Dear Subscribers,
Donald Trump signed an executive order reducing tariffs on imports of cars from the UK and removing tariffs on aerospace equipment after meeting Keir Starmer at the G7 summit. Just days later, Trump was threatening to row back on a promise to reduce tariffs on UK steel unless the US receives further guarantees about the use of imported raw materials at the Port Talbot steel works.
The EU is reportedly pushing for a trade deal with the US which is modelled on the deal struck with the UK a few weeks ago. Remainers used to warn that, without the help of the EU, Britain would be unable to negotiate favourable trading arrangements with major world economies. On the contrary, as an independent country Britain is able to move faster without worrying about how Austrian farmers or Spanish fishermen will respond to proposals.
Where the UK leads, the EU follows
The US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday night. The Iranian government has promised to retaliate and has rejected calls to return to the negotiating table. The Iranian parliament has voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping land for the oil industry, leading to fears of an imminent price shock.
The President of the EU Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, is facing a political crisis after withdrawing plans for new environmental regulations. The socialist and liberal contingents in the EU Parliament have accused her of pandering to the far-right. Von der Leyen’s centre-right European People’s Party rely on liberal and socialist votes to pass legislation in the Parliament. Both blocs have threatened to withdraw future support.
Commission faces crisis
The EU has passed new rules restricting funding for political parties to those which sign up to the EU’s ‘values’. Currently, political parties which win seats in the EU Parliament are given funding for office and staffing costs in Brussels. The move seems designed to make the EU less democratic, ensuring only those parties which subscribe to the status quo are properly resourced to represent their voters.
Media
Damian Pudner on the Bank of England and the Labour Party
Brian Monteith on the Chancellor’s chances of survival
Blog
Government U Turn on Not for EU Labels. What is going on? By Dr Dan Boucher
In this long read on the latest twist in the tortuous history of Northern Ireland’s Windsor Framework, the Government is taking powers to force companies in GB to adopt expensive ‘Not for EU’ labelling to avoid mainland firms withdrawing from the Northern Ireland market. Dr Dan Boucher criticises the legality and practicality of what is a government’s U turn on this issue.
It is humiliating that any part of the United Kingdom should be required by 27 other states to place labels on UK goods retailed within it, that define those goods, not in terms of the UK, but in terms of the other 27. It is also humiliating that in order to prevent supply chain breakdown the rest of the country should then have to embrace this practice, their companies living with the uncertainty that at any time they may receive a diktat requiring them to comply with Not for EU labelling for certain product lines across the whole UK. Not only that but this sense of humiliation is further compounded by the revelation that the Windsor Framework has been used to mislead the people of the UK, generating the sense that it either removes or diminishes the Irish Sea border, making NI less alienated from GB, and thus the UK less partitioned, on account of being given the option of shorter border documents, when in truth it only presented a redistribution of a set basket of border frictions.
Key Points
During the Spending Review last week, the Chancellor promised to stop the practice of renting out hotels to house asylum seekers by 2029. On the face of it, this seems like a positive development. The current system is patently unfair and ruinous to local tourist industries. But (not for the first time) the government is refusing to address the underlying issue — illegal immigration — and instead moving the problem from hotels to the private rental market.
The use of hotels to house asylum seekers is a gift to headline-writers and immigration sceptic politicians: while British people in need of housing languish at the bottom of waiting lists, newcomers are put straight into smart hotels, with room and board provided. Not only is the practice grossly unfair, it is detrimental to local economies reliant on tourism. With the hotels full of asylum seekers, tourists have nowhere to stay, and local businesses suffer the consequences.
The only real solution to the problem is to reduce levels of immigration, especially illegal immigration. More people landing in Britain means fewer places to live to go round. The government has some power to shift the burden from hotels to the private rental sector, but they will never eliminate the problem unless the population stops growing so rapidly. The only other way to relieve the pressure would be to build new housing much faster, but, despite making promises, there seems to be little urgency in the government to remove barriers to development.
Housing illegal immigrants in private rental accommodation may end up being more damaging, both for the Labour Party and for the country, than housing people in hotels. The direct effect of taking hotel rooms off the market is only felt locally, but increased pressure on rent and the availability of rental accommodation would be felt much more widely. Housing is already prohibitively expensive in many UK cities. How much worse will it get when the government is snapping up tens of thousands of homes a year to give away to people who have only just arrived without a visa?
