As I have said before, the war to properly leave the EU "will rage on".. tonight is just the next step in that process.. I really do think this "treaty" with a name ( it is not a trade deal ) is designed to eventually kill brexit by strangling our economy slowly and then fold us back into the EU in the least complex way possible in the future. Not sure i fully agree with all of Ben Harris-Quinney interpretations, but it is food for thought.
IT is very likely as the detail of this deal comes out, only after it has been passed, that opposition to it will grow among Brexiteers.
www.express.co.uk
Boris's Brexit deal is a bit of a FRAUD - here's 10 reasons why, says BEN HARRIS-QUINNEY
IT is very likely as the detail of this deal comes out, only after it has been passed, that opposition to it will grow among Brexiteers.
By Ben Harris-Quinney, Chairman of The Bow Group
PUBLISHED: 14:16, Thu, Dec 31, 2020 | UPDATED: 14:26, Thu, Dec 31, 2020
It has become immediately fashionable among the Brexit movement to support this deal, but the Bow Group is never an organisation to get swept up in fashion, we prefer to look at the long term reality. The reality is that it is a cause of great celebration that after almost five years we are finally leaving the EU, but also that on immigration, on the ability to make our own trade deals, and on sovereignty, Brexiteers are not getting what we wanted, however much we want to believe we are..
It is never a good sign when a piece of legislation is given inadequate time to be debated, especially over Christmas when many are focused on their families.
Although the proposed Brexit deal will inevitably pass, the Bow Group has today released 10 points of concern about the deal, which we feel will become increasingly apparent in the coming years:
1. Inadequate time has been given for Parliament & citizens to analyse & scrutinise this Bill
The UK and EU have signed a provisional treaty. Never in British history has such a huge piece of legislation been forced through Parliament and without recourse to any revision.
It is therefore unparliamentary and cannot in any case bind Parliament beyond this session.
Without revision it cannot be deemed to be anything but a European directive.
We have given up Parliamentary scrutiny at the first opportunity, while the European Parliament has over a month to review and ratify the treaty. It speaks to a desire to avoid scrutiny to offer so little time to analyse and debate this deal, particularly over Christmas.
2. Likely increase in immigration and granting of British Citizenship
The UK will add around four million new citizens as British citizenship is granted to EU nationals from 2016, as the Bow Group warned previously. The right to remain should be honoured for those who came here under Schengen+ rules, it however should not include students.
Due to the very high numbers of new British citizens immigration levels should also have been cut to take account of this, we have however seen no reduction.
There has never been such a huge addition to our citizenry in our history. The new treaty maintains European immigration by bypassing VISA restrictions for EU workers here temporarily while working for an EU based employer.
This is clearly subject to abuse and can allow a continued contrived open door policy for the EU given that even for public sector tenders, EU companies can bid for contracts on a level playing field.
(Chapter 4: Entry and temporary stay of natural persons for business purposes)
(Article SERVIN.2.6: Performance requirements)
A major motivation for the Brexit vote was a desire in the public to see immigration fall dramatically, there is nothing in this trade deal, nor in currently proposed government policy, that would facilitate any significant fall in immigration, & the numbers of new British citizens is likely to rise dramatically.
3. Continuation of Regulatory Alignment
Level playing field provisions on trade cut across large areas of domestic policy and in effect retain the laws of the EU Single Market on the United Kingdom. Without the ability to take back control on regulation and therefore advantage over the EU on trade deals,
in effect pushing the EU in front of the UK in any future USA trade deal. (Preamble and Article ENER.3: Relationship with other Titles)
“RECOGNISING the need for an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership to be underpinned by a level playing field for open and fair competition and sustainable development, through effective and robust frameworks for subsidies and competition and a commitment to uphold their respective high levels of protection in the areas of labour and social standards, environment, the fight against climate change, and taxation”
4. Lack of control on taxation and subsidy
The proposed deal restricts the UK Government's ability to set levels of taxation that fall outside the EU's threshold in order to prevent the UK undercutting the EU. It places similar restrictions on the ability of the UK Government to subsidise UK businesses. Both of these restrictions make it difficult for the UK to gain a competitive advantage over the EU or to improve our domestic circumstances from the status quo inside the EU. This is restrictive both in terms of domestic policy and our ability to gain new trade deals.
Article INST.2: Committees 1. (j) “the Trade Specialised Committee on Level Playing Field for Open and Fair Competition and Sustainable Development, which addresses matters covered by Title XI of Heading One of Part
Two and Annex ENER-2 [ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUBSIDIES]”
5. A poor deal for fisheries – CFP in all but name.
We are deprived of fishing stocks in perpetuity after 2026, having agreed with Brussels that these resources are "shared" while Norway enjoys total control of these even within the Single Market of the EEA. Quotas will need to be updated on a multiannual basis. (Article FISH.18: Review clause). It specifically mentions the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are exempt from this fishing deal because the CFP never applied to them. (Article FISH.10: Access to waters of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man). This is the CFP in all but name.
6. A restrictive and poor deal for services
While the deal on services allows some divergence from the European Union access to their market for services is based on that of most favoured nation status (Article SERVIN.3.5 (1): Most favoured nation treatment)
which precludes any better deal with the USA or other country being concluded.
As the report states: “
Each Party shall accord to services and service suppliers of the other Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like situations, to services and service suppliers of a third country.”
7. A divide between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK
There is now a divide down the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The mechanism outlined in the Withdrawal Agreement for NI to unilaterally leave the protocols binding it to the EU have always been inadequate given the effective veto the Nationalist block has through the legislative consent process. It would test devolution and the European Union were the Northern Ireland Office to attempt to unilaterally withdraw NI from the treaty though would not be impossible given the Northern Irish Assembly is not sovereign over NI.
8. The deal keeps us bound to many terms of the European Arrest Warrant
While cooperation in areas of law and order may be desirable in some cases there is no need to link them to trade. The treaty binds us to the European Arrest Warrant principle of extradition of British subjects without prima facie evidence so it is not true that we are not under ECJ jurisdiction, when member states can issue infraction proceedings against us. (ANNEX LAW-5: Arrest Warrant),
At the deal states: “This warrant has been issued by a competent judicial authority. I request that the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order”
9. A continuation of foreign court jurisdiction over the UK
The UK has led on human rights but has concerns over globalist bodies that rule on them. The treaty binds us to the ECHR and to UN bodies.
It specifically allows the EU to terminate the entire deal within 15 DAYS if it believes the UK has repudiated the ECHR. (Article 8.10: Trade and responsible supply chain management), (Article LAW.OTHER.136: Termination)
“However, if this Part is terminated on account of the United Kingdom or a Member State having denounced the European Convention on Human Rights or Protocols 1, 6 or 13 thereto, this Part shall cease to be in force as of the date that such denunciation becomes effective or, if the notification of its termination is made after that date, on the fifteenth day following such notification.”
10. Continued binding of the UK to the EU on defence
The UK will continue to fund the European Defence Agency via Horizon 2020 and of course by our huge contribution to NATO. The UK’s insistence on maintaining NATO funding and forward provision without condition has proven unwise and while we have acquired many new neighbours with this treaty, we have gained no friends.
The continued presence of UK forces within the EU gives unrivalled security in a completely one sided direction. The UK should insist such forces can be summarily withdrawn from the EU within a period of 15 days in keeping with the termination clause of the treaty.
The loss of access to Galileo, its military data and our contribution to its development must be weighed in any future cooperation with the EU in military matters and implied guarantees by the UK such as its commitment to NATO policies including first strike, Article 5 and NATO partnerships with countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, Sweden and Finland (the latter two being in the EU but not in NATO).
I look forward to continuing that debate over the coming years with the hope of finally achieving what we set out to do: to make Britain a truly and wholly independent nation.
Benjamin Harris-Quinney is Chairman of The Bow Group.
Bow Group Patrons include: The Rt Hon Lord Tebbit, The Rt Hon Lord Lamont, The Rt Hon Sir John Redwood MP, The Rt Hon Ann Widdecombe, Dr David Starkey, Dr John O'Sullivan, & Nirj Deva
....
