Brexit is threat to EU link on security, MPs warn
May in denial over ramifications
MPS HAVE accused the Government of “complacency” over post Brexit security links with the EU.
The UK would be less safe if it loses access to key databases and tools used by police to track criminals and terrorists, according to a report from the Commons Home Affairs committee.
It flagged up the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), which contains 76.5 million alerts on missing and wanted individuals, and lost and stolen objects.
UK authorities searched the database more than 500 million times last year, and senior officers have repeatedly highlighted its importance.
The committee said it was “seriously concerned” about the absence of any reference to SIS II in the political declaration on the future UK-EU relationship.
The two sides have agreed to consider how to deliver capabilities that “approximate” those enabled by mechanisms such as SIS II and the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS).
Home Secretary Sajid Javid told the committee last month: “In terms of keeping our country safe, SIS II is a nice-to-have, but our country is still safe even if, for whatever reason, we did not get access to that system.”
But the committee said it did not share this view.
West Yorkshire MP Yvette Cooper, who chairs the committee, said: “We are worried about the prospect of a security downgrade as a result of this deal.”
PRIME MINISTER Theresa May has signalled that MPs could be given the power to decide whether the UK goes into a controversial Brexit backstop arrangement regarding the Northern Irish border.
Mrs May indicated Parliament would choose between triggering the backstop or extending a transition period after the UK formally quits the EU.
The backstop, intended to prevent the return of a hard border in Northern Ireland, is highly controversial as Brexiteer MPs claim it traps the UK into obeying rules set by Brussels without a say over them.
The Government says it aims to conclude a comprehensive trade deal with the EU before a backstop arrangement would be needed. But Mrs May’s move is likely to be seen as a bid to bolster flagging support ahead of a crunch Commons vote on her EU withdrawal deal next Tuesday – a showdown the PM made clear she would not postpone.
Senior Conservative MP Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee, said he would welcome the vote being deferred if no solution could be found to differences within the party over the backstop.
And former prime minister Tony Blair said Mrs May was facing the prospect of “hitting a brick wall at speed” next Tuesday, and would be better advised to act as “facilitator” in the search for a Brexit solution which can command the support of a majority of MPs.
He predicted that no consensus would be found in the Commons and the issue would have to be put to a second referendum. Asked if Mrs May should pull the December 11 vote, Mr Blair said: “Personally, I don’t see what the point is in going down to a huge defeat.”
Chief Whip Julian Smith acknowledged he faces an “uphill challenge” to persuade MPs to back Mrs May’s deal, but insisted that “it’s all to play for”.
Speaking to ITV News , Mr Smith said: “There is no plan, no plan for a vote loss, this is the deal, this deal that we are putting on the table, this is the deal that we need to get through Parliament.” Mrs May told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “There will be a choice between, if we get to that point, a choice between going into the backstop and extending the transition period. Now, there are pros and cons of both sides of that. People have a concern of the backstop, that we could be in it indefinitely. But, in the backstop we have no financial obligations, we have no free movement, we have very light level playing field rules with the EU.”
Mrs May’s comments came as the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) insisted it will withdraw support for her Government if the Prime Minister presses ahead with the Brexit deal with the EU.
But the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, reiterated that the agreement with Mrs May was the only deal on offer.
In the Withdrawal Agreement, the backstop would be introduced if a trade deal had not been agreed by the time the transition period ends in December 2020.
Meanwhile, Mrs May and Jeremy Corbyn look unlikely to faceoff in a televised debate ahead of the crucial Commons vote after ITV announced it will not broadcast it. The BBC previously scrapped plans to air it.
There is no plan for a vote loss, this is the only deal. Julian Smith, Government Chief Whip.
NOT ONLY do Theresa May and her team appear to be in denial about the probable scale of next week’s rebellion over Brexit, but the Prime Minister’s defence of domestic policy masked the very real financial difficulties facing local councils.
The Government is now in so much paralysis that yesterday’s announcement on town hall funding levels for the 2019-20 financial year has now been put on hold until after the conclusion of the Brexit debate and, presumably, the vote’s fallout.
Even though English councils will again see their purse-strings tightened as they continue to pay a disproportionate price for the Tory party’s austerity agenda, local authorities are again denied the clarity that they require to plan key services, like education or care for the most vulnerable, for the next financial year, never mind the following decade.
This explains why more than 100 school leaders, teachers and governors from across the country will gather today for a special summit to examine – and debate – the crisis in funding for children with special educational needs.
A recent report by the NAHT teaching union showed that 94 per cent of schools are finding it harder to resource the support required to meet the needs of pupils with SEND than they did two years ago.
Concerns were highlighted in powerful Parliamentary speeches by Hull West MP Emma Hardy and Tory peer Margaret Eaton, who used to lead Bradford Council. It would help if Mrs May actually acknowledged such difficulties rather than remaining in denial about them, a response which does her, or the country, no favours whatsoever.