Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

To be fair, BMW profits in the first three quarters of 2022 was only 16.4 billion Euro, so they definitely need some taxpayer subsidies.

[Sheilbh]

Looks like a Northern Ireland deal is fairly close. It looks a lot like everyone has known it would for the last year or two - basically red lanes/green lanes. In part because the EU has confirmed with the data of trade between GB-NI that actually less than 10% goes onto the EU single market so it is relatively low risk for the integrity of the single market.

Slightly frustratingly, this sounds an awful lot like what then Taoiseach Enda Kenny's Europe advisor proposed in July 2016 and was told wasn't possible by the Commission, and a lot like what Theresa May proposed and was told wasn't possible. Although actually it goes beyond either of those proposals because it also includes SPS checks.

Obviously just sources within the EU at the minute rather than an agreement. But what's positive I think is that it sounds like both sides are working well together and, crucially, wanting to work out something that works for Northern Ireland - which requires this type of pragmatism and delicacy or even, as Jonathan Powell said of the Good Friday Agreement, constructive ambiguity:

Tony Connelly
@tconnellyRTE
NEW: The EU will accept the principle that GB goods shipped to NI and staying there should be treated differently to goods moving south into the single market and as such will agree to a green and red lane model at ports, as proposed by the UK, a senior EU official tells @rtenews
2/ Significantly, the green and red lanes, at Northern Ireland ports, will govern both animal health and food safety issues as well as customs formalities.  "It will be across the board," said the EU official.
3/ Such an acceptance will increase the chances that EU and UK negotiators will reach agreement on the Northern Ireland Protocol.  The handling of so-called sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues has alway been one of the most difficult throughout the negotiations.
4/ "We have acknowledged the unintended consequences of the Protocol and we know the most important thing is that we have a solution that works for Northern Ireland," the official told RTE News.
5/ However, the official stressed that the talks remain difficult and that key gaps remain to be bridged.
6/ On the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in adjudicating single market issues in Northern Ireland, the senior official said it remained "a difficult issue for us. At the end of the day, the ultimate arbiter for European single market law is the ECJ."
7/ There has been mounting speculation that both sides are close to agreement.

A second senior EU source suggested there would be no announcement this week ahead of a special summit of EU leaders in Brussels.
8/ The EU's acceptance of the principle of differentiating Northern Ireland-only goods from those destined for the single market is a key breakthrough.
9/ EU officials say it is predicated on the safeguards enshrined in the agreement by the UK to provide the EU with a forensic, real-time picture of the provenance and nature of the goods moving GB-NI.
10/ The announcement that the UK is legislating to complete the construction of Border Control Posts (BCPs), or points of entry, in Northern Irish ports so that SPS controls can be carried out, is also a key confidence building measure, according to EU sources.
11/ "We share the philosophy that we should treat goods differently if they are staying in Northern Ireland compared to those which are going to the single market.  There are more safeguards in place, that means more flexibility," says the official.
12/ According to how the IT-based system will work, information in real time will show if there are any suspicious movements between GB and Northern Ireland, and if red flags are raised lorries can be checked by UK Border Force.
13/ Under the system EU officials will be able to monitor goods movements across the Irish Sea remotely.

"The IT system is up and running," says the senior EU official.  "We have made recommendations and the UK has been constructive in meeting them. IT safeguards are in place.
14/ "There are different options to make an express lane more green and the red lane will follow with appropriate safeguards."
15/ The official would not be drawn on whether goods entitled to use the green lane would be exempt from all customs declarations, including the need for traders to pre-fill so-called commodity codes electronically in advance, and SPS formalities.
16/ Given that EU officials will be entitled to download information on the content and form of goods going through the virtual green lane, it is assumed that a degree of data will be required.
17/ Reaching agreement is "doable" says the official.  The key element was that EU customs and regulatory officials would be in a position to apply their risk analysis tools remotely and, essentially, in real time.
18/ However, many of these aspects are still thought to be under discussion.  "The contours of the final agreement are difficult to say. The terrain we know very well. We want joint solutions, we're talking about everything," the source says.
19/ The official told RTE News that the negotiations were being carried out in a constructive and positive atmosphere and that both sides were determined to agree solutions jointly.
20/ "There are technicalities which have been improved, some need more time. What kind of info goes in [to the IT system], how is it processed, and so on. We're pushing for a joint solution," the official says.
21/ Two senior EU sources have said they are highly sensitive to the challenge facing British prime minister @RishiSunak in securing the approval of both the hardline eurosceptic European Research Group (ERG) and the DUP.
22/ The negotiations have been carried out in unprecedented secrecy to avoid leaks which could disrupt Sunak's presentation of the substance of the deal that appears close.
23/ A second EU source said the good rapport between Sunak and European Commission president @vonderleyen was key to progress in the talks, as was the relationship between @MarosSefcovic and @JamesCleverly @chhcalling

[Zanza]

Can Sunak actually pass this against the ERG and will the Unionists accept it?

[Sheilbh]

Can Sunak actually pass this against the ERG and will the Unionists accept it?

There are only 8 MPs left in the ERG and two former chairs in Chris Heaton Harris and Steve Baker are in the Northern Ireland Department negotiating the deal. Ultimately the government still has an 80 seat majority (and I think Labour might back it) - the problem (in the UK) hasn't been numbers since 2019. There may be posing and rows but I'm not sure there's a big obstacle domestically - at least unless the roll-out is catastrophic or it's wildly different from what's being briefed.

On the unionists - we'll see and it's not clear.

There's been a lot of engagement by the EU, UK and Irish governments in Northern Ireland - this solution is a lot like what Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair have been suggesting, but it also feels like Dublin and London have been speaking with them about how to do politics in Northern Ireland again. The Ulster Unionists are very strongly signalling positive stuff about a new deal; if anything, it seems like the DUP position has hardened. Although everyone in Northern Ireland (and Westminster and Brussels) seem to be very quiet and not commenting on briefings - which is almost as positive a sign as that from Connelly.

On the other hand, in general the unionists are less bothered by things like the role of the CJEU, for example. What they care about most is the practical stuff. If the formalities etc are reduced to info for the IT system then I think most will see that as success.

The only "theological" issue that might help is if this was drafted as a new agreement - I understand the EU position is that actually all of this wouldn't need any changes to the Protocol as drafted (as I say, EU law is very much in the interpretation). But I think it could win more unionist support if it was positioned as a new or replacement protocol because of how much their politics and campaigns in the last two years have been against the protocol and proclaiming they'll never accept it, only a replacement will do. Perhaps it can end up being something like the Northern Ireland Protocol/Brussels Agreement

Having said all that about the DUP - and I do think that'll be the challenge - ultimately, Northern Irish politics has the most unlikely bedfellows and incredible about faces. If Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness can form a power-sharing administration I find it tough to say it's impossible the DUP won't accept it

[Sheilbh]

I know it's the thing where I have the most irredeemable right-wing views, but I saw two stories this morning. One about a pair of young men who beat a vulnerable homeless man to death have been sentenced to 3 and 4 years and another about someone who deliberately run over a police officer got 15 months. They just seem like serious crimes that should be treated seriously - and I feel like the whole criminal justice is not quite working from not investigating, police malfeasance through to unduly lenient sentencing.

I think short sentences are really unhelpful for many crimes and cause more problems than they solve - so many crimes with at most a short sentence should be looked at again to focus on community sentencing. Similarly, personally, I'm all for huge reform of drug laws. But I think violent and sexual crimes should be treated really seriously and just from following one or two local papers, it doesn't feel like they are.

I've said before but I think law and order is an area that Labour could do very well in because it's background, in the local news rather than the national press but I think contributes to the general sense of nothing quite working. Also I think police reform plus the old Blair "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" line is possibly the right one.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Very lenient sentencing there. But at least they were not doing anything serious like buying cannabis for a friend.

I'd appreciate links to the stories if possible.

I think I'd be on roughly the same page as you. Short sentences for first time offenders for not particularly serious crimes would seem to be pretty counter-productive; many would just need a slight scare and some guidance. These life-changing (or ending) violent crimes though...I want very severe sentences for those. Similarly, attacks on coppers should be severely punished, they deserve that protection but also there should be respect for the forces of law and order (though it would help if they always deserve it, looking at you Met).

[Josquius]

I understand why the police are harder on unimportant though easier to collar somebody crimes like cannabis. Though it is mystifying that the courts are similarly broken.
I don't know enough about the legal system to begin to guess whats going wrong. Something somewhere must be incentivising the wrong things.
Agreed that we need to be softer on minor drugs offences and harder on violent criminals- though I'd also say we need to be harder on serious white collar crime too.

I'd be curious on data rather than individual stories on this- the media have a habit of concentrating on a few exceptional stories rather than the general pattern. The recent nonsense with the trans rapist for instance and whether they should be in a mans or womens prison. So many idiots out there on social media masturbating themselves silly over how the current system of putting trans women in womens prisons is horrible and dangerous....despite the actual reality being that its decided on a case by case basis and most trans crooks do end up in the prison of their original sex.

[Sheilbh]

Very lenient sentencing there. But at least they were not doing anything serious like buying cannabis for a friend.

I'd appreciate links to the stories if possible.

The killing of a homeless man in Northern Ireland:
https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2023-01-09/pair-jailed-for-killing-vulnerable-homeless-man-in-disused-parochial-house

I've read the article and watched the clip and I get the mitigations - they were sentenced as children because they were 16 and 17 when they committed the crime, they pleaded guilty, and it seems that all sides accepted neither meant to cause serious harm. But on the aggravation side, from the CCTV it looks like they stalked him to where he was sleeping, may have filmed the attack, returned to the scene the next day where they discovered that he hadn't moved since the attack and didn't do anything. I'm just struggling to get my head around 3 or 4 years.

Police isn't a story yet - I just saw Tom Forth share this and I agree with his comment that based on this description, it sounds like attempted murder of a police officer in the line of duty:
https://twitter.com/syptweet/status/1622913681653653504?s=20&t=huGcFpnY_0vGQYkjD4jKqQ

But see also this one on sexual offences - a man attacked a couple on a first date. He beat the man unconscious and then raped the woman after he told her that if they had sex he wouldn't kill the man. Again, 17 at the time of the crime and pleaded guilty - but five years seems lenient especially as typically typically up for parole at 1/2 - 3/4 of that sentence:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-raped-stranger-save-life-29042410

It is worth pointing out that I think drugs sentencing/approach needs to be looked at - and police chiefs have called for as much - but I think there's bit of reading Britain through America's criminal justice issues. So for example there's fewer than 700 people incarcerated primarily for cannabis offences (though it can be an aggravating factor in more serious crimes) which is less than 1% - though there are more who are held in police custody for up to 24 hours. But more generally 1/8 of prisoners are held for drug offences - but I suspect there's probably people in that category, plus the 3,000 held for summary offences who are as you say getting a disruptive, life-changing short sentence that's probably counterproductive. Unless someone's a serial repeat offender I'd query whether any summary judgement crime should end up in a prison sentence?

I understand why the police are harder on unimportant though easier to collar somebody crimes like cannabis. Though it is mystifying that the courts are similarly broken.

The courts will be following statutory sentencing guidelines which can operate like a formula to reach a sentence - in England and Wales, this is now allowed to be filmed and broadcast so you'll occasionally see clips. I think there is still discretion beyond that in a "having regard to all the circumstances" way - but I imagine judges using that probably get appealed. I'm just not sure the balance is qutie right at the minute.

I get that the criminal justice system is there for many reasons that are often in conflict so it is always about balancing them - there is not and will never be a right answer. But seeing, for example in that Sunderland story, the woman's victim impact statement it feels like the punishment for those serious violent and sexual crimes is not correctly taking account of the impact on victims which is part of what a criminal justice system does.

I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the underinvestment in courts and prisons is part of this. Prisons are generally at or over capacity at the minute, courts are incredibly stretched and I suspect the system in general just feels a bit overwhelmed which is bound to have an impact on judges and sentencing.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Thanks for the links. More information but the sentencing still appears to woefully light.

[Sheilbh]

FFS

Jennifer Williams
@JenWilliams_FT
Excl: Treasury bans levelling up secretary Michael Gove from spending ANY money on capital projects without its approval, due to value for money concerns
As I understand it there have been HMT concerns about management of levelling up funds (of which there are many) within DLHUC for some time, including underspends - ie money not getting out fast enough - and qs over whether what is being spend can show value for money
Last week HMT stepped in and stopped the department from carrying out any new capital spending. Previously DLUHC could spend £30m without Treasury sign off. Now the limit is £0.
There seems to be some dispute about the exact trigger. Treasury deny that it was the announcement of £30m in social housing cash announced by Gove in Mcr a couple of weeks ago. But I understand it did step in to block a much bigger fund he had originally wanted to announce
...and certainly some local areas had been led to expect a much bigger announcement than was forthcoming
It isn't unprecedented for HMT to insist all new capital spending goes through them, but it is unusual. Means they've got particular concerns about the department's finances
(Should stress this relates to new capital spending - should have made that clear in my original tweet)
There have been previous concerns raised within govt re DLUHC's ability to manage these funds, not least the capacity to assess the many many bids coming in, but also risk management. NAO from a year ago talks a bit about it here
In summary, an unwieldy capital spending programme that was problematic to begin with due to the level of central bureaucracy attached, and which is difficult to administer for any number of reasons; and also one that HMT is now watching like a hawk.

Or Peter Foster on the story:

Peter Foster
@pmdfoster
Great scoop from my colleague @JenWilliams_FT ...HMT sitting on Michael Gove and Levelling Up dept. Some bitter chat in W'Hall about Treasury cost-benefit analysis (Tl;dr don't waste money refurbishing mouldy houses in Rochdale)

As Steve Rotherham (Mersey Metro Mayor) has pointed out the department responsible for devolution and local government in England now doesn't even have control of its own spending and needs sign-off for literally everything from the Treasury - which seems sub-optimal if you think centralisation is part of the problem here

Meanwhile Treasury is working up a plan that would delay HS2 until 2045 (12 years after it's supposed to open)

Obviously Liz Truss is mainly wrong - but I don't think it's incorrect to say that the Treasury view/Treasury orthodoxy is a big problem. It just always has this in-built suspicion of any capital spending which if, like me, you think a big part of the story of Britain's problems is under-inivestment means it's a really big problem.

I'm not sure everything would be perfect if we abolished/split up the Home Office and the Treasury - but we should maybe give it a go...

Edit: Sam Freedman - former civil servant in education - but this seems a pretty common response from lots of former civil servants and spads in "spending" departments:

Sam Freedman
@Samfr
Gove announces £30m to improve substandard housing and Treausry blocks him signing off any capital spending. Great example of how they - not No 10 - control Whitehall.
These insanely tight levels of spending controls exist all over the place. Depts that can't spend anything on legal fees or marketing without Treasury sign off. Just bogs everything down so much.

I genuinely think that just having a system where the Treasury just sets (ideally in negotation around the cabinet table rather than as diktat) departmental budgets but then let's departments manage their expenditure within that budget would be a big improvement.

Edit: Obviously it's not all capital spending etc - but for context DLUHC's latest spending settlement with the Treasury is about £40 billion but even before this decision, the limit they could spend without Treasury sign-off was £30 million

[The Larch]

How come does the Treasury have such tight control on spending? Why can't different departments employ their funds freely? Is there a legal requisite for them signing off such expenses?

[Sheilbh]

No I don't think so - I think it boils down to politics, power and institutional memory/culture probably.

A lot of the micro-management/very tight spending control with strict cash limits on what departments could do independently developed in the post-war era as the UK went from one economic crisis and devaluation to another. I believe it really develops in the 50s and 60s and by the mid-70s when we go to the IMF a lot of the way the Treasury works now was in place in terms of financial management. I think the Treasury's institutional preference has an institutional for sound money and short term budgetary control and is generally averse to long term spending commitments. But I suspect there is also a bit of an institutional memory/neurosis (recently refreshed ) from the regular economic crises or as Stian Westlake (former Treasury civil servant who's argued for a while it should be split up) put it, "for the Treasury we are always one sweaty weekend away from national bankruptcy." From Sterling crises, to devaluation, the IMF, Black Wednesday, the crash and Truss, I imagine the Treasury civil servants see plenty of reasons to need to be tightly in control.

Gordon Brown introduced longer term "comprehensive spending reviews" which were meant to provide departments with more certainty over a number of years, while retaining strong Treasury control of overall spending. But I think the other side of that was that Brown was a very strong Chancellor, the relationship with Blair was awful and Brown (with people like Ed Miliband and Ed Balls around him) seems to have wanted to basically run domestic policy from the Treasury leveraging its control of spending and also to boost more loyal Brownite figures in spending departments at the expense of perceived Blairites. I feel like that's when the criticism shifts from the Treasury being too strict on financial control to the Treasury trying to make policy judgements in every department. Ministers in spending departments certainly talk about the Treasury dictating things at that point - and the only way you could hope to win in that fight would be if you convinced Blair to spend some of his political capital over it (but that would be a black mark against you in Brown's eyes).

Having a £0 ablity to spend is an extreme example and suggests the Treasury are really unhappy with DLUHC but the Economist did a piece on the Treasury when Truss took offce (in part campaigning against "Treasury orthodoxy" - represented by Sunak, a former Chancellor) and gave an example of the Department for Education being locked in "lengthy negotiations" with the Treasury over re-allocating £5 million between different skills programmes.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Gove, as usual, will be trying to actually achieve something...it is his redeeming feature. He is a throwback to the days when the tories, although dislikeable shites, had aims and policies which they generally implemented. That he actually looks good compared to the mainly spivs and charlatans that comprise the rest of the cabinet is an indictment of the current "government".

If Gove spent £30m a day on whatever it would take him about 8 years to spend the amount of money that Truss and Kwarteng cost the country in an afternoon   

[Sheilbh]

I suppose ministers thinking they're there to achieve something could be dangerously habit forming.

[Zanza]

Ministers should be both responsible but also competent in their area of government business. If you have to align everything with the Treasury it defeats the purpose of seperate ministries.