Dear Guy
There is a forthcoming debate on 24 April in parliament on the impact of Brexit, both positive and negative, on the UK.
The public has not had access to full accurate objective information on its many different consequences. In particular, I think it is very important to debate the area of mobility frameworks, the losses of which have dealt Britain itself and all UK citizens a serious blow.
Could I therefore please ask you whether you would be able to potentially attend the 24 April debate and raise some of these points?
Brexit impact
Brexit has been and continues to be a catastrophic failure for UK services, knowledge exchange and our reputation as a brand. The way it was implemented has sadly consigned us to become ‘the bruised apples’ of the European market.
Experts active in industry and the creative arts give testimony to this damage.
David Cameron’s government commissioned a report on the economy and the impact Brexit could have, which was very negative as 80% of trade was in services.
The frustration of those held up in long queues at ports in Dover in recent weeks during holidays is nothing in comparison to the blockages dealt to livelihoods, careers, professional and personal identity for those of us who relied upon the trading model and mobility frameworks of the single market.
Brexit means Brexit and ‘will of the people’ mantras are no longer justifiable in the year 2023.
Even what Brexiters said would always be possible in my industry, remote work, which has for many companies blossomed during the pandemic, suffers adverse impact from the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (Brexit TCA).
This further reduces our markets in virtual service provision. I have seen countless examples of requirements which state “services will be delivered remotely from within the EU”.
For onsite work, major agencies serving the European market have completely discounted British candidates as company policy, despite the small amount of wiggle room in the TCA where certain countries (eg NL and Germany) are permitting onsite work for 12 months for contracted services suppliers. This is of course a business-to-business deal, not ‘agency’ work unless constructed as a services contract; the German ANU or payroll model (cf IR35) went up in smoke. It means end clients which prefer the payroll model or are forced to use it by local policies can no longer deal with British candidates.
Ramifications of the TCA
The ramifications of the TCA are huge and complex, too complex for many to understand without guidance. In fact, it is a challenge for those of us in the industry to keep up with these new forms of red tape. MPs have very busy professional lives, and it would
be impossible, even for those with superpowers, to keep pace with it all, let alone a member of the general public.
For this purpose, the Lords UK-EU services inquiry provides a plethora of evidence and examples from professionals in various sectors, who have painstakingly analysed the TCA and its implications. Helpful publications are there for MPs from all parties to digest before debates and any discussion on the Brexit trade deals begin. It is high time these facts are debated and brought to light. Problems are outlined and suggestions for solutions exist in the publications.
Parliamentarians and the general public can view the evidence here.
My publication is here.
Dreams of international trade deals viewed through rosy coloured spectacles by Farage and co are going up in smoke as reality hits. The latest Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade deal will add a meagre 0.08% to the economy. See ‘Why Britain’s new CPTPP trade deal will not make up for Brexit’ by Prof Mustapha Douchand, Dr Terence Huw Edwards April 15, 2023.
It is time to discuss the restoration of access to the EU/EEA and Swiss project/job market on our doorstep which consists of 33 countries.
Younger people in the UK realize how hard this loss hits us. Many of those who voted for Brexit, be that a soft- or hard-boiled variety, have since passed away. We are all left dealing with the choice made at the ballot box in 2016.
It is of paramount importance that those who debate the Brexit TCA keep in mind the basics of trade in the form of the Trade Gravity Model. To sum up, a nation trades most with its closest geographical market. Brexiters forgot about that.
I have mentioned this point before; it is particularly hard for UK based services providers to seek onsite work in the international market as this impedes them from returning home frequently at weekends. Operational costs of intercontinental travel are prohibitively expensive in addition to their time constraints. When questioned in the Lords by The Earl of Clancarty, the government’s response as to why the Brexit TCA sought permission for work on site for 12 months only revealed that they had modelled it on the EU-Japan trade deal. It may be the case a Japanese specialist visits Europe for a longer period and then returns home. It would be impossible and costly to commute on a regular basis. As close neighbours, we are in a different position.
Immigration
On the immigration issue, should the UK seek a closer relationship with Europe in terms of mobility frameworks, we could include the right to ‘control our borders’, which existed even before Brexit happened in the form of article 7 of the citizens’ directive whereby any citizen, who wished to spend more than three months in a member state, would have to prove possession of independent financial resources, including health insurance, or a proof of paid employment so he or she would not become a burden on us. Theresa May chose not to implemented these controls during her role at the Home Office (2015). No MP has yet provided explanations as to why the Home Office chose to discount this control at the time.
It may prove a relevant point going forward to restore a closer relationship with Europe while calming the fears of members of the public who did not understand the realities of complex treaties or that migration from Europe was not such a threat.
Mobility frameworks are a win-win situation. Britain is crying out for qualified staff and less skilled labour in sectors such as the NHS, social care and farming. In recent years, important food crops have perished in the fields due to labour shortages
once filled by European workers.
Recent government initiatives were set up to encourage middle aged citizens and others back into work or some form of economic activity. That European market would provide a solution to that. There is also no doubt that public services in the UK would benefit enormously from the restoration of lost taxation revenues emanating from what was once a flourishing UK services industry, the creatives being just one group badly hit by red tape. Being a Northern MP, you will also be aware that the European market helped our region to
level itself up. The Auf Wiedersehen Pet model is a huge loss.
Britain and our government has a choice: we can ‘have our cake and eat it’ as members of our closest European market or nibble on the crumbs left over for us.
Your constituent
Jayne Hamilton
UPDATE: Reply from Guy Opperman’s Office
“Thank you for your email about a public inquiry into Brexit’s consequences. Guy does not believe that a public inquiry on Brexit’s consequences would be an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money. As you may be aware, Guy voted to remain in the European Union in the 2016 referendum. The democratic decision was taken to leave and Guy has been working ever since, along with his colleagues in government, to make a success of Brexit. Unfortunately, Guy was unable to be there for the debate on Monday. It is not customary for government ministers to attend Westminster Hall debates unless they are responding on behalf of the government.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to Guy.”
CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT THE BYLINES NETWORK CROWDFUNDER!
