conservativehome--2020-12-24--The Conservative MPs who misread Johnson, were willing to end his career over Brexit – and ended the

The Conservative MPs who misread Johnson, were willing to end his career over Brexit – and ended their own instead

In September last year , 21 Conservative MPs voted for a motion introduced by Oliver Letwin to again take control of the Parliamentary timetable away from the Government .
Its aim was to allow time for Hillary Benn to then introduce a Bill that would seek to rule out a No Deal Brexit .
The main reason that most of those MPs did so – they included two former Chancellors of the Exchequer , Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond , plus five other former Cabinet Ministers – was that they feared Johnson was set on precisely such an outcome .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Amber Rudd , then a Cabinet Minister herself , resigned a few days later , describing the whip removal as “ an act of political vandalism ” and adding that “ I no longer believe leaving with a deal is the Government ’ s main objective ” .
She also left the Conservative Parliamentary Party .
Next month , Boris Johnson reached a Brexit deal with the EU .
The Commons then passed the Second Reading of a Bill to enact it , but rejected the accompanying timetable motion .
So Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got , winning his present near-landslide majority of 80 last December – to “ get Brexit done ” .
And now he has reached another milestone in that journey – this time clinching a trade deal , the second installment of the Article 50 process ( as the EU envisaged it ) .
Once again , some of his critics claimed that he wanted No Deal all along .
And once again , second time round , they were wrong .
So what happened to the 21 – a mix of backbenchers some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of whom didn ’ t , because their objective was a second referendum ?
( These consisted of Guto Bebb , Justine Greening , Dominic Grieve and Sam Gyimah – all of whom had joined the Brexiteer “ Spartans ” in opposing Theresa May ’ s Withdrawal Agreement third time round . )
Four of them , Steve Brine , Greg Clark , Stephen Hammond and Caroline Nokes , had the whip restored before the election , and are Tory MPs to this day .
One of them , Richard Benyon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was announced earlier this week that he is to become a peer .
Another , Ed Vaizey , is a peer already .
Four others had the whip restored but stood down from the Commons last December .
Two contested the election as Liberal Democrats and three as independent candidates : all lost Hammond didn ’ t have the whip restored , rejoined the party this year – and is also in the Upper House .
So some have flourished like the green bay tree – if remaining in the Commons or going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure of prosperity – and some have not .
“ Whether writing , speaking or negotiating , Johnson puts on a performance which the spectators enjoy all the more because it horrifies the guardians of convention , ’ Andrew Gimson wrote recently on this site .
Those guardians insist on misreading him .
Some of them sought to bring his house down while doing so , and collapsed their own instead .

In September last year, 21 Conservative MPs voted for a motion introduced by Oliver Letwin to again take control of the Parliamentary timetable away from the Government. Its aim was to allow time for Hillary Benn to then introduce a Bill that would seek to rule out a No Deal Brexit.
The main reason that most of those MPs did so – they included two former Chancellors of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond, plus five other former Cabinet Ministers – was that they feared Johnson was set on precisely such an outcome.
The whip was then removed from them. Amber Rudd, then a Cabinet Minister herself, resigned a few days later, describing the whip removal as “an act of political vandalism” and adding that “I no longer believe leaving with a deal is the Government’s main objective”. She also left the Conservative Parliamentary Party.
Next month, Boris Johnson reached a Brexit deal with the EU. The Commons then passed the Second Reading of a Bill to enact it, but rejected the accompanying timetable motion. So Johnson sought the general election which he eventually got, winning his present near-landslide majority of 80 last December – to “get Brexit done”.
And now he has reached another milestone in that journey – this time clinching a trade deal, the second installment of the Article 50 process (as the EU envisaged it). Once again, some of his critics claimed that he wanted No Deal all along. And once again, second time round, they were wrong.
So what happened to the 21 – a mix of backbenchers some of whom wanted a deal, and some of whom didn’t, because their objective was a second referendum? (These consisted of Guto Bebb, Justine Greening, Dominic Grieve and Sam Gyimah – all of whom had joined the Brexiteer “Spartans” in opposing Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement third time round.)
Four of them, Steve Brine, Greg Clark, Stephen Hammond and Caroline Nokes, had the whip restored before the election, and are Tory MPs to this day. One of them, Richard Benyon, also got the whip back: it was announced earlier this week that he is to become a peer. Another, Ed Vaizey, is a peer already.
Four others had the whip restored but stood down from the Commons last December. Two contested the election as Liberal Democrats and three as independent candidates: all lost Hammond didn’t have the whip restored, rejoined the party this year – and is also in the Upper House.
So some have flourished like the green bay tree – if remaining in the Commons or going to the Lords is one’s measure of prosperity – and some have not.
“Whether writing, speaking or negotiating, Johnson puts on a performance which the spectators enjoy all the more because it horrifies the guardians of convention,’ Andrew Gimson wrote recently on this site. Those guardians insist on misreading him. Some of them sought to bring his house down while doing so, and collapsed their own instead.


conservativehome--2020-12-27--Our survey. Tory activists give Johnson’s Brexit Trade Deal an early thumbs-up.

A third of our panel of Conservative Party members want to take their time before forming a view .
But even if one adds to them the paltry six per cent who think early signs are that the agreement is a win for the EU , they are outnumbered by 60 per cent of respondents , three in five , who believe that the early signs are that it is a win for UK .
Which is all of a piece with the provisional thumbs-up that the agreement has had from Brexiteering Tory MPs , from a substantial slice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nigel Farage ( up to a point ) .
It is possible that there will be a movement of opinion against the deal during the next few days , especially if the ERG ’ s Star Chamber finds problems with the agreement buried away in the small print .
But it has to be said that there are no signs of such a development so far .
So as we write , Boris Johnson looks once , twice and now three times a winner – over the Withdrawal Agreement , last year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Furthermore , he may well have succeeded where Theresa May , David Cameron , John Major and , yes , even Margaret Thatcher failed – by both uniting his party over Europe and then getting a result .

A third of our panel of Conservative Party members want to take their time before forming a view. But even if one adds to them the paltry six per cent who think early signs are that the agreement is a win for the EU, they are outnumbered by 60 per cent of respondents, three in five, who believe that the early signs are that it is a win for UK.
Which is all of a piece with the provisional thumbs-up that the agreement has had from Brexiteering Tory MPs, from a substantial slice of the Eurosceptic commentariat, and indeed from Nigel Farage (up to a point).
It is possible that there will be a movement of opinion against the deal during the next few days, especially if the ERG’s Star Chamber finds problems with the agreement buried away in the small print. But it has to be said that there are no signs of such a development so far.
So as we write, Boris Johnson looks once, twice and now three times a winner – over the Withdrawal Agreement, last year’s election and now this trade deal. Furthermore, he may well have succeeded where Theresa May, David Cameron, John Major and, yes, even Margaret Thatcher failed – by both uniting his party over Europe and then getting a result.


conservativehome--2020-12-27--WATCH: “I have a small present.  Glad tidings of great joy!   Because this is a deal.” Johnson’s Chr

WATCH: “I have a small present.  Glad tidings of great joy!   Because this is a deal.” Johnson’s Christmas message.

I would like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas .
pic.twitter.com/DofRkb4Ivc

I would like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. pic.twitter.com/DofRkb4Ivc
— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) December 24, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-27--Brady is our Panel’s backbencher of the year

Graham Brady has established himself this year , by projecting a dissenting position from the Government on Covid strategy , @ @ @ @ @ leader of the internal opposition – an usual position for the Chairman of the 1922 @ @ @ @ @ in .
So it is perhaps unsurprising that Brady , who is also a bit @ @ @ @ @ constitutional and party norms and niceties , has topped this section of the poll , @ @ @ @ @ very creditable second among the named options We try to strike a balance between a @ @ @ @ @ in danger of degenerating into a name recall exercise , and not allowing any alternatives @ @ @ @ @ we eventually settle on .
So we reproduce below a wordcloud of the names that @ @ @ @ @ .
Steve Baker got 22 mentions , Jeremy Hunt 13 , John Redwood nine and @ @ @ @ @ gives you the rough flavour of it : certainly , none of the write-ins came @ @ @ @ @ s total , or indeed overtook any of the named candidates .

Graham Brady has established himself this year, by projecting a dissenting position from the Government on Covid strategy, almost as a kind of leader of the internal opposition – an usual position for the Chairman of the 1922 Executive Committee to find himself in.
So it is perhaps unsurprising that Brady, who is also a bit of a spokesman both for constitutional and party norms and niceties, has topped this section of the poll, with Dehenna Davison coming a very creditable second among the named options
We try to strike a balance between a write-in, which would be in danger of degenerating into a name recall exercise, and not allowing any alternatives at all to the names we eventually settle on.
So we reproduce below a wordcloud of the names that panel members wrote in themselves. Steve Baker got 22 mentions, Jeremy Hunt 13, John Redwood nine and Ben Bradley eight.
That gives you the rough flavour of it: certainly, none of the write-ins came anywhere close to Brady’s total, or indeed overtook any of the named candidates.


conservativehome--2020-12-28--Sunak is our panel’s minister of the year

In 2019 ’ s end-of-year survey , ConservativeHome panelists named Rishi Sunak as their “ One to Watch for 2020 “ , and what a sound assessment !
2020 has seen Sunak catapulted from relative political obscurity to fast becoming a household name .
He has been a consistent favourite in our Cabinet Survey ratings , so it is no surprise that he is our minister of the year .
Clearly people have been impressed with Sunak ’ s management of the Coronavirus crisis , from his introduction of the furlough scheme , to the inventive “ Eat Out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his first year of being Chancellor .
He has shown himself to be remarkably calm under pressure , dealing with one of the worst financial crises in history , while working to make Boris Johnson ’ s “ levelling up ” and “ green revolution ” ambitions a reality .
Sunak ’ s ascent and likeability factor have recently been documented by Lord Ashcroft in his book Going for Broke : The Rise of Rishi Sunak .
As part of our survey , we also gave respondents the opportunity to name other ministers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , represented in a worldcloud below : Liz Truss came out as the most popular by far ( in short , she came second in our minister ratings ) , gaining 50 per cent of the “ Other ” vote .
Having secured trade deals covering 61 countries , along with her recent “ Fight for Fairness ” speech , it is no wonder that the Trade Secretary has gained such popularity .

In 2019’s end-of-year survey, ConservativeHome panelists named Rishi Sunak as their “One to Watch for 2020“, and what a sound assessment! 2020 has seen Sunak catapulted from relative political obscurity to fast becoming a household name. He has been a consistent favourite in our Cabinet Survey ratings, so it is no surprise that he is our minister of the year.
Clearly people have been impressed with Sunak’s management of the Coronavirus crisis, from his introduction of the furlough scheme, to the inventive “Eat Out to Help Out” discount, all within his first year of being Chancellor. He has shown himself to be remarkably calm under pressure, dealing with one of the worst financial crises in history, while working to make Boris Johnson’s “levelling up” and “green revolution” ambitions a reality. Sunak’s ascent and likeability factor have recently been documented by Lord Ashcroft in his book Going for Broke: The Rise of Rishi Sunak.
As part of our survey, we also gave respondents the opportunity to name other ministers they felt had performed well this year, represented in a worldcloud below:
Liz Truss came out as the most popular by far (in short, she came second in our minister ratings), gaining 50 per cent of the “Other” vote. Having secured trade deals covering 61 countries, along with her recent “Fight for Fairness” speech, it is no wonder that the Trade Secretary has gained such popularity.


conservativehome--2020-12-28--A key to Johnson’s historic triumph over Europe has been always to take the least risky option

During the run-up to the EU referendum , which the Westminster Village believed Remain would win , Boris Johnson was confronted with a choice .
It is said that his safest option was to stick with the winning side .
This is wrong .
Johnson will have known what now is sometimes forgotten – that David Cameron had pledged not to fight a third general election as Conservative leader .
Party members were emphatically pro-Brexit and so , come the leadership election , would be likely to back the most Eurosceptic candidate .
So the then ex-Mayor had his angles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Remain won , Cameron would need to heal the Party ’ s campaign wounds and , consequently , would also need Johnson in a major Cabinet position – nicely placed for a leadership contest in 2017 or thereabouts .
In his autobiography , the former Prime Minister said that he had defence in mind .
And if Leave won , Johnson would be excellently placed in the 2016 contest which would follow .
Which brings us to the second time he chose the least risky option .
For when Michael Gove broke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would stand for the leadership himself , Johnson himself could have thrown the dice and stayed in the race .
Instead , he and his team were ultimately swayed by the numbers – in other words , by the damage that Gove ’ s candidacy was doing to his support .
Johnson ’ s calculation will have been that if he didn ’ t stand , a door might open in future .
But that if he did , it would risk closing forever – since no Tory leadership contender other than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously lost one .
( And that was a special case : he was elected unopposed . )
Better a live dog than a dead blonde lion .
This gamble paid off in the long-term and indeed in the short .
For Theresa May concluded that Johnson had behaved honourably and Gove dishonourably .
The latter wasn ’ t appointed to her Government first time round .
The former was made Foreign Secretary .
This takes us to his third prudent decision – namely , to resign from that post in the wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He did not want to quit .
Senior politicians seldom do – at least , so soon after a promotion to a great office of state .
But Johnson saw that once David Davis had resolved to resign he had little choice but to do so too , or else lose his Brexiteering credibility with Party members and Conservative MPs .
So he stepped down – and shot up immediately to the top of this site ’ s future leader survey , thus helping to establish the platform which supported his candidacy the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left the Government , he was set to be the members ’ choice if May fell .
Winning the backing of Tory MPs was a more hazardous enterprise .
In any event , he succeeded in squaring both , became Party leader and Prime Minister , and made the fourth in this series of choices .
Taking the whip off 21 Conservative MP rebels , seven of them former senior ministers , looked like a rash decision .
For after all , it made his Government very much a minority one .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was upended by the Supreme Court , and was followed by Commons defeats – after which Johnson decided that his best course was to break his promise to deliver Brexit by the end of October last year .
He and Dominic Cummings , however , had come to see that the removal of the whip from the 21 was unavoidable after the breakdown of discipline under Theresa May , and that the only strategic option open to him , in order to avoid a drift to a second referendum , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The last Parliament would not deliver Brexit ( it voted at Second Reading for his revised Withdrawal Agreement but against the timetable for debating it ) .
So it followed that it would have to be replaced with one that could – to “ get Brexit done ” .
This duly happened .
This brings us to his final choice of the safer of two options , and this one really was a no brainer .
This site believed that the negotiation with the EU over trade would end with a deal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But there was no way of knowing .
Johnson resolved not to repeat May ’ s mistake if he agreed one of becoming ultimately dependent on the goodwill of Labour , which duly let her down .
Deal or No Deal , the Prime Minister appears ( and the following verdict is a bit provisional ) to have decided to take no risks with Party unity .
That meant taking “ control of our laws ” – the first and most crucial of a series of specific Conservative Manifesto commitments .
Which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of any trade agreement .
This appears to have been accomplished .
We apologise if this article gives the impression that these five choices were easy ones .
They were not .
There was a case against each of them ; historical inevitability is a Marxist delusion , and all might have turned out differently .
Nonetheless , a thread runs through them which will surprise some of our readers , and up to a point surprises even us .
Indecisive , a shopping trolley , prone to change his mind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , undisciplined , almost impossible to read , unreliable – you have heard all this about the Prime Minister before , including sometimes from this site , and will doubtless do so again .
But when it has come to Brexit , this complicated , contradictory man , not unfairly called The Gambler in Tom Bower ’ s new biography , has kept it simple – and , if the gambling metaphor applies , has repeatedly chosen the option on which he was less likely to lose his shirt .
That defies so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to require further explanation .
Ours is also simple .
We presented all five of these choices earlier in a tactical light – and , goodness knows , Johnson is not the man to have made them without regard to his self-interest .
But something else has been going on .
Maybe that exercise in writing a case for both Brexit options really did decide him .
( “ How do I know what I think until I see what I say ?
” – as Auden put it . )
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marina Wheeler , will surely have made an impact .
But perhaps in the end his instinctive twitch against restraint won out .
For this former Brussels correspondent always saw the EU as a lumbering , slow-witted , unresponsive behemoth – trampling voters and referendums in its wake .
At any rate , once he made up his mind for Leave , he never lost sight of the essentials : that ’ s to say , taking back control .
The Europe issue caught Margaret Thatcher before her party was quite ready for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , and helped to destroy John Major .
Cameron and May were direct casualties .
Of course , Johnson has been lucky in his timing .
But he has made the most of it .
He has been a bit like the rider of an unruly horse .
Patriotic populism takes a variety of forms – not all of them benign .
The most astonishing aspect of Johnson ’ s leadership is that he has kept astride that bucking charger , and rides it in a familiar direction .
His is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government – more in the old Tory tradition , in an eclectic kind of way , than a Thatcherite one .
That he has channelled some of the passions behind Brexit into an established political vehicle is extraordinary .
It is a historic achievement on the scale of his Odyssean sense of himself .
Not even future failure , if it happens , can erase it .

During the run-up to the EU referendum, which the Westminster Village believed Remain would win, Boris Johnson was confronted with a choice. It is said that his safest option was to stick with the winning side. This is wrong.
Johnson will have known what now is sometimes forgotten – that David Cameron had pledged not to fight a third general election as Conservative leader. Party members were emphatically pro-Brexit and so, come the leadership election, would be likely to back the most Eurosceptic candidate.
So the then ex-Mayor had his angles covered either way by backing Leave. If Remain won, Cameron would need to heal the Party’s campaign wounds and, consequently, would also need Johnson in a major Cabinet position – nicely placed for a leadership contest in 2017 or thereabouts. In his autobiography, the former Prime Minister said that he had defence in mind.
And if Leave won, Johnson would be excellently placed in the 2016 contest which would follow. Which brings us to the second time he chose the least risky option.
For when Michael Gove broke faith with him, and declared that he would stand for the leadership himself, Johnson himself could have thrown the dice and stayed in the race. Instead, he and his team were ultimately swayed by the numbers – in other words, by the damage that Gove’s candidacy was doing to his support.
Johnson’s calculation will have been that if he didn’t stand, a door might open in future. But that if he did, it would risk closing forever – since no Tory leadership contender other than Michael Howard has won a contest having previously lost one. (And that was a special case: he was elected unopposed.) Better a live dog than a dead blonde lion.
This gamble paid off in the long-term and indeed in the short. For Theresa May concluded that Johnson had behaved honourably and Gove dishonourably. The latter wasn’t appointed to her Government first time round. The former was made Foreign Secretary.
This takes us to his third prudent decision – namely, to resign from that post in the wake of May’s Chequers Plan. He did not want to quit. Senior politicians seldom do – at least, so soon after a promotion to a great office of state. But Johnson saw that once David Davis had resolved to resign he had little choice but to do so too, or else lose his Brexiteering credibility with Party members and Conservative MPs.
So he stepped down – and shot up immediately to the top of this site’s future leader survey, thus helping to establish the platform which supported his candidacy the following year. From the moment he left the Government, he was set to be the members’ choice if May fell. Winning the backing of Tory MPs was a more hazardous enterprise.
In any event, he succeeded in squaring both, became Party leader and Prime Minister, and made the fourth in this series of choices. Taking the whip off 21 Conservative MP rebels, seven of them former senior ministers, looked like a rash decision.
For after all, it made his Government very much a minority one. It had been preceded by the prorogation gambit, which was upended by the Supreme Court, and was followed by Commons defeats – after which Johnson decided that his best course was to break his promise to deliver Brexit by the end of October last year.
He and Dominic Cummings, however, had come to see that the removal of the whip from the 21 was unavoidable after the breakdown of discipline under Theresa May, and that the only strategic option open to him, in order to avoid a drift to a second referendum, was to press for a general election.
The last Parliament would not deliver Brexit (it voted at Second Reading for his revised Withdrawal Agreement but against the timetable for debating it). So it followed that it would have to be replaced with one that could – to “get Brexit done”. This duly happened.
This brings us to his final choice of the safer of two options, and this one really was a no brainer. This site believed that the negotiation with the EU over trade would end with a deal, though our faith was tested at times. But there was no way of knowing. Johnson resolved not to repeat May’s mistake if he agreed one of becoming ultimately dependent on the goodwill of Labour, which duly let her down.
Deal or No Deal, the Prime Minister appears (and the following verdict is a bit provisional) to have decided to take no risks with Party unity. That meant taking “control of our laws” – the first and most crucial of a series of specific Conservative Manifesto commitments. Which meant keeping the European Court of Justice out of any trade agreement. This appears to have been accomplished.
We apologise if this article gives the impression that these five choices were easy ones. They were not. There was a case against each of them; historical inevitability is a Marxist delusion, and all might have turned out differently.
Nonetheless, a thread runs through them which will surprise some of our readers, and up to a point surprises even us. Indecisive, a shopping trolley, prone to change his mind, unstrategic, unpossessed of an ideological compass, undisciplined, almost impossible to read, unreliable – you have heard all this about the Prime Minister before, including sometimes from this site, and will doubtless do so again.
But when it has come to Brexit, this complicated, contradictory man, not unfairly called The Gambler in Tom Bower’s new biography, has kept it simple – and, if the gambling metaphor applies, has repeatedly chosen the option on which he was less likely to lose his shirt. That defies so much of what he’s about as to require further explanation.
Ours is also simple. We presented all five of these choices earlier in a tactical light – and, goodness knows, Johnson is not the man to have made them without regard to his self-interest. But something else has been going on.
Maybe that exercise in writing a case for both Brexit options really did decide him. (“How do I know what I think until I see what I say?” – as Auden put it.) The Eurosceptic take of his former wife, Marina Wheeler, will surely have made an impact. But perhaps in the end his instinctive twitch against restraint won out.
For this former Brussels correspondent always saw the EU as a lumbering, slow-witted, unresponsive behemoth – trampling voters and referendums in its wake. At any rate, once he made up his mind for Leave, he never lost sight of the essentials: that’s to say, taking back control.
The Europe issue caught Margaret Thatcher before her party was quite ready for it. Her ousting ensured that it was, and helped to destroy John Major. Cameron and May were direct casualties.
Of course, Johnson has been lucky in his timing. But he has made the most of it. He has been a bit like the rider of an unruly horse. Patriotic populism takes a variety of forms – not all of them benign. The most astonishing aspect of Johnson’s leadership is that he has kept astride that bucking charger, and rides it in a familiar direction.
His is a high-spending, pro-NHS, green-flavoured, migration-liberal government – more in the old Tory tradition, in an eclectic kind of way, than a Thatcherite one. That he has channelled some of the passions behind Brexit into an established political vehicle is extraordinary. It is a historic achievement on the scale of his Odyssean sense of himself. Not even future failure, if it happens, can erase it.


conservativehome--2020-12-28--Tony Jefferson: Rebellion in the shires over the economic damage of continued lockdowns

Cllr Tony Jefferson is the Leader of Stratford-on-Avon District Council Stratford-on-Avon is a rural district and , by area , it is 48 per cent of Warwickshire .
Rural areas have , unsurprisingly , a lower prevalence of Covid-19 than urban areas .
We have consistently had the lowest metrics against the indicators of all areas in Warwickshire .
Covid-19 has had a devastating impact on the local economy .
Early on in the outbreak Stratford-on-Avon was estimated to be the local government area where it would have the fourth worst impact .
More recently it has been estimated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the West Midlands .
Our two biggest industries are the motor industry and tourism .
Tourism drives hospitality and retail .
We are therefore very sensitive to the decisions on tiers .
Indeed , it is obvious from the correspondence and questions I get that many people monitor the situation closely , are fully aware of the metrics , and can compare our metrics with those of other areas .
Our residents can see the economic damage being done every time they walk down Bridge Street and High Street .
The number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members , friends , and neighbours are furloughed from restaurants and pubs .
The RSC has its theatres closed .
Shakespeare ’ s Birthplace Trust was able to open only one of its four properties .
At one stage when I added together the number of unemployed , the number on furlough , and the number receiving Self-Employed Income Support the total came to 43 per cent of the working population of the District .
Until the announcement of the mutant strain of Covid-19 people were becoming far more concerned about the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the mental health issues caused by the length of the pandemic are an increasing factor in people ’ s disquiet .
This is why , when the decisions on tiers were made on 26th November and we were placed in Tier 3 , we were less than happy .
When the following day there was a chart in the Financial Times showing the metrics for Stratford-on-Avon were at the bottom of the areas in Tier 3 and below about 75 per cent of those in Tier 2 the credibility of the decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send a Judicial Review pre-action protocol letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care ( the DHSC ) .
This was not a decision taken lightly but was fully and unanimously supported by our Cabinet .
Subsequent comments I received indicate there was real anger locally about being in Tier 3 .
The level of anger came as a surprise but reinforced the view that people are becoming more concerned about the economic impact .
This was compounded and intensified when it was realised that we had been lumped in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction to taking action against the government has been running more than 10 in favour for every one against .
People have been coming up me in the street ( as close as social distancing will allow ) to congratulate me on taking the action we did .
I would draw three obvious conclusions from this experience : • It is important to make decisions based on areas people can identify with , rather than areas based on administrative convenience .
The more local the better .
• Decisions that directly impact people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be capable of withstanding analysis by intelligent and capable people .
• Peoples views of what is important change over time and as a result of experience .
It is gratifying that in the latest round of decisions on tiers , lower-tier local government areas have been considered separately .
Disappointingly , all our metrics have gone up so we have not yet benefitted .
The message has , however , got through .
Covid-19 has had a huge impact on the District Council finances .
It has cost us about £7.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a funding gap of about £4 million per annum out of a net budget of about £16 million .
We have a substantial amount of commercial income from things like car parks .
This has taken a very big hit .
We are currently working up our five-year Medium Term Financial Strategy and , by exhausting our reserves we can get through the next 5 years .
However , what this means is that many of the things we want to do to enable place-shaping and underpin economic development and recovery have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideal .
We have , under the current government constraints , very limited room to increase the Council Tax .
Much as I don ’ t like the idea of increasing Council Tax if it is a choice between doing that and constraining investing in economic development and the recovery then that is a choice I would make .
On a very positive note , the response of councillors , especially my fellow cabinet members and officers , has been superb .
Flexible , responsive , and always willing to go the extra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a prosperous district ; over the next two years at least our local economy will be hit very hard .
I never thought that we may need to be part of the “ levelling up ” agenda .
2020 was the year everything changed .

Cllr Tony Jefferson is the Leader of Stratford-on-Avon District Council
Stratford-on-Avon is a rural district and, by area, it is 48 per cent of Warwickshire. Rural areas have, unsurprisingly, a lower prevalence of Covid-19 than urban areas. We have consistently had the lowest metrics against the indicators of all areas in Warwickshire.
Covid-19 has had a devastating impact on the local economy. Early on in the outbreak Stratford-on-Avon was estimated to be the local government area where it would have the fourth worst impact. More recently it has been estimated that we are the most adversely impacted in the West Midlands. Our two biggest industries are the motor industry and tourism. Tourism drives hospitality and retail. We are therefore very sensitive to the decisions on tiers. Indeed, it is obvious from the correspondence and questions I get that many people monitor the situation closely, are fully aware of the metrics, and can compare our metrics with those of other areas.
Our residents can see the economic damage being done every time they walk down Bridge Street and High Street. The number of empty shops continues to grow. Family members, friends, and neighbours are furloughed from restaurants and pubs. The RSC has its theatres closed. Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust was able to open only one of its four properties. At one stage when I added together the number of unemployed, the number on furlough, and the number receiving Self-Employed Income Support the total came to 43 per cent of the working population of the District.
Until the announcement of the mutant strain of Covid-19 people were becoming far more concerned about the economic damage than the health impact. Although, the mental health issues caused by the length of the pandemic are an increasing factor in people’s disquiet.
This is why, when the decisions on tiers were made on 26th November and we were placed in Tier 3, we were less than happy. When the following day there was a chart in the Financial Times showing the metrics for Stratford-on-Avon were at the bottom of the areas in Tier 3 and below about 75 per cent of those in Tier 2 the credibility of the decision was suspect. So we decided to send a Judicial Review pre-action protocol letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (the DHSC). This was not a decision taken lightly but was fully and unanimously supported by our Cabinet.
Subsequent comments I received indicate there was real anger locally about being in Tier 3. The level of anger came as a surprise but reinforced the view that people are becoming more concerned about the economic impact. This was compounded and intensified when it was realised that we had been lumped in with Coventry and Solihull.
The local reaction to taking action against the government has been running more than 10 in favour for every one against. People have been coming up me in the street (as close as social distancing will allow) to congratulate me on taking the action we did.
I would draw three obvious conclusions from this experience:
It is important to make decisions based on areas people can identify with, rather than areas based on administrative convenience. The more local the better.
Decisions that directly impact people will be very closely scrutinised and need to be capable of withstanding analysis by intelligent and capable people.
Peoples views of what is important change over time and as a result of experience.
It is gratifying that in the latest round of decisions on tiers, lower-tier local government areas have been considered separately. Disappointingly, all our metrics have gone up so we have not yet benefitted. The message has, however, got through.
Covid-19 has had a huge impact on the District Council finances. It has cost us about £7.5 million. We are now left with a funding gap of about £4 million per annum out of a net budget of about £16 million. We have a substantial amount of commercial income from things like car parks. This has taken a very big hit. We are currently working up our five-year Medium Term Financial Strategy and, by exhausting our reserves we can get through the next 5 years. However, what this means is that many of the things we want to do to enable place-shaping and underpin economic development and recovery have been squeezed out. This is far from ideal. We have, under the current government constraints, very limited room to increase the Council Tax. Much as I don’t like the idea of increasing Council Tax if it is a choice between doing that and constraining investing in economic development and the recovery then that is a choice I would make.
On a very positive note, the response of councillors, especially my fellow cabinet members and officers, has been superb. Flexible, responsive, and always willing to go the extra mile.
Stratford on Avon has always been a prosperous district; over the next two years at least our local economy will be hit very hard. I never thought that we may need to be part of the “levelling up” agenda.
2020 was the year everything changed.


conservativehome--2020-12-28--Johnson’s rating for dealing with Covid rises in our latest survey

Last month , those totals were 37 per cent , 52 per cent and 11 per cent respectively .
Now , only marginally more panel members think that the Prime Minister is dealing with Covid badly than well .
Furthermore , there has been a shift in their view over time against lockdowns and restrictions .
So what is going on ?
You will find out more later this week when we publish more results from the survey – but in the meantime here is our take , for better or for worse .
We wrote recently that the arrival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more contagious Coronavirus variant , and Sweden ’ s struggle with a “ second wave ” will have persuaded some Conservative MPs that there is now no alternative to the Government ’ s strategy .
Our guess is that a section of the panel is now thinking in that kind of way .
There doesn ’ t seem to be any other convincing explanation in a month during which restrictions have generally tightened .
That our survey went out in the wake of the UK and the EU securing a Brexit trade deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The figures for the Government as a whole are 48 per cent , 45 per cent and seven per cent .
80 per cent say that they support the measures that Rishi Sunak is taking .
That ’ s the first time that Ministers ’ collective rating has been in the black since August , and that Johnson ’ s own is slightly lower will reflect greater doubts about his own focus .

Last month, those totals were 37 per cent, 52 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. Now, only marginally more panel members think that the Prime Minister is dealing with Covid badly than well.
Furthermore, there has been a shift in their view over time against lockdowns and restrictions. So what is going on?
You will find out more later this week when we publish more results from the survey – but in the meantime here is our take, for better or for worse.
We wrote recently that the arrival of vaccines, the emergence of a more contagious Coronavirus variant, and Sweden’s struggle with a “second wave” will have persuaded some Conservative MPs that there is now no alternative to the Government’s strategy.
Our guess is that a section of the panel is now thinking in that kind of way.
There doesn’t seem to be any other convincing explanation in a month during which restrictions have generally tightened. That our survey went out in the wake of the UK and the EU securing a Brexit trade deal may also have had some marginal impact.
The figures for the Government as a whole are 48 per cent, 45 per cent and seven per cent. 80 per cent say that they support the measures that Rishi Sunak is taking.
That’s the first time that Ministers’ collective rating has been in the black since August, and that Johnson’s own is slightly lower will reflect greater doubts about his own focus.


conservativehome--2020-12-29--Speech of the year: Kemi Badenoch on critical race theory

With 40.52 per cent of the vote , Kemi Badenoch ’ s Commons speech on critical race theory is the favourite among our panelists .
Many will remember in October Badenoch declared the theory a “ dangerous trend in race relations… an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression.
” She warned that the Government stands “ unequivocally against [ it ] ” , and that any school that teaches “ elements of political race theory as fact , or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law ” .
To see the full speech , follow this link .
Liz Truss is not far behind with 33.73 per cent of the vote for her speech on the “ Fight for Fairness ” , which also tackles identity politics and sets out a “ new approach to equality in this country ” that would “ be about individual dignity and humanity , not quotas and targets , or equality of outcome.
” Her speech can be seen in full here .
Michael Gove ’ s Ditchley Annual Lecture has also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chalk ’ s demolition of David Lammy over the Mental Capacity Act .
Out of the other speeches , it got the least publicity of all , so we ’ ve pasted it below :

With 40.52 per cent of the vote, Kemi Badenoch’s Commons speech on critical race theory is the favourite among our panelists. Many will remember in October Badenoch declared the theory a “dangerous trend in race relations… an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression.”
She warned that the Government stands “unequivocally against [it]”, and that any school that teaches “elements of political race theory as fact, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law”. To see the full speech, follow this link.
Liz Truss is not far behind with 33.73 per cent of the vote for her speech on the “Fight for Fairness”, which also tackles identity politics and sets out a “new approach to equality in this country” that would “be about individual dignity and humanity, not quotas and targets, or equality of outcome.” Her speech can be seen in full here.
Michael Gove’s Ditchley Annual Lecture has also been highly regarded, as has Alex Chalk’s demolition of David Lammy over the Mental Capacity Act. Out of the other speeches, it got the least publicity of all, so we’ve pasted it below:


conservativehome--2020-12-29--Our Cabinet League Table feels the Brexit Trade Deal Bounce

• None Every entrant to our Cabinet League Table are up – even those who remain in negative figures .
Here are three examples chosen at random .
Last month , Steve Barclay was fifth on 50 per cent ; this month , he is fifth on 58 per cent .
Grant Shapps was more or less in the middle of the table on 34 per cent ; now he is more or less in the same place on 42 per cent .
Allister Jack was third from bottom at 13 per cent ; he remains third from bottom on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson leaps up the table from fifth from bottom , a mere two per cent in the black , to ninth on 47 per cent .
In his case , what goes up must come down and what must come down .
This will not the last of his falls and rises .
• None Michael Gove was in the bottom half of the table at 30 per cent .
Now he is just outside the top quarter on 54 per cent .
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northern Ireland protocol .
• None Matt Hancock was hovering in the relegation zone , fourth from bottom on under one per cent .
He is still there but now 17 points clear of the drop .
The arrival of a Covid vaccine will have helped him .
• None And up , up , up shoots soaraway Liz Truss by ten points to stretch her lead over Rishi Sunak at the top of table .
The International Trade Minister recently delivered her equalities speech as well as more trade deals , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the panel .
Our explanation of the rises , at a time when shutdowns are intensifying and morale is pressured , is that the Brexit Trade deal is responsible for most of the rise and the vaccines for the rest of it .

Every entrant to our Cabinet League Table are up – even those who remain in negative figures . Here are three examples chosen at random. Last month, Steve Barclay was fifth on 50 per cent; this month, he is fifth on 58 per cent. Grant Shapps was more or less in the middle of the table on 34 per cent; now he is more or less in the same place on 42 per cent. Allister Jack was third from bottom at 13 per cent; he remains third from bottom on 20 per cent.
Boris Johnson leaps up the table from fifth from bottom, a mere two per cent in the black, to ninth on 47 per cent . In his case, what goes up must come down and what must come down. This will not the last of his falls and rises.
Michael Gove was in the bottom half of the table at 30 per cent. Now he is just outside the top quarter on 54 per cent . The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been in charge of No Deal preparations and the Northern Ireland protocol.
Matt Hancock was hovering in the relegation zone, fourth from bottom on under one per cent. He is still there but now 17 points clear of the drop . The arrival of a Covid vaccine will have helped him.


conservativehome--2020-12-29--Mark Ling: Set Ipswich free. It is being “Suffolkated”.

Mark Ling is a businessman specialising in transportation .
He is the Chair of the Broomhill Pool Trust and a co-founder of Orwell Ahead .
From the much neglected perspective of an urban Conservative local voter , I find it extraordinary how little interest and understanding there is about local democratic structures or the impact they have on our sense of place .
The Local Government Act of 1972 ( implemented in 1974 ) was , in my view , a precursor to dissolving the power of our boroughs , our towns and cities .
My home town , Ipswich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government as granted by King John in AD1200 .
Ipswich is one of the oldest local democracies in the world .
As a corporation , then County-Borough , it had a strong identity and sense of place and pride .
A fully accountable single tier authority , elected by and for the people who live here and who share in its services and infrastructure .
In 1974 Ipswich County Borough was forced into a tripartite county council with East Suffolk and West Suffolk Authorities .
Ipswich was “ Suffolkated ” overnight .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a common purpose and outlook ; certainly with no understanding of , or affiliation to , gritty urban Ipswich .
Over the years Suffolk County Council ’ s all-powerful cabinet has often not contained a single representative and decision-maker from urban Ipswich .
Suffolk ’ s only major conurbation , its powerhouse and economic heart – supporting a third of Suffolk ’ s population and two-thirds its economy – has been diminished ; from total authority to almost none at county level .
It feels like Suffolk County Council has become an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , making all decisions for here , but rarely by anyone elected here .
Ipswich citizens and businesses are totally baffled and blindsided by two tier local government .
They simply don ’ t understand that most of the major decisions affecting the town ’ s social services , infrastructure , strategic planning , economic development , and growth , are made by a Suffolk County Council cabinet over which they have no say , or sway .
The Borough , ring-fenced in obsolete boundaries last set in 1835 , is also hopelessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a relative bystander as neighbouring districts , and a new super-district East Suffolk District Council , dominate all Ipswich ’ s growth ; dumping much of their planned housing on Ipswich ’ s periphery , no doubt in order to protect their rural villages .
These neighbouring districts never reinvest into the centre that sustains it all .
They have no direct accountability to , or interest in , Borough stakeholders who are in fact shareholders in the overwhelmed services and infrastructure that our town provides to all .
The biggest predator to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not Norwich , Cambridge , or London ; but Martlesham , right on Ipswich ’ s back door .
East Suffolk has built up a massive retail and business park with out-of-town parking .
It is built right opposite to Ipswich ’ s pointless Park & Ride .
Why would anyone take an extra bus journey into Ipswich when you can park and shop there ?
Today , we have the Suffolk cart leading the Ipswich horse .
Urban Ipswich has been effectively excluded from power , excluded from the growth it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it : containment .
A system where Ipswich must never encroach on neighbouring districts but where those districts may freely encroach upon and freely share Ipswich ’ s assets , infrastructure , and services .
Sadly , most Ipswich citizens and businesses are oblivious as to what has been lost .
They can see and feel that the town is failing but they don ’ t understand why .
Those in power in Suffolk probably do know why .
Yet it is simply not in their interests to entertain reform that returns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they unfairly benefit from the status quo .
I set up a campaign and even issued a proposal for reform that could provide costs savings – and make local government more local – for all non-metropolitan and non-unitary councils .
Needless to say there was absolutely no interest from local government leaders .
Perhaps Conservative Home readers will give my proposals a look – and consider how local government can be better reformed , restoring democratic power back to those in former county-boroughs like Ipswich .

Mark Ling is a businessman specialising in transportation. He is the Chair of the Broomhill Pool Trust and a co-founder of Orwell Ahead.
From the much neglected perspective of an urban Conservative local voter, I find it extraordinary how little interest and understanding there is about local democratic structures or the impact they have on our sense of place. The Local Government Act of 1972 (implemented in 1974) was, in my view, a precursor to dissolving the power of our boroughs, our towns and cities. My home town, Ipswich, has a right to self- local government as granted by King John in AD1200. Ipswich is one of the oldest local democracies in the world. As a corporation, then County-Borough, it had a strong identity and sense of place and pride. A fully accountable single tier authority, elected by and for the people who live here and who share in its services and infrastructure.
In 1974 Ipswich County Borough was forced into a tripartite county council with East Suffolk and West Suffolk Authorities. Ipswich was “Suffolkated” overnight. The cemented majority is always from rural Suffolk with a common purpose and outlook; certainly with no understanding of, or affiliation to, gritty urban Ipswich. Over the years Suffolk County Council’s all-powerful cabinet has often not contained a single representative and decision-maker from urban Ipswich. Suffolk’s only major conurbation, its powerhouse and economic heart – supporting a third of Suffolk’s population and two-thirds its economy – has been diminished; from total authority to almost none at county level. It feels like Suffolk County Council has become an “occupying force”; based here, making all decisions for here, but rarely by anyone elected here.
Ipswich citizens and businesses are totally baffled and blindsided by two tier local government. They simply don’t understand that most of the major decisions affecting the town’s social services, infrastructure, strategic planning, economic development, and growth, are made by a Suffolk County Council cabinet over which they have no say, or sway. The Borough, ring-fenced in obsolete boundaries last set in 1835, is also hopelessly compromised at district level. It is a relative bystander as neighbouring districts, and a new super-district East Suffolk District Council, dominate all Ipswich’s growth; dumping much of their planned housing on Ipswich’s periphery, no doubt in order to protect their rural villages. These neighbouring districts never reinvest into the centre that sustains it all. They have no direct accountability to, or interest in, Borough stakeholders who are in fact shareholders in the overwhelmed services and infrastructure that our town provides to all.
The biggest predator to Ipswich’s ailing high street retail is not Norwich, Cambridge, or London; but Martlesham, right on Ipswich’s back door. East Suffolk has built up a massive retail and business park with out-of-town parking. It is built right opposite to Ipswich’s pointless Park & Ride. Why would anyone take an extra bus journey into Ipswich when you can park and shop there?
Today, we have the Suffolk cart leading the Ipswich horse. Urban Ipswich has been effectively excluded from power, excluded from the growth it underpins. Suffolk’s only ambition for it: containment. A system where Ipswich must never encroach on neighbouring districts but where those districts may freely encroach upon and freely share Ipswich’s assets, infrastructure, and services. Sadly, most Ipswich citizens and businesses are oblivious as to what has been lost. They can see and feel that the town is failing but they don’t understand why. Those in power in Suffolk probably do know why. Yet it is simply not in their interests to entertain reform that returns any greater authority to Ipswich, because they unfairly benefit from the status quo.
I set up a campaign and even issued a proposal for reform that could provide costs savings – and make local government more local – for all non-metropolitan and non-unitary councils.
Needless to say there was absolutely no interest from local government leaders. Perhaps Conservative Home readers will give my proposals a look – and consider how local government can be better reformed, restoring democratic power back to those in former county-boroughs like Ipswich.


conservativehome--2020-12-29--The Deal in Detail 1) Security, intelligence sharing and counter-terrorism

Richard Walton is a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange and a former Head of the Counter Terrorism Command at New Scotland Yard .
There will be no notable change to the UK ’ s security and safety as the post Brexit agreement is implemented on New Year ’ s Day , 2021 .
Criminals and terrorists will not be waiting their moment to seize upon a new window of opportunity to take advantage of a weakened United Kingdom .
Our nation ’ s safety has never depended upon our membership within the EU .
Close cooperation and collaboration between our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue as normal with most international investigations , whether for serious crime or terrorism , extending well beyond Europe to nations across the globe .
The landscape has clearly shifted .
After returning from a tense EU summit in Brussels in February 2016 ( having negotiated the UK ’ s latest EU ‘ settlement ’ ) , our then Prime Minister , David Cameron , announced the date of the referendum to the nation , placing security front and centre of the justification for remaining in the EU : “ I believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and better off by remaining in a reformed European Union.
” Despite strenuous attempts by some politicians in the subsequent debates , justifying the assertion that Brexit would hinder the ability of the nation to protect itself , few operational leaders from the police and intelligence services appeared overly concerned or vexed – the EU was a trade body not a security alliance .
The public were not convinced either , and fears relating to security did not sway the decision to leave the EU .
Now , five years later , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU that buries all fears that the UK will be less secure after fully leaving the EU .
The UK ’ s engagement and collaboration with EU member states on crime , security and counter terrorism has always been mutually beneficial , which is why special arrangements on collaboration and the sharing of information from important databases have been agreed .
Crucially , the UK will retain full access to two of the most important , the Passenger Name Record Initiative ( PNR ) , which shares passenger airplane data and PRUM , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Agreement also enshrines the ability of the UK and EU states to share information relating to wanted and missing persons and objects as well as criminal records .
A new Specialised Committee on Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation will oversee the arrangements .
The one area of information sharing where the UK will lose out will be automated access to two databases linked to Schengen , the Schengen Information System ( SIS II ) and European Records Information System ( ECRIS ) , but it is hard to see how this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially when bilateral cooperation between police and immigration officers across national borders is so routine and strong .
It remains to be seen , however , whether alternative routes to obtaining this information will be as quick and seamless as current arrangements .
In time , the UK and EU may revisit this arrangement as the flow of information from these databases is currently two-way so the EU states may lose out as well as the UK , access being mutually beneficial .
The UK provides a role model for EU Member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is why close cooperation will undoubtably continue .
At a time of heightened threat of terrorism across Europe , EU member states will continue to seek access to the UK ’ s experience , intelligence and operational resources used in countering terrorism after the 1st January to prevent an increase in terrorism across Europe and further afield .
The UK ’ s longstanding counter terrorism strategy entitled ‘ CONTEST ’ ( first developed in early 2003 ) is one of the most comprehensive of any country in the world , and has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU ’ s Counter-Terrorism Strategy and that of the United Nations .
The UK will continue to engage with two long-established information sharing fora within Europe that have been dealing with national security and counter terrorism since the 1990s : the ‘ Berne Group ’ or ‘ Club of Berne ’ and the Police Working Group on Terrorism ( PWGT ) .
Both have evolved over several decades and include EU member states and non-EU member states alike .
For example , both groups include Norway and Switzerland which are not members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a formal charter and both work outside of the formal institutions of the EU .
Intelligence relating to terrorist suspects and terrorist operations will remain on national security ( classified ) databases in individual countries and shared on a case by case basis and effective counter terrorism operations will continue to rely on bilateral and multi-lateral state-to-state intelligence sharing , often global in nature .
Unlike EU states , the UK will continue to have full access to the ‘ Five Eyes ’ – the closest international intelligence sharing arrangement in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharing of highly classified intelligence relating to security threats and terrorism between the ‘ 5 eyes ’ states of the US , UK , Canada , Australia and New Zealand .
Arrangements for sharing of intelligence on terrorist financing and asset confiscation have also been enshrined in the agreement .
The UK will continue to have access and engagement with Europol although , like its sister agency Interpol ( that represents over 192 member states rather than just 27 ) , it is not a law enforcement agency in the conventional sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrests , does not proactively collect intelligence and does not undertake operational activity .
Nevertheless , the UK will be able to second liaison officers to Europol and vice versa with our National Crime Agency , attend operational meetings and take a full part in analytical projects and Europol Heads of Unit meetings .
It will also be able to second a liaison prosecutor to Eurojust who will be able to attend strategic and operational meetings .
A new detailed surrender agreement replaces the European Arrest Warrant , with clear provisions set out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for responding to requests .
This provision means that the UK and the EU will not need to revert back the dated European Convention on Extradition ( 1957 ) .
The security agreement between the UK and EU states enshrines the vast majority of existing arrangements into law , ensuring that close collaboration and cooperation continues unhindered .
Brexit has not been detrimental to our security or safety , nor to that of EU states .
There is a great deal of mutual respect between the police and intelligence agencies of the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to strengthen , as it always has , regardless of the UK ’ s EU membership .
As articulated in 2016 by the then Home Secretary , Amber Rudd ” “ In the national security context , however , the threats and challenges to UK national security have not fundamentally changed as a result of the decision to leave .
The UK remains fully and strongly committed to Europe ’ s defence and security and we continue to play an active role in security and defence cooperation across Europe.
” As we head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime and security , it will be business as usual ; a spirit of continuity will prevail with our neighbouring EU states .
This is the first in a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal .

Richard Walton is a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange and a former Head of the Counter Terrorism Command at New Scotland Yard.
There will be no notable change to the UK’s security and safety as the post Brexit agreement is implemented on New Year’s Day, 2021. Criminals and terrorists will not be waiting their moment to seize upon a new window of opportunity to take advantage of a weakened United Kingdom. Our nation’s safety has never depended upon our membership within the EU.
Close cooperation and collaboration between our police and intelligence agencies with EU states will continue as normal with most international investigations, whether for serious crime or terrorism, extending well beyond Europe to nations across the globe.
The landscape has clearly shifted. After returning from a tense EU summit in Brussels in February 2016 (having negotiated the UK’s latest EU ‘settlement’), our then Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced the date of the referendum to the nation, placing security front and centre of the justification for remaining in the EU: “I believe that Britain will be safer, stronger and better off by remaining in a reformed European Union.”
Despite strenuous attempts by some politicians in the subsequent debates, justifying the assertion that Brexit would hinder the ability of the nation to protect itself, few operational leaders from the police and intelligence services appeared overly concerned or vexed – the EU was a trade body not a security alliance. The public were not convinced either, and fears relating to security did not sway the decision to leave the EU.
Now, five years later, the Government has secured a deal with the EU that buries all fears that the UK will be less secure after fully leaving the EU.
Intelligence sharing
The UK’s engagement and collaboration with EU member states on crime, security and counter terrorism has always been mutually beneficial, which is why special arrangements on collaboration and the sharing of information from important databases have been agreed.
Crucially, the UK will retain full access to two of the most important, the Passenger Name Record Initiative (PNR), which shares passenger airplane data and PRUM, an increasingly important DNA and fingerprint database.
The Agreement also enshrines the ability of the UK and EU states to share information relating to wanted and missing persons and objects as well as criminal records. A new Specialised Committee on Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation will oversee the arrangements.
The one area of information sharing where the UK will lose out will be automated access to two databases linked to Schengen, the Schengen Information System (SIS II) and European Records Information System (ECRIS), but it is hard to see how this will markedly affect operations on the ground, especially when bilateral cooperation between police and immigration officers across national borders is so routine and strong.
It remains to be seen, however, whether alternative routes to obtaining this information will be as quick and seamless as current arrangements. In time, the UK and EU may revisit this arrangement as the flow of information from these databases is currently two-way so the EU states may lose out as well as the UK, access being mutually beneficial.
Counter Terrorism
The UK provides a role model for EU Member States for countering terrorism threats, which is why close cooperation will undoubtably continue. At a time of heightened threat of terrorism across Europe, EU member states will continue to seek access to the UK’s experience, intelligence and operational resources used in countering terrorism after the 1st January to prevent an increase in terrorism across Europe and further afield.
The UK’s longstanding counter terrorism strategy entitled ‘CONTEST’ (first developed in early 2003) is one of the most comprehensive of any country in the world, and has been used to shape and inform both the EU’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy and that of the United Nations.
The UK will continue to engage with two long-established information sharing fora within Europe that have been dealing with national security and counter terrorism since the 1990s: the ‘Berne Group’ or ‘Club of Berne’ and the Police Working Group on Terrorism (PWGT).
Both have evolved over several decades and include EU member states and non-EU member states alike. For example, both groups include Norway and Switzerland which are not members of the EU. Neither group operate on a formal charter and both work outside of the formal institutions of the EU.
Intelligence relating to terrorist suspects and terrorist operations will remain on national security (classified) databases in individual countries and shared on a case by case basis and effective counter terrorism operations will continue to rely on bilateral and multi-lateral state-to-state intelligence sharing, often global in nature.
Unlike EU states, the UK will continue to have full access to the ‘Five Eyes’ – the closest international intelligence sharing arrangement in the world, a platform that enables the routine sharing of highly classified intelligence relating to security threats and terrorism between the ‘5 eyes’ states of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Arrangements for sharing of intelligence on terrorist financing and asset confiscation have also been enshrined in the agreement.
Europol
The UK will continue to have access and engagement with Europol although, like its sister agency Interpol (that represents over 192 member states rather than just 27), it is not a law enforcement agency in the conventional sense, has no executive powers, makes no arrests, does not proactively collect intelligence and does not undertake operational activity.
Nevertheless, the UK will be able to second liaison officers to Europol and vice versa with our National Crime Agency, attend operational meetings and take a full part in analytical projects and Europol Heads of Unit meetings. It will also be able to second a liaison prosecutor to Eurojust who will be able to attend strategic and operational meetings.
Replacement for the European Arrest Warrant
A new detailed surrender agreement replaces the European Arrest Warrant, with clear provisions set out for mutual legal assistance and time restraints for responding to requests. This provision means that the UK and the EU will not need to revert back the dated European Convention on Extradition (1957).
Conclusion
The security agreement between the UK and EU states enshrines the vast majority of existing arrangements into law, ensuring that close collaboration and cooperation continues unhindered. Brexit has not been detrimental to our security or safety, nor to that of EU states. There is a great deal of mutual respect between the police and intelligence agencies of the UK and EU states and this will continue to strengthen, as it always has, regardless of the UK’s EU membership.
As articulated in 2016 by the then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd” “In the national security context, however, the threats and challenges to UK national security have not fundamentally changed as a result of the decision to leave. The UK remains fully and strongly committed to Europe’s defence and security and we continue to play an active role in security and defence cooperation across Europe.”
As we head into 2021, on matters relating to crime and security, it will be business as usual; a spirit of continuity will prevail with our neighbouring EU states.
This is the first in a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal.


conservativehome--2020-12-29--Our survey. The advent of the new Covid strain and the vaccine sees a swing towards maintaining lock

Our survey. The advent of the new Covid strain and the vaccine sees a swing towards maintaining lockdown

Last month , Conservative members still reported significant unease about the Government ’ s approach to combating Covid-19 .
Whilst there was a swing away from support for the ‘ Swedish model ’ as an alternative ( in favour of a more effective test-and-trace system ) , there was still a majority for easing restrictions “ faster and more widely ” .
Opinion this month is much more evenly split .
Support for a quicker exit from lockdown has fallen from 56 per cent to 37 per cent , whilst that for the opposing view – “ more slowly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent to 24 per cent .
There was also a small increase in those who thought that Ministers have got it just right , from 31 per cent to 35 per cent .
It ’ s a similar story on the broader question of coronavirus strategy .
Support for maintaining the restrictions “ as at present ” has risen from 18 per cent to 34 per cent , despite those measures getting significantly harsher with the advent of ‘ Tier 4 ’ .
It therefore edges ahead of test-and-trace , the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent to 33 per cent .
And the ‘ voluntary social distancing ’ option , which led as recently as October , falls from 38 per cent to just 29 per cent .
There are two obvious possible explanations for this shift in approach .
The first is that members are much more worried about the new , more virulent strain of Covid-19 than they were about the original one .
The second is that with the vaccination programme already underway , the case for knuckling down seems much stronger than it did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions .

Last month, Conservative members still reported significant unease about the Government’s approach to combating Covid-19.
Whilst there was a swing away from support for the ‘Swedish model’ as an alternative (in favour of a more effective test-and-trace system), there was still a majority for easing restrictions “faster and more widely”.
Opinion this month is much more evenly split. Support for a quicker exit from lockdown has fallen from 56 per cent to 37 per cent, whilst that for the opposing view – “more slowly and less widely” – rose from 11 per cent to 24 per cent. There was also a small increase in those who thought that Ministers have got it just right, from 31 per cent to 35 per cent.
It’s a similar story on the broader question of coronavirus strategy. Support for maintaining the restrictions “as at present” has risen from 18 per cent to 34 per cent, despite those measures getting significantly harsher with the advent of ‘Tier 4’. It therefore edges ahead of test-and-trace, the former favourite, which slips from 42 per cent to 33 per cent.
And the ‘voluntary social distancing’ option, which led as recently as October, falls from 38 per cent to just 29 per cent.
There are two obvious possible explanations for this shift in approach. The first is that members are much more worried about the new, more virulent strain of Covid-19 than they were about the original one. The second is that with the vaccination programme already underway, the case for knuckling down seems much stronger than it did when the prospect was potentially years of restrictions.


conservativehome--2020-12-30--Andrew Gimson’s Commons sketch: Johnson beams like a schoolboy who has got his hands on an enormous

Andrew Gimson’s Commons sketch: Johnson beams like a schoolboy who has got his hands on an enormous cake

“ A majority is always better than the best repartee.
” So said the greatest and wittiest parliamentarian ever to lead the Conservative Party , a statesman who could disguise headlong retreat as triumphant advance : Benjamin Disraeli .
Boris Johnson came to the House today with a stonking majority .
He had repartee at his command too , but the majority is what matters .
Many of the best judges had predicted his Brexit negotiations would fail .
Five former Prime Ministers had denounced his tactics .
Deadline after deadline had passed without agreement .
Yet here he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to gain a vast majority , with his own party ’ s sternest and most unbending Eurosceptics declaring themselves satisfied by his Christmas Eve deal , but set to be joined in the division lobby by the Leader of the Opposition , and by as many Labour MPs as accept Sir Keir Starmer ’ s instruction to vote for the deal .
What a triumph , to have resolved the choice into one where even devout Remainers have to support him , and only the Scottish Nationalists , who had hoped and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in substantial numbers against him .
Johnson avoided triumphalism .
The last thing he wanted to do was to shatter the consensus he had created by striking a partisan note .
He communicated instead an impregnable benevolence .
Every so often he could not help breaking out in a smile of pure enjoyment , like a schoolboy who has managed to get his hands on an enormous chocolate cake .
Ian Blackford , for the Scottish Nationalists , tried to disconcert him , by objecting that Johnson refers to the Scottish Nationalist Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Party .
Johnson remained undisconcerted , indeed amused : he remarked ingeniously that he uses the word “ nationalist ” with a small “ n ” .
The Prime Minister proceeded to show he is now on the best of terms with everyone else , including Ursula von der Leyen and Michel Barnier .
He thanked “ all our European friends for their pragmatism and foresight ” , and assured them that they could look forward to “ a fantastic new relationship ” with “ a prosperous , contented ” United Kingdom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sovereign ” and will be “ the best friend and ally the EU could have ” .
“ We were told we could not have our cake and eat it , ” Johnson added , looking more than every like a schoolboy with a cake so enormous that however much he eats of it himself , and however much he shares with the friends now crowding around him , there will always be more .
In any election campaign you will find most of the candidates assuring the voters , “ You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For that is what most people long to believe , and it is certainly what Johnson loves to tell them , though not at excessive length , for that way boredom lies .
In under half an hour he sat down .
Sir Keir swallowed his bitter medicine with good grace , while declining to swallow some of the Prime Minister ’ s more exuberant assurances .
“ Will there be no non-tariff barriers to trade ?
” Sir Keir demanded .
So we still have a functioning Opposition .
But the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of last year , he had no majority in the Commons , and the Remainers sought at every turn to confound him .
Now they have been forced to surrender , and he has a huge parliamentary majority .
It probably won ’ t last : these things seldom do .
But this morning one could not blame him for looking like a schoolboy with a cake of quite extraordinary dimensions .

“A majority is always better than the best repartee.” So said the greatest and wittiest parliamentarian ever to lead the Conservative Party, a statesman who could disguise headlong retreat as triumphant advance: Benjamin Disraeli.
Boris Johnson came to the House today with a stonking majority. He had repartee at his command too, but the majority is what matters.
Many of the best judges had predicted his Brexit negotiations would fail. Five former Prime Ministers had denounced his tactics. Deadline after deadline had passed without agreement.
Yet here he was, certain in this afternoon’s vote to gain a vast majority, with his own party’s sternest and most unbending Eurosceptics declaring themselves satisfied by his Christmas Eve deal, but set to be joined in the division lobby by the Leader of the Opposition, and by as many Labour MPs as accept Sir Keir Starmer’s instruction to vote for the deal.
What a triumph, to have resolved the choice into one where even devout Remainers have to support him, and only the Scottish Nationalists, who had hoped and prayed for no deal, would vote in substantial numbers against him.
Johnson avoided triumphalism. The last thing he wanted to do was to shatter the consensus he had created by striking a partisan note.
He communicated instead an impregnable benevolence. Every so often he could not help breaking out in a smile of pure enjoyment, like a schoolboy who has managed to get his hands on an enormous chocolate cake.
Ian Blackford, for the Scottish Nationalists, tried to disconcert him, by objecting that Johnson refers to the Scottish Nationalist Party, when actually it is the Scottish National Party.
Johnson remained undisconcerted, indeed amused: he remarked ingeniously that he uses the word “nationalist” with a small “n”.
The Prime Minister proceeded to show he is now on the best of terms with everyone else, including Ursula von der Leyen and Michel Barnier. He thanked “all our European friends for their pragmatism and foresight”, and assured them that they could look forward to “a fantastic new relationship” with “a prosperous, contented” United Kingdom which is “at once European and sovereign” and will be “the best friend and ally the EU could have”.
“We were told we could not have our cake and eat it,” Johnson added, looking more than every like a schoolboy with a cake so enormous that however much he eats of it himself, and however much he shares with the friends now crowding around him, there will always be more.
In any election campaign you will find most of the candidates assuring the voters, “You can have your cake and eat it.”
For that is what most people long to believe, and it is certainly what Johnson loves to tell them, though not at excessive length, for that way boredom lies. In under half an hour he sat down.
Sir Keir swallowed his bitter medicine with good grace, while declining to swallow some of the Prime Minister’s more exuberant assurances.
“Will there be no non-tariff barriers to trade?” Sir Keir demanded. So we still have a functioning Opposition.
But the day belonged to Johnson. In the autumn of last year, he had no majority in the Commons, and the Remainers sought at every turn to confound him.
Now they have been forced to surrender, and he has a huge parliamentary majority.
It probably won’t last: these things seldom do. But this morning one could not blame him for looking like a schoolboy with a cake of quite extraordinary dimensions.


conservativehome--2020-12-30--WATCH: The choice before the Commons is between this deal and No Deal, says Starmer

“ The choice before the House today is perfectly simple ” Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says the PM ’ @ @ @ @ @ many flaws ” , but not to vote for it would lead the UK to @ @ @ @ @

“The choice before the House today is perfectly simple”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says the PM’s Brexit deal has “many flaws”, but not to vote for it would lead the UK to no dealhttps://t.co/rfxQPOLMb2 pic.twitter.com/ELX3ZG3j1T
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) December 30, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-30--WATCH: The Prime Minister – “We now seize this moment to now forge a fantastic new relationship with

WATCH: The Prime Minister – “We now seize this moment to now forge a fantastic new relationship with our European neighbours”

“ We now seize this moment to now forge a fantastic new relationship with our European neighbours based on free @ @ @ @ @ PM Boris Johnson urges MPs to back his post-Brexit trade deal with the EUhttps : @ @

“We now seize this moment to now forge a fantastic new relationship with our European neighbours based on free trade and friendly co-operation”
PM Boris Johnson urges MPs to back his post-Brexit trade deal with the EUhttps://t.co/rfxQPOLMb2 pic.twitter.com/FcwenvY9kj
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) December 30, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-30--The Deal in Detail 2) Economics and regulation

Dr Gerard Lyons is a senior fellow at Policy Exchange and was chief economic advisor to Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London .
It is not just leaving the EU but what we do when we leave that is key .
From January 1 , we will have left the EU and distanced ourselves from its inevitable march towards ever closer political union .
Naturally , it makes sense for us , the fifth-biggest economy in the world , to have a sensible future working relationship with the EU .
Thus , the trade deal should be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not just in the detail but also in how it will be policed .
There are reasons to be positive , but also many areas the UK needs to guard against .
It sets a framework for the future .
Crucially , it does not tie our hands ( too much at least ) on future domestic policy or on our independent trade policy .
To succeed , we need to reboot and rebalance the domestic economy and reposition ourselves in a changing and growing global economy , where the balance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and western Europe is the slow growth region .
The fourth industrial revolution demands a willingness to embrace new technology that points to the need for the UK to be more innovative .
Contrary to much that is often written , the domestic and global agenda that the UK needs are mutually reinforcing .
There are many things the UK needs to do domestically that it should have done while in the EU – but for whatever reason did not do .
Yet , at the same time , there will now be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path we take will depend upon Parliament and the electorate .
Crucially , we will be able to diverge where we see fit .
With the right pro-growth economic vision , there is every reason to be positive .
In 2021 , with the roll-out of a vaccine and with this deal , the UK economy could grow strongly from spring onwards , achieving growth above eight per cent and returning to its pre-crisis level by the first quarter of 2022 .
This deal removes immediate uncertainty and the misplaced worries about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial markets have already given it the thumbs up .
Beyond the next year , or two , though , the UK needs to really seize the agenda , globally and at home .
We need to become more competitive .
Thus , in terms of the deal , how it is applied is important , as the rebalancing principle that both sides have accepted will look at how subsidies and regulations will impact future trade and investment and our competitiveness .
At Policy Exchange , earlier this year we identified the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy , built on sound and principled fiscal policy , monetary and financial stability , and a supply-side agenda of innovation , investment , and infrastructure , aimed at reducing inequality and getting the right incentives focused on tax and regulation .
Both sides have tried to position this deal in a different light : the EU suggesting the UK is losing access to EU programmes and that trade will no longer be frictionless ; while in contrast the Prime Minster has highlighted a host of areas , including future trade without tariffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three areas of dispute , as one might have expected , it is a mixed outcome .
On fish , the UK did not achieve as much as it wanted .
This was a disappointment and while we may be able in time to revisit future quotas , the UK should focus now on building up shoreside development , food processing , logistics , and maintenance , as part of a domestically-orientated agenda with strong regional benefits to many coastal areas .
Likewise , too , the creative industries , an important sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included on the list of workers not needing a visa to work , and so may need support in other ways .
It highlights how the detail will impact different sectors .
Despite this , no tariffs and a holiday on rules of origin were well received by the auto sector while road hauliers , another sector worried before the deal , seemed content .
However , in other areas there is some ambiguity as to whether we have accepted the EU ’ s precautionary principle .
In terms of the level playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Britain would be constrained significantly in future domestic policy .
In the near-term we can follow through the levelling up agenda not tied down by the EU in boosting competitiveness via initiatives like free ports .
Westminster also has scope to outline its own future independent subsidy regime .
Meanwhile , there is nothing in the deal to suggest we will be held back by the EU in continuing with our high standards in labour , environmental and food areas .
Implementation of this deal and resolving future differences matters .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet for areas of dispute .
Businesses like certainty .
Also , a dynamic UK must avoid the EU ’ s problem of protecting incumbents .
The European Court of Justice will not have a future role .
This deal will have its own 19 sub-committees and four working groups , as well as an intergovernmental partnership council .
The UK ’ s focus should be on boosting competitiveness .
The big issue in coming months will be financial services .
This trade deal did not cover these and outlined that a memorandum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be agreed by the spring .
The City has lacked a cheerleader for some time and needs one now , although when Mayor , Boris Johnson was often its biggest advocate .
Since the referendum , firms have had to act based on their own business model .
For some , this has meant boosting operations in other cities like Paris or Frankfurt .
Given the uncertainty , that was understandable .
Yet , London has continued to see employment gains in recent years .
The combination of law , language , time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London ’ s ability to position itself in financial technology and in new growth markets such as green finance , the offshore renminbi and Islamic finance , all auger well and suggest that it will dominate as Europe ’ s financial capital .
Financial centres thrive based on where clients want to do business and on the regulatory environment .
In the years since the referendum there was a focus on mutual recognition , based on high level outcomes , and then on equivalence of each other ’ s regulatory regimes .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK has granted a temporary permissions regime to a phenomenal number of EEA-based firms , all keen to continue to do business in London .
The main focus of this MOU should be on addressing this issue of equivalence and regulatory cooperation .
One important area for the City is the EU ’ s desire to see euro-denominated business carried out in the euro area .
This would have happened regardless of Brexit .
Lest we forget , when David Cameron reached his deal , the main area of concern was that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central to their project and thus non-euro members would no longer have a veto over future developments .
This push to have euro business in the euro area has continued .
It will not succeed , leading initially to a fragmented and more costly market in the euro area , but it has the potential to be disruptive , as we are already seeing , with pressure placed on London-based firms to move business .
Finally , this trade deal can be reinterpreted in four years or so , after the next election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the EU , try and bounce the Government into a much closer future relationship .
Instead , we should view this deal as an opportunity for the UK to focus on the need to boost growth , well-being and competitiveness , thus cooperating closely with the EU where it makes sense to do so and diverging where needed .

Dr Gerard Lyons is a senior fellow at Policy Exchange and was chief economic advisor to Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London.
It is not just leaving the EU but what we do when we leave that is key. From January 1, we will have left the EU and distanced ourselves from its inevitable march towards ever closer political union.
Naturally, it makes sense for us, the fifth-biggest economy in the world, to have a sensible future working relationship with the EU. Thus, the trade deal should be seen in a positive light.
The devil is not just in the detail but also in how it will be policed. There are reasons to be positive, but also many areas the UK needs to guard against. It sets a framework for the future. Crucially, it does not tie our hands (too much at least) on future domestic policy or on our independent trade policy.
To succeed, we need to reboot and rebalance the domestic economy and reposition ourselves in a changing and growing global economy, where the balance of economic power is shifting towards the Indo-Pacific and western Europe is the slow growth region. The fourth industrial revolution demands a willingness to embrace new technology that points to the need for the UK to be more innovative. Contrary to much that is often written, the domestic and global agenda that the UK needs are mutually reinforcing.
There are many things the UK needs to do domestically that it should have done while in the EU – but for whatever reason did not do. Yet, at the same time, there will now be a new sense of direction. The path we take will depend upon Parliament and the electorate. Crucially, we will be able to diverge where we see fit.
With the right pro-growth economic vision, there is every reason to be positive. In 2021, with the roll-out of a vaccine and with this deal, the UK economy could grow strongly from spring onwards, achieving growth above eight per cent and returning to its pre-crisis level by the first quarter of 2022. This deal removes immediate uncertainty and the misplaced worries about the downside of a no-deal exit. The financial markets have already given it the thumbs up.
Beyond the next year, or two, though, the UK needs to really seize the agenda, globally and at home. We need to become more competitive. Thus, in terms of the deal, how it is applied is important, as the rebalancing principle that both sides have accepted will look at how subsidies and regulations will impact future trade and investment and our competitiveness.
At Policy Exchange, earlier this year we identified the need for a ‘three-arrowed’, pro-growth strategy, built on sound and principled fiscal policy, monetary and financial stability, and a supply-side agenda of innovation, investment, and infrastructure, aimed at reducing inequality and getting the right incentives focused on tax and regulation.
Both sides have tried to position this deal in a different light: the EU suggesting the UK is losing access to EU programmes and that trade will no longer be frictionless; while in contrast the Prime Minster has highlighted a host of areas, including future trade without tariffs or quotas.
Overall, on the three areas of dispute, as one might have expected, it is a mixed outcome.
On fish, the UK did not achieve as much as it wanted. This was a disappointment and while we may be able in time to revisit future quotas, the UK should focus now on building up shoreside development, food processing, logistics, and maintenance, as part of a domestically-orientated agenda with strong regional benefits to many coastal areas.
Likewise, too, the creative industries, an important sector, will be disappointed with not being included on the list of workers not needing a visa to work, and so may need support in other ways. It highlights how the detail will impact different sectors. Despite this, no tariffs and a holiday on rules of origin were well received by the auto sector while road hauliers, another sector worried before the deal, seemed content.
However, in other areas there is some ambiguity as to whether we have accepted the EU’s precautionary principle.
In terms of the level playing field, this deal alleviated worries that Great Britain would be constrained significantly in future domestic policy. In the near-term we can follow through the levelling up agenda not tied down by the EU in boosting competitiveness via initiatives like free ports. Westminster also has scope to outline its own future independent subsidy regime. Meanwhile, there is nothing in the deal to suggest we will be held back by the EU in continuing with our high standards in labour, environmental and food areas.
Implementation of this deal and resolving future differences matters. Of course, there is no case law yet for areas of dispute. Businesses like certainty. Also, a dynamic UK must avoid the EU’s problem of protecting incumbents. The European Court of Justice will not have a future role. This deal will have its own 19 sub-committees and four working groups, as well as an intergovernmental partnership council. The UK’s focus should be on boosting competitiveness.
The big issue in coming months will be financial services. This trade deal did not cover these and outlined that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is to be agreed by the spring. The City has lacked a cheerleader for some time and needs one now, although when Mayor, Boris Johnson was often its biggest advocate.
Since the referendum, firms have had to act based on their own business model. For some, this has meant boosting operations in other cities like Paris or Frankfurt. Given the uncertainty, that was understandable. Yet, London has continued to see employment gains in recent years. The combination of law, language, time zone, skills and infrastructure, plus London’s ability to position itself in financial technology and in new growth markets such as green finance, the offshore renminbi and Islamic finance, all auger well and suggest that it will dominate as Europe’s financial capital.
Financial centres thrive based on where clients want to do business and on the regulatory environment. In the years since the referendum there was a focus on mutual recognition, based on high level outcomes, and then on equivalence of each other’s regulatory regimes. While the EU has been stubborn, the UK has granted a temporary permissions regime to a phenomenal number of EEA-based firms, all keen to continue to do business in London. The main focus of this MOU should be on addressing this issue of equivalence and regulatory cooperation.
One important area for the City is the EU’s desire to see euro-denominated business carried out in the euro area. This would have happened regardless of Brexit. Lest we forget, when David Cameron reached his deal, the main area of concern was that the EU had made clear the euro was central to their project and thus non-euro members would no longer have a veto over future developments.
This push to have euro business in the euro area has continued. It will not succeed, leading initially to a fragmented and more costly market in the euro area, but it has the potential to be disruptive, as we are already seeing, with pressure placed on London-based firms to move business.
Finally, this trade deal can be reinterpreted in four years or so, after the next election. That is a worry if some, including the EU, try and bounce the Government into a much closer future relationship.
Instead, we should view this deal as an opportunity for the UK to focus on the need to boost growth, well-being and competitiveness, thus cooperating closely with the EU where it makes sense to do so and diverging where needed.
This is the second in a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal.