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.

 

 

 

After many false starts, and countless broken promises, there was a glimmer of hope for Brits abroad – and their voting rights – in Tuesday’s Queen’s speech.

The scrapping of the arbitrary 15-year voting rule has been a longstanding, and oft-repeated, Conservative manifesto promise. The rule has deprived up to five million UK nationals living abroad of their democratic right to vote in UK elections, as it deprived them from voting in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

An earlier private member’s bill aimed at restoring voting rights – the overseas electors bill 2017–2019 – failed to make it past the report stage in parliament. We now have a government bill, and a government majority, that could finally bring about the change we have been long been campaigning for. There is also more money available, following the increase of funding by £2.5m in the recent budget.

 

Harry Shindler on the Queen’s speech

Responding to news of the electoral integrity bill being included in the Queen’s speech, veteran campaigner, Harry Shindler MBE, had this to say: “It is excellent news”. In typical modest style, Harry took no credit for getting us this far himself, instead asking me to thank campaigners in Spain for their efforts.

He said, “UK nationals in Spain have played an important role, and your efforts have finally paid off. You did it”. Whilst the recognition from Harry is welcome, we think, after his 25 years of active campaigning, that most of the credit is his.

 

Scepticism from those denied voting rights

Despite baby steps in the right direction, there is still a high degree of scepticism from those denied their voting rights. We have been here before, heard the rhetoric before, had our hopes dashed before. Even the name of the bill that might finally resolve our longstanding issue – the electoral integrity bill – brings about a wry smile. Integrity is not something we naturally associate with this government.

For many months, I have been attempting to get a straight answer out of the Cabinet Office about when we could expect the return of our voting rights. After involving my own MP, and later the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the scarce responses have always been much the same.

They repeat back to us how important our rights are to them; how we maintain strong links to the UK, including paying taxes; how committed they are to scrapping the 15-year rule etc etc etc. No specifics, no time scales. A cut and paste job, hardly edited from last year’s version before the electoral integrity bill even existed.

 

Rights of UK nationals abroad

In the grand scale of concerns around the content of the Queen’s speech, the rights of UK nationals abroad will not be high on anyone’s agenda, especially in the UK. There are many pressing concerns. Boris Johnson’s pledge to reform social care has failed to amount to anything, with no more than an assertion that a proposal “will be brought forward”. Then there’s the controversial police, crime, sentencing and courts bill, which threatens our civil liberties and our ability to protest peacefully.

There is no way voter suppression legislation is getting through the Lords

— Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) May 10, 2021

In addition, the planned repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act could see the prime minister call an election at any time – such as when he feels Labour are most at risk and the ‘vaccine bounce’ is still working in his favour.

 

Voter suppression

If the next election comes early, even if the electoral bill progresses well through parliament – House of Lords permitting – any government promises to restore our voting rights before the next ‘scheduled’ election become meaningless. The government’s plan to avoid scrutiny and suppress opposition seemingly continues unabated.

Clear pattern across the bills in the Queen's Speech. Voter suppression through pointless ID scheme, reform of judicial review, continuation of policing bill to silence protests. They all expand the power of the Conservative government and undermine that which might challenge it.

— Ian Dunt (@IanDunt) May 10, 2021

As welcome as the news about the restoration of voting rights is, it is a bitter pill to swallow when the bill that could restore democracy to Brits abroad, will have the opposite effect on many others. If, or perhaps when, the electoral integrity bill is passed, Brits abroad may be the winners, but many others will be the losers, including 3.5 million UK residents currently without photo ID.

A mother on Twitter said, “when I was a single mum, struggling to buy food, I didn’t have money to drive a car, so no licence. Certainly not enough to buy a passport. Let alone travel abroad. So how do the millions in a similar situation provide photo ID? But that’s the whole point isn’t it @BorisJohnson.”

 

Photo ID and electoral fraud

Under the guise of protecting the country from electoral fraud, the proposed new photo ID requirements will prevent many others from exercising their democratic right to vote.

As people listen to #QueensSpeech today be very aware requiring #VoterID from 2023 will damage UK #Democracy
In Feb 3 big US civil rights groups warned MPs that Trumpian like ID laws disproportionately affect people from poorer/marginalised communities. https://t.co/2N9U6CTObt

— Gina Miller (@thatginamiller) May 11, 2021

The electoral fraud argument for voter ID is a spurious one. In 2019, there were a total of 595 cases of alleged voter fraud investigated by the police, of which only 164 related to the general election (source Electoral Commission). Of the 595 alleged offences only four led to a conviction, with two individuals being given a police caution. Voter ID is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

If concern over electoral fraud were really an issue for this government, then perhaps they should focus on the worst case of electoral fraud in recent history – the Brexit referendum. That might require a different kind of bill with ‘integrity’ in the title, and perhaps a very different kind of government.