Tories launch project ‘no fear’ as ‘no-deal’ scenario set out
BRITAIN will recognise some EU regulations in the event of a no-deal Brexit to ensure that the country does not grind to a halt, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
Government papers setting out what will happen if the UK leaves without a deal make clear that Britain will adopt a “flexible” approach to ensure EU medicines, car parts and chemicals are still available in the UK.
One industry source, who has seen several of the papers that are due to be published on Thursday, said the “permissive” nature of the plans suggest they are “project ‘no fear’”.
Concerns have been raised that the M20 will be turned into a giant lorry park because of huge disruption to cross-channel trade caused by the EU in the event of a no-deal.
However, away from customs, the papers offer a constructive way for Britain to continue trading with the EU after a no-deal Brexit. On medicines which are made in the EU, the papers say that the “UK regulator would take steps to keep market access for importers open to avoid disruption”.
The approach will, however, leave the UK open to claims that it is giving up some negotiating strength by agreeing to accept EU goods without ensuring British goods will be accepted on the Continent.
One source said that Britain “essentially gives up a negotiating card by saying to Brussels ‘here, have my market access’, but gets nothing back in return”.
EU exit talks restart between Dominic Raab, the Brexit Secretary, and Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, in Brussels on Tuesday. Mr Raab
will give a speech on Thursday, setting out the Government’s plans for a nodeal.
Last night, the Brexit Secretary said: “It is the responsibility of the EU to ensure its consumers and businesses are not harmed.
“The UK Government believes this is best achieved by both sides taking a non-disruptive approach and will be encouraging cooperation with the EU on no-deal planning.
“Securing a deal is still by far the most likely outcome, but we want to make sure that we clearly set out the steps that people, businesses and public services need to take in the unlikely event that we don’t reach an agreement.
“It’s the responsible thing for any government to do, to mitigate the risks and make sure the UK is ready to make a success of Brexit.”
Each of the 84 papers follows the same format, opening with remarks saying that a “no-deal” Brexit is unlikely, but that “we are a responsible government and we should be prepared”.
The papers – which will be published in batches – then set out “how it works now” and “how it works in a nodeal scenario”, with scenarios to allow companies to prepare.
Government officials described the papers as “sensible, proportionate, and part of a common-sense approach to ensure stability whatever the outcome of talks”.
A source said: “The truth is in some sectors there won’t be much change, it is a mixture.
“It is not a case of ‘worse for us and better for them’.”
Mr Raab will outline in his speech how the Government will mitigate the potential risks of leaving the EU without a deal and ensure continuity and stability for businesses and the general public.
Separately, a new report from campaign group Lawyers for Britain claims that fears of higher food prices and medicine shortages are “ridiculous and unjustified”.
The European Union is being “reckless” by using national security as a “bargaining chip” in the negotiations over Brexit, a defence minister warns today.
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Tobias Ellwood accused Brussels of “belligerence” and said it “beggars belief ” that it has failed to cooperate on post-Brexit security.
Tuesday’s terror incident is a stark reminder of how we remain in the cross hairs of a diverse spectrum of threats by those who challenge our values and wish us harm. We must remain resilient, unified and prepared to respond.
The evolving character of conflict, which now extends to terrorism, cyber-attacks, energy manipulation, cash disruption, information warfare and election interference, collectively reflects the constant, aggressive, sub-Article 5 challenges we now face. To compound matters, we are witnessing the start of long-term shifts in the balance of power away from Europe to regions less supportive of the global order we helped to create.
Changes in demographics and technology present further challenges. Africa, soon home to a quarter of the human race, is creating just one fifth of the jobs it needs to fill. In ungoverned spaces, this is a perfect recruitment ground for radicalism. Extreme global weather patterns bring the dangerous consequence of rising sea levels and crop failures are progressively leading to large-scale migratory movements.
5G, the next generation of cellular technology, heralds almost unthinkable implications for digital innovation that will transform all our lives. It will also revolutionise the art of conflict, such as swarm drone warfare. Whichever state (or states) harnesses 5G first is likely to claim the prize in data ownership and the commensurate leap in defence capabilities. China is in the lead.
The world is changing, and fast. However, none of these challenges is insurmountable and we can be in the driving seat. They require understanding, international leadership and teamwork. It is therefore disconcerting that Britain’s military, intelligence and policing contribution to European security could be drawn into the never-ending vortex of Brexit tit-for-tat. Let the Brexit talks continue – but European security should be unconditional.
For those who say “let us just focus on Nato” must recognise its precise remit. Nato provides hard power, a collective defence based around Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Security wise, working with the EU provides political and diplomatic leverage (for example, through sanctions) and agencies such as Europol that coordinate national policing and intelligence to help share live data on hostile and illegal activity.
To truly leverage our collective abilities, for the UK cannot deal with all these challenges alone, we must respect the structures through which our collective security is exercised, in tandem with our European partners.
The quid pro quo is a recognition of Britain’s considerable offering. We are Europe’s most formidable defence power, with the largest military budget, with privileged access to the US and one of only two European states possessing “full-spectrum” military capabilities, including a nuclear deterrent. Britain has proved its willingness to step forward as a force for good when other nations hesitate. Our overseas aid budget, again the largest in Europe, provides capacity to engage post-conflict or upstream, and bring stability or thwart a future conflict.
Alongside our soft and hard power is genuine expertise. Our response to the Novichock attack in Salisbury is a striking example. Thanks to our world-class CBRN capability and intelligence agencies, we not only exposed the agent and its origins but provided compelling evidence to convince more than 20 nations to expel Russian diplomats.
And so it beggars belief that Britain’s ability to contribute to European defence could be reduced to a bargaining chip on the Brexit negotiation table with a threat of limiting our participation in a series of programmes and prohibiting UK businesses from bidding for contracts.
The Galileo positioning navigation project has become the totemic example. Britain pioneered this project and, with our military providing a quarter of Europe’s total defence force, we will arguably utilise its functionality more than any other nation. Yet we are to be demoted to “observer status”. We may now be obliged to go it alone and to build our own system. The Russians must find this all extremely amusing.
It is only with a united voice that we can influence global events. Look at our hesitation over Syria. Keeping pace with global challenges and evolving threats will require even greater collaboration, not less. Let’s revisit the security partnership across Europe and not use our pre-eminent military expertise as a pawn in negotiations. Brexit or no Brexit, Britain is unconditionally committed to the security of Europe – and so should be the EU.
Brussels is threatening to limit our role in a series of programmes and ban UK businesses from bidding for contracts. Given the importance of Britain to continental security, this beggars belief