Open Letter to Liz Truss No. 2 – January 2022

Open Letter to Liz Truss No. 2 – January 2022

Jan 22, 2022 | Bylines, News

Bremain Chair, Sue Wilson MBE writes a follow up Open Letter to Liz Truss for West England Bylines:

Dear Liz,

It’s a month since my last letter and I’m still eagerly awaiting your response. I appreciate it’s been a busy time for you, especially with you wearing so many ministerial hats. Your quest to replace Boris Johnson in No. 10 must also be quite demanding of your time. I would venture that your constituents have similar problems grasping your attention, what with all your overseas trips and visiting foreign dignitaries. How is the Land of Oz, by the way?

As an avid follower of all things Brexit related, I confess to being rather disappointed by your initial approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol negotiations. I was hoping that as a former remainer, you might take a softer, more collaborative approach than your predecessor. I guess I should not be surprised – Lord Frost was supposedly a remainer too – hard to credit as that is. Then again, so was Theresa May, and look how that turned out!

There’s no doubt that in your time as Trade Secretary you will have gained considerable experience in negotiating with foreign powers. It’s just a shame that the realities don’t always live up to the rhetoric. Back in June, you told the Sun about all the benefits your deal with Australia would bring. Sadly, that deal is now being labelled as being “as one-sided as the Ashes”. Still, new role, new outlook, hopefully.

Before the Brexit referendum, you were keen to stress that the UK would not get better trade deals than the ones we had as EU members. Your success at replicating many of those EU deals – even if you inadvertently claimed them as upgrades – deserves some recognition. I will personally be singing your praises from the rooftops, if you can replicate the deal we had with the EU itself. Membership of the single market and customs union will do very nicely, thank you, and might even get any former Remain supporters back on side. You are going to need them, after all, if you want to stand any chance of running the country. And I don’t mean into the ground, like the last three incumbents!

Your recent meeting with Maroš Šefčovič was described as being “cordial”. That’s quite an achievement considering you had been threatening to trigger Article 16 just the week before. Thankfully, the EU are pragmatic and patient, and no doubt willing to give you an opportunity to redeem yourself. However, a word of advice – don’t listen to Johnson, Frost or the ERG when it comes to any negotiations. They are a bunch of stroppy kids who have no understanding of how the world works outside of a playground or gentlemen’s club. The EU, by comparison, can teach you a thing or two about diplomacy, democracy and getting a fair deal for all. In grown-up circles, they call it a win-win. You may have heard of it, though I don’t expect your colleagues in the ERG would understand the concept.

Šefčovič has signalled a desire to resolve outstanding Protocol issues by the end of February, so as not to “get dragged into” the Northern Ireland election campaign. I am pleased to see that you appear to be on the same page and are aiming to agree a deal soon. As time is tight, might I suggest you just take whatever is being offered and say thank EU! After all, it’s not like you haven’t got other important issues you should be working on like the worrying situation in Ukraine, or Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release.

With regard to your support for the Prime Minister, I think it’s time to take a stand and tell Johnson what you really think of him. And soon. I don’t think anyone was fooled by your 12 January tweet “PM is delivering for Britain” nonsense, not even the Big Dog himself. And you really shouldn’t use language like “stand behind the PM 100%”. Every man and his dog (even Dilyn) will have immediately pictured you at Johnson’s back with a dagger in your hand.

Your recent comments that Johnson is doing a “fantastic job” and has your “100% support” were, to be honest, rather hard to swallow. To make matters worse, you then said you wanted the PM to “continue as long as possible in his job”. Maybe we should not take that statement at face value, but read more nuance between the lines. It would appear to be an odd position to take from someone so clearly after his job. But maybe you really did mean it and you just need more time to prepare your campaign. Time to work on your list of achievements, perhaps. Or start one.

You may believe the ability to change your principles as often as you change your hairstyle is a positive attribute. I can assure you, it’s not. It makes you look flaky, inconsistent or untrustworthy, or possibly all three. We’ve already had one PM who chose a side based on his own career prospects. It would be a refreshing change if the next PM actually believed their own hype.

I’ll wrap up by wishing you luck in your quest for the top job. I have it on good authority that you are the preferred candidate, at least as far as the opposition parties are concerned. Can’t imagine why that would be. No doubt your own party will catch up soon.

I look forward to having a leader that will put the country first. If you know of suitable candidates, please let me know.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Wilson MBE

The fear of immigrant crime: confronting our own bias and media representation

The fear of immigrant crime: confronting our own bias and media representation

Jan 20, 2022 | Bylines, News

Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton writes for Yorkshire Bylines on the need to confront our worst instincts in tackling racism, particularly in regards to immigration and crime. She gives examples from football coaches to the Church of England and Catholic Church, to show that many still escape the consequences of their actions, while migrants are scapegoated and ostracised.

This week, the Home Office released a report on child sexual exploitation. The media headlines that came from the report in the media were broadly “Most child sexual abuse gangs made up of white men”.

To some, particularly those who deal with and work in the area of child exploitation and sexual violence, this will not be a surprise. To many, however, it will be, because of a fundamental issue in our society: that crimes committed by migrants and people who are black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME), get far more attention than crimes committed by white nationals. Indeed, Research suggests that people tend to overestimate the relationship between immigration and criminality due to the tendency of the media to wrongly depict immigrants as particularly crime-prone.

From an evolutionary basis, humans are programmed to be fearful of strangers. In early times, humans outside the family group were likely to be a raiding party, coming to steal from us or do us harm. Culturally, we love stories about dangerous strangers and serial killers, fact or fiction. ‘Fear of foreigners might well be the most intractable of all human prejudices because it is so tightly linked to survival and natural selection,’ but modern society has moved on. Nowadays it is your friends and your family that pose the most risk to your life.

These deep evolutionary instincts are easy to tap into, and this helps explain why throughout history, migrants and minorities have been an easy target for stigmatisation and scapegoating. Both then and now, they have been used as political weapons, to entice fear and to drive changes in political policy. Historically, this method has been used as a catalyst to introduce more authoritarian policies and erode human rights – an erosion that end up being to the detriment of all citizens, not just minorities and migrants.

It’s institutions that protect abusers and fail victims.

Initially coming to light in Rochdale, a case that gathered much attention and coverage was that of the so-called ‘Asian grooming gangs’. Greater Manchester Police’s Operation Lytton investigation exposed the nature of these gangs. Hundreds of young girls had been groomed and sexually exploited over a period of many years. It became apparent that these men were mainly from Asian backgrounds, Pakistani in particular, and there were similar networks across the country including in Rotherham, Bradford and Huddersfield. There has been visceral rage around these crimes from the public and particularly from far-right groups.

Most of the men were British Pakistani so not immigrants, however the racial element meant the ‘them and us’ narrative was very much evident. The perception was that the girls’ plight was ignored because the authorities didn’t want to be deemed racist. When you look at the case in more detail, it turns out this was certainly not the full reason. The victims often came from dysfunctional homes, were at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and were let down by many in their communities, including the police.

If they were from a different social class, attended private schools, and had ‘good’ families, do we genuinely believe the police would not have investigated because they were worried about racial tensions? Let us remember, it was two women who tried to bring light to the case in Rochdale: a social worker Sara Rowbotham and police detective Maggie Oliver. Their concerns were originally dismissed by their mainly male superiors. It wasn’t just the abusers who thought these girls were worthless or a lost cause, some of those meant to protect them did too.

In mid-November 2016, a child sexual abuse scandal involving the abuse of young players at football clubs in the United Kingdom started coming to light. The revelations began when former professional footballers waived their rights to anonymity and talked publicly about being abused by former coaches and scouts in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Within a month of the initial reporting, the Football Association, the Scottish Football Association, and several football clubs were being investigated by 20 UK police forces.

As this unfolded, just as the grooming gang scandal did, the scale became apparent. Operation Hydrant identified 300 suspects and 849 alleged victims, with 2,807 incidents involving 340 different clubs. Amongst the professional clubs, an incredible 23 percent of them were home to abusers. Hundreds of boys’ lives were ruined – all now men of course. Many have reported ongoing drug and alcohol-related issues and still struggle with their abuse.

The individual stories are harrowing, even involving trafficking, as with the case of Malcolm Rodger: “He took me to Spain for an international football tournament and abused me constantly for ten days … At that, he introduced me to Barry Bennell for a second time and basically stood and watched guard as Bennell abused me”.

Allegations were also made against George Ormond, a former Newcastle United youth coach and scout (who also had previous convictions), former Chelsea scout Eddie Heath, and former Southampton and Peterborough coach Bob Higgins. In early December 2016, allegations about former youth coaches and scouts in Northern Ireland and Scotland also started to emerge.

The extent of the abuse was shocking, yet notably this abuse case failed to get the attention of the so-called Democratic Football Lads Alliance (DFLA) and Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), who were so vocal in their ‘campaigning’ for justice for the victims of the Asian grooming gangs.

The public is certainly aware of this. So we must ask ourselves, why do we not see the same reaction and outrage in other abuse cases?

While the extent of the football abuse may have passed some by, due to the way it was reported, what about the abuse scandals of both the Catholic Church and the Church of England?

The Church of England recently agreed to a compensation scheme for victims of sexual abuse. In 2017 alone, the Church dealt with 3,287 incidents relating to current and past abuse of children and vulnerable adults, including some allegations of serious criminal offences. The findings of an independent enquiry into abuse by the Anglican Church found that it allowed abusers to hide, in an attempt to defend its own reputation rather than protect young people. This is just another case of a predominantly male-dominated organisation hiding and covering up abuse to protect its own.

There are very few who are not aware of the sexual abuse that has perpetuated for decades within the Catholic Church, from all corners of the world. It is well reported, yet the media and public do not pick up on it as they do when sex crimes are committed by migrants or BAME persons. The Independent Inquiry Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) report into the Catholic Church, found that the Church had also moved abusive priests and monks to different parishes, where some continued to prey on children, resisting any external intervention.

The Catholic Church has paid out billions in compensation to victims of abuse, yet we do not see the same reactions or coverage of this form of exploitation as we do when Asian offenders are involved. Let us consider for a moment what would happen if a story of this scale came out about sexual abuse by Imams in mosques. We can be assured that the coverage and probably reaction would be very different.

We all hold subconscious biases, and are influenced by what we absorb and see around us. To be an advocate and campaigner against abuse and sexual exploitation is, of course, a worthy cause. But if, as a society, we are willing to only give focus on one group, then what are we saying? Is it ok for a white national to commit a crime, but not a person of colour?

You only have to look at the likes of Tommy Robinson and his supporters. These people are not concerned for the victims; they are angry because the crimes were committed by non-whites. By focusing attentions and anger in this way, they skew our beliefs and create a narrative that is divisive and destructive to social cohesion. As individuals, we need to challenge our own feelings, be aware of where we are getting our news from and support all victims equally.

It’s now time to grow up as a society, face our own individual and societal biases, and dispel the notion that having dark skin or being from another country is a prerequisite for criminal behaviour.

Stick, Twist or Bust? Tory MPs on Johnson’s position

Stick, Twist or Bust? Tory MPs on Johnson’s position

Jan 18, 2022 | Bylines, News

Which Conservative MPs are sticking with Boris Johnson and which are calling on him to resign over ‘Partygate’, questions Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines?

Prime Minister Johnson seems to have got himself into a bit of bother. The supposed leadership ‘qualities’ that brought him to power and convincingly won a general election in 2019, are now considered potential liabilities. But in typical party fashion, the Conservatives are split as to whether Johnson has outlived his usefulness, and is now doing more harm than good.

 

Stick: the MPs who think Johnson should stay

Operation ‘Big Dog’ – named by the Johnson himself – is a plan to save the prime minister. It has been reported to include the overhauling of his top team. No doubt some Conservative MPs and ministers coming out in support of Johnson are considering their own political futures, as well as that of their boss.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss tweeted: “The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain – from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100% as he takes our country forward.” Considering Truss is one of the most active runners and riders in the race to replace Johnson, he may well be wondering what she is holding behind his back. A double-edged sword, perhaps.

The education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, chose a different tack to defend Johnson over the ‘Partygate’ debacle, saying, “he’s human, and we make mistakes”. Considering the backlash from the public, his suggestion that Johnson “called it right” may have misread the mood of the country completely.

Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary – in hot water herself over her plans to defund the BBC – said Johnson “did the right thing, he apologised”. She said, “what we all want is the enquiry to conclude & to see what the findings are”, adding that she did not accept that “he’s in the wrong”.

Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, dismissed those calling Johnson to resign as “people who are always unhappy”.

 

Twist: the MPs who are undecided

Hedging their bets, there are those calling for change, but not directly for Johnson’s resignation. Amongst them, MP Tobias Ellwood described Johnson as having “a cavalier disregard to these hallowed professional grounds”. He said Johnson needed to lead “in a very different style”, adding that a “fresh tone” was needed. “The Boris approach of old is simply not enough.”

Former leader of the ERG, Steve Baker, said it was “impossible to say” if Johnson would lead the party into the next election. He said his constituents were “absolutely furious” and that they may be “too angry to forgive”. Presumably, he was referring to their anger at Johnson, while overlooking their anger at the government in general.

While Chancellor Rishi Sunak – another candidate for Johnson’s replacement – also thought Johnson was “right to apologise”, his ‘support’ was generally considered rather lacklustre and late in the day. Like many, he appears to be waiting for the result of Sue Gray’s enquiry before pinning his colours to the mast

Bust: The MPs who want Johnson to go!

Although still relatively few, the Conservative MPs calling directly for Johnson’s resignation are increasing in number. 

Andrew Bridgen MP said, “I’m calling on the Prime Minister to stand down”. In years to come, he said, Johnson would be remembered “as delivering Brexit and guiding us through a pandemic. His legacy shouldn’t become one mired in sleaze but rather one of knowing when the time is right to leave the stage”. That legacy “should be cemented now by a dignified exit from politics”. He said he believed more revelations were yet to come, and that Johnson had lost the “moral authority” to lead the country.

 

Veteran backbencher, Sir Roger Gale – who has never been a major fan – described the prime minister as a “dead man walking”. He said, “I think we’ve now got to the stage where frankly we have to find another leader”. Gale submitted his letter of no confidence to the 1922 committee a year ago. Other MPs have followed suit, though the number of letters received is a closely guarded secret.

Tim Loughton MP described Johnson’s position as “untenable” adding that his “resignation is the only way to bring this whole unfortunate episode to an end”.

Caroline Nokes acknowledged that many Conservative MPs owed their seats in parliament to Johnson, and that he did a “fantastic job” in winning the 2019 election. However, he now “looks like a liability. He is damaging the entire Conservative brand”.

Never regarded as a fan of Johnson’s, Douglas Ross, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said Johnson could not continue as PM if he attended the party in Downing Street on 20 May. He described Johnson’s apology as “acceptance from the prime minister that it was wrong”.

In support of Ross, former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, now member of the House of Lords, Baroness Ruth Davidson, said, “Nobody needs an official to tell them if they were at a boozy shindig in their own garden. People are (rightly) furious. They sacrificed so much – visiting sick or grieving relatives, funerals. What TF were any of these people thinking?”

Davidson was joined by fellow peer Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who went one further, suggesting all current ministers should quit if they are implicated in Partygate – not just the prime minister. “Every minister, parliamentarian & staffer at any #downingstreetparty must resign NOW. No ifs no buts.” She added, “the rule of law is a fundamental value – the glue that hold us together as a nation. Once that is trashed by those in power the very essence of our democracy is at stake”. Her tweet on 12 January was a repeat of one she had posted on 8 December.

Chair of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, William Wragg, commented on the main defence currently being employed by both Johnson and many ministers – waiting for the findings of the enquiry. He said he did not think “it should be left to the findings of a civil servant to determine the future of the Prime Minister and, indeed, who governs this country. The Prime Minister’s position is untenable”.

The most recent MP to add his name to the list of those calling for Johnson to go, is Tom Hunt. A new MP who won his seat in 2019, Hunt claimed to have changed his mind after speaking to enraged constituents. He described Number 10 as seeming more like a “frat house” than the centre of government. He said there “there needs to be almost a total clear out of Number 10 and all of those who were in anyway connected with what appear to be clear rule breaking events need to properly held to account”.

 

Betting on the future

While public opinion shifts away from Johnson and in favour of Keir Starmer, opposition parties are watching every governmental manoeuvre and reaction with interest. As the Conservatives dig themselves ever deeper graves, their opponents will be only too keen to supply more shovels.

It’s no longer a question of if Johnson is busted, but when. It will depend on any further awkward revelations, or the government’s handling of such. A week is a long time in politics.

Whether Johnson’s remaining in position will help or hinder the Conservatives chances in the next election, is open for debate. Potential replacements look equally ill-suited to the role of leading the country. What we can bet on though is that as long as this PM – or indeed, this government – is in power, the damage to the country’s economy, reputation and its inhabitants will continue. Time for a change. Let’s start at the top.

Truss’s part in EU talks shows her desperation for a deal to be done

Truss’s part in EU talks shows her desperation for a deal to be done

Jan 16, 2022 | Bylines, News

Truss’s part in EU talks began with the threat to trigger Article 16, but her hard-Brexit rhetoric is unlikely to work, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

 

When Lord Frost resigned his position as Brexit minister in December 2021, many hoped for a change of tone and approach in EU/UK relations. Those hopes were quickly dashed when Liz Truss took over the role, on top of her other ministerial responsibilities as foreign secretary and minister for women and equalities.

Truss quickly made her intentions clear – she aimed to be every bit as argumentative, provocative and bombastic as her predecessor. No doubt this will have delighted the Brexiters in government, whose favour she is no doubt currying, in her quest to become the next prime minister.

New broom, old ideology

Those hoping a new broom would sweep Brexit cleaner – not least the EU – were yet again to be disappointed, if not surprised. Another opportunity for a softer approach, and a softer Brexit, apparently missed in the name of Brexit right-wing ideology.

Truss made it clear she was prepared to override parts of the Brexit agreement, and was willing to trigger Article 16, if the Brexit talks failed. To emphasise the point, her recent ‘pinned tweet’ – which spoke of the “importance of safeguarding peace in Northern Ireland” – was a Telegraph article headlined ‘I will trigger Article 16 if the EU does not cooperate’.

Truss said she would be presenting “constructive proposals”, in an effort to reach a “comprehensive solution”. She described the issues as “myriad and manifest”, and pledged to “work day and night to negotiate a solution”. Quite how she will manage the extra hours with three ministerial posts and her constituents concerns to worry about, she never made clear.

In response to the Article 16 threat, EU negotiator, Maroš Šefčovič warned that such a drastic step would threaten “the foundation of the entire deal”. The EU ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida, said the bloc was not surprised by the renewed threat as “we’ve heard this before”, adding that the EU felt it was “not very helpful that we keep agitating the issue”. He said the two sides should focus on “trying to find solutions for difficulties in the implementation of the protocol”.

The Irish angle

Before meeting directly with the EU, Truss first met with Irish foreign minister, Simon Coveney. The Irish government described the meeting with Coveney as “good and friendly”. However, UK government sources said they would not be dropping demands for further compromises from the EU. Those accommodations include the continued UK demand for the removal of European Court of Justice jurisdiction.

Coveney said it would have been “naive” to expect Truss to take a different position from Lord Frost, but expressed a desire for a new start. Regarding the threat to trigger Article 16, Coveney said this would lead to “further tension and an undermining of trust”. Both sides, he said, need to start “listening to each other and trying to find accommodation rather than creating stand-offs and using threatening language. I think that is not helpful”

Northern Irish eyes on May election

On Monday, Truss met with Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, leader of the DUP, whose priority is an end to checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Donaldson said he had shown great patience, and called on the UK government to make “imminent progress” in the negotiations. He claimed he had “been reasonable” but said it was time for the government to act. “If the EU are not prepared to agree on what is required”, he said, then the government must take “unilateral action”. In response, Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis, said that despite not setting “arbitrary time frames” on the talks, the issues needed to be resolved “as quickly as possible”.

Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou Macdonald also spoke with Truss and responded to Donaldson’s comments. She said the “political posturing” of the DUP must not hold back progress, adding that “stability, peace, jobs and prosperity must come first”.

 

Comments made by the DUP should be considered in the context of Northern Ireland’s forthcoming election in May. According to Coveney, the protocol “would be a big part of that election”. EU Commissioner, Mairead McGuinness suggested that a solution to the protocol impasse must be found “before we get into campaign mode for the Assembly elections”.

Perhaps, this is one area where Truss and Donaldson will find common ground – using the Brexit negotiations as a platform for their own political ambitions.

“A deal to be done”

On Thursday evening, Truss hosted a welcome dinner for Šefčovič at the foreign secretary’s country residence, Chevening House. It was their first face-to-face meeting, ahead of the talks on Friday. Before the talks even began, Truss claimed they provided a “reset” opportunity, and suggested the EU had “a clear responsibility” to fix the problems.

Following “constructive talks” on Friday morning, the only outcome seemed to be an agreement to meet again on 24 January for more intensive negotiations. Truss said “there is a deal to be done” but added that “if we don’t make sufficient progress we will have to look at the alternatives”.

 

In a joint statement, Truss and Šefčovič said, “The meeting took place in a cordial atmosphere. They agreed that officials would meet next week in intensified talks and that the principals would meet again on January 24. We share a desire for a positive relationship between the EU and the UK underpinned by our shared belief in freedom and democracy”.

 

Negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU may be a novel experience for Truss, but the EU are old hands at this game. They are unlikely to have heard anything from the UK side that they haven’t heard before, that they haven’t anticipated, or that they don’t have an answer to.

Truss said, “As fellow believers in liberty and democracy, we should be capable of reaching an agreement that delivers for Northern Ireland and allows us to unleash the full potential of our relationship”. As trade secretary, she was adept at signing international deals that replicated those we previously had as EU members. If she can do the same with the EU, that’ll do nicely, thank you.

But I’m not holding my breath. We are more likely to see Truss trying to out-do her predecessor in the hard Brexit stakes than taking a softer, more compromising approach. After all, there’s a much bigger prize she has her eye on.

Open Letter to Liz Truss

Open Letter to Liz Truss

Dec 22, 2021 | Bylines, News

Bremain Chair Sue Wilson writes an open letter to Liz Truss for West England Bylines:

Dear Liz,

I hope you’ll excuse the informality but dear ‘Foreign Secretary, Brexit Secretary and Women and Equalities Secretary’ is a bit of a mouthful. Let me start by wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and congratulating you on your new role, even if it wasn’t the one you were actively seeking.

I’m very much looking forward to watching you demonstrate your talents in the Brexit negotiations. Let’s face it, after all the damage Lord Frost has done to international relations, you could hardly make matters any worse. However, you might need to come up with a convincing story to explain to your European counterparts how you morphed from being a staunch Remainer to a fully-paid up member of the Hard Brexit Supporters club. Dealing with Brussels, however, will be the least of your worries – it’s the ERG you’ll need to keep an eye on.

On hearing the news of your new Brexit role, I had assumed you would be giving up the day job. Apparently not – it seems you are to be a minister of many portfolios. Still, your prior experience of securing trade deals abroad that look just like the ones we had as EU members, is most welcome. I’m really looking forward to watching you replicate our former deal with the EU. Single market and customs union here we come – yippee!! That kind of ‘getting Brexit done’ I can live with.

I was surprised to discover that you have held so many different cabinet roles in your parliamentary career, so I guess you are a lot smarter, or perhaps more ruthless, than most assume. From Lord Chancellor to Environment, from Trade Secretary to Education, and of course your role as Foreign Secretary. How is Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe doing, by the way? We haven’t heard anything about your negotiations regarding her release lately, but I understand perfectly if it’s all a bit hush-hush.

I would also love to hear about the work you do as Minister for Women and Equalities, as I can’t say I’ve heard about any new laws affecting the rights of women or minorities. Apart, that is, from those pesky new bills planning to take away existing rights. An expensive business, this sovereignty lark, but hey-ho – it seems that’s the cost of democracy.

Many have suggested that your new role is not so much a reward, as a poisoned chalice. Perhaps a deliberate ploy by the prime minister to keep you out of the way and out of number 10. But that seems like overkill to me. After all, isn’t that what the role of Foreign Secretary is for in the first place?

I am pleased, though, to see that you can still find time to entertain us with your many glamour photo-shoots. How we smiled to see you flying the flag while riding a bike in Sydney, or astride a motorbike in Thailand. (Air miles must be racking up now). I particularly enjoyed your Thatcher impersonation in a tank, though personally, the impersonation of the Queen in front of the fireplace was a step too far for me. Or was that supposed to be Thatcher as well? The less said the better about the completely bonkers one for the Mail!

I will close with a few well-meaning warnings from someone with a few more miles on the clock than you. Firstly, you would do well to note that now you are dealing with the Europeans, you will have to step up your game. You’ll need to know considerably more about how the EU works than Johnson ever could or Frost ever did. The EU know what they are doing and know how to protect their own. I appreciate that dealing with grown-ups may be a novel experience for you.

Secondly, don’t trust Johnson as far as you can throw a pout. I’m sure this is not news to you, but just because you share some attributes – looking out for number one, never being far from a camera lens etc – doesn’t mean you don’t have to watch your back. And leave the dressing up box to Johnson – he’s so much better at it carrying it off than you are.

Finally, get yourself some friends. You seem to be the only cabinet minister that didn’t get invited to any of the Downing Street parties last Christmas. Hosting your own party at Number 10 might be your ultimate – or even immediate – goal, but “if wishes were horses”, as my granny used to say, we’d all be millionaires.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Wilson – MBE

Brexit oven-ready deal has been de-Frosted

Brexit oven-ready deal has been de-Frosted

Dec 20, 2021 | Bylines, News

In his resignation letter, Frost expressed concern over the government’s “current direction of travel”. Ironically, it’s a concern we all share, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. On Saturday night, social media erupted with the news that Lord Frost – Brexit negotiator, Cabinet minister and member of the House of Lords – had resigned. This was not news to the prime minister, as his resignation had been tendered a week earlier. Frost had been persuaded to stay until January, but once the news leaked, he wrote to Boris Johnson saying he was standing down with immediate effect.

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.

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?

 

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.

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.

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.