Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Category: Brexit

  • UK releases ‘Global Britain in a Competitive Age Strategy’; Pivots to Indo-Pacific

    UK releases ‘Global Britain in a Competitive Age Strategy’; Pivots to Indo-Pacific

    Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay 

    Alicia Nicholls

    Coming hot on the heels of the publication of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) annual President’s Trade Policy agenda and the EU’s new trade strategy priorities outlined last month, today the United Kingdom (UK) government released its own post-Brexit vision of ‘Global Britain’. The over 100-page report entitled ‘Global Britain in a Competitive Age: The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy‘ comes after a year-long integrated policy review in which several post-Brexit threats and opportunities were identified.

    While there is not much that has changed fundamentally with regard to the UK’s foreign and foreign trade policy, there are some interesting nuggets both from the report and the speech Prime Minister Boris Johnson delivered before the House of Commons today outlining this new policy. Calling it the most comprehensive review of the country’s foreign policy since the Cold War, he emphasised that the aim was to make the UK ‘stronger, safer and more prosperous’ while standing up for its values.

    According to the Prime Minister, the UK’s international policy was a vital instrument for reinforcing the Union and securing the UK’s place as a science superpower and a hub of innovation and research. The UK will be more ‘dynamic abroad’ and more focused on delivering for its citizens. The new independent trade policy will ensure that the rules and standards in trade agreements will reflect its values. He also mentioned the new International Sanctions Policy. In all its endeavours, the US will be the UK’s ‘greatest ally’, a sentiment also found in the EU’s recently released trade priorities as well.

    Prime Minister Johnson highlighted the ways in which the UK has already sought to craft a path of global leadership. He noted the country’s chairmanship of the G7 and its exploration of a Global Treaty on Pandemic Preparedeness working through the World Health Organisation (WHO) to prevent another pandemic. He also pointed to the UK’s hosting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Twenty-Sixth Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC COP 26) in Glasgow later this year. The UK is also the first major economy to make a net-zero commitment. The UK, he said, will remain ‘unswervedly’ commited to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and to preserving peace and security in Europe. The UK’s approach will be to place diplomacy first.

    Notable on the trade front is the UK’s pivot towards the Indo-Pacific region. This includes a reaffirmation of its intention to work more closely with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) by becoming a ‘dialogue partner’ and to accede to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Given Britain’s status as a maritime nation, the Prime Minister said, it means that any crisis in the Indo-Pacific region or in those trade routes would affect it. The Prime Minister indicated that as part of the UK’s Indo-Pacific push he will pay a state visit to India next month and had also invited the leaders of India, South Korea and Australia to attend the next G7 summit.

    On the issue of China, a familiar theme emerges. Similar to the US and EU, the UK has identified China’s ‘increasing international assertiveness’ as both a ‘great challenge’ but also sees Beijing as a potential collaborator on areas of mutual interest, such as economic relations and climate change.

    On the homefront, the UK will seek to become a ‘Science and Technology Power’. Moreover, to counter what it sees as growing threats to its national security, the UK will remain a nuclear-armed power, increase funding for its defence and security and establish a Counter Terrorism Operations Centre. The National Cyber Force will be put in a new Cyber Corridor in the north. There will be a Cross-Government Situation Centre to improve the UK’s ability to respond to future crises.

    A major point raised during the debate was what appeared to be a cut in the UK’s spending on development aid.

    Prime Minister Johnson’s speech, the response by the leader of the Opposition and the ensuing House of Commons debate may be watched below:

    The report itself can be accessed here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B is an international trade and development specialist. Read more of her commentaries here or follow her on Twitter @licylaw. All views expressed herein are her personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution or entity with which she may from time to time be affiliated.

  • A new UK Parliament and a new deal: What are the implications for Brexit?

    A new UK Parliament and a new deal: What are the implications for Brexit?

    Renaldo Weekes, Guest Contributor

    Renaldo Weekes

    On December 12, 2019, the United Kingdom (UK) held its second general election since 2015 which resulted in Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson retaining his position as the Conservative party regained the majority it lost in 2017.  It is apparent that Brexit dominated the campaign leading up to the election and some argue that the Conservatives’ win shows that the country is in alignment with PM Johnson’s views on the matter. Now that Mr. Johnson has a comfortable majority of 365 seats in the House of Commons, he is free to push through his Brexit agenda without the shackles of a minority that held him and his predecessor Theresa May back. We have already gotten a demonstration of his new found power as the second reading of his Withdrawal Bill has been passed on December 20 without any hiccups. The Bill that was passed, however, is somewhat different from the Bill the PM presented before Parliament agreed to an election. With a new Bill and a new Parliament, one must now consider what changes are contained in the new deal, the implications of those changes and the road from here on out.

    What is in the new deal?

    As Boris Johnson inherited a minority Government, he had to grant many concessions to opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) to increase his chances of getting his bill passed. This meant adding clauses favourable to the opposition. They included allowing MPs to approve extensions to the transition period and approve negotiating objectives; aligning UK workers’ rights with those of the European Union (EU) and adhering to the political declaration that accompanied the withdrawal agreement. With a newly secured majority, Mr. Johnson no longer needs to retain those concessions and as such, has removed them. The PM has also taken the liberty of adding his own clauses which, among other things, outlaw extensions to the transition period, grant Ministers power to change laws through secondary legislation and remove the Northern Ireland backstop that his predecessor put in place to prevent a hard border from being erected between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland since Northern Ireland would be leaving the EU with the UK while the Republic of Ireland remains a member.

    Implications of changes in the new deal

    With no ostensible obstacle in Mr. Johnson’s way, one must seriously consider the implications of the changes to his withdrawal bill as they will likely become law. The removal of the concessions previously granted to MPs essentially strips power related to Brexit away from the Commons. Concomitant with that is the granting of Ministers with more power over the process. This bolsters Johnson’s position as he no longer has to submit to what may be an uncooperative House of Commons.

    Of main concern to the main opposition UK Labour Party was UK workers’ rights not being aligned with EU workers’ rights. Much of the UK’s employment standards are derived from EU standards so leaving the EU without any guarantee that EU standards will be retained is quite concerning for good reason. Mr. Johnson has not completely dismissed the idea, however, as he opted to address the issue of worker’s rights in a separate employment bill. The question is how long will it take for his Government to address those issues? This also brings up the broader question of the UK’s ability to make its own laws which was a motivating factor behind Brexit. Some argue that Brits should have faith that their country can competently draft its own laws. Some go further by saying that in many respects, UK law actually goes further than EU law. For example, UK maternity law goes up to 52 weeks versus the EU’s 14 week minimum.  Employer-employee relationships will certainly change as employers may have less responsibility to their employees, even if only for a short time.

    The decision to outlaw extensions to the transition period signals to MPs and the wider public that the Prime Minister is serious about getting Brexit done, even if no deal is reached by the end of the transition. In the context of almost back-to-back general elections, MPs’ stubbornness and a divided UK, Mr. Johnson feels it is his duty to end the Brexit issue, no matter what. As mentioned earlier, the fact that he returned with a comfortable majority reflects that the public agrees with him. His attempt to prevent an extension to the transition period may not necessarily stand as, depending on how negotiations go, he may seek an extension and amend the law as necessary.

    PM Johnson’s new arrangement for Northern Ireland is one that is welcomed by many Brexiteers who previously opposed Mrs. May’s backstop because they viewed it as tethering the UK to the EU; preventing a true Brexit. They did not buy into the idea that the backstop was necessary. Under Mr. Johnson’s new bill, Northern Ireland will be a part of Great Britain’s customs territory but will remain somewhat aligned to the EU’s single market. This creates special status for the territory and goods travelling between it and Great Britain. Goods travelling between the two areas will be subject to EU tariffs and other EU procedures if they are at risk of moving into the EU, whether in part or in whole.

    Critics argue that this new arrangement divides the UK by virtue of checks that will have to be performed on goods travelling between Northern Ireland and Great Britain; similar to what would have happened between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Given the large amount of goods that will be subject to checks due to trade that occurs between the UK and EU members, especially since Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland share a physical space, the UK divide is a real possibility in theory. In practice, however, the UK will be free to make ambitious trade agreements with countries all over the world including the US, the UK’s largest trading partner. This may help to mitigate any UK dependence on the EU and thus, mitigate any split that may occur between the Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

    Considering that Northern Ireland will be partially under two different regulatory regimes, the UK and the EU will have to coordinate with each other to ensure that goods travelling through the territory are classified correctly. The UK has also taken the extra step of giving the Northern Ireland Assembly the ability to consent to the arrangement. If the assembly decides to not retain it, then the issue of the hard border will arise once again, meaning that in theory, the issue is not completely solved. Given the consequences should they not consent, the assembly is likely to approve.

    The road from here

    Passage of PM Boris Johnson’s Brexit bill without any major defections from his party shows that we are on our way to the Brexit that many envisioned we would have since March 29, 2019. ‘Remainer’ MPs and citizens hoping to have Brexit reversed have even less of a chance of doing so in the face of a more united Conservative party; though the chances were already quite slim. The chance for even a delay has been, on its face, eliminated as the Government has made it illegal to delay the transition period, thus making no extra time for negotiations. Though this may be subject to change if the Government has a change of position, without the pressure from the House of Commons that PM Boris Johnson and his predecessor had before the December 12 general election, it is very unlikely that this will be the case.

    With a more certain path for the UK’s future, UK businesses and citizens, and the wider world can rest assured that plans for their future will no longer suffer from uncertainty either. The constant questions of “will they?” or “won’t they?” may no longer pervade casual discourse. Though some persons will still argue that the UK should not leave the EU, the voters have spoken twice; in the 2016 referendum and in the 2019 general election. Nevertheless, considering how divisive Brexit has been since the referendum results were announced, we can only hope the PM Boris Johnson secures the best he can for the UK and mend a country that has been too focused on Brexit, much to its detriment at times.

    Renaldo Weekes is a holder of a BSc. (Sociology and Law) who observes international affairs from his humble, small island home. He has keen interest in how countries try to manoeuvre across the international political and legal stage.

  • Conservatives win majority in UK election: A clear path forward for Brexit?

    Conservatives win majority in UK election: A clear path forward for Brexit?

    Alicia Nicholls

    Christmas came early for United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party as they have won the December 12 General Election – the Tories’ biggest victory in many years. It was the UK’s third general election since 2015 and the first December election since 1923.

    With the UK due to leave the European Union (EU) on January 31, 2020 after several delays, it would appear that this gives the Prime Minister the mandate he needs to finally fulfill the desires of those 52% of Britons who voted on June 23, 2016 to leave the EU. However, the only constant with the whole Brexit saga has been the unpredictability of this process which has claimed the premiership of two Prime Ministers thus far (David Cameron and Theresa May) and left the UK constantly seeking delays from the EU.

    Polls leading up to the election, as well as a BBC exit poll, had accurately predicted a decisive win for the Conservatives, with a strong swing away from Labour. The Tories picked up seats in traditional Labour strongholds, including in the north, Midlands and Wales.

    It should be remembered that lack of House of Commons support for her Brexit deal (even within her own party), particularly because of the controversial ‘backstop’ solution for the Irish border dilemma, led to the downfall of Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May. Another reason was that the Conservatives had lost seats in the 2017 snap election she had called, and had no longer enjoyed an overall majority. However, with a clear majority now, it should be easier for Prime Minister Johnson – a Pro-Brexiteer – to get the House of Commons’ backing he needs to get his Brexit deal with the EU passed. Additionally, it also means that he should not be as dependent on the support of more extreme members of the Party who are not in favour of a close relationship with the EU post-Brexit.

    While the Conservatives and Labour were the two major parties in the election, there were other parties such as the Liberal Democrats, the Brexit Party, UKIP, the Green Party and the Scottish National Party (SNP). One hiccup, however, is the additional support gained by the SNP and what this means for the prospect of a new Scottish independence referendum. With 62% of Scots voting to remain in the 2016 referendum, Scotland was firmly in the remain camp. According to BBC reporting, SNP political leader and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon lauded her party’s strong performance in this election, noting that it sent a “very clear message” that PM Johnson lacks the mandate to take Scotland out of the EU. What may this mean for the continued unity of the United Kingdom?

    In weeks to come, many pundits will be opining on what message the British electorate was sending by handing the Conservatives such a resounding victory – were they not confident in the alternatives to the Conservatives or did they simply want to hand the Conservatives a manageable majority so they could just get on with the business of delivering Brexit? For his part, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has indicated he will not fight another election.

    For the Caribbean, it should be recalled that regardless of what happens now between the UK and the EU, preferential trade between CARIFORUM countries and the UK should continue uninterrupted as the UK and CARIFORUM countries have agreed to roll over the provisions of the EU-CARIFORUM EPA (which covers trade between CARIFORUM and the current EU-28). The UK-CARIFORUM EPA, which was signed in March this year, will come into effect once the UK leaves the EU.

    While all eyes have been focused on what the election result means for Brexit, it should not be forgotten that there were several core issues which also were part of the Tories’ campaign message. Immigration, which cannot be divorced from Brexit, was a big part of the Conservative platform. With Prime Minister Johnson promising to crackdown on immigration to the UK, it remains to be seen what this means for Caribbean nationals currently living in the UK or looking to emigrate there. The Windrush Scandal remains fresh in Caribbean minds.

    The Brexit chapter may not have yet reached its conclusion and it remains to be seen whether this Conservative triumph at the polls will indeed be the clear path forward for the UK’s exit from the EU, or if other stumbling blocks, such as the whole Scottish issue, will come into play.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B., is an international trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

    DISCLAIMER: All views expressed herein are her personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution or entity with which she may be affiliated from time to time.

  • Theresa May’s Resignation: What are the implications?

    Theresa May’s Resignation: What are the implications?

    Renaldo Weekes, Guest Contributor

    In 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) held the now famous ‘The United Kingdom European Union (EU) Membership referendum’ in which it voted to leave the EU. Due to then-Prime Minister David Cameron’s resignation over the result of the referendum, Theresa May became the Conservative party leader and concomitantly, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What followed was a tumultuous few years as Mrs. May tried to negotiate a deal that would satiate the country and the House of Commons.

    As she came to realise, however, this was no easy task. Disagreements over whether there should be a clean break from the EU with no deal, trading on World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, or a deal that would tie the UK to the EU in some form ensued. When a deal was finally crafted, Members of Parliament (MPs) from all across the Commons, including those in May’s own Conservative party, showed their displeasure for it as they rejected it three times. Though she tried to secure some changes, the EU effectively ruled that out. Fed up with the situation, many of her cabinet members began to resign and many MPs started calling for her own resignation as well.

    Amidst of all this, Theresa May argued that her deal was the best deal they could get and that she would not resign. That, however, did not last long. In an effort to persuade the Commons to support her deal, she promised she would resign if they voted for it. That was not enough, however, and now she has finally announced on Friday, May 25, 2019, that she will resign as Conservative party leader on June 7 and subsequently, Prime Minister of the UK. All problems do not end with Theresa May, however. In fact, some new ones now arise. One must ask what Theresa May’s resignation means for the Brexit withdrawal deal and the United Kingdom’s trade policy with other countries.

    A New Prime Minister and a new deal?

    Theresa May’s resignation has sparked a competition for leadership of the Conservative party and the UK as a whole. This means that all conservative MPs who were dissatisfied with May’s handling of Brexit now have the chance to correct all of her wrongs. At first, it may seem as though the party may choose one of the many vocal, hardline Brexiteers who wish to see a no-deal scenario, such as former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, to become the next Prime Minister since those hardliners are often credited as obstructing the passing of May’s deal. However, we must not forget that the Conservative Tory party is also made up of persons who wish to have a close relationship with the EU or even to remain in the Union. Those varying stances have all played a part in why May’s deal has been rejected. They all agreed on what they didn’t want but must now agree on what they want. Some Tory MPs have publicly said that will oppose the selection of someone like Mr. Johnson as his plans for a no-deal Brexit are too reckless.

    Let us consider a scenario where a no-deal supporter became the Prime Minister. Presumably, he may just rip up the deal and choose to exit the EU on WTO terms. This is next to impossible, however, as the House of Commons has already rejected a no-deal scenario under Theresa May. It is far less likely that those opposed to a no-deal withdrawal will change their minds just because of a new face. Especially if that new face is acting more ideological than pragmatic. If a no-deal scenario were to succeed, it would create massive disruption to operations and supply of goods as many businesses have deep ties within the EU that help them to survive. There will be an eventual recovery but how long will that recovery take? Would it really be wise to risk financial stability for the sake of satisfying an ideological point?

    What about a deal-supporting Conservative? There are many MPs who want to leave the EU with a deal but they differ on what they want in the deal. Some want an arm’s length relationship in the deal while others want to be as close as possible to the Union with a customs union or what has been dubbed as the common market 2.0. Though those scenarios would be more preferable than a no-deal, the House has also rejected those through the series of indicative votes that it held in late March and early April. On the face of it, no matter what the new Prime Minister brings, it may suffer the same fate as May’s deal. Of note though, is the margin by which each indicative vote failed. In the second round of indicative votes, the customs union vote tabled by ‘europhile’ Tory Kenneth Clarke, lost by only 3 votes; the lowest margin. The new Prime Minister who knows how to play politics better than Theresa May may able to swing people to the customs union provided that it is his or her preferred option.

    Forgetting Brexit entirely?

    Other options such as holding a second referendum and revoking article 50 are also desired by some but that may not be the wisest thing to consider at this time. The public will perceive that the Government is holding a new referendum simply because the first one produced an undesired result. Revoking article 50 goes directly against what the people voted for. Avoiding Brexit may be the desired outcome for some, but the public upheaval that may arise through the methods of trying to stop it may not be worth it. Implementing these options with support from the House and the public will be quite laborious. 

    The EU’s role in the deal

    Amidst of all this, no matter what the new Prime Minister puts forward, he or she still has to deal with the EU. The EU has made clear that they will not change the current deal. There is no more room for tweaks or changes, especially relating to the contentious Irish backstop that seeks to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. If a new Prime Minster believes that he or she can sway the EU to remove the backstop or any other restrictive conditions then he or she is sorely mistaken. It will be especially difficult to renegotiate the deal so late into the timeline with someone who may be hostile toward the EU. By all means, however, the EU will welcome anyone willing to build its current relationship with the UK. It will be easier to renegotiate the deal in that regard. The EU will also still be wary of crafting any kind of deal considering that the House has effectively ruled out all options on the table.

    The United Kingdom’s Trade policy with other Countries

    It is quite clear that Brexit will shape who becomes the next Conservative leader and the next Prime Minister but there are other trade policy issues that exist beyond Brexit. With a change in leadership and subsequent change in team, other world leaders must now adapt to what could be a change in trade policy approach. There could be a new Prime Minister who is more of a hardliner as it relates to overall trade policy or someone who has a softer approach. This will be of special interest to leaders like United States (US) President Donald Trump who wishes to renegotiate the US’ trade deals with other world leaders that he considers as conciliatory parties. This may not be much of a big concern, however, as a change in leadership is normal as this happens whenever there is a general election.

    Additionally, a Conservative is a Conservative. There may be no real major policy changes for the country as a whole. The relationship between the UK and the EU is also one that is unlike other relationships the UK has and issues surrounding Brexit will be far more complex than normal trade relationships. Others may claim that the EU is being a bully as it is merely concerned for its own sustainability.

    Conclusion

    Considering that all surrounding factors remain the same, those being Parliament’s and the EU’s stubbornness, and the fact that practically speaking, there are no changes that can be made unless they seek to bring the UK and the EU closer together, the new Prime Minister has to be one that looks at the situation in a pragmatic way rather than ideological. He or she must also be able to play politics. Though the legal relationship is what really matters, people must be sold on the idea that this is the best possible deal rather than simply being told it is the best. Whoever the new Prime Minister is, one can only hope they can achieve these things and solve the current Brexit problem rather than exacerbate it or even create new ones. The Conservatives must realize that Britain’s future, Brexit and beyond, is in their hands.

    Renaldo Weekes is a holder of a BSc. (Sociology and Law) who observes international affairs from his humble, small island home. He has keen interest in how countries try to maneuver across the international political and legal stage. Read his other postings here.