Boris Johnson has unveiled plans for new photo ID requirement at polling stations, sparking the move is designed to suppress voting by young people and disadvantaged groups.
The Queen’s Speech also revealed a Royal Commission on the criminal justice system and separate review of every aspect of the post-Brexit constitutional settlement – condemned by Labour as “vindictive revenge” for his defeat in the prorogation case and “another play from the Book of Trump”.
[...]
The Department for Exiting the European Union will close on January 31, government sources have confirmed.
[...]
The prime minister has reportedly told his officials to stop using the term “Brexit” after the UK formally leaves the EU at the end of January.
Johnson is said to be so desperate to make sure voters believe Brexit is “done” that No 10 won’t refer to the idea of a trade agreement with the EU as a “deal” in 2020 – in case it undermines the idea the Brexit deal has already been done.
One government source told The Huffington Post: “Once we’re out on January 31 that’s it. The deal is done and after that it’s all about the future relationship.”
Proposals for voter ID sparked howls of outrage when they were included in October’s Queen’s Speech, with Labour accusing the government of trying to rig the result of the next general election.
A trial of the scheme in local elections this year saw around 800 people turned away from polling stations.
As in October, the government has attempted to allay concerns that the poor will be priced out of voting, by confirming plans for a new free-of-charge “local electoral identity document” for those without passports or driving licences.
But ERS director of policy and research Jess Garland said: “When millions of people lack photo ID, these plans risk raising the drawbridge to huge numbers of marginalised voters.
“Despite the efforts of experts and campaigners, government have so far sat on their hands in the face of the actual threats to electoral integrity – anonymous ‘dark ads’, dodgy donations and disinformation. Yet now, just days after securing a majority, the government now seeks to invest in fighting an imaginary problem.
“Make no mistake – these plans will leave tens of thousands of legitimate voters voiceless. Ministers should focus on combating the real threats to our democracy, rather than suppressing voters’ rights.
“The government has no examples to justify this ‘show your papers’ policy. There is simply no evidence of widespread impersonation. Simply put, ministers must think again and withdraw this dangerous proposal.”
The move forms part of a wider reform of arrangements for voting, also including the tightening of rules around the use of postal votes, following years of allegations from Tory MPs that the system was being abused.
Campaigners will be banned from handling postal votes, and a new power will limit the number of postal votes any individual can hand in.
Voters will have to renew their registration to vote by post every three years, rather than remaining on the list indefinitely.
And individuals will be banned from acting as proxy to more than two other voters, regardless of their relationship.
People unable to get to the polling station – whether because of disability, temporary illness or being away from home – can arrange for someone else to act as their proxy to vote on their behalf. Currently, there is an exemption to the two-proxy vote limit for those casting votes on behalf of close relations.
A drive by Remain supporters saw more than 1,000 proxy votes cast in last week’s election on behalf of expats who did not trust the postal system to get their ballot papers in on time.
Protections for workers and child refugees also cut out of withdrawal agreement bill
Boris Johnson’s EU withdrawal agreement bill has been published, with protections on workers’ rights, unaccompanied refugee children and parliament’s say over the future relationship stripped out.
MPs are expecting to vote on the EU withdrawal agreement bill for the first time in this parliament on Friday, as Johnson aims to rush it through its first stage before Christmas.
The new bill scraps or waters down a number of key protections that were in the last one published in October, when Johnson was trying to get the support of some backbench Labour MPs to get it through parliament.
It removes an entire schedule that promised to protect workers’ rights, with the government suggesting this will now be dealt with in separate legislation.
Ministers will no longer be bound by the legislation to provide updates on the future trading relationship or to make sure parliament approves the government’s negotiating objectives.
In a third change, a commitment to take unaccompanied refugee children from Europe, known as the Dubs amendment, is watered down. The legislation acknowledges this is still an aim but does not make a legal promise to take them.
A No 10 spokesman said: “We are committed to ensuring that children who are claiming asylum or international protection will be reunited with specified family members in the EU and vice versa.
“The government’s policy on child refugees has not changed and we will continue to do all we can to enable children to claim asylum and be reunited with their families, which the legislation published today reaffirms.”
Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said the changes showed the Tories now want to “tear up those protections” for refugee children.
In terms of additions, the bill introduces a clause to rule out an extension to the transitional period, and powers to let lower courts overrule judgments from the European court of justice.
The bill overall hands much greater power to Johnson’s government to shape a harder Brexit without the checks and balances of parliament.
Backbench Labour MPs and some soft Brexit Tories had fought to get concessions into the previous versions of the bill, but Johnson no longer has any need for their votes as he has a majority of 80.
Labour is expected to vote against the bill, along with the Lib Dems and the SNP. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, accused Johnson of having “deliberately resurrected the threat of no deal at the end of next year, which would decimate industry and destroy people’s jobs”.
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader, said the bill would hurt Scotland’s economy and cost thousands of jobs north of the border, taking a “wrecking ball to our economic and social foundations”.
Conservative MPs cheered as the House of Commons agreed to sit on Friday for the second reading of the bill.
(Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson won a thumping election victory last week on a campaign to “get Brexit done,” but not before some wealthy donors to his Conservative Party quietly took steps to stay inside the European Union.
Cyprus government documents seen by Reuters show that Conservative Party donors have sought citizenship of the island, an EU member state, since Britain voted to leave the bloc in 2016.
They include billionaire Alan Howard, one of Britain’s best-known hedge fund managers, and Jeremy Isaacs, the former head of Lehman Brothers for Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Cyprus’ interior ministry recommended that both men’s applications be approved, the government documents show.
The Conservative Party won another term in office last week after an election campaign that was dominated by Brexit. Johnson called the election to try to gain a majority in Parliament to push through his plan to take Britain out of the EU early next year.
That some Brits who made a career out of assessing risk have applied for second passports may suggest sagging confidence in Britain’s economy after it leaves the EU. A broker who makes his living handling such passports says he’s seen a surge of enquiries from Brits looking for ways to keep their European Union citizenship.
“Brexit is the only factor driving this,” says Paul Williams, chief executive of passport brokerage La Vida Golden Visas. The right to live, work, study or set up business anywhere in Europe, says Williams, “that all changes with Brexit.”
According to Britain’s Electoral Commission, Howard donated at least £129,000 to the Conservative Party personally and through his company between 2005 and 2009. Isaacs made personal and corporate donations of at least £626,500 to the party, £50,000 of it earmarked for The In Campaign, a group lobbying to remain in the EU.
The Cyprus government documents show that Howard, and Isaacs and his wife all sought Cypriot citizenship in 2018. A spokesperson for Howard declined to comment. Isaacs did not respond to requests for comment. His assistant said he was traveling and unavailable. The Conservative Party didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Britain voted narrowly to leave the European Union in 2016 but the details of the country’s future relationship with the bloc are still unclear. Economists have said Britain will be economically poorer under every form of Brexit, compared with staying in the EU.
Cypriot citizenship costs a minimum of 2 million euros of which at least 500,000 euros must be permanently invested. At no point in the application process is the applicant compelled to live in – or even visit – Cyprus. Cyprus is popular with people seeking a second passport because the entire investment can be in real estate, and it has low taxes.
The Cyprus government documents reviewed by Reuters also list a man named David John Rowland as having sought citizenship. The documents that name Rowland contain scant details, showing only that he applied for a Cypriot passport as part of an investor group. Separate Cypriot company records list a UK national David John Rowland as a director of a company called Abledge Ltd, which was registered on Dec. 31, 2015. These records show Rowland’s home address to be on the British tax haven island of Guernsey - the home of the David John Rowland who is a Conservative Party donor, former Party treasurer, property developer and financial adviser to Prince Andrew. Reuters couldn’t determine Abledge Ltd’s line of business or any other information about the firm.
A spokesperson for a bank owned by Rowland, Banque Havilland, declined to comment. Repeated requests through another of Rowland’s businesses and his personal email address went unanswered. A spokesperson for the palace declined to comment. The Cypriot government declined to comment about any of the individuals named in this story or on the status of a government review of its passports-for-sale scheme, citing EU privacy rules.
Electoral Commission records show that Rowland has donated at least £6.5 million to the Conservatives since 2001, £854,500 of it since the Brexit vote. Prime Minister David Cameron named him Tory treasurer and chief Conservative fundraiser after the millions of pounds he donated to the 2010 general election campaign - to protect Britain’s “liberty” and economic future, Rowland told media at the time. He quit before officially taking up the post.
Isaacs was once seen as a successor to Dick Fuld, but ended up leaving Lehman shortly before the global financial crisis. In 2015, he became a Commander of the Order of the British Empire at the Queen’s birthday honors.
Howard made billions on the 2008 financial crisis by predicting interest rate and currency moves, and profited again on the Brexit vote by accurately tracking voter sentiment, media reported.
When an emergency UK budget raised taxes on the wealthy in 2010, Howard moved to Switzerland. He has since returned to Britain. But last year the master of hedging hedged his bets against holding only British citizenship.
Another British financier who sought Cypriot citizenship is James Brocklebank, a managing partner at private equity firm Advent International. In 2016, he said that even if Brexit were ultimately a good thing, it would create “significant challenges” and cause the UK to lose out on investment. He applied for Cypriot citizenship in 2018. A spokesperson for Brocklebank declined to comment.
It is the only option that offers a way back for the party: then it can argue for a left version of Britain outside the EU
Modern Britain has been shaped by two events: the banking crisis of 2008 and the Brexit vote eight years later. The reason Boris Johnson is sitting in No 10 is that the Conservatives have learned the right lessons from these episodes and Labour has not.
The Tories have understood that their response to the financial meltdown – a prolonged period of austerity that squeezed living standards – was unpopular and wrong. They also twigged that Brexit was a revolt against austerity and free-market economics more generally – so they have embraced the decision to leave the European Union and positioned themselves as the party of intervention and the working classes.
Labour got the first part of this narrative but not the second. In this general election it sought to divorce austerity from Brexit – with disastrous results. Labour won seats in 2017 when it said it would respect the referendum result, but saw its “red wall” breached when it moved steadily closer to remain. Having chosen not to listen to what voters in its former heartlands were saying, Labour now seems bemused to find that they have migrated to a party that did.
Labour’s Brexit stance was not the only reason it lost the election. The number of seats won by the party has fallen, with one exception, at every election since 1997. Corbyn bucked the trend in 2017 and although he only managed to emulate Gordon Brown’s performance in the defeat of 2010, there was hope that Labour could avoid becoming as politically irrelevant as the social democratic parties in Germany and France. But to do so Labour had to keep its broad electoral coalition together.
The problem in doing so became evident as the campaign wore on. Voters in the former industrial parts of the country are not mugs. They could see that Labour’s stance on Brexit had moved from respecting the referendum result in 2016, to telling the public to have another think (and to come up with a different result) in 2019.
And when canvassing returns showed the likely loss of seats in the red wall, Labour made matters worse by coming up with a string of panicky, and expensive, electoral bribes. To many voters, these seemed an insult to their intelligence, which indeed they were.
All of which leaves Labour in a terrible place. It is not just that the Conservatives are in power for at least the next five years. It is not even that seats once thought impregnable have been lost. It is the failure – for a second time in a decade – to be able to exploit conditions that looked tailor-made for a party of the left.
The financial crisis marked a watershed for global economic liberalism, because its fundamental tenet – that markets worked best when governments took a back seat – came under scrutiny. Brexit was one of the ways in which the pushback against the orthodoxy manifested itself, but much of the remainer left in the UK has been unable to grasp this. Instead of seeing Brexit as a vote for a different sort of economy, it has demonised leave voters as nativists and racists. It decided early on that no matter what form Brexit took, it would be worse than the status quo.
This was a curious argument, because it presupposed that nothing ever changes: that there would be no new policies, no attempts to improve on what currently exists, no attempts to respond to any short-term problems that Brexit might cause. By this token, Labour’s national investment bank and its Keynesian infrastructure programme would have made no difference either.
Brexit has already been a catalyst for change. It has forced the government to spend rather than cut. The Conservatives are committed to increase both the minimum wage and have pledged to use the money saved by scrapping a planned reduction in corporation tax to spending on the NHS. The need for state intervention in the economy is now accepted: regional policy is back in vogue.
So Labour’s remainers face a choice. Option one is to move straight from supporting a second referendum to arguing for rejoining the EU. This is an entirely negative strategy and relies on UK voters looking at the dismal growth across the Channel and saying: “We want what they are having.” It seems a tad unlikely.
Option two involves grudgingly accepting that Brexit is a reality and that Labour’s approach should be to make the best of a bad job. This would be a continuation of Corbyn’s triangulation strategy and have the same baleful result. The message sent to leave voters would be the same as it has been consistently from remainers since 2016: you got it wrong, you idiots. This doesn’t seem to be a particularly good way of rebuilding the red wall either.
Strategy three is the hardest for remainers to swallow but it is the only option that offers a way back for Labour: embrace Brexit and argue for a left version of Britain outside the EU. This could take many forms: a devolution of power to local mayors; a new deal for the north; state support for green industry that would provide well-paid jobs in every constituency. It means exuding optimism that things can get better rather than telling people who are struggling, but not destitute, that only state handouts can alleviate their misery.
The choice is simple: start putting together a post-Brexit progressive project or have a monster sulk and watch the Tories make the political weather.
How events are likely to unfold as the UK enters an 11-month transition period from 31 January 2020
With the starting gun fired on the Brexit legislation’s journey through parliament, Brexit day is virtually guaranteed on 31 January.
While Boris Johnson agreed a deal with the EU last October, it does not have legal effect in UK courts until his withdrawal agreement bill (Wab) is passed.
MPs voted for the bill in the House of Commons on Friday, paving the way for the completion of later stages in committee and the House of Lords. If all goes to plan at Westminster, the European parliament will ratify the withdrawal agreement on 29 January 2020, and Brexit will happen two days later.
What happens on 31 January?
Brexit day: after 11pm on 31 January, revoking article 50, the formal process of exiting the EU, is no longer possible. The UK will have passed the point of no return and will no longer be a member of the EU.
What will be different?
Life will generally carry on the same, as the UK will enter an 11-month transition period, to allow both the government and EU to work out what the future relationship should be.
The UK will remain in the customs union and the single market, meaning trade will carry on as normal. But the UK will be outside the political institutions – it will no longer be represented in the EU council of ministers or the European parliament.
During this period, the UK must continue to obey EU rules, but will have no say in making them. EU citizens will continue to be able to travel to and work in the UK and British citizens can do the same in another member state.
The European court of justice will still have powers during the transition period so British courts can refer cases there. What role the ECJ will have following the transition period is still to be determined as part of the longer-term negotiations. But its role is likely to be limited.
Are negotiations expected to start on 1 February?
No. First, both the EU and the UK have to publish their negotiating objectives. However, after the sabre-rattling of the last few days in the UK, both sides have a fairly good idea of what the others sides’ positions are.
The withdrawal agreement bill gives Boris Johnson 30 days in which to publish his negotiating objectives. EU member states are expected to agree their negotiating mandate on 25 February, which will then be handed to the EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, and officials at the European commission.
Talks on setting up a border in the Irish Sea can begin from 1 February. Special committees of British and EU representatives can meet to agree technical details on implementing the protocol on Northern Ireland, an agreement that leaves the region following EU rules, with a separate status to Great Britain.
What if there is no agreement by the end of 2020?
The government has the option before 1 July to ask for an extension of the transition period for one or two years .
Johnson is making that illegal under domestic law, but it would be easy to repeal if necessary. However, if the government changes its mind and seeks a transition extension after 1 July, the door will be locked. At a private meeting with EU27 diplomats this week, EU lawyers said there could be no extension after 1 July 2020.
What else happens after exit from the EU?
The government must pass new legislation in four key areas to implement its vision of Brexit – with new immigration laws to replace freedom of movement and new legislation for agriculture, environment and trade, all of which are substantially supported or regulated by the EU at the moment. In the Queen’s speech, it also promised bills on fisheries, financial services and private international law.
Does this mean Brexit will be done?
If all goes to Johnson’s plan, a trading arrangement for goods and some services will be reached by the end of 2020 that the Conservatives will label as Brexit.
Business leaders, negotiations experts and the EU are sceptical there is enough time to conclude a comprehensive deal that goes beyond narrow matters of trade in goods, and covers the entire gamut of arrangements including science, education, data exchange and security, which involves approximately 40 EU measures on policing and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Barnier has said not everything can be done in 11 months. His officials will prioritise some topics ahead of others: these are likely to be trade in goods, security and fishing rights.
Although fishing is a very small part of the European economy, it could be the first question to settle: the two sides have promised to aim for an agreement on fishing quotas by 1 July 2020.
Once the UK has left the transition on 31 December 2020, there are likely to be numerous questions to resolve. It means Brexit may not be achieved for years.
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission took note on Friday of the British parliament’s support for the withdrawal agreement with the EU, a key step to complete the process in January, and said it was ready to take formal steps to adopt the deal on its side too.
“We take note of the vote in the House of Commons. We will follow the ratification process in the UK closely. We are ready to take the formal steps to conclude the agreement on the EU side as well,” a Commission spokesman said.
If you really want to be powerful in Europe, you have to share control.
Unfortunately, for most EU Members, that power is not equally distributed
On the contrary, small states do well in the EU because (to simplify a bit) they have more power per inhabitant than large states. For centuries, the central European tendency was toward aggregation of small states into larger ones. Now the tendency seems to be to disagregate states, perhaps as a result of this premium to small states within the EU, also thanks to NATO's protection I would think.
Bishop of Dover, Rose Hudson-Wilkin, says damaging rhetoric has harmed society as a whole
The Church of England’s first black female bishop has said the debate around Brexit damaged society and contributed to the death of the MP Jo Cox.
Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the former chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons, said the arguments around Brexit had had a harmful effect both on parliamentarians and on society as a whole.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World at One on Tuesday, she said: “The discourse that we’ve had over the last three years [has] been pretty damaging. Damaging not only to parliamentarians [but also to] the wider community and society as a whole. It’s been very, very damaging and of course I have always believed that the kind of discourse that we had contributed to the death of Jo Cox.
“I really believed that then and I still believe it today. So yes, we needed to change the discourse.”
When the host, Sarah Montague, asked: “Do you mean the way that politicians spoke to each other contributed to the death of Jo Cox?”, Hudson-Wilkin said: “The way that we related to one another over this wretched topic contributed. If you think about what the person was shouting when he inflicted harm on our dear sister Jo, you will know that the language that we were using with each other contributed to that.”
She continued: “Parliamentarians may not be shouting Britain First with a gun in hand or another kind of weapon, but we have to be careful about the way we use language. We might go and have a drink with each other afterwards or a cup of tea or whatever, somebody out there who is not all together there may do something else.”
Hudson-Wilkin took up her post as bishop of Dover last month. She is one of 25 women to be appointed bishops since the C of E’s general synod approved the move five years ago.
Hudson-Wilkin has been outspoken about the poor representation of black and minority ethnic people in leadership positions and accused the church of institutional racism. She is one of four minority ethnic bishops out of more than 120.
She blamed both the media and politicians for the damaging rhetoric in society and said “all of us must take responsibility”.
She added: “We can begin to heal ourselves by making a commitment to ourselves and to each other to listen to one another and not just think that your view is the only view.”
Since I went to a British school, you have always been part of me. Now you are leaving, and it breaks my heart
Irecently read a delightful book of love letters to Europe. And it made me contemplate my love for Britain. It has just occurred to me that when you joined the European Economic Community I was in one of your schools. Not on your soil, mind you, but in Italy. Saint George’s British International School in Rome, to be precise. I was 12 years old and still learning English. That year I also dressed up in a kimono, as one of the “gentlemen from Japan” in the Mikado, the school play. Mrs Alcock encouraged me not to sing too loudly, so that my false notes would be less audible. But she kept me on stage. I loved it. Like I loved being part of the chorus in My Fair Lady the next year and the Mock Turtle in Alice in Wonderland the year after.
More than 40 years have passed since then. So much has happened. My family went back to the Netherlands, I studied there and in France. I got married and became a father, did my military service, worked as a diplomat, divorced and married again, got elected to parliament, served in government and am now in the European commission. Britain was always there. As part of me. Being in one of your schools made me more Dutch than before. Because there is no better way to be made aware of your own culture than by being immersed in another. And at the same time, that immersion leaves traces. What you inhale and absorb remains: as an extra layer, a sediment that partly merged with what was already there and partly remains distinguishable and unique.
I know you now. And I love you. For who you are and what you gave me. I’m like an old lover. I know your strengths and weaknesses. I know you can be generous but also miserly. I know you believe yourself to be unique and different. And of course you are in many ways, but perhaps less than you think. You will never stop referring to the rest of us as “the continent”. It helps you to create the distance you think you need. But it also prevents you from seeing that we all need a bit of distance between us. All European nations are unique. Our differences are a source of admiration, surprise, discomfort, misunderstanding, ridicule, caricature and, yes, love.
In the best of times these differences make us the most creative, productive, peaceful and prosperous of families. In the worst of times our differences are manipulated to instil fear, to propagate superiority, to set one family member against the other. Things then quickly get out of hand. We all are also very, very good at that. That is our legacy. That too is who we are. And as a family we have a duty to promote the best of times and keep the worst of times at bay. So far, for all its faults, the EU has been the most successful tool to achieve that goal.
You have decided to leave. It breaks my heart, but I respect that decision. You were in two minds about it, like you have always been in two minds about the EU. I wish you had stuck to that attitude, it served you well and it kept all of us in better shape. Was it necessary to force the issue? Not at all. But you did. And the sad thing is, I see it is hurting you. Because the two minds will still be there, even after you have left. In the process so much unnecessary damage has been done to you, and all of us. And I fear more will follow.
Truth be told, I felt deeply hurt when you decided to leave. Three years later I am just sad that a member of our family wants to sever our ties. But at the same time I find comfort in the thought that family ties can never really be severed. We’re not going away and you will always be welcome to come back.
