Will Johnson ask the Queen to announce her government’s intention to break the law?

Will Johnson ask the Queen to announce her government’s intention to break the law?

Apr 29, 2022 | News

Lisa Burton by Lisa Burton

If Johnson expects the Queen to announce this legislation in her speech it will prove that he has no respect for the Queen

Last week the Independent reported ‘Boris Johnson set to use Queen’s Speech to pick Brexit fight with EU’. The article was about the UK government’s intention to bring in a bill that would give new powers to Northern Ireland politicians enabling them to override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol. This policy would unquestionably breach international law yet be included in the Queen’s Speech.

Picking a fight with the EU

The protocol is part of the Brexit withdrawal agreement, an international, legally binding agreement signed between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Its purpose was to avoid a hard border between the north and south of Ireland to protect the Good Friday agreement’s fragile peace. The UK chose the hardest possible Brexit, which meant leaving the customs union and single market, thus creating a customs border between the EU and the UK.

On 17 October 2019, Johnson agreed with the EU that the required customs border would be in the Irish Sea. Something his predecessor Theresa May had refused to do. He hailed the agreement as a victory, loudly proclaiming he had ‘got Brexit done’. All handily just in time to win the favour of voters before the December general election.

Johnson repeatedly lied to the people and business leaders of Northern Ireland regarding the consequences of the deal he signed. He denied there would be any forms or friction, famously saying that if any business had to fill in forms or declarations, they could just put them “in the bin”. He also said “there would be no barriers of any kind” to trade crossing the Irish Sea. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

They never intended to adhere to the deal they signed

The Conservatives lulled a weary population into thinking the deal’s signing would mark the end of the Brexit saga that had engulfed the country since 2016. It was a ploy to win votes, and it worked.

Since then, it has come out via many channels that the government signed the Brexit withdrawal agreement knowing they would not adhere to it. Indeed, as recently as last week, Jacob Rees-Mogg told the European scrutiny committee that the protocol was only signed by the UK “on the basis that it would be reformed” and that “wheels are in motion” to resolve the protocol issue. He arrogantly stated, “ultimately, we can do what we want”.

They can’t, not legally; the protocol is part of an international treaty between the UK and the EU. It was embedded in British domestic law. Ministers cannot overturn it (or parts of it) without breaching that law. It can only be changed if both the UK and the EU agree. The European Union executive responded to Rees-Mogg’s statement by telling reporters in Brussels that “the withdrawal agreement, the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, are legal obligations to which the UK is bound”.

The Queen’s Speech

The Queen’s Speech takes place at the state opening of parliament each spring and is steeped in traditions and practices going back to the 16th century. Typically, it begins with the Queen’s procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster, escorted by the household cavalry. All sections of the British media extensively cover it.

This year, it falls on 10 May 2022. As tradition dictates, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is expected to set out the government’s agenda, proposed policies, and legislation for the session ahead. The Queen has opened parliament all but two times during her reign. In 1959 and 1963, the exceptions were when she was pregnant with Andrew and then Edward.

Although the Queen reads the speech in parliament, it is written by the government. So the question is, will Johnson and his ministers really have the audacity to expect Her Majesty to announce that her government intends to break international law?

Usually, this would be unthinkable, but this is Johnson, a man who seems intent on saving his political skin at any cost. We know that Johnson previously broke the law and lied to the Queen; well, to be more precise, he sent Rees-Mogg to lie on his behalf to the Queen when he illegally prorogued parliament for five weeks at the height of the Brexit debates in October 2019.

After a legal challenge in the supreme court, all 11 supreme court judges deemed the prorogation of parliament unlawful, adding, “This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of a possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on the 31st of October”.

These are not regular times

In normal times, even the suggestion that a prime minister would consider using the monarch to announce an intention of lawbreaking would be inconceivable. Still, these are not normal times and although it would be shocking, would it be that surprising? After all, Johnson has form for this sort of thing.

There was a welcomed and marked change in rhetoric from the British government towards the EU after the Ukraine invasion. Picking a legal battle with the EU whilst war engulfs Ukraine stands in stark contrast to the unity and cooperation required to stand against Vladimir Putin. Sadly, the façade of collaboration for the greater good appears to have been short-lived.

The last thing Europe needs right now is infighting. Despite all his failures, Johnson has provided significant military assistance to Ukraine. He has been in regular touch with European leaders, and the West standing together with one purpose and voice has been a powerful force. A dis-united Europe is Putin’s dream and goal. The instability Brexit brought to the EU strengthened him and his long-term plans, and here we are, six years later, with Brexit still causing instability and division.

The UK’s international reputation

It is blatantly apparent to all but Johnson’s most ardent supporters that the international reputation of Great Britain has suffered dramatically over the past few years, particularly under Johnson’s leadership. The United Kingdom was viewed and admired as a country of common sense, law, tradition, and democracy. That is not how the international press and the rest of the world view it now.

If Johnson’s government does break international law, this will further damage the country’s reputation on the global stage. It would signal to the world that the UK cannot be trusted to keep its promises and that any future deals signed may be reneged upon. The UK would become an untrustworthy partner.

If the Queen announces the intention to law break, will it be the final straw?

The political norms of old do not currently exist. Johnson is intrinsically linked to Brexit and the lies upon which it was built. The ongoing division, deflection, and dishonesty we see now are extensions of what we have witnessed since 2016. Yet, many within the Conservative Party seem to be willing to excuse any wrongdoing to keep Johnson in power. After all, who else could be relied on to perpetuate these lies and divisions so well if Johnson goes?

If Johnson expects the Queen to announce this legislation in her speech, it will prove, once and for all, that this prime minister has no respect for the Queen, the country, or the remarkable institutions that have held up British democracy for centuries. The people of the United Kingdom and Her Majesty deserve so much better.

Jacob Rees-Mogg argues that with Brexit “the best is yet to come”!

Jacob Rees-Mogg argues that with Brexit “the best is yet to come”!

Apr 23, 2022 | News

According to the Benefits of Brexit paper, “this is a hugely exciting time for our country, one filled with potential and opportunity”.

Sue Wilson MBE by Sue Wilson MBE

On Wednesday 20 April, the European Scrutiny Committee held an oral evidence session with Brexit opportunities minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, the subject of the meeting being ‘Regulating after Brexit’. The meeting aimed to question the minister on his new role, to consider the recent government paper ‘Benefits of Brexit’ and to discuss the Brexit freedoms bill.

The Rees-Mogg remit

Chair of the cross-party Commons committee, Sir William Cash, outlined the agenda and invited Rees-Mogg to comment about his new role. Rees-Mogg opened by explaining that his role was not the same as that previously held by Lord David Frost as he is only “focussing on the domestic side of it”. The Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and cooperation agreement now fall under the remit of the foreign secretary.

Rees-Mogg will be responsible for the forthcoming procurement bill, which he described as a “major opportunity to simplify the processes of procurement within the United Kingdom”. In addition, his responsibilities will include the Brexit opportunities bill, more formally known as the retained EU law bill.

The Northern Ireland protocol

Rees-Mogg claimed that it was “widely accepted”, though he didn’t say by whom, “that the protocol is not working and needs reform”. Once the work of reforming the protocol is completed, he said, “the Brexit freedoms that I am proposing” would also apply to Northern Ireland.

Richard Drax (Conservative) said that on fulfilling Brexit, the idea had been to leave the EU “lock, stock and barrel”. He said the aim was “to be a completely free, independent country” that made its own rules. Drax asked Rees-Mogg if he agreed that the UK had yet to achieve this goal, adding that it wouldn’t do so “until this protocol is resolved”. He asked how much longer the country would go on “bartering and negotiating and prevaricating” with the EU.

Rees-Mogg responded by saying that the protocol was only signed by the UK “on the basis that it would be reformed”. He went on to say that the UK “was much more important than any agreement with have with any foreign power”. The minister did not want to be drawn any further, in light of the Stormont elections, but did confirm that the “wheels are in motion” to resolve the protocol issue. “Ultimately”, he added, “we can do what we want”. Not quite sure that the EU will see it that way.

Brexit freedoms

The minister was questioned by Anne Marie Morris (Independent) regarding what freedoms the government had exploited since no longer being restricted by EU law. He could only give the example of the gene editing of plants. However, he professed that “the best is yet to come”. The Brexit freedoms bill – not yet available even in draft form, but expected this summer – will “provide the mechanism for updating, changing, removing retained EU law” much more quickly.

It’s worth noting that despite many attempts to identify which of these EU laws they want to remove, the government has yet to come up with an answer, even pleading with businesses last year to help them out with ideas.

When asked to expand with examples of proactive measures taken, Rees-Mogg claimed that the UK’s policy on Ukraine would not have been possible as EU members. “If you want a monument of our freedom”, he continued, “it is the extraordinary leadership the prime minister has given over Ukraine”.

Whilst it’s true that the UK have acted quickly with military assistance for Ukraine, the treatment of Ukrainian refugees could hardly be described as leadership, by any measure. Where the EU have waived visas and are offering homes, jobs and support, our ‘leader’ is offering visa applications, a ‘monument’ of bureaucracy and endless delays.

Reforming regulations

Conservative Marco Longhi asked the minister which sectors were expected to benefit from regulatory freedoms and which would find divergence “more challenging”. Rees-Mogg said the sector that would benefit the “easiest” would be financial services, but that the most exciting areas were AI and GDPR.

He did not, however, name any sectors that would struggle with divergence – he merely said we must get away from the idea that because others are taking a certain path, then so should the UK. So, little comfort for the farmers, the fishermen, the musicians, the small businesses etc. that are struggling, if the Brexit minister cannot even acknowledge there are issues.

Rees-Mogg added, “I don’t care what the EU does anymore”, nor America, nor Singapore. All that matters is “what’s right for the UK”. Many would agree with that statement, but not with his or the government’s version of what that might look like.

When Longhi asked Rees-Mogg to identify legacy or policy changes that had been made possible by Brexit, the only example given was the forthcoming procurement bill. It seems that, despite all the supposed freedoms that Brexit has given the country, the government has been slow to take advantage of any so-called Brexit ‘opportunities’. Indeed, many of the opportunities and benefits already claimed have been pure fantasy.

Crain Mackinlay (Conservative) asked the minister about his personal priorities. Rees-Mogg replied that in order to deal with the cost-of-living crisis, “our real opportunity” was to come from “reforming and removing EU regulation”. The aim was to “make the economy more efficient and to lower costs” – sometime in the future, presumably.

An easy ride

With all the questions asked of the minister coming from Conservative or Independent MPs, and none from Labour or the SNP, Rees-Mogg was never really challenged. Despite no tough questions, he still managed to avoid providing any significant responses regarding government actions minus the supposed cumbersome constraints of EU legislation.

According to the Benefits of Brexit paper, “this is a hugely exciting time for our country, one filled with potential and opportunity”. There’s as much truth in that statement as in the chair’s closing comment that this meeting was “very interesting”.

Just as well I wasn’t expecting to be surprised with a list of formerly unreported Brexit benefits. Instead, what I heard was more meaningless promises of future gravy, rather like Brexit itself. Thank goodness the “best is yet to come” – in about 50 years’ time, I understand.

Government’s plan to export refugees to Rwanda condemned as inhumane, unworkable and extortionate

Government’s plan to export refugees to Rwanda condemned as inhumane, unworkable and extortionate

Apr 20, 2022 | News

Sue Wilson MBE
by Sue Wilson MBE

 

The government is pandering to right-wing xenophobes with its abhorrent and soon-to-fail immigration plan with Rwanda, in our name

The Home Office’s ‘new plan for immigration’ is not going to work. The model is flawed, the cost is prohibitive and few outside of Conservative right-wing enclaves support it.

The latest, and most extreme, extension to the government’s anti-immigrant arsenal comes with a variety of contentious claims. The Home Office maintains that the plan will:

  • tackle the global migration crisis
  • break the business-model of people-smuggling gangs
  • deter dangerous and illegal journeys
  • give migrants the chance of a new life
  • set a new standard on asylum and resettlement

Home Secretary Priti Patel described the “ground-breaking” migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda as “world leading”. Without a hint of irony, she said that “fairness” was at the heart of their approach, asserting that “the British public have rightly had enough”. She stopped short, just, of claiming this was the ‘will of the people’.

Widespread criticism of government’s immigration plan

Criticism of the Rwanda plan has come from a variety of sources, not least from religious leaders who usually refrain from engaging in political arguments. Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda did not “stand the judgment of God”, and accused the Home Office of “subcontracting our responsibilities”. He was joined by Paul Butler, the Bishop of Durham, who said it was wrong to “punish those seeking asylum”, adding that it was the traffickers “that need to be targeted and brought to justice for their terrible crimes”.

The Jewish Council for Racial Equality issued a statement and wrote an open letter to the home secretary, condemning the “inhumane plans”. They described the policy as “cruel” and an “abdication of responsibility”. They urged the government to “protect, not punish, those fleeing conflict and persecution”.

Lord Alf Dubbs – a former child refugee himself – warned the government of forthcoming problems in the House of Lords, saying, “they’re going to have real difficulties in getting this through”. He described the proposal as “a way of getting rid of people the government doesn’t want”, adding, “it’s a breach of the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees”.

Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council said the government was demonstrating a “total disregard for the welfare of vulnerable people”, and was “treating them as human cargo to be shipped to Rwanda and forgotten about”.

The condemnation has extended even to the home secretary’s own department, with civil service unions claiming there is widespread mutiny among their members. There have been threats of ‘mass walkouts’ following a rare direction from the home secretary to overrule civil servants’ concerns.

Unethical, unworkable and extortionate

Labour Party ministers and MPs were quick to criticise the Rwandan policy as “unethical”, “unworkable” and “extortionate”. As well as pointing out the considerable cost, they challenged Patel’s claims that the policy would have a significant impact on the numbers of refugees risking their lives to cross the Channel.

The deal with Rwanda will supposedly cost the taxpayer £120m, though this is merely the stated price for an ‘economic development programme’ for Rwanda. It does not allow for the cost of a single asylum seeker being shipped abroad. As MP Stephen Kinnock pointed out, the policy in “unravelling quickly” as further details of the proposals emerge.

Initially, it was assumed that those applying for asylum while being ‘processed’ in Rwanda would be returned to the UK if their claim was accepted. It soon became apparent, however, that the trip was one-way only. Any successful applications for asylum would mean being refugees being granted permission to stay in Rwanda, not being returned to the UK

Another dead cat distraction?

Many have questioned whether the government fully intends to progress with its outrageous, inhumane policy or whether it is merely a diversion from various scandals. Certainly, the timing of the announcement is a convenient distraction from talk of the prime minister breaking the law, and the government does have form for this. We are quite familiar with its attempts at distracting attention when things aren’t going to plan – whether that’s covid, Brexit or the cost-of-living crisis.

As George Monbiot pointed out recently on Twitter, Johnson explained the dead cat strategy back in 2006. At the time, he described his “brilliant new strategy” as to “make so many gaffes that nobody knows which one to concentrate on”, adding that it was like a “helicopter throwing out chaff”.

However, Monbiot did add the warning that, dead cat or no, that did not rule out the government’s intention of following through with this policy. Anyone who has been following the Home Office’s increasingly extremist strategies, even before Patel became home secretary, cannot doubt the desire to move further to the right.

Turning a blind eye

The Home Office claims that Rwanda has “strong experience in supporting and integrating refugees”. It has praised the country as being “internationally recognised for its safety, strong governance, low corruption, gender equality”. This is despite condemning Rwanda, just a few short months ago, for failing to investigate human rights abuses. Those abuses include the failure to protect and support victims of people trafficking. Today, Rwanda is already home to over 127,000 refugees, most of whom are living in refugee camps and unable to work.

The Home Office may be correct in its assertion that existing approaches have failed and that a new approach was necessary, but this is not it. Not even close.

Our government is turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in Rwanda while implementing abuses all its own. Where it claims to want to prevent people-smugglers from taking advantage of desperate refugees, it closes its eyes to its own plans to traffic vulnerable people abroad. As the government panders to right-wing xenophobes, it claims to do so in our name.

The welcome that’s been extended to desperate, vulnerable people from Ukraine has proved the compassion and tolerance of the British people, unlike those who claim to represent them. The government, by comparison, has shown itself to be full of heartless, bigoted zealots. They think this approach makes them appear strong and in control, but it only demonstrates their misguided, insular and damaging attitudes. The rest of the world has its eyes wide open to the shameful truth. And so do the British public. The Rwanda plan will not work. Time for a change of heart, a change of mind and a change of government.
How A Beach-side Community In Spain’s Valencia Region Opened It’s Heart To Ukrainian Refugees

How A Beach-side Community In Spain’s Valencia Region Opened It’s Heart To Ukrainian Refugees

Apr 18, 2022 | News

By Sue Wilson in Alcossebre

As Miquel Angel Jauset watched events in Ukraine unfold on his TV he, like so many of us,  felt he must do something to help..

And as Director-General of Kione Resorts, a holiday village in the coastal town of Alcossebre in the Valenciano province of Castellon he came up with an idea that was more ambitious than most.

“I saw how people crossed the border without anything and I saw myself reflected in them”, he explained in an interview last week.

Feeling a “need to go and help”, Miquel Angel launched a campaign crowd-funder to raise money to collect Ukrainian refugees from the Polish border, bring them back to Spain and “offer them the chance to start a new life”.

With the help of his Ukrainian employee, Olena Cherniek, Miquel Angel co-ordinated with volunteers in Valencia, and at the Polish border to set the project in motion.

The original plan was to bring up to 50 refugees back to Alcossebre by coach but the numbers grew and so far over 70 families have relocated with the project.

Miguel Angel Jauset with the Ukrainian refugee families

The resort is providing free accommodation for the families on their premises but also helping the families to establish themselves.

Apart from assisting with the necessary paperwork required to allow them to work, they are helping organise health insurance and providing schooling, including Spanish lessons.

The younger children started school a few days ago, the older children will do so after Easter. Some of the adults have already started working, and a few – who preferred not to remain in Alcossebre – have been helped on their onward journey to other European cities.

Help offered to refugees locally has come from a variety of quarters, including the local charity shop – The Friends of Alcossebre.

President, Carolyn Arneill, said it has always been their aim to help the local communities and our new local Ukrainian neighbours are no exception.

Volunteers, FOACC (Friends of Alcossebre and Alcala)

For every refugee, the charity is providing a gift voucher that equates to five items per person, per month of clothes, shoes, toys etc.

“We are working closely with the Ayuntamiento to provide assistance in any way we can”, she said.

“We have all seen the news of what is happening every day in Ukraine and we’re happy to be able to help provide support to the Ukrainian families here”.

On Sunday, April 3, a local event that was organised to raise funds for the refugees, attracted a crowd of over 500 locals.

Alcossebre resdidents enjoy their huge paella

Residents enjoying their 550 portions of paella

Considering the resident population of Alcossebre is just 3,000 people, this was quite a turnout. With 550 portions of paella served from the biggest paella dish I have ever seen, the event raised almost 6,000 euros net profit. All the proceeds will be used to purchase food and basic items for our new Ukrainian neighbours.

Two recipients of Alcossebre hospitality are sisters Marina Demchenko and Alena Tysenko. 36 year-old Marina and 38 year-old Alena began their journey to Alcossebre from their home in Dnipro, 1,000 kilometres east of the Polish border.

Leaving her husband behind, Maria travelled with her five-year-old son, daughter, 13, and her mother-in-law.

Marina Demchendo and her family

Marina Demchendo and her family

Travelling with them was sister Alena with her eight-year-old daughter.

When they set out, they had no idea where they were headed or which country they would end up in. They did not choose Spain, rather as Maria explained: “Spain chose us.”.

The war has separated Maria not just from her husband but from her elderly parents too, forcing her to leave behind her home and her country. She said, “in one day, we lost everything – work, peace, our past life”.

As a child, Marina’s grandmother used to say to her, “if only there was no war”. Marina is grateful that her grandmother is not alive to see the horrors the Russians are now inflicting on the Ukrainian people.

“So many people suffer because of one person”, she added. “Putin is an unhealthy person. If he were of sound mind, he would understand that you cannot achieve peace by war”.

Marina’s sister Alena described how they met volunteers from Alcossebre in Przemysl, Poland. Alena said they were offered help back in Spain of “free accommodation, meals, assistance with paperwork, Spanish lessons and a school programme for the children”.

It was an offer too good to refuse.

Alena is planning to work in Spain for “as long as the hostilities continue”. As far as the future is concerned, she said, “I don’t guess any further”.

While Alena studies Spanish and looks for work, she can’t help but worry for the well-being of her parents, unable to move to a safer place. She desperately wants to help them and to “hug them”.

With her plans for the future in tatters, Alena is at least grateful to no longer be in danger. She thanked the people of Alcossebre, and Kione in particular, for their help and support, and prays for “peace and humanity in the whole universe, like we have met in Spain”.

At present, Miquel Angel has no further plans to bring more refugees to Spain, as “we want to focus on the ones already here”.

He added: “Our project is not yet finished. When all the refugees have their own homes, with proper jobs, and are completely settled, that will be the moment to start a new trip to bring another coachload of refugees to Alcossebre, and to start the project again”.

The author of this article is Sue Wilson MBE, Chair of Bremain in Spain. Read more of her writing at the Olive Press HERE and visit the Bremain in Spain website for more.

Ukrainians in Spain: ‘Every night I wake up and worry about the lives of those I’ve left back home’ 

EXPLAINED: How can I offer my home in Spain to refugees fleeing war in Ukraine?