could only formally apply to join the EU once it had secured its independence from the UK, and the whole process could take the best part of a decade.”The academics found that joining the EU would probably mean an independent Scotland joining the single market and customs union – and as a result the Anglo-Scottish border would become a new regulatory frontier for the EU.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayEven if a looser model of integration was adopted, such as Scotland joining the European Economic Area (EEA), it would not mean frictionless access to both the EU and the UK markets.“As an EU member state, Scotland would have no choice but to enforce customs processes, as well as regulatory checks on goods such as animal and plant products,” the IfG report states.The authors of the London-based think tank, viewed as neither left nor right-wing, added: “There would be a need for new border infrastructure to enforce these rules.”Noting that Scottish businesses trade roughly three times as much with the rest of the UK as with the EU, the authors said that the SNP needed to be “open” about the “costs as well as benefits” of EU membership.Ms Sturgeon clashed with rival Scottish political leaders during Tuesday’s BBC Holyrood election debate.The SNP chief claimed Scotland was in danger of going in the “wrong direction” if it left decisions to Boris Johnson’s government, adding: “It’s up to the people of Scotland to decide.”However, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said: “If she obsessed about fighting poverty as much as she does about the constitution, imagine how different Scotland could be as a result.” More

  • in

    The Guardian view on defence and foreign policy: an old-fashioned look at the future | Editorial

    The integrated review offers a nostalgic – at times, even anachronistic – response to the challenges of the 21st century. Its intent is laudable: acknowledging that attempting to defend the status quo is not enough, and seeking to carve out a path ahead. It recognises the multiple threats that the UK faces – from future pandemics to cyber-attacks – and the need for serious investment in science and technology. But overall, “global Britain” offers a hazy vision of a country that is looking east of Suez once more, wedded to the symbolic power of aircraft carriers, and contemplating a nuclear response to cyberthreats.The policy paper is in essence a response to three big shifts: the rise of China, the related but broader decline of the existing global order, and Brexit. Two of these confront democracies around the world. But the last is a self-inflicted wound, which the government appears determined to deepen. And the need to deal with the first two is not in itself a solution to the third, as this policy paper sometimes seems to imagine.The plan essentially recognises the move that is already taking place towards a warier, more critical approach to China, away from the woefully misjudged “golden era” spearheaded by George Osborne, and the fact that parameters will be set for us by the tougher approach of the US, in particular. It accepts that we must engage on issues such as climate change, and that we are not in a new cold war – we live in a globalised economy – albeit that there is likely to be more decoupling than many anticipated.But it does not try to explain how the UK can square the circle of courting investment while shielding itself from undue Chinese influence and expanding regional alliances. Australia is currently finding out what happens when Beijing is angered by a strategic shift.The tilt to the Indo-Pacific may – like Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” – fail to live up to its advertising. But it is true that Britain has paid insufficient attention to Asia, and is wise to pursue stronger ties with Five Eyes nations and other democracies in the region. These relationships will sometimes be problematic; India is the world’s largest democracy, but under Narendra Modi is looking ever less democratic. The pursuit of new partnerships could have been “in addition to” rather than “instead of”. Yet Britain is snubbing old, reliable, largely like-minded friends with clear common interests. The review is written almost as if the EU did not exist, preferring to mention individual member states. That seems especially childish when it also identifies Russia as an “active threat”. Nor is it likely – even if the UK joins the Trans-Pacific free-trade pact – that countries thousands of miles away can fully compensate for the collapse in trade with the EU that saw Britain record a £5.6bn slump in exports to the bloc in January. Geography matters.Behind the rhetoric of the review is a country that has failed to match its words and ambitions to its actions. Britain boasts of its soft power and talks of upholding the rule of law internationally – yet has declared itself happy to break international law when it considers it convenient. Though the paper promises to restore the commitment to spending 0.7% of GDP on aid “when the fiscal situation allows”, slashing the budget is not only undermining the UK’s standing, but global security and stability too.Most strikingly, after 30 years of gradual disarmament since the end of the Soviet Union, and despite its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, Britain is raising the cap on its nuclear warheads – a decision met with dismay by the UN Elders and others, and bafflement by analysts. Mr Johnson has not deigned to explain why.The review has rightly asked difficult questions. While Joe Biden has brought the US back to multilateralism, his predecessor has shown that the longer-term parameters of US policy may not be as predictable as Britain once believed. Old certainties have gone. But the new challenges cannot be met by turning back to nukes and aircraft carriers. The government should have looked closer to home and been bolder in addressing the future. More

  • in

    Brexit news – live: EU begins legal proceedings over UK’s ‘serious’ Northern Ireland protocol breach

    Watch live as MPs discuss controversial bill to crack down on protestsThe EU has begun legal action against the UK government following Boris Johnson’s announcement that he would change parts of the deal he signed last year to netter suit British businesses. The European Commission on Monday described the move as a “serious” violation of the agreement and has started legal proceedings against the UK with two formal letters which were sent on Monday.UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he will overhaul the UK’s armed forces, with plans to modernise the country’s defence and make the UK “match-fit.”Mr Johnson will unveil plans on Tuesday in the government’s Integrated Review of the UK’s defence and foreign relations. Meanwhile, in an attempt to reduce the number of people using their cars, Mr Johnson has launched a £3bn “bus revolution” as part of the government’s “leveling up” agenda.The strategy intends to encourage people to choose buses over cars with the promise that there will be better coordinated bus services countrywide.It was also announced that over 1,000 civil service jobs will move from London to Scotland. Of these, 500 are from the Foreign Office and will move from the capital up to East Kilbride.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayShow latest update
    1615819785PM looking forward to talking with ‘EU friends’ over measures linked to Northern Ireland Boris Johnson has said that he is looking forward to discussions with the UK’s “EU friends” over what he called sensible temporary measures linked to the Northern Ireland Protocol.When asked why problems with the EU had arisen so quickly after a deal was agreed on, Mr Johnson said: “We haven’t seen the EU’s letter yet.“But I think what I would say to our friends in Brussels is very simple – the protocol is there to uphold and to guarantee, to buttress the Good Friday Agreement.“It (the protocol) should guarantee not just trade and movement north-south but east-west as well.“That’s all we’re trying to sort out with some temporary and technical measures which we think are very sensible.“But obviously we’ll look forward to our discussions with our EU friends and see where we get to.”The prime minister was on an official visit to Coventry when he was questioned on the subject. More

  • in

    Brexit: Ireland’s foreign minister accuses UK of ‘perverse nationalism’ over US trade approach

    Ireland’s foreign minister has accused the UK of “perverse nationalism” and “narrow-minded thinking” in attempting to race ahead of the EU to reach a trade deal with Washington alone.Calling for a more collaborative effort, Simon Coveney said that rather than “competing for attention” in Joe Biden’s administration, Britain, the EU, the US and Canada should work together to come to a joint agreement.In an interview with The Times, however, he also reiterated concerns about trust in the UK as a negotiating partner being weakened after the unilateral decision to extend the so-called “grace period” in the Northern Ireland Protocol.But addressing the prospect of a US trade deal — something desired by Brexiteers who argued for an independent trading policy — Mr Coveney claimed there was “enough division and competition globally rather than creating more locally”.“Rather than the EU and UK competing for attention in Washington, looking to be the first to do a trade deal, it makes sense for UK, EU and US and Canada to do one together,” he said.“The idea that Britain can get their first is narrow-minded thinking, frankly. It’s a perverse nationalism when actually Britain and the EU should work together as partners.”When pressed on his remark in a separate interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Coveney appeared to soften his language, saying: “I was asked a question about a transatlantic trade deal and I said I don’t think it makes any sense for some in the UK to see this as a race to see who can get a trade deal with the US first.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayHe added: “We should be looking at a transatlantic trade deal that involves the EU, the UK, the US and Canada and others if they want to be involved. “We all run economies that are based on very similar rules and structures and in my view a transatlantic relationship involving Britain should be a powerful one economically and globally.”His call for a joint trade deal is unlikely to be accepted by No 10, as Mr Johnson has often touted a transatlantic trade agreement between the UK and the US as a benefit of leaving the bloc and has previously said it will “reflect the unique closeness of our two great nations”.Speaking after a damaging row between the EU and the UK over the Northern Ireland Protocol, Mr Coveney also told The Times: “It has reinforced an awful lot of the doubts in Brussels about whether or not this really is a British government we can rely on to be a trusted partner when it comes to implementing what has already been agreed.”The grace period – a temporary relaxation of checks for supermarkets and suppliers – was put in place to allow firms time to adapt to new trade barriers across the Irish Sea and was due to expire at the end of March.Speaking on Friday, Boris Johnson told a virtual press conference on a visit to Northern Ireland that the Protocol needed to be “corrected”.“You can’t have a situation in which soil or parcels or tractors with mud on their tyres or whatever are prevented from moving easily from one part of the UK to another — it’s all one United Kingdom,” he said.The prime minister added: “What I didn’t want to see was loads of checks on stuff going from GB to NI in such a way as to interrupt trade and to confuse and irritate people.”“I didn’t want to see barriers to the circulation of sausages and tractors with mud on their tyres and all the rest of it, and nor did I think that would be necessary and I think that’s why we put in the easements we have, because I think it’s sensible for there to be some balance in this and I think there’s a commonsensical way forward and that’s what we want to have.” In a separate interview, the cabinet minister Brandon Lewis admitted a tweet posted by the government’s Northern Ireland Office claiming there “will be no border” in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland after Brexit had not stood the test of time.He told the News letter newspaper: “That tweet has not stood the test of time very well and you’ve got to try to learn from those experience; you’ve got to fall down a bit to know how to get back up… I’ll make sure that I’m bearing those issues in mind when I tweet in the future.” More

  • in

    Brexit: Cricket pitches in Northern Ireland may have to be dug up due to protocol

    Cricket pitch soil in Northern Ireland may have to be dug up and replaced due to post-Brexit protocol arrangements, according to officials for the sport in the province.The special clay-containing material known as loam, obtained from counties in England, gives the ball its predictable bounce on the pitch.However, bureaucracy introduced following Boris Johnson’s Brexit trade deal has caused disruption for suppliers sending a range of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.Carrickfergus Cricket Club groundsman Michael Kennedy said: “If we do not get this stuff it looks like we are going to have to dig our square up and replace it with something else, and that is going to be a disaster.”Northern Ireland continues to follow some the EU’s rules on trade to prevent a hard border, which has caused particular problems for the supply of agricultural goods from Great Britain.Mr Kennedy said the loam supply issue needed to be resolved before renewal work on the surface begins in September – and warned the pitch could start to deteriorate and became unsafe.“There is no alternative, we cannot just nip down to the local merchant and buy a bag of this,” he said. “I have been involved in cricket for 15 years and it is what other generations have used before … We are sitting here at the moment trying to work out what we can do.”Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayUel Graham, cricket operations manager for the Northern Cricket Union (NCU), said not having loam available created a “far-reaching”problem at all levels of the sport, from international down to schools.He said: “If they are not able to prepare and maintain pitches, that would mean pitches may need to be replaced more often, which is a very costly aspect.“Covid has already had a major impact on clubs with a truncated season last year, so any additional financial burden is something clubs would find very difficult.” More

  • in

    Brexit news – live: ‘More trade disruptions to come,’ economists warn as export issues harm Scottish whisky

    Patel: BLM protests ‘dreadful’ and taking the knee ‘wrong’Disruption to trade caused by Brexit represents the first signs of structural issues which will cut UK GDP for years to come, senior economists have told The Independent – while warning it can no longer be dismissed as “teething problems”.The experts said they could see nothing from the first six weeks of 2021 to persuade them to amend forecasts of tens of billions of pounds of damage to the economy over the coming years, though hard figures on the cost of quitting the single market and customs union will not emerge for a few months.Current analysis by the EU predicts Britain’s divorce from the bloc will cause a 2.25 per cent hit to the UK economy by 2022 – £40bn in lost growth over two years.It comes as Westminster has been urged to support Scotland’s struggling whisky industry after “complicated bureaucracy post-Brexit” caused overseas exports to drop by 23 per cent.In an open letter to rural affairs secretary George Eustice, Scottish rural economy minister Fergus Ewing said the once “booming” sector was failing due to complications caused by coronavirus, Brexit and tariffs imposed by the US following a dispute with the EU.“I have written to the UK government urging them to address the problems and will do my utmost to help one of Scotland’s greatest food and drink success stories get through this challenging time,” Mr Ewing said in a statement. Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayShow latest update
    1613227256Heathrow says government’s hotel quarantine plan not readyThe government’s hotel quarantine policy is not ready to launch with less than 48 hours to go, Britain’s largest airport has warned. Ministers have promised hotel quarantine will start on Monday, but in a statement issued on Saturday morning Heathrow airport said “significant gaps still remain”.MPs have warned of chaotic scenes at airports, while the union representing border force workers says staff are going on shift for the weekend unaware of what rules they will be enforcing come Monday.My colleagues Jon Stone and Simon Calder report:Sam Hancock13 February 2021 14:401613225456Boots staff who worked at Covid government testing sites lose jobsBoots staff who volunteered to take on potentially dangerous roles at government coronavirus testing sites for the high-street giant have lost their jobs.The pharmacy’s employees have been helping to operate official drive-in centres across the UK since March.Boots said it would have been wrong to give those who had signed up to work in the government’s testing scheme special treatment in its redundancy process.Our Whitehall editor Kate Devlin has more:Sam Hancock13 February 2021 14:101613223035Patel BLM remarks ‘unacceptable,’ says shadow home secretaryPressure continues to mount on Priti Patel after she branded the anti-racism protest movement Black Lives Matter “dreadful” and criticised the practice of taking a knee.Nick Thomas-Symonds, Labour’s shadow home secretary, said his counterpart’s comments were “unacceptable” and that the BLM movement was “a powerful call for change from across society”.“To be dismissed like this by the Home Secretary is unacceptable,” he added.Our policy correspondent Jon Stone reports: Sam Hancock13 February 2021 13:301613220739Government backtracks on public sector payment cap, unions sayA government U-turn means regulations aimed at preventing excessive payments to the highest earners have been revoked. It comes after court action by trade unions which demanded the £95,000 cap on public sector redundancy payments be reversed. Unions said the rules would have hit low-paid workers the hardest, affecting long-serving local government workers who earned just £23,500 and were made redundant. Unison’s general secretary, Christina McAnea, told The Guardian on Saturday: “It’s great the government has finally seen sense and stepped back from this damaging regulation that threatened to blight the retirement of millions of workers.“Through no fault of their own, long-serving staff over the age of 55 and facing redundancy would have been hit by the regulation. Because they’re obliged to take their pensions if they lose their jobs, when combined with redundancy payments the final amount could have exceeded the £95,000 cap.“All along the Treasury was told that the regulations were flawed, and they would hit ordinary workers. Unfortunately, ministers wouldn’t listen, so Unison had to take them to court.“The government has wasted much time and money and should now abandon any plans to reintroduce the regulations.“Instead, ministers should concentrate on supporting dedicated public service workers who are delivering for their communities in the most challenging of circumstances.”Sam Hancock13 February 2021 12:521613216475Tory MP tells Johnson to help British fishermen ‘sell more’ produce Conservative MP John Redwood has urged Boris Johnson to do more for the fishing industry, saying there were “plenty of options” to help British workers “sell more of our fish” which are not being carried out. The Brexiteer tweeted: “Let’s have more determination from our government to boost our fishing industry.“There are plenty of options to help them to land, process and sell more of our fish as we take control of our waters effectively.”It comes after Michael Gove said on Thursday that Britain is prepared to do “whatever is required” to support its fishermen post-Brexit. Though he admitted there were “bureaucratic obstacles” to “negotiate and navigate” with the EU.Sam Hancock13 February 2021 11:411613215065Brexit disruption cannot be dismissed as ‘teething issues’, economists warnDisruption to trade seen so far as a result of Brexit represents the first signs of structural issues which will cut UK GDP for years to come, senior economists have said.Experts speaking to The Independent said they had seen nothing during the first six weeks of 2021 to persuade them to amend forecasts of tens of billions of pounds of damage to the economy over the coming years.The gloomy assessments came after the European Commission released the first formal analysis of the impact of Brexit to be compiled since the transition out of the EU, which predicted a 2.25 per cent hit to the UK economy by 2022 – equivalent to £40bn in lost growth over two years.Our political editor Andrew Woodcock reports:Sam Hancock13 February 2021 11:171613213839Kent lorry queues avoided as freight flows ‘back to normal’Freight flows in Kent have returned to normal meaning the lorry queue crisis has now been avoided, according to government officials.Figures seen by the BBC show outbound lorry traffic for Britain for the month so far at 98 per cent of last February’s levels, while inbound traffic is at 99 per cent of last year’s levels.One official told the broadcaster the government is “pleased that overall flows are back to normal” as it was announced some 80-90 per cent of laden lorries were arriving “border-ready”.Sam Hancock13 February 2021 10:571613211984NI vegetable company wins M&S contract amid supply issuesA Comber-based vegetable producer has been given the go ahead to supply M&S stores across Ireland amid ongoing stock logistic issues between Britain and Ireland, caused by Brexit. Mash Direct will supply eight of its products to the retailer, according to reports in the Belfast Telegraph, including its signature mash potato and potato cakes in its own brand sleeves and packaging.Last month M&S was forced to temporarily drop hundreds of products from its stores in the Republic after the company saw competitors’ lorries barred from travelling between Britain and Northern Ireland. More