One fish, Two Fish (with apologies to Dr Seuss)

Jacob Rees Mogg claimed fish caught up in export red tape under post-Brexit arrangements covered by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), were okay because we have them back in our control. He said: ‘They’re now British fish and they’re better and happier fish for it’ ….

One fish, two fish, Brit fish, EU fish,

Black fish, blue fish, Old fish, new fish,

This one’s still stuck somewhere far,

This one’s not on Eurostar.

Say! What a lot of fish there are.

Yes. Some are Brit and some EU,

Brit ones are old when they reach you.

Some are sad, and some are glad,

And some smell very, very bad.

Why are the sad or glad or bad?

I don’t know, go ask a Spad.

Some are thin, and some are fat.

The fat one’s in a yellow vat.

From there to here,

From here to there,

Fishy things ride everywhere.

Here are some who like to run.

They run towards the EU sun.

Oh me! Oh my! Oh me! Oh my!

What a lot of fishy things go by!

Some have two forms and some have four.

Some have six forms and some have more.

Where do they come from? The PM won’t say.

But I bet it’s the long, long TCA.

We see them come, we see them go.

None are fast. All are slow.

Costs are high. Prices low.

Not one form filled is like another.

Don’t ask me why, go ask the Moggster.

 

Is scrutiny of the Future Relationship with the EU becoming a thing of the past?

It will not have escaped many people’s notice that as of New Year’s Eve, the UK ceased to be a member of the EU.  On Christmas Eve, the UK and the EU concluded a deal that was rapidly approved when parliament was recalled to vote on 30^th December.  What may have passed under the radar, however, are recent reports that the select committee charged with scrutiny in this area – the erstwhile Exiting the EU committee, now known as the Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU – is apparently to be shut down. 

It had been envisaged that any deal with the EU would have emerged earlier last year, so that the Committee would have had time to scrutinise it before winding up in January 2021.  However, the last-minute Christmas deal meant that there was virtually no time to assess the implications of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (over 1,200 pages of it) before the vote at the end of last year, and only a few more days as parliament resumes now for the new year, in advance of the anticipated committee closure date of 16^th January.  As a result of these tight timelines, the Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU wrote to the Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, to ask for a six-month extension,  so that they could conduct a detailed inquiry into the contents of the deal.  This would have resulted in a report to which the government would have had to respond.  However, it now appears that Jacob Rees-Mogg has turned down the extension request and will expect the committee to disband.  The size of the government’s majority in parliament means that it is unlikely that the committee can survive without government support.  According to the piece in the Independent, the committee will meet this week to consider their response to the Leader of the House. On Twitter, Rupa Huq MP, a committee member, suggested that a witness session planned later this week may no longer happen.

Should the decision to shut down the committee go ahead, it is unclear what happens next.  Jacob Rees-Mogg’s letter to the committee is not understood to have made any recommendations as to which committee should now take on scrutiny of future relations with the EU.  An article in the New European points out that the ongoing role of the European Scrutiny Committee is also unclear, and in any case its remit has been to assess draft EU legislation.  The new arrangements in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement include the set-up of an EU-UK partnership council, supported by a range of committees and working groups to oversee implementation of the deal.  It remains unclear how select committee scrutiny in the UK parliament will map on to the implementation process.

There are those who may say that the fact that we are no longer a member of the EU means that we no longer need a committee to dedicate itself to EU relations.  But this view rather glosses over the fact that leaving the EU with a deal is a process, and one which demands continuing dialogue and negotiation over how diverse aspects of trade and governance are to be managed. In an evidence session before the Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU at the end of last year, a panel of academics pointed to the importance of continuing parliamentary scrutiny to avoid any ‘train crash’ emerging from insufficiently tested policies. There will be a huge volume of changes emerging from the deal with the EU from now on.

There is some irony – as a committee member noted in the Independent – that Brexit was supposed to be about returning powers to our parliament: closing down an avenue of parliamentary oversight seems a peculiar way of doing that.  As photographs of empty shelves in supermarkets attest, some of the changes produced by the deal are highly visible to the voting public, who will expect politicians to act. While departmental committees can conduct inquires in their areas of interest, the closure of a specific committee related to the Agreement seems like a loss to parliamentary scrutiny.

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister has a session with the Liaison Committee, the committee which brings together all the Commons select committee Chairs to question him on the issues of the day.  Perhaps scrutiny of the future relationship with the EU will be on the menu….

* as I write I see that in parliament the Deputy Speaker has taken a virtual point of order from Hilary Benn MP, Chair of the Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU, noting that the committee is set to be abolished and won’t be able to take evidence on the UK/EU agreement. The Deputy Speaker has said that there is no indication that the government will change its mind on this matter… *

Labour’s European election strategy: Leaflets of your mind – or is that Windmills of your Brexit? – (with apologies to Michel LeGrand)

Labour spokesman on European elections leaflet: “There are a number of different texts for different leaflets in circulation, including for a freepost and for other campaign purposes. They all reflect existing party policy.”

 

Like a circle (are there stars there?)

Like a wheel within a wheel

Never ending or beginning

On an ever spinning reel

Like a snowball sample taken

In your own constituency

Like a carousel of options

Running rings round the many

Like the Brexit clock still ticking

Past the minutes of its face

And the world is like an apple

Whirling silently in space

Like the wording that you find

In the leaflets of your mind

Like a tunnel that you follow

To a Europe on its own

Down a hollow, past a car park

Where the sun now can’t be shone

Like a door that keeps revolving

In the service of your friends

Or the ripples of a mention

Someone tosses, and it trends

Like the Brexit clock keeps ticking ……

Keys to office in your pocket

Words that jingle in your head

Will the summer go that quickly?

Is it something that you said?

Labour walks along a tightrope

Leaving leaflets in the sand

Is the sound of distant drumming

Just the fingers of your hand?

Pictures hanging in the hallway

Just the fragment of a song

Half remembered policies

But to whom do they belong?

When you knew

It was an election

You were suddenly aware

That the autumn mood was turning

To the Remain

Voters’ share

When you knew

That it was over

In the Autumn of goodbyes

For a moment

You could not recall

Why voters mobilise!

Like a circle (are there stars there?)

Like a wheel within a wheel

Never ending or beginning

On an ever spinning reel

Like a snowball sample taken

In your own constituency

Like a carousel of options

Running rings round the many

As the images unwind

Like the wording

That you find

In the leaflets of your mind

Chuck out that Chequers – or Boris has a Plan (with apologies to IKEA)

Chuck out that Chequers

Come on, do it today

Prise off that caution, and throw it away

The negotiators are girly,

Too supine, not surly

That common rule book

Just does us no credit

We’re battling hard and we’ve come a long way,

Even No Deal would be kind of okay,

EU harmonisation

Is harming our nation

So chuck out that Chequers today.

 

Our land could be playful, and happy and light,

Rules loose and informal and stripey and bright,

Let’s use our resources

Let’s muster our forces

To fight Chequers oppression

With bold self-expression

We’re battling hard and we’ve come a long way,

Even No Deal would be kind of okay,

So don’t let PM May

Have everything her way,

Chuck out that Chequers, yes chuck out that Chequers,

Let’s chuck out that Chequers today!

 

 

 

All tomorrow’s parties (with apologies to The Velvet Underground)

 

And what customs plan shall the UK share

At all tomorrow’s parties?

 

A hand-me-down deal from who knows where

At all tomorrow’s parties

And where will we go, what will we be

When midnight comes around

Will we turn once more into Europe’s clown

And cry behind the door?

 

And what customs plan shall the UK share

At all tomorrow’s parties?

 

Which elements of yesterday’s deals

At all tomorrow’s parties?

And what will we do with Theresa’s fudge

When Brexit comes around?

Will we turn once more into Europe’s clown

And cry behind the door?

 

And what customs plan shall the UK share

At all tomorrow’s parties?

 

For Theresa’s fudge could be Europe’s clown

For whom none will go mourning

A hybrid fix, a hand-me-down deal

Of elements, a customs plan

Fit for one who sits outside

For all tomorrow’s parties

 

 

 

30 hours free childcare: still complicated

Figures newly released from Wales, show that take-up of 30 hours free childcare per week – available to 3 and 4 year olds with parents in work – has been considerably lower than expected.  For a flagship government policy, aimed at improving outcomes for disadvantaged children, and at enhancing mothers’ opportunities in the labour force, this must raise questions in the corridors of power.

Back in 2015, when 30 hours free childcare was first slated in the Queen’s Speech, I wrote a blog outlining some of the issues which were likely to open up in the gap between rhetoric and practice.  In the intervening period it has remained one of my most popular pieces.  It’s a policy area where the solution offered seems simple, but which encompasses an impressive range of potential pitfalls.

Three main factors demonstrate the problems with the offer.  First, 30 hours free childcare is offered to children where parents are working – it is not a universal offer.  While children in some of the most disadvantaged families can access 15 hours free child care from the age of 2, and all 3 and 4 years can access 15 hours per week over the school year, the enhanced 30 hours offer is limited, at the lower end, to those earning at least the equivalent of 16 hours National Minimum Wage per week. The lack of universality is an issue, as some of the families where early childcare might be most beneficial, may not be eligible, due to lower or no earnings for at least one parent. Secondly, there is a timing issue.  As parents are not eligible for free childcare from the end of maternity or parental leave, the 30 hours can be viewed as too little, too late.  For parents who have had to go it alone in the period between their child’s first and third birthday, some may be unwilling or unable to change existing providers when eligibility eventually kicks in; others may have already done the calculation of costs of childcare (rising at rates of 7% last year) versus wage packet (stagnant), and left the workforce altogether.

Thirdly, providers are struggling (as was warned from the start) to meet the conditions of the offer without cross-subsidising the free hours through new charges elsewhere.  The hourly rate paid to providers by the government, may not reflect full costs, and has not been uprated this year.  The funding rate is complicated still further by interaction with other policies. Increases in the National Minimum Wage mean that staff are now more expensive, and auto-enrolment in pensions will make employer bills still higher, as outlined here.  Of course, such employment policies are positive in a relatively low-paid sector of the economy, but if funding for children’s places does not reflect these costs, a hole remains to be filled.  Some may bridge the gap by employing cheaper, less well-trained staff; others lower staff to child ratios.  Meanwhile, parents working longer hours will pay more for cover of hours above the 30 provided free. Some nurseries now charge for items (e.g. meals) and excursions that were previously included in fees.  Moreover, commentators have started to raise concerns that large-scale providers could go bust if the funding pressures become  greater. As local authorities provide fewer childcare services directly, private sector organisations are increasingly important.  A recent Guardian piece noted that commercial providers may be less accountable in terms of how they use government money, and distribute costs between themselves and parents. They also need to bring profit to investors. In more deprived areas the pressures may be magnified, as quality childcare is more patchily available, and there may be little capacity to cross-subsidise the free offer through additional charges elsewhere.

In her feminist takeover of the New European, Caroline Criado Perez today makes the case for universal free childcare as an integral part of achieving gender equality.  She points out that 25% of mothers in the EU cite unpaid care work as the reason for their lack of participation in the jobs market (compared to only 3% of men).  The UK has amongst the most expensive childcare in the region, so it is perhaps unsurprising that the partial solution on offer here is proving unpersuasive for many.  The generous policies of countries like Sweden, which provides daycare for all children at an enviably subsidised rate, alongside relatively well-paid parental leave, is beginning to prove a pull for workers from Britain, other parts of the EU, and beyond.  In an article for Swedish radio, an Irish woman talks about how being in Sweden means she can be with her child in the early months and not worry about costs when she returns to work, or about having to give up work altogether.  Thirty hours free childcare for 3 and 4 year olds in the UK still risks failing to meet this test for many parents.

 

 

Come Together (with apologies to the Beatles)

Here come ol’ Maybot

She come grooving up slowly

She got EU eyeballed

She one high stakes roller

She got down with DUP

Got to play some joker she don’t know who to please

 

She wear high shoe

She got innovative jam ball

She got pointing finger

She shout ‘Clarity’

She say I know EU and EU know me

One thing she can tell you is you gonna be free

 

Come together, right now, over me

 

She Brexit production

She got Swiss Alp gumboot

She got BoJo sidekick

She one party cracker

She got Fox down in DIT

Hold you to his trade deals you can fell his unease

 

Come together, right now, over me ….

 

She got border crossing

She got early warning

She got muddied waters

She one BoJo filter

She says ‘one and one and one is three’

Got to be book-cooking ‘cause it’s so hard to see

Come together, right now, over me

 

Oh!

Come together

Yeah

Come together

Yeah …..

 

 

 

 

Brexit Valentine (or It’s not EU, it’s me …)

 

You may not be the one,

But you are ‘a’ one

With whom I feel strongly aligned;

I love our deep and special relationship

(For details, read my mind…)

 

I have some issues with boundaries –

I like them fuzzy, not hard –

If you want to trade with me

I may play a Trump card …

 

I adore our rich exchanges,

Please don’t change a bit,

I like being in your club –

But not the membership….

 

We’re going through a transition –

It’s just a silly phase –

You’re my friend with all the benefits,

I’m the one who involuntarily pays …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Davis’s Imagination (with apologies to Willy Wonka)

Hold a referendum

Make a wish

Count to three….

 

Come with me

And you’ll be

In a world of

Pure imagination

Take a look

And you’ll see

Into my imagination

 

We’ll begin

With some spin

Traveling in

The Brexit of my creation

What we’ll see

Will defy

Any quantitative explanation

 

If you want to view sectoral impact

Simply look around and view it

Anything you want to, do it

Wanta change the rules?

There’s nothing

To it

 

There is no

Brexit I know

To compare with

My imagination

Living there

You’ll be free

If you truly wish to be

 

If you want to view sectoral impact

Simply look around and view it

Anything you want to, do it

Wanta change the rules?

There’s nothing

To it

 

There is no

Brexit I know

To compare with

My imagination

Living there

You’ll be free

If you truly

Wish to be

 

 

Brexit Anniversary

If a week is a long time in politics, then the last year seems almost like a decade – so many seismic events and unexpected twists and turns. And somehow, here we are, one year on from the EU referendum, a time to reflect on what has happened …

As chance would have it, last year, on the day after the referendum, I was booked on the train to Scotland.  I’d forced myself to go to bed at 2 a.m., when the first signs that Leave might swing it, had begun to emerge.  It was still a surprise to find that that was what had happened, as I scrambled to get the last of my stuff together, and headed out the door later that morning.  The atmosphere on the train was unusual – a lot of thrown-together people looking slightly shell-shocked and talking in hushed tones into their mobile phones.   As we powered through the country, there were patches of flags from either side of the debate – the mood seemed one of surprise.  The news was still sinking in.

When I eventually got to Edinburgh, my first stop was the pub.  Scots were juggling the results of two successive referenda – one over independence from the UK, one over membership of the EU. I got talking with a bunch of people having an after-work pint and chewing over the day’s news.  They were a mix of Yes and No voters in the Scottish referendum, but all said then, in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum, that given a choice, they would vote to leave the UK in any second referendum, and seek Scottish membership of the EU.  Unlike in England, the subject of Ireland, the border and the peace process came up quite soon in conversation.  My unrepresentative little vox pop confirmed a picture of urban Scotland as firm Remain territory. I’ve often wondered if the people I met have changed their minds meanwhile, as the falling oil price and political turbulence in the year since, has seen support for a second Scottish referendum apparently diminish, and a desire for stability (ha!) become perhaps stronger.

What else has changed in the year since, concerning Brexit? In some ways remarkably little – in spite of the triggering of Article 50 and the recent snap election, we are only slightly further on in our progress towards exit.  When thinking about what will happen with reciprocal rights for UK and EU citizens living in each other’s countries, or overall freedom of movement, or being in the Single Market, I’m often reminded of that round in the QI panel show, where they ask an obscure question, and all the contestants wave a paddle in the air, signifying that ‘Nobody Knows’…. The form of Brexit we will eventually experience remains up in the air, and the complexities of disentangling ourselves from laws, supply chains and regulations often seem to be intensifying rather than resolving.

In other ways, things have changed quite a bit – the vote to leave has led to a greater understanding of divisions and inequalities in the UK, with analysis of voting behaviour showing fault lines between urban and rural populations, highly educated people and school leavers, older and younger voters.   UKIP is basically a spent force, and the recent election, paradoxically perhaps, heralded a return to two-party politics, as the Brexit vote made for a complex set of interactions with broader party allegiances. In the snap election, Labour capitalised on frustration with the consequences of social inequalities, while the Conservatives emphasised the importance of leadership on Brexit, in an electoral strategy which imploded around the failure of leadership demonstrated in the campaign. They won the election, but lost their majority, and are now all too aware of issues around Ireland and Brexit…

One year on, we have election winners who have lost, and losers who scent victory next time – which could well be considerably sooner than anticipated by the Fixed-Term Parliament Act.  Theresa May has just been  in Brussels for a dinner with the European Council, where she was looking to outline Britain’s negotiating position in more detail.  It seems that she may be aiming for Brexit a la carte. Funnily enough, we don’t have a ready English phrase for that – unless perhaps it’s cherry-picking – which is something we need Eastern European seasonal migrants to do …. There’s no chance of an all-you-can-eat buffet of options on Brexit terms, so can we hold out for some Chef’s specials? Brexit is often discussed in terms of having our cake and eating it, but we have yet to discover what proof of pudding is in our eating ….