The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Brexit

  • Boris Johnson, Brexit, and Britain’s Constitutional Quagmire

    The authors of The Federalist Papers, that great series of essays defending the Constitution of the United States, set out to convince the public that democracy, at least in its original, ancient Athenian form, was not only impossible, but dangerous. Their preferred system of government was a republic, based on the principle of representation.

    Even some of the most radical Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century—those who supported universal suffrage, the rights of women, and the abolition of slavery—rejected direct democracy, or “simple democracy,” as Thomas Paine called it. Direct democracy, they argued, is government without the benefit of reasoned deliberation, leaving an authoritarian executive justifying its power with populist rhetoric. That, at any rate, was how the Founding Fathers viewed Pericles of Athens.

    The United Kingdom’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, who studied classics in college, says his greatest hero is Pericles. Which explains a lot. Johnson’s populism is what secured the support of his party’s members and brought him to Downing Street. Traditionally in the U.K., the government’s legitimacy comes from its support among members of Parliament. At the core of its famously “unwritten” constitution is the principle that prime ministers can continue in office only for as long as they can maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. It’s not clear that Johnson has that support. And it’s not clear that he cares.

    Johnson bases his legitimacy on an appeal to direct democracy, delivering the result of the 2016 referendum, in which Britain voted to leave the European Union. The result did not tell us what kind of Brexit the people wanted or whether they preferred any kind of Brexit to remaining in the bloc. But Johnson—like his predecessor, Theresa May—treats the referendum as a mandate, claiming immense executive power to interpret “the will of the people.” Unlike May, however, Johnson also seems to be determined to take the U.K. out of the EU on October 31 “with or without a deal.” To reach that goal, he is giving all indications that he intends to bypass elected representatives.

    Here in Britain, enormous constitutional questions, previously believed to have been agreed on, are now up for debate again, and these are but a few of them. The British constitution has begun to seem more and more like an elaborate, high-stakes parlor game. Moves that were thought to be impossible have begun to seem merely improbable. Conventions that once looked like certainties are becoming unsettled. Issues ranging from the might of the executive, the power of MPs, and even the role of the queen are—almost all at once—being fought over.

    There was a fear, throughout the Conservative-leadership campaign, that Johnson would force through a no-deal Brexit—in which Britain would leave the EU without any withdrawal agreement, something the government’s own analysis says would cause chaos—by advising the queen to prorogue, or suspend, Parliament. He consistently refused to rule that out, although in June he did say he was “not attracted to archaic devices like proroguing.” Just this month, the government’s lawyers said the issue of prorogation was “entirely academic.”  Then, on Wednesday morning, to everyone’s surprise, Johnson made the move anyway.

    Prorogation itself is a normal part of the parliamentary process. It’s a necessary step before a Queen’s Speech, when the government sets out its legislative agenda, which Johnson has set for October 14. What’s extraordinary about this instance is its purpose and length. It’s not quite as bad as proroguing Parliament until it’s too late to stop a no-deal Brexit—or to avoid a vote of no confidence, as happened in Canada in 2008—but it’s still bad. John Bercow, the outspoken speaker of the House of Commons, called it a “constitutional outrage.” It was probably not unconstitutional for the queen to agree to the request, but it may have been unconstitutional for Johnson to make the request. It’s certainly an abuse of power, designed to make it more difficult for MPs to stop a no-deal Brexit.

    Johnson seems to believe that constraining lawmakers is a vote winner for a future People v. Parliament election in which he takes the side of the people. If he believes his supporters care so little about representative democracy, might he countenance even more egregious instances of executive power?

    The blame for this shift away from representative democracy rests not solely with Johnson. It stems from a series of decisions, taken by Parliament itself, from 2015 onward. Beginning with the legislation that set up the referendum, MPs consistently failed to put in place processes that would protect a role for Parliament in the event of a Leave vote. After the result, Parliament was thrown a lifeline by judges, who were called “enemies of the people” for ruling that the government needed parliamentary authorization to trigger the EU’s time-limited exit process. Still, MPs failed to take that lifeline, and voted overwhelmingly to allow the government to start the countdown. In the more than two years since, they have done nothing to stop it, and so most MPs have to accept their share of the blame for the breakdown in representative democracy.

    It’s equally true that the U.K.’s system of “responsible government” traditionally gives the executive enormous control over Parliament’s legislative agenda. The conventions establishing the executive’s control derive from the late 19th century, in part to stop Irish nationalists filibustering in the Commons—the rationale was that an executive with a majority in Parliament should be able to get its way. But that is less persuasive now, when Johnson’s Conservatives hold a minority of seats in the House of Commons. Other democracies don’t give the executive this power.

    It had also been assumed that one of the certainties of the British constitution, as it has developed over the past few centuries, is that the queen’s royal assent to legislation is a mere formality. But that convention, too, is being cast into doubt. If Johnson fails to stop a potential attempt by anti-no-deal MPs to force the government to seek an extension to Britain’s October 31 withdrawal date, media outlets here have reported that he may advise the queen not to give royal assent. That then comes into conflict with another well-established convention, which is that the monarch must act only on the advice of her ministers. If Johnson were to advise the queen not to give royal assent to a bill passed by Parliament, what would happen? The last monarch to refuse royal assent was Queen Anne, in 1708, when her ministers advised her, uncontroversially, not to sign the Scottish Militia Bill. For Johnson to give this advice now, however, would be enormously controversial. It’s hard to imagine any prime minister seriously putting the constitution and the monarchy in jeopardy like that.

    Yet some serious commentators and experts, such as the former first parliamentary counsel Stephen Laws, the retired law professor John Finnis, and the historian Andrew Roberts, have argued that it would be legitimate for the prime minister to advise the queen to refuse royal assent, that until the prime minister loses a vote of no confidence, his advice to the queen must be followed. They may be right that the queen must act only on the prime minister’s advice. But their proposal would not only put the queen’s political neutrality in danger. It would be authoritarian to a most odious degree. For the sake of representative democracy, the queen should not be advised to refuse assent to a bill passed by Parliament.

    One consequence of Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament is to make it more likely that there will be a vote of no confidence in the government. Here, too, old constitutional understandings are in doubt. Since the end of the Second World War, there has been only one instance of a government losing a vote of no confidence. That was in 1979, when Prime Minister James Callaghan lost. At that time, Callaghan effectively had a choice: He could resign immediately, or he could ask the queen to dissolve Parliament for a general election. He chose the latter. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, however, now requires a 14-day period following a vote of no confidence in which the Commons can pass a vote of confidence either in the existing government or in an alternative government led by someone whom MPs have recommended to the queen. If neither occurs, Parliament will be dissolved.

    Whichever of those options happens, there is plenty of room for more constitutional crises. Senior figures in No. 10 have given clear signals, reported in the media, that Johnson would not resign in the event of a no-confidence vote. If the Commons expresses its confidence in someone else, then for Johnson to stay would be, as former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind put it, “the gravest constitutional crisis since the actions of Charles I led to the Civil War.” The last monarch who dismissed an administration was King William IV in 1834. It would be less controversial for Queen Elizabeth II to dismiss Johnson. Arguably, it would be her constitutional duty. But it would still politicize the monarchy.

    If there’s to be an election, Johnson could play fast and loose with the constitution in other ways. He might, for example, choose an election date after the October 31 deadline for Britain to leave the EU, allowing Brexit to happen by default during an election campaign. That would be reckless in the extreme—including for Johnson’s chances of securing an overall majority. Would it also be unconstitutional? During election campaigns, there are so-called caretaker conventions, according to which the government should not make any controversial decisions that would bind a future government. The government would be right to insist that a no-deal Brexit is the legal default, but that does not necessarily mean there would be no duty on the government to change it. If Johnson loses a vote of no confidence, it would be because MPs had rejected a no-deal Brexit. Whatever the conventions of the constitution require, it would be a gross violation of representative democracy to ignore MPs’ wishes.

    The fact that all of this is up for debate is truly astonishing. To some scholars, such as Vernon Bogdanor, a politics professor at King’s College London, Brexit has demonstrated the need for the U.K. to adopt a codified constitution. The breakdown in parliamentary government—the triumph of populism over pluralism brought about by Brexit—strengthens the case for a codified constitution that would place more obstacles in the way of political power. But a codified constitution is not a panacea. As other countries have discovered, it would not be a guarantee against populist excess, and could even create more problems than it solves. That’s not to say there’s no need for reform. Britain’s constitution is hardly in rude health; in fact, it’s never been more vulnerable.

    For now, can anything be done to stop a determined prime minister who cares so little about the constitution and its protection of representative democracy? There are calls for mass civil disobedience, and we can expect such calls to get louder the further down this road Johnson goes. Others opposed to the means by which Johnson is pursuing Brexit are heading to the courts, though their legal challenges will be difficult to win. Their best hope is that MPs will find a way to legislate or bring down the government.

    Yet that still might not be enough. In the end, for all the talk of high principle, we are relying, to a large extent, on Johnson believing it to be in his self-interest to allow MPs to have their say and abide by any decisions they make. He probably will. At the very least, though, he and his team believe it to be in his self-interest to earn a reputation as a revolutionary rather than a conservative, replacing parliamentary democracy with authoritarian populism.

    • This article was first published in www.theatlantic.com

  • Brexit and the triumph of Boris Johnson

    The historic victory of the flamboyant and charismatic Boris Johnson as the new British Prime Minister and successor to Theresa May did not come as a surprise after all to political watchers who had been following the British Political drama since the Brexit impasse began about three years ago. Political pundits including British exit polls had earlier predicted that the loquacious former British Foreign Secretary Johnson would secure a decisive victory against his fellow Conservative Party challengers at the party’s Convention for the leadership of the deeply divided party.

    It was therefore a fait accompli when Johnson overwhelmingly defeated his sole challenger and the immediate past Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt in the keenly contested election with a wide margin of 92, 152…. Votes for Johnson and a little over   46, 000 votes for Hunt, representing about 66.4%. Johnson’s victory did not come so easily as he initially faced stiff opposition from a pack of other formidable contenders for the Party leadership position during the elimination process in accordance with the Conservative Party’s Constitution.

    The Conservative Party under the inept and visionless leadership  of the immediate past Prime Minister, Theresa May was completely torn apart and was in total disarray and therefore needed a strong and pragmatic leader to salvage its terribly battered image in the eyes of the British people. The strong and consistent campaign launched by Johnson during the leadership tussle and which  dramatically gave him the decisive victory was his vigorous and unrelenting campaign for the United Kingdom to exit from the fifty one years old European Union during the referendum in 2016. Johnson was clearly in the fore front during the campaign for “Yes” votes as opposed to the lackluster and sitting on the fence stance of his challengers during the Brexit Campaign as some of them were later converts to the Brexit movement as was the case with the former Prime Minister Theresa May who later jumped on the Brexit band wagon after she became the Prime Minister in 2016.

    It is worthy of note that during the series of televised debates among the party leadership contenders, the new Prime Minister Johnson was unequivocal on his strong position that Britain must exit from the European Union (EU) by the scheduled departure date which is 31st October 2019 “with or without a deal” while his main challenger Hunt, was hesitant but argued that he would rather re-open the Brexit negotiation with the E.U leaders with a view to securing a “new deal”  which could eventually be approved by Parliament should he win the leadership context and subsequently became the next Prime Minister.

    It was indeed a sweet and great victory for Boris Johnson whom President Trump of the U.S had earlier endorsed to win the Premiership contest. It would be noted also, that both President Trump and Prime Minister Johnson share many things in common since both have similar personalities as extroverts, loquacious and have penchant for controversies as well as enjoy a great deal of showmanship in public life.

    It is no gainsaying the fact however, that the honeymoon between Trump and Johnson would be short-lived and will soon be over after Johnson must have settled down to serious government business at No 10 Downing Street even as he would immediately be confronted with the monumental challenges facing the British people, uppermost is the seemingly intractable Brexit imbroglio which has so far defied all possible solutions to the political quagmire.

    The British people who are already downcast and frustrated by the lingering Brexit saga and uncertainty would obviously look up to Johnson to urgently find a lasting solution to the crisis and expect him to make a great success of his Premiership after his predecessor May had failed woefully to deliver Brexit deal to Britons in accordance with their wishes as freely and democratically expressed during the 2016 referendum. It is time to get down to business and Prime Minister Johnson should not be under any illusion or underestimate the enormity of the political challenges currently facing the British nation. These challenges could not be simply wished away by mere display of charismatic exuberance or brilliant rhetoric but require urgent and collective action by the British political gladiators to deal decisively with this political monster called Brexit.

    Prime Minister, Johnson no doubt, will be walking on a tight rope when he eventually presents his blue print for a “no deal” proposed in Parliament even as many MPs on both sides of the political divide including Johnson’s loyalists as well as other minority parties would almost certainly vote against his “no deal” proposal and consequently the Brexit debacle would continue to linger and to the detriment of the British public.

    Meanwhile, the European Union leaders at Brussels were already preparing for the worst case scenario of “no deal” as the 31st October 2019 deadline for the British departure is fast approaching. It was reported in diplomatic circles however, that Boris Johnson might probably approach the newly elected E.U leaders at Brussels with a view to reaching a compromise on certain contentious issues such as the backstop on the Irish border among other thorny issues. It remains to be seen however, if the new E.U leadership would be favourably disposed to re-open the Brexit deal which the Union had on various occasions declared as a “closed deal” even as the E.U might not after all, welcome a “no deal” scenario which obviously will not be in the overall interest of both parties and as such should be averted.

    In another rather bizarre development or twist which could further compound the perennial Brexit crisis was the recent threat by the former British Prime Minister John Major to the effect that he would soon initiate a legal action in the British court to stop the British Parliament (House of Commons) from performing certain legislative functions on Brexit deal and which might precipitate an unprecedented constitutional crisis in Britain.

    According to British political pundits and commentators, a second referendum on Brexit had become imperative in order to ascertain yet again the true wishes of the British people. Political watchers had observed that the last referendum in 2016 which approved Brexit by 52% “Yes votes” as against  48% “No votes” with a margin of a mere 4%  could not be said to reflect the true wishes of the British people.

    In the same vein, the anti-Brexit or pro-European campaigners had equally argued that there was lack of clarity regarding the long term implications or consequences of Brexit for the British public and her economy during the 2016 referendum and therefore, a second referendum would afford the British people yet another opportunity to critically examine the reality on the ground to enable them make an informed choice for their future and that of their generations yet unborn.

    Never-the-less the new British Prime Minister Johnson, must quickly deploy his political sagacity and brinkmanship to harmonize all diverse and shades of opinion among the political class to deal  decisively with the unending Brexit impasse and uncertainty in the country.  The British people had for long been subjected to unnecessary tension and uncertainty due to the lingering Brexit crisis and the time to end this malady is now.

    In his first major policy statement on Brexit after assuming office at No. 10 Downing Street, Johnson reiterated his earlier resolve that Britain must leave the European Union on 31st October, 2019 “with or without a deal” and not “ifs or buts”.  It is the high expectation of the British people that Prime Minister Johnson has the capacity and the magic wand to quickly resolve the Brexit logjam so as to restore the image of Britain as a major player in the arena of global politics and diplomacy.

    In conclusion, as Prime Minister Johnson grapples with the complex Brexit imbroglio, he is currently faced with another diplomatic disaster  in the Anglo-U.S relationship following a diplomatic  row between the  U.K and her most trusted and dependable ally the U.S and  coming on the heels of the leaked classified document in which the erstwhile British  Ambassador to the US was reported to have launched undiplomatic and most damaging attack on Trump’s administration whom he described as ‘inept and incoherent”.

    This rather embarrassing incident might affect the age long traditional relationship between the two close and trusted allies and Johnson must act quickly and nip in the bud the unfortunate incident as Britain could ill afford another diplomatic crisis and certainly not with the highly unpredictable and extremist demagogue President Trump of the United States and his administration.

     

    • Nze Akabogu  is a Public Affairs Analyst and wrote from Enugwu-Ukwu, Anambra State. E-mail: nzenwabuezeakabogu@yahoo.com

  • Brexit: As chaotic exit looms

    The beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May suffered yet another humiliating defeat in parliament (House of Commons) on Tuesday March 12, after her “new Brexit deal” was rejected by members of parliament (MPs) with a majority of 149 votes (242 in favour and 391 against).

    Her defeat came in quick succession after she had lost in her earlier attempt to obtain parliamentary approval on the so-called “original deal” on January 20.  By that defeat, the British parliament dealt yet another devastating blow to May’s leadership and her already battered image even as she had continued to bungle the Brexit deal which MPs had earlier insisted was a complete “sell-out” to the European Union.

    The last straw that finally broke the camel’s back was the legal opinion by the chief law officer of the British government and attorney general who repudiated the so-called last minute assurances obtained by May from the EU leaders on the highly contentious issue of the Custom Union on the Irish border. The attorney general maintained that the assurances May had extracted from the EU was not legally binding on the Brexit deal hence such assurances could not alter the contents of the already rejected deal.

    It was indeed a masterstroke which emboldened many hard-line Brexiteers in May’s governing Conservative Party to massively vote against the so-called “revised deal”. The EU’s so-called assurances to Theresa May was merely a window dressing  or simply put  a  symbolic  gesture  carefully designed to appease the embattled May who had since lost her moral authority not only within her own government but also in her governing  Conservative Party.  A “No deal” scenario which had long been predicted by political watchers in the unfolding Brexit drama now seems inevitable.

    In the past few weeks, parliament had been debating and voting on series of amendments on the Brexit deal including the possibility of a second referendum. Precisely on March 13, parliament rejected the “No deal” motion, 321 votes against and 278 votes in favour of no deal Brexit. In the same vein, parliament equally rejected the motion for a second referendum, 334 votes against and 85 votes in favour. Another crucial vote was taken on March 14 on the vexed issue of “Delay Brexit” or extension which would allow the United Kingdom more time to put together an acceptable deal that could be passed in parliament. In other words, should the EU grant the United Kingdom an extension, then the scheduled date for United Kingdom’s final departure from the EU which is slated for March 29 would no longer be feasible. Parliament had already voted in favour of delay Brexit or extension, 413 votes in favour and 202 against.

    In the midst of the extremely messy political situation and uncertainty, the Hon. Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow few days ago released what could be described as a bombshell when he told parliament that Prime Minister May could not re-present her Brexit deal in its present form which had been overwhelmingly rejected twice by parliament without substantial changes or amendments. This latest development had further compounded the already complicated Brexit impasse. It had equally thrown up a constitutional crises which was unprecedented since a similar political scenario erupted in 1604 about 300 years ago.

    In the meantime however, Theresa May in her familiar diplomatic shuttle was due to visit the European leaders in Brussels on Thursday March 21, with a view to convincing them to grant the United Kingdom an extension beyond March 29, which is the scheduled date for her departure from the EU. The United Kingdom had requested for a new departure date and which is June 30. But whether the European leaders would be favourably disposed to grant an extension to the United Kingdom is entirely a different matter altogether even as the EU had always insisted that the British parliament had not yet come up with any viable alternative to the Brexit deal which Prime Minister May signed with the EU leaders more than two years ago.  For any Brexit extension to happen however, it will require the revocation of the all important Article 50 in the union treaty which initially triggered off the Brexit process by Britain over a year ago.

    According to press statement just released in Brussels, leaders of the 27 member states of the EU after their crucial meeting on Thursday March 21 granted Britain an extension up till April 22, to allow the British parliament approve the Brexit deal or in the alternative, bring up any other viable option that would be acceptable to the European Union. It seems time has already run out for the British to engage in further political manoeuvring in the utterly confusing Brexit imbroglio.

    As the Brexit saga continues to rage however, another dangerous dimension to the endless crises seem to have reared its ugly head when Prime Minister May in a televised broadcast to the British people in the evening of March 20 launched what could be described as a veiled attack on the integrity of the MPs whom she accused of being the stumbling block to her Brexit deal without offering any meaningful proposal or alternative to the deal.  She devoted much of her speech to what could be termed a blame game and had assured the British people that she was always with them and vowed to carry out the people’s sacred mandate which they unambiguously expressed in the referendum to leave the EU about three years ago. Swift reactions from some conservative party members in parliament however, greeted her speech who described her televised speech as simply outrageous and unfortunate.

    Meanwhile Britain appears to be in a terrible political quagmire, disarray and had boxed herself into a tight corner, even as the British economy is currently under severe stress and in an unprecedented state of doldrums and uncertainty.  The lingering political crises has adversely affected the British currency the Pound Sterling, which had been on the receiving end since the Brexit stalemate even as its volatility had impacted negatively on the lives of the British people generally.

    To British political watchers, the Brexit debacle could be attributed to the British political leaders or gladiators who had grossly underestimated the dire consequences the Brexit deal would cause the British economy and her people. The British political leaders across the political spectrum were simply myopic and could not see beyond their noses even as they were merely concerned with the primordial sentiment and extreme narrow interest of protecting the British sovereignty and blind nationalism which they argued were arbitrarily ceded to the European Union via the Union Treaty of 1958.

    The British have simply shot themselves on the foot and are now paying dearly for their omission or commission in the entire Brexit saga. The United Kingdom made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is currently facing unprecedented threat of disintegration occasioned by the Brexit uncertainty. The people of Scotland who overwhelmingly voted to remain in the European Union are already calling for yet another referendum for Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. Similarly, the people of Northern Ireland who also voted to remain in the EU are equally reaffirming their yearnings and aspirations to re-unite with their kith and kin in Irish Republic across the border who equally voted massively to remain in the EU.  Should the above scenario eventually play out, it would be only a matter of time when the people of Wales would also demand for their own independence and leaving England alone as a nation.

     

    Akabogu (JP) wrote from Enugwu-Ukwu, Anambra State.

  • Theresa May battles to keep control of Brexit

    Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday battled to keep control of Britain’s exit from the European Union as some in her party called on her to quit.

    The parliament, however, plotted to wrest the Brexit process away from her government.

    At one of the most important junctures for the country in no less than a generation, British politics was at fever pitch and, almost three years since the 2016 EU membership referendum.

    Meanwhile, it was still unclear how, when or if Brexit will take place.

    With May weakened, ministers lined up to insist she was still in charge and to deny any part in, or knowledge of, a reported plot to demand she name a date to leave office.

    As speculation swirled around May’s future, parliament prepared to try to take control of the Brexit process from the government in a series of votes due from 2200 GMT.

    “May’s divided cabinet of senior ministers met on Monday to discuss a way forward,’’ May’s spokesman said, though contradictory reports of the discussions, which are supposed to remain private, were swiftly published on Twitter.

    “The PM opened by suggesting that “no deal’’ is not a viable option.

    “Other ministers said no deal is better than no Brexit.

    “Other reports said her cabinet war-gamed an election,” the Daily Telegraph’s deputy political editor Steven Swinford reported.

    Amid the chaos, it was unclear when May would bring her divorce deal back to parliament.

    The deal May negotiated with the EU was defeated in parliament by 149 votes on March 12 and by 230 votes on Jan. 15.

    “We will only bring the vote back if we believe that we would be in a position to win it,” May’s spokesman said, declining to comment on whether it would take place on Tuesday.

    May had to delay Britain’s original March 29 departure date because of the deadlock in London.

    Now, the country will leave the EU on May 22 if May’s deal is approved by parliament this week.

    If not, Britain will have until April 12 to offer a new plan or decide to leave without a treaty.

  • Dollar set for biggest weekly drop in three months

    The dollar slipped against its rivals on Friday and was set for its biggest weekly drop in more than three months before a U.S. Central Bank meeting next week.

    Policymakers will at the meeting shed more light on the outlook for interest rates.

    While no change in policy rates is expected next week after the Fed paused a multi-year rate hiking cycle in January, officials might strike a more cautious view on the outlook for the global economy after a volatile week in currency markets.

    “We are coming to the end of a very exhausting week in currency markets with the Brexit news and, investors are waiting to get more insights from the Fed,” said Esther Maria Reichelt, an FX strategist at Commerzbank.

    Against its rivals, the dollar fell 0.2 per cent to 96.61 in early London trading. For the week, it is set to weaken 0.7 per cent, its biggest drop since early December.

    READ ALSO: Naira stable at N360.5 to dollar at parallel market

    Antipodean currencies led by the Australian dollar and its New Zealand counterpart were the biggest gainers against the dollar after Beijing said it could use reserve requirements and interest rates to support growth.

    The outlook for both those currencies is heavily correlated with the outlook for the Chinese economy.

    The yen remained firm after the Bank of Japan kept monetary policy steady but tempered its optimism that robust exports and factory output will underpin growth, giving a boost to its perceived safe-haven status.

    Elsewhere, the pound paused for breath but stayed on course for its biggest weekly gain in seven weeks on growing expectations that Britain won’t crash out of the European Union without a deal on March 29.

    Sterling last traded at 1.3217 dollar, below Wednesday’s nine-month high of 1.3380 dollar, but up 1.8 per cent so far this week, the biggest such gain since late January after the UK parliament voted to seek a delay in Britain’s exit from the European Union, following a decision to avert a no-deal Brexit.

    The Chinese currency in the offshore market also remained firm against the dollar at 6.71 yuan per dollar.

    Reuters/NAN

  • Hitachi freezes UK nuclear project as Brexit crisis deepens

    Japan’s Hitachi Ltd., on Thursday decided to freeze a three trillion yen (28 billion dollars) nuclear power project in Wales as Britain scrabbles for a way to exit the EU.

    It has however dealt a blow to UK plans for the replacement of ageing plants.

    The suspension came as Hitachi’s Horizon Nuclear Power failed to find private investors for its plans to build a plant in Anglesey, which was expected to provide about six per cent of Britain’s electricity.

    “We’ve made the decision to freeze the project from the economic standpoint as a private company,” Hitachi said, adding that it had booked a write-down of 300 billion yen.

    Hitachi had called on the British government to boost financial support for the project to appease investor anxiety.

    “However turmoil over the country’s impending EU exit limited the government’s capacity to compile plans.

    “Hitachi had banked on a group of Japanese investors and the British government each taking a one-third stake in the equity portion of the project,’’ the people said.

    The project would have been financed one-third by equity and rest by debt.

    “It is now clear that further time is needed to develop a financial structure for the horizon project and the conditions for building and operating the nuclear power stations,” Hitachi said.

    With the clock ticking down to March 29, the date set in law for Brexit, the UK is now in the deepest political crisis in half a century as it grapples with how, or even whether, to exit the European project it joined in 1973.

    Prime Minister Theresa May’s two-year attempt to forge an amicable divorce was crushed by parliament this week in the biggest defeat for a British leader in modern history, deepening uncertainty for potential investors.

    The withdrawal of the Japanese conglomerate could leave the nuclear new build industry open to Russian and Chinese state-owned companies as Western private firms struggle to compete.

    China’s General Nuclear Services, an industrial partnership between China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN) and French utility EDF (EDF.PA), planned to make a number of investments in Britain’s nuclear power sector.

    CGN also intended to deploy the first Chinese-designed reactor for use in Britain at a plant in Bradwell, Essex.

  • Brexit deal and Britain’s future

    Sir: Four months from now, precisely on March 29, 2019, Britain will formally terminate her membership of the European Union (EU) amidst great tension and uncertainty. At the moment the U.K appears to be in a serious dilemma and terrible quagmire on her future occasioned by the current highly confused and volatile political situation in the country.

    The British Parliament (House of Commons) is due to vote in a crucial debate on the so-called Theresa May’s “chequers deal” on December 11. To political watchers at Westminster, the Brexit deal appears to be dead on arrival even as many MPs particularly among the back benchers within the governing Conservative Party are already set to vote against the “obnoxious” Brexit deal. And recently, many senior Ministers in May’s Cabinet had to resign from their posts due to their outright rejection of the deal they felt was a monumental betrayal of the British people who had voted to leave the European Union (EU). One of the senior cabinet Ministers that had to quit his job was the flamboyant and irrepressible former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who was an outspoken critic of May’s Brexit deal.

    It is instructive to note also that Prime Minister May only became a convert to Brexit movement when she took over the reins of power from her predecessor Cameron who had vigorously campaigned for “remain or pro E.U but dramatically lost the battle hence his sudden downfall. Theresa May appears to be facing a similar predicament as a potential “Brexit casualty” in her current unenviable position even as she has no more room for maneuvering out of the looming political Tsunami that is already set to sweep her out of power.

    On the other side of the political spectrum, members ofthe opposition Labour Party in parliament led by Jeremy Corbyn had already taken a strong and unequivocal position to vote collectively against the Brexit deal in parliament.

    The beleaguered Prime Minister May has so far remained defiant insisting that the deal was the best Britain could ever get in the present circumstances. She had warned her fellow compatriots that the worst case scenario of “no deal” or “crash out” arrangement would be catastrophic for Britain in the event of parliament rejecting the Brexit deal in its present form already signed by the European leaders.

    Two possiblescenarios seem to be playing out in the whole Brexit saga or drama. Should the British parliament reject the Brexit deal in its present form (a real possibility), then the first case scenario might lead to a second referendum which had already gained widespread national support by the British people. While the second case scenario might lead to the instant dissolution of the British parliament and subsequent snap general election.

    In either scenario, Theresa May’s premiership would certainly be in serious jeopardy as majority members of her Conservative Party both in parliament and outside had already lost confidence completely in her leadership. Theresa May’s sheer political bravado and brilliant rhetoric had so far kept her going and precariously hanging onto power.

    The historic moment has therefore arrived for the British people to once again take their collective destiny into their own hands and the day of decision is already at hand when the British parliament is expected to vote either to accept or reject Theresa May’s Brexit deal with the European leaders.

    The ball is now in the court of the British parliament to act decisively in the overall interest of the deeply polarized, highly confused and traumatized Britons.

     

    Nze Nwabueze Akabogu (JP), Enugwu-Ukwu, Anambra State.

  • British envoy: Brexit ’ll favour Nigeria, others

    Nigeria is United Kingdom’s (UK’s) major trading partner in Africa. She, therefore, stands to benefit tremendously from Brexit, Deputy High Commissioner, British High Commission, Ms Laure Beaufils, has said.

    Britain voted to exit the European Union (EU) in 2017, a decision famously termed “Brexit.” Beaufils said the possibility of Nigeria benefiting tremendously from Brexit was high, as it remains UK’s major trading partner in the continent.

    Speaking against the backdrop of the recent visits by British Prime Minster Theresa May and monarch Prince Charles, during the week, Beaufils said, for instance, Nigeria has a larger chunk of UK’s £400 million investment in Africa.

    The British envoy, however, said the only thing that may work against Nigeria with some British investors was the fact that sometimes investors are confused as to the risks inherent in investing in the country and how to mitigate them.

    She also criticized policy somersaults in the country, which, she said, are capable of discouraging investors.

    Beaufils cited the MTN’s recent spat with regulatory authorities in Nigeria, noting that such rash decisions were not good for the development and growth of the economy especially in job creation.

    The Chairman of Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council (CWEIC), Lord Marland of Odstock, underscored Britain’s new interest in Nigeria and other Commonwealth countries.

    “There are one or two really encouraging, optimistic places on the horizon. You’ve got the big populations such as Nigeria, which is going to be 320 million people bigger than the United States in less than 10 years.

    “They love British products; it’s a huge consumer market. Fundamentally, there is a lot of disposable wealth,” he said, in an interview with the UK Telegraph.

    While noting that many Commonwealth countries including Nigeria offer new opportunities for Britain, the CWEIC Chairman said post-Brexit, the UK was looking to establish a trading zone with many of its former colonies.

    Trade between Commonwealth nations was worth $525 billion in 2015, and it is projected to more than double by 2020. Cumulative Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of all these nations will also be worth $14 trillion by 2020, according to experts.

    The Commonwealth is a bloc of former British colonies with a population of about 2.4 billion people and includes countries such as Nigeria, Australia and Canada.

     

    influence has been especially felt in Nigeria as the largest economy in Africa, and 30 per cent of its exports go into the bloc’s market, while India accounts for 15 per cent of Nigeria’s exports.

  • Tony Blair advises party to vote down May’s possible Brexit deal

    Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday said he would advise Labour Party lawmakers to vote down a Brexit divorce deal that Theresa May is trying to clinch with the EU.

    Nearly six months before the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, there is little clarity about how the world’s fifth largest economy and its preeminent international financial centre will trade with the EU after Brexit.

    Blair, Labour prime minister from 1997 to 2007, said voters should be given another referendum on whether to stay in the EU as he saw deadlock in British politics.

    If May gets can strike a deal with the EU, she has to get it approved by the British parliament which is divided on Brexit.

    Labour has indicated it is likely to vote down any deal May brings back.

    When asked if he would advise Labour lawmakers to vote down a possible deal, Blair said: “It really is difficult.

    “The alternatives are all worse because if you do get to a blockage in parliament that is what opens up the possibility of going back to the people.

    “My view is this only happens if there is blockage in parliament.

    “However, if there is blockage in parliament it is a very simple argument. You say look we have been two and a bit years trying to reach an agreement that works, parliament is blocked.”

    Read Also: Court upholds constitutionality of Executive Order 6

    Both opponents and supporters of Brexit agree that the divorce is Britain’s most significant geopolitical move since World War Two.

    However, they cast vastly different futures for the 2.9 trillion dollars UK economy and the world’s biggest trading bloc.

    Blair has repeatedly called for reversing Brexit, echoing other critics such as French President Emmanuel Macron and billionaire investor George Soros, who have suggested that Britain could still change its mind.

    Blair said that if Brexit did happen, the economic dislocation would be such that the United Kingdom would have to pitch to investors that it would be the best place in the world to do business.

  • Brexit: SNP would back ‘People’s Vote’ calls, says Sturgeon

    THE SNP MPs would back a new Brexit referendum if it were put to them, party leader Nicola Sturgeon has said.

    Campaigners have been pressing for a fresh vote on whatever exit plans result from talks with EU leaders.

    PM Theresa May has rejected calls for a so-called People’s Vote and while Labour has not ruled it out, it wants a general election to decide the issue.

    Ms Sturgeon said SNP MPs would oppose anything short of staying in the single market and customs union.

    Neither choice features in the plan backed by the cabinet at Chequers in July, which the prime minister insists is the only credible option to avoid a “no-deal” scenario.

    EU leaders said last month that Mrs May’s proposed new economic partnership “will not work”. However, they have struck a more optimistic note in recent days.

    Juncker says chance of Brexit deal has increased     Brexit: what happens next?

    Irish deputy prime minister Simon Coveney said on Sunday that the “chances [of a deal] are good” before the UK is due to withdraw from the bloc on 29 March.

    “The withdrawal treaty is already about 90% agreed in terms of text… what is needed now is the two negotiating teams need to lock themselves in a room for the next 10 days or so,” he told Sky News.

    The People’s Vote campaign wants the public to have the final say on any deal. On Sunday hundreds of dog-owners marched their pets through central London to support the calls.

    Actor Peter Egan and Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy were among those addressing a rally in Parliament Square. Ex-Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who marched with his five-month-old Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, claimed politicians were “scared” of another referendum.

    Media captionSturgeon: SNP MPs would back new Brexit vote   Ms Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that her MPs would back calls for another public vote.

    Speaking ahead of the SNP conference in Glasgow, Ms Sturgeon said the UK was heading for a “cobbled together” exit agreement that would be “almost as unacceptable as no deal at all”.

    Any deal would be put to MPs in a vote at Westminster, as well as having to be ratified by the remaining EU member states.

    “In those circumstances, sensible MPs of all parties should come together to look at the alternative,” she said.

    “No doubt calls for a second referendum would grow in those circumstances, and I’ve said before we wouldn’t stand in the way of a second referendum. I think SNP MPs would undoubtedly vote for that proposition.”