Welsh Government not offering an explanation over Brexit ‘deal’
Chief reporter Martin Shipton says the Welsh Government’s decision to end its opposition to a Brexit ‘power grab’ is about more than a capitulation to Westminster
FOR a brief period of time, something remarkable seemed to be happening.
The Welsh Labour government of Carwyn Jones was standing shoulderto-shoulder with Scotland’s SNP administration led by Nicola Sturgeon.
In Theresa May they had a common enemy: a weakened Prime Minister who wanted to re-assert her diminished authority by demonstrating that Westminster retained supremacy despite the existence of upstarts in Wales and Scotland who claimed to hold democratic mandates of their own.
Party tribalism appeared to have been set aside in favour of a commitment to principle.
In both countries the elected governments, together with the majority of legislators, thought it was important that powers that in the normal course of events would come to Wales and Scotland should not be intercepted by Westminster.
In response to the UK Government’s argument that it was necessary to establish UK-wide frameworks to ensure common rules in the socalled UK Single Market, Scotland and Wales said they had no objection to such frameworks themselves, but wanted the content of them to be agreed by all the relevant administrations following a negotiation between equal parties.
This was the line held by both the Welsh and Scottish governments until last week. Both, of course, had gone to the trouble of passing socalled Continuity Bills aimed at stopping Westminster’s power grab in its tracks.
Then the Welsh Government decided to drop its opposition, saying it had reached a compromise deal with Westminster that allowed 24 powers to be intercepted – but for a maximum of seven years.
There are a couple of obvious questions, the answers to which we can only speculate about.
Why did the UK Government insist on holding the powers for seven years – and why did the Welsh Government decide to drop its opposition?
Firstly it’s important to understand what the 24 powers are. They relate to things like the nature of agricultural support for farmers, the labelling of food products and the regulation of pesticides. Such areas may not instantly set the heart racing, but they are actually very important.
So far as agricultural support is concerned, the concern in Wales is that the UK Government will be more interested in supporting the kind of farming that prevails in England rather than the upland farming that is so important in Wales.
The labelling of food could become extremely controversial if the UK is left negotiating independent trade deals around the world.
It is known, for example, that the United States would want to export chlorinated chicken to the UK – something that is currently not possible because the EU does not permit it.
Knowing that many people would not want to buy such a product, the US would also want to ensure that the chlorinated nature of it was not referred to on the label when it was sold in supermarkets.
Our National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are more likely to want to ban chlorinated chicken than the current membership of the House of Commons, so it would be inconvenient from a trade deal point of view to complicate matters by giving Wales and Scotland a veto.
Westminster wants to be in a position to assure potential trading partners that it can deliver trade deals on the terms it is prepared to agree.
But why did the UK Government insist on being able to retain such a power for as long as seven years? Plaid Cymru AM Simon Thomas is convinced it confirms that Westminster expects international trade deals between the UK and other non-EU countries to take years to negotiate. That’s a position that seems sensible based on the past experience of the EU as a bloc negotiating with countries like Canada. But it never has been the official line of those arguing for Brexit, who have sought to maintain that such deals could be agreed very quickly.
Why did the Welsh Government change its mind and agree to what is undeniably a power grab? It hasn’t offered a convincing and coherent explanation, beyond saying that both sides had to compromise. We can’t be sure.
Maybe they simply came to the conclusion that the chances of succeeding in a Supreme Court case brought by the UK Government were not good and they wanted to save face.
Another initially plausible, but by no means solid, explanation offered by Simon Thomas is that there have been discussions behind the scenes between Welsh Labour and the party at Westminster, with the row over devolved powers seen as a sideshow in an increasingly fraught Parliamentary process over the nature of Brexit.
Such an interpretation is rejected out of hand by Welsh Government sources, who insist there was no involvement of Westminster Labour in the Welsh administration’s decision to agree a compromise.
So far as the Welsh Government is concerned, it has secured a concession from Westminster that no powers meant to come to Wales will be permanently held by the UK Government.
For many people, the argument will appear arcane and largely irrelevant. It may, however, become a live and tangible issue if the UK Government wants to allow a controversial pesticide to be used or if it wants to permit GM crops to be grown.
Or if it re-directs agricultural support in a way Welsh farmers find uncongenial.
I TOTALLY agree with Beth Morgan, Haverfordwest (April 26) with regard to Mark Drakeford, and his hopes of becoming First Minister.
He failed miserably when he was Health Minister, so the First Minister post will be a total disaster.
I was one of the protesters who travelled up to Cardiff Bay with many others, and I recall that when the petition was handed he wouldn’t even come and accept it, someone else was sent to receive it.
I recall also at that thinking it won’t do any good, once they have decided to implement these plans nothing will stop it, and it became fact, which is why many frightened mothers dread the prospect of travelling up to Carmarthen.
I feel this new idea of closing our A&E has already been decided, these “consultations” with the public are just a token gesture, and we are going to have a lot of frightened would-be emergency patients trying to make it to Carmarthen.
Perhaps the Welsh Assembly could do with a change of political party, as it looks as though it will always be Labour not voted in by Pembrokeshire, but by people further up the line who are surrounded by good hospital services available to them.
Barbara Wright Pembroke Dock