RE: Recent correspondence concerning the breaking of the manifesto commitment to the "oven-ready" Deal
From: Mike Cashman
Sent: 02 October 2020 12:06
To: 'STEWART, Iain' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: 'Peter Cook'
Subject: RE: Recent correspondence concerning the breaking of the
manifesto commitment to the "oven-ready" Deal
Dear Iain
- Thank you for writing back. This is very much appreciated.
- I am glad you enjoyed (is that the word?) the video
- I note your comment that in general you will not reply, and of
course therefore assume that this comment may apply to this email. At
the same time I am pleased to hear that you do read the correspondence.
- While I apologise if any publicity has given you cause for concern,
I am a little puzzled about your “broadcasting” comment. My view is that
your actions as an MP – including correspondence with constituents on
matters of public policy - can be shared in the public domain. I
will read any alternative view on this that you might wish to express
- I understand that you do not have time for discussions with every
constituent. However you may receive many invitations seeking to discuss
why, by voting for the Internal Market Bill and therefore voting against complying
with the Withdrawal Agreement, you voted against the manifesto
commitment to support the “oven-ready Deal”.
Please understand that I have professed no support for the Withdrawal Agreement; you, on the other hand, have done so last year, and have now voted to renege on that support.
This is a serious matter. Some accountability to constituents, many of whom may have voted for you on the basis of your 2019 promise, would surely be appropriate?
I understand that this will have been a difficult decision, since the Prime Minister was seeking your support to break the manifesto promise; but some dialogue with constituents would be helpful. - You wrote “I do not, however, wish to reopen the Brexit debates of
the last few years …”. But that is exactly what you have done, and that
is the reason for the letter.
What you and your Party declared had been settled by the General Election of 2019 is now up in the air by the actions of your Government and you.
This is not because of anything unforeseen (if as you say you have read all our correspondence), because the issues were fully predicted in my letter to you of December 2019 and in a shorter version of it in the Guardian 19 December 2019, and were acknowledged in DexEu’s reply in January 2020.
I further predicted that the Government would not be ready
The Government is not ready
The Government’s action seems somewhat akin to that of a pupil who, not having completed his homework, presses the Fire Alarm in order to create a diversion.
Now of course I accept that your analogy for the situation might be different to this. But that is why some dialogue might be informative.
- I would like to associate
myself fully with all Peter Cook’s remarks (appended below) including the
constructive suggestions for engagement with the debate on Monday, October
5th. In this way you can be aware that all these remarks
are also the views of a constituent of yours.
Wishing you well, and good health in
these difficult times
Mike
Mike Cashman
www.viewdelta.com
________________________________
Dear Iain,
Apologies at adding yet one more letter to your inbox, but I wish to reply and resonate with what Mike Cashman said to you. You are a rare breed in so far that not many MP’s now bother to reply to their constituents, including my own Mr Rehman Chishti.
I implore you to do something wonderful for future generations and ask penetrating questions on Monday. It would make a much better legacy. I understand the issue of Brexit apathy better than most. As a business consultant with 12 books to my name, I also understand that it is always a mistake to ignore something of vital importance just because the topic has become “boring”. As my colleague Richard Branson says “Only a fool never changes their mind when the circumstances change”. I believe your own party members have said the same.
My
own thoughts on the matter are attached.
Peter
Cook
***************
I write
to ask you to support the motion to Halt Brexit for a Public Enquiry on Monday
5th October. It must have become obvious to you that Corona crisis + Brexit
disaster = a Britastrophe. If you are not convinced, I'd ask you to read the
report by LSE, summarised at http://brexitrage.com/brexonomics
Of
course, it's not all about economics. We seem to be headed towards no deal
Brexit again, having been deemed illegal by the House of Commons in the last
Parliament. It is widely predicted that Brexit will lead to extremely bad
social outcomes in the winter of 2021, alongside flu, flooding and the 2nd
COVID wave. with medicine and food shortages. Are the deaths of children and
vulnerable people to be your epitaph as an MP?
You will be aware that the Supreme Court stated that Brexit would have been deemed illegal had the referendum been binding, but deferred the judgement because of the non-binding nature of the Brexit vote. We also know that the desire to leave the European Union has now declined to just 35% versus 57% wishing to remain. We are at present in a situation where international law may be breached if we pursue the provisions of the Internal Market Act. I'd hazard a guess that the only trade deals we'll be pursuing will be with North Korea and Venezuela in such circumstances.
From: STEWART, Iain <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Sent: 02 October 2020 09:40
To: mike.cashman@actalpha.com
Subject: Recent correspondence
Dear Mr Cashman,
I acknowledge receipt of your many emails. Please be assured that I do read them, and have watched your video with Peter Cook. I did find it rather odd but I suppose I ought to be flattered.
I am not in a position to give you a running commentary on these matters. With nearly 100,000 constituents, many of whom many contact me each week on a wide range of issues and many who take a very different view on Brexit to you, I have to treat all equitably and am not able to meet your every demand.
As an apparent connoisseur of political and procedural matters, I am also sure that you will understand that, as a Minister, I am bound by the principle of collective responsibility and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to comment privately on matters which are under live consideration, particularly given your penchant for broadcasting on wider media about me.
In making these comments, I in no way trivialise what are important matters and I do read widely and deeply about them. I do not, however, wish to reopen the Brexit debates of the last few years and I remain of the view that we shall, in the weeks and months to come, settle a satisfactory future trade partnership with the EU as well as striking new trade deals around the world, as we have recently done so with Japan.
Kind regards,
Iain
UK Parliament
Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has
been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by
any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not
encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.
________________________________________
From: Mike Cashman
<mike.cashman@actalpha.com>
Sent: 01 October 2020 20:25
To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk'
<iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: 'mike.cashman@viewdelta.com' <mike.cashman@viewdelta.com>
Subject: Brexit petitions 5th October, and online meeting with you 8th
October.
Importance: High
Dear Iain Stewart
As you know I am writing to you as
one of your constituents. I hope you and your family are well during these
difficult times – I recall you have elderly parents in Scotland - and thank you
for taking the time to read this letter.
Petitions about
Brexit are, I understand, to be debated in Parliament on 5 October. One covers
extending the Transition period. The other is "Halt Brexit for a Public
Enquiry" because the Electoral Commission decided that illegal
overspending occurred during the Referendum campaign.
Thank you for
responding to me in January. The letter which you sent on to me from DexEU on
January indicated that H.M. Government was fully aware of the implications of
the Withdrawal Agreement, and that it was fully aware of preparations that
needed to be made, and would have a plan to achieve them all in time.
It’s clear that this
is not the case – the arrangements (Deal or No Deal) would need to be settled
at least, say, 6 months at least before the implementation date, and yet we now
have only 3 months to go, the possibility of a Deal sabotaged by the Internal
Market Bill, and no evident plan that has any measure of bilateral agreement.
The evidence for 31st December 2020 being an appropriate date was thin from the
beginning, as per my letter to you of December 2019; the evidence that it is
now the appropriate date does not exist.
I note that there
has been no answer to any of my follow-up correspondence on this matter since
January 2020.
Importantly, the
proposal now from the Tory Party is unambiguously a proposal for No Deal,
because the EU will make no treaties with an organisation that breaks the
agreements already made. So we therefore need to discard the suggestion
that the “Will of the People” is being carried out, since “No Deal” was never
proposed in the referendum. It would be sensible however to investigate the
sorry process by which votes were obtained in that referendum, because that
will be helpful in any decision to set that result aside and investigate what
is truly wanted or wise in 2020 / 2021
I hope that debating
these petitions will help the Government to reconsider these points and change
its approach.
I would like to
invite you to meet me and other constituents at an online lobby event on 8th
October that is being hosted by the European Movement, dedicated to discussing
the negative impacts a No Deal Brexit would have on Milton Keynes South.
News reports and
government leaks have confirmed that No Deal would be a threat to our economy,
to our NHS, and to jobs, it is really important to me that people in the
constituency can meet you to discuss our concerns.
Although we cannot meet in person, there is still lots to discuss. Please send me a link to an online meeting (e.g., Zoom) on 8th October, at whatever time works for you.
You may be receiving similar requests from other constituents. If it would be more convenient for you, I am happy to join others in a single meeting with you to discuss the issue. I know how packed your schedule must be. I would really appreciate even just 20 minutes of your time, though would be happy to spend more time on this if convenient.
Please confirm the time of our call as soon as possible.
With best
wishes
Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
_______________________________
From: Mike Cashman
Sent: 21 September 2020 17:06
To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk'
<iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: 'sally.murrer@jpress.co.uk' <sally.murrer@jpress.co.uk>;
'Sally Murrer' <Sally.Murrer@jpimedia.co.uk>;
'ben.everitt.mp@parliament.uk' <ben.everitt.mp@parliament.uk>; 'Peter Cook'
Subject: RE: Iain Stewart, are you loyal to your promise on the Withdrawal
Agreement, or do you support Boris Johnson's position which has diverged from
the Withdrawal Agreement? - update
Dear Iain
It has now become
clear, not surprisingly, that a vote for Internal Market Bill with clauses
41-45 is a vote for a Brexit No Deal, because the EU will not make a deal with
a country that breaks or threatens to break an Agreement already made
There is not and
has never been a mandate for a No Deal Brexit, and to vote for one is in no way
fulfilling the “Will of the People”. Such a move would be unprincipled
and deeply counter-productive
The rule of law is
a founding principle of our country. It ensures that individuals, companies,
and Government remain accountable to each other, and that fundamental rights
are protected and enforced. The Law Society has said that this Bill – in its
current form – represents a direct challenge to the rule of law, which include
the country’s obligations under public international law, as it allows
Ministers broad powers to derogate from obligations under international
agreements.
The Bill will cause
the global reputation of the UK as a trade partner to suffer, particularly in
the context of ongoing negotiations with the EU and other countries. The UK
enjoys a reputation as a centre for international legal practice and dispute
resolution, and English law is used by in contracts the world over – this is
not something that should be jeopardised. The rule of law should never be
broken, but we are increasingly witnessing challenges to it. Unamended, the
Internal Market Bill will further undermine the rule of law.
The letter from DexEU
(James Duddridge) that you forwarded to me dated 27th January
2020 made it clear that the Government fully understood the proposed Northern
Ireland Protocol , and the letter points out that the Protocol avoids a hard
border on the on the island of Ireland; as we know, unlike the previous
agreement, it shifts some controls to the Irish Sea. It is not possible for the
UK Government to say that this was not understood when the Withdrawal Agreement
was proposed by the UK government
For these reasons,
I urge you to support any amendments that would remove or nullify Clauses 41-45
– for example, tabled amendments 1, 2 & 3, which remove Clauses 42, 43
& 45 respectively..
Yours sincerely
Mike
Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
From: mike.cashman@actalpha.com
Sent: 17 September 2020 00:06
To: iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk
Cc: sally.murrer@jpress.co.uk; Sally
Murrer <Sally.Murrer@jpimedia.co.uk>; ben.everitt.mp@parliament.uk; mike.cashman@viewdelta.com; Peter
Cook <peter@humdyn.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Iain Stewart, are you loyal to your promise on the
Withdrawal Agreement, or do you support Boris Johnson's position which has
diverged from the WA? (corrected)
Dear Iain, two
brief points to add
1. We can add
Margaret Thatcher’s voice to the opponents of the Internal Market Bill.
She said
“Britain does not
break treaties.
It would be bad for
Britain, bad for relations with the rest of the world, and bad for any future
Treaty on trade”, and this has been rightly quoted by Ursula von der Leyen, the
President of the European Commission.
2. Regarding the
proposed requirement for a Parliamentary vote, international law-breaking is
still law-breaking irrespective of how many accomplices are involved. Indeed
voting for the Internal Market Bill would appear to constitute conspiracy to
break the law. This would be a grave stain on the record of any MP who
supported this Bill, and as per the quote above the consequences for the U.K.
would be very adverse
I look forward to
hearing that you are on the side of international law, and that you would want
to uphold the UK’s reputation rather than damaging it, and that therefore you
will vote against this Bill
with my warm
regards
Mike
Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
On 16 Sep 2020, at 08:38, "mike.cashman@actalpha.com"
<mike.cashman@actalpha.com> wrote:
Dear
Iain
I feel that I
should follow up on the fairly blunt question I asked you before Monday’s
vote, and replace that question with this letter.
Many of my contacts
were horrified at the result of the vote on Monday, and I have sought to assure
them that this vote is not final. A vote “in favour” at Second Reading can
equate to a vote to give a Bill more detailed scrutiny. I don’t hesitate
to say that I would have hoped that law-abiding lawmakers would have voted down
this Bill by now; but as my question on Monday indicated, I can at least see
that there was a question of competing loyalties, which may have made that a
very agonising decision. Importantly, options are still open; many of your
colleagues have let it he known through various channels that they do not
intend to pass this unamended Bill into law, and so there is still hope for the
UK’s reputation.
You may as I say
have faced a very difficult decision. You pledged support to the
Withdrawal agreement and your country signed it. Now your leader wants to
renege on it. Where does your loyalty lie?
There was
ample time for scrutiny and this is the Agreement that the current Prime
Minister argued for and on the basis of this sought UK support at the
General Election.
Reneging on the
agreement now would mean that the basis upon which the General Election was
fought was invalid and the government should resign.
Referring to our
correspondence, then between you and me we have to acknowledge that the
challenges of the Northern Ireland protocol were indeed recognised; our
correspondence in December 2019 and January 2020 (including the forwarded
response from DexEU) makes that clear.
My letter in the
Guardian 19 Dec 2019 explicitly raised the possibility that the “oven ready”
Agreement was a sham, as has now become evident.
In fact I wrote in
December 2019 to you
“The fact that the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary
disagree is a dreadful harbinger of problems to come.”
You will I’m
sure take note of the opposition to this Bill of all living former Prime
Ministers, of the former Conservative Leader Michael Howard, and two former
Conservative Attorney Generals
Leaders come and
go. The challenges of Brexit have ended the leadership of the last two
Tory Prime Ministers and will perhaps before long claim their third termination
since the Prime Minister is now in an impossibly dishonourable position
It is also worth
noting, from our correspondence, that your support for Dominic Cummings’
rule-breaking depended on no further damaging evidence emerging, in other words
on the fairly fragile hope that no further evidence emerges about a further
trip to Durham the weekend after Easter, and that the unscrutinised “evidence”
of his presence in London then can stand challenge. ( I am assuming that this
“evidence” is simply decoy evidence of a particular mobile phone being in
London - I don’t know, since it has not been made public). How long would the
Prime Minister last without his adviser?
But the reputation
of the UK is at stake - and that can be much more long-lasting than a transient
Prime Minister. This matters for all future trade Deals. Aside from the
moral and reputational questions, there is no point in swindling the EU if, as
seems certain, the result is that the USA and other leading nations then
understandably decline to form any agreement with the U.K., since any such
agreement would not be worth the paper it is printed on.
I recognise
that defeating this Bill will need determination and working together. I am
sure that there is much discussion on this between back-bench MPs.
Any MPs who
vote to pass this Bill into Law will have to recognise that this action which
undermines the reputation of the UK will stand forever on their voting
record, and so as individuals they should never expect to be trusted again.
You will I’m
sure be aware of the concerns raised by Geoffrey Cox. I felt that the article
by his Devon colleague Gary Streeter was also particularly compelling.
https://www.facebook.com/garystreeterSWD/
I hope that you can
recognise the significance of this position and that you will also have the
courage to support the rule of law and to declare your position and your
rationale publicly this week.
with my warm
regards
Mike
Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
On 13 Sep 2020, at 09:15, Peter Cook wrote:
Thank you Mike and
Iain,
Yes, silence is
assent.
With your agreement
I’d like to publish your answer to uphold standards of democracy.
Peter Cook
From: Mike
Cashman
Date: Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 08:03
To: <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: <sally.murrer@jpress.co.uk>, 'Sally Murrer' <Sally.Murrer@jpimedia.co.uk>, <ben.everitt.mp@parliament.uk>, Mike Cashman <mike.cashman@viewdelta.com>,
Subject: Iain Stewart, are you loyal to your promise on the Withdrawal
Agreement, or do you support Boris Johnson's position which has diverged from
the WA?
Dear Iain
I note the absence
of any answers from you to my communications in May, June and August about the
Northern Ireland protocol. I suppose I should not be surprised, and I conclude
that need to take your silence as tacit agreement that there really is no
sensible answer. We are now three and a half months only away from the full
withdrawal date, this is nowhere near enough time for businesses to prepare,
and they still do not know full details because no agreement has been reached
with the EU, so there can not now be any credible plan.
I would like to ask
about loyalty. I understand that to be selected as Tory candidate in 2019
you were required so sign a pledge of loyalty to Boris Johnson’s Withdrawal
Agreement. I have not seen the exact wording and would be interested to see it.
But, since presumably you signed that pledge, can you confirm that you are
sticking to your promise and fully supporting the Withdrawal Agreement? Or are
you now supporting Boris Johnson, who does not now fully support the Withdrawal
Agreement he signed?
(We know of course
in negotiation that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. If the W
Withdrawal Agreement had not been signed and the current issues were sticking
points then we would conclude that nothing had yet been agreed).
So, please could
you indicate, so that your constituents are aware:
A,
Do you support the Withdrawal Agreement which you promised to support
Or
- Do you support Boris
Johnson’s current position, which has diverged from the Withdrawal
Agreement?
Simply responding
“A” or “B” will be adequate, and can I suggest that you should not hide your
position on this matter from your constituents?
Yours very
sincerely
Mike
Cc: Sally Murrer,
MK Citizen newspaper
Ben Everitt MP
Peter Cook
Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
From: Mike Cashman
Sent: 22 August 2020 09:14
To: iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk
Cc: sally.murrer@jpress.co.uk; 'Sally
Murrer' <Sally.Murrer@jpimedia.co.uk>;
'Peter Cook' ; publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk; ben.everitt.mp@parliament.uk;
Subject: The need to consider seriously how to respond to constituents'
concerns about waste of public money
Importance: High
Dear Iain
I am grateful to
Peter Cook (in cc and who you will see on this video) for helping me to
summarise some interactions with you over the past few months, with his
occasional wry illustration to keep the video watchable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU04yQTuNss
In the interview we
did not dwell on my most recent letters, which call for an answer on the point
where we originally exchanged letters. Although I have not had any
response in 2 months on this matter from either you or Michael Gove, who
I believe has responsibility I believe for the Northern Ireland protocol;
we are now at a point where the complexity of what was being proposed is in the
public domain, with reports of £350 million being spent to mitigate some of the
problems of the Northern Ireland protocol. It will of course be much more
bearing in mind the unclear requirement; this is a Government It disaster
project in the making (I have seen them before in a professional capacity) .
But at this point there is opportunity to avoid wasting hundreds of
millions of pounds of public money, so it’s a good time to intervene. Rather
than write further extensively to justify this, I can refer you to the email
string and to my original letter to the Guardian in 2019, since my predictions
are now playing out before our eyes.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/19/boris-johnson-cant-escape-the-northern-ireland-issue
Sending
letters to point this out is however ineffective as we can see, and your office
tells me that you do not hold surgeries. I appreciate you calling at my house
back in December 2019 when you wanted my vote, and was sorry to miss you.
I propose in this video that it is time for a public meeting with your
constituents, perhaps “Question Time” style, , at which there may be some
level of accountability and indeed readiness to listen and take on board
constituents’ concerns.
As the video
recognises, in the past you have in some cases responded recognising the
concerns that had been raised, and I look forward to a positive response on
this matter
Yours very
sincerely
Mike
Cc: Sally Murrer,
MK Citizen newspaper
Michael Gove MP
Ben Everitt MP
Peter Cook
Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
From: Mike Cashman
Sent: 01 June 2020 12:47
To: 'publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk' <publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk>
Cc: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: FW: The need to consider seriously how to implement the
proposed Northern Ireland protocol
Forwarded for
Michael Gove as requested
Viewdelta Press
From: Mike Cashman
Sent: 01 June 2020 12:16
To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: 'michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk' <michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: RE: The need to consider seriously how to implement the
proposed Northern Ireland protocol
Dear
Iain
I
am sure you have forwarded my lengthy email on the Northern Ireland
protocol, as you did with my first email to you on the subject, and
that you are awaiting a response. You may find it helpful to send this new
email too to Michael Gove or whoever has Cabinet responsibility, since
inclusion by “cc” may be ineffective.
I
am not raising any new questions here, but I thought it might be
helpful to have a summarised and almost stand-alone version. Meanwhile my
fuller letters are below and also available at . https://viewdelta.blogspot.com/2020/05/re-need-to-consider-seriously-how-to.html
You
may recall that I have experience of managing the process of exchanging
data via various systems with 2000 customers of all sizes. While the NI
protocol may be more complex and is certainly more time-pressured I think this
gives me some insight.
The nine questions I wish to ask about the implementation of the Northern
Ireland protocol are these:
Q1, Has
there been any progress on defining the required processes?
Q2
Has there been any progress on creating mechanisms to deliver the
required processes?
Q3. Has there
been any progress on defining consultation with businesses on the
required processes?
Q4. Has a
process of open business consultation started?
Q5. If as it
appears from public documents that UK mainland business s exporting to
Northern Ireland are not included in the intended consultation, can plans be
changed to include them?
Q6., If there
is a plan laying out timescales for preparation, consultation,
publication, implementation by all parties, testing etc.; please provide
details
Q7. In the
light for example of Q6, what would be a realistic timetable overall for
Brexit Withdrawal .
Q8 / Q9,
Please can you assure me that you have read this letter and will support
an extension to the Transition Period?
If you do not support this, that would imply that you believed that the
end of Transition in 2020 is possible, which would imply that you can
provide a plan of all necessary activities to the end of 2020, and in that case
I would like to see this plan; without this, any belief is just
wishful thinking. )
You
may know my views on the matter, but the above represents an enquiry as to what
any feasible plan concluding in 2020 might be. Seven months since October 31st
have been used with very little substantive progress publicly declared on
this particular matter, which is why I write to you to enquire if there is
further news that has not yet been publicised. There is now only seven months
to go
When
I was engaged in resolving project/programme management failures-in-progress
(and that includes some Government projects/programmes but others too), I often
applied a useful rule of thumb – “The past is not a perfect predictor of the
future, but it is sometimes the best we have”. If very little progress
has been made in the last 7 months, that does not augur well for the next 7
months, and one reason is that in each case progress depends on realistic plans
and effective relationships with the key stakeholders. Project reports that
attributed past failures to these issues but assumed magical solutions to all
problems invariably proved over-optimistic. Let me apply the above rule
of thumb. . As a rough estimate, I would say that it appears that
about 5% of the necessary work has been done but 50% of the time has been used,
and at that rate of progress it would take another 11 years. I can
re-estimate if there is better information about progress
Perhaps
you and your colleagues can supply positive answers to the above questions. I
would be happy to meet to discuss the matter.
Yours
sincerely
Mike
Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
From: Mike Cashman
Sent: 22 May 2020 06:56
To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc:'michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk' <michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: RE: The need to consider seriously how to implement the
proposed Northern Ireland protocol
Dear Iain Stewart
INTRODUCTION
I
write in connection with previous correspondence (December 2019) where I
observed as follows (full email in email chain below) .
Before retirement one of
my major roles was to help UK Governments – and others - out of significant
problems with major programmes and projects
The potential Northern Ireland protocol is clearly a business and systems
disaster waiting to happen. There’s an unclear requirement, a management
imposed-deadline with no reference to feasibility, an uncertain regulatory
environment with two supervisory bodies renegotiating their relationship, a
large and diverse user base including government and businesses in various
locations, and no defined business model. How businesses will react to the additional
complications of commerce with Northern Ireland is difficult to predict.
Commercial organisations will need to interact with new and probably changing
Government requirements, and will of course need to assess whether trading
across the Irish sea is still worthwhile in the light of the new requirements.
I have made these points in a letter to “The Guardian” published there today,
after last week posting similar concerns on your Facebook page.
If the arrangements proceed without proper consultation then business may
be more badly affected.
The distinctions between carriage to NI, export via NI to the Republic,
incorporation in sub-assembles that then are exported, etc will all need to be
nailed down as new precise requirements. What if the sub-assembly is
incorporated in a product re-imported to Northern Ireland – has this been
considered?
You
replied in January), thank you, and I’ll refer to that below
The publication on Wednesday of The UK’s Approach to
the Northern Ireland Protocol provides an opportunity to assess progress. I
have identified below
- the
current position, as far as I can ascertain it, referenced to Government
documentation and to correspondence from DexEU that you forwarded to me in
January and
- a
reasonable conclusion which takes into account the government’s current
challenges.
A number of questions arise, and for ease of reference
I have labelled them in this style: “(Q1)”.
I will add that Michael Gove has been quoted as saying
on Wednesday “Subjecting traders to unnecessary and disproportionate
burdens, particularly as we wrestle with the economic consequences of Covid-19,
would not serve the interests of the people of Northern Ireland for whom the
protocol was designed. It’s important for us all to recall that the clear
majority of northern Ireland’s trade is with the rest of the UK, so
safeguarding the free flow of goods within the UK’s internal market is of
critical importance to Northern Ireland’s economy and people.” There is
little to disagree with in that paragraph, other than arguably “for whom the
protocol was designed” but of course the proof is the puddling, or more
particularly the delivery, rather than the platitudes.
Overall, although many words have been written, I
found that it was not possible to reach any conclusions about any substantial
progress, the paragraph above is an example – it is all aspiration, with 0 %
about delivery. As an introduction maybe that is ok, but I hoped then to find
some substance. Let us see.
However, in the interests of courtesy, let me
acknowledge that there may be information available by some means which I have
missed, and I hope the numbered questions provide opportunity for these gaps in
the public record (as far as I perceive them) may be filled. I would not ask
all this purely on my own account, but I do in fact agree with the aspirations
stated above if this is to be implemented, and the matter is therefore of
widespread interest. I have some particular insights as I will mention where
relevant below.
Bearing in mind the demise of the Department for
exiting the European Union, and the apparent role of Mr Gove in taking on its
work, I have included him by cc. (I also checked his website but this
work did not appear to be described there).
CURRENT POSITION
James Duddridge’s letter that you forwarded 27th
January 2020 stated (my underlining and lettered references)
As your constituent
notes, implementing the protocol will require discussions with the EU in the
EU-UK joint committee to define the processes involved (A). Putting
these processes in place so that both government and businesses are ready for
the end of the implementation period will require a complex and wide-ranging
delivery program (B). Consultation with businesses is a vital part of
this (C). I would like to assure your constituent that the government is
working at pace to ensure the requirements of the protocol are delivered in
time for the end of the implementation period (D) and that businesses
across all sectors are consulted about how best to deliver it
I have consulted the Government’s “Command paper”
published yesterday and particularly paragraphs 11 and 26 to 28.
file:/
2020-05-20_Command_Paper__UK_s_Approach_to_the_Northern_Ireland_Protocol-gov.uk.pdf (© Crown copyright 2020 Produced by Cabinet Office)
For simplicity I will just refer to this as the
“Command Paper”.
Four paragraphs of this are pasted at the end below
for ease of reference.
(As complementary information I have also included
text from the Irish Government website www.gov.ie. Essentially this references the Withdrawal Agreement
and tells us that much is yet to be decided).
I would like to respond on four
parts of James Duddridge’s letter which you forwarded
- “to
define the processes involved.
“
From the Command paper
“26, This principle needs to be
formalised with the EU within the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. There
are various ways of making it work in practice…..”
No progress is evident on that main challenge then,
other than the (useful) publication of the document telling us that this is the
case, and identifying some exceptions. If you feel there has been any progress on the
substantive challenge of the newly required processes, please let me know.
(Q1.)
- “A complex and wide-ranging
delivery programme”
Since the processes are not defined, I presume that very little progress can
have been made on delivering them, but please let me know if that is not the case. (Q2.)
- “Consultation with businesses
is a vital part of this”
In the light of the above I assume that very little progress has been made
on consultation, but again I stand ready to hear any information to the
contrary. (Q3.)
Paragraph 11 of the Command paper
states that the Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee held its
inaugural meeting on 30 April 2020.
A consultation period with businesses would normally
in my expectation be at least 2 months, but perhaps you might shorten that to a
month.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I assume that no period of open
public business consultation is now in progress; I would be pleased to be
advised, (Q4.)
with details, if it has. I found no trace on the internet.
There appears however to be a blind spot in the
consultation arrangements. Although businesses in Northern Ireland will be the
recipients of “imports” from the British mainland, it will be mainland
businesses that will be exporting, and will be creating details of precisely
what is in each shipment, notwithstanding the order details from the customer.
Of course liaison with the receiving business in Northern Ireland will be
necessary in order to identify whether the items within the shipment are
for consumption in Northern Ireland, direct export to the EU, inclusion in a
further assembly that may or may not be exported, etc, or indeed potentially a
mixture of the above since that is possible now. But, as I say, the sending
business will create the information concerning the exact content of each
shipment, which will depend on manufacturing and supply constraints and
commercial factors. Those British businesses are key stakeholders in this
process, because the more complex the process is, the more friction that is
introduced at the Irish Sea, the less those businesses will be inclined to
continue to trade with Northern Ireland. This introduction of friction at the
Irish Sea, denied by the Prime Minister but confirmed by his then Brexit
Secretary, is a direct consequence of the Withdrawal Agreement which the Prime
Minister negotiated, albeit a consequence that he was clearly unaware of when
he signed the Agreement. “We are where we are” this Government is fond of
saying, and that of course is always true, and so we have a dog’s dinner of an
Agreement that the Prime Minister, judging by his statements, did not want, and
did not understand, but nevertheless signed, and now according to whatever we
have that represents a plan (which I would be interested to seethe agenda is
that this must be implemented.
Anyway, the key blind spot here is the apparent
failure to include UK mainland exporting businesses in the consultation. Of
course, the Northern Irish first-level recipients could be the surrogates for
the mainland businesses in the consultation, and could receive the Government
questions or proposals at whatever time something emerges, and could relay
those to the exporting businesses, and could collate and send on the responses,
and could await further interaction. But that is very obviously inefficient,
and time is short. I have led a team dealing with 2000 UK business despatching
goods to the UK and overseas, and I can tell you that if despatch information
requirements are to change, then the despatching businesses will need to have
that information in advance, and so should be included in the
consultation. I would also encourage the inclusion of some business
expertise within the Government process, because that I think would avoid such
errors. Anyone with reasonable awareness of commercial despatching processes
would realise the significance of the exporting businesses and would include
them in the consultation. It
may not be too late to include UK mainland exporting businesses in the
consultation– will this be done? (Q5.)
- the government is working at
pace to ensure the requirements of the protocol are delivered in time for
the end of the implementation period
The Government is working at pace? This struck me at
the time as ambiguous language that promised nothing, because even a snail’s
pace for example would be some sort of pace. I can see from the document that
no progress has been declared on the main challenges, although some exceptions
have been identified. However, I recognise current difficulties, and will
return to this point below.
There is however also a fundamental misunderstanding
here of the way that businesses operate. Let me try to explain. Information
about despatched goods must be provided by computer systems of some sort,
otherwise the administrative burden would be intolerable. After proposals and
consultation and finalisation and agreement and publication of specification,
those specifications must become requirements for altered IT systems used by
high volume despatching organisations on the mainland. Different businesses
handle different volumes of outbound goods; for some, typing data into an
online form may be practicable, but for high-volume exporters a defined systems
interface may be required. Fulfilling these requirements takes time. It
is not therefore adequate to aim – as per the Government’s “Command” document to ensure the requirements of the protocol are delivered
in time for the end of the implementation period. This wording
shows a fundamental misunderstanding of high-volume business to business
commerce. These requirements must be available in good time before they need to
be implemented. I would suggest six months as an absolute minimum
timetable, but of course one result from consultation would be some idea of how
much time exporting businesses would need. However, the prior consultation has
not started yet, and I suspect from reading the “Command” document that in fact
the Government is not ready to start the consultation, i.e. has not formulated
the consultation papers, otherwise there would be more indication of that in
the document.
Of course you can ignore business needs and impose
law, “ready or not”, based on the Tory Parliamentary majority. But you will be
well aware that if you force through in a rush some unimplementable or
difficult requirements, then businesses on either side could decide to cut out
the business across the Irish sea that is now blighted by the conditions of the
Withdrawal Agreement. You would then have damaged both economies (and
cross-Border trade)
And so, unless you can show me a plan to the contrary,
I conclude that the December 2020 implementation date is now a busted “plan” –
I say “plan” advisedly, but I think the reason that the plan has failed is that
age-old reason, i.e. that there never was a plan. Despite my letter to you and
other inquiries. I
certainly never saw a plan laying out timescales for preparation, consultation,
publication, implementation by all parties, testing etc.; please let me know if
there is one that can be communicated. (Q6.)
If work had started briskly in November 2019 when the
Withdrawal Agreement had been signed then the timetable would have been very
tight (and I think still impossible, but at least there was more time than now
remains). Since very little progress has apparently been made in 6 months then
the rate of progress is not encouraging, but in any case the timetable is now
impossible as far as I can see from information available to me.
Incidentally I am well aware that this is one small
aspect of what is required to be done to “Get Brexit Done” (in a business sense
rather than in a political slogan sense – in business terms some business
change is not “done” until at least the new arrangements are in operation).
There are many others. But my initial letter was about the implementation of
the Northern Ireland protocol, and I will stay within that scope.
- “28.We will have sophisticated
data on trade flows for goods entering Northern Ireland” (Command Paper].
Can I make a forecast? I suggest this will not happen
in January 2021 . With some rapid system development within Government then you
may have the systems that could provide that information, assuming that
you have gone through appropriate procurement processes and that the relevant
supplier is ready to start work. (Is that the case?). However the data
content would depend on data provided by the exporting businesses, which as
per the explanations above will not be ready in all cases.
(Or alternatively, the data content might provide 100%
coverage for a much lower volume of trade, after business is discouraged).
CONCLUSION
While you might find the tone of this letter might
somewhat sceptical (I would prefer the term “realistic”). I have no wish in
fact to criticise the slow progress. Admittedly, this challenge should have
been foreseen earlier in Government – I foresaw it and blogged to this effect
in viedwdelta.blogspot.com . But it’s right to recognise now that
Coronavirus has been - and indeed should be - the most important
priority. If, for example, a second wave of infection is coming, then
once again it will be an all-consuming focus, I am sure that all will agree
that Government needs to have regard for the health and safety of its citizens.
And so, I am open to Government suggestions as to what would be a realistic
timetable overall for Brexit Withdrawal . I would be grateful if you
could let me know. (Q7.)
It would of course be absurd to proceed with a Brexit
end-transition date just because it was set in very different circumstances.,
and so I look to the Government to urgently renegotiate the implementation date
for the Brexit transition period. The UK needs this, as is clear from the
above, and this is in the UK Government hands; it is clear that the EU would
allow more time if required. I suggest an additional two years, but I
would also encourage you to consult with Opposition leaders because it would be
helpful for all Parties to be agreed on the likely timetable, so that whichever
Government finally “completes” this work there will have been some involvement
in this timetable setting . Please can you assure me that you have read this letter and will
support an extension to the Transition Period? (Q8.)
(If you do not support this, that would imply that you
believed it possible, which would imply that you can provide a plan of all
necessary activities to the end of 2020, and in that case I would like to see
this plan; (Q9.)
without this, any belief is just wishful thinking. )
This being a matter of public interest, where
substantive action has been required and called for over the past few months,
this letter may be shared publicly – I will, and you are welcome too as well.
The same applies to any summaries that I prepare.
Yours Sincerely
Mike Cashman
For ease of reference, the following extracts are
included:
Extracts from “Command Paper”
11.Following the entry into force of the Withdrawal
Agreement, the structures provided for by that Agreement have begun their work.
The first meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee was held remotely
on 30 March to launch the work of the Committee and the Specialised Committees,
including the Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee. The
Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee held its inaugural meeting on 30
April. Further to this, we will establish the Joint Consultative Working Group
which will act as an important forum for the exchange of information and mutual
consultation. The UK Government will also set up a business engagement forum,
which will meet regularly to allow Northern Ireland’s businesses to put forward
proposals and provide feedback on how to maximise the free flow of trade. The
Northern Ireland Executive will also be invited to the forum…………
26.This principle needs to be formalised with the EU
within the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. There are various ways of
making it work in practice. There are many cases where goods could
automatically be classified as internal UK trade, particularly where a business
could certify that it was selling its goods in Northern Ireland and not the EU,
or where, for example, goods were perishable or it would be uneconomical to try
to divert them in to the EU market through Northern Ireland.
27.In any case, to ensure that trade flows freely, the
Government will make full use of the provisions in the Protocol giving us the
powers to waive and/or reimburse tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to
Northern Ireland, even where they are classified as ‘at risk’ of entering the
EU market.
28.We will have sophisticated data on trade flows for
goods entering Northern Ireland and will of course work with the Irish
authorities to clamp down on any attempts to exploit these provisions for the
purposes of smuggling and serious organised crime more broadly. We are
committed to using the latest technology, risk and compliance techniques as
part of this. The Government will also work closely with the Northern Ireland
Executive and businesses to develop these proposals. We will produce full
guidance to business and third parties before the end of the transition period.
For information: from www.gov.ie today
This references the Withdrawal Agreement and tells us that much is yet to be
decided.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern
Ireland
The Protocol on Ireland and Northern
Ireland is an integral part of the
Withdrawal Agreement. It recognises the unique situation on the island of
Ireland and provides important safeguards that the Good Friday Agreement will
be protected in all its parts, including avoiding a hard border and protecting
the all island economy. It also protects the integrity of the EU’s Single
Market and Customs Union and Ireland’s place in them.
The Protocol also contains
provisions on a number of other important areas, including provision for the
maintenance of the Common Travel Area, that North South cooperation can
continue and develop, and that the Single Electricity Market will be maintained
on the island of Ireland. It also includes commitments to ensure no diminution
of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity as set out in the Good Friday
Agreement and confirms that the people of Northern Ireland can continue to
enjoy their rights as EU citizens.
The detail of a number of
operational aspects of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland will be
clarified during the transition period by the EU and the UK, working together,
in the Joint Committee.
The Government of Ireland
continues to place priority on the protection of the Good Friday Agreement in
all its parts, maintenance of the Common Travel Area, Ireland’s place in the
EU, and our relationship with the UK.
The Common Travel Area, the
question of both fundamental rights and benefits derived from EU citizenship in
respect of Northern Ireland, and the future of North South Cooperation are
among the issues that will be of particular concern for many people living in
Northern Ireland.
Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
From: STEWART, Iain <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Sent: 29 January 2020 11:27
To: Mike Cashman
Subject: Correspondence
Dear Mr Cashman,
Further to our previous correspondence, I have now
received a response from the Department for Exiting the European Union.
I attach a copy for your reference.
Yours sincerely,
Iain
Iain Stewart MP
Member of Parliament for Milton Keynes South
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA
Tel:
01908 686830
UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is
confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error,
please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use,
disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for
viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted
and should not be used for sensitive data.
From: Mike Cashman
Sent: 20 December 2019 01:50
To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: The need to consider seriously how to implement the proposed
Northern Ireland protocol
Dear Iain Stewart
This is not
a “template letter” and should not just receive a “template answer”. I am
concerned that you may be about to waste tens of millions of pounds or more,
and this letter deserves your attention. I will make the letter and your
response public, since this is a matter of deep public concern..
Irrespective
of political opinion, the practicality of solutions must be considered.
Before
retirement one of my major roles was to help UK Governments – and others
- out of significant problems with major programmes and projects
The
potential Northern Ireland protocol is clearly a business and systems disaster
waiting to happen. There’s an unclear requirement, a management
imposed-deadline with no reference to feasibility, an uncertain regulatory
environment with two supervisory bodies renegotiating their relationship, a
large and diverse user base including government and businesses in various
locations, and no defined business model. How businesses will react to the
additional complications of commerce with Northern Ireland is difficult to
predict. Commercial organisations will need to interact with new and probably changing
Government requirements, and will of course need to assess whether trading
across the Irish sea is still worthwhile in the light of the new requirements. I have made these points in a letter to “The
Guardian” published there today, after last week posting similar concerns on
your Facebook page.
If the arrangements proceed without proper
consultation then business may be more badly affected.
The distinctions between
carriage to NI, export via NI to the Republic, incorporation in sub-assembles that then are exported, etc will all need to be nailed
down as new precise requirements. What if the sub-assembly is incorporated in a product re-imported
to Northern Ireland – has this been considered?
The fact that the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary disagree is a
dreadful harbinger of problems to come.
Since the new protocol was devised only in October then it is not possible for
significant preparatory work (e.g. consultation and agreed requirements and
business model) to have been prepared – and if this work had been thoroughly
done then we would not see these disagreements
I have successfully
managed cross-industry developments interfacing with thousands of customers,
and managed their redevelopment over 3 years, in a commercial environment. This
Northern Ireland protocol doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being
implemented successfully in 2020 or 2021. Based on experience of resolving project failures e.g. in
government and also of successfully managing complex programmes like this myself
I am probably better placed than most to see the risk inherent in the
Government approach.
I posted a parody song
with a serious message to YouTube on 9th
December, “Bridge
over Doubled Borders”, as part of a satirical songbook “Brexit’s a
Musical Trick”. The serious message was to warn about the complexity of the
Northern Ireland protocol. I had no inside knowledge at all, but within hours a
leak from the Department for Exiting the European Union delivered a very
similar message (with a wider scope). It didn’t say “a snowball’s chance in
hell” unless you read between the lines.
It’s a
good rule of thumb in project management that if the initial estimate is two
years and management says it must be one year, then the resulting compressed
one-year project plan turns out to be a disaster, with potentially tens of
millions of pounds wasted, and the real necessary timescale turns out to be was
what was initially proposed. The reason is that the compressed timescale means
that attempts are made to undertake work in parallel that can not be done in
parallel, e.g. developing systems before a clear business model has been
agreed. Money is wasted.
The Boris Johnson “Deal”
has zero chance of successful implementation in 2020 or 2021
In these circumstances it is reckless folly to curtail the possibility of
extension.
It appears
to me that recent Tory
Governments also confuse decision date with
implementation date. Whatever arrangements will apply from, say 1 Jan 2021,
must be clearly known long before this if business is to be ready.
Of course
if it is just a case of ‘Any Deal will do’ to fool the electorate, as a segway
to a 2020 No Deal that rich backers and Russians want, then the practicality
wouldn’t matter to the Government, and their cavalier carelessness can be
understood. But in that case we are being played for fools by Boris Johnson
If in fact
significant progress has been made that I and the Prime Minister are unaware
of, then I would be very ready to have sight of the business model,
requirements, contracting strategy, consultation arrangements and overall
programme plans for completing this complex work in good time in 2020. But if
as I suspect Government does not have such professional preparations made, then
please acknowledge the validity of my concerns, act to avoid wasting tens of
millions of public money, and vote against any move to prevent extension of the
transition period..
With
my concerned regards
Mike
Cashman
Author, “Brexit’s a Trick not a Treat”,
“Brexit’s a Musical Trick”
Mike Cashman
Find our book and songs with these hashtags (Amazon, Facebook,
YouTube)
#BrexitsATrickNotATreat - and at - https://viewdelta.com/brexits-a-trick-not-a-treat/
#BrexitsAMusicalTrick – and at - https://viewdelta.com/brexits-a-musical-trick/
Comments
Post a Comment