Bremain Chair Sue Wilson writes for Yorkshire Bylines:

Thanks to the pandemic, the last year has seen all our lives turned upside down and inside out. Dealing with a global crisis on this scale would have been damaging enough. For the UK, and to a lesser extent, the EU, the double-whammy of Brexit, on top of Covid-19, has added to the pain, confusion and damage.

 

Brexit – the thief in the night

Whether you supported Brexit or not, there’s no doubt that there has been a cost for all of us. Brexit has been the thief in the night that has stolen our vision of the future. For those in favour of close ties with the EU, that relationship has been soured, and our rights diminished. For those that looked forward to a brighter new day, outside of the EU, the view ahead is not quite what was expected, or promised.

Brexit has proved to be a skilled burglar, having robbed us of job opportunities, freedom of movement and EU trade – to name but a few. But apart from the tangible losses felt by the country, what has Brexit cost us personally?

Excluding Brexit extremists on both sides of the debate, the feelings of loss vary considerably depending on where you started your Brexit journey. And whether the direction of travel took you to your expected destination.

 

 

For those that went into Brexit with expectations of a brave new global world, then its more likely feelings of optimism and hope have been lost – to be replaced with disappointment, and perhaps a little anger.

 

Covid – the deadly mugger

As we struggled to deal with the new post-Brexit order – or to try and put anything Brexit-related behind us – we were about to be mugged by covid.

In many ways, the pandemic has become as divisive as Brexit. On the one hand, there are those who believe in taking every precaution possible, even at a considerable cost to their families, their careers and their mental health. On the other hand, there are those who believe lockdown restrictions are an invasion on their civil liberties, vaccines don’t work, and even that the virus is no worse than the flu.

Where it was clear which side of the Brexit debate the government was on, it was less clear with covid – not helped by the constant change of direction, mixed messages, and general appearance of ministers and decision-makers not knowing, or understanding, what they were doing.

Of course, the vaccine rollout – handled (as everything covid related should have been) by the NHS, was a remarkable feat. However, there were times when it felt like the UK had bought an expensive insurance policy, installed security systems and cameras all over the building, but went out for a walk leaving the back door wide open to invasion.

 

Not everything we’ve lost can be replaced

Regardless of what Brexit stole from all of us, covid was a much more deadly assailant. Not only did covid steal our freedom, our social lives and in many cases our livelihoods, it stole so much more. It stole our ability to be close. It stole family reunions. It stole our hugs. Worst of all, it stole perhaps 150,000 lives, not least from those working at the frontline trying to protect us all from the pandemic heist.

As with any home invasion, gradually over time we can start to replace what has been lost. In some cases, the replacements might even be an improvement. Those treasures we value the most – like our family members, lost to this terrible disease – can never be replaced. We will feel their loss long into the future.

But the hardest possession to recover will be a lack of trust and confidence in the government. They were meant to protect us from harm. They were meant to keep us safe and secure. Whether it’s Brexit or covid, and regardless of where you sit on either debate, they have failed miserably. The next insurance policy is going to come with a huge excess, and the deficit is coming out of your pocket.

 

Minister of State, Lord David Frost – best known as the chief Brexit negotiator – has had a busy few days. On Saturday 15 May, he joined the prime minister in welcoming the Irish Taoiseach, Michael Martin, to a meeting at Chequers. Then on Monday and Tuesday, Frost was giving evidence to not one, but two, parliamentary select committees.

His first appearance was before the House of Commons European scrutiny committee on 17 May. This was followed by an appearance before the new House of Lords European affairs committee on Tuesday.

 

Lord Frost on Brexit and the Northern Ireland protocol

As Frost was the minister responsible for implementing the Brexit agreement, and a key negotiator of the deal with the European Union, issues surrounding the Brexit deal and the Northern Ireland protocol were bound to be high on the agendas of both committee meetings.

Before Lord Frost had appeared in front of either committee, he had given them plenty to think about. During a visit to Northern Ireland last week, Frost said the protocol was presenting “significant challenges for many in Northern Ireland”. Despite the “extraordinary efforts” by local businesses to make the current requirements work, he said it was “hard to see that the way the protocol is currently operating can be sustainable for long”.

The fact that the deal was described in December as the best thing since sliced bread (I paraphrase slightly), by Frost himself, was, strangely, not mentioned.

This aged well… https://t.co/6Z0ifLTpAo

— Marina Purkiss (@MarinaNigrelli) May 18, 2021

Friendly relations with our neighbours as a sovereign country

In an article for the Daily Mail last weekend. Frost said he had always wanted from Brexit was “free trade and friendly relations with our neighbours as a sovereign country”. He described the current situation as “going back to our roots” after the “interlude of EU membership”. He accused the EU of not having “much enthusiasm to make things work” and suggested Brussels “stop the point-scoring”.

He described the approach of the EU as “purist”, and said the UK government was considering all options, including the triggering of Article 16. The Article allows either party to withdraw from provisions in the agreement if they threaten serious or lasting “economic, societal or environmental difficulties”. Should the UK take this drastic action, the EU’s response could include the imposition of tariffs on UK exports.

In response to Frost’s comments, Matthew O’Toole, member of the Northern Ireland legislative assembly said, “Frost should be focused on making this deal – his deal – work”. He went on to say that, “it is truly depressing that those who have shouted loudest for the hardest Brexit … have been quickest to run away from its consequences”. If Frost truly does want to foster friendly relations with our EU neighbours, he certainly has a funny way of showing it.

 

European scrutiny committee

The subject of the European scrutiny committee meeting was the ‘UK’s new relationship with the EU’. Chair, Sir William Cash began by asking Frost to name his three main priorities, to which Frost replied: the Northern Ireland protocol; strengthening the relationship with the EU; and the opportunities of Brexit.

Frost said that discussions with the EU, regarding issues relating to the NI protocol, had a “bit of momentum” but were not currently “hugely productive”. The relationship with the EU, he said, would be “a bit bumpy for a time”. According to Frost, the EU’s point of view was that the “easiest solution to any border problem is that we should just operate the same rules and laws as they do”. He added, “Obviously that doesn’t work for us”.

He described the EU as still “coming to terms with the UK’s departure”. Whether that’s true or not of the EU, it’s certainly true of many UK businesses struggling with border issues, and many UK citizens. Frost seemed keen to downplay any Brexit-related issues, while overplaying the opportunities. In fact, ‘opportunities’ seems to be Frost’s favourite word.

 

Brexit has been unexpectedly disruptive?

Frost suggested that the government had not expected Brexit to be so disruptive, and a new unit would be set up to exploit “Brexit opportunities” – there’s that word again. It seems that neither Westminster nor Whitehall has the suitable talent to make this happen, so the intention is to look outside of government.

It seems to be proving difficult for the government to demonstrate the tangible benefits of Brexit. Perhaps an outsider will stand a better chance. Or not.

Lord Frost said today he is looking for someone to head a new unit on ‘the benefits of Brexit’. Apparently he can’t find anyone in the civil service up to this challenge

Any suggestions?

— Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) May 17, 2021

At the end of the 90-minute session, the discussion circled back to the NI protocol, as Frost was asked about his comments in the press regarding the possible triggering of Article 16. Specifically, he was asked how the EU might retaliate to such an action. His suggested that should the EU react, it would only be making things more difficult – setting things up nicely to continue the ‘blame the EU’ game.

European affairs committee’s

The subject of the European affairs committee was the ‘UK-EU relationship’. Chair Lord Kinnoull asked Frost about the current state of play, described by Frost earlier this year as “problematic”. Frost responded that there had been some improvement but repeated his comment that the relationship with the EU was likely to be a “bit bumpy” for a while yet.

Scrutiny was an important issue for the committee. In particular, Lord Foulkes referred to the government’s desire to “take back control”, emphasising that control should be taken back by parliament, not by the government.

Lord Liddle raised the issue of the earlier “totally unnecessary row” over the status of the EU ambassador to the UK. Frost said the matter was now resolved and the issue was “unfortunate” rather than “unnecessary”. When asked what lessons had been learned from the experience, Frost said the government would be aware there would be friction “in areas we don’t expect”.

When asked to comment on recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) re export/import trade, Frost dismissed any negative comparisons between quarter 4 of 2020 and quarter 1 of 2021 as “unlikely to be very useful”, and cited covid as a significant factor. Lord Purvis pointed out there was a “stark difference” between EU and non-EU trade, so clearly more Brexit-related than covid. When asked if the downturn in trade was temporary or long term, Frost said it was “difficult to tell”.

 

The sovereignty principle

On the Northern Ireland protocol, Frost confirmed that there were between 20 and 30 ‘areas of contention’, with only limited progress being made on some of those. With difficulties over border checks and customs declarations, Frost was asked whether a temporary alignment of rules was possible or desirable. He replied that it was “a fundamental issue of principle that we don’t dynamically align with EU rules”. It was not for ideological reasons, he said, but in order to be able to do trade deals elsewhere.

On the subject of equivalence, Frost noted that the EU has arrangements with Canada and New Zealand that mirror what the UK desires. Frost still seems to have failed to grasp the relative distance between the EU and Canada and New Zealand, as compared to the UK – that distance being a significant factor when considering the risk of unfair competition.

Regarding the UK’s desire to develop free trade agreements around the world, Frost said it was important in trade negotiations to “find the right balance between offensive and defensive interests”. It is difficult, having observed Frost for three hours of committee Q&A, and having read his comments in the media, to think of Frost being defensive about anything. Evasive, yes. Offensive, certainly. Or to put it in the admiring words of committee member, Lord Lamont, “pugnacious”.

Not exactly a desirable quality for a diplomat or negotiator, one would have thought. But then, that’s this government of Brexiters all over.