Brexit (2)

The sight of hundreds of European Union flags at the Last Night of the Proms has prompted outrage from Brexiters and a call for the BBC to investigate.

Those waving the EU flag in the Royal Albert Hall appeared to outnumber those waving the union flag at the event, which is usually a patriotic display, following a campaign by pro-Europeans.

The spectacle of so many EU flags being waved as the hall belted out Rule, Britannia! provoked disgust from leading Eurosceptics.

Harvey Proctor, a former Conservative MP, said it was a “disgraceful” display and called for an inquiry by the BBC, which organises and broadcasts the Proms.

In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, he said: “BBC must investigate how so many EU flags were waved & on display at The Last Night of the Proms. Disgraceful & misguided BBC messing up a British tradition; a political gesture which would make Sir Henry Wood turn in his grave. Utterly vulgar & wrong. Rule Britannia, not Rule EU!”

Isabel Oakeshott, the journalist and rightwing commentator, also posted on X, saying: “The Last Night of the Proms appears to be a seething mass of remainers. Can’t wait for Rule Britannia.”

France and Germany are pushing plans to offer Britain and other European countries “associate membership” of the EU in a move that could rebuild the UK’s ties with the bloc.

The two countries have tabled a blueprint that would create four new tiers, with the most aligned states forming an “inner circle”.

In what will be seen as an olive branch, a new outer tier of “associate membership” would be open to the UK, laying the ground for a closer economic relationship.

Senior Tories welcomed the proposal with former deputy prime minister Lord Heseltine telling The Independent that Britain must urgently explore the idea as the “overarching majority of people in Britain see Brexit as a mistake”.

“The dam is breaking and there is increasingly a move towards integrating with Europe,” he said.

But the move prompted a furious reaction from Brexiteers who accused EU countries of “desperation” in their bid to enlarge the bloc.

News of the plans came after Sir Keir Starmer held talks in Paris with French president Emmanuel Macron, the final leg of an international tour designed to show the Labour leader as a prime-minister-in-waiting.

But as both main parties walk a tightrope over Brexit in the run up to next year’s general election, Labour and No 10 ruled out any form of associate membership of the EU.

As he tries to appeal to both pro-remain businesses and Leave voters, Sir Keir at the weekend pledged to secure a "much better" Brexit deal if he wins the next election, but rejected re-joining the customs union or the single market.

In March the chairman of the government watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) warned the economic impact of Brexit was the same “magnitude” as the Covid pandemic and the energy price crisis.

Richard Hughes said Britain’s gross domestic product (GDP), a key measure of a country’s wealth, would be 4 per cent higher if the UK had stayed in the EU.

Under the plans the UK would be expected to contribute to the EU’s annual budget and be governed by the European Court of Justice in exchange for “participation” in the single market.

Associate members, who would form the bloc’s first “outer tier”, could include members of the single market who are not in the EU, such as Switzerland, or “even the UK”, a paper put forward by France and Germany stated.

They would not be bound to “ever closer union” and further integration, it said.

{...]
The proposal comes as the UK’s opposition leader, Keir Starmer, told France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, that he wanted to build an “even stronger” relationship between the two countries if he wins power at a national election pencilled in for next year.
... ... ...

Andrew Bailey says free trade demands greater international cooperation on financial rule-making

The governor of the Bank of England has called for greater cooperation on financial rule-making, warning that Brexit has affected the “openness of the UK economy”.

In an apparent swipe at those calling for the UK to develop a separate rulebook for banking and insurance activities, Andrew Bailey said free trade needed strong regulation based on agreements with foreign watchdogs.

Speaking in Dublin at a financial services conference organised by the Irish central bank, he argued against trade protectionism and regulatory fragmentation.

“As a public official, I take no position on Brexit per se,” Bailey said. “That was a decision for the people of the UK.”

However, he added: “It has led to a reduction in the openness of the UK economy, though over time new trading relationships around the world should, and I expect will, be established. Of course, that requires a commitment to openness and free trade.”

Bailey said he hoped to see further close regulatory cooperation with his Irish counterparts to minimise fragmentation of financial markets after Brexit.

... ... ...

‘Smarter’ people were more likely to have voted to remain in the European Union, a new study has claimed.

Research from the University of Bath’s School of Management found that cognitive skills including memory, verbal fluency, fluid reasoning and numerical reasoning, were correlated with how people decided to vote.

The research used a nationally representative sample of 6,366 individuals from 3,183 couples collected as part of a large survey called Understanding Society.

They found that, of the people with the lowest cognitive ability, only 40% voted Remain, whereas 73% of those with the highest cognitive ability voted Remain.

Office for Budget Responsibility says UK entry into the Indo-Pacific agreement will add just 0.04% to GDP in the long run

The UK’s flagship transatlantic trade deal, which was presented as a cornerstone of post-Brexit “global Britain”, will deliver even less benefit to the economy than the tiny uplift that was previously predicted, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility.

In a report accompanying last week’s autumn statement, the OBR said the UK’s entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) would add just 0.04% to GDP in the “long run”, which it defines as after 15 years of membership.

The OBR said two separate bilateral deals between the UK and Australia and New Zealand, also hailed as landmark trade agreements post-Brexit, “might increase the level of real GDP by a combined 0.1% by 2035”.

The tiny predicted benefits from these trade deals contrast with the OBR’s own calculation that the UK economy will be 4% smaller than if we had stayed in the EU. Previous estimates by the government of the benefits of entry into the CPTPP have suggested a positive economic effect of between 0.08% and 1% of GDP.

‘I would sign a deal with Britain over Gibraltar tomorrow’, says Spanish minister after talks with Lord Cameron

The UK and Spain are finally ready to agree a deal on the post-Brexit status of Gibraltar, the Spanish foreign minister has indicated.

Jose Manuel Albares revealed he had been in crunch talks with Rishi Sunak’s new foreign secretary David Cameron on resolving the long-running row over trade and immigration arrangements.

Mr Albares told Spanish media on Tuesday that he had spoken with Lord Cameron over the phone on Monday, and they had also agreed to meet in person during a Brussels summit on Tuesday.

The minister suggested the outline of a deal was now in place for a “zone of shared prosperity” in the Spanish area next to the British territory to avoid a hard border on the flow of people and goods.

“I would sign a deal with Britain over Gibraltar tomorrow,” Mr Albares told the television channel Telecinco – saying both sides “agree that we have to move forward as soon as possible”.

A UK-EU deal on arrangements for Gibraltar’s border – primary on trade and free movement – was not struck in time for the Brexit deal worked out by Boris Johnson’s government.

Conservative ministers have been nervous about signing any bilateral deal that could be viewed as reducing British influence over the territory.

The Spanish foreign ministry has said the deal would allow Spain to use the Schengen agreement – which allows for the free movement of EU citizens around the bloc – to ease controls on the movement of people.

Spain, the UK and the EU have previously agreed to the principle that Gibraltar should remain part of EU agreements on free movement.

The contact between Mr Cameron and Mr Albares was also confirmed by the Office of the Governor in The Convent.

“During a call with Spanish Foreign Minister Albares, Foreign Secretary David Cameron underlined the UK Government’s commitment to concluding a UK-EU treaty on Gibraltar as soon as possible,” a Convent spokesperson told the Chronicle.

The Gibraltar Government also signalled its desire to return to the negotiating table.

“The Government very much welcomes a resumption of the negotiations for a treaty on the future relationship of Gibraltar with the European Union and our nearest EU neighbour Spain,” a spokesperson for No.6 Convent Place said.

“We remain firmly committed to the New Year’s Eve agreement of 2020 which set out the political framework for such a treaty.”

“The UK and Gibraltar are working in lockstep to secure a safe and secure agreement that is beneficial to Gibraltar as soon as possible.”

There was little doubt who came ahead in the spat between Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, and Rishi Sunak last week over Britain rejoining the EU. She began her salvo acknowledging that the EU had “goofed up” in losing Britain, but that it would fall to her children’s generation “to fix it”. The “direction of travel was clear”. Britain one day would rejoin.

The substance behind No 10’s inevitable refutation was so threadbare that it bordered on the comic. But then there is no better defence to hand. The prime minister, intoned his spokesman, did not think Brexit was in danger, trying to reinforce the point by declaring: “It’s through our Brexit freedoms that we are, right now, considering how to further strengthen our migration system. It is through our Brexit freedoms we are ensuring patients in the UK can get access to medicines faster, that there is improved animal welfare. That is very much what we are focused on.”

Is that it? Apart from the fact the claims are at best half-truths, at worst palpable falsehoods, as a muster of Brexit “freedoms” they fall devastatingly short of the promises made during the referendum campaign. Recall the economic and trade boom, a reinvigorated NHS, cheap food, controlled immigration and a reborn “global” Britain strutting the world. It’s all ashes – and had today’s realities been known in 2016, we would still be EU members.

Strengthening our migration system? Freedom of movement in the EU certainly meant that EU nationals could work here freely, as the British could reciprocally work in the EU, but they tended to be young and single. The Poles, Czechs and Romanians kept their home ties warm by going back frequently as it was so geographically easy, and consequently tended not to bring dependants with them. When they had achieved what they wanted, they returned home where per capita incomes were fast catching up with Britain’s. Now immigrants come from other continents to where frequent return is impractical, and so are forced to settle here more permanently, bringing their families with them. Nor are there reciprocal rights for Brits to work in their countries. And because their homelands tend to be poorer, they are less likely to return. Yes, we are considering strengthening the immigration rules, but only because, outside the EU, control of immigration is proving very much harder – families come rather than individuals.

Animal welfare? More than two years on, the much-trumpeted action plan for animal welfare is floundering, with little enacted. Meanwhile, it is the EU that has consistently taken animal welfare seriously.

Faster access to medicines? The claim is risible. If this is a reference to strengthening the early access to medicines scheme – a good measure – note that it was launched in 2014 when we were inside the EU. Faster access to medicines is not a Brexit “freedom”.

As von der Leyen says, the direction of travel is away from this barren Brexit – thus everything from Britain re-entering the Horizon Europe research programme to a fifth postponement of inspecting food and plant imports from the EU. The logic of geography, economics and the availability of only one-sided trade deals, especially with the US and China, is inexorable. The EU will remain Britain’s largest trading partner: it sets the rules and we either abide by them or accept reduced trade with all the consequences. A former top Treasury official tells me that his advice to Rachel Reeves, a growth-focused would-be chancellor, would be unambiguous: rejoin the single market and the customs union. In his scathingly brilliant book How They Broke Britain, the LBC presenter James O’Brien describes how the rightwing, Europhobic ecosystem of media, thinktanks and Tory politicians that has developed over the past 40 years prohibits an honest public conversation. Political leadership cowers in its ever-threatening shadow, so that to keep it calm Sunak has to make claims about Brexit “freedoms” that he must know are specious, while Keir Starmer, no less aware of the economic and geopolitical realities, has to say there is no case to rejoin the single market and customs union. On Europe, as with so many issues – think the case for proper levels of taxation or even delaying lockdown by three weeks – policy is developed and conducted within this rightwing paradigm of hysteria.

Tony Blair left office in 2007 accusing the UK media of hunting “like a feral beast tearing people and reputations apart”. Unless Starmer and team act to reduce its power and capacity for untruth, they can expect new heights of feral bestiality inhibiting their every act in government – especially on Europe. Winning a general election will represent one advance, but unless Labour changes the ground rules via some combination of media ownership requirements, regulatory standards and strengthening public service broadcasting, the right’s blocking power will remain intense.

Yet for all that, Labour is promising measures that if backed by an electoral mandate would accelerate the step-by-step return process begun by Sunak. Only last Friday, the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, said that a defence and security pact with the EU was a priority. Starmer has talked of improving vital trading relationships – there will be no divergence on key standards – and aims for a veterinary agreement and mutual recognition of professional qualifications. There is potentially more: collaboration on energy security, integrating Britain and the EU’s carbon trading arrangements and even joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean (PEM) convention as a halfway house to customs union and single market membership. A renegotiated trade and cooperation agreement in 2026 could imply a much more fully fledged EU-UK partnership. All this is likely, even certain, with a Labour victory.

But rejoining? Pro-EU sentiment is certainly hardening. The European movement is the largest it has ever been. In Greater London, there is strong support, especially among the young. Labour party members are overwhelmingly in favour. Rejoining would mean faster growth in living standards, better security and paradoxically lower immigration – a story that works well in both “red wall” seats and urban Britain. It would divide the right into Faragists and realists – thus marginalising it.

A pragmatic Labour party would become the natural party of government. Britain won’t rejoin in the next parliament, but if the EU can hold together and prosper, rejoining must be a good bet in the parliament after that. Building Europe was never going to be easy. In 2040, we may look back and see Brexit as part of the process. Neither Britain, nor any member state, would want to repeat it.

Almost twice as many UK voters now believe a close relationship with the EU is more important for peace, prosperity and security than ties with the US, according to a major new study of post-Brexit attitudes.

The report, based on extensive polling and discussion groups with people of all Brexit persuasions, finds that attitudes towards the EU are becoming more favourable across a range of policy areas, and that the entire Brexit debate is now far less toxic and more pragmatic.

This, its authors say, will give a potential Labour government “space and permission” to work towards closer links, particularly on issues of trade, security and defence, where a clear majority of the public is now in favour. The report by the independent thinktank British Future found that 52% of the public would now like the UK to have a closer relationship with the EU, with only 12% saying it should have a more distant one, and 27% in favour of maintaining the status quo.

Asked which relationship they regarded as most important for peace, prosperity and stability, almost half of respondents (48%) ranked the EU first, above the US (27%) and the Commonwealth (25%).

As evidence grows of the economic damage done to the UK by Brexit, the poll found 61% of people now favour closer co-operation over both trade and science and research with the EU. Some 68% back closer co-operation over crime and terrorism, 57% on customs arrangements and 57% on international health.

The report notes that UK attitudes have “shifted significantly against” leaving. From discussion groups it identified “a sense of public exhaustion with the issue of Brexit” with most people “keen to put the divisions of previous years behind them.”

While there was little evidence to suggest that people in this country felt European, or regarded themselves as sharing European values, they were nonetheless open to working more with the EU out of pragmatic interest.

The report said: “There is majority support for a less heated debate on the UK-EU relationship across both 2016 Leave voters (56%) and Remain voters (73%), as well as from both Conservative supporters (61%) and Labour supporters (68%) alike. Importantly, support for a less heated debate was consistent: around six in 10, across all age groups that were eligible to vote at the time of the referendum.

“This suggests the potential for an updated and less divisive ‘future relationship’ than previously. Meanwhile younger people aged 18-24, who largely would have been too young to participate in the referendum, showed plurality agreement (45% agree, while 12% disagreed).”

Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, said there had already been signs of a willingness among the public to see the UK government working more closely with the EU, with the positively received introduction of the Windsor Framework on arrangements for post-Brexit trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland earlier this year, and the more recent agreement on the UK rejoining the EU science programme Horizon as an associate member from 1 January 1 next year.

But Katwala said such was the shifting mood that a new government “could try to go further”.

“Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have talked about resetting the relationship with the EU. The public will give them space and permission for increasing pragmatic cooperation – though it remains unclear how much appetite there is for this in Brussels,” he said.

“The challenge for those who want a future government to be bolder still – and reconsider more totemic issues like the single market, free movement or a project to rejoin the EU itself – is that this would mean opening up more contested political arguments and reopening the Brexit debate.”

To date Keir Starmer has been reluctant to talk about closer links with the EU, for fear of losing support in red wall seats in the north and Midlands and being accused by the Tories of having a secret plan to rejoin. He has, however, spoken about the need to make Brexit work better for the UK, particularly economically.

The survey also asked people for their opinion about the decision to leave the EU: 49% of respondents said it was wrong to leave, against 36% who said it had been right to leave. 15% did not know.

The research included a representative survey of more than 2,000 people by Focaldata as well as a series of discussion groups with people in London, Peterborough and Stockport.

Post-Brexit restrictions on the free movement of workers from the EU have contributed to modern slavery becoming “a feature” of the care sector in England the Care Quality Commission has told MPs.

James Bullion, chief inspector of adult social care and integrated care at the watchdog, told the Commons health and social care select committee that the end of free movement of workers significantly increased the possibilities of exploitation, which have included cases of care workers not being paid for months and dozens being squeezed into overcrowded lodgings. Cases of modern slavery are on track to have increased tenfold in the last three years he said.

He said the CQC made four referrals about modern slavery in 2021-22, 37 referrals last year, and is on course to make 50 this year. It comes after unions said some foreign workers had in effect been paid as little as £5 an hour and charged thousands of pounds in unexpected fees. This week, a BBC Panorama undercover investigation at Addison Court care home in Gateshead reported allegations of foreign workers being trapped by visa rules and being exploited.

There have been separate complaints of pay being withheld from care workers for months and overcrowding in shared housing.

“It is a trend and it is a feature of the markets now,” Bullion told the MPs. “A few years ago we would have had a market based on more free movement from Europe. Where you have got a situation where you are dependent on a visa and you are then dependent on an employer the possibility for exploitation then increases significantly. I don’t think it is widespread or endemic but I do think it is becoming more common.”

Meanwhile, care homes told the MPs they were “blindsided” by the Home Office’s ban on foreign staff bringing dependents to the UK and warned of an “enormous” impact that could even push family members into mental health crisis.

Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, the umbrella group that represents the main care chains, told the committee care levels would drop as foreign workers stopped coming, causing “enormous pressure on unpaid carers and family members, some of whom will not be able to cope”.

Describing operators as “annoyed” and “irritated” by the government ban, which is expected to deter thousands of foreign care workers from coming to the UK, Green said neither care homes nor the Department of Health and Social Care had been consulted. The ban is due to come into effect next spring as part of a wider attempt to reduce immigration by 300,000 a year, launched by the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Skills for Care, a government agency, also told the MPs “the mechanism and the specific changes weren’t clear to us” before the announcement.

In the year ending December 2023, 120,000 dependents accompanied 100,000 care workers from abroad, but those dependents will no longer be allowed from next spring, the home secretary, James Cleverly, announced earlier this month.

Green said he was “very concerned” by the move. “We are in a position in some areas where we cannot recruit staff and in some areas this is reducing capacity,” he said. “I have got members who have had to reduce the number of people they support because they can’t get the staff.”

He said overseas workers have “good skills” and continuity of care is good because they stay in jobs.

“The impact will be enormous,” he said. “There will be less care available, people will be at higher levels of dependency when they access it, you will also have the enormous pressure on unpaid carers and family members, some of whom will not be able to cope with that pressure and then will become people who need care and support themselves – whether it is mental health support or whatever.”

A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a landmark poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK fully leaving the EU single market and customs union.

The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has been of benefit to them or the country.

Just one in 10 people (10%) believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.

Ominously for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who backed Brexit and claimed it would be economically beneficial for the public, only 7% of people think leaving the EU has helped keep down prices in UK shops, against 63% who think Brexit has been a factor in fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis.

The poll suggests that seven and a half years on from the referendum and three years on from the moment the UK finally left the single market and customs union after the transition period, the British public now regards Brexit as a failure. Just 22% of voters believe it has been good for the UK in general.

The Vote Leave Campaign led by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove had promised that Brexit would boost the economy and trade, as well as bring back £350m a week into the NHS and allow the government to take back control of the UK’s borders.

James Crouch, head of policy and public affairs at Opinium, said the perception of Brexit being handled badly and having had negative effects on various aspect of UK life appeared to be spreading: “Public discontent at how Brexit has been handled by the government continues, with perceived failings even in areas previously seen as a potential benefit from leaving the EU.

“Half (51%) of Leave voters now think that Brexit has been bad for the UK’s ability to control immigration, piling even more pressure on an issue the government is vulnerable on. Despite this, Brexit is likely to be a secondary issue at the next election compared to the state of the economy and the NHS, which are the clear priority for voters.”
Robert Ford, professor of politics at Manchester University, said that while there was now evidence that negative perceptions of Brexit, particularly on the economy, could have an effect on votes at a general election, Brexit was very unlikely to play such as a direct role as it did at the last two general elections.

Ford said: “Voters’ attention has shifted decisively elsewhere, with Leave and Remain voters alike focused on the domestic agenda of rising bills, struggling public services and weak economic growth.

“The appeal of ‘Get Brexit Done’ was not just about completing the long Brexit process but also about unblocking the political system and delivering on other long neglected issues. Brexit got done but this has not unblocked the political system, and troubles elsewhere have only deepened. Many of the voters who backed the Conservatives to deliver change now look convinced that achieving change requires ejecting the Conservatives.

“This shift in sentiment may be particularly stark among the ‘red wall’ voters who rallied most eagerly to Johnson’s banner four years ago, but have been most exposed to rising bills and collapsing public services since. The final act of Brexit may yet be the collapse of the Brexit electoral coalition.”

One of the key claims of the Brexiters was that leaving the EU’s single market and customs union would usher in a new era of global trade for the UK based on trade deals with other parts of the world. Many voters now seem to have concluded that Brexit has in fact been bad for trade. Some 49% think it has been bad for the ability of UK firms to import goods from outside the EU while 15% think it has helped.