National News
15 MARCH 2021
National News
The SOAS Spirit’s Brexit Round-Up Charlotte Paule, MSc Politics of Asia
We are back with our final Brexit update of this academic year, just 2 months after a trade deal was finally reached between the EU and UK. The transition period, during which the UK essentially enjoyed the same conditions as it did when it was part of the EU, formally ended on 31 December 2020. Although we are now in the post-transition period, much is still left up in the air amid the rush of getting the deal signed late last year. Problems within this hurried deal are now beginning to emerge. In order to allow for the European Parliament and each EU member state to formally debate and ratify the deal, a temporary ‘provisional application’ was approved on 1 January. This was done to allow the EU ‘to conduct scrutiny and complete the conclusion process of the Agreements as diligently and smoothly as possible.’ This is a process that was wrapped up by the end of February. However, February saw the EU request for more time to prepare ‘legally valid’ translations of the finalised deal into all 24 of its official languages. Speaking in February, a
spokesman for the British government said, ‘it is disappointing the EU has not completed its internal processes in the agreed timeframe.’ The spokesman went on to say that ‘we have agreed to extend the deadline for the EU to ratify the deal until 30 April.’ On top of this delay, the impact of Brexit on trade is already being felt across industries in the UK. While the British government insisted on businesses facing no tariffs or obstacles in trade with the EU bloc, non-tariff trade barriers are still in place, especially in regards to the ‘rule-of-origin requirement’. This new rule places the burden on British businesses to prove that products being exported into the bloc originate from the UK. Failure to do so will result in being charged extra fees. In January, the UHY Hacker Young group found that 20% of British small to medium sized enterprises stopped exporting goods to the EU completely to avoid the pallarver of new costs and additional paperwork. The immediate aftermath of Brexit has also hit the service sector. Provisions for services are not included in the current trade deal. Analysts forecast that if a deal is not put in place, London, which is at the UK’s service secretary economy, may be set to lose up to
Boris Johnson signs the Brexit trade deal in London on 30th December 2020. The EU has yet to ratify the deal, as it first has to go through the European Parliament and be ratified by the member states. (Andrew Parsons, No. 10 Downing Street)
£9.5bn in economic output a year. The service sector, which encompases everything from law, finance, and fintech to hospitality and creative jobs, is responsible for approximately 80% of the UK’s economic output. For Sadiq Khan, London’s mayor, ‘the Government’s Brexit trade deal was the equivalent of a “no deal” Brexit for financial and professional services.’ The situation in Northern Ireland (NI) has also not been bettered, as border checks and controls have begun despite the government’s promise that there would not be a hard border between Ireland and NI. The European Research Group (ERG), led by Tory Brexiteers, have called on Boris Johnson to scrape the Northern Ireland Protocol
altogether. They claim it has had a ‘profound and negative effect’. They are now calling for a triggering of Article 16 against the Protocol, which would allow the UK to unilaterally overrule it if it is found to create serious disruptions in Ireland or NI. The ERG joined the Irish Democratic Unionist Party, who also called for Article 16 to be triggered and for the UK to scrap the Protocol. In her analysis, Sylvie Bermann, former French ambassador to the UK, Brexit will result in a bleaked Britain. She describes Boris Johnson as ‘an unrepentant and inveterate liar’, and considers the disillusionment of British people who hold on to a glorious, yet unrealistic, past as a root cause of Brexit.
Shamima Begum Left in ‘Legal Black Hole’ Fakhriya M. Suleiman, MA Global Media and Postnational Communication 26 February saw a severe blow dealt to Shamima Begum’s fight for her British citizenship. In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court adjudicated that she will not be allowed entry into Britain to appeal her case. In 2015 as part of what The Times dubbed the ‘Bethnel Green Trio’, Begum, along with Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana, left the United Kingdom to join the so-called Islamic State in Syria. In the immediate aftermath, Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe, the former head of London's Metropolitan Police, had said while giving evidence to MPs before the Home Affairs Select Committee ‘if they return home there are no terrorism issues here.’ In stark contrast to Lord Howe, when former Prime Minister David Cameron was asked what would be the fate of the London school girls should they return, Cameron asserted ‘whoever has gone out to join a terrorist organisation is breaking the law and has to face the consequences […] We have to let the law take its course in the proper way.’ Sultana is believed to have perished during a 2016 airstrike in Raqqa. She was 17 years old. A 2019 Sky News
8
article said knowledge of Abase is unknown. That same year, Begum discovered the Home Office had decided to revoke her of her citizenship. In a displacement camp in Syria, Begum was given a copy of the letter her parents had received. Therein it read that ‘In light of the circumstances […] the notice of the Home Secretary’s decision has been served on file today, and the order removing [her] British citizenship has subsequently been made.’ In response, Begum lamented and pleaded for former Home Secretary Sajid Javid to have ‘sympathy and understanding’. At the time she had just given birth to a son. She went on to say the letter was ‘heartbreaking to read.’ The Home Office justified their decision as, according to them, Begum had not been rendered stateless because she was a dual national of Britain and Bangladesh. Both Begum’s family and the Bangladeshi government denied this claim. Javid had said that he made this decision to ‘protect this country,’ a sentiment echoed by the current Home Secretary Priti Patel. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, Patel stated she would take 'the strongest possible action to protect our national security.’ The Financial Times said this judgement was welcomed by Patel as a ‘victory’ for her and her department. For Maya Foa, director of the human rights group Reprieve, this decision has left Begum in a ‘legal black hole,’
and it is in fact ‘out of step with British values and the interests of justice and security.’ Foa further highlighted that Begum was 15 years old when she left Britain after having been ‘groomed by a trafficking gang into making a terrible, life-altering mistake.’ Others have highlighted this decision as being a ‘double standard’ within the government’s approach to tackling domestic terror. Many took to Twitter to show the discrepancy between Begum’s fate and that of Harry Vaughan. In 2020, 18 year old Vaughan was handed a suspended sentence after being found guilty for ‘encouraging terrorism, disseminating a terrorist publication and possessing documents useful for terrorism.’ This followed an investigation where police found Vaughan was linked to an online neo-Nazi forum and possessed indecent images of underage boys. One Twitter user said this juxtaposition was a ‘massive display of hypocrisy’ on the part of the government. The human rights group Liberty warn that the UK may be setting an ‘extremely dangerous precedent.’ In contrast, America’s stance is that countries are duty bound to repatriate their nationals who went to join Isis. For Rosie Brighouse, a lawyer with Liberty, ‘the right to a fair trial is not something democratic governments should take away on a whim, and nor is someone's British citizenship.’
WWW.SOASSPIRIT.CO.UK
