Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Tag: Theresa may

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • ‘Brexit Plan B’: Key Points from PM May’s Speech

    ‘Brexit Plan B’: Key Points from PM May’s Speech

    Alicia Nicholls

    After suffering a historic and crushing rejection  of her Draft Withdrawal deal in the House of Commons and barely surviving a no confidence vote brought by the Leader of the Opposition last week, United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister Theresa May today outlined her ‘Brexit Plan B’ in the House of Commons.

    Prime Minister May is in the unenviable position of having to formulate an alternative Brexit Plan which secures the support of MPs of diverging views on the way forward for Brexit, and which would be palatable to the EU. All the while the clock continues to tick on the UK’s scheduled departure from the EU on March 29, 2019, now less than seventy days away. In an effort to break the Brexit impasse, Mrs. May has been holding talks with leaders of the major parties in Parliament.

    Prime Minister May noted that in light of Parliament’s overwhelming rejection of the current withdrawal agreement, it was clear that the Government’s approach had to change. But has it?

    Here are the key points from Prime Minister May’s address:

    1. While the Prime Minister noted that a ‘no deal’ Brexit should be avoided, she did not explicitly rule it out as an option. Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has indicated he would not participate in talks with the Prime Minister, unless the ‘no deal’ option is off the table.
    2. Prime Minister May, however, explicitly ruled out the revocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as an option, saying doing this would go against the referendum result of June 23, 2016.
    3. Prime Minister May also ruled out seeking an extension of Article 50 of the TEU, doubting that the EU-27 would agree to any such extension.
    4. She again stated her opposition to a second referendum saying it would set a dangerous precedent for how referendums are handled in the UK. She noted that it would also require an extension of Article 50 and could damage social cohesion in the UK by undermining faith in their democracy. She also doubted there was a majority in the House for a second referendum.
    5. She has promised a more ‘flexible, open and inclusive’ approach in how her Government engages Parliament in the negotiation of the UK’s future partnership with the EU. The Government will consult the Parliament on its negotiating mandate for the next phase of negotiations.
    6. She also promised a more consultative approach, and greater engagement with the devolved administrations, elected representatives in Northern Ireland and regional representatives in England, businesses, civil society and trade unions.
    7. She emphasized that the UK’s exit from the EU should not erode the UK’s protection for environment standards or workers rights and that they would support the proposed amendment to the meaningful vote that Parliament should be able to consider any changes in these areas made by the EU.
    8.  In perhaps the only major policy change of note, Prime Minister May noted that her Government will scrap the £65 fee for EU nationals resident in the UK to register to remain in the UK following Brexit. Those who apply in the pilot phase will have their fees reimbursed. She recommitted to EU nationals resident in the UK continuing to access benefits in the UK both in a deal and no deal scenario.
    9. With regard to the controversial Irish backstop option in the current Withdrawal Agreement, Prime Minister May vaguely noted that her Government will work to identify how they could ensure that they respect the terms of the Belfast Agreement and their commitment to no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in such a way that commands the support of the parliament and the EU.

    In substance, there was little difference between Prime Minister May’s Plan A and the Plan B outlined. Members of Parliament will vote on the Plan B on January 29, 2019, which would pretty much be the same as the Plan A which they so soundly rejected by 230 votes last week.

    The next phase will be continued discussions between Mrs. May and MPs and other stakeholders, which would (or should) inform Mrs. May’s re-engagement with the EU on the way forward.  The uncertainty continues, but it appears that a ‘no deal Brexit’ is increasingly more likely. This also comes against the backdrop of the International Monetary Fund’s downward revision of its global growth forecast, warning today (and not for the first time) that a ‘no deal Brexit’ was a major risk for the global economy.

    The text of Prime Minister May’s speech may be read here.

    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.

  • Brexit Withdrawal Agreement Overwhelmingly Rejected by British MPs

    Brexit Withdrawal Agreement Overwhelmingly Rejected by British MPs

    Alicia Nicholls

    With just over seventy days to go before the United Kingdom’s (UK) impending withdrawal from the European Union (EU) on March 29, 2019, British Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly against the current Draft Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government. With only 202 MPs voting in favour and 432 voting against the deal, the 230 margin of defeat represents the worst legislative defeat inflicted on a British Government in modern history.

    The vote, termed the ‘meaningful vote’, was highly anticipated. Originally scheduled for last December, Prime Minister May had postponed the vote at the last minute in the face of overwhelming opposition to the current deal, particularly the fall-back provisions on the Northern Ireland/Ireland Border – the so-called ‘backstop’. In the interim, Mrs. May unsuccessfully sought to obtain greater concessions from the EU in order to assuage skeptics, including those in her own party. However, the EU had been adamant that the  500-page Draft Withdrawal Agreement was not open for renegotiation.

    Indeed, the reaction by the EU to the outcome has been swift. In a statement released immediately thereafter, President of the EU Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, lamented that “the risk of a disorderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom has increased with this evening’s vote.” President Juncker further reiterated that “the Withdrawal Agreement is a fair compromise and the best possible deal. It reduces the damage caused by Brexit for citizens and businesses across Europe. It is the only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”

    In her remarks after the outcome, Mrs. May lamented that the vote gave no indication of what the Parliament does support. She promised to continue her pursuit of Brexit as instructed by the British people in their referendum result of 2016. She has again ruled out a second referendum. However, her future appears to be in the balance. Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who has called for a general election, has immediately tabled a motion of no confidence which will be debated tomorrow. In December, Mrs. May survived a no confidence motion within her own party.

    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.