politics Archives - WA Communications

A guide to the challenges of 2023: A tell-all year

As the second week of 2023 draws to a close, it’s clear the year ahead will be rife with economic and political challenges.

WA Partner Rhoda McDonald was joined by WA Senior Adviser, broadcaster and journalist Steve Richards to discuss the issues that will dominate 2023.

Here are our key takeaways from the event:

Labour finding it’s feet

The Labour party enters 2023 with renewed enthusiasm. Starmer is keen to whip the Party in to shape and prove they are a Government in waiting. As he prepares for an offensive, there will be high expectations for his cabinet to perform, and with reshuffle rumours circling, there will be no room for idlers.

His team has largely been moulded by a new New Labour era, with some Blair flair, and it is clear that top of his agenda is modernising central government, stimulating economic growth, and reforming the British energy sector.

One of the key policy differences between the Conservative Party and Labour is around industrial policy – Rishi Sunak shows no great interest in an overarching Industrial Strategy, whereas Labour’s looks potentially very substantial, extending to light manufacturing, transport, and even retail, to underpin their ambitions for higher productivity and growth.

A Tory Party divided

Meanwhile the Prime Minister is tending to a wounded Tory party and attempting to rebuild political and economic stability. With wavering Tory voters, and the threat of a new Reform Party poaching his MPs, Sunak needs to be constantly appealing to the public and his backbenchers if he is to retain control.

Although Sunak appears to be relishing the challenge and leaning in to his role as the peace maker of the party, it is unlikely to be smooth sailing as the year kicks off with headlines dominated by strikes and pay disputes.

It’s all about the economy

The country’s economy is top of the inbox for the current Government and the Opposition alike. As Sunak’s forte, he is busy emphasising his brand as the fiscally minded Prime Minister who can stabilise the markets and bring public spending under control.

For Sunak the pivotal moment will come in the March Budget. The Prime Minister had prepared a draft budget during the leadership campaign, which was very business focused – looking at tax rates, business needs, and how to get people back into the workforce. As Corporation Tax rises take effect this year, against a background of a dire economic environment, the message of ‘growth, growth, growth’, and delivering the incentives needed to shape company and labour market decisions, are likely to be at the forefront when the Chancellor stands up at the Dispatch Box on 15^th March.

On the other side, Labour are in the midst of deciding whether they follow a New Labour approach and stick to Tory spending plans, or to reinvent the fiscal wheel and risk further unease. Either way, the position they take will be determined by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

Fixing the NHS

With the NHS hitting the headlines every week, healthcare reform will be a prominent issue throughout the year. The Government cannot shy away from the mounting pressure to act.

Having already passed the 2022 Health and Social Care Act, the Conservatives are unlikely to introduce new reforms this side of the election. However, talk of how to use the private sector and discussions of outsourcing are starting to snowball, with Labour saying they would consider this approach to relieve demand on the NHS.

Energy crisis

While the energy crisis continues and with geopolitical factors such as the war in Ukraine determining future supply issues, the Government is facing further spending pressures. The clock on household support is running down, and businesses are already feeling the pinch.

The risk for Sunak is inaction should the energy crisis become more acute. Although he has been avoiding Government intervention, he will be forced to change tact and avoid taking heavy fire from Labour as they seek to differentiate themselves.

The Deregulation agenda

With growth set to be the buzz word of the year, the regulatory landscape remains a battle ground yet to be won. As the realities of an EU regulatory bonfire threaten chaos, the Government is looking at lighter regulatory initiatives.

With businesses calling for clarity over the regulatory landscape, there are opportunities for both the Conservatives to make their mark and for Labour to carve out fresh ground for putting the UK on the front foot.

All eyes on GE2024

2023 is set to be the tell all year. Sunak and Starmer are facing the toughest set of challenges any leader, especially a newly incoming Prime Minister, have faced for decades. How they respond to and address the economic turbulence and address the nation’s discontent will ultimately determine their fate at the ballot box.

While Labour may be 20 points ahead in the polls, Sunak’s momentum over the summer appears to have closed a once-gaping gap. However, unless either party makes marked progress on the issues of the year, the prospect of a hung parliament with a minority government will become a looming possibility.

Share this content:

A tale of two speeches

Just three working days into the new year we have been treated to set piece speeches from Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer on consecutive days. Both had similar objectives: seize control of the news agenda; establish their domestic policy priorities; and persuade the electorate they are the right choice to tackle the very significant challenges the UK now faces.

However, they were coming from two very different starting points. Sunak is rushing to catch up with events, having rapidly and unexpectedly secured the Premiership in the midst of a political and economic crisis which has quickly been succeeded by an NHS crisis. Starmer has been building towards this moment for the last three years and has a significant lead in the polls he is looking to protect.

So how did they do and what are the implications for businesses planning their political engagement in 2023?

Structure and delivery

Sunak

The unorthodox nature of Rishi Sunak’s rise to power left him with the tricky task of trying to set out the defining principles that will guide his premiership while simultaneously acknowledging the short term priorities required to address the crisis in the NHS. He also tacked on a series of specific promises that he is aiming to deliver around the economy, the NHS and the small boats issue. This resulted in a speech that jumped across a number of different topics but lacked a core theme and clear narrative. His delivery of the speech itself was a little wooden but he performed relatively well in the extensive Q&A that followed.

Starmer

Starmer’s core message was simple: Labour is a credible Government in waiting that will devolve power, working in partnership with local government and business to tackle the UK’s long term challenges. It was a relatively well crafted and delivered speech that served as an effective critique of ‘sticking plaster politics’ from the current government. Unlike Sunak, Starmer has had the benefit of three years to prepare for this moment and he was able to draw on a lot of principles and ideas that have already been previously set out.

Policy content

Sunak

The Prime Minister set out five ‘promises’ that will frame the Government’s immediate priorities in the coming months: halving inflation this year; grow the economy; falling national debt; falling NHS waiting lists; new laws to stop small boats carrying migrants across the channel. While some have noted that these are largely in line with what independent forecasters are already predicting, the promises on inflation and growth in particular risk being significant hostages to fortune given how little control Government has on external, often global, events that drive economic trends.

Beyond this, the headline pledge was for all students to study maths in some form until the age of 18, with the implementation details yet to follow. Other significant sections of the speech on innovation, law and order, education and the NHS all lacked any new policy announcements, though referenced measures detailed in last year’s Autumn Statement.

Starmer

Starmer’s speech had a major focus on how Labour would take a different approach to running the country based on devolution of power and partnership working with local government and business. However, there was only one significant new policy announcement: a ‘Take Back Control’ Bill that would form the centerpiece of his administration’s first King’s Speech. The Bill will devolve powers over employment support, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare provision and council finances with a further ‘right to request’ power for local communities also built in.

In addition, he nodded towards a series of ‘national missions’ to be published in the coming weeks that will frame Labour’s policy platform in more detail. Also of note, there was a very clear message that Labour won’t fall back on a ‘big Government cheque book’ approach in an effort to assert fiscal credibility.

Impact and implications for engagement

Sunak

There was some criticism that Sunak did not focus more on the immediate challenges facing the NHS and the industrial relations issues that are crippling the UK’s rail system. However, the five promises he set out do provide a litmus test against which he can ask voters to judge him. If he can demonstrate progress in these areas in twelve months from now, then he can start to build narrative of delivery that serves as platform for an election campaign.

Ultimately, this speech underlined just how much the next election is starting to dictate the Government’s approach. Sunak set up a small number of simple, measurable goals and it is clear that anything that can’t be shown to contribute to meeting them between now and the election will be far less likely to receive time and attention from Government. There was also a reminder of his personal focus on innovation as a key to driving productivity and growth – companies that can demonstrate a positive story on innovation are more likely to have success attracting the attention of No 10.

Starmer

The short term headlines that Starmer’s team would have hoped for have largely been torpedoed by the leaks from Prince Harry’s book. However, expect the ‘Take Back Control’ slogan to feature heavily as a core theme in Labour’s narrative this year as they seek to demonstrate to the electorate that they have taken the lessons of Brexit on board. While this was a speech that demonstrates progress in his mission to become a credible Prime Minister in waiting, there is plenty of work still to do. Labour’s current comfortable poll lead comes on the back of a terrible few months for the Conservative Party and with the electorate facing extremely challenging economic circumstances. If the economy improves and Sunak is able to claim some credit, then Labour will need to show much more of a positive alternative agenda in order to maintain such a strong lead.

That places a lot of emphasis on the forthcoming ‘national missions’ to add further definition to Labour’s offer. Business should be prioritising its Opposition engagement on influencing how these missions are framed and the detailed policy ideas that will be needed to support them. Starmer boldly stated that he wanted to change the ‘old game of passionately identifying a problem’ without providing solutions. His biggest risk is falling into exactly this trap himself and his team will need the help and expertise from business to avoid it if he wants to build a truly robust alternative programme for Government.

Share this content:

What does the Truss Premiership mean for private equity investment in football?

Truss’ in-tray is bulging as she enters No.10, and although a World Cup win in Qatar would undoubtedly inject a much-needed boost of morale to the long, bleak winter ahead, football is unlikely to be at the top of her to-do list.

But love it or loathe it, no one can deny the Premier League’s role as a significant source of UK soft power and, increasingly, world football’s dominant financial power. The 2022 summer transfer window is a prime example; Premier League clubs spent around £1.9 billion, pulverizing the previous record of £1.4 billion set in 2017. Put another way, England’s top twenty clubs spent more than all clubs in Spain’s LaLiga, Italy’s Serie A and Germany’s Bundesliga combined. The UK government plays a major role in creating a favourable political and regulatory environment for football’s finances to thrive, and under successive Conservative governments, that’s exactly what’s happened. Truss, as former Trade Secretary, will be acutely aware of the league’s status as one of the UK’s most successful exports.

Nevertheless, football has found itself increasingly in the political and public spotlight in recent years, most notably with the unprecedented wave of backlash to the now aborted plans for six Premier League clubs to break away and form a European Super League. Arguably one of the biggest own goals in recent football history, JP Morgan Chase & Co had allegedly intended to back the project. In 2022, the government found itself under mounting pressure to sanction then Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich, possibly the most well-known Russian oligarch in the UK. Whilst Abramovich was not initially included on the sanctions list in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the sale of the club for over £4 billion to a consortium led by American Todd Boehly and private equity firm Clearlake Capital, was not without controversy.

Politicians have also made notable comments about footballers in the press. In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, then Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, said “I think the first thing that Premier League footballers can do is make a contribution, take a pay cut, and play their part.” The decision of footballers to take the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and anti-racism in the sport also received mixed political response. Truss herself, then Equalities Minister, criticized the practice, saying it was “not the right thing to do” and a form of “identity politics focused on symbols and gestures.”

This has culminated in a remarkable appetite for change, primarily driven by fans, to address the culture, governance and financial flow in the existing football system. In his overly-enthusiastic opposition to the European Super League (despite hosting the former Executive Vice-Chairman of Manchester United just days earlier and declaring it – according to a government source – “a great idea”), Boris Johnson commissioned Tracey Crouch to chair the Fan-Led Review of Football Governance. The report is not a perfect roadmap (it says very little about women’s football or the sport’s toxic relationship with the gambling industry), but its diagnoses are damning: the underlying disconnect between fans and owners, inadequate regulation, and the cavernous financial inequality between the biggest and smallest clubs. To shake this up, the review proposes the establishment of an independent regulator which would oversee financial regulation in the sport, an increased role for fans in club decision making, and a 10% transfer levy on Premier League clubs to be distributed to the grassroots game.

Although Truss previously indicated that she would back the review’s 47 recommendations, recent rumours suggest that she will now backtrack on this due to waning support amongst influential players in her own team. Johnson recognised the popular appeal of football and was fully prepared to harness it ahead of the next general election. Truss will have bigger challenges and priorities to grapple with and is likely to lack the political appetite to drive forward a complete structural overhaul of the sport.

Football’s growing fanbase

Private equity has gradually been gaining a foothold in the world’s most popular sport and will be a keen spectator to Truss’ next move. Taking a lead from the billionaire soccer fans, Middle East petrodollars, and the spate of Chinese purchases which have dominated football investment over the past two decades, private equity, credit vehicles and hedge funds now represent the latest wave of investors. The industry was once considered too risky due to eye-watering levels of debt, inflated player salaries and the unpredictability of politics and febrile fans. The threat of relegation if teams don’t perform well means that returns are never guaranteed. However, investors are finding creative ways to address this volatility. Some have loaned money to keep Europe’s high-profile clubs afloat. Others have purchased media rights, bought a stable of smaller teams, or snapped up stakes in clubs as assets in peril. In 2019, US private equity firm Silver Lake paid $500 million for a 10% stake in City Football Group, which counts Manchester City, Yokohama F. Marinos in Japan, Girona FC in Spain, and New York City football team in its collection. Some are even pursuing the Holy Grail of investing in an entire league, like UK-based private equity firm CVC Capital Partners’ venture with Spain’s LaLiga.

European football has always been cash hungry, but that has grown more acute since the pandemic kept crowds away from stadiums and left some of the continent’s biggest and most successful clubs with soaring debt. Indeed, it was the catalyst behind the failed breakaway Super League. This had left many Premier League clubs reeling at the suggestions included in the Fan-Led Review, and arguing that proposed changes would reduce the competitiveness of the league and therefore its value to the UK. Private equity investors are concerned that cascading finances down the system will impact their returns. However, in an attempt to address some of the issues highlighted by the review, many clubs are taking remedial action (such as introducing supporter ‘shadow boards’) in an attempt to stave off full frontal regulatory reform. By addressing concerns around governance and financial fluidity downstream in the system, the Premier League could alleviate some of the existing political pressures.

Whether Truss gives the recommendations a red card or not, you can’t help but sense that change is on the horizon for the Premier League. Nevertheless, there will always be a strong demand for English football and fans will continue to buy tickets. These two simple facts mean private equity is unlikely to be relegated from football any time soon.

Share this content:

What is the government’s plan for state aid?

Two of the Margaret Thatcher’s most steadfast beliefs were the benefits of European economic integration and the folly of governments providing financial aid to support particular businesses and industries, both of which she said contributed to the UK being labelled the ‘sick man of Europe.’ Ahead of the UK joining the European single market in 1992, Margaret Thatcher addressed businesses and encouraged them to think about the opportunities access to the single market would create. She said: “Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers – visible and invisible – giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world’s wealthiest and most prosperous people.”

How times change. The current Conservative government, in its negotiations with the EU, is willing to sacrifice access to the single market so that it can offer state aid to British businesses. This about-turn raises a fundamental question: why is this government so keen to be able to financially support businesses, and what does it hope to achieve?

What are the rules on state aid?

State aid, broadly speaking, is any advantage granted by the government on a selective basis to businesses, and it can come in many forms: direct cash transfers, preferential tax treatment and financial guarantees offered by the state. Under EU rules, there is not a blanket ban on state aid. State aid can be provided if it is approved by the European Commission, it is of a small sum or if it is covered by the General Block Exemption Rule. The General Block Exemption Rule allows state aid to promote new activities that would not otherwise have taken place and promotes economic development without distorting competition. State aid that falls outside of these parameters and is viewed to distort competition by offering an advantage to a particular business or industry is illegal under EU law.

The UK and the EU are currently at loggerheads over state aid and a future free trade deal. The EU is demanding that in return for a free trade deal, the British government should commit to ‘dynamic alignment’ with the EU’s state aid rules – the so-called ‘level playing field’ commitments. The UK government, however, wants to have its own ‘separate and independent’ policy on state subsidies. The EU’s fear is that if it gives British firms free trade access to the single market without assurances on state aid, the government in the UK could subsidise green technology, for example, and undercut European made products, undermining the principles of the single market. The EU’s objections are quite reasonable – if you want to be a member of a club, you need to play by the rules. If there can be no agreement between the two sides, the UK will leave the EU on 1 January 2021 without a deal, an outcome that is looking increasingly likely (and even desirable to some within Downing St).

What’s the plan?

Should the UK leave without a deal, the government will not be able to splash the cash wherever it wants, as it will still be bound by World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on state aid. One crucial difference though is that the WTO state aid restrictions only cover goods, while the EU’s rules cover both goods and services. This opens the door to the UK being able to financially support a range of industries in the service sector, an area where the UK already has a competitive advantage, especially in financial and professional services.

Dominic Cummings recently told civil servants in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that he was working on a plan to help the UK build ‘$1 trillion tech companies.’ Cummings views a no-deal Brexit and the removal of EU state aid restrictions as an opportunity for the government to support British start-ups to become genuine players on the world stage, having historically lagged behind the United States and China.

Looser rules on state aid would also help the UK be more flexible in times of emergency. At the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, HM Treasury was restricted in its ability to offer CLBILS loans to private equity-backed firms due to the EU’s rules on ‘businesses in difficulty.’ Due to the leveraged financial structure of these firms, under EU rules, they were not eligible for government financial support. Outside of the EU’s legal framework on state aid, the government would be free to financially aid whichever businesses it chose to, an option that will only become more appealing as the reality of increasing unemployment kicks in.

Will it work?

The idea of a British tech giant is an appealing one for the government. Foreign technology firms are difficult to tax, and it would make the government’s life a lot easier if it had a homegrown firm it could draw revenue from. The creation of high quality, well-paying jobs would also be a bonus.

There are some problems with Cummings’ plan, though. Historically, the British government has a chequered record of success in ‘picking winners.’ When compared to the private sector, governments lack the knowledge, expertise and market discipline to sustain and grow companies. This means risk is often not weighed effectively, leading to either over or under-investment. There is also the risk that business decisions get made not for sound commercial reasons but to fulfil some other government priority.

The interaction between the state aid tech giant plan and the government’s levelling up agenda also throws up some inconsistencies between its wider priorities. Tech firms tend to thrive in big cities and those that are home to elite universities. These are precisely not the areas the government wants to ‘level up’: post-industrial towns in the north and midlands. The price of state support for the tech sector would be the government trading off the UK’s remaining manufacturing base in the north and midlands by removing tariff-free access to its biggest market.

State aid is an appealing idea, but to be implemented well it requires a government to have patience, skill and good judgement. It will also involve the government having to make an unappealing sacrifice that will undermine its levelling up agenda. The deeper message of the government’s interest in state aid is that it is no longer ideologically wedded to the ideas of the past and it is more than willing to deviate from them if it is politically expedient to do so.

Share this content:

Brexit explainer – what is the Internal Market Bill and why does it matter?

For avid Brexit-watchers, the headlines from the past week may seem like the country has been transported back to October 2019. With restless backbenchers, strongly worded statements from EU Chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, and journalists running to the nearest legal expert, Westminster is suffering from a collective case of déjà vu. For those just tuning back into the Brexit negotiations, here’s what you need to know.

What is the Internal Market Bill?

The Internal Market Bill is intended to create a framework for trade to operate across the four UK nations post-Brexit. The Bill attempts to ensure the whole UK operates as its own single market. It would establish two legal principles – mutual recognition and non-discrimination – to ensure there are no new barriers for businesses trading across the UK, allowing a good or service to be sold anywhere in the UK without any internal standards blocking the movement of goods.

Why is the Bill so controversial?

The principal issue is that the Bill would reverse the Northern Ireland protocol contained in the Withdrawal Agreement, which was signed by Boris Johnson and passed by the current Parliament on 24 January 2020. The protocol settled the issue of post-Brexit trade across the Irish border by applying some EU customs regulation to goods travelling between the rest of the UK and Northern Ireland to avoid checks at the Irish border. The Bill would contravene the Agreement in three ways:

It gives ministers powers to not to apply EU standards on paperwork for goods leaving Northern Ireland going to the rest of the UK.
It gives ministers the power to disapply or modify state aid rules in Northern Ireland, which the Withdrawal Agreement stated would continue to be governed by EU state aid rules. Those powers also allow the UK Government to ignore decisions of the European Court of Justice and EU legislation on state aid.
It would prevent individuals from enforcing the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement in UK courts by stating the measures in the Bill are ‘not to be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of any incompatibility or inconsistency with relevant international or domestic law’.

The second issue with the Bill is the decision to apply mutual recognition to the devolved nations without their consultation. Mutual recognition means goods lawfully produced in England according to English standards can be sold in Scotland, even if Scotland has higher (and thus more expensive) standards. This means the devolved nations are not allowed to exclude goods from other UK nations made to lower standards, undermining their ability to set their own regulations.

What has the reaction been?

Reaction has been strong from both sides of the Brexit debate, fuelled by Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis admitting in the Commons that the Bill ‘does break international law in a specific and limited way’. Domestic opponents of the Bill suggest that it will damage the UK’s international reputation, preventing it from being taken seriously when addressing illegal acts conducted by other nations and making trade talks harder.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has described the Bill as an “assault on devolution”, an accusation that is unlikely to hurt the SNP’s standing going into the Scottish Parliamentary elections next year. Sturgeon has now pledged to campaign to demand a new independence referendum as “the only way to protect the Scottish parliament from being undermined and its powers eroded”.

The European Commission has threatened the UK with legal action and trade sanctions if it does not withdraw the controversial clauses in the Internal Market Bill by the end of September. Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin has also personally criticised the Bill, stating that he is now pessimistic about the chances of agreeing a trade deal with the UK. Despite this, the EU has no intention of immediately shutting down its talks on the UK/EU future-relationship, saying it would amount to falling into a trap set by the UK.

Across the Atlantic, US Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned that there is “no chance” of the US signing a trade deal under a Biden presidency if the UK goes ahead with the Internal Market Bill in its current form because it undermines the Northern Irish peace process.

Why has the government done this?

The government has stated that the Bill is merely its way of tidying up “loose ends” in the Withdrawal Agreement that it says were caused by passing the Agreement “at speed”. The policy is described as a ‘safety net’ by ministers, to protect Northern Ireland’s position if a deal on future relations with the EU cannot be reached.

The UK has also claimed Michel Barnier has threatened not to include the UK on the list of “third countries” on food standards, which would effectively make it illegal to move food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

This defence has been met with scepticism by political commentators, the EU and some UK politicians, who believe the UK Government is either trying to force more concessions from the EU, attempting to force the EU to walk away from negotiations or simply did not realise the implications of the Withdrawal Agreement during the negotiations.

Of course, more than one of these reasons can be true at the same time, and it is entirely possible the UK Government feels it is a necessary action to take to protect trade with Northern Ireland, while also using the Bill as a way of shaking up, or perhaps deliberately destabilising, the trade talks.

What happens now?

The government has told the EU it doesn’t intend to withdraw the Bill, meaning it will be debated in Parliament. Conservative MP Bob Neill has tabled an amendment that would give parliament a veto on any decision to breach the Withdrawal Agreement. A significant number of other amendments are also expected. The passage of any amendment would require a significant Conservative rebellion, as well as the support of Labour, the SNP and the smaller opposition parties.

The Bill must also pass in the House of Lords, where it has been widely condemned, including from Conservative peers. The Lords are highly unlikely to block the Bill but may introduce amendments to force the Bill back to the Commons. It is almost certain to back any amendments passed in the Commons designed to water down the Bill. The Bill can’t pass into law until both Houses pass the same version of the Bill in full.

What happens if the Bill passes?

The passage of the Bill in its current form is likely to cause a serious impasse between the UK and the EU. European Parliament leaders, representing a majority of MEPs, have issued a statement declaring they will block the EU-UK trade deal if there is any breach of the Withdrawal Agreement. This marks a line in the sand from which neither side is backing down and makes the possibility of leaving the transition period without a trade deal significantly higher.

While it is highly unlikely the Bill will be voted down, it may be passed with amendments that either remove or significantly waters down the current provisions. The government is considering implementing sanctions, including a ‘nuclear option’ of withdrawing the whip from rebel Conservative MPs.

The Bill also has implications for the union. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have set out strong opposition to the Bill and with Scottish Parliamentary elections on the horizon in 2021, the Bill is set to further provoke anti-Westminster sentiment among Scottish nationalists. Polls have consistently shown a majority in favour of Scottish independence since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, and this Bill is likely to cement opposition to the current Westminster Government in Scotland.

The matter may well be settled in the courts. Although the UK Supreme Court is unlikely to have jurisdiction over the issue due to parliamentary sovereignty, the EU may choose to take the case to the European Court of Justice which has jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Whatever happens over the next week, the UK Government has chosen a provocative approach that will have significant implications for the outcome of the UK-EU trade negotiations, its relationship with its own MPs, the strength of the union and its international reputation.

Share this content:

Posts Tagged ‘politics’

A guide to the challenges of 2023: A tell-all year

A tale of two speeches

What does the Truss Premiership mean for private equity investment in football?

What is the government’s plan for state aid?

Brexit explainer – what is the Internal Market Bill and why does it matter?

Register for insights

Sign Up