Coronavirus: the Cummings dividend



More and more, from entirely casual conversations, I hear people dismiss Johnson's "lockdown" measures, with people expressing responses ranging from indifference to defiance.



It wasn't like that earlier in the year, when there was a genuine community spirit and, largely, a high degree of compliance. But that feeling has gone. Again and again, I hear the name "Cummings" spoken out loud.



What's good enough for him is good enough for everybody else. Almost single-handedly, he has destroyed any semblance of public-spirited cooperation. We do what we have to do, but the respect for the rules has gone.



Of course, when willing cooperation goes, all you have left is coercion. Uniformed thugs with sticks, their tasers and the rest of their array of weapons – enforcing the will of a state which has lost the trust of its people.



No better measure of that loss of trust is the announcement of £1,000 fines, growing rapidly to £10,000 for those who fail to follow lockdown rules – a level of absurdity when imposed on people – most people – who simply cannot afford that sort of money.



The lack of proportionality speaks of panic, a government which has lost control – and knows it. Thus, it gives license to its uniformed thugs to impose ridiculous penalties, in the hope that fear will induce compliance, where respect for the law has been lost.



In ordering such penalties, Johnson might have asked himself why he believes such a draconian response should be necessary. But then, if he asked the question, he surely would not like the answer. But the logic is unarguable. If we have a prime minister who has no respect for the rule of law, why should anyone else be bothered?



Underlying this also is a sense of drift. You would have to go a long way to find anyone who believed that the government had a grip on this epidemic, or had any confidence that it knew what it was doing.



And again personalities come into this. The choice of Dido "data loss" Harding as testing supremo, reigning over a failing system, has hardly inspired public confidence. More than anything, her appointment symbolises a rottenness deep in the heart of government that no-one could believe possible in Britain.



Johnson's lack of self-awareness is, of course, a wonder to behold. But how can he possible keep a straight face, when he burbles that: "The best way we can fight this virus is by everyone following the rules and self-isolating if they’re at risk of passing on coronavirus".



This is a man who has never knowingly obeyed a rule in his life, and has stood idly by while the odious Cummings drove a cart and horse through the rules, and then offered a frankly risible explanation for his misconduct.



Now, the man who masquerading as a prime minister – when he isn't indulging in his penchant for dressing up – tells us that we should not underestimate just how important self-isolation is, for everyone except Dominic Cummings.



The new regulations he has churned out, under emergency powers, will mean you we are legally obliged to self-isolate if we have the virus or have been asked by Harding's failed NHS Test and Trace empire.



I doubt the man has even begun to think this through but, where the task of tracing infected and potentially infected people is already difficult enough, Johnson has just ensured that a huge tranche of people will now stay outside the system, rather than expose themselves to the risk of a draconian fine.



"People who choose to ignore the rules will face significant fines", Johnson says, so who in their right mind is going to get a test unless absolutely necessary, if the consequence is a call from Dido Harding's mates, and a £10K fine for not doing what they tell us.



Johnson also seems to be locked into a time warp, asserting that we – with the notable exception of Dom Cummings – "need to do all we can to control the spread of this virus". But his rationale is still "to prevent the most vulnerable people from becoming infected, and to protect the NHS and save lives".



Thus, we're getting more of the "protect the NHS" schtick, where its conversion into the National Covid Service has cost and is costing thousands of lives, and untold pain, misery and uncertainty.



And there, under the control of the charlatan Johnson, things can only get worse. More than six months onto this epidemic, he and his advisors seem to have learned very little.



Instead of expanding and consolidating the network of Nightingale Hospitals, so that infected patients can be kept out of the general hospitals, we have the NHS clearing the decks again, to make way for a surge that will prevent will prevent the proper functioning of the service.



Meanwhile the track and trace system is a cruel joke, where not only is failing to meet the demand for testing, the contact tracing has still not been properly organised at a local level, and the staff who are engaged are deprived of timely information that will enable them to do their jobs.



This, however, is so typical of this government. In the "us and them" stakes, it can mess up without a hint of penalty, leaving "us" to bear the consequences, and now be heavily penalised as the government attempts to make good its own shortcomings.



And yet, the worst is yet to come. Where the government clearly does not have a grip on the epidemic, when the case rate continues to rise, it will have nothing left in the locker – unless Johnson wants to raise the fines to £100K. And what then? Does he send in squads of bailiffs in to chase up the people who can't or won't pay – or does he send them to prison?



As the implications of the latest moves sink in, though, this inadequate hulk of a man will find that, far from improving the system, he has substantially damaged it as people identify "test and trace" as a coercive arm of the state.



But then, at least he may have temporarily solved the testing crisis. If applying for a test exposes the applicant to the risk of a massive fine, demand should fall off sharply. Perhaps that's the real reason.



In the longer run, though, the government has made a rod for its own back. What little residual cooperation and community spirit there was has just evaporated. The bully boys and their big sticks have taken over, and the state has become the oppressor.



We didn't think Johnson could make an even bigger mess of this than he has done to date, but one might take some little comfort from that fact that he still has the capacity to surprise.



Also published on More and more, from entirely casual conversations, I hear people dismiss Johnson's "lockdown" measures, with people expressing responses ranging from indifference to defiance.It wasn't like that earlier in the year, when there was a genuine community spirit and, largely, a high degree of compliance. But that feeling has gone. Again and again, I hear the name "Cummings" spoken out loud.What's good enough for him is good enough for everybody else. Almost single-handedly, he has destroyed any semblance of public-spirited cooperation. We do what we have to do, but the respect for the rules has gone.Of course, when willing cooperation goes, all you have left is coercion. Uniformed thugs with sticks, their tasers and the rest of their array of weapons – enforcing the will of a state which has lost the trust of its people.No better measure of that loss of trust is the announcement of £1,000 fines, growing rapidly to £10,000 for those who fail to follow lockdown rules – a level of absurdity when imposed on people – most people – who simply cannot afford that sort of money.The lack of proportionality speaks of panic, a government which has lost control – and knows it. Thus, it gives license to its uniformed thugs to impose ridiculous penalties, in the hope that fear will induce compliance, where respect for the law has been lost.In ordering such penalties, Johnson might have asked himself why he believes such a draconian response should be necessary. But then, if he asked the question, he surely would not like the answer. But the logic is unarguable. If we have a prime minister who has no respect for the rule of law, why should anyone else be bothered?Underlying this also is a sense of drift. You would have to go a long way to find anyone who believed that the government had a grip on this epidemic, or had any confidence that it knew what it was doing.And again personalities come into this. The choice of Dido "data loss" Harding as testing supremo, reigning over a failing system, has hardly inspired public confidence. More than anything, her appointment symbolises a rottenness deep in the heart of government that no-one could believe possible in Britain.Johnson's lack of self-awareness is, of course, a wonder to behold. But how can he possible keep a straight face, when he burbles that: "The best way we can fight this virus is by everyone following the rules and self-isolating if they’re at risk of passing on coronavirus".This is a man who has never knowingly obeyed a rule in his life, and has stood idly by while the odious Cummings drove a cart and horse through the rules, and then offered a frankly risible explanation for his misconduct.Now, the man who masquerading as a prime minister – when he isn't indulging in his penchant for dressing up – tells us that we should not underestimate just how important self-isolation is, for everyone except Dominic Cummings.The new regulations he has churned out, under emergency powers, will mean you we are legally obliged to self-isolate if we have the virus or have been asked by Harding's failed NHS Test and Trace empire.I doubt the man has even begun to think this through but, where the task of tracing infected and potentially infected people is already difficult enough, Johnson has just ensured that a huge tranche of people will now stay outside the system, rather than expose themselves to the risk of a draconian fine."People who choose to ignore the rules will face significant fines", Johnson says, so who in their right mind is going to get a test unless absolutely necessary, if the consequence is a call from Dido Harding's mates, and a £10K fine for not doing what they tell us.Johnson also seems to be locked into a time warp, asserting that we – with the notable exception of Dom Cummings – "need to do all we can to control the spread of this virus". But his rationale is still "to prevent the most vulnerable people from becoming infected, and to protect the NHS and save lives".Thus, we're getting more of the "protect the NHS" schtick, where its conversion into the National Covid Service has cost and is costing thousands of lives, and untold pain, misery and uncertainty.And there, under the control of the charlatan Johnson, things can only get worse. More than six months onto this epidemic, he and his advisors seem to have learned very little.Instead of expanding and consolidating the network of Nightingale Hospitals, so that infected patients can be kept out of the general hospitals, we have the NHS clearing the decks again, to make way for a surge that will prevent will prevent the proper functioning of the service.Meanwhile the track and trace system is a cruel joke, where not only is failing to meet the demand for testing, the contact tracing has still not been properly organised at a local level, and the staff who are engaged are deprived of timely information that will enable them to do their jobs.This, however, is so typical of this government. In the "us and them" stakes, it can mess up without a hint of penalty, leaving "us" to bear the consequences, and now be heavily penalised as the government attempts to make good its own shortcomings.And yet, the worst is yet to come. Where the government clearly does not have a grip on the epidemic, when the case rate continues to rise, it will have nothing left in the locker – unless Johnson wants to raise the fines to £100K. And what then? Does he send in squads of bailiffs in to chase up the people who can't or won't pay – or does he send them to prison?As the implications of the latest moves sink in, though, this inadequate hulk of a man will find that, far from improving the system, he has substantially damaged it as people identify "test and trace" as a coercive arm of the state.But then, at least he may have temporarily solved the testing crisis. If applying for a test exposes the applicant to the risk of a massive fine, demand should fall off sharply. Perhaps that's the real reason.In the longer run, though, the government has made a rod for its own back. What little residual cooperation and community spirit there was has just evaporated. The bully boys and their big sticks have taken over, and the state has become the oppressor.We didn't think Johnson could make an even bigger mess of this than he has done to date, but one might take some little comfort from that fact that he still has the capacity to surprise.Also published on Turbulent Times





Richard North link

Politics: of rats and ships



I'm sure the fanboys on the Spectator are still in love with their hero Boris – except that Fraser Nelson (who I think is the editor) doesn't seem to be able to recognise the object of his desire in the shambling figure currently masquerading as a prime minister.



Thus, the poor, lost lamb ends up writing a sad little lament, asking:



It's not that his hero isn't there, anymore. Little Fraser has actually noticed that physically, the clunking oaf is still around, usually dressed up in a hard hat and a hi-viz jacket. If he has to meet Ed Miliband in the Commons again, he might as well wear the same get-up there. If ever a man needed PPE, it's Boris.



But the problem is that Boris isn't Boris. Whatever the thing is, it's not 'the effervescent, bombastic, energising leader MPs thought they'd elected'. That man is missing, Fraser morosely observes. There is, he complains, 'a conspicuous - and baffling - lack of leadership'.



The likes of Fraser, however, are supposed to be leaders of political thought. This man-child is amongst the elite, to whom we are supposed to defer, and to whom politicians of great rank pay attention.



Yet still he doesn't get it. Leadership is to Boris Johnson as a colander is to water retention. If a colander was any good for carrying water, it wouldn't be a colander. But if Boris was any good for anything – other than inflating his own ego - it would be a miracle.



At least Toby Young seems to get it. But then he's only an "associate editor" of the Spectator, so not quite up there with the gilded elites. But, being closer to the plebs (although not that much closer), he doesn't have to go through the pretence of arguing that Boris has somehow metamorphosed into a lumbering oaf, and is able to admit that he was a 'bad 'un' all the time.



Thus, the contrite Young is able to write



The fact that Johnson was going to be an abject failure as a prime minster, he sort of admits, shouldn't have come as a surprise. Boris's supporters, he writes, cannot claim they were unaware of this risk. His inability to focus on anything for very long was constantly flagged up by those who’d worked closely with him, most recently at the Foreign Office.



Young's response, when this was put to him by Johnson's [many] detractors was that he had been preparing for the role of prime minister all his life, had a heroic conception of himself as a world-historical individual and wanted to be installed in the pantheon of immortals as one of Britain’s greats. Thus, even if it was only for vainglorious reasons, he would apply himself in No. 10 in a way he never had before. Hal would become Henry V, not Henry VI.



So let's get this right. We have a sexually incontinent sociopath who is shit at just about everything he has ever done, who lies for a living and makes betrayal his trade-mark. But apart from that, it's reasonable to expect that, despite being totally unqualified for it, when he's given the top job, he will suddenly emerge as the "great leader", just because he has ambitions to be seen as "one of Britain’s greats".



By that token, I suppose if I wanted to be the world's greatest concert pianist, even though I might struggle with a kazoo, if I really wanted it badly enough, I should be strapped to a Steinway and allowed to let rip in the Albert Hall. Seriously, what do people like Toby Young do for brains?



At least he does have the humility to write that he "should have been better prepared". In future, he adds, "I will not be so naïve". Naïve? The man was born in 1963 … he's 56, and he's still naïve?



But then, according to his The Times for a six-month period as a news trainee until he was fired.



He was sacked for hacking the computer system and circulating senior executives' salaries to others around the building, and impersonating the editor Charles Wilson. This was followed by a two-year period at Trinity College, Cambridge where he carried out research for a doctorate that he did not complete. You can quite see why he has an affinity for bombastic Boris.



Young, however, has managed to get further down the line of self-awareness than has the ineffably self-important Allister Heath, who actually thinks that



Despite the lamentable performance of this lumbering oaf, the great Heath has it that it still isn’t too late for this pretend prime minister. The reality, he writes, "is that Johnson has six months to save his legacy and his premiership, and force himself back into the pantheon of the greats". These people really are on a different planet.



But then, if these are rats departing or about to depart from the sinking ship that is Boris, it seems that another rodent is about to take the plunge, in the unexpected form of the



In a piece entitled, "Johnson reels after mis-steps on Brexit and coronavirus", it tells us that the prime minister’s relations with many of his Tory MPs have reached breaking point. He has had so many dire weeks as prime minister, that Conservative MPs at Westminster sometimes appear punch drunk. "It's driving me bonkers", said one veteran Tory MP. "We're in one hell of a mess".



After listing some of the less than glorious achievement of the prime minister, the paper reminds us that he still has staunch defenders among recently elected Tory MPs, but some backbenchers feel estranged from him and bewildered by what is going on.



At the heart of Johnson's problems, the paper says, is a mutual sense of distrust, and sometimes loathing, between Tory MPs and 10 Downing Street. "The parliamentary party always dislikes the centre, it was the same under David [Cameron] and Theresa [May]", says one influential MP. "The difference now is that Downing Street doesn’t give a fuck in return".



Charles Walker, vice-chair of the 1922 committee of backbench Conservative MPs, went public on this broken relationship in a passionate speech in the Commons: "If you keep whacking a dog, don't be surprised when it bites you back", he says.



Mr Johnson’s allies argued that Tory MPs chose him as their leader because he was a "winner" not because he was a consummate party manager. "He's never been a House of Commons man. He’s never hung out in the tea-room", says one supporter, according to the Financial Times.



But, the paper says, the prime minister's remoteness from his own MPs - summed up by an ill-fated Zoom call last week with Conservative MPs in which his internet connection failed and he refused to take any questions - could become increasingly problematic in the months ahead.



Surprisingly, some might think, the mood is now febrile. Some Tory MPs believe recent speculation that Johnson hasn't fully recovered from his bout of Covid-19 - strenuously denied by Number 10 - and will walk out before the next election.



This would be a useful alibi for those naïve creatures who thought Johnson was the dog's bollocks. They can pretend that he has changed, just like they pretend that Edward Heath took us into a trade agreement with the "Six", whence it suddenly morphed into a political union with ambitions of becoming the United States of Europe.



But, while some of his dwindling band of supporters insist that Johnson will be determined to prove his critics wrong, some are worried. "I don't understand what’s happened to Boris", said one. "He now seems to be a shadow of his ebullient self".



It could be, of course, that the man is totally out of his depth, finding anything more than dressing up for his latest walkabout to be way beyond his intellectual capabilities. But it's taken an awfully long time for his MPs to notice – which tells you something about the modern Conservative Party.



However, observes the FT, the next general election may still be four years away, but there is likely to be a reckoning for Johnson's premiership long before then. "If necessary, we know what to do", said one longstanding MP, referring to the Conservative party's tendency to regicide.



But it really is a pity that this thing was ever let near the reins of power. Johnson was a wrong 'un from the get-go, and it really is inexplicable that so many people should have been so "naïve" as to be taken in by him. The sooner we are rid of him the better and, at last, more people are beginning to realise that.



Also published on I'm sure the fanboys on theare still in love with their hero Boris – except that Fraser Nelson (who I think is the editor) doesn't seem to be able to recognise the object of his desire in the shambling figure currently masquerading as a prime minister.Thus, the poor, lost lamb ends up writing a sad little lament, asking: Where’s Boris It's not that his hero isn't there, anymore. Little Fraser has actually noticed that physically, the clunking oaf is still around, usually dressed up in a hard hat and a hi-viz jacket. If he has to meet Ed Miliband in the Commons again, he might as well wear the same get-up there. If ever a man needed PPE, it's Boris.But the problem is that Boris isn't Boris. Whatever the thing is, it's not 'the effervescent, bombastic, energising leader MPs thought they'd elected'. That man is missing, Fraser morosely observes. There is, he complains, 'a conspicuous - and baffling - lack of leadership'.The likes of Fraser, however, are supposed to be leaders of political thought. This man-child is amongst the elite, to whom we are supposed to defer, and to whom politicians of great rank pay attention.Yet still he doesn't get it. Leadership is to Boris Johnson as a colander is to water retention. If a colander was any good for carrying water, it wouldn't be a colander. But if Boris was any good for anything – other than inflating his own ego - it would be a miracle.At least Toby Young seems to get it. But then he's only an "associate editor" of the, so not quite up there with the gilded elites. But, being closer to the plebs (although not that much closer), he doesn't have to go through the pretence of arguing that Boris has somehow metamorphosed into a lumbering oaf, and is able to admit that he was a 'bad 'un' all the time.Thus, the contrite Young is able to write a little confession , saying: "I admit it: I was wrong to back Boris", as he lays out the rationale for his folly, as if it gets anywhere close to excusing it.The fact that Johnson was going to be an abject failure as a prime minster, he sort of admits, shouldn't have come as a surprise. Boris's supporters, he writes, cannot claim they were unaware of this risk. His inability to focus on anything for very long was constantly flagged up by those who’d worked closely with him, most recently at the Foreign Office.Young's response, when this was put to him by Johnson's [many] detractors was that he had been preparing for the role of prime minister all his life, had a heroic conception of himself as a world-historical individual and wanted to be installed in the pantheon of immortals as one of Britain’s greats. Thus, even if it was only for vainglorious reasons, he would apply himself in No. 10 in a way he never had before. Hal would become Henry V, not Henry VI.So let's get this right. We have a sexually incontinent sociopath who is shit at just about everything he has ever done, who lies for a living and makes betrayal his trade-mark. But apart from that, it's reasonable to expect that, despite being totally unqualified for it, when he's given the top job, he will suddenly emerge as the "great leader", just because he has ambitions to be seen as "one of Britain’s greats".By that token, I suppose if I wanted to be the world's greatest concert pianist, even though I might struggle with a kazoo, if I really wanted it badly enough, I should be strapped to a Steinway and allowed to let rip in the Albert Hall. Seriously, what do people like Toby Young do for brains?At least he does have the humility to write that he "should have been better prepared". In future, he adds, "I will not be so naïve". Naïve? The man was born in 1963 … he's 56, and he's still naïve?But then, according to his Wikipedia entry , this is a man who was awarded a First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and then worked forfor a six-month period as a news trainee until he was fired.He was sacked for hacking the computer system and circulating senior executives' salaries to others around the building, and impersonating the editor Charles Wilson. This was followed by a two-year period at Trinity College, Cambridge where he carried out research for a doctorate that he did not complete. You can quite see why he has an affinity for bombastic Boris.Young, however, has managed to get further down the line of self-awareness than has the ineffably self-important Allister Heath, who actually thinks that Johnson still has six months left to save his premiership.Despite the lamentable performance of this lumbering oaf, the great Heath has it that it still isn’t too late for this pretend prime minister. The reality, he writes, "is that Johnson has six months to save his legacy and his premiership, and force himself back into the pantheon of the greats". These people really are on a different planet.But then, if these are rats departing or about to depart from the sinking ship that is Boris, it seems that another rodent is about to take the plunge, in the unexpected form of the Financial Times In a piece entitled, "Johnson reels after mis-steps on Brexit and coronavirus", it tells us that the prime minister’s relations with many of his Tory MPs have reached breaking point. He has had so many dire weeks as prime minister, that Conservative MPs at Westminster sometimes appear punch drunk. "It's driving me bonkers", said one veteran Tory MP. "We're in one hell of a mess".After listing some of the less than glorious achievement of the prime minister, the paper reminds us that he still has staunch defenders among recently elected Tory MPs, but some backbenchers feel estranged from him and bewildered by what is going on.At the heart of Johnson's problems, the paper says, is a mutual sense of distrust, and sometimes loathing, between Tory MPs and 10 Downing Street. "The parliamentary party always dislikes the centre, it was the same under David [Cameron] and Theresa [May]", says one influential MP. "The difference now is that Downing Street doesn’t give a fuck in return".Charles Walker, vice-chair of the 1922 committee of backbench Conservative MPs, went public on this broken relationship in a passionate speech in the Commons: "If you keep whacking a dog, don't be surprised when it bites you back", he says.Mr Johnson’s allies argued that Tory MPs chose him as their leader because he was a "winner" not because he was a consummate party manager. "He's never been a House of Commons man. He’s never hung out in the tea-room", says one supporter, according to theBut, the paper says, the prime minister's remoteness from his own MPs - summed up by an ill-fated Zoom call last week with Conservative MPs in which his internet connection failed and he refused to take any questions - could become increasingly problematic in the months ahead.Surprisingly, some might think, the mood is now febrile. Some Tory MPs believe recent speculation that Johnson hasn't fully recovered from his bout of Covid-19 - strenuously denied by Number 10 - and will walk out before the next election.This would be a useful alibi for those naïve creatures who thought Johnson was the dog's bollocks. They can pretend that he has changed, just like they pretend that Edward Heath took us into a trade agreement with the "Six", whence it suddenly morphed into a political union with ambitions of becoming the United States of Europe.But, while some of his dwindling band of supporters insist that Johnson will be determined to prove his critics wrong, some are worried. "I don't understand what’s happened to Boris", said one. "He now seems to be a shadow of his ebullient self".It could be, of course, that the man is totally out of his depth, finding anything more than dressing up for his latest walkabout to be way beyond his intellectual capabilities. But it's taken an awfully long time for his MPs to notice – which tells you something about the modern Conservative Party.However, observes the, the next general election may still be four years away, but there is likely to be a reckoning for Johnson's premiership long before then. "If necessary, we know what to do", said one longstanding MP, referring to the Conservative party's tendency to regicide.But it really is a pity that this thing was ever let near the reins of power. Johnson was a wrong 'un from the get-go, and it really is inexplicable that so many people should have been so "naïve" as to be taken in by him. The sooner we are rid of him the better and, at last, more people are beginning to realise that.Also published on Turbulent Times





Richard North link

Brexit: eyes off the ball



I should think by now that everybody is bored silly by the posturing, plotting and pontificating over the EU-UK trade negotiations. There was a taste of that in



Currently, the



She concedes that the Bill came as a "very unpleasant surprise" to the EU and it was now necessary for London to restore trust and remove the question mark it had put over the treaty. But, she says, the EU-UK talks should continue, with the dispute kept at arm's length.



This fits with the more general understanding (or view) that the EU intends to adopt a "keep calm and carry on" policy, not allowing Johnson's tactics to lead them to take their eyes off the ball.



This, it is a calm, emollient von der Leyen who says, "I am still convinced it [the trade deal] can be done". She adds: "It is better not to have this distraction questioning an existing international agreement that we have, but to focus on getting this deal done, this agreement done — and time is short".



This now seems to be firming up into a defined strategy, where – in medical terms – Johnson is treated as an abscess, encapsulated and confined, and not allowed to interfere with the main body of the talks.



These wonderful creatures, the anonymous EU diplomats, are therefore wheeled into position to say that the EU will not take decisions on whether to initiate legal action against the UK over the Internal Market Bill until after the next formal round of trade talks. These are scheduled to take place at the end of this month.



These same diplomats, apparently, are suggesting that the EU wants to channel the dispute over the Bill into the EU-UK Joint Committee, although this seems less than plausible, as there is hardly time for dispute settlement proceeding to take place.



However, on the Churchillian premise that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, if the UK could be prevailed upon to raise its concerns with the Joint Committee, then this would be progress, of a sort.



However, Maros Sefcovic, the EU's co-chair on the Joint Committee, has written to his UK counterpart, Michael Gove, formally in inform him of the EU's view that the bill would breach the Withdrawal Agreement, "if adopted as proposed".



In the letter, dated 11 September, Sefcovic has reiterated Brussels' call for the UK to withdraw from the Bill by the end of this month those measures that would override the treaty by the end of September.



The language, though, has been carefully chosen to give the UK room to back down. Brussels is thus not demanding that the legislation is scrapped in its entirety. Amendments would be sufficient.



For all that, there is no sign that Johnson is willing to make even the slightest of changes to the Bill, but if his idea was to get the EU throwing its toys out of the pram, then it's not working.



From our anonymous EU diplomat, we learn that the EU is determined not to "overreact". The negotiations are being conducted on two separate tracks: "one is the one which the UK has decided to violate, and the other is the future relationship".



It is also claimed that there has been some progress in last week's round of future relationship talks, despite the dispute over the Internal Market Bill, with some movement on "the vexed issue of access to British fishing waters". Whether that is real remains to be seen.



That apart, the stalemate continues, with EU officials noting that, while trade talks will continue, an agreement cannot be signed off until the dispute over the Bill is resolved. And if representatives of the European Parliament are to be believed, any deal would not be ratified.



All of this, though, is taking eyes off a quite different ball – the state of UK preparedness for the end of the transition period, with or without a trade deal. The Road Haulage Association, for instance,



The Association says there as been "no clarity" from the senior minister on how border checks will operate when the transition period ends.



This comes after Logistics UK, formerly the Freight Transport Association, last Wednesday warned that businesses were facing a "massive blow" after discovering that the Government’s Smart Freight system would not be out of testing mode by January when British exports face new border regulations.



Of more recent concern is an impassioned plea from the



For a while, the focus has been on the EU's third country listing but, as I have pointed out, this is only the first part of a three-tier system. Now it transpires that even if the listing is in place, there are other major issues which need attention..



Firstly, there is the problem of Export Health Certificates, which will now be required for exports to EU Member States. Currently only required for third country exports, a massive increase in volume is expected, for which the government is proposing a new, online issue system. However, that system is still in the development stage and has not been stress tested to find out if it will work.



Then, before an Export Health Certificate can be issued for a consignment, it has to be inspected and signed off by an Official Veterinarian. Currently that work is only undertaken on a small number of large consignments, but after 31 December all meat exports will need to be inspected prior to dispatch.



This will require an army of new vets, trained for the work, when there are already too few vets and some of those will be drafted-in to administer millions of Covid-19 vaccinations along with pharmacists, dentists and student doctors.



Next in the litany of woes is the absence of agreed Health and ID Marks, which must be affixed to carcases and meat packages, before they can be sold in EU Member States. It may be that existing marks can be used, but the industry needs definitive confirmation.



Here, December is too late for this to be sorted. British meat companies risk losing orders from EU customers from September onwards. This is because orders, particularly from European retailers, are planned 3-4 months in advance to allow for pricing, barcoding and any promotions that need to go on the packaging.



Finally, there is an issue with "groupage" - mixed loads of products. As it stands, much of the meat exported is grouped together with other products, to make complete loads, reducing transport costs.



But the existing guidance from government on groupage only applies to pre-packed products destined for retail. It excludes fresh and frozen meat which accounts for a large proportion of the product British meat processors currently send to Europe.



The industry, therefore, needs assurance that a workable scheme will be in place which allows groupage and mixed loads to continue to be sent to the EU. Importantly, the industry needs advanced knowledge of the new arrangements so companies can adapt in good time.



It is the "nuts and bolt" issues such as these which are being neglected, many of which require the broader "big picture" agreements to be concluded before the details can be settled. And if customers are lost for want of such details being settled, they may never be regained.



And this is just one industry. Each sector has its own problems and concerns, largely ignored by a technically illiterate media, but they are not going to go away. Unless this government gets its act together – which hardly seems likely, given its track record – the shitstorm we are about to experience will make Covid look like a walk in the park.



Also published on I should think by now that everybody is bored silly by the posturing, plotting and pontificating over the EU-UK trade negotiations. There was a taste of that in yesterday's piece , but things don't get better.Currently, the Financial Times is trying to put things together, having Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, telling us that she was convinced a trade deal with the UK was still possible, despite the "distraction" of Johnson's UK Internal Market Bill.She concedes that the Bill came as a "very unpleasant surprise" to the EU and it was now necessary for London to restore trust and remove the question mark it had put over the treaty. But, she says, the EU-UK talks should continue, with the dispute kept at arm's length.This fits with the more general understanding (or view) that the EU intends to adopt a "keep calm and carry on" policy, not allowing Johnson's tactics to lead them to take their eyes off the ball.This, it is a calm, emollient von der Leyen who says, "I am still convinced it [the trade deal] can be done". She adds: "It is better not to have this distraction questioning an existing international agreement that we have, but to focus on getting this deal done, this agreement done — and time is short".This now seems to be firming up into a defined strategy, where – in medical terms – Johnson is treated as an abscess, encapsulated and confined, and not allowed to interfere with the main body of the talks.These wonderful creatures, the anonymous EU diplomats, are therefore wheeled into position to say that the EU will not take decisions on whether to initiate legal action against the UK over the Internal Market Bill until after the next formal round of trade talks. These are scheduled to take place at the end of this month.These same diplomats, apparently, are suggesting that the EU wants to channel the dispute over the Bill into the EU-UK Joint Committee, although this seems less than plausible, as there is hardly time for dispute settlement proceeding to take place.However, on the Churchillian premise that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, if the UK could be prevailed upon to raise its concerns with the Joint Committee, then this would be progress, of a sort.However, Maros Sefcovic, the EU's co-chair on the Joint Committee, has written to his UK counterpart, Michael Gove, formally in inform him of the EU's view that the bill would breach the Withdrawal Agreement, "if adopted as proposed".In the letter, dated 11 September, Sefcovic has reiterated Brussels' call for the UK to withdraw from the Bill by the end of this month those measures that would override the treaty by the end of September.The language, though, has been carefully chosen to give the UK room to back down. Brussels is thus not demanding that the legislation is scrapped in its entirety. Amendments would be sufficient.For all that, there is no sign that Johnson is willing to make even the slightest of changes to the Bill, but if his idea was to get the EU throwing its toys out of the pram, then it's not working.From our anonymous EU diplomat, we learn that the EU is determined not to "overreact". The negotiations are being conducted on two separate tracks: "one is the one which the UK has decided to violate, and the other is the future relationship".It is also claimed that there has been some progress in last week's round of future relationship talks, despite the dispute over the Internal Market Bill, with some movement on "the vexed issue of access to British fishing waters". Whether that is real remains to be seen.That apart, the stalemate continues, with EU officials noting that, while trade talks will continue, an agreement cannot be signed off until the dispute over the Bill is resolved. And if representatives of the European Parliament are to be believed, any deal would not be ratified.All of this, though, is taking eyes off a quite different ball – the state of UK preparedness for the end of the transition period, with or without a trade deal. The Road Haulage Association, for instance, is complaining that a recent meeting with Michael Gove – he of the Joint Committee – on post-TransEnd arrangements – has been a "washout".The Association says there as been "no clarity" from the senior minister on how border checks will operate when the transition period ends.This comes after Logistics UK, formerly the Freight Transport Association, last Wednesday warned that businesses were facing a "massive blow" after discovering that the Government’s Smart Freight system would not be out of testing mode by January when British exports face new border regulations.Of more recent concern is an impassioned plea from the British Meat Producer's Association , about the lack of preparation of the administrative systems needed to facilitate meat exports to EU Member States.For a while, the focus has been on the EU's third country listing but, as I have pointed out, this is only the first part of a three-tier system. Now it transpires that even if the listing is in place, there are other major issues which need attention..Firstly, there is the problem of Export Health Certificates, which will now be required for exports to EU Member States. Currently only required for third country exports, a massive increase in volume is expected, for which the government is proposing a new, online issue system. However, that system is still in the development stage and has not been stress tested to find out if it will work.Then, before an Export Health Certificate can be issued for a consignment, it has to be inspected and signed off by an Official Veterinarian. Currently that work is only undertaken on a small number of large consignments, but after 31 December all meat exports will need to be inspected prior to dispatch.This will require an army of new vets, trained for the work, when there are already too few vets and some of those will be drafted-in to administer millions of Covid-19 vaccinations along with pharmacists, dentists and student doctors.Next in the litany of woes is the absence of agreed Health and ID Marks, which must be affixed to carcases and meat packages, before they can be sold in EU Member States. It may be that existing marks can be used, but the industry needs definitive confirmation.Here, December is too late for this to be sorted. British meat companies risk losing orders from EU customers from September onwards. This is because orders, particularly from European retailers, are planned 3-4 months in advance to allow for pricing, barcoding and any promotions that need to go on the packaging.Finally, there is an issue with "groupage" - mixed loads of products. As it stands, much of the meat exported is grouped together with other products, to make complete loads, reducing transport costs.But the existing guidance from government on groupage only applies to pre-packed products destined for retail. It excludes fresh and frozen meat which accounts for a large proportion of the product British meat processors currently send to Europe.The industry, therefore, needs assurance that a workable scheme will be in place which allows groupage and mixed loads to continue to be sent to the EU. Importantly, the industry needs advanced knowledge of the new arrangements so companies can adapt in good time.It is the "nuts and bolt" issues such as these which are being neglected, many of which require the broader "big picture" agreements to be concluded before the details can be settled. And if customers are lost for want of such details being settled, they may never be regained.And this is just one industry. Each sector has its own problems and concerns, largely ignored by a technically illiterate media, but they are not going to go away. Unless this government gets its act together – which hardly seems likely, given its track record – the shitstorm we are about to experience will make Covid look like a walk in the park.Also published on Turbulent Times





Richard North link

Brexit: it will be nasty



Given that yesterday, Ursula von der Leyen delivered her 'state of the Union' speech, the very speech about which the



What we were told was that the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier was "set to be sidelined by EU leaders in a bid to get a breakthrough in the negotiations about a trade treaty with the UK".



"Representatives of the bloc's 27 member states", the Telegraph predicted, "expect Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to pave the way for heads of state and government to intervene in the deadlocked talks in a 16 September flagship speech".



So the narrative went: "EU leaders are hoping that by stepping in to get the talks moving, it will help bridge the deep divides between the two sides, allowing Mr Barnier and his UK opposite number Lord Frost to agree the details".



And here's what actually happened. "We need new beginnings with old friends – on both of sides of the Atlantic and on both sides of the Channel", von der Leyen said, nearly three-quarters of the way into her speech.



Speaking in the European Parliament in Brussels, she reminisced about the last days British MEPs were present. ''The scenes in this very room", she recalled, "when we held hands and said goodbye with Auld Lang Syne spoke a thousand words. They showed an affection for the British people that will never fade".



"But with every day that passes", she added, "the chances of a timely agreement do start to fade. Negotiations are always difficult. We are used to that. And the Commission has the best and most experienced negotiator, Michel Barnier, to navigate us through". But those talks, she said, "have not progressed as we would have wished. And that leaves us very little time".



Addressing the MEPs directly, she added: "As ever, this House will be the first to know and will have the last say. And I can assure you we will continue to update you throughout, just as we did with the Withdrawal Agreement". And then she continued: That agreement took three years to negotiate and we worked relentlessly on it. Line by line, word by word. And together we succeeded. The result guarantees our citizens' rights, financial interests, the integrity of the Single Market – and crucially the Good Friday Agreement.



The EU and the UK jointly agreed it was the best and only way for ensuring peace on the island of Ireland. And we will never backtrack on that. This agreement has been ratified by this House and the House of Commons. It cannot be unilaterally changed, disregarded or dis-applied. This a matter of law, trust and good faith. Pulling in a name from the past, she added: "And that is not just me saying it – I remind you of the words of Margaret Thatcher: 'Britain does not break Treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for relations with the rest of the world, and bad for any future Treaty on trade'".



"This was true then, and it is true today", she then said: "Trust is the foundation of any strong partnership. And Europe will always be ready to build strong partnerships with our closest neighbours". That was it: no sidelining of M. Barnier; no leaders intervening; no paving of ways; no "deep divides" bridged. Like the rest of us, the Telegraph had no real idea what is going on. And we still don't really know what's going on, any more than does the paper right now.



But "two diplomatic sources" have told



This paper would have it that Barnier himself had "leaked" the suggestion Frost had made a "tentative" move towards meeting the EU's fisheries demands. But a government spokesman now says: "We have consistently said that we will not accept any proposals which compromise UK sovereignty over our own fishing waters". He adds: "There has not and will not be a departure from Britain’s position so far that will take back control of its territorial waters in the Channel next year".



So, once again, we're going round in circles, claim and counter-claim, leaving us no further forward, and with not the slightest idea of what is really going on.



There are others, some of whom think



One of those ubiquitous anonymous sources who wasn't actually at a meeting of EU diplomats, but who was "briefed" about it, then tells a newsman who tells us that "There was a lot of dismay on that. People are furious, but it is a cold fury. They know that the only option is to keep calm and carry on".



And we're still none the wiser about the third country listing. A "working paper" states that Barnier has "clearly stated" that the EU is not refusing to list the UK. "If the future UK rules on food imports fulfil all applicable conditions", it says, "then the European Union would proceed with the listing of the United Kingdom as a third country for these purposes as of 1 January 2021".



Up to now, though, says the paper, "we do not have full clarity from the UK government regarding its future regime, in particular for imports into the UK". But London has informed Brussels that it will apply the EU's Official Controls Regulation(s). And, incidentally, the UK hasn't listed the EU Member States as approved to export to the UK yet.



Perhaps the only clarity we're getting is from



Britain, he says, will leave the post-Brexit transition at the end of this year with no deal, describing Boris Johnson as a "Trumpite politician who wants the EU to fail".



"Johnson and his team persuaded themselves that the EU would be so panicked that they would give in eventually", Rogers says, "and it didn’t happen. Boris didn't, I believe, start off as a true no dealer, but he seems now formally in the camp with Dominic Cummings: 'to hell with it, we should walk away'". He adds that Johnson "is quite Trumpite in method; he was always fascinated by Trump and his strategy to take the other side by surprise and destabilise it".



Of the talks in general, he says: "The UK conduct of the of this set of negotiations has, if anything, been even more dismal than the UK conduct of the previous set of negotiations, including in August by demanding negotiating sessions and then having nothing whatever new to say in them".



Back in prediction mode, he says: "The EU will say that they tried to do a deal but the UK never accepted the obvious automatic consequences of leaving the customs union and single market, they had better now see and experience those consequences and they need a period of sobering up whilst they realise just how difficult it’s going to be as a third country without any preferential deal".



"On the British side", he predicts, "if we have done this deliberately, Johnson will be firing up to get people behind him, it will be full on, a story every day in the press about resisting the humiliation imposed, 'we are not going to be treated like this by the evil empire'. It will be nasty".



So there you go: "It will be nasty". Don't say you haven't been warned.



Also published on Given that yesterday, Ursula von der Leyen delivered her 'state of the Union' speech, the very speech about which the Telegraph so reliably informed us was going to be a turning point.What we were told was that the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier was "set to be sidelined by EU leaders in a bid to get a breakthrough in the negotiations about a trade treaty with the UK"."Representatives of the bloc's 27 member states", thepredicted, "expect Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to pave the way for heads of state and government to intervene in the deadlocked talks in a 16 September flagship speech".So the narrative went: "EU leaders are hoping that by stepping in to get the talks moving, it will help bridge the deep divides between the two sides, allowing Mr Barnier and his UK opposite number Lord Frost to agree the details".And here's what actually happened. "We need new beginnings with old friends – on both of sides of the Atlantic and on both sides of the Channel", von der Leyen said, nearly three-quarters of the way into her speech.Speaking in the European Parliament in Brussels, she reminisced about the last days British MEPs were present. ''The scenes in this very room", she recalled, "when we held hands and said goodbye withspoke a thousand words. They showed an affection for the British people that will never fade"."But with every day that passes", she added, "the chances of a timely agreement do start to fade. Negotiations are always difficult. We are used to that. And the Commission has the best and most experienced negotiator, Michel Barnier, to navigate us through". But those talks, she said, "have not progressed as we would have wished. And that leaves us very little time".Addressing the MEPs directly, she added: "As ever, this House will be the first to know and will have the last say. And I can assure you we will continue to update you throughout, just as we did with the Withdrawal Agreement". And then she continued:Pulling in a name from the past, she added: "And that is not just me saying it – I remind you of the words of Margaret Thatcher: 'Britain does not break Treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for relations with the rest of the world, and bad for any future Treaty on trade'"."This was true then, and it is true today", she then said: "Trust is the foundation of any strong partnership. And Europe will always be ready to build strong partnerships with our closest neighbours". That was it: no sidelining of M. Barnier; no leaders intervening; no paving of ways; no "deep divides" bridged. Like the rest of us, thehad no real idea what is going on. And we still don't really know what's going on, any more than does the paper right now.But "two diplomatic sources" have told Reuters that Frost has been trotting off to Brussels to offer "tentative concessions on fisheries". Some have suggested that the Jersey fisheries might be on offer – something which the Telegraph has also punted. The Express , on the other hand, has it that the prime minister's negotiators are under strict orders "not to depart" from his promise to deliver a significant increase in fishing opportunities for UK boats.This paper would have it that Barnier himself had "leaked" the suggestion Frost had made a "tentative" move towards meeting the EU's fisheries demands. But a government spokesman now says: "We have consistently said that we will not accept any proposals which compromise UK sovereignty over our own fishing waters". He adds: "There has not and will not be a departure from Britain’s position so far that will take back control of its territorial waters in the Channel next year".So, once again, we're going round in circles, claim and counter-claim, leaving us no further forward, and with not the slightest idea of what is really going on.There are others, some of whom think they know mores , saying that the 27 member states are said to have registered "cold fury" at Johnson's plan to breach the Withdrawal Agreement, claiming that the EU intended to block food imports into Northern Ireland from Britain.One of those ubiquitous anonymous sources who wasn't actually at a meeting of EU diplomats, but who was "briefed" about it, then tells a newsman who tells us that "There was a lot of dismay on that. People are furious, but it is a cold fury. They know that the only option is to keep calm and carry on".And we're still none the wiser about the third country listing. A "working paper" states that Barnier has "clearly stated" that the EU is not refusing to list the UK. "If the future UK rules on food imports fulfil all applicable conditions", it says, "then the European Union would proceed with the listing of the United Kingdom as a third country for these purposes as of 1 January 2021".Up to now, though, says the paper, "we do not have full clarity from the UK government regarding its future regime, in particular for imports into the UK". But London has informed Brussels that it will apply the EU's Official Controls Regulation(s). And, incidentally, the UK hasn't listed the EU Member States as approved to export to the UK yet.Perhaps the only clarity we're getting is from Ivan Rogers who is taking the very risky move of making a prediction.Britain, he says, will leave the post-Brexit transition at the end of this year with no deal, describing Boris Johnson as a "Trumpite politician who wants the EU to fail"."Johnson and his team persuaded themselves that the EU would be so panicked that they would give in eventually", Rogers says, "and it didn’t happen. Boris didn't, I believe, start off as a true no dealer, but he seems now formally in the camp with Dominic Cummings: 'to hell with it, we should walk away'". He adds that Johnson "is quite Trumpite in method; he was always fascinated by Trump and his strategy to take the other side by surprise and destabilise it".Of the talks in general, he says: "The UK conduct of the of this set of negotiations has, if anything, been even more dismal than the UK conduct of the previous set of negotiations, including in August by demanding negotiating sessions and then having nothing whatever new to say in them".Back in prediction mode, he says: "The EU will say that they tried to do a deal but the UK never accepted the obvious automatic consequences of leaving the customs union and single market, they had better now see and experience those consequences and they need a period of sobering up whilst they realise just how difficult it’s going to be as a third country without any preferential deal"."On the British side", he predicts, "if we have done this deliberately, Johnson will be firing up to get people behind him, it will be full on, a story every day in the press about resisting the humiliation imposed, 'we are not going to be treated like this by the evil empire'. It will be nasty".So there you go: "It will be nasty". Don't say you haven't been warned.Also published on Turbulent Times





Richard North link

Brexit: another crisis over?



I am still puzzled by the prime minister's original claim that the UK Internal Market Bill was intended to "break the blockade", so to speak, in the event that the EU does not grant third country listing to the UK.



This, as we know, is the first of a three-stage procedure required before the UK can export live animals or products of animal origin from Great Britain to EU Member States and – through the exigencies of the Irish Protocol - to Northern Ireland.



If there was any doubt that this so-called "blockade" was real, we at least have a semi-literate piece in the



Where the article departs from reality is in asserting that "Brussels has warned farmers, businesses and animal welfare campaigners that it may be forced to ban all British exports of live animals and animal products such as cheese, beef, eggs, chicken and lamb from 1 January".



We then learn that, "European Commission officials told a meeting of trade associations and other stakeholders in Brussels on Friday that the ban was inevitable unless the UK gives details of its future animal health and food safety regime by the end of October".



I sincerely hope that no European Commission officials expressed themselves in such lurid and inaccurate terms – but then it is difficult getting the staff these days. The point – which should have been recognised by journalist James Crisp who wrote the piece – is that we're not dealing with a ban, as such.



Third country listing is an administrative procedure, requiring an applicant country to conform with detailed requirements set out in EU law. In much the same manner as an applicant for a driving license has to comply with certain requirements – such as passing a driving test – the applicant country must "pass the tests" or it doesn't get listed.



But in the same way that you would not suggest that someone not qualifying for a driving license was "banned" from driving – which is an altogether different process – there is no question of the UK being banned from exporting. Basically, by choosing not to comply with the requirements, we will have excluded ourselves from the EU market, and from exporting to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately,



In this instance, the issue seems to revolve around our import controls for animals and animal products. The UK government has



Entirely reasonably, the EU is taking the view that unless the UK's regimes comply with its statutory requirements – by the end of October – it will not list the UK. Indeed, it cannot. Under WTO anti-discrimination rules, it cannot treat the UK differently from any other third country.



Then, if it did not require full compliance, it would be in breach of its own rules. As such, the Commission would be open to ECJ proceedings by any other third country trader (or government) or even traders in EU Member States – with or without the support of their governments.



We do, incidentally, need to move past the schoolyard defence, complaining about the Commission upholding its own rules because it also breaks them elsewhere. The tu quoque defence was ruled out during the Nuremberg trials and applies to neither international nor domestic law.



Should the UK decline to conform with the listing requirements and is thus unable to export from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, it could of course, invoke Article 16 of the



In that case, supplies could be shipped as normal, although the EU could then take "proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance". This might include sanitary checks at the Irish Republic border, which would rather defeat the object of the Protocol.



Johnson, however, initially claimed that his way past the "blockade" was the UK Internal Market Bill which, if it comes into force, includes a "mutual recognition" provision which he hinted could be used to circumvent that lack of EU listing.



Although Johnson has apparently abandoned that idea, he has not ruled out taking action, expressed during Monday's debate in terms of: "we are not taking powers in this Bill to neutralise that threat, but we obviously reserve the right to do so if these threats persist…".



Reading this literally, it would suggest that Johnson still has ambitions of using the Bill to break the "blockade". His response could thus be read as "we reserve the right [to take powers in this Bill] if [the] threats persist". Looking into this, there is a mechanism available to him, which he chose not to disclose when challenged by Ed Miliband. As it stands,



This sub-Clause allows the application of the mutual recognition principle for goods in relation to "all qualifying Northern Ireland goods" as if they were produced in, or imported into, Northern Ireland. In other words, if animals or animal products were defined as "qualifying Northern Ireland goods", they could (in theory) be imported into Northern Ireland, in breach of the Protocol.



Now, the point at issue here is that "qualifying Northern Ireland goods" have not yet been defined. That power lies with a "Minister of the Crown" by way of Regulations, written into Section 8C of the



Interestingly, Bill Cash would then have it that Section 38 of the 2020 Act would apply, asserting Parliamentary sovereignty over section 7A of the 2018 Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement).



Whether this is what Johnson has in mind can only be a matter of speculation. But it does appear that there will be a mechanism for him to use if the UK Internal Market Bill becomes law, without him having to go back to parliament. To what extent the EU is aware of this also has to be a matter of speculation, but it can hardly be a surprise that it has reacted sharply to the publication of the Bill.



However, the



But if it really is that easy, one has to wonder why Johnson has raised the temperature in the way that he has, unless – as some believe - he thinks that this is the way to break the current negotiation logjam. At the end of the month, when the draft bill is unveiled, will it be smiles all round, followed by the conclusion of a deal?



Also published on I am still puzzled by the prime minister's original claim that the UK Internal Market Bill was intended to "break the blockade", so to speak, in the event that the EU does not grant third country listing to the UK.This, as we know, is the first of a three-stage procedure required before the UK can export live animals or products of animal origin from Great Britain to EU Member States and – through the exigencies of the Irish Protocol - to Northern Ireland.If there was any doubt that this so-called "blockade" was real, we at least have a semi-literate piece in the Telegraph to confirm what we know. Headed, "Brussels warns lobby groups that UK food exports to EU and Northern Ireland could become illegal", it tells us that "British cheese, lamb and beef will be outlawed unless UK gives details of its future food rules by November".Where the article departs from reality is in asserting that "Brussels has warned farmers, businesses and animal welfare campaigners that it may be forced to ban all British exports of live animals and animal products such as cheese, beef, eggs, chicken and lamb from 1 January".We then learn that, "European Commission officials told a meeting of trade associations and other stakeholders in Brussels on Friday that the ban was inevitable unless the UK gives details of its future animal health and food safety regime by the end of October".I sincerely hope that no European Commission officials expressed themselves in such lurid and inaccurate terms – but then it is difficult getting the staff these days. The point – which should have been recognised by journalist James Crisp who wrote the piece – is that we're not dealing with a ban, as such.Third country listing is an administrative procedure, requiring an applicant country to conform with detailed requirements set out in EU law. In much the same manner as an applicant for a driving license has to comply with certain requirements – such as passing a driving test – the applicant country must "pass the tests" or it doesn't get listed.But in the same way that you would not suggest that someone not qualifying for a driving license was "banned" from driving – which is an altogether different process – there is no question of the UK being banned from exporting. Basically, by choosing not to comply with the requirements, we will have excluded ourselves from the EU market, and from exporting to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, The Sun is also using the same "ban" terminology.In this instance, the issue seems to revolve around our import controls for animals and animal products. The UK government has opted to relax controls for the first six months of the year and then, post I July 2021, has not specified in detail what the control regime will be.Entirely reasonably, the EU is taking the view that unless the UK's regimes comply with its statutory requirements – by the end of October – it will not list the UK. Indeed, it cannot. Under WTO anti-discrimination rules, it cannot treat the UK differently from any other third country.Then, if it did not require full compliance, it would be in breach of its own rules. As such, the Commission would be open to ECJ proceedings by any other third country trader (or government) or even traders in EU Member States – with or without the support of their governments.We do, incidentally, need to move past the schoolyard defence, complaining about the Commission upholding its own rules because it also breaks them elsewhere. Thedefence was ruled out during the Nuremberg trials and applies to neither international nor domestic law.Should the UK decline to conform with the listing requirements and is thus unable to export from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, it could of course, invoke Article 16 of the Protocol (safeguards), arguing that its application "leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".In that case, supplies could be shipped as normal, although the EU could then take "proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance". This might include sanitary checks at the Irish Republic border, which would rather defeat the object of the Protocol.Johnson, however, initially claimed that his way past the "blockade" was the UK Internal Market Bill which, if it comes into force, includes a "mutual recognition" provision which he hinted could be used to circumvent that lack of EU listing.Although Johnson has apparently abandoned that idea, he has not ruled out taking action, expressed during Monday's debate in terms of: "we are not taking powers in this Bill to neutralise that threat, but we obviously reserve the right to do so if these threats persist…".Reading this literally, it would suggest that Johnson still has ambitions of using the Bill to break the "blockade". His response could thus be read as "we reserve the right [to take powers in this Bill] if [the] threats persist". Looking into this, there is a mechanism available to him, which he chose not to disclose when challenged by Ed Miliband. As it stands, in the Bill Clause 11(1) rules out the application of "market access principles" to Northern Ireland, but this exclusion can be modified by 11(2).This sub-Clause allows the application of the mutual recognition principle for goods in relation to "all qualifying Northern Ireland goods" as if they were produced in, or imported into, Northern Ireland. In other words, if animals or animal products were defined as "qualifying Northern Ireland goods", they could (in theory) be imported into Northern Ireland, in breach of the Protocol.Now, the point at issue here is that "qualifying Northern Ireland goods" have not yet been defined. That power lies with a "Minister of the Crown" by way of Regulations, written into Section 8C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 , as amended by the 2020 Act (Section 21).Interestingly, Bill Cash would then have it that Section 38 of the 2020 Act would apply, asserting Parliamentary sovereignty over section 7A of the 2018 Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement).Whether this is what Johnson has in mind can only be a matter of speculation. But it does appear that there will be a mechanism for him to use if the UK Internal Market Bill becomes law, without him having to go back to parliament. To what extent the EU is aware of this also has to be a matter of speculation, but it can hardly be a surprise that it has reacted sharply to the publication of the Bill.However, the Express is asserting that the government is planning to publish a draft food safety bill next month, which will transpose Withdrawal Agreement commitments on animal and plant health into UK law. In that is the case, and the conditions of the Official Control Regulations ( Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 ) can be met, then another crisis, such that it is, will be over.But if it really is that easy, one has to wonder why Johnson has raised the temperature in the way that he has, unless – as some believe - he thinks that this is the way to break the current negotiation logjam. At the end of the month, when the draft bill is unveiled, will it be smiles all round, followed by the conclusion of a deal?Also published on Turbulent Times





Richard North link

Brexit: his deal … his mess … his failure



This is Johnson in the We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.



I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.



By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down.



We want an agreement in the Joint Committee on how we can implement the protocol. We have consistently shown that we are willing to help our friends – to the extent that is possible and reasonable – to protect the integrity of their Single Market and to keep a fluid North-South border.



But we cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country – to divide it – in the hands of an international organisation. We have to protect the UK from that disaster, and that is why we have devised a legal safety net – in the UK Internal Market Bill – to clarify the position and to sort out the inconsistencies.



This Bill protects jobs and growth across the UK by preventing barriers to trade between the nations and regions. It means that anything approved for sale in Scotland or Wales must be good for sale in England or Northern Ireland, and vice-versa.



The Bill gives freedoms and certainties for businesses and citizens that were previously set out in EU law. That is why, as we now come out of the EU, it is absolutely vital. It is now also clear that we need this Bill to protect the free flow of goods and services between NI and the rest of the UK, and to make sense of that commitment in the EU withdrawal agreement – that NI is part of the UK customs territory. It is therefore crucial for peace, and for the Union itself. We must get this Bill through. Point 1: he postulates that the EU might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI. Point 2: he asserts that "we have devised a legal safety net – in the UK Internal Market Bill – to clarify the position and to sort out the inconsistencies". Point 3: he states that "this Bill … means that anything approved for sale in Scotland or Wales must be good for sale in England or Northern Ireland, and vice-versa". Point 4: he declares that: "we need this Bill to protect the free flow of goods and services between NI and the rest of the UK".



By any measure, and by any ordinary use of the English language, the man is referring to Clause 2 of the



Now we come to … the EU has said … it might very well refuse to list the UK’s food and agricultural products for sale anywhere in the EU. It gets even worse, because under this protocol, that decision would create an instant and automatic prohibition on the transfer of our animal products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. But now he says of this "extraordinary threat" that "we are not taking powers in this Bill to neutralise that threat, but we obviously reserve the right to do so if these threats persist…".



Thus, we see a complete volte face from this prime minister, completely contradicting something he, himself had written in a newspaper only days earlier. But just in case we have misunderstood what has been said, we have Ed Miliband (a Labour ghost from the past) who, in a brutal dissection of the prime minister's inconsistencies, says: I do not know whether the House noticed - which is that this Bill does precisely nothing to address the issue of the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It is about two issues where the Government are going to override international law: exit declarations, Northern Ireland to GB, and the definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland. If the Prime Minister wants to tell us that there is another part of the Bill that I have not noticed that will deal with this supposed threat of blockade, I will very happily give way to him. I am sure he has read it; I am sure he knows it in detail, because he is a details man. Come on, tell us: what clause protects against the threat, which he says he is worried about, to GB-to-Northern Ireland exports? I give way to him. When a decidedly miserable-looking Johnson declined to respond, Miliband triumphantly declared – as well he might: "There you have it: he didn’t read the protocol, he hasn’t read the Bill, he doesn’t know his stuff.".



But it



That leaves him going to the wire on what Miliband rightly asserts are two issues: exit declarations, Northern Ireland to GB, and the definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland. And for that, he would break international law and bring down this huge surge of criticism and anger.



But it says something that neither media nor politicians seems to have tied together Johnson's Telegraph statement and his subsequent denial in the House. If he truly intended the Bill to break the EU's "blockade", and is now retreating from this position – which he self-evidently is – then this has to be the mother of all U-turns.



This prime minister has marched his zombies to the top of the hill – where they dutifully supporting him – and is now marching them back down again, having not even addressed the issue over which he has raised the alarm.



Bluntly, the prime minister really has nowhere to go on this. Or, as Miliband put it: The Prime Minister is coming to the House to tell us today that his flagship achievement - the deal he told us was a triumph, the deal he said was oven-ready, the deal on which he fought and won the general election - is now contradictory and ambiguous. What incompetence. What failure of governance. In full flow, he continued: How dare he try to blame everyone else? I say to the Prime Minister that this time he cannot blame the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), he cannot blame John Major, he cannot blame the judges, he cannot blame the civil servants, he cannot sack the Cabinet Secretary again. There is only one person responsible for it and that is him. This is his deal. It is his mess. It is his failure. For the first time in his life, it is time to take responsibility. And thus he concluded: "It is time to ’fess up: either he was not straight with the country about the deal in the first place, or he did not understand it".



Interestingly, of all the things that Thatcher ever said, the most memorable must be her strident declaration: "No! No! No!". In politics as elsewhere, it seems, all good things come in threes. If there is any justice, Johnson will forever be associated with another trio: "his deal … his mess … his failure". If it were left to me, I'd chisel it on his tombstone.



Also published on This is Johnson in the Telegraph on 12 September – just three days ago, under the heading "Let's make the EU take their threats off the table and pass this Bill":Point 1: he postulates that the EU might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI. Point 2: he asserts that "we have devised a legal safety net – in the UK Internal Market Bill – to clarify the position and to sort out the inconsistencies". Point 3: he states that "this Bill … means that anything approved for sale in Scotland or Wales must be good for sale in England or Northern Ireland, and vice-versa". Point 4: he declares that: "we need this Bill to protect the free flow of goods and services between NI and the rest of the UK".By any measure, and by any ordinary use of the English language, the man is referring to Clause 2 of the UK Internal Market Bill , and asserting that this is necessary to beat the EU's supposed "blockade".Now we come to yesterday's debate . Again, he asserts that:But now he says of this "extraordinary threat" that "we are not taking powers in this Bill to neutralise that threat, but we obviously reserve the right to do so if these threats persist…".Thus, we see a completefrom this prime minister, completely contradicting something he, himself had written in a newspaper only days earlier. But just in case we have misunderstood what has been said, we have Ed Miliband (a Labour ghost from the past) who, in a brutal dissection of the prime minister's inconsistencies, says:When a decidedly miserable-looking Johnson declined to respond, Miliband triumphantly declared – as well he might: "There you have it: he didn’t read the protocol, he hasn’t read the Bill, he doesn’t know his stuff.".But it is there in the Bill, in Clause 2, which was what Johnson was asserting on Saturday, although he has now abandoned that claim.That leaves him going to the wire on what Miliband rightly asserts are two issues: exit declarations, Northern Ireland to GB, and the definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland. And for that, he would break international law and bring down this huge surge of criticism and anger.But it says something that neither media nor politicians seems to have tied together Johnson'sstatement and his subsequent denial in the House. If he truly intended the Bill to break the EU's "blockade", and is now retreating from this position – which he self-evidently is – then this has to be the mother of all U-turns.This prime minister has marched his zombies to the top of the hill – where they dutifully supporting him – and is now marching them back down again, having not even addressed the issue over which he has raised the alarm.Bluntly, the prime minister really has nowhere to go on this. Or, as Miliband put it:In full flow, he continued:And thus he concluded: "It is time to ’fess up: either he was not straight with the country about the deal in the first place, or he did not understand it".Interestingly, of all the things that Thatcher ever said, the most memorable must be her strident declaration: "No! No! No!". In politics as elsewhere, it seems, all good things come in threes. If there is any justice, Johnson will forever be associated with another trio: "his deal … his mess … his failure". If it were left to me, I'd chisel it on his tombstone.Also published on Turbulent Times





Richard North link

Brexit: listing time



Responding to the claims et al, Michel Barnier has responded



We agreed this delicate compromise with Boris Johnson and his government, he writes, "in order to protect peace & stability on island of Ireland. We could not have been clearer about the consequences of Brexit".



Responding to Johnson's specific charge that the EU "might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI", Barnier retorts that "sticking to facts is also essential". A case in point, he says, the EU is not refusing to list Great Britain as a third country for food imports (SPS). To be listed, we need to know in full what a country's rules are, including for imports, he says. The same objective process applies to all listed countries.



Nevertheless, it would appear that the EU has not yet listed Great Britain, which has David Frost



On the Protocol, he says, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted.



As to third country listings, he goes on to say that the EU knows perfectly well all the details of our food standards rules because we are operating EU rules. The situation on 1 January 2021 is accordingly perfectly clear. We have discussed this frequently with the EU including last week.



Any changes in future, he says, would be notified to the WTO and EU in the usual way with plenty of lead time. The EU lists dozens of countries globally on precisely this basis, without any sort of commitment about the future.



Yet it has been made clear to us in the current talks, Frost then complains, that there is no guarantee of listing us. He adds: "I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland".



The EU's position, Frost asserts, is that listing is needed for Great Britain only, not Northern Ireland. So if GB were not listed, it would be automatically illegal for NI to import food products from GB.



Thus, he concludes, "I hope the EU will yet think better of this. It obviously makes it no easier to negotiate a good free trade agreement and the solid future relationship which we all want".



And yet, as I remarked on



Nevertheless, it does seem to me that Frost is being rather presumptuous in expecting third country listing merely on the basis of track record (i.e., that we currently meet the requirements).



The EU's listing process is by no means automatic. It is a lengthy technical and administrative process, the top tier of a three-tier system comprising: (1) listing; (2) approval of establishments; (3) process controls and inspection at points of origin and subsequent processing. It is through this system that the EU ensures that exporting countries meet the standards for foods of animal origin set out in EU law.



The listing itself is conditional, and the listing process is intended to ascertain whether the "competent authority" in the applicant country has the systems in place which will enable conformity with EU food law. Furthermore, it implies that the country will make its best endeavours to ensure that conformity with the conditions of listing will be maintained.



The point at issue is that (2) & (3) are carried out by the competent authority of the exporting state. In listing a state, therefore, the EU has to assure itself that the competent authority has the ability, the resources and the commitment to enforce EU standards. Even if the first two apply, if the state lacks the commitment, then the EU would not be happy with listing it.



In this context, though, it seems the specific reservation is with import controls and the standards applied to imported foodstuffs. Clearly, if imported goods do not meet EU standards (for instance in terms of permitted pesticides and maximum residue levels), and they are used as ingredients in UK processing – or even just repackaged and re-exported – then UK export standards might be compromised.



Nothing of this is academic. Obviously, food entering EU Member States from third countries is inspected in Border Control Points (BCPs), but any modern food control system does not rely simply on single point inspections. It requires what the EU terms a holistic "farm to fork" approach, with controls at every stage of the process.



And although the system does occasionally fail (as with the horsemeat scandal), we are not really in a position to complain. The original system was devised by the UK, primarily to regulate meat imports from countries such as Argentina, enhanced in the wake of the Aberdeen Typhoid Outbreak and copied by the EU.



Where UK politicians are glibly talking about "deregulation", about adopting their own standards, and about making trade deals with the likes of the US, which do not conform with EU standards, then we really cannot be surprised if the EU is cautious about listing the UK. It is perfectly in order for the EU to seek bankable assurances that standards will be met, which are often secured by way of Free Trade Agreements.



Barnier makes the point that, when it comes to listing, "the same objective process applies to all listed countries", and that must be the case. WTO rules will not allow otherwise. But this applies both ways. If the EU can't be more severe in assessing the UK than it is with other countries, it cannot be more relaxed either. Otherwise, those other countries will demand the same treatment.



But this now gets interesting with Northern Ireland. Frost confirms that the listing applies to Great Britain but not Northern Ireland. Under the Protocol, as we know, the Province remains in the Single Market, applying EU law. Thus, it can only import foods of animal origin from EU Member States and listed third countries.



It follows, therefore, that if Great Britain has not been listed by 1 January 2021, no foods of animal origin can be exported to Northern Ireland. On the other hand, Northern Ireland can still import from the Republic of Ireland, from any other EU Member State, and from any other listed third country (such as Canada).



In anticipation of such a possibility, there is a huge amount of outrage, with



But the outrage is vastly overcooked. Listing is a technical process and either the UK meets the requirements or it doesn't. This isn't even for Barnier to decide. It is decided by the EU's Health and Food Audits and Analysis Office, located in Grange, Ireland, and the decision to list is made by the Commission in accordance with the criteria set out in



Specifically (with certain exceptions), third countries can appear on the lists only if their competent authorities "provide appropriate guarantees as regards compliance or equivalence with Community feed and food law and animal health rules". If the UK can't provide those guarantees, no amount of special pleading will get it listed.



Furthermore, this listing process has to be carried out irrespective of any free trade agreements. The process is entirely independent of such deals, and applies to all third countries.



One wonders, though, whether Barnier has picked up the implications of Clause 2 of the



If this is the case, then the current argument is moot. The UK government will be ignoring EU law and allowing produce to move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, irrespective of whether third country listing has been secured.



It will be interesting to see whether this is raised in the Commons debate today or whether, like so many things, it goes by default because MPs haven't the wit to do their jobs.



Also published on Responding to the claims of Johnson , Michel Barnier has responded on Twitter to say that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland "is not a threat to the integrity of the UK".We agreed this delicate compromise with Boris Johnson and his government, he writes, "in order to protect peace & stability on island of Ireland. We could not have been clearer about the consequences of Brexit".Responding to Johnson's specific charge that the EU "might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI", Barnier retorts that "sticking to facts is also essential". A case in point, he says, the EU is not refusing to list Great Britain as a third country for food imports (SPS). To be listed, we need to know in full what a country's rules are, including for imports, he says. The same objective process applies to all listed countries.Nevertheless, it would appear that the EU has not yet listed Great Britain, which has David Frost answering in his capacity as the PM's negotiator in the current and last autumn's talks.On the Protocol, he says, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted.As to third country listings, he goes on to say that the EU knows perfectly well all the details of our food standards rules because we are operating EU rules. The situation on 1 January 2021 is accordingly perfectly clear. We have discussed this frequently with the EU including last week.Any changes in future, he says, would be notified to the WTO and EU in the usual way with plenty of lead time. The EU lists dozens of countries globally on precisely this basis, without any sort of commitment about the future.Yet it has been made clear to us in the current talks, Frost then complains, that there is no guarantee of listing us. He adds: "I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland".The EU's position, Frost asserts, is that listing is needed for Great Britain only, not Northern Ireland. So if GB were not listed, it would be automatically illegal for NI to import food products from GB.Thus, he concludes, "I hope the EU will yet think better of this. It obviously makes it no easier to negotiate a good free trade agreement and the solid future relationship which we all want".And yet, as I remarked on Saturday , we raised this listing problem four years ago and we should not now be in a position, with only months to go, where it is still unresolved.Nevertheless, it does seem to me that Frost is being rather presumptuous in expecting third country listing merely on the basis of track record (i.e., that we currently meet the requirements).The EU's listing process is by no means automatic. It is a lengthy technical and administrative process, the top tier of a three-tier system comprising: (1) listing; (2) approval of establishments; (3) process controls and inspection at points of origin and subsequent processing. It is through this system that the EU ensures that exporting countries meet the standards for foods of animal origin set out in EU law.The listing itself is conditional, and the listing process is intended to ascertain whether the "competent authority" in the applicant country has the systems in place which will enable conformity with EU food law. Furthermore, it implies that the country will make its best endeavours to ensure that conformity with the conditions of listing will be maintained.The point at issue is that (2) & (3) are carried out by the competent authority of the exporting state. In listing a state, therefore, the EU has to assure itself that the competent authority has the ability, the resources and the commitment to enforce EU standards. Even if the first two apply, if the state lacks the commitment, then the EU would not be happy with listing it.In this context, though, it seems the specific reservation is with import controls and the standards applied to imported foodstuffs. Clearly, if imported goods do not meet EU standards (for instance in terms of permitted pesticides and maximum residue levels), and they are used as ingredients in UK processing – or even just repackaged and re-exported – then UK export standards might be compromised.Nothing of this is academic. Obviously, food entering EU Member States from third countries is inspected in Border Control Points (BCPs), but any modern food control system does not rely simply on single point inspections. It requires what the EU terms a holistic "farm to fork" approach, with controls at every stage of the process.And although the system does occasionally fail (as with the horsemeat scandal), we are not really in a position to complain. The original system was devised by the UK, primarily to regulate meat imports from countries such as Argentina, enhanced in the wake of the Aberdeen Typhoid Outbreak and copied by the EU.Where UK politicians are glibly talking about "deregulation", about adopting their own standards, and about making trade deals with the likes of the US, which do not conform with EU standards, then we really cannot be surprised if the EU is cautious about listing the UK. It is perfectly in order for the EU to seek bankable assurances that standards will be met, which are often secured by way of Free Trade Agreements.Barnier makes the point that, when it comes to listing, "the same objective process applies to all listed countries", and that must be the case. WTO rules will not allow otherwise. But this applies both ways. If the EU can't be more severe in assessing the UK than it is with other countries, it cannot be more relaxed either. Otherwise, those other countries will demand the same treatment.But this now gets interesting with Northern Ireland. Frost confirms that the listing applies to Great Britain but not Northern Ireland. Under the Protocol, as we know, the Province remains in the Single Market, applying EU law. Thus, it can only import foods of animal origin from EU Member States and listed third countries.It follows, therefore, that if Great Britain has not been listed by 1 January 2021, no foods of animal origin can be exported to Northern Ireland. On the other hand, Northern Ireland can still import from the Republic of Ireland, from any other EU Member State, and from any other listed third country (such as Canada).In anticipation of such a possibility, there is a huge amount of outrage, with Ambrose Evans-Pritchard talking of the UK's need "to defend itself against predatory diplomacy".But the outrage is vastly overcooked. Listing is a technical process and either the UK meets the requirements or it doesn't. This isn't even for Barnier to decide. It is decided by the EU's Health and Food Audits and Analysis Office, located in Grange, Ireland, and the decision to list is made by the Commission in accordance with the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 Specifically (with certain exceptions), third countries can appear on the lists only if their competent authorities "provide appropriate guarantees as regards compliance or equivalence with Community feed and food law and animal health rules". If the UK can't provide those guarantees, no amount of special pleading will get it listed.Furthermore, this listing process has to be carried out irrespective of any free trade agreements. The process is entirely independent of such deals, and applies to all third countries.One wonders, though, whether Barnier has picked up the implications of Clause 2 of the UK Internal Market Bill , on mutual recognition. This includes Northern Ireland (see Clause 53), which would seem to indicate that the listing requirements of EU law have been by-passed.If this is the case, then the current argument is moot. The UK government will be ignoring EU law and allowing produce to move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, irrespective of whether third country listing has been secured.It will be interesting to see whether this is raised in the Commons debate today or whether, like so many things, it goes by default because MPs haven't the wit to do their jobs.Also published on Turbulent Times





Richard North link

Brexit: a cart and horse



There is no question that the



And I would wager a year's wages (if I was actually paid any) that Johnson didn't read it before he signed it, or since. He will be totally reliant on Janet & John summaries written by his officials and spads. That is the way he works and, only armed with



Howe