Richard Holden: Biden’s inauguration this week boosts Britain’s new opportunity to pivot to the world

18 Jan

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.

Office of Richard Holden, Medomsley Rd, Consett.

Some readers will have seen and many more heard of the hit American musical, Hamilton. I saw it and loved so much that I went back again a few months later to see it a second time.

One of the songs that stuck with me, even though it isn’t one of the top tunes from the show, is called “One Last Time”. It’s about George Washington’s decision to step aside rather than continue to fight for further terms as President. Washington tells Hamilton that he’s doing so to teach the fledgeling republic “how to say goodbye.”

Sadly, the turmoil in the United States that has gripped the world in the last few weeks stands in stark contrast to Washington’s idealism. The vanity of a soon-to-be former President and the violent protests he caused are appalling.

And most shamefully, what could have been a moment of unity for the United States and a marker to the world about democracy and the peaceful transition of power has distracted from a real totalitarian government elsewhere: the moves by the Chinese Communist Party to end the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong, plus its continued oppression of the Uighur people.

Amidst this melee, a new US President will be inaugurated. He has already signalled his intent to re-establish the role of the United States on the world stage. The United Kingdom is busily involved with this change, too, following Brexit and is rightly pursuing it – especially in relation to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP for short).

The global ‘pivot to the Indo-Pacific’ has been going on for some time, and CPTPP provides two things. Most importantly, reduced tariff barriers to a new free trade zone with the established (Australia, Canada, Japan etc) and emerging and growing (Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, etc) economies of the Pacific rim. Second, with 13 per cent of global GDP (16 per cent if the UK joins) working together, this provides a strong counter-weight that, if the UK joins, will be as large as China economically.

To take advantage of this emerging space of global power, the UK needs to demonstrate that we’re up for being a long-term partner to the region via the CPTPP. Importantly, such a move would ensure that we can retain our place, with our new-found status as a newly independent trading nation, as the pre-eminent global hub for business – especially legal and financial services and high specification manufacturing exports.

Critically, as the global coronavirus pandemic has shown too, we’ve got to both look at better domestic supply chains, but also at more diverse international supply chains. That means looking further than just China to broader partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. That’s especially critical as we push to be global champions of free trade and fighting protectionism – while also tied to a rules-based international system of countries that respect the rule of law,

Following Brexit, Liz Truss and her team at the Department of International Trade have been busily signing trade deals around the world – the ones that some people said we couldn’t do or would be wouldn’t be as good for Britain, but have proved quite the opposite. The UK already has or is in the late stages of, bilateral trade agreements with nine out of the 11 existing CPTPP member countries.

With UK investments in CPTPP countries at £98 billion, these countries accounting for £111 billion worth of UK trade in 2019  and trade growing at eight per cent a year, joining now opens the way to putting nitrous oxide into our tank for increase trade with the Indo-Pacific region.

With the CPTPP removing tariffs on 95 per cent of goods traded between members and cutting other barriers to trade, there would be boosts to such sectors such as the automotive one, which exported £3 billion in cars to the CPTPP countries last year. This is massively important to help level up our regions with good, private sector jobs, which are the basis for funding our public services.

With the United Kingdom having just taken up the presidency of the G7, a new US president in place imminently, and increasing revulsion around the world at the way China is treating both the Uighur people and the people of Hong Kong, there is a new opportunity. For a new internationalism with the twin aims of rules based international security and rules based international trade in which Global Britain can play a crucial role. Accessing the CPTPP and building those bridges worldwide is a natural next step that Britain should now take with confidence.

Malcolm Rifkind: We need a global response to Beijing’s belligerence, inhumanity and mendacity

13 Jan

Sir Malcolm Rifkind was Foreign Secretary from 1995 until 1997 and was Minister of State in the Foreign Office from 1983-86. He was responsible for the final stage of negotiations with the Chinese Government over the return of Hong Kong to China.

A week today, assuming the constitutional democratic process takes its proper course, Joe Biden will be inaugurated as President of the United States.

Immediately, he will face two challenges.

The first is that he is not Donald Trump. He will want to distance himself from everything his predecessor represents: belligerence, intolerance, rage, incompetence, incoherence and unilateralism.

He will want to prove himself to be the multilateralist, internationalist, engagement-minded president – and democrat – that we all hope for.

In some ways, he will make us all heave a sigh of relief.

At the same time, he should reject one of the mistakes of the Obama administration in which he served. Against the tyrants of the world, what counts is strength. Rhetoric, while welcome, must be accompanied by action if it is to mean anything.

And now more than any time there’s a need to stand up to Xi Jinping’s brutal regime in China.

Tonight, a major new report will be launched by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, titled The Darkness Deepens.

More than any other report in recent time, it provides the full catalogue of horrors of what Xi Jinping’s regime is up to, against its own people and against the free world.

Other reports have detailed individually the atrocities against the Uyghurs, the abuses in Tibet, the persecution of Christians, the suppression of dissent and the silencing of liberties in Hong Kong – but few have combined them all. This report weaves this house of horrors together.

It brings together the dismantling of freedom in Hong Kong, the atrocities in Tibet, the assault on freedom of religion and expression throughout China and the persecution of the Uyghurs, in a way that has seldom been combined before.

And it offers ways forward.

Crucially, the report makes clear, it is not anti-China – it is critical of the Chinese Communist Party regime.

The starting point is engagement and dialogue. But the issue is not should we talk, but what should we talk about and how. And an unavoidable topic of conversation should be human rights.

And then the next question is should we trade? And for me the answer is: yes, but on what terms?

Not on terms of bullying and intimidation. Not on ”wolf-warrior diplomacy”. And definitely not by surrendering our values.

And so we need a global response to Beijing’s belligerence, inhumanity and mendacity.

The British barrister Geoffrey Nice, who prosecuted Slobodan Milošević, now chairs an inquiry into atrocities facing the Uyghurs, and previously led an independent tribunal that concluded that forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China continues, and constitutes a crime against humanity. In that tribunal’s final judgement, published early last year, the eminent panel of lawyers and experts advise that anyone interacting with the Chinese regime should do so in the knowledge that they are “interacting with a criminal state”. The free world must do more to counter that criminality.

That should mean, as the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission proposes, Britain leading the establishment of an international coalition of democracies to coordinate a global response to the human rights crisis in China, bringing together not only the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and our European allies, but countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and others in Asia and beyond.

The British government should do more to help build support for the establishment of a United Nations mechanism to monitor human rights in China, as called for last summer by at least 50 serving UN independent experts and several former UN special rapporteurs, including Zeid Raad al-Hussain, the distinguished former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

It is time to look at imposing targeted Magnitsky sanctions against key officials in the Chinese and Hong Kong regimes for serious human rights violations and breaches of international treaties.

We should be looking to diversify supply chains and reduce strategic dependence on China, and put our values and national security first when looking at Chinese investment in critical infrastructure and other sectors.

And while growing claims of genocide against the Uyghurs are not proven, there can be little doubt that what the Chinese regime is doing to the people in Xinjiang reaches the level of mass atrocities and can be considered to be attempted cultural genocide.

Last month an ingenious amendment to the Trade Bill that would prohibit trade deals with states found guilty of genocide was passed in the House of Lords by a majority of 287 to 181. What is striking is that it was introduced and supported by a cross-party group of peers that include Michael Forsyth, the former Conservative Cabinet minister, Lord Blencathra, former Conservative Chief Whip, Eric Pickles, former Conservative Party Chairman, along with Helena Kennedy, Labour peer and leading human rights barrister, Lord Alton, cross-bencher and former Liberal chief whip, the Labour and Liberal Democrat peers, bishops and numerous others across the House of Lords including David Hope, the former Supreme Court Justice. This is no collection of rebels, but some of the country’s most distinguished experts in their field, and therefore should be taken seriously.

The Government’s position has always been that it is for the courts, not politicians, to determine genocide, and I agree. But the problem is that our international judicial mechanisms for genocide determination are found wanting, due to the referral requirements and veto power of some countries, and the result all too often is government inaction in the face of mass atrocities. This amendment creates a vehicle, allowing for the High Court of England and Wales to make a determination and, in any given situation that it does so, the government is duty-bound to abandon any trade deals it may have or hope for with the regimes responsible. As Nice says, “no well-ordered state would want to be trading with a genocidal state.”

It is worth noting that this amendment does not apply retrospectively, and it does not violate multilateral trade commitments, only bilateral agreements. It doesn’t preclude further action at an international level – indeed it strengthens the case for it. And – given my own concern that the charge of genocide should only ever be made when there is indisputable evidence of mass killing and proof of intent – it would, according to Nice, “discourage, and probably significantly reduce, casual and often instrumental assertions that genocide is being committed.”

So it may or may not apply to China. But it would signal Britain’s intent – to the Chinese regime and every other brutal dictatorship – that we will not stand by while grave atrocities are committed. For these reasons I hope Members of Parliament will support it when it comes to the House of Commons.

The Conservative Party Human Rights Commission’s report on Xi Jinping’s human rights record follows its previous one in 2016, titled The Darkest Moment. As the Commission acknowledges, the title four and a half years ago was with hindsight a little premature, for the darkness has clearly deepened – hence the title of the new report. It makes sad reading, but it should be read in every foreign ministry in the world. If only the Chinese people could themselves read it too, for then they would realise the degree to which millions of their fellow citizens are persecuted and imprisoned by a cruel regime. That cruelty requires a robust, co-ordinated and effective response by the free world, and I hope Britain – together with the new US administration and our other allies, will lead that effort.

Jamie Green: Now that Brexit has finally happened, Scotland’s ambitions must stretch beyond Europe

12 Jan

Jamie Green is Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Education and an MSP for West Scotland.

They say that January is a time for renewal, new starts and new resolutions. After the 2020 we’ve just had, that message of renewal is more important than ever, but I can think of nobody in greater need of wiping the slate clean and replacing the broken record than our very own First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

I appreciate that it’s difficult for a veteran politician of 30 years to find somewhere to start fresh, but I might gently suggest to the First Minister that she embraces 2021 with a more positive vision of what Scotland can achieve going forward. Instead of endless re-running of votes and arguments, all of which she sadly lost, the leader of Scotland’s government needs to embrace the reality of the new world we are in.

“A No Deal Brexit would be a catastrophic outcome for Scotland” – she proclaimed, before ordering her MPs to vote for one in the closing days of 2020. To her, Brexit has always been an emotive weapon used to stir up division and further her grievance with the UK government. But also one of absolute hypocrisy and paradoxical ironies.

She would happily drive our fishermen and their fish straight back into the murky seas of the Common Fisheries Policy, and she would herd our farmers back behind the fences of the Common Agricultural Policy, if it meant achieving her lifelong political mission of Scottish separation, at the expense of everyone and everything else. Her swansong perhaps, at any cost.

Just last weekend, her own deputy labelled a second independence referendum “an essential priority” without a hint of irony, apparently unaware of the global pandemic and the mounting Coronavirus death toll in Scotland.

The truth is that she must be spitting nails at the UK’s orderly managed exit, because the SNP calculated it had more to gain by pushing for a chaotic departure rather than acting in the national interest. The truth is that the SNP was desperate for the final week of 2020 to be marked with disruption and for 2021 to begin with the very No Deal exit from EU transition that it had spent years condemning with the might of a pulpit preacher.

They talked of the cliff edge ad-infinitum, only to then vote for one when it came to the actual crunch: do as I say, not as I do.

Now that Brexit has finally happened, and we have actually left the EU, how on earth can Scotland be reassured that their First Minister will embrace the New Year and the opportunities that awaits us with the zeitgeist it merits? The problem for Scotland is that she won’t.

If only her separatist government put such effort into its domestic policy as it does its interest in repealing referenda, perhaps we wouldn’t have seen the demise of our world-class education, our judicial system or the seemingly perpetual decline of our economy under the reigns of the nationalist government in St. Andrew’s House in Edinburgh.

When you think about it, the only people who should be afraid of the new freedoms we have outside the EU, is the SNP. With more powers devolved to these islands, they might simply now have to deliver for Scotland rather than just pointing the finger at Westminster when things go wrong.

The bogeyman is neither Europe nor London. The power and responsibility lie firmly in Edinburgh. Be it agricultural policy, or fishing infrastructure. Be it environmental ambition or investment in infrastructure – the Scottish Government has much to account for and much to deliver.

The stark reality facing all governments is to make sure that Brexit actually works for everybody in Scotland, not just those who voted for it. Instead of listening to what Scotland can’t do without Brussels, I want our government to start talking about the opportunities on our doorstep. Our global ambition, if you like.

What about a study abroad scheme with Australia? A financial services agreement with the US, so firms in Edinburgh can have unfettered access to the multi trillion-dollar market in New York? Scotland will always be a close partner and ally of Europe, but our ambitions must stretch beyond the continent of the political union we have just taken leave of if we are to succeed.

Nobody is saying that things will be easy, but ambition is core to success.

We begin 2021 with a new deal, a new relationship, and a new future, which does require some patience I admit. But waiting is not a quality that Sturgeon can rely on, because the political life expectancy of SNP leaders who lose referendums is very limited, and she has been on the losing side of every referendum she has ever campaigned on.

Unlike the First Minister, I believe that Scotland can truly thrive outside of the constraints of Brussels. I want those powers of the Brexit bounty repatriated to these shores, so that every corner of the UK can take advantage of a global UK. The deal thrashed out with the EU, and accepted by both sides, means Scotland will succeed by not only having tariff-free access the European Single Market, but by allowing us to benefit from new free trading arrangements with economic giants such as the US, India, Japan, and Canada. Our whisky, our salmon, our smokies: a global market for a truly global Scotland.

It now just needs a First Minister with the resolution, a new found one if you will, to work with and not against the grain and make a success of our renewed place in the world.

Graham Allen: It’s time to review our democracy on a sustainable all-party basis

6 Jan

Graham Allen is Convener of The Citizens’ Convention on UK Democracy and was MP for Nottingham North 1987-2017.

Winston Churchill once said “Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. Regardless of political affiliation, all of those of us who call ourselves democrats worry about keeping that system viable-the best “worst” it can be. Our democracy feels fragile and poorly maintained. If it is to have a strong long-term future it now needs some serious love and attention. The Government’s election promise to create a Commission on Constitution, Democracy and Rights presents the perfect opportunity to do just that, in an overarching way or in bite size pieces as is happening on Judicial Review, Human Rights and English devolution.

If we want to renew UK democracy then people of good will from all political backgrounds have to come up with some persuasive ideas and arguments. Above all these must remake an effective partnership between a jaundiced public and a political class that sometime struggles to know what to do next to reconnect with them. However in a sometimes depressing picture of national and international democracy there is a growing glimmer of hope – and oddly it has a pedigree going back to ancient Greece .

One unremarked item has been that all the four main UK-wide parties actually agreed in their last election manifestos on the need for a review of our democracy, be it by a commission, a citizens’ convention, or assembly. The optimism here for democrats of all persuasions is based upon the recognition that elections alone are not enough and like the ancient Greeks using deliberative democracy to re-engage citizens thoughtfully with their politics is an important way to restore trust and participation. This would not only halt the decline of faith in UK democracy but also take it to its next evolution, a cultural development as significant as was “Votes for All”.

It is time to review our democracy on a sustainable all-party basis, and make it strong enough to transcend the complacency, elitism and populism that threaten its very existence. Government and Parliament will of course have the central role. By agreeing in advance each step of the way (including an impartial governing board) they will be completely confident that deliberation is a welcome improvement of our democracy not a threatening alternative to it. Citizens and elected representatives who have hitherto felt powerless can work with government to play our part as sensible and constructive partners. The moment has come. As Hillel is reputed to have said “If not now, when? If not me, who?”.

So what is deliberative democracy? It is tasty and nourishing slow-cooked politics, the antithesis of our present fast food McPolitics. Deliberation is where a microcosm of the nation, region or locality propose recommendations for consideration by legislatures. In essence a group of 80 or so citizens, transparently and scientifically selected by IPSOS-Mori or suchlike come together to conduct, in the words of deliberative democracy guru James Fishkin, “democracy in good conditions”.

They are properly fed and watered, travel costs paid, even a small honorarium of thanks and a decent hotel for however many weekend days it takes them. Perhaps most importantly citizens don’t bring the baggage and prejudices of political parties with them. A point is made to discuss issues respectfully and with good manners with the seven or eight people on your table, a mind opening counterpoint to the yah-boo of the House of Commons chamber and the distortion of political and anti-social media spinners.

The amazing thing is that deliberative democracy is actually working and gaining traction in the UK and across the globe. The record shows that deliberators “everyday people“ like us are – with balanced briefing and professional facilitation – perfectly able to take forward issues which are found to be intractable to usual political processes. “Give us your toughest problem “ is the challenge from deliberators.

Scores of democratic deliberations are now underway or successfully completed for example on abortion in Ireland, nuclear power in South Korea, energy policy in Texas, social care in Northern Ireland, waste recycling in South Australia, the UK Parliament’s own Climate Change Assembly and three UK-government sponsored local deliberations in Dudley, Cambridge and Test Valley which are spawning many others.

Finally deliberators hand their finished gift to their elected representatives to do their part, the consideration and decision. Hitherto these representatives that we elect have been hamstrung by whips, tribal party loyalties, electoral short termism, lobbying and campaigning money to the extent that they are often unable to progress issues. I know since I was one for 30 years.

Hence, far from feeling squeezed out or undermined, representatives actually welcome the new democratic dyno-rod of deliberation to unblock our constipated political processes. They see that renewing a mutually respectful pre-legislative partnership with citizens strengthens them get the job done that we elected them and the rest of our parliament to do,

In the UK, the independent Citizens’ Convention on UK Democracy with senior all party support has been working out how to use deliberative processes to enable citizens to help review our UK democratic institutions and to discuss with Government the political endgame to deliver change. Our proposal has been sent to the PM and Michael Gove for consideration.

We will continue to work with HMG and across the political spectrum to create an effective and inclusive review. An agenda for Citizen’s deliberation agreed by HMG might include the second chamber, devolution, clarifying “who does what” in our politics and much else. The joint ambition is to go beyond the “40 white guys in Philadelphia” model and, using traditional and the latest on-line techniques, back up our groups of 80 citizens by engaging with potentially millions of founding mothers and fathers in a UK national conversation on improving our democracy.

This independent process means that these initial recommendations will be citizens’ proposals not yours or mine or those of our favourite pressure group. They will ultimately be respectfully handed to HMG’s Review and to our elected representative for the final consideration and decision that their electoral mandate deserves. Pericles remarked “We are unique in considering the man who takes no part in public affairs not to be apolitical, but useless”. It is time for you and I to stop being a useless spectator and play our part on the democratic pitch while we still have it.

We are right to test and question this new-fangled deliberative democracy but you will be pleased to discover that much like elections, it’s rediscovered twin, deliberation is a process adapted from the ancients. It is not politics like we used to do, it is politics that every civilised society should aspire to do.

Before any further public announcement about reviews of  UK democracy we will continue our work with the Government on how to give everybody a meaningful stake in their democratic future. We can look at the growing number of successful examples of deliberation from home and abroad or maybe, just ask the Greeks.

The Deal in Detail 6): Law and Constitution

1 Jan

Richard Ekins is Head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project and Professor of Law and Constitutional Government in the University of Oxford.

In his foreword to the Government’s explanation of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the Prime Minister says “the agreement provides for the UK to take back control of our laws, affording no role for EU law and no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice. The only laws we will have to obey are the ones made by the Parliament we elect.”

Strictly, no agreement with the EU has ever been necessary for the UK to take back control of its laws, but the Prime Minister’s point is that nothing in this new agreement requires the UK to conform to EU law or otherwise to be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The truth of this claim is obviously important. So too is the question of whether, even if the ECJ’s jurisdiction is brought to an end, the agreement might (inadvertently) compound the problem of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), strengthening its jurisdiction over the UK by tying it to free trade with the EU.

Like the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, when ratified, will be an international treaty between the UK and the EU. Both agreements make provision for dispute resolution, and in neither agreement is the ECJ the arbiter, for the obvious reason that the ECJ is the EU’s own court.

However, parts of the Withdrawal Agreement, especially the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, do make provision for EU law to continue to apply, in relation to which the ECJ has a continuing role. In adopting the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK agreed to legislate to give some of the agreement’s terms domestic legal force, including priority over other legislation.

There is no such requirement in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and the agreement does not import concepts of EU law or otherwise make provision for the UK to be subject to ECJ rule. The only limited exception concerns continuing UK participation in EU programmes, such as Horizon, in relation to which the ECJ obviously has a role. However, this is quite different from the UK agreeing to follow EU law and agreeing to be subject to the ECJ’s jurisdiction.

The Agreement creates a complex network of institutions that will manage relations between the UK and the EU across various fields. In the event of disputes, different options will be open, depending on the context, including third-party arbitration. In some cases, the UK and the EU may be free to suspend performance of obligations in retaliation to breaches. The UK and the EU will thus enforce the agreement by way of arbitration and diplomacy. The EU cannot enforce the agreement against the UK by way of the ECJ, which has no relevant jurisdiction.

At various points during the negotiations, the EU has sought from the UK an undertaking that it would remain a member state of the ECHR and would agree not to amend or repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. This was an obviously unreasonable negotiating aim. Happily, the Agreement contains no such undertaking. The point might seem academic because it is Government policy for the UK to remain party to the ECHR. However, the UK’s treaty right to leave the ECHR is an important protection. It would be open to a successive government, led by a latter-day Clement Attlee for example, to choose to leave. While the Agreement is to some extent conditional on mutual human rights assurances, they fall well short of an undertaking not to denounce the ECHR and thus to protect human rights by other (better) means.

In the opening words of the preamble to the Agreement, the UK and the EU reaffirm “their commitment to democratic principles, to the rule of law, to human rights, to countering proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to the fight against climate change, which constitute essential elements of this and supplementing agreements”.

Part Six, which concerns dispute resolution, again confirms that these are “essential elements” of the agreement. The UK and the EU agree to continue to uphold shared values and principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and reaffirm their respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the international human rights treaties to which they are parties. The UK is of course a party to the ECHR, but the agreement does not mention the ECHR at this point (the EU has a treaty commitment to join the ECHR, but the ECJ has frustrated its fulfilment; EU member states are parties to the ECHR). Respect for treaties to which one is a party is consistent with maintaining a right to leave in future.

Part Six provides that either the UK or the EU may terminate or suspend the operation of the Agreement if there has been “a serious and substantial failure” by the other party to fulfil any of the obligations that are essential elements of the Agreement. However, the agreement specifies that any measures adopted would have to be proportionate and for a failure to be serious and substantial failure, “its gravity and nature would have to be of an exceptional sort that threatens peace and security or that has international repercussions”.

The Agreement specifies that defeating the object and purpose of the Paris Agreement would count, but there is no mention of leaving the ECHR. The omission is justified, because denouncing the ECHR would not itself be a failure of respect for human rights. On the contrary, it might well be a decision that human rights, democracy and the rule of law are better realised by a mature parliamentary democracy not subject to the ECHR’s jurisdiction. While the EU might attempt to argue that denouncing the ECHR was a breach of the Agreement, the argument would be weak indeed. It would also be superfluous because the EU, like the UK, is free to terminate the entire Agreement provided it gives twelve months’ notice.

Part Three of the Agreement, which concerns law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, is somewhat more specific. The Agreement notes that the basis for cooperation is that the UK, the EU, and EU member states have long respected democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights, including rights set out in the UDHR and the ECHR, as well as the importance of giving domestic effect to the ECHR.

The Agreement disavows any intention to modify existing obligations to respect fundamental rights, especially those affirmed in the ECHR or, on the part of the EU and its member states, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Part Three permits the UK or the EU to terminate this part of the Agreement by giving nine months’ notice (other parts of the Agreement also provide for partial termination on nine months’ notice).

It also provides for earlier termination if the reason for termination is that the UK or an EU member state has denounced the ECHR, , specifying that in this case this part shall case to have effect from the date on which denunciation becomes effective (which the ECHR provides requires six months’ notice). Denouncing the ECHR would neither breach Part Three nor vitiate a condition on which the continuing application of Part Three depends; instead, the EU would have to choose to exercise its right to terminate.

In ratifying this agreement, the UK will not be undertaking not to withdraw from the ECHR, let alone not to amend or repeal the Human Rights Act. If the UK subsequently exercises its treaty right to leave the ECHR, it will be choosing, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, to live without an international (regional) human rights court.

Whether to make this choice is an important question of foreign policy, a question with significant constitutional implications. Leaving the ECHR would not be a breach of the Agreement. It would not justify suspension or termination of agreed terms of trade. It might be a reason for the EU to terminate law enforcement and judicial cooperation, but that would be a choice for the EU to make and the EU, like the UK, is in any case free to terminate the Agreement. If the UK were to leave the ECHR, it would be prudent to provide assurances to the EU that there would be no relevant change in the protection of liberty within domestic law. But whether to leave the ECHR, and how to protect human rights, would remain for the UK freely to decide.

This is the sixth of a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal.

Ranil Jayawardena: The trade deals keep coming. And today, as the new EU agreement takes effect, we look forward to more.

1 Jan

Ranil Jayawardena is Minister for International Trade, and is MP for North East Hampshire.

In 2019, I voted against Theresa May’s deal three times. Not because I wanted to leave the EU with No Deal, but because I believed we deserved better. This was the view of the British people too and, as Boris Johnson, David Frost and their team have proven, a better deal was possible. It is this deal – in force from today – that unleashes Britain’s potential, at home and around the world.

We are no longer restricted by the EU and can demonstrate our true potential on the world stage. In the last few weeks, I am delighted that we have secured trade deals with our good friends in Kenya, Vietnam, Singapore, and many more. Just this week, we signed a trade agreement with Turkey, a major win for British automotive, manufacturing and steel industries. These deals are only the tip of the iceberg in our mission to establish a truly Global Britain, leading from the front and championing free and fair trade.

In just two years, the United Kingdom has agreed trade deals with 63 countries outside the EU, from Japan and South Korea to Moldova and Mexico. This in itself is an unprecedented achievement, as no other country has ever negotiated so many trade deals simultaneously.

We’ve secured preferential trading terms for some £217 billion in non-EU bilateral trade, including the deal we signed with Japan – negotiated in record time and virtually – which guarantees better provisions for our world-leading services, digital and data sectors.

Britain is – once again – an independent trading nation, free to look beyond the horizon and seize the opportunities out there. It is through trade that she can build ever stronger partnerships around the world that not only generate economic value but, importantly, support our values – protecting our natural environment, defending democracy, and helping to transform the lives of people less fortunate around the world for the better.

We have now secured 97 per cent of the trade value that we set out to reach agreements for first, beyond the EU. And there’s more to come. Trade talks – as will now be apparent to all – often go down to the wire.

Laying the foundations for ambitious new trade deals

These agreements provide a strong foundation for our future trading relationships as we look to strengthen further trade ties globally through negotiating new and ambitious free trade agreements. By working together with forward-looking, like-minded nations, we will secure ambitious trade deals that benefit great British businesses, keep consumers in mind, and drive economic growth globally.

Our United Kingdom-Canada continuity trade deal signed this month slays the foundations – and secured commitment – to begin negotiating a bespoke British deal this year.

And our United Kingdom-Mexico deal enshrines our commitment to start negotiating a new trade deal with our Mexican friends too, which will secure even more benefits for British industry, and go further in areas of mutual interest such as data, digital trade, services and intellectual property.

That’s in addition to our ongoing negotiations with United States, Australia and New Zealand.

And our deal with Kenya, delivers long-term certainty, and preferential conditions, for businesses in both countries, benefitting consumers and investors, and supporting economic development. The deal has been constructed in such a way that other countries in East Africa will be able to join it and benefit their own people whenever they are ready.

Many of these deals and negotiations are significant steps towards Britain’s accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) too, to which we aim to apply for formal accession in early 2021.

Joining the CPTPP would put Britain at the heart of an increasingly influential trade network of 11 dynamic economies in the Asia-Pacific region that already accounts for 13 per cent of global GDP and would rise to 16 per cent with our accession. This is a trade network that doesn’t tell countries how to govern themselves nor how they can trade with their friends – but it does help remove tariffs on 95 per cent of goods.

All of this is ultimately good news for great British manufacturers, producers and exporters, supporting jobs in every corner of the United Kingdom. But it is not just our businesses that will benefit. British consumers will be able to continue to enjoy cheaper household goods on supermarket shelves from Chilean Wine to Kenyan Tea.

We have secured all this against the odds and facing unprecedented challenges.

The deals we’ve done are just the beginning, but they do set out clearly our ambition as a free trading nation to champion British interests and push for ambitious and forward-thinking trade partnerships. And that’s why I have been getting into the detail with our friends in India and the subcontinent, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and Mercosur.

Our future trading relationships, over the next few years, will be based on strong relationships and will be all about the detail.

Global Britain in the years ahead

Having served as the Conservative Party’s Deputy Chairman – and Vice-Chairman previously, with responsibility for policy – I enjoyed meeting Party members, listening to Parliamentarians, and working with the Cabinet and advisers in devising our manifesto ahead of the General Election, then campaigning on it on the doorsteps of constituencies across the country.

One of its clear promises was to secure free trade deals with countries that cover 80 per cent of our trade within three years – and it is good news that we are well on our way. All the folks at the Department for International Trade have been working flat out to strike the trade deals we have.

But it is clear that, now more than ever, we must also look to new markets, to help diversify our trade routes and supply chains in regions like Latin America, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific.

As Britain lifts her eyes for the first time in almost 50 years, our guiding principle over the next few years will remain the same; we will negotiate new trade deals that champion the interests of British businesses and the British people.

Global Britain is here, and is ready to show the world her true potential once again.

Alberto Costa: There are too many barriers to Britishness. Post-Brexit, it’s time for a more welcoming citizenship policy.

10 Dec

Alberto Costa is the MP for for South Leicestershire.

Citizenship, being British, plays a foundational role in our society. It is a shared bond between us. Yet successive Labour and Conservative governments have neglected citizenship policy to such an extent that it’s been hard to tell if its aim has been to encourage people to become citizens or to try to deter them. We are now presented with an ideal moment to put that right.

With Britain having left the EU and with a new, points-based immigration system in place, our Prime Minister has an opportunity, as part of his Global Britain agenda, to be banging the drum for Britishness and a more positive, welcoming approach to citizenship for those who wish to settle and contribute to the UK.

The independent inquiry into citizenship policy, which I chaired for the respected think tank British Future, publishes its report today, setting out practical proposals for reform. Discussing these issues with the inquiry panel – which included fellow Conservative MP Steve Double and Fraser Nelson, Editor of The Spectator, as well as Andrew Gwynne MP from the Labour benches and voices from civil society – has strengthened my belief that we can galvanise a broad consensus for a positive citizenship agenda.

Research for the inquiry found two thirds of the British public agreeing that if someone decides to live in Britain long-term, it is a good thing if they have an opportunity to become British by taking citizenship. So it makes sense that UK citizenship policy should welcome those who want to make this commitment to our country and who pass the various tests of eligibility: speaking good English, being of good character, and knowing about the UK’s customs and culture.

Just as the new points-based immigration system draws on the experience of Australia and Canada, we could learn much from their approaches to citizenship too. The Canadian handbook for new citizens opens with a warm message of welcome from the Queen. However, Her Majesty does not appear in our Life in the UK handbook until page 121. It is a symbolic point – but we could very simply and easily emulate that welcoming, positive tone towards those who are seeking to become British.

If we agree that becoming British is to be welcomed (and I would hope all Conservatives would welcome full integration of those contributing to our country), citizenship should not be placed beyond the financial reach of, for instance, many social care or NHS staff and their families, nor be so complicated that most people can’t apply without a lawyer. If we believe that it can aid integration, we should make it easier, not harder, for children born here to become citizens.

British citizenship is special – but we do not make it special by setting unnecessary barriers. ConservativeHome readers may be shocked to learn that the cost of citizenship in the UK is the highest in the western world. Indeed, the combined cost of applying for citizenship in Australia, Canada, the USA and France still does not add up to the cost of a single application in Britain. The fee of £1,330 is almost four times the cost to the Home Office of processing an application.

As part of the latest Global Britain agenda, as Conservatives we are now seeking to attract the brightest and the best through our new points-based immigration system. A positive citizenship agenda would encourage those whom we are now seeking to attract and who have chosen our country as the place to contribute, settle, raise a family and pay their taxes, to take that extra step and consider citizenship. It should review citizenship policy – covering eligibility, processes and costs – to secure the benefits that citizenship can bring for shared identity and integration.

And at the end of the process when people do eventually become British citizens, we should welcome them and celebrate their becoming British – not hide the events away in some gloomy council building. New, high-profile citizenship ceremonies – held in iconic British locations such as the Palace of Westminster, Edinburgh Castle or Old Trafford – would send a clear message that this is something of which we can all be proud.

Our report goes on to propose an annual, high-profile ceremony where Her Majesty the Queen and the Prime Minister award honorary citizenship to a select number of people who have been outstandingly brave or made a great contribution to life in the UK, either as an individual or because they represent a particular group whose contribution is valued, such as NHS staff or those who helped develop the Oxford Covid-19 vaccine.

Debates about migration, and who can come to the UK, have now been largely settled. It is time to focus on the people who have made their lives here, and on ensuring that a Global Britain embraces those who want to contribute to our shared society. So it is my hope that the Prime Minister, and indeed all of us as Conservatives, will seize this opportunity to take a new, pro-Britishness approach to citizenship, welcoming those who have made this country their home.

How the EU must wish it had accepted May’s Chequers offer

9 Dec

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.

Liam Fox was right. The former trade secretary has been much mocked for his remark that a trade deal with the EU would be “one of the easiest in human history”. Two and a half years later, that deal has still not been done and, as I write, there is a real prospect that the talks will break down. Yet Fox’s reasoning was sound. The most difficult aspects of trade negotiations, in general, are the opening of markets and the recognition of each other’s standards. In this instance, neither issue arises. Britain and the EU already have access to each other’s markets and reciprocal standards. Every barrier would be a costly move away from the status quo. For once, the inertia bias pulls towards free trade.

So what is the problem? Why wasn’t a deal struck long ago? Well – and this is where Foxie was correct – it wasn’t because of differences over trade. The purely commercial aspects of the deal seem to have been agreed easily enough. The hold-up, as everyone knows, is over other matters, notably fisheries and what Brussels negotiators (and most British media) misleadingly call the “level playing field”.

Neither of these disputes is primarily economic. We keep being told that the fishing industry accounts for a tiny proportion of Britain’s GDP, but the same is true for the EU. More to the point, the only way in which EU trawlers would be wholly excluded from British waters is if there were no deal. A deal would mean a phased reduction in access for Continental vessels, but not a reduction to zero. Whatever the EU’s reasons for holding out on fisheries, concern for French skippers is plainly not one of them.

Similarly, when it comes to the level playing field, Brussels doesn’t truly fear that Britain will abolish the minimum wage, scrap its environmental rules or subsidise its industries with a view to hostile dumping. British social and employment standards are higher than the EU’s requirements, its green targets more ambitious and its levels of state aid lower.

No, in both cases, the issue is emotional rather than economic. Eurocrats are still affronted by the 2016 referendum result. A few explicitly want Britain to suffer, even if that means that the 27 suffer, too. Even those who, rationally, accept that the best way to maximise their own prosperity is to have a free and open trading relationship with their biggest market sometimes struggle, psychologically, to follow that logic all the way through. Hence all their snide remarks and passive-aggressive tweets.

Britain’s other trade talks – first with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, then with the United States, then with India, Mercosur and the Gulf states – have been premised on the idea that both sides want to maximise their prosperity. We recently agreed a deal with Switzerland which covers pretty much the same ground as the EU talks. Foxite in its simplicity, it largely involved the two sides agreeing to leave things as they were. Indeed, the main complicating factor was EU pressure on Switzerland not to agree to too much.

Why, then, do Brussels negotiators talk of “granting” tariff-free access as if trade were an act of kindness? Because, in truth, they have not come to terms with Brexit. The EU thinks of itself as a modern empire (see speeches by José Manuel Barroso, Guy Verhofstadt et al) and its attitude to Britain is that of a metropolitan power toward a renegade province. They find it hard to let go. They want some remaining emblems of suzerainty.

We British should understand. We have, from time to time, found ourselves in the EU’s shoes. When the bulk of Ireland broke away, for example, London struggled to reconcile itself to the notion that it there was now a truly independent country next door. It imposed all sorts of conditions on the new state, including an oath of allegiance to the Crown, the continuing use of three Irish ports and a guarantee that the Anglo-Irish Treaty would have legal precedence over measures adopted by the Irish parliament.

In truth, these measures were more decorative than functional. Ireland after 1921 was, in its essentials, an independent country; but another generation passed before it formally assumed the final attributes of sovereignty without British opposition.

Fisheries and the level playing field are, so to speak, the EU’s treaty ports and oath of allegiance – symbols that Britain is a semi-protectorate rather than with an equal sovereign power. While Eurocrats would no doubt phrase that sentence differently, the truth is that they see Britain as a rule-taking dependent, like Macedonia or Ukraine, rather than as a wholly independent nation.

The funny thing is that, when Theresa May offered them such a relationship at the 2018 Salzburg summit, they threw it back in her face. Perhaps, as reports suggested at the time, they were simply put off by her manner. Perhaps they were not prepared, on principle, to agree to anything proposed by the renegade province. Either way, they must now wish they had grabbed that deal.

Garvan Walshe: Democracies need to pull together to stop Chinese subversion of the open global economy

3 Dec

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party. He runs TRD Policy.

Chinese aggression hit the headlines after Beijing imposed punitive tariffs on Australian wine. But resisting Beijing’s exploitation of the international economy to build up its own power needs democracies to do far more than buy the odd bottle (or case) of Cab-Sauv.

On Tuesday, the China Research Group, led by Tom Tugendhat and Neil O’Brien, released a hard hitting report, Defending Democracy in a New World, describing a toolkit of things democracies can do to limit China’s abuse of the international system (I was involved in drafting the report).

Quite rightly, the report emphasises the importance of engaging with China, and welcomes Chinese economic progress, which, since Deng Xiaoping began to open the Chinese economy in 1979, has brought huge gains in the standard of living of billions of Chinese people, and indirectly, to the rest of the world.

Yet that international economic system is based on fundamental principles that China has been systematically violating. Human rights abuses have intensified since Xi Jinping consolidated power, from the concentration camps into which Uighurs have been crammed, to the destruction of civil liberties and democratic rights in Hong Kong, and the totalitarian oppression to which all Chinese citizens are subjected. China is bullying its neighbours, even to the point of preventing Taiwan helping fight the Covid–19 pandemic through the World Health Organisation, and has been rearming to back that intimidation with force.

Defending Democracy’s most important contribution however, is that it identifies the core source of Chinese Communist Party power and presents a set of practical measures democracies can take to blunt this expansionism. Today’s China is capable of reaching into the open economies of the West and pressing the undoubted economic achievements of Chinese industry and technology into the service of the Chinese state.

When globalisation brought barriers between states down, it did so on the implicit assumption that in market economies, the purpose of business was to make money – not serve the home states of the companies’ owners.

This created a world where it’s possible for all of us who can afford it, no matter where we are from, to own parts of foreign companies by buying shares in them, and have that ownership protected by the foreign country’s legal system. Instead of competing politically-like nineteenth century powers, we invest in each others’ economies and reap the benefits of companies competing with each other across a massive international market.

This ideal, however, is based on governments’ understanding that their job isn’t to promote “our own” companies at the expense of “theirs”, but to create an economic environment where a market economy could meet people’s needs and create jobs. Notwithstanding occasional outbursts of protectionism like France’s declaring dairy producer Danone a “strategic” industry, or outright state capture in some of the smaller ex-Communist European states, this ideal has mostly been upheld in the advanced economies of the world.

Xi Jinping’s China has seen that it is possible to apply the subversion of open Western economies, pioneered by the KGB, at industrial scale. When Western countries began to open up to each other after World War II, we did so on the condition that foreign trade and investment would not be used as a crude tool of political influence.

Perhaps seduced by the size of the Chinese market, and deceiving ourselves into thinking that as the Chinese grew richer, their political system would automatically grow democratic, we neglected to apply the same condition to Beijing. China is now going further, and using its power not only to enrich itself at the expense of a naive international economic and political system, but to start shaping the system’s rules in its own favour, and against liberal democracy.

This report is the start of a line of thinking that democracies, including of course the incoming Biden administration, need to join forces to impose costs on China for as long as its abuse of the international system continues. It contains some powerful measures that we can take to limit proposes some powerful measures that can be used to limit the extent of Beijing’s exploitation of our openness to further entrench its totalitarian rule.

As well as innovative specific measures to support the people of Hong Kong, and British National Overseas passport holders, to which the UK has a special responsibility, the report develops policies that can be applied by other democracies.

These include the systematic extension of Magnitsky Act-style sanctions to individuals responsible for human rights violations in China, including those in leadership positions.

Another key proposal is a “know your supplier” obligation to hold companies responsible for goods they sell that have been produced in supply chains where slave labour has been used.  Companies that fail to adequately investigate their own supply chains could be fined, and their directors be subject to personal liability and asset forfeiture if it is found that their wealth resulted from forced labour.

Chinese state-owned enterprises could be excluded from national-security sensitive infrastructure projects. Indeed, given the control the Chinese government exerts over even non-state owned enterprises such as Huawei, through its own national security legislation, the report could perhaps have gone further here, though considerable work is needed to make such restrictions compatible with WTO rules.

China’s participation in the open global economy has been good for China, and good for the rest of us,  but it has become clear that China is actively undermining the separation of politics and business upon which economic openness depends. Until Beijing changes its behaviour, democracies need to work together to ensure that China can no longer use its economic power to to bend the international system out of shape.

Joel Gladwin: International rivals are catching up on the UK’s fintech success. Here’s how we can defend our crown.

27 Nov

Joel Gladwin is Head of Policy at the Coalition for a Digital Economy (Coadec).

Our fintech sector is a great British success story. Investment into UK fintech companies is at record highs, accounting for over a third of all investment into the sector in Europe. Last year, London had more people working in fintech and a greater number of venture capital investment deals than any other city in the world.

Companies like Monzo, Starling, Revolut and TransferWise are all less than 10 years old but they have matured into global brands in their own right. They have also grown into formidable rivals for customers and their cash, putting pressure on the rest of the financial services sector to step outside its comfort zone, innovate rapidly and embrace a fail-fast, customer-centric culture.

Our historic strength in financial services, combined with forward-thinking regulators in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and pro-competition policy in the form of open banking, have all contributed to establishing London as the fintech capital of the world.

But that is enough backslapping for now.

Not only are our international rivals catching up when it comes to the volume of fintech deals, they are also drawing up plans to open up more financial – as well as non-financial – data for their fintechs to access and innovate. These plans go well beyond the limited scope of our own open banking regime. The key to defending our fintech crown will be building on this momentum.

Thankfully, the Government is already starting to think seriously about what comes next, with the Treasury and the FCA embarking upon a number of reviews this year including on payments regulations, open finance and the broader UK fintech sector.

Moving beyond open banking to open finance is the next logical step for our fintech sector’s growth and development. It will open up the savings, credit, mortgages and pensions sectors for innovation – and, ultimately, bring consumers more choice, convenience, and ease when it comes to managing their finances.

In its latest Digital Finance Strategy the EU has committed to establishing an open finance framework by 2024. As someone who was involved in the lobbying battles of getting PSD2 over the line – the EU regulation that made open banking possible – I know full well that this is an extremely ambitious target by European standards.

After all, the bureaucratic wranglings of Brussels led PSD2 to be an extremely lengthy project. It spanned five years (2013 to 2018), one directive, eight guidelines, six technical standards and seven opinions. And it has still not been delivered in parts of Europe to this very day. The UK’s approach towards a functional open finance ecosystem can now be quicker, leaner and more agile.

By returning to our principles based approach to regulation, rather than overly prescriptive technical standards, and enabling the market of AP specialists to get on and build the connections for open finance from below, new research by The Coalition for a Digital Economy (Coadec) suggests that it would be possible to unlock the benefits of open in two years.

This isn’t a novel idea either. It has been the approach taken by the Australian Government which has introduced arguably the most expansive open data regulatory initiative in the world.

The Australian Consumer Data Right (CDR) will give consumers the right to access not only their financial data but also utility and telecom data by 2021, even though they started on their journey two years later than us. A market-led, principles-based regulatory framework will allow the UK to deliver open finance much quicker than our near neighbours.

The Chancellor has also made it clear that he will “review our regulatory framework on financial services” and that “not being inside the EU more generally gives us a chance to do things differently.” One area that desperately needs the Treasury’s attention is the innovation-killing, anti-competitive, EU regulation that forces customers to re-authenticate third party access with their bank every 90 days – known as Secure Customer Authentication (SCA).

Imagine having to send your accountant, bookkeeper or financial adviser a new letter of authority every 90 days just so they can continue to work on your behalf. The chances of forgetting to do so would be high – potentially missing filing deadlines, payroll or important insights on your financial health. But this is precisely the situation that customers of accountancy software and financial adviser platforms face.

As a result, fintechs are forced to endure customer attrition rates between 13 per cent and 65 per cent according to industry data, rates which are not viable for any business at either end of the spectrum. This is made even worse by this process being managed by the very same banks for which open banking measures were introduced to provide competition. There is little incentive for them to get this right.

These barriers have thwarted open banking’s potential to add $1.4 billion to the UK’s GDP on an annual basis, according to analysis from the Centre for Economics & Business Research. It is vital that we address them.

The UK’s regulatory influence on the global stage will endure. Informal channels, networks and knowledge communities have always played a critical role in shaping the content and application of policy frameworks, especially in areas where technological progress necessitates new approaches such as fintech. By moving quickly to embrace an open finance environment, and correcting the deficiencies within existing European regulation, the UK can continue to lead on fintech.