The Tribune

WAS it the best Christmas present of all? One would have been forgiven for thinking so while watching Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s exuberant video on Christmas Eve announcing that he had just signed a trade agreement with the European Union. After all the controversy and delay, this is a huge development, covering, as it does, some 450 million consumers.

Stating it was the “right deal for the country” and in Britain’s best interests, he said that such an agreement would finally settle the hitherto fractious and difficult relationship between the EU and Britain and bring about stability as well as giving certainty to businesses, travellers and investors with effect from January 1 – and, most importantly, it provided a mutually beneficial basis for a long-term friendship and partnership between two sovereign equals.

This historic agreement sets out the future relationship between the EU and Britain. For the EU’s part, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, called the deal “fair and balanced” and that it was now “time to turn the page and look to the future”. It is said there was a collective sigh of relief on both sides including, for example, in Germany since the UK is its car manufacturers’ biggest market. For all concerned, trading on World Trade Organisation terms as a result of a no-deal would have been a nightmare with prices forced up in some sectors and shortages created in others. Imposition of new tariffs and customs checks might also have created chaos at borders in the short-term.

Superlatives have come from many quarters, praising Mr Johnson for a stunning achievement after months of gruelling negotiations and endless haggling which went right up to the wire, with the transition period due to end on December 31 – and it was his tough stance in refusing to extend that timing which may have been crucial in forcing through an agreement. The EU chief negotiator briefed ambassadors of the bloc’s 27 member states on Christmas Day; and, in Britain, members of both Houses of Parliament have been called back from their holiday break to vote on the deal on December 30. With the Conservative government’s large majority in the House of Commons and Labour MPs ordered by their leader to vote in favour, passage of the agreement has been virtually secured. 

However, there are bound to be dissenting voices from some legislators who have had a chance to study the 1,200-page document during the last few days. As is so often said, the devil is in the detail, and hardline Brexiteers will be trawling the agreement for so-called “landmines”.

This deal has been described as one of the most comprehensive tailor-made free trade agreements ever signed. In summary, the UK leaves the EU’s single market and customs union but will still have highly advantageous access to the single market with no tariffs and no quotas in respect of cross-border trade worth more than $700 billion annually. There will be new non-tariff barriers such as extra paperwork and red tape but these are considered by both sides a reasonable price to pay.

So Britain will be out of the EU and not subject to its rules but will have full access to this most important market that is so close geographically.

Its annual contributions to the EU (some $20bn) will cease, the European Court of Justice will have no role in overseeing the future relationship and freedom of movement will end as the UK draws up its own new, points-based immigration system.

This delivers on the Tory manifesto commitment to take back control of the country’s money, borders and laws. Moreover, the agreement covers areas like security co-operation, aviation and many others including fishing. The latter had been a sticking point, with Britain wanting to take back control of its own waters – and this has been achieved, subject to certain quotas, after a five-year transition period. 

The main gap seems to be in services, with a lack of certainty about financial firms and banks selling into the single market. Meanwhile, the UK will not change European human rights laws, and UK holiday makers will be allowed to travel to EU countries visa-free for 90 days and also retain their access to free healthcare.

Those who voted to leave in Britain’s 2016 referendum were aware of the risks in extricating the country from four decades of a complicated relationship with the EU, not least in unpicking the huge number of regulations imposed by the EU. But their realisation that so many of the nation’s domestic laws emanated from directives from Brussels without adequate oversight by their own legislators – and that uncontrolled immigration from the EU was damaging their island-nation – convinced them in favour of Brexit; and, in the end, those who predicted Britain’s economic collapse after the Brexit vote were spectacularly wrong.

It seems to me that the naysayers opposed to Brexit should accept that this new agreement is a compromise. It is not a perfect deal because in politics perfection is always out of reach. But it is a pretty good one in many respects and much better than a no-deal.

Some of Boris Johnson’s critics have been brutal in calling him a buffoon. Many have wondered how such a figure – an ex-journalist with a mixed record as Mayor of London, together with a ramshackle private life and a reputation for unreliability who had his own brush with mortality after suffering from COVID-19 – could aspire to lead the nation through such constitutionally difficult times. But he has surely had the last laugh and deserves much praise. No one should underestimate the extraordinary scale of his achievement in securing an EU trade deal. It should be a unifying moment for the country as well as a time of national renewal as Britain embarks on a new global era that many believe will enable it to flourish as an independent trading nation – and, to the relief of everyone, perhaps we may never have to talk about Brexit again!

Need for early rollout of vaccine

The continuing positive information about COVID-19 vaccines must be music to the ears of all those affected in one way or another by the pandemic as this awful year comes to an end. 

The crisis is clearly far from over, not least because of the new variant of the virus which, reportedly, is spreading widely, particularly in Europe. As cases continue to rise in different countries, far from allowing complacency to creep in, preventive measures in the form of vaccines are becoming all the more important.

They are already being rolled out, with Britain the first country to start on December 8 using the US-manufactured Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. Having already inoculated more than 800,000 people, the UK expects to be free of lockdowns by February. The US followed suit soon after with its own national programme and has already completed some two million vaccinations.

It has also approved for emergency use the Moderna vaccine which is made in America. The AstraZeneca and Oxford University vaccine manufactured in the UK is expected to be approved soon – and this is a significant development because it is both less expensive to purchase and can be stored in easier conditions than the extreme cold needed for the Pfizer vaccine. It could therefore become a game-changer.

In recent days, there has been much publicity about the start of mass vaccination in countries like Chile, Costa Rica and Argentina (using a Russian vaccine) as well as in Europe, particularly Italy and Spain which were badly hit by the virus. I have also seen a report that the Cayman Islands, a British overseas territory, will start vaccinations in January. So it is clear that there is a widespread recognition that the answer to the global pandemic is mass vaccination – and the vaccines are now readily available.

Concerns have been expressed about the speed of development of the coronavirus vaccines and that safety has been compromised in the face of political pressure. However, the manufacturers and regulators, who are under intense scrutiny, have provided assurances that the production process has been as rigorous as for any other vaccine and they are said to be willing to publish their data. It is also interesting that a number of high profile people have received the vaccine in a blaze of publicity in order, no doubt, to put the lie to safety worries; for example, US Vice President Mike Pence and President-elect Joe Biden together with an array of other world leaders. There will always be some residual opposition to vaccinations generally. But, against this background, it is hard to see how anyone could reasonably refuse to take this vaccine because of safety reasons. That said, objection on ethical or religious grounds is another matter, and, in a democracy, coercion should be avoided.

Since this a global pandemic there is no reason why any country should be left behind in organising mass vaccinations – either because of cost or availability. It may, therefore, be troubling to some to read remarks attributed to the PAHO representative and reported in The Tribune several weeks ago that The Bahamas ‘can have access to the COVID-19 vaccine between March and April of 2021’ – and, according to more recent reports, the government has not yet identified a vaccine of choice. That begs the question, why the wait? Is it really credible for The Bahamas to try to second guess the best scientists in the US, Britain and Europe and do its own independent investigation of the vaccines, as has been suggested?

It occurs to me that, if in the coming months most of the rest of the world is doing mass inoculations and we are not, this might affect our tourism sector insofar as visits to The Bahamas – as a country still suffering from coronavirus but declining to vaccinate its population – might be banned, and vice versa so that Bahamians would be prevented from travelling. This is, of course, a worst-case scenario and far be it from me to preach to others. But many will surely wonder whether consideration of this whole issue ought not to be given the utmost priority in a situation that is rapidly evolving.

Queen’s uplifting Christmas message

In Britain, the traditional family Christmas Day usually involves people gathering in front of the television at 3pm to watch the pre-recorded Queen’s Speech. This time-honoured ritual follows the earlier opening of presents and then a long festive lunch, with those concerned eagerly anticipating what is invariably an inspiring message of peace, hope and goodwill. According to BBC statistics, this year it was the most watched broadcast on Christmas Day with more than eight million tuning in.

Her Majesty has been delivering these speeches since 1952, and many – particularly those who are lonely or in distress – derive comfort from her carefully chosen words. 

Always setting the right tone, the wording is said to be deeply personal to her and is normally in the context of the events of the past year. So this time around there was speculation about how she would approach what, by common consent, has been a terrible year for just about everybody. It would be a tall order to sum up the worst year in living memory without depressing the whole country.

Such fears, however, turned out to be unfounded. I think it was a fine and appropriate speech – inclusive, genuine and warm – which accentuated the positive in an exceptionally upbeat message of optimism and enduring hope for a better future. 

There was no specific reference to the virus, but everyone surely knew what The Queen meant when she praised people for “rising magnificently” to the challenges of 2020. She spoke of the selflessness of what she termed the “kindness of “trangers’ and that this was reflected in the way in which people from all walks of life – and not least young people – showed the same “quiet and indomitable spirit”. Furthermore, by stressing that “we’re all in this together”, her central message was, in essence, a timeless one; namely, that, in a period of extreme adversity and sadness for many, they are not alone – and, as long as people look out for one another, they’ll all get through it.

Inevitably, there are those in the country who, for one reason or another, criticise such thoughts as meaningless platitudes and they pour scorn on them. But such people misjudge the power of words. Judging from feedback in the UK press, the vast majority of Britons welcome and greatly appreciate such sentiments coming from The Queen and find them uplifting and full of hope for the future. Long may the tradition of the Queen’s Speech on Christmas Day continue.