conservativehome--2020-09-14--Why Conservative MPs should vote to amend the UK Internal Market Bill

When Dominic Raab next denounces China for its oppression of the Uighurs , or the police move to disperse a Group of Seven , or Robert Buckland says that the law must be obeyed , will the response be pleas of “ difficult and highly exceptional circumstances “ ?
In one sense , Boris Johnson ’ s intention of tearing up part of a treaty he signed less than a year ago shames almost the entire right of British politics – from the Prime Minister himself through MPs and media to Nigel Farage , all of whom , to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weight behind the Withdrawal Agreement that he agreed .
Some of these had reservations about parts of it .
But none seem to have spotted the potential leakage of EU state aid rules from Northern Ireland to Great Britain , including the Government ’ s negotiators .
This site has always treated with contempt those who claim that the UK “ isn ’ t a serious country ” .
Maybe we should think again .
In another sense , though , this isn ’ t Suez or the Winter of Discontent or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know what Dominic Cummings ’ focus groups make of the Government being prepared to break international law .
But our best guess is that its members would shrug their shoulders , and point out that other countries do so all the time .
That may be an ignoble response , but it would put last week ’ s events in political proportion .
Most voters will be far more engaged with Johnson ’ s severe new Coronavirus rules , and the media has been faithfully reflecting their preoccuptions .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t even have registered .
Furthermore , Conservative MPs , as they prepare to debate the UK Internal Market Bill , which contains the controversial clauses , will doubt whether these will ever be enacted .
After all , they are a Government safeguard in the event of No Deal .
But a deal is still possible , if not probable – if not likely .
They will also feel that the Commons shouldn ’ t do anything that might help the EU and harm the UK during this crucial negotiation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats will also believe , rightly , that Johnson got them elected last December , and that they owe him a special loyalty .
But as they mull all this , they will be puzzled by a question that haunts the whole dispute : would the UK really be breaking international law were the relevant clauses in the Bill ever triggered ?
The Prime Minister claims that the EU has threatened a food blockade of Great Britain .
David Frost backed him up on Twitter yesterday .
If so , such action would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international law , too .
Meanwhile , the EU ’ s readiness to impose tariffs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is , as Unionists see it , a breach of the commitment to uphold the Belfast Agreement contained in the Northern Ireland Protocol .
Which implies that the Government believes that the EU isn ’ t negotiating in good faith , as the Withdrawal Agreement obliges it to do .
So be it .
In which case , why not wait until the negotiation collapses , and argue that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s broken international law ?
More in sorrow than in anger , Johnson would then be able to pin the blame on the EU , or try – and bring in a short Bill containing the controversial clauses of this week ’ s Bill to protect Britain position .
He would also assert that these were justified by the safeguarding measures set out in Article 16 of the Protocol .
The dispute would then go to arbitration .
Why instead did the Government present Britain last week as the first potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast the UK as the bad guys ?
No wonder Conservative MPs have formed a new WhatsApp group called “ what the f**k is going on ” ?
They will be asking some hard questions .
How come Ministers ’ willingness to break international law was sprung with no notice – in response to an oral question ?
Why put Robert Buckland in a position where he felt he had to say that he will resign if “ the rule of law is being broken in a way that I find unacceptable ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slow to brief a defence for its position , thus playing off the back foot for the best part of a week ?
Admittedly , its evidence that other liberal democratic governments have acted in a similar way seems a bit thin to us .
There is Australia and asylum seekers ; Canada and cannabis .
Lord Keen , the Government ’ s Lords Justice spokesman , said last week that the Human Rights Act contains provision for statements of incompatibility with the Act in relation to legislation .
These , if issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
He said Labour issued one in 2002 .
That sounds more promising for the Government ’ s case .
And we are puzzled by Ministers not making hay with the EU ’ s own breaches of WTO rules , and thus of international law too .
As Peter Marshall never tired of pointing out , its interpretation of Article 50 , which separated out the Withdrawal Agreement from trade talks , can also be held to be a breach of that law .
What should Tory backbenchers make of all this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be the first party in a dispute to break international law – let alone present itself in that light .
So the least bad way forward now is for MPs to vote for amendments which would guarantee all MPs rather than some a vote on any triggering of the contested clauses .
This would send a message to three audiences .
First , to the courts : that any triggering would be the intention of the whole legislature .
Second , to the Government : that it has bungled by casting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , worse , its pre-election predecessor cocked up the state aid part of the negotiation , leaving us open to the ECJ .
Finally , to the EU .
There can be no doubt that , if the negotiation collapses , and the Government then asserts that the EU has acted illegally , this Commons , with its Conservative majority of 80 , would then swiftly vote to implement the contested clauses of this Bill .
In sum , we believe that countries will sometimes be accused of breaking international law .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position by triggering these clauses , so be it .
But it has been baffling to see the Government playing into the hands of the EU by casting itself as a law-breaker when its own version of events suggests it isn ’ t .

When Dominic Raab next denounces China for its oppression of the Uighurs, or the police move to disperse a Group of Seven, or Robert Buckland says that the law must be obeyed, will the response be pleas of “difficult and highly exceptional circumstances“?
In one sense, Boris Johnson’s intention of tearing up part of a treaty he signed less than a year ago shames almost the entire right of British politics – from the Prime Minister himself through MPs and media to Nigel Farage, all of whom, to a greater or lesser degree, threw their weight behind the Withdrawal Agreement that he agreed.
Some of these had reservations about parts of it. But none seem to have spotted the potential leakage of EU state aid rules from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, including the Government’s negotiators. This site has always treated with contempt those who claim that the UK “isn’t a serious country”. Maybe we should think again.
In another sense, though, this isn’t Suez or the Winter of Discontent or the ERM – far from it. We don’t know what Dominic Cummings’ focus groups make of the Government being prepared to break international law. But our best guess is that its members would shrug their shoulders, and point out that other countries do so all the time.
That may be an ignoble response, but it would put last week’s events in political proportion. Most voters will be far more engaged with Johnson’s severe new Coronavirus rules, and the media has been faithfully reflecting their preoccuptions. In much of provincial England, this contretemps won’t even have registered.
Furthermore, Conservative MPs, as they prepare to debate the UK Internal Market Bill, which contains the controversial clauses, will doubt whether these will ever be enacted. After all, they are a Government safeguard in the event of No Deal. But a deal is still possible, if not probable – if not likely.
They will also feel that the Commons shouldn’t do anything that might help the EU and harm the UK during this crucial negotiation. Many newly-elected ones in Red Wall seats will also believe, rightly, that Johnson got them elected last December, and that they owe him a special loyalty.
But as they mull all this, they will be puzzled by a question that haunts the whole dispute: would the UK really be breaking international law were the relevant clauses in the Bill ever triggered? The Prime Minister claims that the EU has threatened a food blockade of Great Britain. David Frost backed him up on Twitter yesterday.
If so, such action would itself breach WTO rules, and therefore international law, too. Meanwhile, the EU’s readiness to impose tariffs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, as Unionists see it, a breach of the commitment to uphold the Belfast Agreement contained in the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Which implies that the Government believes that the EU isn’t negotiating in good faith, as the Withdrawal Agreement obliges it to do. So be it. In which case, why not wait until the negotiation collapses, and argue that it’s the EU – not the UK – that’s broken international law?
More in sorrow than in anger, Johnson would then be able to pin the blame on the EU, or try – and bring in a short Bill containing the controversial clauses of this week’s Bill to protect Britain position. He would also assert that these were justified by the safeguarding measures set out in Article 16 of the Protocol.
The dispute would then go to arbitration. Why instead did the Government present Britain last week as the first potential movers in breaking international law? Why cast the UK as the bad guys? No wonder Conservative MPs have formed a new WhatsApp group called “what the f**k is going on”?
They will be asking some hard questions. How come Ministers’ willingness to break international law was sprung with no notice – in response to an oral question? Why put Robert Buckland in a position where he felt he had to say that he will resign if “the rule of law is being broken in a way that I find unacceptable”?
Why has the Government been so slow to brief a defence for its position, thus playing off the back foot for the best part of a week? Admittedly, its evidence that other liberal democratic governments have acted in a similar way seems a bit thin to us. There is Australia and asylum seekers; Canada and cannabis.
Lord Keen, the Government’s Lords Justice spokesman, said last week that the Human Rights Act contains provision for statements of incompatibility with the Act in relation to legislation. These, if issued, would be in breach of international law. He said Labour issued one in 2002. That sounds more promising for the Government’s case.
And we are puzzled by Ministers not making hay with the EU’s own breaches of WTO rules, and thus of international law too. As Peter Marshall never tired of pointing out, its interpretation of Article 50, which separated out the Withdrawal Agreement from trade talks, can also be held to be a breach of that law.
What should Tory backbenchers make of all this? We believe that the UK should not be the first party in a dispute to break international law – let alone present itself in that light. So the least bad way forward now is for MPs to vote for amendments which would guarantee all MPs rather than some a vote on any triggering of the contested clauses.
This would send a message to three audiences. First, to the courts: that any triggering would be the intention of the whole legislature. Second, to the Government: that it has bungled by casting the UK as a villain – and that, worse, its pre-election predecessor cocked up the state aid part of the negotiation, leaving us open to the ECJ.
Finally, to the EU. There can be no doubt that, if the negotiation collapses, and the Government then asserts that the EU has acted illegally, this Commons, with its Conservative majority of 80, would then swiftly vote to implement the contested clauses of this Bill.
In sum, we believe that countries will sometimes be accused of breaking international law. If the UK eventually finds itself in that position by triggering these clauses, so be it. But it has been baffling to see the Government playing into the hands of the EU by casting itself as a law-breaker when its own version of events suggests it isn’t.


conservativehome--2020-09-14--Richard Holden: If Starmer stands – or kneels – for each passing fad, he won’t rebuild trust with wo

Richard Holden: If Starmer stands – or kneels – for each passing fad, he won’t rebuild trust with working class voters

Trust by the electorate of a political party boils down to a belief about whether someone feels you represent them , their family and their community at an underlying level .
The trust in Labour that had existed for a century across many parts of the North of England and the Midlands had been stretched under the latter years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown .
Under Jeremy Corbyn , it finally snapped .
The explanations of why that trust ended – a break that led to the metamorphosis of the ‘ Red Wall ’ into the ‘ Blue Barricade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known in Westminster ) – are many , but the main reason is that traditional Labour voters , over time , stopped seeing the people who they ’ d elected as representing them .
It ’ s true to say that this shift took place over years – even decades – but it was seen most clearly of all by Labour ’ s rejection of Brexit in last year ’ s general election because Labour finally said what many had suspected : that it knew better than its own voters .
Keir Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on EU membership was fundamental to that .
Yes , Corbyn was a major issue – but he had been for many two years before , too .
The cold , hard difference between 2017 and 2019 was Labour ’ s position on Brexit , and that the electorate saw , from 2017 , that Corbyn might get in and implement it .
The party ’ s second referendum Brexit position was taken because the Labour higher echelons in London thought , as they had done for many years ( and did in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take what was then the Red Wall for granted , and pursue a policy that was anathema to their own traditional voters .
It ’ s hardly surprising , then , that we see Starmer , the man behind the policy that did the most damage to Labour in 2019 , writing in yesterday ’ s Sunday Telegraph that we need to stop “ banging on about Brexit.
” For the London Labour Party , the core of the woketerati establishment , it ’ s a typically upper middle-class response of “ Don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it goes away ” approach .
Starmer clearly sees both those who voted for Brexit and the entire concept of Brexit as a vulgar embarrassment to be ignored .
But it ’ s not just on Brexit that he is ensuring his party stays silent .
Can you remember a good point that he ’ s made at Prime Minister ’ s Questions ?
One that really stuck with you ?
Or even one of those jibes that reveal something deeper ?
I ’ m struggling .
Does Labour have even one policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first five months of his leadership ?
It ’ s been 150 days , and he ’ s still leaving the public guessing .
Even Labour ’ s forays into opposition to the Government quickly come unstuck as soon as you ask : “ so what would you do instead ?
” Journalists don ’ t even need to ask the “ How would you pay for it ?
” question .
Starmer doesn ’ t want to get into Brexit : in fact , he ’ d literally rather not talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that matter .
He has been struck dumb on the biggest foreign and economic policy issue ofour time .
Which is hardly surprising – as the performance of Louise Haigh , Labour ’ s Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary , on Sophie Ridge on Sunday yesterday showed .
It ’ s easy to criticise , but if you literally don ’ t have a policy you end up by inventing one and , in doing so on the hoof .
Labour ’ s problem is that this means capitulating to EU demands on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United Kingdom .
I can understand why Labour is burnt .
They tried to stand for a policy – one on a second referendum , as designed by Starmer – and people didn ’ t like it .
The problem that he now faces is that if you stand for nothing , you therefore fall ( or at least kneel ) for any passing fad .
And that will soon start to show in the further undermining of trust – which is the one factor that Starmer needs , above anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in with a shot of being able to win back the Blue Barricade .
For us Conservatives , trust cuts the other way .
We must , as the Prime Minister said , repay the trust placed in us by the British people when they voted for us , particularly in the communities where , like mine , they took a leap of faith for the first time ever .
That means standing up for our communities and what they voted for : control of our own money , borders , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over time and methodically , on the levelling up agenda .
If Labour isn ’ t prepared to have a policy on Brexit , or tax and spend , or education , or health , or social care – even in the broadest terms then – electorally at least – Starmer will end up being Continuity Corbyn .
Or perhaps worse .
The volte face that Labour is currently trying to manage as an opposition in seeking to defend a Withdrawal Agreement that it opposed is farcical .
Starmer needs to decide which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In doing so , he ’ ll be able to look to build a case .
I remember the days of the ‘ quiet man ’ in opposition , and it ’ s pretty clear to me that the ‘ silent knight ’ politics he ’ s adopted won ’ t withstand the struggles of the next few months – never mind years .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
Trust by the electorate of a political party boils down to a belief about whether someone feels you represent them, their family and their community at an underlying level. The trust in Labour that had existed for a century across many parts of the North of England and the Midlands had been stretched under the latter years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Under Jeremy Corbyn, it finally snapped.
The explanations of why that trust ended – a break that led to the metamorphosis of the ‘Red Wall’ into the ‘Blue Barricade’ (as it’s now known in Westminster) – are many, but the main reason is that traditional Labour voters, over time, stopped seeing the people who they’d elected as representing them.
It’s true to say that this shift took place over years – even decades – but it was seen most clearly of all by Labour’s rejection of Brexit in last year’s general election because Labour finally said what many had suspected: that it knew better than its own voters.
Keir Starmer’s push for a second referendum on EU membership was fundamental to that. Yes, Corbyn was a major issue – but he had been for many two years before, too. The cold, hard difference between 2017 and 2019 was Labour’s position on Brexit, and that the electorate saw, from 2017, that Corbyn might get in and implement it.
The party’s second referendum Brexit position was taken because the Labour higher echelons in London thought, as they had done for many years (and did in Scotland previously), that they could take what was then the Red Wall for granted, and pursue a policy that was anathema to their own traditional voters.
It’s hardly surprising, then, that we see Starmer, the man behind the policy that did the most damage to Labour in 2019, writing in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph that we need to stop “banging on about Brexit.” For the London Labour Party, the core of the woketerati establishment, it’s a typically upper middle-class response of “Don’t talk about it and hope it goes away” approach. Starmer clearly sees both those who voted for Brexit and the entire concept of Brexit as a vulgar embarrassment to be ignored.
But it’s not just on Brexit that he is ensuring his party stays silent. Can you remember a good point that he’s made at Prime Minister’s Questions? One that really stuck with you? Or even one of those jibes that reveal something deeper? I’m struggling.
Does Labour have even one policy idea that has managed to emerge in the first five months of his leadership? It’s been 150 days, and he’s still leaving the public guessing. Even Labour’s forays into opposition to the Government quickly come unstuck as soon as you ask: “so what would you do instead?” Journalists don’t even need to ask the “How would you pay for it?” question.
Starmer doesn’t want to get into Brexit: in fact, he’d literally rather not talk about it – or anything else, for that matter. He has been struck dumb on the biggest foreign and economic policy issue ofour time. Which is hardly surprising – as the performance of Louise Haigh, Labour’s Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, on Sophie Ridge on Sunday yesterday showed.
It’s easy to criticise, but if you literally don’t have a policy you end up by inventing one and, in doing so on the hoof. Labour’s problem is that this means capitulating to EU demands on state aid, fishing and the integrity of the United Kingdom.
I can understand why Labour is burnt. They tried to stand for a policy – one on a second referendum, as designed by Starmer – and people didn’t like it. The problem that he now faces is that if you stand for nothing, you therefore fall (or at least kneel) for any passing fad. And that will soon start to show in the further undermining of trust – which is the one factor that Starmer needs, above anything, to rebuild if he is to be in with a shot of being able to win back the Blue Barricade.
For us Conservatives, trust cuts the other way. We must, as the Prime Minister said, repay the trust placed in us by the British people when they voted for us, particularly in the communities where, like mine, they took a leap of faith for the first time ever. That means standing up for our communities and what they voted for: control of our own money, borders, and laws. It also means delivering, over time and methodically, on the levelling up agenda.
If Labour isn’t prepared to have a policy on Brexit, or tax and spend, or education, or health, or social care – even in the broadest terms then – electorally at least – Starmer will end up being Continuity Corbyn. Or perhaps worse.
The volte face that Labour is currently trying to manage as an opposition in seeking to defend a Withdrawal Agreement that it opposed is farcical. Starmer needs to decide which voters he wants to trust him. In doing so, he’ll be able to look to build a case. I remember the days of the ‘quiet man’ in opposition, and it’s pretty clear to me that the ‘silent knight’ politics he’s adopted won’t withstand the struggles of the next few months – never mind years.


conservativehome--2020-09-14--John Fuller: This pandemic has shown that bigger local government does not mean better local governm

John Fuller: This pandemic has shown that bigger local government does not mean better local government

Cllr John Fuller OBE is the Leader of South Norfolk District Council and the Chairman of the District Councils ’ Network The opportunity to take back control drove millions to the ballot box in June 2016 .
The country voted to take back greater powers to shape their own destiny , and against remote elite and expensive bureaucracies that take decisions to constrain our lives in ways that are hard to influence .
It doesn ’ t just apply to Europe : English local government is already the largest and most remote in the western world , with voters already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessons of the pandemic have proved again what is fact : bigger local government is not better local government .
While national command and control sometimes stumbled , our local district councils ensured that individuals , families , and businesses could keep calm and carry on .
In streets up and down our country , it was the local district council that ensured every fridge was filled , every bin collected , every evicted sofa-surfer had a roof placed over their head , and every small business had the financial help and regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new normal .
And we were able to do this because we have the local connection , the local accountability , and the local knowledge , to customise our approach , one family at a time , one street at a time , and one place at a time .
Your local district and smaller unitary councils represent our market towns , our cathedral cities , coastal communities , new towns , and the countryside , across 60 per cent of England .
Our agility at street level allowed national government to focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the knowledge that the final mile was cared for .
In the last few weeks there is a small group of people clamouring to put all of this at risk .
Astonishingly , Conservative county councils are making the case for turning their backs on learning the lessons on what worked best in the depths of our Covid despair .
They are proposing to dismantle the final mile that delivers bespoke solutions for residents in every corner of our country .
They seek to recast local government into just two dozen county-based unitary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottom on cheapness .
It is nothing less than putting their own organisations ’ survival ahead of the best interests of residents and business – and will hamper our ability to grow the national economy , one local economy at a time .
Replacing nearly 200 predominantly Conservative authorities with just 25 county unitaries where control is much more finely balanced would be a suicide mission that would put see our associations and councillor base emasculated and take the voters even further away from those who represent us .
In so doing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Conservative Party and leave us at a structural disadvantage against Labour ’ s metropolitan heartlands who would remain unmolested .
The county councils ’ plans would condemn Conservative local government to permanent opposition in the Local Government Association and all the other representative bodies that control nearly a third of public expenditure .
And with 33 councils in London and just 25 in the rest of shire England , what does that say about levelling up ?
It is already more difficult to get Conservatives elected on the bottom rung of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London Borough or city-based metropolitan council , it takes about 3,000 electors for a Labour candidate to win .
In our county councils , in Kent , Essex and Hampshire that number is 15,000 .
Labour enjoys a five-times electoral advantage over us .
We should be challenging this arithmetic , not reinforcing it .
But it ’ s worse than that .
Labour councils tend to be smaller : 50-60 seats , whereas Conservative counties often comprise 80 councillors or more .
So it ’ s also easier for those councillors of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus play a leading role in national policy formation .
In the mid-2000s , our leader in local government , Sandy Bruce Lockhart , and the Leader of Kent County Council , cautioned us against conniving with Labour to decimate the Party in the Shires .
How ironic that we now have Conservative collaborators pushing something that even Hazel Blears as Labour ’ s Secretary of State dared not deliver .
Now is the time for us to focus on recovery not reorganisation .
Our government ’ s Devolution and Recovery White Paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t just a transactional entity .
A council has the responsibility to exceed the aspirations of residents and business , recognising and celebrating the differences in our county , not centralising with an identikit approach .
We should be devolving down even more to those organisations like our district and small unitary councils who shone when the Covid chips were down ; not using it as an excuse to centralise into distant mega-bureaucracies with a ‘ Computer Says No ’ attitude , that are so removed from street level that they are unable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across their sprawling landscapes .
Making an argument for cheapness is a dismal one that can not inspire anyone .
The Conservative Party stands for aspiration and efficient services that they can be shaped locally , not cheap ones they can ’ t .
We stand against centralisation rather than devolution .
We stand for shaping shared prosperity at street level to build homes , infrastructure funding , and employment to deliver true levelling up for all .
So let ’ s have a pattern of local government that looks forward to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by boundaries laid down in 1066 .
That ’ s not just a statement of common sense .
It ’ s also an aspirational one which allows the Conservative Party the best chance to shape the future in every corner of our land .
Let ’ s celebrate our historical county boundaries , but not get tripped up by them .

Cllr John Fuller OBE is the Leader of South Norfolk District Council and the Chairman of the District Councils’ Network
The opportunity to take back control drove millions to the ballot box in June 2016. The country voted to take back greater powers to shape their own destiny, and against remote elite and expensive bureaucracies that take decisions to constrain our lives in ways that are hard to influence.
It doesn’t just apply to Europe: English local government is already the largest and most remote in the western world, with voters already the least well represented.
Yet the lessons of the pandemic have proved again what is fact: bigger local government is not better local government. While national command and control sometimes stumbled, our local district councils ensured that individuals, families, and businesses could keep calm and carry on.
In streets up and down our country, it was the local district council that ensured every fridge was filled, every bin collected, every evicted sofa-surfer had a roof placed over their head, and every small business had the financial help and regulatory forbearance to adapt and pivot towards a new normal.
And we were able to do this because we have the local connection, the local accountability, and the local knowledge, to customise our approach, one family at a time, one street at a time, and one place at a time.
Your local district and smaller unitary councils represent our market towns, our cathedral cities, coastal communities, new towns, and the countryside, across 60 per cent of England. Our agility at street level allowed national government to focus on the big issues whilst safe in the knowledge that the final mile was cared for.
But what’s this?
In the last few weeks there is a small group of people clamouring to put all of this at risk. Astonishingly, Conservative county councils are making the case for turning their backs on learning the lessons on what worked best in the depths of our Covid despair. They are proposing to dismantle the final mile that delivers bespoke solutions for residents in every corner of our country.
They seek to recast local government into just two dozen county-based unitary councils in a reckless race to the bottom on cheapness. It is nothing less than putting their own organisations’ survival ahead of the best interests of residents and business – and will hamper our ability to grow the national economy, one local economy at a time.
Replacing nearly 200 predominantly Conservative authorities with just 25 county unitaries where control is much more finely balanced would be a suicide mission that would put see our associations and councillor base emasculated and take the voters even further away from those who represent us.
In so doing it, would destroy the local campaigning base of the Conservative Party and leave us at a structural disadvantage against Labour’s metropolitan heartlands who would remain unmolested.
The county councils’ plans would condemn Conservative local government to permanent opposition in the Local Government Association and all the other representative bodies that control nearly a third of public expenditure.
And with 33 councils in London and just 25 in the rest of shire England, what does that say about levelling up? It is already more difficult to get Conservatives elected on the bottom rung of our democracy. In the typical Labour-run London Borough or city-based metropolitan council, it takes about 3,000 electors for a Labour candidate to win. In our county councils, in Kent, Essex and Hampshire that number is 15,000. Labour enjoys a five-times electoral advantage over us. We should be challenging this arithmetic, not reinforcing it.
But it’s worse than that. Labour councils tend to be smaller: 50-60 seats, whereas Conservative counties often comprise 80 councillors or more. So it’s also easier for those councillors of other parties to become council leaders and thus play a leading role in national policy formation.
In the mid-2000s, our leader in local government, Sandy Bruce Lockhart, and the Leader of Kent County Council, cautioned us against conniving with Labour to decimate the Party in the Shires. How ironic that we now have Conservative collaborators pushing something that even Hazel Blears as Labour’s Secretary of State dared not deliver.
Now is the time for us to focus on recovery not reorganisation. Our government’s Devolution and Recovery White Paper must recognise that a council isn’t just a transactional entity. A council has the responsibility to exceed the aspirations of residents and business, recognising and celebrating the differences in our county, not centralising with an identikit approach.
We should be devolving down even more to those organisations like our district and small unitary councils who shone when the Covid chips were down; not using it as an excuse to centralise into distant mega-bureaucracies with a ‘Computer Says No’ attitude, that are so removed from street level that they are unable to connect with the towns and cities across their sprawling landscapes.
Making an argument for cheapness is a dismal one that cannot inspire anyone. The Conservative Party stands for aspiration and efficient services that they can be shaped locally, not cheap ones they can’t. We stand against centralisation rather than devolution. We stand for shaping shared prosperity at street level to build homes, infrastructure funding, and employment to deliver true levelling up for all.
So let’s have a pattern of local government that looks forward to the needs of 2066 rather than being bogged down by boundaries laid down in 1066.
That’s not just a statement of common sense. It’s also an aspirational one which allows the Conservative Party the best chance to shape the future in every corner of our land. Let’s celebrate our historical county boundaries, but not get tripped up by them.


conservativehome--2020-09-14--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Small Business Commissioner – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate : Her Majesty ’ s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ( HMCPSI ) .
The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation , efficiency , and effectiveness of the public prosecutors ( the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ) .
The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve , thereby strengthening the public ’ s trust in the prosecution process .
Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.
” “ The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards .
They are responsible for : identifying the requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading on the development of new standards ; and where necessary , providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards .
The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field , encompassing at least one of the following : leadership in a forensic , or related , scientific discipline ; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment ; the regulatory process involving scientific standards ; or the criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a clear purpose : to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society .
To help us meet that purpose , fulfil our proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity , and meet the challenges we face , in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital , Culture , Media and Sport , the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP , wishes to appoint a Board member to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020 .
This is a senior role requiring someone with the necessary experience and non-executive skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission .
” “ The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole , sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education .
The Commissioner ’ s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004 .
This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder .
The legislation relating to the Children ’ s Commissioner is permissive , allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children ’ s rights .
The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and , in general , can not conduct investigations into the case of an individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspirational leader with extensive business experience , international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair .
The central priority of Innovate UK , under a new Executive Chair , will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK ’ s innovation capacity and capability , taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget .
The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation ’ s position within key markets , providing impactful thought leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the pivotal funding body for business R & D , especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country , the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R & D and technologies of the future.
” Remuneration : £180,000 per annum base , up to £37,500 performance-related .
“ The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964 , now section 63 of the Police Act 1996 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee .
In addition to this , the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum ( PCF ) , a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW .
We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing .
The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20,000 , the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Annual Report.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role has six broad elements : setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan ; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC ; providing strong leadership to your staff ; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes ; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices ; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership and delivery ; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation ; outstanding communication , interpersonal and influencing skills ; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives ; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement ; and evidence-based decision making.
” “ Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas .
The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities : effective , cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction .
This includes enabling a high standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government ; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles ; Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills , experience and outlook ; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan ; and maintaining clear and effective channels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – Chief Inspector
“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation, efficiency, and effectiveness of the public prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)). The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve, thereby strengthening the public’s trust in the prosecution process. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Forensic Science Regulator
“The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards. They are responsible for: identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards; leading on the development of new standards; and where necessary, providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards. The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field, encompassing at least one of the following: leadership in a forensic, or related, scientific discipline; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment; the regulatory process involving scientific standards; or the criminal justice system.”
Time: 3-4 days per week.
Remuneration: £96,000 per annum FTE.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Charity Commission – Board Member
“The Charity Commission has a clear purpose: to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society. To help us meet that purpose, fulfil our proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity, and meet the challenges we face, in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP, wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020. This is a senior role requiring someone with the necessary experience and non-executive skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission. ”
Time: Approx. 24 days per year.
Remuneration: £350 per diem plus expenses.
Closes: 20 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Children’s Commissioner for England
“The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole, sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. The Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England. The legislative basis for the office of Children’s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004. This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder. The legislation relating to the Children’s Commissioner is permissive, allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and, in general, cannot conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £120-130,000 per annum.
Closes: 18 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Innovate UK – Chair
“We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience, international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair. The central priority of Innovate UK, under a new Executive Chair, will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK’s innovation capacity and capability, taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget. The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation’s position within key markets, providing impactful thought leadership to the UK’s innovation system. As the pivotal funding body for business R&D, especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country, the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R&D and technologies of the future.”
Time: Full time, ‘other arrangements considered’.
Remuneration: £180,000 per annum base, up to £37,500 performance-related.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Police Advisory Board for England and Wales – Chair
“The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964, now section 63 of the Police Act 1996. Under the remit of the Board, sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee. In addition to this, the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum (PCF), a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW. We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing. The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000, the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.”
Time: Approx. 21 days per annum.
Remuneration: £437 per diem, plus expenses.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Small Business Commissioner
“The role has six broad elements: setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC; providing strong leadership to your staff; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following: strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation; outstanding communication, interpersonal and influencing skills; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement; and evidence-based decision making.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £120,000 per annum.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Coal Authority – Chair
“Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas. The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities: effective, cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction. This includes enabling a high standard of discussion; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles;
Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills, experience and outlook; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £27,050 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 25 October


conservativehome--2020-09-15--James Frayne: Do voters care about breaking international law, and if so, how much?

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People , a guide to moving public opinion .
How much of an electoral risk is the Government taking by threatening to break international law ?
There hasn ’ t , to my knowledge , been much published polling on the issue and I haven ’ t seen any qual either .
I ’ m not sure how revealing any opinion research would be at this point , anyway .
Not only is the issue highly complex , but the Government hasn ’ t communicated a settled position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn , the issue has not been played out properly in the media or in Parliament .
The public have only seen complex snippets .
It ’ s therefore extremely unlikely the Government ’ s threat to break international law will have had much of an impact on public opinion at all so far .
This isn ’ t to say the issue isn ’ t important or won ’ t have an impact in time .
But it ’ s much more useful to consider how opinion might change and what might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this change ?
Six questions come to mind .
Will this just split down Leave-Remain lines ?
As we know from the 2019 election , most people are bored to death by never-ending negotiations to leave .
As we also know , almost everything on the Brexit process splits down Leave-Remain lines .
There ’ s almost no crossover , where Leavers take the side of Remainers on an issue and vice versa .
The well has been poisoned ; you just have to take the occasional peek at Twitter and see otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Brexit .
ConservativeHome has taken an unusual position here : it ’ s associated with Leave but has encouraged MPs to vote against the Government .
How common will ConservativeHome ’ s position be ?
This is the crucial question .
Until significant numbers of Leavers ( particularly Conservative Leavers ) come out and join ConservativeHome , it seems most likely that Leavers will tacitly back the Government .
Public opinion would shift if more Leavers follow the Editor ’ s advice .
Will this just look like Brexit chaos ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive fiasco .
From the morning after the referendum , government on this has been a shambles .
One of the reasons so many people wanted to ‘ get Brexit done ’ was because they wanted the chaos to go away .
I wonder therefore whether many will just write this off as being just another cock-up .
Government opponents will need to explain why this is a special case .
At present , they haven ’ t yet been able to do this effectively , although the arrival of more senior Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat .
Can the public ever be made to care about international law ?
International law is complex , of course .
But my sense is that it can ’ t be simplified in the way those hostile to the Government ’ s threat are seeking to do .
People like Blair and Major are talking about how Britain ’ s moral standing will be adversely affected and so on .
While a reasonable point , there are two reasons this won ’ t work .
Firstly , because , Brexit partisans aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people still consider Britain to be a moral actor in the world ; this alone won ’ t undermine that .
Secondly , more importantly , because many believe other countries break international law all the time .
That said , opinion would surely change if and when the public are confronted with the prospect of another country unilaterally changing a treaty they had agreed with us .
( It ’ s also worth adding the straight reality that Tony Blair is hardly the best advocate for international law . )
What is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
My very strong sense is that the English public have also lost respect for ‘ the law ’ more generally .
They believe the law no longer reflects natural justice and , that word again , fairness .
Respect for the law has been slowly eroding for many years now , but it has been eroding very quickly in recent years .
Increasingly , people have not only heard stories about pathetically weak sentencing , but they ’ ve also heard , in their eyes , perfectly reasonable Government policy decisions being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left has claimed this shift in opinion amounts to a swing against an independent judiciary and the beginnings of a march towards a more political legal system .
It ’ s nothing so thought-through ; rather , people think the law no longer reflects right and wrong and therefore the accusation levelled at Britain – as being a law breaker – simply doesn ’ t have the same power that it once might have done What do the public think about the EU ’ s behaviour during negotiations ?
It would be an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public have followed Brexit negotiations closely .
But , to the extent they have , my sense is that they think the EU has behaved with hostility towards Britain .
Varadkar , Barnier and Juncker seemed to revel in Britain ’ s difficulties during negotiations .
The pro-EU British media liked to praise these politicians for this , on the basis they were teaching about the reality of its new position .
But it was always going to be pointlessly destructive because it stored up English resentment that , when the time came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tap into – as it now might well do .
Will the public cut slack to the Government over Northern Ireland ?
It ’ s important to consider the merits of the Government ’ s stated case – or , rather , what the public will think of these merits .
At one level , the Government has a very strong argument : it ’ s perfectly reasonable to argue Northern Ireland , as much part of the UK as England , should not be treated differently .
The problem , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be treated differently and that it had secured a winning agreement .
Will the public rally behind Northern Ireland if the Government makes a case that the agreement is having unintended consequences , or will they think Northern Ireland isn ’ t worth the bother ?
There ’ s no question that unionist sentiment has faded in recent times ; not because of a surge in English nationalism , but because of a sense that Scotland , particularly , wants to go its own way .
The UK doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago .
Will English Leavers think the Government should therefore dig in in the way it seems to be planning ?
What does all this mean ?
My sense is that , on current trajectory , the Government ’ s opponents will not be able to make this an issue the public care about ( Covid obviously towers above everything at the moment ) in time .
The only way this will change is if Conservative Leavers are mobilised en masse – and if perceived historical allies start to question this behaviour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also Canada and Australia .
As it stands , it ’ s mostly been anti-Brexit voices who have made the running on this issue , which , as I note above , makes it look like just another day in BrexitLand .

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
How much of an electoral risk is the Government taking by threatening to break international law? There hasn’t, to my knowledge, been much published polling on the issue and I haven’t seen any qual either. I’m not sure how revealing any opinion research would be at this point, anyway. Not only is the issue highly complex, but the Government hasn’t communicated a settled position on its intentions – and, in turn, the issue has not been played out properly in the media or in Parliament.
The public have only seen complex snippets. It’s therefore extremely unlikely the Government’s threat to break international law will have had much of an impact on public opinion at all so far. This isn’t to say the issue isn’t important or won’t have an impact in time. But it’s much more useful to consider how opinion might change and what might change it. How might we anticipate this change? Six questions come to mind.
Will this just split down Leave-Remain lines? As we know from the 2019 election, most people are bored to death by never-ending negotiations to leave. As we also know, almost everything on the Brexit process splits down Leave-Remain lines. There’s almost no crossover, where Leavers take the side of Remainers on an issue and vice versa. The well has been poisoned; you just have to take the occasional peek at Twitter and see otherwise normal people spewing bile at each other over Brexit.
ConservativeHome has taken an unusual position here: it’s associated with Leave but has encouraged MPs to vote against the Government. How common will ConservativeHome’s position be? This is the crucial question. Until significant numbers of Leavers (particularly Conservative Leavers) come out and join ConservativeHome, it seems most likely that Leavers will tacitly back the Government. Public opinion would shift if more Leavers follow the Editor’s advice.
Will this just look like Brexit chaos? The entire Brexit negotiation process has been a massive fiasco. From the morning after the referendum, government on this has been a shambles. One of the reasons so many people wanted to ‘get Brexit done’ was because they wanted the chaos to go away. I wonder therefore whether many will just write this off as being just another cock-up. Government opponents will need to explain why this is a special case. At present, they haven’t yet been able to do this effectively, although the arrival of more senior Conservative politicians into the fray might change things somewhat.
Can the public ever be made to care about international law? International law is complex, of course. But my sense is that it can’t be simplified in the way those hostile to the Government’s threat are seeking to do. People like Blair and Major are talking about how Britain’s moral standing will be adversely affected and so on. While a reasonable point, there are two reasons this won’t work.
Firstly, because, Brexit partisans aside, and rightly or wrongly, most people still consider Britain to be a moral actor in the world; this alone won’t undermine that. Secondly, more importantly, because many believe other countries break international law all the time. That said, opinion would surely change if and when the public are confronted with the prospect of another country unilaterally changing a treaty they had agreed with us. (It’s also worth adding the straight reality that Tony Blair is hardly the best advocate for international law.)
What is the reputation of the law more generally? My very strong sense is that the English public have also lost respect for ‘the law’ more generally. They believe the law no longer reflects natural justice and, that word again, fairness. Respect for the law has been slowly eroding for many years now, but it has been eroding very quickly in recent years. Increasingly, people have not only heard stories about pathetically weak sentencing, but they’ve also heard, in their eyes, perfectly reasonable Government policy decisions being unpicked by the courts.
The Establishment Left has claimed this shift in opinion amounts to a swing against an independent judiciary and the beginnings of a march towards a more political legal system. It’s nothing so thought-through; rather, people think the law no longer reflects right and wrong and therefore the accusation levelled at Britain – as being a law breaker – simply doesn’t have the same power that it once might have done
What do the public think about the EU’s behaviour during negotiations? It would be an exaggeration to say the mass of the public have followed Brexit negotiations closely. But, to the extent they have, my sense is that they think the EU has behaved with hostility towards Britain.
Varadkar, Barnier and Juncker seemed to revel in Britain’s difficulties during negotiations. The pro-EU British media liked to praise these politicians for this, on the basis they were teaching about the reality of its new position. But it was always going to be pointlessly destructive because it stored up English resentment that, when the time came, the Government would be able to tap into – as it now might well do.
Will the public cut slack to the Government over Northern Ireland? It’s important to consider the merits of the Government’s stated case – or, rather, what the public will think of these merits.
At one level, the Government has a very strong argument: it’s perfectly reasonable to argue Northern Ireland, as much part of the UK as England, should not be treated differently. The problem, of course, is that the Government initially said it should be treated differently and that it had secured a winning agreement.
Will the public rally behind Northern Ireland if the Government makes a case that the agreement is having unintended consequences, or will they think Northern Ireland isn’t worth the bother? There’s no question that unionist sentiment has faded in recent times; not because of a surge in English nationalism, but because of a sense that Scotland, particularly, wants to go its own way. The UK doesn’t seem the country it did even 10 years ago. Will English Leavers think the Government should therefore dig in in the way it seems to be planning?
What does all this mean? My sense is that, on current trajectory, the Government’s opponents will not be able to make this an issue the public care about (Covid obviously towers above everything at the moment) in time. The only way this will change is if Conservative Leavers are mobilised en masse – and if perceived historical allies start to question this behaviour too, mostly from the US, but also Canada and Australia. As it stands, it’s mostly been anti-Brexit voices who have made the running on this issue, which, as I note above, makes it look like just another day in BrexitLand.


conservativehome--2020-09-15--The changes that Cox wants from the Government to the UK Internal Market Bill

ConservativeHome understands that the former Attorney-General , who expressed his reservations about the Bill yesterday in the Times , will support it were the Government to make five concessions .
These are concentrated on a guarantee to the Commons that the Government will not trigger the safeguarding measures save in the following circumstances .
• A manifest breach by the EU of its duties with regard to good faith , best endeavours or both in the execution of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Northern Ireland Protocol .
• If the arbitration panel set up under the terms of the Agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Where pending a decision by the panel “ it is urgent and necessary to take temporary and proportionate measures to the protect the fundamental interests of the UK ” .
• Under the safeguarding provisions of the Agreement itself ( which both the UK and the EU are entitled to use ) .
• After the Commons has voted to approve the implementation of the measures by passing a statutory instrument in the form of the affirmative resolution procedure .
In our view , two points arise from putting this list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• First , the Government and most of its critics are now not that far apart .
Very few , if any , believe that no UK government should ever be in the position where it can be accused of breaking international law .
Most , like Cox , think that if necessary Ministers must sometimes take action that will lay them open to that charge ( as in his third point above ) .
But they ’ re opposed to this Government declaring that the safeguarding measures would definitely break international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not clear that these would .
• Second , Boris Johnson appears to have conceded Cox ’ s last point by saying that “ if the powers were ever needed , Ministers would return to this House with a statutory instrument on which a vote…would be held ” .
That is consistent with the affirmative resolution procedure being used , as Cox wants .
However , a vote on a statutory instrument would only give the Commons the opportunity to bar the application of the measures retrospectively – not in advance .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on not conceding such a vote .
But the safeguarding measures won ’ t be debated until next week .
And new compromise proposals or / and last-minute offers , sometimes made from the despatch box , have a way of emerging when controversial parts of Bills are being considered .
More broadly , the Government is distancing itself from Brandon Lewis ’ claim in the Commons last week that the measures would breach international law if applied .
Though it has not disowned Lewis ’ statement , Johnson suggested yesterday that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith .
If so , that would make the legal position on any triggering of the safeguarding measures more complex .
But we repeat : they may never be implemented , since they won ’ t be in the event of these negotiations concluding with a deal , which is still possible – and arguably more likely than otherwise .
Playbook today lists 30 Conservative MPs who didn ’ t vote .
The usual warning about absentions not necessarily being deliberate applies to the list below .
( So for example , Theresa @ @ @ @ @

ConservativeHome understands that the former Attorney-General, who expressed his reservations about the Bill yesterday in the Times, will support it were the Government to make five concessions.
These are concentrated on a guarantee to the Commons that the Government will not trigger the safeguarding measures save in the following circumstances.
A manifest breach by the EU of its duties with regard to good faith, best endeavours or both in the execution of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Northern Ireland Protocol.
If the arbitration panel set up under the terms of the Agreement rules that this has taken place.
Where pending a decision by the panel “it is urgent and necessary to take temporary and proportionate measures to the protect the fundamental interests of the UK”.
Under the safeguarding provisions of the Agreement itself (which both the UK and the EU are entitled to use).
After the Commons has voted to approve the implementation of the measures by passing a statutory instrument in the form of the affirmative resolution procedure.
In our view, two points arise from putting this list of proposals alongside the Bill as it stands.
First, the Government and most of its critics are now not that far apart. Very few, if any, believe that no UK government should ever be in the position where it can be accused of breaking international law. Most, like Cox, think that if necessary Ministers must sometimes take action that will lay them open to that charge (as in his third point above). But they’re opposed to this Government declaring that the safeguarding measures would definitely break international law if applied when it’s not clear that these would.
Second, Boris Johnson appears to have conceded Cox’s last point by saying that “if the powers were ever needed, Ministers would return to this House with a statutory instrument on which a vote…would be held”. That is consistent with the affirmative resolution procedure being used, as Cox wants. However, a vote on a statutory instrument would only give the Commons the opportunity to bar the application of the measures retrospectively – not in advance.
So the Government is presently holding its line on not conceding such a vote. But the safeguarding measures won’t be debated until next week. And new compromise proposals or / and last-minute offers, sometimes made from the despatch box, have a way of emerging when controversial parts of Bills are being considered.
More broadly, the Government is distancing itself from Brandon Lewis’ claim in the Commons last week that the measures would breach international law if applied. Though it has not disowned Lewis’ statement, Johnson suggested yesterday that the EU isn’t negotiating in good faith.
If so, that would make the legal position on any triggering of the safeguarding measures more complex. But we repeat: they may never be implemented, since they won’t be in the event of these negotiations concluding with a deal, which is still possible – and arguably more likely than otherwise.
– – –
Playbook today lists 30 Conservative MPs who didn’t vote. The usual warning about absentions not necessarily being deliberate applies to the list below. (So for example, Theresa May is abroad.)


conservativehome--2020-09-15--Gale and Percy oppose the Bill’s Second Reading. 34 Tory MPs don’t vote.

Only two Conservative votes against the Bill yesterday evening – Roger Gale and Andrew Percy .
A paltry number was to be expected , since most of those who oppose the safeguarding provisions , which the Government claims would break international law if applied , support the rest of the Bill .
Their aim therefore will be to amend those provisions during the committee stage of the Bill .
If they don ’ t succeed then , on paper , the Government would be close to losing Third Reading – were all those Tory MPs who didn ’ t back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who didn ’ t vote , then to oppose the Bill .
In practice , this almost certainly won ’ t happen , for three reasons .
First , not all those who didn ’ t vote will have abstained deliberately .
Some will have been ill , a few abroad , and so on .
Second , not all of those who did abstain deliberately will oppose the Bill at Third Reading if the amendments that they support fail .
Some will abstain , and some will end up supporting the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears from the Prime Minister ’ s speech during the debate yesterday that the main demand of the critics has been conceded in principle .
This is because suggested that all MPs will have the chance to debate and vote on the safeguarding provisions if they are ever brought into effect .
For further details , see our ToryDiary this morning .

Only two Conservative votes against the Bill yesterday evening – Roger Gale and Andrew Percy.
A paltry number was to be expected, since most of those who oppose the safeguarding provisions, which the Government claims would break international law if applied, support the rest of the Bill.
Their aim therefore will be to amend those provisions during the committee stage of the Bill.
If they don’t succeed then, on paper, the Government would be close to losing Third Reading – were all those Tory MPs who didn’t back the Bill yesterday, plus all those who didn’t vote, then to oppose the Bill.
In practice, this almost certainly won’t happen, for three reasons.
First, not all those who didn’t vote will have abstained deliberately. Some will have been ill, a few abroad, and so on.
Second, not all of those who did abstain deliberately will oppose the Bill at Third Reading if the amendments that they support fail. Some will abstain, and some will end up supporting the Government, after all.
Finally, it appears from the Prime Minister’s speech during the debate yesterday that the main demand of the critics has been conceded in principle.
This is because suggested that all MPs will have the chance to debate and vote on the safeguarding provisions if they are ever brought into effect. For further details, see our ToryDiary this morning.


conservativehome--2020-09-15--Helen Evans: Housing associations need to work with the Government to boost oportunities for home ow

Helen Evans: Housing associations need to work with the Government to boost oportunities for home ownership

Helen Evans is the Chief Executive of Network Homes and the Chair of the G15 group of London ’ s largest housing associations .
Housing associations have offered the opportunity of home ownership to hundreds of thousands of people in recent years .
Many people working in the housing association sector bought their first home through shared ownership and they are passionate about extending this opportunity to many others .
Everyone needs a safe , secure , and affordable home of their own and this means there is a need for a balance of different housing options to support a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcome government ’ s recognition of that with an investment programme balanced between affordable homes to buy and rent .
Working with a broad coalition of manufacturers , architects , investors , other housing associations , and leading figures from the housing industry , we supported a call for Homes for Heroes over the summer .
This recognised that many of the essential workers who kept the country alive and functioning during the coronavirus crisis live in unsuitable , unaffordable , or insecure housing .
Many essential workers are on minimum wage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other high value areas that means the only affordable option is likely to be social rented housing .
Indeed it is notable that one-third of London ’ s ‘ blue-light ’ workforce currently live in social housing .
For people on moderate incomes – for example a Band 5 nurse – we found that a discounted rent product , around 60 per cent of the market rate in outer London , would be affordable .
For essential workers on higher incomes , or dual-income households , shared ownership offers an attractive and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found very few essential workers who would be able to buy a new home with just a 30 per cent discount .
We proposed a delivery programme of 100,000 well-designed , beautiful , affordable homes for essential workers , manufactured in innovation hubs in the Northern Powerhouse and enabled by planning flexibilities .
This call was endorsed by a wide range of bodies including the Local Government Association and the Greater London Authority .
We are now working with investors and architects to explore how the homes could be delivered at minimum cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic situation casts a shadow across much of our work and we are acutely aware of the challenges that this will bring to the powerful role housing associations could play in supporting the social and economic recovery of the country .
On a practical level , most housing associations are keen to get their people back in the office and working together in a safe way .
We are doing this first through encouragement ; at Network Homes we have asked all staff to come into the office two days a week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for collaboration , innovation , building relationships , and supporting new and junior staff to learn and progress .
Many people report to feeling similarly productive whilst working from home , but an organisation has to be more than the sum of its parts , we are not just a collection of individuals .
Housing associations are community-based organisations , with a range of functions ( e.g .
servicing boilers ) that require physical attendance ; for me it is important that this principle applies to all my colleagues so we can work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I also recognise the moral duty of housing associations to support economic activity through our work and workforce .
Having more people in our offices in the centre of cities will help this .
I care deeply about London and its success and I am keen to do all I can to help get the city moving again .
This is not without its challenges , including significant challenges in relation to building safety which face us and the people who have bought homes from us in taller buildings .
Hundreds of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private sector , have already discovered that they are stuck by lending and valuation processes which I think are going to need government action to resolve – this needs urgent attention if the issue is not to grow rapidly .
The new model of shared ownership proposed by government , subject to a coming consultation , also raises important practical and philosophical questions in relation to home ownership .
Whilst the Government ’ s manifesto commitments to simplify shared ownership and make it fairer are understandable , these latest changes risk making it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put , housing associations facing the current housing market uncertainties may reduce the volumes they can deliver of this new , untested product .
It is proposed that housing associations will carry out any repairs and maintenance for new shared owners for the first ten years .
If this extends into people ’ s homes then it will inevitably limit their ability to customise – a fundamental tenet of home ownership .
If we are to be responsible for internal health and safety then there are legal challenges of whether courts will grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to service their boilers .
They have been reluctant to do so to date in relation to fire safety issues affecting leaseholders .
I am keen to work with a wide range of partners , including all levels of government , to overcome these challenges and to provide the firm foundation of a home of their own , to the maximum number of people .

Helen Evans is the Chief Executive of Network Homes and the Chair of the G15 group of London’s largest housing associations.
Housing associations have offered the opportunity of home ownership to hundreds of thousands of people in recent years. Many people working in the housing association sector bought their first home through shared ownership and they are passionate about extending this opportunity to many others.
Everyone needs a safe, secure, and affordable home of their own and this means there is a need for a balance of different housing options to support a broad range of people. I strongly welcome government’s recognition of that with an investment programme balanced between affordable homes to buy and rent.
Working with a broad coalition of manufacturers, architects, investors, other housing associations, and leading figures from the housing industry, we supported a call for Homes for Heroes over the summer. This recognised that many of the essential workers who kept the country alive and functioning during the coronavirus crisis live in unsuitable, unaffordable, or insecure housing. Many essential workers are on minimum wage, or slightly above, and in London and other high value areas that means the only affordable option is likely to be social rented housing. Indeed it is notable that one-third of London’s ‘blue-light’ workforce currently live in social housing. For people on moderate incomes – for example a Band 5 nurse – we found that a discounted rent product, around 60 per cent of the market rate in outer London, would be affordable. For essential workers on higher incomes, or dual-income households, shared ownership offers an attractive and affordable route into home ownership. We found very few essential workers who would be able to buy a new home with just a 30 per cent discount.
We proposed a delivery programme of 100,000 well-designed, beautiful, affordable homes for essential workers, manufactured in innovation hubs in the Northern Powerhouse and enabled by planning flexibilities. This call was endorsed by a wide range of bodies including the Local Government Association and the Greater London Authority. We are now working with investors and architects to explore how the homes could be delivered at minimum cost to the public purse.
The current economic situation casts a shadow across much of our work and we are acutely aware of the challenges that this will bring to the powerful role housing associations could play in supporting the social and economic recovery of the country. On a practical level, most housing associations are keen to get their people back in the office and working together in a safe way. We are doing this first through encouragement; at Network Homes we have asked all staff to come into the office two days a week. I believe that face-to-face contact is essential for collaboration, innovation, building relationships, and supporting new and junior staff to learn and progress. Many people report to feeling similarly productive whilst working from home, but an organisation has to be more than the sum of its parts, we are not just a collection of individuals. Housing associations are community-based organisations, with a range of functions (e.g. servicing boilers) that require physical attendance; for me it is important that this principle applies to all my colleagues so we can work together as a single coherent organisation.
I also recognise the moral duty of housing associations to support economic activity through our work and workforce. Having more people in our offices in the centre of cities will help this. I care deeply about London and its success and I am keen to do all I can to help get the city moving again.
This is not without its challenges, including significant challenges in relation to building safety which face us and the people who have bought homes from us in taller buildings. Hundreds of our leaseholders, and thousands more in the private sector, have already discovered that they are stuck by lending and valuation processes which I think are going to need government action to resolve – this needs urgent attention if the issue is not to grow rapidly.
The new model of shared ownership proposed by government, subject to a coming consultation, also raises important practical and philosophical questions in relation to home ownership. Whilst the Government’s manifesto commitments to simplify shared ownership and make it fairer are understandable, these latest changes risk making it more complicated and reducing supply. Simply put, housing associations facing the current housing market uncertainties may reduce the volumes they can deliver of this new, untested product. It is proposed that housing associations will carry out any repairs and maintenance for new shared owners for the first ten years. If this extends into people’s homes then it will inevitably limit their ability to customise – a fundamental tenet of home ownership. If we are to be responsible for internal health and safety then there are legal challenges of whether courts will grant us access into people’s homes to service their boilers. They have been reluctant to do so to date in relation to fire safety issues affecting leaseholders.
I am keen to work with a wide range of partners, including all levels of government, to overcome these challenges and to provide the firm foundation of a home of their own, to the maximum number of people.


conservativehome--2020-09-17--Henry Hill: It is past time the Government worked out a British interpretation of the Belfast Agreem

Henry Hill: It is past time the Government worked out a British interpretation of the Belfast Agreement

Joe Biden ’ s latest intervention in the battle over the Government ’ s controversial Internal Market Bill is a useful reminder of a couple of truths which the Right in this country are prone to forgetting .
The first is that the ‘ Special Relationship ’ , upon which the entire Atlanticist world-view rests , is a fiction .
The US does have a unique bond with an island nation off the coast of Europe – but it isn ’ t this one .
Second , this crisis highlights once again how utterly woeful unionists on both sides of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proper theory of the Belfast Agreement and selling it to journalists and policymakers either at home or overseas .
What does a ‘ theory of the Belfast Agreement ’ mean ?
It means an expansive understanding of what its provisions entail , and even more importantly , what they don ’ t entail , plus a narrative in which these interpretations make sense .
Over the past four years , both an uninterested UK Government and its unionist allies have been utterly routed when it comes to shaping popular understanding of the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , even as sincere a unionist as Theresa May ended up accepting that Britain was under a treaty obligation to ensure that absolutely no border infrastructure was necessary between Northern Ireland and the Republic .
This understandably outraged those who recognised how extraordinarily it would be to have an external party impose an internal tariff border on a sovereign nation , and proved the undoing of May ’ s deal .
Boris Johnson then won the leadership with a vow that he would never accept such a thing .
But he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being peddled by Dublin and Brussels than his predecessor , so he folded .
Now his belated efforts to ( possibly ) un-fold are causing the Government serious difficulty .
At every turn , the weight provided to the Agreement ’ s offers to each side are completely different .
Quite limited references to cross-border cooperation are spun out into vast entitlements , whilst Unionists are fobbed off with the suggestion that having a broad swath of economic policy set from Dublin doesn ’ t technically change Ulster ’ s constitutional status .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same proposal in reverse – Irish policy set by London – is to see what a nonsense that defence is .
It ’ s not as if a unionist interpretation of the Agreement doesn ’ t exist – Lee Reynolds , the Director of Policy for the Democratic Unionists , set one out on this site in 2018 .
But there has been no concerted effort to sell it .
The Government has a potential ally in David Trimble , who actually negotiated it , but has failed to give him any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been a magic bullet ?
Of course not .
The European Union would still have had every incentive to weaponise Northern Irish issues , and the sort of US politician who goes to bat for the IRA doesn ’ t really care one way or the other what the Agreement does or doesn ’ t say .
But as with the Prime Minister ’ s attempt to refuse the Scottish Nationalists a second referendum , having a clear and defensible justification for what you ’ re doing can be the difference between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an untrustworthy chancer .
If the Government really wants to get ahead of the problem with regards to Northern Ireland , it should finally sit down and work out what the British interpretation of the Belfast Agreement is .
Better decades late than never .

Joe Biden’s latest intervention in the battle over the Government’s controversial Internal Market Bill is a useful reminder of a couple of truths which the Right in this country are prone to forgetting.
The first is that the ‘Special Relationship’, upon which the entire Atlanticist world-view rests, is a fiction. The US does have a unique bond with an island nation off the coast of Europe – but it isn’t this one.
Second, this crisis highlights once again how utterly woeful unionists on both sides of the water have been in developing a proper theory of the Belfast Agreement and selling it to journalists and policymakers either at home or overseas.
What does a ‘theory of the Belfast Agreement’ mean? It means an expansive understanding of what its provisions entail, and even more importantly, what they don’t entail, plus a narrative in which these interpretations make sense.
Over the past four years, both an uninterested UK Government and its unionist allies have been utterly routed when it comes to shaping popular understanding of the ‘Good Friday Agreement’. As a result, even as sincere a unionist as Theresa May ended up accepting that Britain was under a treaty obligation to ensure that absolutely no border infrastructure was necessary between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
This understandably outraged those who recognised how extraordinarily it would be to have an external party impose an internal tariff border on a sovereign nation, and proved the undoing of May’s deal. Boris Johnson then won the leadership with a vow that he would never accept such a thing. But he was no better equipped to challenge the line being peddled by Dublin and Brussels than his predecessor, so he folded. Now his belated efforts to (possibly) un-fold are causing the Government serious difficulty.
At every turn, the weight provided to the Agreement’s offers to each side are completely different. Quite limited references to cross-border cooperation are spun out into vast entitlements, whilst Unionists are fobbed off with the suggestion that having a broad swath of economic policy set from Dublin doesn’t technically change Ulster’s constitutional status. To imagine the Irish nationalist reaction to the same proposal in reverse – Irish policy set by London – is to see what a nonsense that defence is.
It’s not as if a unionist interpretation of the Agreement doesn’t exist – Lee Reynolds, the Director of Policy for the Democratic Unionists, set one out on this site in 2018. But there has been no concerted effort to sell it. The Government has a potential ally in David Trimble, who actually negotiated it, but has failed to give him any prominent role.
Would such a campaign have been a magic bullet? Of course not. The European Union would still have had every incentive to weaponise Northern Irish issues, and the sort of US politician who goes to bat for the IRA doesn’t really care one way or the other what the Agreement does or doesn’t say. But as with the Prime Minister’s attempt to refuse the Scottish Nationalists a second referendum, having a clear and defensible justification for what you’re doing can be the difference between being perceived as an honourable opponent or an untrustworthy chancer.
If the Government really wants to get ahead of the problem with regards to Northern Ireland, it should finally sit down and work out what the British interpretation of the Belfast Agreement is. Better decades late than never.


conservativehome--2020-09-17--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Small Business Commissioner – and more