Johnson’s ‘resignation’ exposes a wider lack of integrity in his party

Johnson’s ‘resignation’ exposes a wider lack of integrity in his party

Jul 8, 2022 | Bylines, News

Those attempting to distance themselves from Johnson’s lack of integrity should take a closer look in the mirror and examine their own, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

When Health Secretary Sajid Javid resigned from Cabinet on Tuesday evening, shortly followed by the Chancellor Rishi Sunak, it started a chain reaction. Cue everyone, or at least a significant number of Conservative ministers, talking openly about trust issues, lack of confidence in their leader, and integrity. For many, it was Boris Johnson’s integrity that was finally being challenged. For others, it was their own.

Cabinet cowardice

Just 36 hours, and over 50 resignations later, Johnson was forced to agree to stand down. In their resignation letters, the majority of Tory ministers expressed their gratitude to Johnson for his ‘accomplishments’ while condemning him for the very personality traits that they had previously tolerated, if not lauded.

In his own resignation letter, Brandon Lewis had said that, “a decent Government relies on honesty, integrity and mutual respect”. He added that it was a matter of profound personal regret that he no longer believed those values are being upheld. A view that was commonly shared by others but which rather begs the question, when were those values ever upheld under Johnson’s watch?

When the newly appointed Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi joined the ranks of Cabinet ministers telling Johnson to resign, the PM finally accepted defeat.

None so blind

The 50+ resignations letters submitted in the 36 hours prior to Johnson’s resignation were full of references to the PM’s supposed achievements and his lack of integrity. The resignations had been triggered by the latest sleaze scandal involving Deputy Chief Whip Chris Pincher. Although many possible final straws had presented themselves over the last few months – not least the damaging partygate scandal – number 10’s preposterous handling of the Pincher scandal was the straw that finally broke the camel’s back.

Seemingly without a hint of irony, MPs such as Robert Halfon complained about a “loss of integrity” in their resignation letters. MP Stuart Andrew wrote, “there comes a time when you have to look at your own personal integrity and that time is now”. Really? Surely that time is every day, when you are a public servant. Jo Gideon said, “I believe we must demonstrate integrity in our actions and send a message that standards in public life matters”. Well quite, but that was as true today as it was any time over the last three years.

It’s not as if Johnson’s character had previously been a closely guarded secret or that he’d suddenly changed his style or approach. The party was perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to his shocking behaviour when it was good for their own careers. They knew exactly who he was and what he was capable of, but they supported him anyway. As long as he was popular.

Now they are scurrying around desperately trying to distance themselves from the Johnson brand and trying not to be tarred with the same, dirty, toxic brush. Too late for that, I’m afraid.

Setting the scene for Johnson’s demise

At prime minister’s questions (PMQs) on Wednesday – just a day before Johnson’s resignation – Keir Starmer was on the attack. He challenged Johnson on his own behaviour and on the actions of his ministers, whom he described as “sinking ships fleeing the rat”. He pointed out that any Tory minister quitting now hadn’t “a shred of integrity”. The Conservative Party had known all along who this prime minister was, he said, and had therefore been complicit every step of the way.

Later the same day, a few final nails were hammered into Johnson’s coffin when he appeared before the House of Commons Liaison Committee. An hour of the meeting was dedicated to the subject of ‘integrity in politics’. Normally these meetings are a polite, sometimes almost deferential affair, but not this time.

When Johnson suggested that the public wanted him to concentrate on getting on with the job, Chris Bryant, chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, dismissed this suggestion. The public, Bryant insisted, also wanted the government “to focus on honesty, and decency, and propriety, and standards in public life”

Johnson’s legacy

It seems like just yesterday that Johnson was bragging about wanting to stay in power until 2030. We assumed he meant the year, but perhaps he was referring to the time of day. Instead, it looks as though he’ll be out of office without even outlasting Theresa May’s short tenure.

Johnson’s formerly loyal supporters have been keen to praise Johnson for “getting Brexit done”, except it is far from done. They happily cheered when he lied about the economy, about police numbers, about the NHS and all the hospitals he supposedly built. They rallied behind every attempt to blame the country’s ills on anyone other than the himself or his party. If they now believe the public will forget and forgive every time they backed his lies and broken promises, or the toxic policies, they have made a serious error in judgement.

 

The country will be counting the cost of Johnson’s government for a very long time. His legacy will include the highest inflation for 40 years, high levels of taxation, lower wages, reduced worker rights, the lowest performing economy in the G20 (apart from Russia) and the most appalling record on Covid. Not to mention the increasingly obvious damage of Brexit or the ruined reputation of the UK abroad.

Johnson is largely responsible, but he didn’t damage the country all on his own. He had the full support of his party. Until he didn’t. Much as ministers and MPs might try to distance themselves, the stain of association will be hard to scrub off.

Integrity as a fleeting concept: claiming ignorance won’t wash

Whether due to loyalty, self-interest, or cowardice, Tory ministers ignored for too long what was blatantly obvious to the rest of us. Johnson was the wrong person for the job. With their failure to criticise and their willingness to enjoy the Johnson ride, the party enabled his wrongdoing. Try as they might, they cannot now distance themselves from the havoc he wrought and claim blissful ignorance.

Johnson may have been the best candidate to win an election. But he was never the right person to run the country. What’s worse, his party has always known that. Yet they backed him anyway for the sake of their own careers and keeping the party in power. Only when those careers were threatened by his toxic brand of conservatism, were they willing to act.

Those attempting to distance themselves may have complained, quite rightly, about Johnson’s character and his lack of integrity. Maybe it’s high time they took a closer look in the mirror and examined their own.

A Cabinet Devoid of Skills

A Cabinet Devoid of Skills

Jul 6, 2022 | Bylines, News

It should surprise no-one that Brexit is not going according to plan. Assuming there ever was a plan to begin with. That’s despite the fact that the Cabinet is packed full with Brexit supporters who repeatedly assure us Brexit is “done”. This is a Cabinet devoid of skills as well as ideas, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for West England Bylines.

The deal Boris Johnson and Lord Frost negotiated which they lauded at the time, has now been rubbished by both of them. The Cabinet, whose only qualifications are their blind faith in Brexit, are getting testy and running out of answers. If they ever had any in the first place.

Suella the Braverman

We’ve grown accustomed to the government’s rewriting of history and its failure to accept any responsibility when things go badly. Their first response is always to apportion blame elsewhere. The latest recipients of the finger pointing are ‘Remainer civil servants’. This time, the accusation comes from the Attorney General, Suella Braverman.

Like many a cabinet minister, the Attorney General owes her position, not to her intellect or skills, but to her wholehearted love affair with Brexit, and to her support for the PM that ‘delivered’ it. Or as Alistair Campbell put it, she owes her good fortune to “the only PM in history who would consider her to be ministerial material”.

In an article for The Telegraph – required reading for right-wing Brextremists everywhere – Braverman accused civil servants of “thwarting reforms” as they cannot imagine “life outside the EU”.

It was thanks to those civil servants that the UK was struggling, she said. Braverman’s claim was backed up in a tweet by fellow Brexit enthusiast Tory MP, Lucy Allan, who described the Attorney General as “brave” and said civil servants were “obstructing” the government.

Braverman may well possess legal qualifications, and presumably has a reasonable knowledge of British law. However, her knowledge of international law, and her endorsement of the illegal Protocol Bill, leaves a great deal to be desired.

 

You mess with Boris you get Dorries

When you examine the Cabinet it’s difficult to find any relevant skills in relevant places and Nadine Dorries’ role as Culture Secretary, is right up there. A regular recipient of social media scorn, Dorries’ official title is Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Often blaming her dyslexia for her inappropriate, ranty and inaccurate tweets, Dorries has shown no evidence of any skills in or understanding of any of those topics. Though, if I had to single one out, she probably makes more gaffs about sport than she does about culture. Just.

Apart from her evident lack of talent, Dorries is probably best known for her adulation and fierce defence of Johnson. As she told the Sunday Times recently, “I owe Boris Johnson my absolute undying loyalty”. For sure, she certainly owes Johnson her job. It hard to imagine another PM placing her in a cabinet role, but with this bunch of sycophants, you can never rule anything out.

 

All Trussed up with nowhere to go

Foreign Secretary and Minister for Equalities, Liz Truss, was already overburdened with responsibility before Johnson added Brexit negotiations to her portfolio. When Lord Frost resigned that particular role, he thankfully removed himself from Cabinet, though that hasn’t stopped him from commenting, especially on the (poor) handling of Brexit.

For now, we are stuck with ‘Dizzy Lizzy’, whose focus is firmly fixed on the top job, heaven help us. Formerly a staunch Remainer, Truss is now little more than a failed Thatcher impersonator with ambition. That we could put up with, if, and it’s a big if, she had anything of interest or import to say.

Richy Sunak

Perhaps appointing the wealthiest MP to the role of Chancellor might seem like wisdom. After all, shouldn’t someone with that kind of financial security understand how to spend and save the nations money wisely? It would seem not.

As a staunch Brexiteer, Rishi Sunak refuses to accept that any of the UK’s budgetary problems are a result of Brexit. Surprisingly, even the Telegraph – or at least a Telegraph journalist – now recognises Brexit “as a key contributor to the UK’s economic woes”. Not that the impact of Brexit will be felt in any one of the homes of the billionaire Sunaks.

A Cabinet of incompetents

So many misplaced ministers in Cabinet, so much blandness to choose from. The idea that Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps is responsible for keeping the trains running and planes flying, or that Environment Minister, George Eustice will protect farming and food standards would be laughable if it wasn’t so scary.

Then there’s Sajid Javid as Health Secretary, Therese Coffey in Work and Pensions and Nadim Zahawi for Education – another talentless bunch with zero skills and even less charisma.

Jacob Rees-Mogg – no fan of civil servants either – holds the most ironic cabinet title as Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency. Having failed spectacularly at finding any Brexit opportunities, even with the help of Brexit-loving Sun readers, he doesn’t seem to be doing too well re government efficiency either. No doubt he’ll be putting out a further call for public help on that front any day now.

I’ve saved the best, or rather the worst, contenders for last. The words Dominic Raab and Justice Secretary should never appear in the same sentence, and as for his being the Deputy PM, Johnson must be really desperate. Raab’s determination to rid us of any remaining post-Brexit human rights tells us all we need to know about his credentials and his character. And why does he always look like a rabbit caught in the headlights, or as if he’s about to burst a blood vessel?

As for the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, there are no words strong enough that would be printable. I will leave you to provide your own adjectives. Having previously thought Theresa May was evil incarnate as Home Secretary, next to Patel, May looks positively angelic.

For too long, we’ve been forced to deal with this toxic, right-winged, talentless government. So long, in fact, that we’ve forgotten what good governance, democracy and political intelligence looks like.

Perhaps Brexit would have stood a better chance of success if those placed in high-ranking positions had possessed the necessary skills to do the job. Or, if the goals and expectations of Brexit had been realistic and honest to begin with.

The Leave campaign chose to dominate the narrative with rose-tinted fiction, and successfully captivated the country with their lies. Had they not done so, we might not be here at all.

Our Brexit legacy is damaging enough. To also be saddled with the worst PM and Cabinet in living memory is just adding insult to injury.

Hypocrisy, desperation and excuses: Conservative Party clutch at straws over by-election losses

Hypocrisy, desperation and excuses: Conservative Party clutch at straws over by-election losses

Jun 27, 2022 | Bylines, News

The public has had enough and the Conservative Party’s days in government are numbered. They seem to be the only ones not to know it, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Following the loss of two Conservative seats in last week’s by-elections, it was perhaps inevitable that government ministers would be looking for excuses, and someone else to blame, for their losses. The prime minister, rather than hiding in a fridge, was this time hiding in Rwanda. So, the misplaced justifications and recriminations were left largely to others. Minus Oliver Dowden, of course, who resigned as chair of the Conservative Party as a direct result of the by-election outcome.

Deputy PM, Dominic Raab, blamed the “distraction” of partygate, but also pointed the finger at their own supporters. Of Tiverton and Honiton – a formerly (very) safe Tory seat – Raab said, “the most striking thing is how many of our supporters didn’t come out to vote”. Clearly, it did not occur to Raab that those ‘supporters’ may not be considered ‘theirs’ any longer.

Former Brexit Negotiator and Cabinet minister David Frost admitted the results were “terrible” for the Tories, but claimed these were not ‘normal’ mid-term by-elections. Like Raab, he blamed those that voted Tory in 2019 for “refusing to come out and do so again”. Tory voters, he said, did not switch to other parties, they “mostly stayed at home”. Just as they might at the next general election.

Conservative Party: not our fault

Failure to take any responsibility, and to apportion blame elsewhere, is nothing new to this government. Whether it’s Brexit, Covid, the cost-of-living crisis, strike action, NHS waiting lists or any number of other issues this government has failed to deal with, the fault always lies elsewhere.

The targets for blame have included people who voted remain, leftie lawyers, the EU, the British public, and of course, the opposition. Despite the Labour Party not having been in power since 2010, they are frequently blamed – not least by the PM himself – for current government failures. Over 12 years in power is, it seems, not long enough to make any necessary changes

Attorney General Suella Braverman blamed the “disappointing” by-election results on a “dishonest electoral pact between the LibDems and Labour”. That’s despite the fact that both parties stood candidates in both seats.

One rule for Conservatives, another for everyone else

But the main criticism levelled at the attorney general over her by-election results comments was one of hypocrisy. The partygate scandal was seen by the British public as clear evidence of the government’s disdain for following their own rules. The many references to the scandal, raised on the doorsteps of Wakefield and Tiverton, showed that the public have neither forgotten nor forgiven.

That hypocrisy was emphasised by Braverman’s reaction, and that fact that she regarded the supposed Labour/LibDem pact as “more worrying”. Yet the Conservative Party have form themselves when it comes to electoral pacts. And on a much greater scale than anything the opposition parties have ever done, or even seriously considered.

 

In 2017, the government was in discussions with UKIP ahead of the general election. Not to mention the expensive deal Theresa May did with the DUP. By the 2019 election, those discussions went even further, this time with the Brexit Party, who agreed to stand down candidates in 317 seats, in order to prevent the right-wing Brexit-supporting vote from being split between the two parties. As a result, Boris Johnson secured a huge 80-seat majority.

Not only were successive Tory governments seemingly in favour of electoral pacts, but the Daily Mail was actively promoting the idea of tactical voting. But of course, as with everything else, it’s only ok when the government does it, not when anyone else does.

Tarred by the Johnson brush

The by-election losses may prove to be the final nail in Johnson’s coffin. As the 1922 Committee debates changing the rules to allow another no-confidence vote in the prime minister, Tory ministers have some serious thinking to do. The Cabinet have consistently supported government policies, and Johnson himself, at every turn. Many are so tarred by Johnson’s brush that when he sinks, so will they.

Dowden’s resignation was apparently an unpleasant surprise to Johnson. Dowden was certainly, until last week, one of the most Johnson’s most loyal defenders. Other ministers, especially those with an eye on Number 10, will presumably follow suit if they wish to salvage any credibility. But they may have left it too late.

Despite ministers’ claims to be listening to the public, government policies and actions say otherwise. The people of Wakefield and Tiverton have spoken; the public have had enough. They are fed up with dishonesty. They are fed up with spin. They are fed up with hypocrisy.

The Conservative Party’s days in government are numbered. They seem to be the only ones not to know it.

Woke and proud: Compassion must never be allowed to go out of fashion

Woke and proud: Compassion must never be allowed to go out of fashion

Jun 21, 2022 | Bylines, News

The weaponisation of right-wing insults has been going on for some time as part of a push to create a divisive and distracting culture war writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Let me be clear from the start – I am ‘woke’ and I am proud of it. But what does it really mean and why it is now used as an insult?

Having come into common usage, ‘woke’ entered the Oxford English dictionary in 2017. The original meaning was listed as “well informed, up-to-date”, but is now defined as “alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice”. Merriam-Webster has a similar definition – “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”.

‘Woke’ is older than you think

Long before the word was used in relation to inequality, it was first recorded in the 19th century. Its original meaning was as a version of woken, or awake, (i.e. no longer asleep). In 1920’s America, in Harlem, an event entitled the ‘Stay Woke Ball’ ran from 5.00pm to 5.00am the following day, obviously requiring participants to stay woke/awake for many hours. According to Wikipedia, by the 1930s, wokehad begun to encompass “an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans”, and the phrase ‘stay woke’ was heard in an early recording by Lead Belly.

It is easy to understand how being awake became being awake to inequalities, and evolved into being woke to them. In 1962, a New York Times magazine glossary “of phrases you might hear in Harlem today” defined woke in its current politically conscious state.

When did woke become an insult?

By 2020, parts of the political centre and right wing in several Western countries “were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult”, according to Wikipedia. This insult was being aimed at “progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere”. By 2021, woke had become used “almost exclusively as a pejorative, with most prominent usages of the word taking place in a disparaging context”.

In the UK, the anti-woke brigade using woke as an insult, has even included our government. Keen to stir up a culture war, they have turned an awareness of social injustice from a positive attribute into a negative one.

Justice Secretary Dominic Raab, spoke back in March about his legislative plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a US-style bill of rights. Raab stated, “I feel very strongly that the parameters of free speech and democratic debate are being whittled away, whether by the privacy issue or whether it’s wokery and political correctness”.

Jolyon Maugham – whom Raab would no doubt describe as an interfering lefty lawyer – described Raab’s attack on wokery as akin to Putin’s attack on ‘cancel culture’. Maugham went on to say, in his Twitter thread (26 March), that Russia had just quit the Council of Europe following their invasion of Ukraine. The Council of Europe is the body that administers the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Raab’s plans to undo the Human Rights Act are, said Maugham, “inconsistent with the UK’s continued membership of the Council of Europe”.

The government’s recent attack on the ECHR, for what it regards as meddling in its cruel Rwanda deportation plans, serves as yet another example of the government’s desire to remove any or all scrutiny and interference. The fact that the court is European – even though it has nothing to do with the EU and predates it by decades – matters little. Anything European is bad, and facts are seemingly irrelevant.

The weaponisation of right-wing insults

Right-wing insults on liberal targets did not start with woke. Since 2010, an earlier preferred insult was that of ‘snowflake’. It was used to as a derogatory term for someone considered to be “too easily upset and offended” (Cambridge Dictionary). Identity politics, especially since the Brexit referendum, has seen anyone left of centre regularly derided, first for their political correctness and now for their wokeness.

Right-wing commentators, such as Toby Young and Laurence Fox, are no strangers to causing deliberate offence. Earlier this year, Fox wrote an article for the Sunday Times entitled, “why I won’t date woke women”. Liberal-minded women all over the UK breathed a huge sigh of relief. But Fox didn’t stop there. Even the English football team were targeted, for kneeling ahead of a match in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. He urged them to “get off their knees”, suggesting that “woke virtue signalling has ruined football”.

In a recent article for The Critic, Toby Young criticised the government’s online safety bill as “an online invitation to woke activists to fire off a barrage of vexatious complaints”. In addition, his Twitter feed is full of criticism of “woke cancel culture” and for good measure, he’s happy to throw in the odd “snowflake” insult too. Young describes woke culture as a “free speech crisis” and “censorious”. In his case, a certain amount of censorship would not be unwelcome!

 

Fox, Young and others like them, defend their use of the insult, claiming that being woke signifies being pretentious and elite. Clearly, they are using a different dictionary from those of us proud of our wokeness.

Whether accurate or not, critics of ‘woke culture’ who claim the status of victims, seem to have successfully co-opted the language for their own ends. Hardly surprising, when the resident of Number 10, and his devotees – in and out of government – are constantly redefining our language. Just as they are redefining what it means to be patriotic and British.

For many people of a left-leaning persuasion, and even for many centrists, it’s increasingly difficult to feel any pride in our nation. In fact, our government’s willingness to break the law, and to pursue extreme right-wing policies is leaving us feeling shame, sadness and fear. Even more important, then, to hang on to any remaining pride in our own strengths and positive attributes, and those of the majority of the British public.

I’m proud to have empathy for my fellow beings. I’m proud to care about social injustice. I’m proud to care about human rights and standards of decency. Our government has taken our country on a terrifying journey in the wrong direction. We cannot let them succeed. Compassion must never be allowed to go out of fashion.

EU Court of Justice rules – Brits have lost EU citizenship rights thanks to Brexit

EU Court of Justice rules – Brits have lost EU citizenship rights thanks to Brexit

Jun 11, 2022 | Bylines, News

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that UK citizens have lost their EU citizenship rights as a result of Brexit. This follows an earlier ruling by the EU Advocate General, back in February, that only citizens of an EU country may hold EU citizenship and benefit from EU citizenship rights, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for West England Bylines.

In his earlier ruling, the Advocate General confirmed that EU citizenship is additional to the nationality of EU member states, and does not replace it. He added that the loss of EU citizenship rights for British citizens was a direct result of the “sovereign decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union”. While the Advocate-General’s ruling was not binding, it was largely expected that the ECJ would follow the same legal reasoning.

 

The legal battle for lost rights

 

The fight for the retention of lost EU citizenship rights – such as freedom of movement and the right to vote and stand in local elections – has been a battle fought on many fronts. The latest case, ruled on today, was brought by Britons living in France (EU Britizens), supported by French lawyer, Julien Fouchet.

Fouchet reacted on Twitter with a photo of a car wreck and the comment that “we will always feel our acquired rights should be inviolable”. He told me personally that he was “saddened” by the ECJ’s decision and said it was unacceptable for Brits living in the EU to be “without any right to vote, and without having been able to oppose it”. It was, he said sardonically, a “belle démocratie!!”.

EU Britizens were not surprised by the result, tweeting that the court’s hands had been tied “by the international treaty signed by the negotiators who couldn’t have cared less about our European Citizenship”. However, they are still committed to fighting on “to work to regain our rights that should have been protected by both parties”.

An earlier, similar case was brought by British nationals living in the Netherlands (Brexpats-Hear our voice) and was supported by Good Law Project’s, Jolyon Maugham. Brexpats-Hear our Voice founder, Debbie Williams said today, “the removal of rights has affected people’s lives detrimentally, diminished their opportunities and split families.”

Williams, who was one of the plaintiffs in the Netherlands case added, “the UK failed in its promise that we could carry on our lives as before and the EU did not take the moral high ground and live up to its own principles.  The much-vaunted Withdrawal Agreement has many failings and leaves many in a bureaucratic quagmire.  Many of us now have no representation. There is something wrong with society if it allows a group of citizens to be diminished and disenfranchised in this way – especially those who made important life decisions based on a set of rights – whatever judges may rule in a court of law.”

The ongoing legal battle is being fought on another front too. The “EU citizenship is a permanent status” campaign, run by Joshua Silver, argues that “nobody has the legal power to remove our EU Citizenship and associated rights”. Silver’s petition currently has over 131,000 signatories.

 

Exploring the options

 

An early supporter of the retention of EU citizenship rights for Brits living in Europe, was Guy Verhofstadt – the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator at the time. Back in 2019, he advocated for EU member states “to grant UK citizens living in Europe the full rights as they have today”. He also proposed the idea of a “European associated citizenship”.

There was even talk of the possibility of British citizens paying a fee to the EU for EU citizenship benefits, much in the way that EU member countries pay for EU membership benefits. But the idea was widely rejected, not least because it would have only helped those in a position to pay.

 

Moving forward

 

I have huge sympathy for everyone suffering the acute loss of rights that we took for granted as residents of EU countries. We had every reason to believe that those rights were ours for life. We even dared to believe the politicians that assured us that nothing would change and our rights and freedoms would not be diminished.

However, while I would be delighted to keep the rights I have enjoyed for 15 years in Spain, I believe all British citizens – including the millions resident in the UK – were equally robbed of benefits, freedoms and opportunities. If we are to find a solution, and restore EU citizenship rights to Britons in the EU, we must do so for us all.

Sadly, the court’s decision today was no real surprise. We are no longer EU citizens and can no longer enjoy the many benefits that EU citizenship confers. As far as citizens’ rights are concerned, it seems, Brexit really does mean Brexit.

Brits in the EU have watched in horror as our rights have been stripped away. But for Brits in the UK, the consequences of Brexit on their personal rights and freedoms are only just dawning. Long queues at the borders, roaming charges, obstacles to working and living abroad, etc. are the new post-Brexit reality. This is not the Brexit the public were promised, or that the majority voted for.

There is, ultimately, only one way to restore the loss of our rights, and that’s to rejoin the single market, rejoin the customs union, and eventually, rejoin the European Union. The UK may not be ready to have that conversation yet, but that day is coming, and it is inevitable. The economy and global standing of the UK depends on it. Until that day, Brits in the EU will continue to be second class citizens whose rights have been diminished for the sake of an ideology that we didn’t support.

Lord Frost gives evidence to public administration and constitutional affairs committee

Lord Frost gives evidence to public administration and constitutional affairs committee

Jun 9, 2022 | Bylines, News

This week Lord Frost came up with a series of explanations for why the Brexit deal isn’t working, none of them being his fault writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Whatever’s wrong with the Brexit deal – and according to Lord David Frost that’s quite a lot – it’s someone else’s fault. On Tuesday, Lord Frost, former chief Brexit negotiator, was giving evidence to a House of Commons select committee. The public administration and constitutional affairs committee (PACAC) was taking evidence on the subject of ‘Scrutiny of International Treaties and other International Agreements’.

Over the course of 90 minutes, while giving his evidence, Frost was ready to lay blame at a number of different doors. Whilst his comments and suggestions on how future negotiations might be improved were welcomed, his failure to take responsibility for the current sad state of play cannot have gone unnoticed.

Parliamentary scrutiny and involvement

Frost suggested that parliament should have more scrutiny and be more actively involved in future trade negotiations. They should be given time to express their views and should have the opportunity to vote yes or no on any significant international trade deals, ahead of their ratification. So far, so good.

However, parliament was apparently at fault during the Brexit negotiations. Firstly, they were “conflicted” and were “not clear” what they wanted from the negotiations in 2019. Frost criticised parliament for what he called the “Surrender Act” – the bill that prevented the UK leaving the EU without a deal. Running things from parliament was a “Cromwell-style takeover”, and legally blocking a no-deal Brexit had hampered his negotiating efforts.

According to Frost, this “hugely undermined” the UK negotiating hand. This then resulted in the UK having to “agree more or less what was imposed on us in order to be able to move forward and deliver the referendum result”. Frost said parliament seemed not to want to deliver on that result, describing the whole situation as “extremely unsatisfactory”.

John McDonnell MP told Frost that it seemed as though he thought “parliament was blocking the ‘will of the people’”. In fact, McDonnell said, parliament was merely “trying to get the best deal possible”

Lack of resources

Frost suggested that negotiations were hampered by a lack of experts and a lack of support staff. The fact that, for the last 40 years, the EU had done all the negotiating for us, meant a lack of relevant experience. But the issue was not just about numbers, or levels of expertise. Those pesky civil servants were “political”, and not necessarily on the same Brexit page as the government. Far better to recruit special advisers, presumably at considerable expense, who wouldn’t question government plans, motives or orders.

 

Lord Frost says that he thinks Parliament will need to increase the resources and support in order for Committees to properly scrutinise international agreements, including legal expertise, trade expertise and greater domestic expertise.

— PACAC Committee (@CommonsPACAC) June 7, 2022

 

May and the meaningful votes

In time-honoured Conservative fashion, the previous administration was clearly going to come in for criticism and blame. Theresa May’s ill-advised, and pointlessly self-inflicted, general election was a significant factor. Having destroyed her own majority, getting Brexit through parliament then proved to be impossible. A series of “meaningful votes” undermined the UK’s position, Frost said, and encouraged the EU to believe reversing Brexit was not only desirable, but possible.

The worst criticism of May’s handling of Brexit, however, was Frost’s interpretation of it being a “soft” Brexit. It certainly didn’t feel very soft at the time. But to Frost, the ‘backstop’ arrangement – that allowed the UK to stay in the customs union and parts of the single market – was several steps too far. May’s commitment to Northern Ireland alignment had been “damaging”. All would have been fine, Frost suggested, if he had not “inherited stuff”.

A “fundamental misunderstanding” by the EU

Frost directed much of the blame at the European Union. There was plenty about the withdrawal agreement that the government didn’t like, but efforts were concentrated on changing the backstop. Johnson’s comments regarding Northern Ireland were “not misleading”, Frost said, but were “misinterpreted”. Frost described his “brutal and confrontational” approach as appropriate and effective. “In the end, it worked”, he said.

With regards to negotiating a trade deal, Frost claimed that a zero-tariff free trade agreement was “very desirable” but not at any cost. Some things, he said were more important. Such as, “sovereignty, removing the [European] courts, no legal constraints”. He added that, “we weren’t willing to sacrifice those to get zero tariffs”. On this matter, there was a “fundamental misunderstanding” by the EU. Unlike the fundamental misunderstanding of the British government as to the type of Brexit the public wanted, or voted for.

Not my fault

The final, and most bizarre, scapegoat for Brexit negotiation failures was the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Frost described the act as “one of the factors” preventing the negotiations from running smoothly. A bemused McDonnell said this was “an interesting new theory about who to blame for some of the negotiating problems that we had”.

Frost is not responsible, it seems, for the deal he negotiated, praised, resigned over and now criticises at every opportunity. It was the lack of resources, the EU, parliament and Theresa May. Like Johnson, he refuses to accept personal blame or responsibility for where we are or where we are heading.

Karin Smyth MP asked Frost if his approach had been “honourable”. The fact that the government is imminently planning to override the UK/EU trade deal with controversial, and likely illegal, legislation would rather suggest otherwise.

If the PACAC committee really wants advice on how to improve future international treaties and agreements, maybe they should ask some real experts. Ones who admit their mistakes, learn from them and put co-operation ahead of confrontation. Brussels might be a good place to start.