Politics explained

Imagine if AstraZeneca happened to be an American or Chinese company, and manufactured all of its Covid vaccines far away from the EU and Britain. The chances are that the stories about production problems, breaches of contract and export bans would not have acquired the heated, chauvinistic Brexity quality that they have in recent days. It would be much more of a business story than yet another episode of the Brexit saga. It would matter, but the focus would be on the prosaic aspects of contractual obligations, complex supply chains and the impact on public health.  Instead, of course, with a somewhat similar set of rows about the Pfizer vaccine, it has been itself infected by the virus of populist nationalism. In some ways, this probably suits the European Union, to be seen to be standing up for Europe’s citizens and demanding its fair share, legally and morally. Who cares, on this reading, if the British got their big order in first? Any company is obliged to honour its obligations no matter when any order was placed. So the EU wants transparency, from AstraZeneca. The company is sticking to its “first come first served” policy.  The EU’s subsequent proposal to require approval for vaccine exports to third countries (mainly Britain), looks illogical, and nationalistic, even if it is only part of a continuing struggle with a private sector pharma giant. Conveniently, though, it distracts from any criticism among the member states about the EU’s own mistakes, if any. This may not last.   More

What are to make of the “vaccine war” between Britain and the European Union?The underlying problem would seem to be a lack of trust, entirely comprehensible given the history of Brexit. Chauvinism and suspicion seem to be driving public pronouncements and policy on vaccine procurement. A ridiculous race has been set up, in the minds of some, between the UK and EU to see who can vaccinate their populations fastest. Britain has reached 10 per cent, continental Europe 2 per cent. This, absurdly, has been used to justify Brexit, leaving aside Britain’s grim record on deaths from Covid. If this cross-Channel competition has the effect of spurring on efforts it might have something to be said for it, but it seems unlikely given that supply is a constraint everywhere. What’s more, the coronavirus does not respect national borders; if it is raging in France it will not remain there. Tempers have flared, as with previous skirmishes over the closures of borders, supermarket deliveries to Northern Ireland, fish (inevitably) and a lorry driver who was upset to find his ham sandwich impounded at the Hook of Holland (“Welcome to the Brexit, sir”).   More

Keir Starmer accuses Boris Johnson of wanting to use Brexit to weaken legal protections for workers, and will use an opposition debate in the Commons today to demand that “all existing employment rights and protections must be maintained”.The prime minister has always rejected the idea that one of the Conservative motives for leaving the EU was to rid Britain of European law guaranteeing workers’ rights. And it is fair to say that the problem of “excessive” social protection has never been central to most Brexiteers’ arguments – except for the 48-hour working week, which was controversial when the Labour government legislated for it in 1998.  British worker rights were probably better than those in most member states when the UK joined the EEC in 1973, and remained so while we were a member, but clearly there is a possibility that they could be cut below the minimum levels required by the EU now that we have left. Hence the significance of a report by the Financial Times 10 days ago that the government was considering repealing aspects of EU employment law, including the 48-hour working week, the inclusion of overtime in calculating holiday pay and the duty of employers to record workers’ hours.   More

There is a parliamentary campaign being fought within and between both houses to insert some form of prohibition on trade deals with countries guilty of genocide. A determined group of MPs and peers across all parties and none are pressing hard for such a provision. They are backed by the International Bar Assiciation, the British Board of Jewish Deputies and the Conservative Muslim Forum, among others. The government is resisting. The “genocide amendment” is currently at the “ping pong” stage, successively approved and rejected by the Commons and Lords respectively. Because it is part of the trade bill, rather than a “money bill” as such, and because such issues were not covered in the Conservatives’ ejection manifesto, the process of attrition could take some time.  It should be, in principle, an unexceptionable move, and one that wouldn’t raise any immediate issues with large economies in any case. Who wants to trade with mass murderers? The obvious candidate for such a snub would be China, because of its treatment of the Uighur Muslim people, as well as offences against human rights in Hong Kong and expansionism abroad. There is little possibility of any trade treaty with the people’s republic for some time. China is hardly hammering on Britain’s door, and the wind-down of Huawei’s UK presence proves the point.  The debate also uncomfortably raises the question of what was the point of Brexit, given that determining our own terms of business was one of the few possible benefits of leaving the EU. Now that Britain is an independent trading nation surely this is a moment to make a point, to set a standard, and to show moral leadership to the world on free, fair and humane trade? Brexiteers might enjoy drawing a contrast between British fastidiousness and the EU’s new partnership agreement with China (although the European Parliament is making its own objections to that). More

To use the words on the order paper, the House of Commons officially “believes that the government should stop the planned cut in universal credit and working tax credit in April and give certainty today to the 6 million families for whom it is worth an extra £1,000 a year”.Despite the overwhelming vote and the constitutional convention that the Commons (or at least parliament) is sovereign, this expression of “belief” will make no immediate difference. It is an Opposition Day debate, under a longstanding arrangement providing for proper scrutiny of the executive, but it has the same status as any other vote on a motion. There is a string case that it should alter government policy, even though the vote creates no new laws.Politically, though, it is highly significant. The government whips instructed Tory MPs to abstain, in an attempt to make the exercise seem more irrelevant than it is, and, moreover, because there was a risk the government would lose the vote. Despite the effort, there was a Tory rebellion, including new Tory MPs who captured so-called Red Wall seats from Labour in 2019, plus some former ministers. Once again it is proof that a notional working majority of more than 80 is no defence against defeat in a party addicted to conspiracy, factionalism and revolt. Boris Johnson only escaped another humiliation (of parliamentary defeat or an emergency U-turn) by offering his own dissidents some rubbery commitments to review things at the next Budget. There are suggestions that the Treasury is ready to “buy out” the £20 a week temporary uplift to social security with a one-off final payment of £500 or even £1,000.   More

Andrew Adonis, the Labour peer and passionate anti-Brexiteer, calls Boris Johnson’s agreement with the EU the “trade reduction treaty”, because its unusual feature is that it makes trade harder – and since it came into effect on 1 January, this has seemed to be an accurate description. A live eel exporter who voted to leave the EU was interviewed on TV saying he didn’t realise that it would mean he wouldn’t be able to export his eels any more. Small business owners have said that the extra paperwork means it’s not worth sending orders to the continent. DPD, the parcel courier, suspended deliveries to the EU for five days while it sorted out its admin. Many of these things were known about before the end of the transition period, and yet many businesses were still unprepared for the new rules. Many of the problems of border controls have been that goods have arrived with the wrong paperwork, or because the carrier didn’t realise that they needed any paperwork. Similarly, the music industry warned that the new rules might prevent British bands touring the continent, but that has become the subject of headlines only after the deal was done.   More

Gavin Williamson appeared in front of parliament’s Education Committee yesterday and did little to recover the dereliction into which his reputation has fallen since he became education secretary a year and a half ago. At the time when academic grades awarded by algorithm were cancelled after being awarded in England last summer, it was widely assumed that he would be moved from his post soon. Yet he is still there, and still answering questions about policy errors for which his department is responsible. Yesterday, the committee asked him about the inadequate food parcels sent to families with children entitled to free school meals. He reacted as if it was nothing to do with him: “When I saw that picture I was absolutely disgusted. As a dad myself I thought how could a family in receipt of that really be expected to deliver five nutritious meals.” More

It would have been Allegra Stratton’s second day of televised briefings as the prime minister’s press secretary yesterday, if the start of White House-style news conferences hadn’t been postponed. So the nation did not get to see her answering questions about one subject that particularly interested journalists, which she did on a telephone conference call instead. “You all know how much he loves his bike,” she said, when asked if the prime minister regretted going on a bike ride in the Olympic Park in east London on Sunday. “I can’t comment on where the prime minister exercises, for security reasons,” she said when asked if he would be doing it again. “It was in accordance with the guidelines.” She and the civil service spokesperson took it in turns to answer, or not to answer, questions such as: was Boris Johnson driven to the Olympic Park, seven miles from Downing Street; will the government be issuing a more specific definition of what “local” means in the guidance about staying local; was there anyone with him on a bike in the park; can anyone go to someone else’s garden for exercise, in the way the prime minister goes to the garden of Buckingham Palace?  More