5 min read
For months the key sticking points to agreeing a Brexit deal have been the same; fishing and common standards.
As the negotiations reach their final stages it looks like the latter, also known as the “level playing field”, will be the very final stumbling block.
To veteran Brexit-watchers this will come as no surprise, the issue has dominated the trade talks right from the start. It is almost as much a philosophical debate as an economic wrangle, and strikes at the very heart of the sovereignty the Leave vote was sold on.
But what does it actually mean on the negotiating table, and why is it still such a sticking point?
The EU has always insisted if you want access to its single market then you have to sign up to regulatory alignment, creating, if you will, a “level playing field” on which EU member states and other countries can trade.
Meanwhile the UK government has always said Brexit was about regaining the sovereignty to be able to set their own rules outside of EU regulations, if it so wishes.
The question has always been whether the two sides could find an unlikely compromise between these two fundamentally different stances, and with less than three weeks until the end of the transition period it continues to look as though the answer is they can’t.
At its most basic level this is about agreeing a set of common rules and standards which will allow fair trade and doesn’t allow businesses in one country to gain a competitive advantage over those in another.
It is a core principal of almost every trade deal around the world, including those the EU signed in recent years with Canada, South Korea and Japan, and was in the Political Declaration as part of the Brexit divorce deal.
But for Brussels the longstanding relationships and deep ties the UK has to the continent means they believe the level playing field should be cast much wider than in agreements elsewhere, and must include things like workers’ rights, environmental protections and state aid subsidies for businesses.
A fear their former member could become a low-tax, low-regulation trade rival 25 miles off their coast – a Singapore in the North Sea – drove initial demands Britain would not only have to keep all existing standards, but agree to keep to all future EU rules too.
A compromose known as “dynamic alignment”, would allow the EU security against the UK tilting the level playing field towards themselves in the future by rowing back on standards or offering subsidies to home-grown firms to help undercut European competitors.
But that was never going to fly back in London, where Boris Johnson has repeatedly said he wants a zero tariff, zero quota deal which allows for divergence in regulation down the line and the EU has sunsequently dropped the demand.
Johnson has claimed the UK will maintain existing high standards in many areas but will not agree to being more closely aligned with the EU deals than any other country with a deal. This is what he means when he asks for a “Canada-style” deal.
But Brussels insists that given the interconnectedness created by the UK’s geographical proximity and volume of trade with the EU, deeper commitments are required than countries such as Canada.
The European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen laid it out pretty simply at the start of this year: “Without a level playing field on environment, labour, taxation and state aid, you cannot have the highest quality access to the world’s largest single market.”
There is still a potential route out of this dead end, but unfortunately that leads into yet another seemingly immovable roadblock.
Negotiators have been working on proposals which would see the UK make a commitment not to lower standards below the current baseline through something called “non-regression clauses”.
In order to allow for future flexibility there would be “compensatory clauses” in the deal, effectively allowing one side to pay to diverge in one area by creating subsidies in another.
But this requires a mechanism to adjudicate and enforce such measures, and deciding who gets to decide is in itself a major point of contention as the EU has insisted the European Court of Justice has oversight.
The UK, however, with its “make our own laws” Brexit battle-cry still ringing in Leave voters’ ears, wants nothing to do with the European Court of Justice.
Which is why the government’s rhetoric has shifted to seeking a so-called “Australia-style” deal if a comprehensive free trade agreement is not available. Operating largely on World Trade Organisation rules, this is little more than “no deal” by another name.
Because although trade is on much less favourable terms than a zero-tariff deal, it does have the benefit of an independent panel to adjudicate on any disputes, and ultimately this is what may prove to be the ultimate deciding factor between whether the UK goes it alone with a “deal” or “no deal” come January.
Pelosi to move forward with impeachment if Pence doesn’t act to remove Trump
“In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both,” Pelosi said in the letter to Democrats on Sunday night laying out next steps.
The House will try to pass a measure on Monday imploring Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, through which he and the Cabinet declare Trump “incapable of executing the duties of his office, after which the Vice President would immediately exercise powers as acting president.” If Republicans object, as is virtually certain, Democrats will pass the bill via a roll call vote on Tuesday.
“We are calling on the Vice President to respond within 24 hours,” Pelosi wrote. “Next, we will proceed with bringing impeachment legislation to the Floor.”
But it’s not clear when exactly the Senate will take up the House’s measure. The Senate isn’t scheduled to return until Jan. 19, but will hold pro forma sessions on Tuesday and Friday. In theory, a senator could try to pass the House resolution by unanimous consent, but as of now it appears unlikely that it would pass.
On Monday, multiple House Democrats plan to introduce impeachment resolutions that would become the basis of any impeachment article considered by the House later this week.
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who will introduce an article of impeachment against Trump on Monday, said on Sunday that roughly 200 Democrats have co-sponsored the measure.
Currently, 211 voting members (plus three nonvoting members) support Cicilline’s legislation, and they are hoping to reach 217 voting members by Monday morning, enough for the House to impeach Trump, one Democratic source familiar with the matter told POLITICO.
A small number of Democrats have opted not to co-sign the bill, but privately say they will vote to support the resolution on the floor, the source added.
The impeachment effort in the House is likely to be bipartisan, with Democrats expecting at least one GOP lawmaker — Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — to sign on. A handful of other House Republicans are seriously weighing it, according to several sources, though those lawmakers are waiting to see how Democrats proceed, and some are concerned about dividing the country even further.
Among the GOP members whom Democrats are keeping an eye on are Reps. John Katko of New York, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Fred Upton of Michigan, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington.
Across the Capitol, at least two Republicans — Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — have called on Trump to resign. On Saturday, Toomey told Fox News, “I do think the president committed impeachable offenses,” but told CNN the next day that he does not believe there is enough time to impeach.
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has also said he would consider articles of impeachment.
Another option has emerged among some Republican and moderate Democratic circles — censuring Trump — though it remains highly unlikely to advance.
A censure resolution would gain far more support in the GOP than impeachment. Some Republicans have privately been pushing for that route and are trying to get Biden on board, according to GOP sources. That group of Republicans is also warning that impeachment could destroy Biden’s reputation with Republicans.
But censure is considered a nonstarter in an incensed House Democratic Caucus, where members see it as a slap on the wrist that gives Republicans an easy out.
The Democrats’ enormous step toward impeachment on Sunday comes after Pelosi and other top Democrats held a private call on Saturday night in which they discussed the potential ramifications that a lengthy impeachment trial could have on Biden’s presidency.
Democratic leaders discussed several options to limit the political effects on Biden’s first 100 days, with one option — floated by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) — for the House to delay the start of an impeachment trial in the Senate by holding on to the article of impeachment.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has sent out a memo to senators explaining that the Senate could not take up impeachment until Jan. 19 at the earliest, absent unanimous consent.
A final decision has not been made, and House Democrats will discuss the matter on a 2 p.m. caucus call on Monday.
Lawmakers are already privately expressing concerns about returning to the Capitol for multiple days this week, worried about both a potential coronavirus outbreak and whether the building is secure, given how easily an armed pro-Trump mob invaded on Wednesday.
The Capitol physician urged House lawmakers and staff to get tested in a memo Sunday, saying they might have been exposed to someone who had the virus while huddling for safety in a large committee room for hours on Wednesday. During the hourslong lockdown, several Republican members refused to wear masks despite being offered them by Democrats worried about the spread of the deadly virus.
Melanie Zanona, Olivia Beavers and Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.
Matt Hancock Scraps “Unnecessary Training Modules” Blamed For Slowing Vaccine Rollout
5 min read
Matt Hancock said people will no longer need to undertake training including an anti-terrorism course to give the coronavirus jab after MPs said “bureaucratic rubbish” was delaying mass vaccination.
It comes as MPs called for the government to produce targets for the number of people given immunity before lockdown can be lifted.
The health secretary said a series of “unnecessary training modules” are being scrapped to speed up the process of getting people qualified to deliver the jab.
Speaking in the Commons, Sir Edward Leigh said he was shown by his fellow the Tory MP, a qualified GP, the “ridiculous form” he had filled out to start delivering the vaccine.
“When he’s inoculating an old lady, he’s not going to ask her if she’s come into contact with Jihadis or whatever, so the Secretary has got to cut through all this bureaucratic rubbish,” he said.
In response Mr Hancock said: “I am a man after Sir Edward’s heart and I can tell the House that we have removed a series of the unnecessary training modules that had been put in place, including fire safety, terrorism and others.
“I’ll write to him with the full panoply of the training that is not required and we have been able to remove, and we made this change as of this morning and I am glad to say it is enforced.
“I am a fan of busting bureaucracy and in this case I agree with him that it is not necessary to undertake anti-terrorism training in order to inject vaccines.”
Dr Fox had earlier challenged Boris Johnson to drop the “bureaucracy” and “political correctness” of the forms vaccine volunteers must fill out.
He told MPs: “As a qualified but non-practising doctor, I volunteered to help with the scheme and would urge others to do the same.
“But, can I ask the Prime Minister why I’ve been required to complete courses on conflict resolution, equality, diversity and human rights, moving and handling loads and preventing radicalisation in order to give a simple Covid jab?”
Mr Johnson said he had been “assured by the Health Secretary that all such obstacles, all such pointless pettifoggery has been removed”.
The government has been attempting to recruit thousands of volunteers to help with a mass vaccination programme, and with the recent approval of the more easily deliverable Oxford/AstraZeneca version has today revealed the location of seven mass vaccination centres set to open next week.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman told journalists at a briefing they would be at Robertson House in Stevenage, the ExCel Centre in London, the Centre for Life in Newcastle, the Etihad Tennis Centre in Manchester, Epsom Downs Racecourse in Surrey, Ashton Gate Stadium in Bristol and Millennium Point in Birmingham, and it is expected they will be run with a combination of NHS staff and volunteers.
But so far the government has not said how many people need to be inoculated before it has an impact on the coronavirus restrictions.
Mr Hancock was asked by a number of MPs if the measures could be eased once the top few tiers in the vaccine priority list had been clear.
Former Conservative chief whip Mark Harper said once the top four groups, which includes care home residents and staff, frontline NHS workers, the clinically extremely vulnerable and everyone over 70 “we’ve taken care therefore of 80% of the risk of death”.
Adding: “What possible reason is there at that point for not rapidly relaxing the restrictions that are in place on the rest of our country?”
The health secretary replied: “We have to see the impact of that vaccination on the reduction in the number of deaths, which I very much hope that we will see at that point, and so that is why we will take this – an evidence-led move down through the tiers, when we’ve broken the link, I hope, between cases and hospitalisations and deaths.”
The ex-Tory minister and another doctor, Andrew Murrison, said: “The logic of anticipating what is going to happen in two or three or four weeks’ time from the number of cases we are getting at the moment is that we can do the same in reverse.
“That is to say, when we have a sufficient number of people vaccinated up we can anticipate in two or three or four weeks’ time how many deaths have been avoided.
“That means, since it cuts both ways he will be able to make a decision on when we should end these restrictions.”
Mr Hancock replied: “The logic of the case that Dr Murrison makes is the right logic and we want to see that happen in empirical evidence on the ground.
“This hope for the weeks ahead doesn’t take away, though, from the serious and immediate threat posed now.”
The Cabinet minister said the challenge for the government is to increase the amount of doses available, claiming “the current rate-limiting factor on the vaccine rollout is the supply of approved, tested, safe vaccine”.
He added: ”We are working with both AstraZeneca and Pfizer to increase that supply as fast as possible and they’re doing a brilliant job.”
But Labour’s shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth called for the government to ramp up its vaccination programme to six million doses a week.
He told the Commons: “The Prime Minister has promised almost 14 million will be offered the vaccine by mid-Feb. That depends on around two million doses a week on average.
“Both [Mr Hancock] and the Prime Minister have reassured us in recent days that it’s doable based on orders.
“But in the past ministers have told us that they had agreements for 30 million AstraZeneca doses by September 2020 and 10 million of Pfizer doses by the end of 2020.
“So, I think people just want to understand the figures and want clarity. Can ministers tell us how many of the ordered doses have been manufactured?”
Mr Ashworth added: “Two million a week would be fantastic but it should be the limit of our ambitions, we should be aiming to scale up to three, then five, then six million jabs a week over the coming months.”
How South African police are tackling pangolin smugglers
Quiet, solitary and nocturnal, the pangolin has few natural enemies, but researchers believe it is the most trafficked mammal in the world. The tough scales covering its body are sought after for use in Chinese medicine, in the erroneous belief that they have healing properties.
The animal has also been of interest to researchers during the coronavirus pandemic. Related viruses have been found in trafficked pangolins, though there is continued uncertainty around early theories that pangolins were involved in the transmission of the virus from animals to humans.
After South African police seized a pangolin from suspected smugglers, BBC Africa correspondent Andrew Harding witnessed how vets tried to save the animal’s life.
- Technology8 months ago
First iPhone jailbreak in four years released
- Technology6 months ago
Is OnePlus Nord the Best Phone Under Rs. 30,000?
- Technology8 months ago
The Complete Guide for Building a Website
- Technology8 months ago
Check out the new Gaming Leader: Playstation 5
- Entertainment6 months ago
Jack Harlow Denies JW Lucas’ Credit in Hit ‘Whats Poppin’ After Controversial Breonna Taylor Remarks
- Entertainment6 months ago
Gwyneth Paltrow Names Rob Lowe’s Wife as Her Mentor in Giving Blow Job
- Entertainment6 months ago
Billie Eilish Reflects on Self-Growth on Sweet New Song ‘My Future’
- Entertainment6 months ago
Grimes Slams Baby Daddy Elon Musk After He Tweets ‘Pronouns Suck’