In Frost’s letter, he showed the same delusional attitude to Brexit that we have come to expect. He said “Brexit is now secure” and the government’s challenge was to “deliver on the opportunities it gives us”. Clearly, he did not feel up to that particular challenge.

Frost’s reasons for resigning

The Mail on Sunday reported that Frost’s decision had been prompted by the introduction of plan B covid measures and his apprehension over covid passes. He also expressed concerns about government policies relating to taxes and net-zero policies.

There’s little doubt that Frost was in favour of fewer, or no, covid restrictions. In a speech on 23 November, he said that safety measures “cannot and must not last forever”, adding that “free Britain, or at least merry England, is probably now the free-est country in the world as regards Covid restrictions. No mask rules, no vaccine passports – and long may it remain so”.

Regardless of Frost’s stated reasons for leaving, it is difficult to accept that Brexit itself was not a considerable factor. His antagonistic approach – one surely encouraged by Johnson himself – has been frequently accompanied by threats, not least the triggering of article 16. His prevention from taking that nuclear approach, added to recent compromises over the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, must have been tough to accept.

But no, nothing to do with Brexit, it’s apparently all about covid. This has been, after all, a common theme from our government – pin the blame for Brexit damage on the pandemic and hope nobody recognises the truth.

Frost’s resignation comes after he demanded ECJ removal as a red line a couple of months ago, then completely backed down this week. Like every other Brexit minister, he promised to deliver all the EU’s benefits with none of its obligations, and in the end collided with reality.

— Jonathan Lis (@jonlis1) December 18, 2021

Reactions to the news

Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said the government was in “total chaos”, and grabbed the opportunity to take a swipe at Johnson himself. She said he was not “up to the job” and that the country deserved “better than this buffoonery”. Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, Jenny Chapman, added that the country needed “leadership not a lame duck PM whose MPs and cabinet have lost faith in him”.

On behalf on the Liberal Democrats, Layla Moran described the resignation as a “sign of the chaos and confusion” at the heart of government. “The rats are fleeing Boris Johnson’s sinking ship”, she added, “as he lurches from crisis to crisis”.

Never one to miss an opportunity, Nigel Farage described Lord Frost as a “Conservative and true Brexiteer”, adding that Johnson was “neither”. Perhaps he is unaware that Frost was – hard as it is now to believe – once a Remainer.

In the prime minister’s response, Johnson expressed his regret and thanked Frost for his contribution towards “getting Brexit done”. He described Frost as his “EU Sherpa” and said he should be “immensely proud of his historic service to this Government and this country”.

Who will replace him?

Frost’s resignation causes yet more problems for the already beleaguered Johnson. Reeling from the loss of the ‘safe’ seat in North Shropshire, Johnson is now on notice from his backbenchers.

Within the cabinet, Frost was perhaps the closest ally of Johnson, so the prime minister will surely be feeling the pressure. But who should replace him? Does he appease the right-wing ERG, and appoint an extremist who, according to former Downing Street chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, could risk a “damaging trade war with the EU”? Or does he jeopardise any remaining internal party support by appointing a more compromising replacement?

David Frost resignation gives @BorisJohnson a real dilemma. Appease the ERG by appointing a true believer and run the risk of an economically damaging trade war with the EU, or appoint someone to find a compromise on the Protocol and run the risk of alienating more of his MPs?

— Gavin Barwell (@GavinBarwell) December 18, 2021

It remains to be seen whether Johnson will grab this opportunity to take a more pragmatic approach, or whether he’ll continue to consider his own security and prospects ahead of those of the nation.

The departure of Lord Frost – whatever the actual reason for it – is an opportunity to replace a shallow ideologue with a competent pragmatist. However, I fear that the opportunity will be wasted.

— Steve Peers (@StevePeers) December 18, 2021

What now for Brexit?

For five and a half years, we have watched the government – and a variety of Brexit ministers and negotiators – take the most damaging of decisions about our post-Brexit future. It did not have to be this way. With the country divided, a compromise solution of a softer Brexit, with access to the single market and customs union, may not have pleased the extremists, but would have satisfied most and helped heal the divisions.

With her red lines, Theresa May put a stop to that option, thanks to her obsession with immigration. Johnson and Frost only succeeded in making matters worse. We now have a difficult relationship with our former friends, a terrible deal, and those responsible for the negotiations have all toddled off into the sunset, or the House of Lords.

This man has done immeasurable damage to the 🇬🇧🇪🇺relationship so many of us care so much about

He didn't even have the guts to see it through. To walk away shows the vacuity of both the man and his cause. Shame on him. Shame on the havoc Brexit is wreaking everywhere in its path pic.twitter.com/IaEUKEemAN

— Alex Taylor (@AlexTaylorNews) December 18, 2021

In his resignation letter, Frost expressed concern over the government’s “current direction of travel”. It’s a concern we all share, but not in the way that Frost meant. His failure to follow through and complete this task is surely a sign that Brexit is not going well, even by the government’s standards. Maybe Frost has himself finally awoken to the realities of Brexit, and wishes to distance himself from its failure. Or perhaps even from the increasingly unpopular Johnson.

Frost’s letter included the claim that the UK’s “freedom and independence” has been restored. Perhaps he’ll find his own freedom and independence as lonely and isolating as post-Brexit Britain.

On 15 November, the House of Lords Grand Committee convened to debate reports produced by the, now defunct, European Union Committee (EUC) on the impacts of Brexit. The series of reports, entitled ‘Beyond Brexit’, were brought back to the Lords on 6 December for further debate.

The latest debate focused on three of the Beyond Brexit reports, covering:

• The institutional framework
• Trade in services
• Trade in goods

Read more here about the debate on 11 November, covering food, the environment, energy and health.

Former chair of the EUC, the Earl of Kinnoull, spoke of the 50+ years that various Lords committees had been analysing and reporting on all aspects of EU relations. Eleven months on from his committee’s production of the Beyond Brexit reports, he spoke of the relief that the ratification of the trade and co-operation agreement (TCA) had brought. However, he said it was now important to “take general stock of the position and how it matches up to the various words and aspirations of the TCA package”.

The post-Brexit institutional framework

The Earl of Kinnoull raised the issue of the lack of regulatory co-operation for financial services, and the failure to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU). This failure meant that the EU had not assessed the UK for equivalence – a promise originally made in July. He also expressed concerns regarding the UK’s participation in EU programmes, such as Horizon, which currently excludes the UK’s “vast higher education and research community”. He asked that the government commit to providing the committee with a full picture of developments.

Lord Kerr of Kinloch spoke of the lack of structure for handling important discussions with the EU on common, global issues, such as the climate crisis, refugees and covid. Lord Frost had earlier told a committee that such structures would happen “naturally and organically”. Lord Kerr asked how many such meetings had taken place, or had been proposed, as he could not recall any.

Lord Kerr spoke of earlier discussions regarding a ‘parliamentary partnership assembly’ consisting of members of parliament and of the European parliament. This proposal had been welcomed by Mr. Gove, but it appeared that hold-ups were coming from the UK side, despite the EU being “out on the pitch and warming up”. He asked the minister to explain the position of Jacob Rees-Mogg – was it “recumbent”, “laid back” or “supine”?

Trade in services

Baroness Donaghy emphasised the importance of economic services to the UK. In 2019, the UK exported £317bn of services to the EU and imported £217bn, and has consistently run a trade surplus. Donaghy described the UK services sector as “a major success” story, as well as iterating the importance of the creative industries. She added that the government had only succeeded in “minor acts of mitigation”.

The Baroness expressed concern regarding the creative industries, which she described as “hugely important and influential”, being worth £100m in 2019. Lord Hannay of Chiswick added that discussions with the government regarding the creative arts felt “more like a dialogue of the deaf than a constructive and concerned response to the dire situation into which one of the most vibrant and profitable sources of our invisible exports has been cast following Brexit”.

Baroness Donaghy, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle all spoke of the damage caused by the loss of the Erasmus scheme and in the inadequate substitution of the Turing scheme.

Trade in goods

Chair of the sub-committee on the protocol, Lord Jay of Ewelme, spoke of his concern regarding the provision of medicines in Northern Ireland, and the impact on the vulnerable. He also raised the issue of threats to trigger article 16, and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny.

Shortages of labour and drivers was raised by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, who also mentioned the “poor quality of facilities for those moving goods”. She said she was “severely embarrassed” to hear of the conditions facing drivers stuck on motorways or in car parks who were “unable properly to use services to look after themselves, let alone the goods they are seeking to move”.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick raised the issue of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls, and questioned why the government were not looking for an SPS accord. He said that even though this had been considered during the pre-Brexit negotiations, that did not mean it should not be revisited.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle said she came to this debate from a different position from other noble Lords, because she does not go “Yay – trade! More trade!” She said her interest was in “the well-being of the people of the UK and of the planet”, and the well-being of the planet itself. She expressed concern that the government often seemed to push for free trade agreements with other parts of the world “at great cost to the environment and to existing businesses”

Lord Desai begged the government to consider taking “care of our citizens, trade and economy which are suffering”. He suggested his noble colleagues “read the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility which talks about ‘scarring’ due to Brexit. It is costing us 4 percent to 5 percent of GDP. This is a serious matter, and the government ought to let go of their pride and get some business done”.

Relations with the EU

Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top spoke of the importance of developing good working relations with the EU, and said we would be far more successful in our negotiations if only we “act as grown-ups, treating others with respect and as we would wish to be treated ourselves, while keeping our word and acting with integrity”. She described the view that this approach would be seen as “rolling over” as “absolute nonsense”, reflecting “old-time male attitudes”:

Criticism of the government approach was also made by Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who spoke of the need for rebuilding the trust with the EU, that had been “so undermined in recent times”. He said liberal democracies needed to “work together, not pull apart”. Former MEP, Lord Inglewood, described “the bed we have made” and which “we are all now lying in” as a “hard Brexit with a deal”.

Lord Kerr asked who was responsible for bilateral relations with our 27 EU neighbours – was it the foreign secretary or Lord Frost? And if it was Lord Frost’s responsibility, Lord Kerr added, “can he and does he draw directly on [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] expertise?” Lord Kerr went on to cite the “unfortunate letter” to President Macron that “could have been better drafted had an expert eye looked at it”.

Government rhetoric, “that discourages co-operation”, was again raised by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. He said, “The only way we will succeed in competition is by friendly co-operation, with a keen eye on our long-term goals. This is a long game, and we must not lose it by rhetoric that does not foster co-operation”.

Lord Desai described the current situation as a “car crash that is causing enormous damage” and likened discussions between the UK and the EU to a divorced man not caring about the children, and who thinks he is free to walk away without talking about the necessary future arrangements. He said it was symptomatic of the approach taken by the “winning section in the Conservative Party”, who were so hostile to Europe. They said they would conduct “free trade agreements with 100 countries in no time whatsoever”, he added, “as if they had not held a responsible job in their lives”.

Lord Frost missing in action

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard referred to the fact that Lord Frost was unavailable to attend the debate and speak on behalf of the government. Frost’s place was taken by Lord True, whom Kerr described as “a genial, subtle debater, and not at all frosty”.

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, speaking of Lord Frost’s absence, said, “he has taken to making statements on the last day of term, or when the Commons is not sitting, and issuing Written Statements rather than Oral Statements. I hope that will not become a habit”.

Government response

Lord True began his half-hour response by stating that it had never been the government’s intention “to be triumphalist, aggressive or divisive on these questions”. He said the government saw the EU as “a close friend and partner” and wished for “nothing other than good relations”. He described parliamentary scrutiny as “invaluable and essential”. He said the ratification of the TCA had been a “landmark moment” which fulfilled the promise to “take back control of our laws, borders, money, trade and fisheries”.

In regard to SPS checks, the EU were deemed to be at fault in failing to agree to proposed equivalence commitments – a decision described by Lord True as “surprising”. He also complained of an EU failure to grant the UK “full listed status” regarding, for example, the movements of molluscs or pets.

On the finance sector, Lord True welcomed the European Commission’s extension of an equivalence decisions re clearing houses. On the MoU, he said that technical discussions had concluded and that the MoU could be signed once formal EU procedures are concluded.

The government is committed to being “a science and research superpower”, and are awaiting the EU’s formalisation of UK participation in collaborative international programmes. The priority, said Lord True, must be in “supporting the UK’s scientists and researchers”. The decision regarding the Erasmus programme was to pursue a global exchange programme rather than contribute “a large net contribution” to Erasmus.

On the creative arts, again the blame was levelled at the EU for failing to adopt a UK proposal, which had been accepted by Norway and Iceland. Lord True stated that it is not government policy to negotiate a visa waiver. Lord Hannay responded by saying the minister had replied, “exactly as I predicted”. The government had again failed, he said, to propose any solution to limit the damage. Lord True’s rejoinder was merely to say he had set the record straight, drawn attention to “progress that has been made” and had reasserted “the government’s concern for the well-being of these industries”.

In response to Lord Kerr’s questions about responsibilities for ongoing bilateral discussions, Lord True said that Lord Frost, who “works hand in glove with the Foreign Office”, was the person responsible for those discussions. It is unlikely that Lord Kerr will have felt reassured.

Lord True described the gap between the UK and EU positions as “significant” and said progress had been “limited”. The government maintains that, “the threshold has been met to use the article 16 safeguards to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement if solutions cannot be found”.

In summation, the Earl of Kinnoull concluded by referring again to the state of relations between the UK and the EU. He regretted that we “have fallen out with” our neighbours and friends and spoke of the need to “rebuild trust and respect”.

Lord Frost may have had somewhere more important or interesting to be, but Lord True, “true diplomat” or not, certainly towed the party line, even if with rather more decorum. Whether any of the noble lords and ladies present will feel as though they received any straight answers, or feel any the wiser, is highly unlikely.

Read the full transcript from Hansard of the House of Lords Grand Committee debate on 6/12/21 here

The EU introduced full customs controls on 1 January 2021, but the UK chose to phase in border controls over time. On 14 September, chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost issued a statement in which he spoke of the government’s timetable for the rollout of UK staged customs controls. Frost said that despite having been ready to meet the original timetable, “the Government has decided to delay further some elements of the new controls, especially those relating to Sanitary and Phytosanitary goods”.

Frost placed the blame for the delay on the pandemic, unsurprisingly, despite having had years to prepare. The pandemic did not cause any problems for the EU however, who were ready on time.

On January 1st, another wave of Brexit protectionism kicks in, with new checks on imports from the EU coming into play. This is Brexit: a series of things being implemented that makes the economy weaker, staggered so that the shock is spread out, in the hopes people don't notice.

— Nick Tyrone (@NicholasTyrone) December 5, 2021

Current customs rules

For imports from the EU, UK importers currently have two options for standard goods, until the end of this year. The first option is to file an import declaration immediately on entry. The alternative is to register the goods, but not submit a declaration until six months later. In practice, this means there are currently relatively few delays at the British border.

There are, however, many exceptions where full border controls already apply, eg excise goods, such as alcohol and tobacco, controlled drugs and chemicals. Live animals and ‘high risk’ agricultural goods are additional exclusions, as they require a veterinary or phytosanitary health certificate before UK entry.

The new customs requirements

From 1 January, it will no longer be possible to “delay making import customs declarations under the Staged Customs Controls rules.” Before goods arrive in the UK, a security declaration or entry summary declaration must also be submitted to UK customs.

The government suggests that some businesses might want to involve the help of an intermediary, such as a customs agent, to help with the process. They also suggest applying for a “simplified declarations” form from HMRC, which “allows their goods to be released directly to a specified customs procedure without having to provide a full customs declaration at the point of release”. Unfortunately, it takes up to 60 days to process a simplified declaration application, so this is of little help for those facing the 1 January deadline without one.

Unless goods have a valid declaration, and have received customs clearance, they will not be ‘released into circulation’ or allowed to leave the port. If the necessary checks cannot be carried out at the border, they may be directed to an inland border facility for documentary of physical checks.

Changes still to come

If the measures coming into force at the beginning of next year weren’t enough to contend with, there are many more restrictions yet to be added. As of 1 July, these additional changes include:

Mandatory safety declarations for all cargo
Certification for most veterinary and phytosanitary products
Physical border checks on sanitary and phytosanitary products
New requirements for export health certificates
Further requirements will be added later in the year. From 1 September, certification will be required for all dairy products. From 1 November, certification will be required for all remaining veterinary cargo, including combined products and fish products.

Brexit isn’t ‘done’

By any definition, it is clear that Brexit is far from ‘done’. The hurdles facing UK importers and exporters have made trading with the EU more difficult, more expensive and more risky. For some, dealing with our largest and closest market is no longer economically viable – half of UK businesses have reduced their EU trade or stopped dealing with the EU altogether. Add to that supply chain issues and staff shortages already caused by Brexit and it’s clear that things are likely to get worse before they get better. If they get better.

According to the Federation of Small Businesses, only 25 percent of firms that will be affected by the new rules are ready. Many may not fully understand the implications of the changes or what is required of them. Some may even still be struggling to cope with the earlier impacts of Brexit.

We can only hope that our government, at least, is ready. Though that would be breaking the habit of their parliamentary lifetime.

Additional source documents that might be useful for traders:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/new-customs-rules-for-trade-with-the-eu/

https://business.gov.nl/running-your-business/international-business/brexit/brexit-the-border-operating-model/

https://www.getreadyforbrexit.eu/en/at-the-uk-border-2/

Although cases have been surging across Europe, Spain’s numbers are so far relatively low by comparison, and the vaccination rate relatively high – Spain was the first country in Europe to vaccinate over 80 percent of its population.

Over the last week, according to Worldometers, Spain’s new cases numbered 39,584, ranking 14th in Europe. The UK, by comparison, recorded 289,218 cases over the same period, beaten into second place in Europe only by Germany, with a worrying 349,762 new cases.

Travel to Spain from the UK

It is now a requirement for all UK visitors to Spain to prove they have been fully vaccinated. A negative covid test will no longer be an alternative option.

These latest measures in effect remove an earlier exemption that applied to UK visitors. Travellers from other third countries have been excluded from non-essential travel to Spain, unless double vaccinated, since 30 June. Now, the rules for UK visitors have been brought in line with those of other third-country nationals, over concerns around the new variant.

In an official announcement last Saturday, the Spanish authorities said, “the appearance of new variants forces us to increase travel restrictions. Consequently, together with other measures adopted by Spain’s Ministry of Health, the exemption applicable to people residing in the United Kingdom will be cancelled”.

The requirement for all visitors to complete a Spanish Travel Health Form remains in place. If you are planning to visit Spain, whether from the UK or elsewhere, you can view all the latest requirements on the Spanish Health Ministry website or on the British Government website

Vaccine requirements for Spain

The new vaccine requirements apply to anyone aged 12 and over. Under 12s do not need vaccine certification, and can travel to Spain with fully vaccinated parents – Spain accepts the NHS covid pass. Fully vaccinated means either having received “both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of a one-dose vaccine”, at least 14 days prior to travel to Spain. Certificates of recovery, a medical document proving you have recovered from Covid-19 in the last six months, are also no longer acceptable. As children in the 12–15 year age group are only now being offered a second vaccine in the UK, the new rules will prevent them from visiting Spain for the next few weeks, and certainly for Christmas.

Given the level of concern regarding the Omicron strain, further restrictions, over the coming weeks, cannot be ruled out. Any further tightening of the rules is liable to affect third countries, including the UK, first.

Travel to the UK from Spain

Effective from 30 November, anyone travelling from Spain to the UK will also be subject to new travel restrictions and safety measures. Lateral flow tests will no longer be accepted, but will be replaced by more reliable, and more expensive, PCR tests.

The PCR test must be taken by the end of day two of any visit – the day of arrival counts as day zero. Until a negative result is returned, visitors must self-isolate. Although, in theory, test results can be returned in a matter of hours, in reality, this could take several days. During isolation, you may only venture outside your temporary home in order to take a test, receive emergency medical care, or to buy essential supplies. Those items include food or medication, but only if nobody else is able to buy those items for you

Despite these new measures, it is permissible to use public transport to travel to your destination from airports and ports. Existing rules for non-vaccinated travellers to the UK still apply.

Any new restrictions will no doubt cause anger and fear, not least amongst families long separated and desperate for a return to ‘normal’. How long these new measures will last, in both directions, or whether in fact may be strengthened further, is anyone’s guess. In the meantime, we can only hope that the measures are successful in reducing the risk to public health, and that early action will prevent more extreme measures further down the line.

For those of us in Spain, who watch the actions, or lack of, from the British government, and worry for our friends and families’ wellbeing, we can only but be grateful that the Spanish government take matters more seriously, and act accordingly.