conservativehome--2020-12-30--Best and worst Government moment: the Brexit trade deal and Cummings’ road trip to Barnard Castle, r

Best and worst Government moment: the Brexit trade deal and Cummings’ road trip to Barnard Castle, respectively

With a resounding 50.34 per cent of the vote , the Brexit Trade Deal wins our panelists ’ choice for “ best Government moment ” in our end of year survey .
After a long year of negotiations , and what looked like the UK edging towards No Deal at many points , David Frost and his team , as well as Boris Johnson , have delivered on arguably the hardest one of the Conservatives ’ election pledges .
The second most popular Government moment was “ Obtaining 350 million doses of the vaccine ” .
It ’ s easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s decision to order this amount was a massive gamble at the time , as there hasn ’ t been a successful vaccine for SARS and MERS , which come from the same Coronavirus family , and even 50 per cent efficacy was thought of a difficult target .
With the news of Oxford ’ s jab , along with Pfizer ’ s , it ’ s another end of year success story .
When asked to rate the “ worst Government moment ” , Dominic Cummings ’ road trip to Barnard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent of the vote .
Clearly his explanation for the journey in Downing Street ’ s rose garden did not wow our panelists , nor were they impressed about the Government moving the country into Tiers Three and Four over Christmas , thereby cancelling many people ’ s plans .
Perhaps with trade deal and vaccine news , however , these will soon be distant memories of an annus horribilis .

With a resounding 50.34 per cent of the vote, the Brexit Trade Deal wins our panelists’ choice for “best Government moment” in our end of year survey. After a long year of negotiations, and what looked like the UK edging towards No Deal at many points, David Frost and his team, as well as Boris Johnson, have delivered on arguably the hardest one of the Conservatives’ election pledges.
The second most popular Government moment was “Obtaining 350 million doses of the vaccine”. It’s easy to forget now, but the Government’s decision to order this amount was a massive gamble at the time, as there hasn’t been a successful vaccine for SARS and MERS, which come from the same Coronavirus family, and even 50 per cent efficacy was thought of a difficult target. With the news of Oxford’s jab, along with Pfizer’s, it’s another end of year success story.
When asked to rate the “worst Government moment”, Dominic Cummings’ road trip to Barnard Castle comes in top with 39.33 per cent of the vote. Clearly his explanation for the journey in Downing Street’s rose garden did not wow our panelists, nor were they impressed about the Government moving the country into Tiers Three and Four over Christmas, thereby cancelling many people’s plans. Perhaps with trade deal and vaccine news, however, these will soon be distant memories of an annus horribilis.


conservativehome--2020-12-30--A Brexit trade deal that takes back control

Brexit is indeed a film , a developing tale over time , not a photo – a state of affairs that will be the same in year ten as it was on day one .
So a question that arises about the trade deal which the UK and EU have agreed is whether that story is set to be what the 52 per cent voted for and the 48 per cent can live with .
Once in that referendum , a second time during the Conservative leadership election , and a third time in last year ’ s general election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen in name only if Britain did not take back control – thus satisfying neither constituency .
The film would show no real change and the crowd would want its money back .
Or , as the Conservative Manifesto put it , echoing the Vote Leave slogan : “ the future relationship will be one that allows us to take back control of our laws ” .
It is not yet a week since the 1246-page agreement , plus five supporting documents , was published .
And MPs will have less than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put the treaty arising from the agreement into domestic law .
So we are cautious about delivering a final verdict .
But it does seem that Boris Johnson , David Frost , Michael Gove , Oliver Lewis and the Government ’ s team truly have ensured that this deal indeed takes back control , because “ the meanings of the provisions are autonomous under international law and do not reference EU law or jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice ” .
“ Nor does the Agreement provide a role for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK chooses to opt into ) and the EU approach of provisions having direct effect is excluded ” .
Such is the verdict of the European Research Group ’ s Legal Advisory Committee .
This is the heart of the matter and also the heart of Brexit .
This site believes that our nation ’ s prosperity is not determined by tariff and non-tariff barriers elsewhere , but by the quality of our workforce , the condition of our schools , the competitiveness of our tax system , the quality of business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , above all , by a culture whose features include strong families , the rule of law , a sense of fairness and a flourishing civil society .
The economic case for Brexit has always been that it potentially allows for “ levelling up ” – that ’ s to say , an rebalanced economy based less on the greater South-East , finance , high immigration , an over-valued currency , and parts of the rest of country in near-permanent recession .
Leaving the EU excludes none of the factors that we list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a programme .
Nonetheless , this Agreement really does seem to recognise the primacy of politics above economics , both for the UK and the EU .
For the UK , that means escaping the ECJ , because without doing so we can not take back control ; for the EU , it means preserving the integrity of its Internal Market , which is part of its wider political framework .
As our columnist Stephen Booth put it on this site yesterday , there is a price to pay for both parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losing one of its biggest contributors , and an important part of its whole .
For the UK , it is less easy access to the markets of EU member states .
The reason why we believed that a deal was on balance likely is that it seemed that this trade-off could be acceptable to both parties .
If a Soft Brexit is EEA membership , and a Hard Brexit is No Deal , this Agreement leans towards the latter end of the scale , whereas Theresa May ’ s Chequers plan was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have it , it was May , not Johnson , who in this case wanted to have her cake and eat it – in other words , both to leave the EU and stay close to the Internal Market .
But for all the new non-tariff barriers , there will be no tariff ones – at least , if the two parties can ’ t settle any future differences through the arbitration mechanisms .
That suits the UK well and the EU better , given its trade surplus in manufactures .
Remainer diehards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are an economic loser under this deal ; leaver ones that we are not always political gainers – pointing to the fishing element .
However , those who declare Britain an economic loser are not necessarily right in the long-term , or always in the short .
For example , while the downside of not having a services deal as part of the Agreement will be more complicated access , the upside is not outsourcing regulation of those services to the EU – which that former Remainer , Mark Carney , warned against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the fishing settlement will disappoint much of the fishing industry have a point .
Nonetheless , the adjustment period ends after five and a half years , and Britain is now an independent coastal state .
If voters really want a better deal on fish traded off for a worse one on , say , cars , they can always vote for parties who commit themselves to such a programme .
The deal covers co-operation as well as trade but , rather than probe all its strengths and weaknesses , we want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much about this Agreement as the one that preceded it – the Prime Minister ’ s “ oven-ready deal ” : the Withdrawal Agreement .
The political problems with the Brexit settlement overall lie not as far as we can see with this trade deal but its predecessor .
For it was the Withdrawal Agreement which continued the journey which the Anglo-Irish Agreement began – that ’ s to say , putting a greater distance between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom .
In a nutshell , Johnson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May ’ s , but worse for Northern Ireland , and so problematic for the Union as a whole .
So while this Trade Agreement takes back control , the Withdrawal Agreement did not entirely do so , and there is the threat of leakage from ECJ jurisdiction in Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom .
But that is done and dusted , for better or worse .
The Withdrawal Agreement was the foundation of the Conservative Manifesto .
An election was won on it .
Tory MPs including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Parliamentary scrutiny are so inadequate – the Commons will have only this morning to consider the Bill – that we can ’ t encourage anyone to vote for it : there may be gremlins in the text of the Treaty that have evaded even Bill Cash and his colleagues .
But the big picture really does appear to be one of a deal that does what it claims .
A slice of that 48 per cent will fight on for a cause that has lost .
But more of it has moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be content , if not profoundly satisfied .
Part Two of Brexit is done and the film is rolling .
The odds seemed to be against Boris Johnson getting a Withdrawal Agreement settled , but he got one .
They were against him gaining a general election .
He did it , and won huge .
Once again , he has pulled it off .
Whatever you think of this new Agreement , that ’ s a personal coup .
He has managed the politics of the EU issue where Theresa May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even Margaret Thatcher failed .
Churchill walked with destiny .
Today , the Prime Minister , in his serio-comic way , is winking at it .

Brexit is indeed a film, a developing tale over time, not a photo – a state of affairs that will be the same in year ten as it was on day one. So a question that arises about the trade deal which the UK and EU have agreed is whether that story is set to be what the 52 per cent voted for and the 48 per cent can live with.
Once in that referendum, a second time during the Conservative leadership election, and a third time in last year’s general election, Boris Johnson grasped that Brexit would happen in name only if Britain did not take back control – thus satisfying neither constituency. The film would show no real change and the crowd would want its money back.
Or, as the Conservative Manifesto put it, echoing the Vote Leave slogan: “the future relationship will be one that allows us to take back control of our laws”. It is not yet a week since the 1246-page agreement, plus five supporting documents, was published. And MPs will have less than a day to consider the Bill that proposes to put the treaty arising from the agreement into domestic law.
So we are cautious about delivering a final verdict. But it does seem that Boris Johnson, David Frost, Michael Gove, Oliver Lewis and the Government’s team truly have ensured that this deal indeed takes back control, because “the meanings of the provisions are autonomous under international law and do not reference EU law or jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice”.
“Nor does the Agreement provide a role for the ECJ (except for EU programmes which the UK chooses to opt into) and the EU approach of provisions having direct effect is excluded”. Such is the verdict of the European Research Group’s Legal Advisory Committee. This is the heart of the matter and also the heart of Brexit.
This site believes that our nation’s prosperity is not determined by tariff and non-tariff barriers elsewhere, but by the quality of our workforce, the condition of our schools, the competitiveness of our tax system, the quality of business, the state of our infrastructure and, above all, by a culture whose features include strong families, the rule of law, a sense of fairness and a flourishing civil society.
The economic case for Brexit has always been that it potentially allows for “levelling up” – that’s to say, an rebalanced economy based less on the greater South-East, finance, high immigration, an over-valued currency, and parts of the rest of country in near-permanent recession. Leaving the EU excludes none of the factors that we list above, and which are indispensable to such a programme.
Nonetheless, this Agreement really does seem to recognise the primacy of politics above economics, both for the UK and the EU. For the UK, that means escaping the ECJ, because without doing so we cannot take back control; for the EU, it means preserving the integrity of its Internal Market, which is part of its wider political framework.
As our columnist Stephen Booth put it on this site yesterday, there is a price to pay for both parties. For the EU, it is losing one of its biggest contributors, and an important part of its whole. For the UK, it is less easy access to the markets of EU member states. The reason why we believed that a deal was on balance likely is that it seemed that this trade-off could be acceptable to both parties.
If a Soft Brexit is EEA membership, and a Hard Brexit is No Deal, this Agreement leans towards the latter end of the scale, whereas Theresa May’s Chequers plan was nearer the former. As irony would have it, it was May, not Johnson, who in this case wanted to have her cake and eat it – in other words, both to leave the EU and stay close to the Internal Market.
But for all the new non-tariff barriers, there will be no tariff ones – at least, if the two parties can’t settle any future differences through the arbitration mechanisms. That suits the UK well and the EU better, given its trade surplus in manufactures. Remainer diehards will go on to say that we are an economic loser under this deal; leaver ones that we are not always political gainers – pointing to the fishing element.
However, those who declare Britain an economic loser are not necessarily right in the long-term, or always in the short. For example, while the downside of not having a services deal as part of the Agreement will be more complicated access, the upside is not outsourcing regulation of those services to the EU – which that former Remainer, Mark Carney, warned against earlier this year.
Those who say that the fishing settlement will disappoint much of the fishing industry have a point. Nonetheless, the adjustment period ends after five and a half years, and Britain is now an independent coastal state. If voters really want a better deal on fish traded off for a worse one on, say, cars, they can always vote for parties who commit themselves to such a programme.
The deal covers co-operation as well as trade but, rather than probe all its strengths and weaknesses, we want instead to make a point not so much about this Agreement as the one that preceded it – the Prime Minister’s “oven-ready deal”: the Withdrawal Agreement. The political problems with the Brexit settlement overall lie not as far as we can see with this trade deal but its predecessor.
For it was the Withdrawal Agreement which continued the journey which the Anglo-Irish Agreement began – that’s to say, putting a greater distance between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In a nutshell, Johnson’s version was better for Great Britain than May’s, but worse for Northern Ireland, and so problematic for the Union as a whole.
So while this Trade Agreement takes back control, the Withdrawal Agreement did not entirely do so, and there is the threat of leakage from ECJ jurisdiction in Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. But that is done and dusted, for better or worse. The Withdrawal Agreement was the foundation of the Conservative Manifesto. An election was won on it. Tory MPs including the ERG voted for it.
The arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny are so inadequate – the Commons will have only this morning to consider the Bill – that we can’t encourage anyone to vote for it: there may be gremlins in the text of the Treaty that have evaded even Bill Cash and his colleagues. But the big picture really does appear to be one of a deal that does what it claims.
A slice of that 48 per cent will fight on for a cause that has lost. But more of it has moved on. And most of the 52 per cent will be content, if not profoundly satisfied. Part Two of Brexit is done and the film is rolling. The odds seemed to be against Boris Johnson getting a Withdrawal Agreement settled, but he got one. They were against him gaining a general election. He did it, and won huge.
Once again, he has pulled it off. Whatever you think of this new Agreement, that’s a personal coup. He has managed the politics of the EU issue where Theresa May, David Cameron, John Major and even Margaret Thatcher failed. Churchill walked with destiny. Today, the Prime Minister, in his serio-comic way, is winking at it.


conservativehome--2020-12-30--Harry Fone: £255 million a year is spent on councillor allowances. That is where the economy drive s

Harry Fone: £255 million a year is spent on councillor allowances. That is where the economy drive should begin.

Harry Fone is the Grassroots Campaign Manager for the TaxPayers ’ Alliance .
The TaxPayers ’ Alliance is well-known for scrutinising the pay of council bosses but our latest research has focused attention on allowances for elected representatives .
In 2018-19 alone , the cost of councillors was at least £255 million .
As witnessed across numerous local authorities , members vote through an increase in their allowances whilst often claiming they don ’ t have enough money for statutory services .
There was little surprise when an opposition councillor at West Sussex County Council ( WSCC ) met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their special responsibility allowances ( SRAs ) cut by 25 per cent .
SRAs are typically paid to chairs of committees , cabinet members , and opposition leaders in addition to a basic allowance .
At the heart of the dispute were plans to cut the SRAs of the opposition leaders whilst cabinet members and committee chairs saw no decrease .
It ’ s always welcome when councils make savings but some will question why the cuts fell almost solely on the opposition .
This spurred one opposition leader to propose an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SRAs .
Even if this was an act of retribution , savings of around £90,000 a year would no doubt be well received by ratepayers .
Councillors should be compensated for their efforts but the role should not be treated as a full-time job with a decent salary .
Civic duty should be put above all else .
Given WSCC ’ s recent poor performance – notably “ systemic and prolonged ” failures in children ’ s services and the £265,000 golden goodbye to controversial former chief executive Nathan Elvery – you would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible to make amends with constituents .
Across the border in East Sussex , Brighton and Hove City Council is forecasting a budget shortfall of around £15 million next year .
With residents facing a rate rise of five per cent , it has to be asked if better decision-making might have mitigated such a large increase .
The ongoing saga that is the i360 observation tower is failing to deliver on its promises .
Funded by £36.2 million of council loans ( via the Public Works Loan Board ) to a private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doughnut on a stick ” has never really got off the ground .
Even before the pandemic , it was plagued with low passenger numbers and frequent breakdowns .
Adding insult to injury , loan repayments have regularly been deferred due to financial difficulties .
To date , only £5.9 million has been repaid , with £33 million now outstanding .
One of the key players behind the project , former leader of Brighton council , Jason Kitcat , claimed back in 2014 : “ The project will provide a new source of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services.
” It seems there ’ s a long way to go before the council will see the estimated “ £1 million a year ” profit from its investment .
While residents are still shouldering the burden of this white elephant , Kitcat , a self-described “ recovering politician ” has fared rather better financially .
After being asked to stand down as council leader by his own party , he became the Executive Director of Corporate Development at Essex County Council .
A role that remunerated him to the tune of £190,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nearly £164,000 when he left shortly after .
Let ’ s hope for a change in the i360 ’ s fortunes so that local ratepayers see a ‘ recovery ’ in the council ’ s balance sheet .
Following a recent government review , fears are mounting that Nottingham City Council ( NCC ) could fall foul of bankruptcy .
As residents of Croydon and Northamptonshire know all too well , a Section 114 notice is far from desirable .
The similarities between Croydon and Nottingham are disconcerting .
Both authorities engaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ council employees lacking the necessary financial expertise , as borrowing exceeded £1 billion – Nottingham has the third highest debt to net budget of all the core cities .
Over recent years , NCC has seen its reserves dwindle mostly due to the collapse of its ill-judged energy company .
Formed in 2015 , Robin Hood Energy ( RHE ) tried and failed to compete in the highly competitive and regulated energy sector .
Financed with £43 million of public money , RHE failed to make a profit in every single year of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £38 million .
The government ’ s report is particularly scathing of RHE ’ s directors who are described as “ unable to critically appraise the trading position and a forecast profit [ £202,000 ] outturned as a significant loss [ £1.6 million ] ” .
Another damning report by auditors Grant Thornton went further saying there was “ institutional blindness within the Council.
” Despite warnings from NCC ’ s Section 151 officer about RHE ’ s worsening finances , the authority failed to take action .
The report doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Curryer , for failing to act but does state , “ The Council does not appear to have a mechanism for setting targets and goals for its Chief Executive and holding the postholder to account for it.
” Local residents may be irked to learn that between 2012 and 2020 Mr Curryer received total taxpayer-funded remuneration of over £1.3 million .
As Robert Jenrick , the Local Government Secretary , put it : “ Taxpayers and residents have been let down by years of disgraceful mismanagement and inept ventures ” .
A series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to turn the ship around but councils all across the country must learn from Nottingham ’ s mistakes .

Harry Fone is the Grassroots Campaign Manager for the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance is well-known for scrutinising the pay of council bosses but our latest research has focused attention on allowances for elected representatives. In 2018-19 alone, the cost of councillors was at least £255 million. As witnessed across numerous local authorities, members vote through an increase in their allowances whilst often claiming they don’t have enough money for statutory services.
There was little surprise when an opposition councillor at West Sussex County Council (WSCC) met with fierce resistance after suggesting that cabinet members have their special responsibility allowances (SRAs) cut by 25 per cent. SRAs are typically paid to chairs of committees, cabinet members, and opposition leaders in addition to a basic allowance.
At the heart of the dispute were plans to cut the SRAs of the opposition leaders whilst cabinet members and committee chairs saw no decrease. It’s always welcome when councils make savings but some will question why the cuts fell almost solely on the opposition.
This spurred one opposition leader to propose an amendment calling for a cut in all SRAs. Even if this was an act of retribution, savings of around £90,000 a year would no doubt be well received by ratepayers. Councillors should be compensated for their efforts but the role should not be treated as a full-time job with a decent salary. Civic duty should be put above all else.
Given WSCC’s recent poor performance – notably “systemic and prolonged” failures in children’s services and the £265,000 golden goodbye to controversial former chief executive Nathan Elvery – you would think councillors would want to do everything possible to make amends with constituents.
xxxxx
Across the border in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove City Council is forecasting a budget shortfall of around £15 million next year. With residents facing a rate rise of five per cent, it has to be asked if better decision-making might have mitigated such a large increase.
The ongoing saga that is the i360 observation tower is failing to deliver on its promises. Funded by £36.2 million of council loans (via the Public Works Loan Board) to a private management company, the 530 feet “doughnut on a stick” has never really got off the ground. Even before the pandemic, it was plagued with low passenger numbers and frequent breakdowns.
Adding insult to injury, loan repayments have regularly been deferred due to financial difficulties. To date, only £5.9 million has been repaid, with £33 million now outstanding.
One of the key players behind the project, former leader of Brighton council, Jason Kitcat, claimed back in 2014:
“The project will provide a new source of income to help shore up vital frontline services.”
It seems there’s a long way to go before the council will see the estimated “£1 million a year” profit from its investment.
While residents are still shouldering the burden of this white elephant, Kitcat, a self-described “recovering politician” has fared rather better financially. After being asked to stand down as council leader by his own party, he became the Executive Director of Corporate Development at Essex County Council. A role that remunerated him to the tune of £190,000 in 2018-19 and gifted him a payout of nearly £164,000 when he left shortly after.
Let’s hope for a change in the i360’s fortunes so that local ratepayers see a ‘recovery’ in the council’s balance sheet.
xxxxx
Following a recent government review, fears are mounting that Nottingham City Council (NCC) could fall foul of bankruptcy. As residents of Croydon and Northamptonshire know all too well, a Section 114 notice is far from desirable.
The similarities between Croydon and Nottingham are disconcerting. Both authorities engaged in ambitious commercial investments with well paid council employees lacking the necessary financial expertise, as borrowing exceeded £1 billion – Nottingham has the third highest debt to net budget of all the core cities.
Over recent years, NCC has seen its reserves dwindle mostly due to the collapse of its ill-judged energy company. Formed in 2015, Robin Hood Energy (RHE) tried and failed to compete in the highly competitive and regulated energy sector. Financed with £43 million of public money, RHE failed to make a profit in every single year of operation. Total losses are estimated at £38 million.
The government’s report is particularly scathing of RHE’s directors who are described as “unable to critically appraise the trading position and a forecast profit [£202,000] outturned as a significant loss [£1.6 million]”. Another damning report by auditors Grant Thornton went further saying there was “institutional blindness within the Council.”
Despite warnings from NCC’s Section 151 officer about RHE’s worsening finances, the authority failed to take action. The report doesn’t specifically blame then chief executive, Ian Curryer, for failing to act but does state, “The Council does not appear to have a mechanism for setting targets and goals for its Chief Executive and holding the postholder to account for it.” Local residents may be irked to learn that between 2012 and 2020 Mr Curryer received total taxpayer-funded remuneration of over £1.3 million.
As Robert Jenrick, the Local Government Secretary, put it:
“Taxpayers and residents have been let down by years of disgraceful mismanagement and inept ventures”.
A series of recommendations have been put in place to turn the ship around but councils all across the country must learn from Nottingham’s mistakes.


conservativehome--2020-12-30--The Deal in Detail 3) Northern Ireland

The Deal in Detail 3) Northern Ireland

There has rightly been much general congratulation on the Christmas Eve Trade and Co-operation Agreement ( TCA ) , but the Northern Irish provisions of the deal have raised the greatest concerns with the wider Conservative and Unionist family .
The Unionist critics ( and , indeed , their Nationalist antagonists ) aver that the UK emerges with customs declarations between GB and Northern Ireland for the first time in centuries – and in contradiction to the 1801 Act of Union .
Even if some animal health checks were already present , the level of customs checks is being substantially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northern Ireland believe this hastens the arrival of a united Ireland .
But are these analyses correct ?
It is worth recounting what has happened in the last few years .
The primary cause of Unionist disquiet is the Irish Protocol , which creates a customs border in the Irish Sea to prevent a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic .
The Protocol remains in place , irrespective of the Christmas Eve Agreement – although its impact is greatly ameliorated by the new agreement to avoid tariffs and quotas between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson Government found itself trapped in a situation not of its own making and has clawed back something of real value .
The previous Government ’ s deeply unsatisfactory Backstop , tying the UK into the EU Single Market , and Parliament ’ s self-harming Benn Act of 2019 , forced it to accept EU terms to get an election to achieve Brexit .
The cost was acceptance of the EU and Ireland ’ s demand for an Irish Sea Border to avoid any change in the land border .
Recognising the difficulties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has used the last year to make determined efforts to limit the economic and political damage of an internal customs border .
Much of the negotiation has gone on quietly , and apparently calmly , in the Withdrawal Agreement ’ s Joint Committee which was given the power to determine key aspects of the border arrangements .
The promise in the Protocol that businesses in Northern Ireland would continue to enjoy ‘ unfettered access ’ to markets in Great Britain has allowed the UK to see off the contradictory EU demand that businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods sent from Northern Ireland to Great Britain .
Export declarations are a normal part of the EU ’ s Union Customs Code ( UCC ) which Brussels initially insisted should apply to its new outer border in the Irish Sea .
Such declarations had little practical value , and it has now been agreed that firms do not need to complete them .
To keep the EU happy and to keep to the letter of the Protocol , Brussels will instead be supplied with data from ferry manifests on the flow of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU demand for a trade oversight office in Belfast was rejected by London as unnecessary and provocative , but the EU does not go empty-handed .
It gets access to trade databases , and the right for its officials to be present at customs checks .
Unfettered access is a one-way ticket applying only to West-East trade .
In the other direction , things are rather different .
The key principle here is that the EU ’ s Single Market should be protected from penetration by goods which do not comply with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ origin ’ regulations .
One level of protection for the Single Market is that producers inside Northern Ireland must adhere to EU regulations for any products likely to cross the EU border .
Associated with this are rules that some goods must be checked at centres across the border in Ireland and in the case of food products by southern vets at Northern premises .
This still leaves the problem of goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain or elsewhere .
The principle is that no goods contravening EU regulations should be allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at risk ’ of entering the EU across the unmanned Irish land border .
The Joint Committee of the UK and EU has the power to determine which goods are at risk .
Despite the new agreement avoiding all tariffs , all goods entering the EU from the UK must provide customs declarations showing that they conform with EU regulations , and checks will be undertaken to prevent avoidance .
For Northern Ireland this means that all goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain require a customs declaration .
To avoid cost and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set up a £200 million Trader Support Scheme ( TSS ) under which agents working for HMRC will undertake the paperwork based on information received from the businesses themselves .
It seems that few of these consignments will be checked unless they involve sensitive products – chiefly animals , food or chemicals .
There will be intensive checks for these products but , under an agreement reached in early December , authorised traders will have a three-month ‘ grace period ’ to organise the necessary health certifications .
Beyond March 2021 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end digital system ’ to enable goods to be moved in the most streamlined way possible .
Again , the Government promises to bear the costs of setting up this system .
Despite an earlier promise of no new customs infrastructure , £50 million has been set aside to construct customs posts at Northern Ireland ports .
A potentially tricky problem affects food products restricted or banned by the EU .
Products such as sausages and chilled meat can be prevented from entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain .
For the time being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the long grass , with a six-month stay of execution to find a long-term solution .
The idea seems to be that regular importers , including supermarkets and their suppliers , will be authorised as ‘ trusted traders ’ , and will undergo few if any checks .
This is intended to promote a light and unintrusive regime , but it is unknown how other importers will fare – especially intermittent or new sellers into Northern Ireland markets .
The issue of parcels , which are becoming a major source of consumer goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been settled , but the promise is for no ‘ undue ’ disruption .
The DUP vote against the Bill earlier this afternoon but , in truth , this is more a complaint about a perception of being let down than a heartfelt wish to avoid the legislation .
Arlene Foster , ever the pragmatist , has been muted in her opposition .
The DUP have had to bear daily taunts from nationalists , other Unionists and the media ( including of course BBC Northern Ireland ) that their support for Brexit has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The DUP should let this roll off their backs : the Union is safe enough and , moreover , is outside the EU just as they wanted , despite the opposition of other major Northern Ireland parties .
In this sense , the DUP have won .
Nor are the costs of victory likely to be heavy , even if nationalists will of course strive to make them seem so .
Life in Northern Ireland is likely to be much less changed than they or their opponents anticipate .
The border in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and is likely to be largely invisible to the public .
Meanwhile , the real border will remain the land border .
On the southern side is the EU and the Eurozone , with Ireland an increasingly large , and potentially less happy , fiscal contributor .
For the Province , a more independent UK will be freer to go its own way in the world with a raft of new trade agreements in which Northern Ireland will fully share .
The direction of travel will be towards more trade with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the USA , and other faster growing economies .
With reforms like freeports , and regulations more suited to UK-specific advantages , Northern Ireland can benefit from this new independence .
Already Northern Ireland has gained from being a world leader in Covid vaccination , while EU countries chafe at the delays in approving a vaccine developed in Germany .
Whether continued EU commercial regulation will hold back Northern Ireland remains to be seen .
An apparent lack of freedom in Northern Ireland to ban the export of live animals ( as in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters , and constraints following possible subsequent UK reforms will no doubt annoy others .
If the fetters of EU regulation prove too unpopular , the ability to escape the Protocol remains a democratic option after four years – thanks to an important addition injected into the Protocol by the Johnson Government that upholds the consent principle through the mechanism of consulting the Northern Ireland Assembly to review these arrangements .
The consent principle is , of course , the cornerstone of the Belfast Agreement of 1998 .
Above all , the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single island economy , as pushed by Dublin .
Anyhow , that concept is not be found in the Good Belfast Agreement .
Instead , this new trade agreement continues the existing framework of two socio-economic entities on the island of Ireland , functioning according to different rhythms .
The mainstream media ’ s take on Johnson ’ s attempts over many months to undo the worst aspects of the Protocol was that these attempts would disintegrate – and humiliatingly so .
There was no such humiliation , and Johnson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producers is upheld .
Huge efforts have been made to ensure that few if any traders are more than minimally inconvenienced .
But will Unionists appreciate that in the current mood of communal pessimism ?
This is the third in a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal .

Graham Gudgin is Chief Economic Adviser at Policy Exchange.
There has rightly been much general congratulation on the Christmas Eve Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA), but the Northern Irish provisions of the deal have raised the greatest concerns with the wider Conservative and Unionist family.
The Unionist critics (and, indeed, their Nationalist antagonists) aver that the UK emerges with customs declarations between GB and Northern Ireland for the first time in centuries – and in contradiction to the 1801 Act of Union. Even if some animal health checks were already present, the level of customs checks is being substantially increased.
In short, many in Northern Ireland believe this hastens the arrival of a united Ireland. But are these analyses correct?
It is worth recounting what has happened in the last few years. The primary cause of Unionist disquiet is the Irish Protocol, which creates a customs border in the Irish Sea to prevent a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Protocol remains in place, irrespective of the Christmas Eve Agreement – although its impact is greatly ameliorated by the new agreement to avoid tariffs and quotas between the UK and the EU.
The new Johnson Government found itself trapped in a situation not of its own making and has clawed back something of real value. The previous Government’s deeply unsatisfactory Backstop, tying the UK into the EU Single Market, and Parliament’s self-harming Benn Act of 2019, forced it to accept EU terms to get an election to achieve Brexit. The cost was acceptance of the EU and Ireland’s demand for an Irish Sea Border to avoid any change in the land border.
Recognising the difficulties caused by the Protocol, the Government has used the last year to make determined efforts to limit the economic and political damage of an internal customs border. Much of the negotiation has gone on quietly, and apparently calmly, in the Withdrawal Agreement’s Joint Committee which was given the power to determine key aspects of the border arrangements.
The promise in the Protocol that businesses in Northern Ireland would continue to enjoy ‘unfettered access’ to markets in Great Britain has allowed the UK to see off the contradictory EU demand that businesses should fill out export declarations for any goods sent from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Export declarations are a normal part of the EU’s Union Customs Code (UCC) which Brussels initially insisted should apply to its new outer border in the Irish Sea.
Such declarations had little practical value, and it has now been agreed that firms do not need to complete them. To keep the EU happy and to keep to the letter of the Protocol, Brussels will instead be supplied with data from ferry manifests on the flow of goods to Great Britain. A further EU demand for a trade oversight office in Belfast was rejected by London as unnecessary and provocative, but the EU does not go empty-handed. It gets access to trade databases, and the right for its officials to be present at customs checks.
Unfettered access is a one-way ticket applying only to West-East trade. In the other direction, things are rather different. The key principle here is that the EU’s Single Market should be protected from penetration by goods which do not comply with its technical, SPS or ‘rule of origin’ regulations. One level of protection for the Single Market is that producers inside Northern Ireland must adhere to EU regulations for any products likely to cross the EU border. Associated with this are rules that some goods must be checked at centres across the border in Ireland and in the case of food products by southern vets at Northern premises.
This still leaves the problem of goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain or elsewhere. The principle is that no goods contravening EU regulations should be allowed into Northern Ireland if they are ‘at risk’ of entering the EU across the unmanned Irish land border.
The Joint Committee of the UK and EU has the power to determine which goods are at risk. Despite the new agreement avoiding all tariffs, all goods entering the EU from the UK must provide customs declarations showing that they conform with EU regulations, and checks will be undertaken to prevent avoidance.
For Northern Ireland this means that all goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain require a customs declaration. To avoid cost and disruption to businesses, the Government has set up a £200 million Trader Support Scheme (TSS) under which agents working for HMRC will undertake the paperwork based on information received from the businesses themselves.
It seems that few of these consignments will be checked unless they involve sensitive products – chiefly animals, food or chemicals. There will be intensive checks for these products but, under an agreement reached in early December, authorised traders will have a three-month ‘grace period’ to organise the necessary health certifications.
Beyond March 2021, the Government promises a new ‘end to end digital system’ to enable goods to be moved in the most streamlined way possible. Again, the Government promises to bear the costs of setting up this system. Despite an earlier promise of no new customs infrastructure, £50 million has been set aside to construct customs posts at Northern Ireland ports.
A potentially tricky problem affects food products restricted or banned by the EU. Products such as sausages and chilled meat can be prevented from entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain. For the time being, the problem has been kicked into the long grass, with a six-month stay of execution to find a long-term solution.
The idea seems to be that regular importers, including supermarkets and their suppliers, will be authorised as ‘trusted traders’, and will undergo few if any checks. This is intended to promote a light and unintrusive regime, but it is unknown how other importers will fare – especially intermittent or new sellers into Northern Ireland markets. The issue of parcels, which are becoming a major source of consumer goods through internet shopping, has still not been settled, but the promise is for no ‘undue’ disruption.
The DUP vote against the Bill earlier this afternoon but, in truth, this is more a complaint about a perception of being let down than a heartfelt wish to avoid the legislation. Arlene Foster, ever the pragmatist, has been muted in her opposition. The DUP have had to bear daily taunts from nationalists, other Unionists and the media (including of course BBC Northern Ireland) that their support for Brexit has weakened the Union, perhaps fatally.
The DUP should let this roll off their backs: the Union is safe enough and, moreover, is outside the EU just as they wanted, despite the opposition of other major Northern Ireland parties. In this sense, the DUP have won. Nor are the costs of victory likely to be heavy, even if nationalists will of course strive to make them seem so. Life in Northern Ireland is likely to be much less changed than they or their opponents anticipate.
The border in the Irish sea will impact lightly on firms, and is likely to be largely invisible to the public. Meanwhile, the real border will remain the land border. On the southern side is the EU and the Eurozone, with Ireland an increasingly large, and potentially less happy, fiscal contributor. For the Province, a more independent UK will be freer to go its own way in the world with a raft of new trade agreements in which Northern Ireland will fully share. The direction of travel will be towards more trade with a Trans-Pacific Partnership, probably soon to include the USA, and other faster growing economies.
With reforms like freeports, and regulations more suited to UK-specific advantages, Northern Ireland can benefit from this new independence. Already Northern Ireland has gained from being a world leader in Covid vaccination, while EU countries chafe at the delays in approving a vaccine developed in Germany.
Whether continued EU commercial regulation will hold back Northern Ireland remains to be seen. An apparent lack of freedom in Northern Ireland to ban the export of live animals (as in Great Britain) already annoys animal welfare supporters, and constraints following possible subsequent UK reforms will no doubt annoy others.
If the fetters of EU regulation prove too unpopular, the ability to escape the Protocol remains a democratic option after four years – thanks to an important addition injected into the Protocol by the Johnson Government that upholds the consent principle through the mechanism of consulting the Northern Ireland Assembly to review these arrangements. The consent principle is, of course, the cornerstone of the Belfast Agreement of 1998.
Above all, the new arrangements do not enhance the concept of a single island economy, as pushed by Dublin. Anyhow, that concept is not be found in the Good Belfast Agreement. Instead, this new trade agreement continues the existing framework of two socio-economic entities on the island of Ireland, functioning according to different rhythms.
The mainstream media’s take on Johnson’s attempts over many months to undo the worst aspects of the Protocol was that these attempts would disintegrate – and humiliatingly so. There was no such humiliation, and Johnson’s word on unfettered trade for Northern Ireland producers is upheld. Huge efforts have been made to ensure that few if any traders are more than minimally inconvenienced. But will Unionists appreciate that in the current mood of communal pessimism?
This is the third in a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal.


conservativehome--2020-12-30--WATCH: With the exception of the Scilly Isles, all of England will now be in Tier Four or Three

BREAKING : Health Secretary Matt Hancock says that three quarters of the population of England are now going to be @ @ @ @ @ the spread of the second COVID variant .
Full list of areas moved into Tier @ @ @ @ @ : https : //t.co/mU95NyWMtV pic.twitter.com/tCMZIdII8A

BREAKING: Health Secretary Matt Hancock says that three quarters of the population of England are now going to be in Tier 4 due to the spread of the second COVID variant.
Full list of areas moved into Tier 4 and Tier 3 here: https://t.co/mU95NyWMtV pic.twitter.com/tCMZIdII8A
— Sky News (@SkyNews) December 30, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-30--The Bill to enact Johnson’s trade deal passes by 521 votes to 73

We repeat our traditional warning against drawing conclusions from abstentions , but Owen Paterson and John Redwood apparently did not @ @ @ @ @

We repeat our traditional warning against drawing conclusions from abstentions, but Owen Paterson and John Redwood apparently did not vote in this division.


conservativehome--2020-12-31--U-turn of the year – A Level results and the Government abandoning the Ofqual algorithm for predicte

U-turn of the year – A Level results and the Government abandoning the Ofqual algorithm for predicted grades

In a tight competition , A Level results were deemed U-turn of the year by our panel with 28.11 per @ @ @ @ @ Many will remember the outcry in August after the Department of Education used an algorithm @ @ @ @ @ , leading to huge disappointment among students .
Gavin Williamson and the Ofqual soon apologised @ @ @ @ @ Level and GCSE results in England would be from then on be calculated by teacher @ @ @ @ @ per cent , our panelists felt that the Government ’ s position on free school @ @ @ @ @ , followed by Sadiq Khan ’ s decision for London to have a lockdown and @ @ @ @ @ fight for these to be avoided , and Keir Starmer in last place with his @ @ @ @ @ way , there was no stand out winner in this category , unlike some of @ @ @

In a tight competition, A Level results were deemed U-turn of the year by our panel with 28.11 per cent of the vote. Many will remember the outcry in August after the Department of Education used an algorithm by Ofqual to predict grades, leading to huge disappointment among students. Gavin Williamson and the Ofqual soon apologised and decided that all A Level and GCSE results in England would be from then on be calculated by teacher assessments.
In at 25.87 per cent, our panelists felt that the Government’s position on free school meals was another big U-turn, followed by Sadiq Khan’s decision for London to have a lockdown and curfews, only to then fight for these to be avoided, and Keir Starmer in last place with his Brexit flip flopping. Either way, there was no stand out winner in this category, unlike some of our others.


conservativehome--2020-12-31--The Deal in Detail 4) The environment and energy

Benedict McAleenan is a Senior Adviser to Policy Exchange ’ s Energy & Environment Unit .
Ed Birkett is a Senior Research Fellow at Policy Exchange .
If you listen to much of the anti-Brexit rhetoric , you ’ d think that the EU was the sole driver of environmental progress in the UK and its only protector .
Given half a chance , the UK would apparently repeal every environmental and climate change policy it could find .
Given the UK ’ s cross-party support for environmental protection and for Net Zero , this risk was always theoretical .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment and on climate change as part of the ‘ Level Playing Field ’ and associated ‘ non-regression ’ clauses , which will require both the UK and the EU to uphold existing protections .
On energy , the deal introduces new mechanisms for the UK and the EU to cooperate on nuclear power , natural gas and electricity .
The deal also looks forward to future cooperation on cross-border energy projects in the North Sea , which , as we ’ ve previously written , holds the key to a Net Zero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cooperate on carbon pricing and hints at a linked Emissions Trading System .
On both energy and the environment , this deal is a sensible starting point for longer-term cooperation .
On fishing , the big negotiation points were about the business of fishing fleets , not sustainability .
So once the fisheries transition period ends the UK will be responsible for managing the sustainability of its own resources .
Now that we understand how fisheries will operate with regard to our European neighbours , the UK Government should recommit to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustainability of ‘ shared stocks ’ , i.e .
fish that swim across borders , so we ’ ll need to collaborate closely with the EU on marine standards .
The level playing field rules allow both sides to diverge on environmental standards .
Throughout the Brexit debate , the EU has often been painted as a gold standard while the UK has been presented as quite the opposite .
That isn ’ t accurate : The UK exceeds the EU on a number of protections , from climate policy to animal welfare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farm policies , for example , will be a major boon for the UK ’ s environmental wellbeing .
However , membership of the EU provided important environmental oversight .
This has helped to address the tragedy of the commons which can arise from more local political trade-offs .
The Environment Act aims to fill this void with an Office for Environmental Protection ( OEP ) , which will replace EU institutions in scrutinising environmental protections .
The Deal ’ s ‘ rebalancing ’ mechanism ( part of its level playing field provisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the OEP , but these will be limited .
By allowing both sides the chance to impose tariffs ( among other things ) if the other loosens environmental checks , it may help to prevent backsliding .
However , the provisions only relate to how the changes affect trade and investments .
That is , if a loosening of regulations can ’ t be explicitly shown to impact trade , then they won ’ t come under the remit of the Deal .
So , the onus is back on British politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters to ensure the environment is protected .
That ’ s perfectly reasonable within the terms of a trade deal between sovereign nations .
Of course , the UK and the EU have different legal philosophies that govern the evolution of law and regulation .
The EU ’ s French-style precautionary approach jars with the British ‘ common law ’ tradition .
How they will manage divergence is still to be seen .
There ’ s also a question over devolved administrations .
Environmental protections are mostly devolved to the Scottish , Welsh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK government can ’ t easily prevent the Welsh , for example , from relaxing environmental rules and potentially affecting trade .
When it comes to energy , the UK and the EU have a lot to gain from cooperation , so it ’ s not surprising that the deal includes substantial provisions in these areas .
The benefits of close cooperation will continue to grow .
One area where the Deal is ambitious is cooperation on renewable energy projects , particularly in the North Sea .
There ’ s massive potential for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including offshore wind and offshore electricity grids .
By 2050 , offshore wind capacity in the UK ’ s part of the North Sea is likely to increase tenfold .
Both sides have recognised that , to make the most of the North Sea , they need to work together on offshore wind projects and offshore electricity grids .
When it ’ s windy in the UK , we can export our excess electricity to Norway , Denmark , the Netherlands , Belgium and France .
Whereas on cold , still days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the continent .
This mutual cooperation directly reduces electricity bills by making the most of cheap renewable energy when it ’ s available .
From January 2021 , Great Britain will no longer have access to the automated ‘ market coupling ’ system that improves the efficiency of trading electricity .
However , the deal aims to develop a new system for trading electricity by 2022 .
In the meantime , electricity bills are likely to rise in both the UK and the EU .
Any cost rises will be manageable , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customers in Ireland and Northern Ireland , because the Single Electricity Market ( which covers ROI and NI ) is small and only interconnected to Great Britain .
The Deal also leaves open the possibility of cooperation on carbon pricing .
For now , the UK is setting up its own Emission Trading Scheme ( ETS ) to replace the EU ETS .
Longer-term , the UK and the EU could link these Emissions Trading Schemes , as Switzerland has done with the EU .
As we ’ ve previously written , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation on carbon border pricing , which is critical to decarbonising heavy industry without offshoring manufacturing jobs to countries with higher carbon emissions .
On electric vehicles , the UK and the EU have agreed transitional arrangements that will make it easier for EVs manufactured in the UK to qualify for tariff-free exports to the EU .
This is a sensible step that will give UK car manufacturers more time to build up their supply chains for EVs , including battery “ gigafactories ” .
Under this deal , the UK Government regains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This will give the Government more freedom to go further and faster on the rollout of Electric Vehicles , including the ability to legislate to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 , which was announced as part of the Prime Minister ’ s ten-point plan for a Green Industrial Revolution .
We have previously written about how a California-style Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate ( ‘ ZEV Mandate ’ ) can reduce the cost of the transition to zero-emission vehicles powered by electricity or hydrogen .
Under a ZEV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sell an increasing proportion of electric and hydrogen vehicles each year .
Next year ’ s Green Paper on the petrol and diesel phase-out is the perfect opportunity for the Government to introduce a ZEV mandate and show how we can use new-found regulatory freedom to boost both the environment and industry .
In summary , it ’ s a good deal , but there ’ s still work to be done to develop collaborative partnerships on energy systems and environmental protection .
From liberal energy markets to legislating on net zero , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The key now is to implement these provisions as smoothly as possible so that we can continue to trade with increasingly sustainable industries on both sides .
This is the fourth in a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal .

Benedict McAleenan is a Senior Adviser to Policy Exchange’s Energy & Environment Unit. Ed Birkett is a Senior Research Fellow at Policy Exchange.
If you listen to much of the anti-Brexit rhetoric, you’d think that the EU was the sole driver of environmental progress in the UK and its only protector. Given half a chance, the UK would apparently repeal every environmental and climate change policy it could find. Given the UK’s cross-party support for environmental protection and for Net Zero, this risk was always theoretical.
The deal includes substantial provisions on the environment and on climate change as part of the ‘Level Playing Field’ and associated ‘non-regression’ clauses, which will require both the UK and the EU to uphold existing protections.
On energy, the deal introduces new mechanisms for the UK and the EU to cooperate on nuclear power, natural gas and electricity. The deal also looks forward to future cooperation on cross-border energy projects in the North Sea, which, as we’ve previously written, holds the key to a Net Zero economy. It also suggests an intention to cooperate on carbon pricing and hints at a linked Emissions Trading System. On both energy and the environment, this deal is a sensible starting point for longer-term cooperation.
Protecting the environment
On fishing, the big negotiation points were about the business of fishing fleets, not sustainability. So once the fisheries transition period ends the UK will be responsible for managing the sustainability of its own resources. Now that we understand how fisheries will operate with regard to our European neighbours, the UK Government should recommit to its sustainability pledges. This should include the sustainability of ‘shared stocks’, i.e. fish that swim across borders, so we’ll need to collaborate closely with the EU on marine standards.
The level playing field rules allow both sides to diverge on environmental standards. Throughout the Brexit debate, the EU has often been painted as a gold standard while the UK has been presented as quite the opposite. That isn’t accurate: The UK exceeds the EU on a number of protections, from climate policy to animal welfare. Diverging from the EU’s farm policies, for example, will be a major boon for the UK’s environmental wellbeing.
However, membership of the EU provided important environmental oversight. This has helped to address the tragedy of the commons which can arise from more local political trade-offs. The Environment Act aims to fill this void with an Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which will replace EU institutions in scrutinising environmental protections.
The Deal’s ‘rebalancing’ mechanism (part of its level playing field provisions) will provide some checks on top of the OEP, but these will be limited. By allowing both sides the chance to impose tariffs (among other things) if the other loosens environmental checks, it may help to prevent backsliding. However, the provisions only relate to how the changes affect trade and investments. That is, if a loosening of regulations can’t be explicitly shown to impact trade, then they won’t come under the remit of the Deal. So, the onus is back on British politicians, the OEP, civil society and voters to ensure the environment is protected. That’s perfectly reasonable within the terms of a trade deal between sovereign nations.
Of course, the UK and the EU have different legal philosophies that govern the evolution of law and regulation. The EU’s French-style precautionary approach jars with the British ‘common law’ tradition. How they will manage divergence is still to be seen.
There’s also a question over devolved administrations. Environmental protections are mostly devolved to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish administrations, so the UK government can’t easily prevent the Welsh, for example, from relaxing environmental rules and potentially affecting trade.
Cooperation on energy and climate
When it comes to energy, the UK and the EU have a lot to gain from cooperation, so it’s not surprising that the deal includes substantial provisions in these areas. The benefits of close cooperation will continue to grow. One area where the Deal is ambitious is cooperation on renewable energy projects, particularly in the North Sea. There’s massive potential for low-carbon energy projects in the North Sea, including offshore wind and offshore electricity grids.
By 2050, offshore wind capacity in the UK’s part of the North Sea is likely to increase tenfold. Both sides have recognised that, to make the most of the North Sea, they need to work together on offshore wind projects and offshore electricity grids.
When it’s windy in the UK, we can export our excess electricity to Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Whereas on cold, still days, we will increasingly import electricity from the continent. This mutual cooperation directly reduces electricity bills by making the most of cheap renewable energy when it’s available.
From January 2021, Great Britain will no longer have access to the automated ‘market coupling’ system that improves the efficiency of trading electricity. However, the deal aims to develop a new system for trading electricity by 2022. In the meantime, electricity bills are likely to rise in both the UK and the EU. Any cost rises will be manageable, but the biggest effect could be felt by customers in Ireland and Northern Ireland, because the Single Electricity Market (which covers ROI and NI) is small and only interconnected to Great Britain.
The Deal also leaves open the possibility of cooperation on carbon pricing. For now, the UK is setting up its own Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) to replace the EU ETS. Longer-term, the UK and the EU could link these Emissions Trading Schemes, as Switzerland has done with the EU. As we’ve previously written, the UK and the EU should also explore cooperation on carbon border pricing, which is critical to decarbonising heavy industry without offshoring manufacturing jobs to countries with higher carbon emissions.
On electric vehicles, the UK and the EU have agreed transitional arrangements that will make it easier for EVs manufactured in the UK to qualify for tariff-free exports to the EU. This is a sensible step that will give UK car manufacturers more time to build up their supply chains for EVs, including battery “gigafactories”.
Under this deal, the UK Government regains control over regulation of emissions from vehicles. This will give the Government more freedom to go further and faster on the rollout of Electric Vehicles, including the ability to legislate to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, which was announced as part of the Prime Minister’s ten-point plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. We have previously written about how a California-style Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate (‘ZEV Mandate’) can reduce the cost of the transition to zero-emission vehicles powered by electricity or hydrogen. Under a ZEV Mandate, manufacturers would be required to sell an increasing proportion of electric and hydrogen vehicles each year. Next year’s Green Paper on the petrol and diesel phase-out is the perfect opportunity for the Government to introduce a ZEV mandate and show how we can use new-found regulatory freedom to boost both the environment and industry.
In summary, it’s a good deal, but there’s still work to be done to develop collaborative partnerships on energy systems and environmental protection. From liberal energy markets to legislating on net zero, both parties have been close for decades. The key now is to implement these provisions as smoothly as possible so that we can continue to trade with increasingly sustainable industries on both sides.
This is the fourth in a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal.


Farewell, Sweden

Yesterday , Matt Hancock announced in the Commons that all of England is to be put into Tiers Three or Four .
The response from the Conservative backbenches confirmed that the campaign for a Swedish-style alternative policy is over .
We gave three reasons for its collapse when the tiers were last adjusted .
First , the effects of the Covid “ second wave ” in Sweden itself ( where a commission has now criticised the government ’ s record on protecting care homes ) .
Second , the arrival of the Pfizer vaccine .
Third , the rise of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmissible .
The effects of the last are feeding their way through into hospital admissions : the number of Covid patients in hospital throughout the UK is now at near-peak levels .
Bernard Jenkin reported that Essex has declared a major incident ; Cheryl Gillan said that the NHS in Buckinghamshire in under severe pressure ( and a major incident has also been announced there ) .
Conservative MPs are now pivoting to ask the obvious question : when will the roll-out of vaccines – the Health Secretary made the most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow restrictions to be lifted ?
Mark Harper , who co-chairs the Covid Recovery Group , zeroed in on the question .
Hancock ’ s answer is that all depends on the speed of manufacture .
It was all much the same story when Gavin Williamson made his statement on schools .
If the vaccines had not come galloping over the hill , there would surely have been turbulence on the backbenches .
Instead , Tory MPs concentrated their questions on when these will be available in schools .
No fewer than seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rob Butler , asked in relation to keeping primary schools open whether the Government has “ fully considered the safety of pupils and staff ” .
That ’ s a measure of the shift of mood on the Tory backbenches .
It is only three months since Boris Johnson received a briefing from Sweden ’ s Chief Epidemiologist on how his country ’ s strategy was working .

Yesterday, Matt Hancock announced in the Commons that all of England is to be put into Tiers Three or Four. The response from the Conservative backbenches confirmed that the campaign for a Swedish-style alternative policy is over.
We gave three reasons for its collapse when the tiers were last adjusted. First, the effects of the Covid “second wave” in Sweden itself (where a commission has now criticised the government’s record on protecting care homes). Second, the arrival of the Pfizer vaccine. Third, the rise of a Covid-19 variant that is more easily transmissible.
The effects of the last are feeding their way through into hospital admissions: the number of Covid patients in hospital throughout the UK is now at near-peak levels. Bernard Jenkin reported that Essex has declared a major incident; Cheryl Gillan said that the NHS in Buckinghamshire in under severe pressure (and a major incident has also been announced there).
Conservative MPs are now pivoting to ask the obvious question: when will the roll-out of vaccines – the Health Secretary made the most of the Oxford version gaining permission for use – allow restrictions to be lifted? Mark Harper, who co-chairs the Covid Recovery Group, zeroed in on the question.
Hancock’s answer is that all depends on the speed of manufacture. It was all much the same story when Gavin Williamson made his statement on schools. If the vaccines had not come galloping over the hill, there would surely have been turbulence on the backbenches. Instead, Tory MPs concentrated their questions on when these will be available in schools.
No fewer than seven went down this line. One, Rob Butler, asked in relation to keeping primary schools open whether the Government has “fully considered the safety of pupils and staff”. That’s a measure of the shift of mood on the Tory backbenches. It is only three months since Boris Johnson received a briefing from Sweden’s Chief Epidemiologist on how his country’s strategy was working.


conservativehome--2020-12-31--Geoffrey Cox is knighted

Geoffrey Cox is knighted

One pinches oneself at the news that Geoffrey Cox has been knighted only because he is so seigneurial a figure @ @ @ @ @ was a knight already .
But he wasn ’ t – so congratulations to Sir @ @ @ @ @ shortly become .
He played an important part in the struggle for Brexit , combining @ @ @ @ @ to the rule of law .
“ This Parliament is a disgrace !
” he @ @ @ @ @ ( see above ) .
“ This Parliament is a dead Parliament .
It should @ @ @ @ @ time is soon coming when these turkeys won ’ t be able to prevent Christmas.
@ @ @ @ @ .

One pinches oneself at the news that Geoffrey Cox has been knighted only because he is so seigneurial a figure that one somehow believes he was a knight already.
But he wasn’t – so congratulations to Sir Geoffrey, as he will shortly become. He played an important part in the struggle for Brexit, combining decidedly Eurosceptic views with commitment to the rule of law.
“This Parliament is a disgrace!” he declared in September last year (see above). “This Parliament is a dead Parliament. It should no longer sit. The time is soon coming when these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.” And so it proved.


conservativehome--2020-12-31--Bill Bowkett: The pandemic has shown the value of localism. But the Government seems to be ignoring

Bill Bowkett: The pandemic has shown the value of localism. But the Government seems to be ignoring this lesson.

Bill Bowkett is a MA Newspaper Journalism student at City , University of London .
He is a former editor of the University of Kent ’ s student newspaper InQuire and has worked as a researcher in Parliament for Oliver Heald .
New year ’ s resolutions are always a fitting tradition .
The Romans birthed this trend with the worship of Janus – the two-faced God of beginning and end .
Back then , citizens gifted presents to their enemies .
In return , Janus would forgive those who confessed their sins .
And lo , two millenniums later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance to start anew .
When news of a vaccine was announced back in November , an ending to this Covid-19 impasse looked imminent .
But as the last few weeks have proven , hopes of a ‘ social reset ’ have been quashed .
New tiering measures meant Christmas was cancelled for families across England .
Those that were hoping to spend some time with nanny and pappy last week had their plans shattered because of rising cases , particularly across the south-east .
Not to mention a new mutant strain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but these authoritarian restrictions leave a bitter aftertaste like a par-boiled Brussel sprout .
Each of us who have sacrificed our freedoms in the name of public health – and were promised family festivities and an imminent return to normality – have been betrayed .
Serious questions continue to be raised about No 10 ’ s handling of the crisis .
But it seems that voters have had enough and have made their intentions clear : they want to take back control .
A recent survey by community network Locality showed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack faith in central government to make the right decision for their local community .
Moreover , 56 per cent said that they wanted more local decision-making powers .
For all their efforts , this overbearing administration has failed to deliver on multiple fronts .
Contract tracing has left thousands of infected individuals missing from the national database .
Testing targets are repeatedly being missed at a cost of billions to the taxpayer .
And with thousands of shops , pubs , and restaurants forced to close at this , the most wonderful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , the economic forecast looks grim .
Funny that .
The Conservatives usually pride themselves on being the party of localism .
Yet , they certainly have enjoyed the powers given to them in the Coronavirus Act .
Just a fortnight ago , Education Secretary , Gavin Williamson , threatened Greenwich and Islington councils with legal action if they failed to keep schools open ( even though keeping children in class , with days left until the end of term , was illogical ) .
Why the government is acting in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They wish to be in command , yes .
But this is not a job they can face alone .
With anxieties of a third national shutdown on the horizon , we need new grounds for optimism .
Where should change come from ?
The answer is centred on those who are normally responsible for wellie bin collections and allotments .
Because in 2020 , local government has stepped up big time .
Take Leicester , the first city to go into local lockdown back in June .
Authorities chose to ditch the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used their own methods that applied local insight , calling residents over the phone and knocking on doors .
Shortly after results started to show , and cases dropped in the short space of time the initiative was running .
The same goes for the West Midlands where Andy Street , the region ’ s metro mayor , said piloted tracing identified between 98 and 100 per cent of cases .
Remarkable .
And in Sunderland , the council and local Mack ’ ems are looking towards the future , with the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aims to combat health inequalities .
The pandemic has changed the way citizens think about where they live .
It has anchored us closer to what happens on our front door – whether that be civil associations working to deliver essential goods , or local authorities setting up support networks to care for our most vulnerable .
Localised planning has made a positive difference ( certainly a breath of fresh air to the ruckus coming out of Westminster ) .
With all that being said , if there is one New Year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will help the country in the long run , it is sharing the balance of power in England — and a comprehensive devolution framework that meets the needs of those closest to our doorstep .
Rishi Sunak ’ s “ Shared Prosperity ” funding announced in this month ’ s spending review – allocated to local authorities to help stimulate growth – should be spent by independently-minded legislators , not those in London .
No conditions , ifs , buts , or maybes .
As the Northern Powerhouse think tank director , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not “ top slice ” funds and “ pocket it in Whitehall for their own programmes ” .
And like in the summer , authorities in England should have lockdown abilities returned so as to have the same power-status as the rest of the home nations .
A hyper-localised approach means decisive action with local residents and businesses in mind .
That also means control over mobile testing in places like care homes where the Health Secretary Matt Hancock recently announced £149 million of additional funding .
All aspects of life are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few years , if not decades .
The Tory ’ s manifesto pledge to ‘ level up ’ left-behind Blighty will invariably be set back amid Britain suffering the worst recession in history , as well as having the worst regional inequality in the developed world .
Frankly , these are tasks beyond the executive ’ s capacity .
Radical thinking is needed to disperse fiscal and political responsibility away from high office , whilst also retaining accountability to those who govern .
Therefore , a bottom-up approach holds the keys to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward-thinking – because this epidemic impasse can not last any longer .
Each new year brings the opportunity to resolve , and 2021 is no exception .
If the frontbench continues as they are doing right now , we will continue to get the same .
It is time to change our current trajectory .
Time to give power back to the people .

Bill Bowkett is a MA Newspaper Journalism student at City, University of London. He is a former editor of the University of Kent’s student newspaper InQuire and has worked as a researcher in Parliament for Oliver Heald.
New year’s resolutions are always a fitting tradition. The Romans birthed this trend with the worship of Janus – the two-faced God of beginning and end. Back then, citizens gifted presents to their enemies. In return, Janus would forgive those who confessed their sins.
And lo, two millenniums later, the sun rises in 2021 and a chance to start anew. When news of a vaccine was announced back in November, an ending to this Covid-19 impasse looked imminent. But as the last few weeks have proven, hopes of a ‘social reset’ have been quashed.
New tiering measures meant Christmas was cancelled for families across England. Those that were hoping to spend some time with nanny and pappy last week had their plans shattered because of rising cases, particularly across the south-east. Not to mention a new mutant strain.
This year has dealt multiple blows, but these authoritarian restrictions leave a bitter aftertaste like a par-boiled Brussel sprout. Each of us who have sacrificed our freedoms in the name of public health – and were promised family festivities and an imminent return to normality – have been betrayed.
Serious questions continue to be raised about No 10’s handling of the crisis. But it seems that voters have had enough and have made their intentions clear: they want to take back control.
A recent survey by community network Locality showed that out of 2,000 adults polled, half lack faith in central government to make the right decision for their local community. Moreover, 56 per cent said that they wanted more local decision-making powers.
For all their efforts, this overbearing administration has failed to deliver on multiple fronts. Contract tracing has left thousands of infected individuals missing from the national database. Testing targets are repeatedly being missed at a cost of billions to the taxpayer. And with thousands of shops, pubs, and restaurants forced to close at this, the most wonderful – and profitable – time of the year, the economic forecast looks grim.
Funny that. The Conservatives usually pride themselves on being the party of localism. Yet, they certainly have enjoyed the powers given to them in the Coronavirus Act.
Just a fortnight ago, Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, threatened Greenwich and Islington councils with legal action if they failed to keep schools open (even though keeping children in class, with days left until the end of term, was illogical).
Why the government is acting in this manner is anyone’s guess. They wish to be in command, yes. But this is not a job they can face alone. With anxieties of a third national shutdown on the horizon, we need new grounds for optimism.
Where should change come from? The answer is centred on those who are normally responsible for wellie bin collections and allotments. Because in 2020, local government has stepped up big time.
Take Leicester, the first city to go into local lockdown back in June. Authorities chose to ditch the NHS Test and Trace App. They used their own methods that applied local insight, calling residents over the phone and knocking on doors. Shortly after results started to show, and cases dropped in the short space of time the initiative was running.
The same goes for the West Midlands where Andy Street, the region’s metro mayor, said piloted tracing identified between 98 and 100 per cent of cases. Remarkable.
And in Sunderland, the council and local Mack’ems are looking towards the future, with the two working on a draft neighbourhood plan that aims to combat health inequalities.
The pandemic has changed the way citizens think about where they live. It has anchored us closer to what happens on our front door – whether that be civil associations working to deliver essential goods, or local authorities setting up support networks to care for our most vulnerable. Localised planning has made a positive difference (certainly a breath of fresh air to the ruckus coming out of Westminster).
With all that being said, if there is one New Year’s resolution the Prime Minister should make that will help the country in the long run, it is sharing the balance of power in England — and a comprehensive devolution framework that meets the needs of those closest to our doorstep.
Rishi Sunak’s “Shared Prosperity” funding announced in this month’s spending review – allocated to local authorities to help stimulate growth – should be spent by independently-minded legislators, not those in London. No conditions, ifs, buts, or maybes. As the Northern Powerhouse think tank director, Henri Murison, said, the government should not “top slice” funds and “pocket it in Whitehall for their own programmes”.
And like in the summer, authorities in England should have lockdown abilities returned so as to have the same power-status as the rest of the home nations. A hyper-localised approach means decisive action with local residents and businesses in mind. That also means control over mobile testing in places like care homes where the Health Secretary Matt Hancock recently announced £149 million of additional funding.
All aspects of life are going to bear the brunt these next few years, if not decades. The Tory’s manifesto pledge to ‘level up’ left-behind Blighty will invariably be set back amid Britain suffering the worst recession in history, as well as having the worst regional inequality in the developed world. Frankly, these are tasks beyond the executive’s capacity.
Radical thinking is needed to disperse fiscal and political responsibility away from high office, whilst also retaining accountability to those who govern. Therefore, a bottom-up approach holds the keys to our destiny – a meaningful partnership based on forward-thinking – because this epidemic impasse cannot last any longer.
Each new year brings the opportunity to resolve, and 2021 is no exception. If the frontbench continues as they are doing right now, we will continue to get the same. It is time to change our current trajectory. Time to give power back to the people.


conservativehome--2020-12-30--The Commons is notified that the Brexit Trade Bill has received Royal Assent

Commons announcement that Brexit trade bill has been given royal assent pic.twitter.com/p2qbFrviPT
— John Stevens (@johnestevens) December 31, 2020