Bank of England head welcomes UK efforts with EU
Speaking in Dublin on Thursday, Andrew Bailey said in relation to Brexit 'that we should do all we can to minimise negative effects on trade'.
With reference to the Windsor Framework, which he described as a 'welcome step forward', Mr Bailey said: 'So too are the initiatives of the current UK Government to rebuild trade between the UK and EU.'
The Windsor Framework, agreed between the UK and the EU in 2023, amended the Northern Ireland Protocol and governs post-Brexit trading arrangements in the region.
Last week, the Government announced a deal with the European bloc that gives UK tourists in Europe easier access to passport e-gates, and frees up trade with the continent for farmers and food producers because of alignment on veterinary and plant standards.
It was also said that the UK and EU will work more closely together on defence and security, and will agree a 'youth experience scheme' allowing young British people to travel and work on the continent.
Sir Keir Starmer said at the time the deal was announced that it is 'time to look forward, to move on from the stale old debates and political fights'.
In an interview with the BBC earlier this month – before the deal was struck with the EU – Mr Bailey said that it would be 'beneficial' to reverse the post-Brexit reduction in UK-EU trade.
He said: 'It is important we do everything we can to ensure that whatever decisions are taken on the Brexit front do not damage the long-term trade position.
'So I hope that we can use this to start to rebuild that relationship.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
8 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Hegseth: US will stand by Indo-Pacific allies against ‘imminent' China threat
He said Washington will bolster its defences overseas to counter what the Pentagon sees as rapidly developing threats by Beijing, particularly in its aggressive stance towards Taiwan. China has conducted numerous exercises to test what a blockade would look like of the self-governing island, which Beijing claims as its own and the US has pledged to defend. China's army 'is rehearsing for the real deal', Mr Hegseth said in a keynote speech at a security conference in Singapore. 'We are not going to sugarcoat it — the threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.' China has a stated goal of having its military have the capability to take Taiwan by force if necessary by 2027, a deadline that is seen by experts as more of an aspirational goal than a hard war deadline. But China also has built sophisticated man-made islands in the South China Sea to support new military outposts and developed highly advanced hypersonic and space capabilities, which are driving the US to create its own space-based Golden Dome missile defences. Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a global security conference hosted by the International Institute for Security Studies, Mr Hegseth said China is no longer just building up its military forces to take Taiwan, it's 'actively training for it, every day'. Mr Hegseth repeated a pledge made by previous administrations to bolster US military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific (Anupam Nath/AP) Mr Hegseth also called out China for its ambitions in Latin America, particularly its efforts to increase its influence over the Panama Canal. He urged countries in the region to increase defence spending to levels similar to the 5% of their gross domestic product European nations are now pressed to contribute. 'We must all do our part,' Mr Hegseth said. He also repeated a pledge made by previous administrations to bolster US military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific to provide a more robust deterrent. While both the Obama and Biden administrations had also committed to pivoting to the Pacific and established new military agreements throughout the region, a full shift has never been realised. Instead, US military resources from the Indo-Pacific have been regularly pulled to support military needs in the Middle East and Europe, especially since the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. In the first few months of president Donald Trump's second term, that has also been the case. In the last few months the Trump administration has taken a Patriot missile defence battalion out of the Indo-Pacific in order to send it to the Middle East, a massive logistical operation that required more than 73 military cargo aircraft flights, and sent Coast Guard ships back to the US to help defend the US-Mexico border. Mr Hegseth was asked why the US pulled those resources if the Indo-Pacific is the priority theatre for the US. He did not directly answer but said the shift of resources was necessary to defend against Houthi missile attacks launched from Yemen, and to bolster protections against illegal immigration into the US. At the same time, he stressed the need for American allies and partners to step up their own defence spending and preparations, saying the US was not interested in going it alone. 'Ultimately a strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners is our key strategic advantage,' he said. 'China envies what we have together, and it sees what we can collectively bring to bear on defence, but it's up to all of us to ensure that we live up to that potential by investing.' The Indo-Pacific nations caught in between have tried to balance relations with both the US and China over the years. Beijing is the primary trading partner for many, but is also feared as a regional bully, in part due to its increasingly aggressive claims on natural resources such as critical fisheries. Mr Hegseth cautioned that playing both sides, seeking US military support and Chinese economic support, carries risk. 'Economic dependence on China only deepens their malign influence and complicates our defense decision space during times of tension,' Mr Hegseth said. China usually sends its own defence minister to this conference, but Dong Jun did not attend this year in a snub to the US and the erratic tariff war Mr Trump has ignited with Beijing, something the US delegation said it intended to capitalise on. 'We are here this morning. And somebody else isn't,' Mr Hegseth said. Mr Hegseth was asked by a member of the Chinese delegation, made up of lower level officers from the National Defence University, how committed it would be to regional alliances. In some, China has a more dominant influence. Mr Hegseth said the US would be open to engaging with any countries willing to work with it. 'We are not going to look only inside the confines of how previous administrations looked at this region,' he said. 'We're opening our arms to countries across the spectrum — traditional allies, non-traditional allies.' Mr Hegseth said committing US support for Indo-Pacific nations would not require local governments to align with the West on cultural or climate issues. It is not clear if the US can or wants to supplant China as the region's primary economic driver. But Mr Hegseth's push follows Mr Trump's visit to the Middle East, which resulted in billions of dollars in new defence agreements.
The National
29 minutes ago
- The National
Why the UK media 180 on Gaza is too little, too late
The problem is that there remains an equally deafening sound, one that can't be drowned out, nor easily forgotten: The thunderous silence that the mainstream British press and broadcast ecosystem clung to as Israel systematically slaughtered, besieged, starved and annihilated Gaza. And that was if their coverage wasn't white-washing, diluting and actively deceiving the public about the reality of Israel's 20-month pummelling of two million Palestinians in an open-air prison. A switch has now been collectively flicked: "End the deafening silence", demanded the Independent's editorial, followed by an extensive report a fortnight later by the paper's international correspondent about how exactly we ever got to this point, including, notably, the genocidal intent expressed by Israeli ministers, a context rarely acknowledged in previous coverage. In trying to explain how we got here, the Independent inadvertently showed exactly why we did. READ MORE: Activists read names of 15,000 Gaza children killed by Israel outside Parliament One newspaper this spring outlined the "horror in Gaza", centring the crippling siege Israel imposed and the resulting engineered famine. It was penned by a journalist who repeated IDF claims about a beheaded Israeli baby in October 2023, a claim still live on the same website. The Financial Times and The Economist followed suit: The latter's leader now unambiguously stating the war "must" end. On November 8, 2023, its leader said Israel "must" fight on. Broadcast presenters have rushed to defend their record — eager, perhaps, to prove they offered impartial, thorough coverage and didn't manufacture consent for crimes committed on an industrial scale. When paediatrician Dr Tanya Haj Hassan slammed the BBC for parroting Israeli talking points, the presenter — who had just defended the network's output as fair and balanced — followed up with the usual uncritical amplification of Israeli genocide denial. It's a pattern all too familiar from that very presenter. This is the same BBC that interrupted Palestinian guests listing the names of relatives killed by Israeli bombs — to ask whether they condemn Hamas. The script read complicity and distraction. And the mainstream media seemed to have rehearsed it to perfection. That does not appear to be something the public will forget. Channel 4's Krishnan Guru-Murthy was asked by a social media user why it took so long, in response to his promotion of the network's report on five-year-old Ward in Gaza who survived an Israeli strike but harrowingly witnessed her family burn to death. "You just haven't been watching, clearly," was the retort. Except that thousands had been watching closely. Waiting for the Palestinians to be humanised. Waiting, for example, for Channel 4 presenters to interject when Israeli reservists amplify military propaganda that justifies mass slaughter and collective punishment. Waiting for Guru-Murthy to interrogate Israel's intent and actions, not grill Palestinians on whether 'from the river to the sea' is antisemitic. In turn, the archives were updated, the records carefully adjusted. The shift is shameless, but the gall to defend it even more so. However, they won't be rehabilitated. Not that easily. Whilst independent and alternative media worked tirelessly to document, to platform and capture the depth of Israel's barbarity with a fraction of the resources, the mainstream media, with greater infrastructure, reach and a moral obligation – did the precise opposite. It's not courage to write a column, as one Guardian contributor did, that agonises performatively over the plight of Palestinian children in this "terrible conflict", yet fails across more than 1000 words to name the state mercilessly targeting them. READ MORE: Kneecap correct BBC headline after TRNSMT show cancelled Nor is it brave for the paper's editorial to now highlight the reality of the engineered horror, while its reporters resort to business as usual and include Israeli military justifications in their coverage — trawling through press releases, or recycling old ones when none are ready to hand. All to avoid framing the ongoing Palestinian suffering as a deliberate, systematic decimation, and instead present it as part of a tragic, two-sided military strategy – all of which is most certainly unrelated to the secret meetings The Guardian's editor held with a former Israeli general tasked with cultivating support for Israel. None of that is courageous, principled journalism. Nor is it an awakening or an ethical reckoning that must be applauded. It's cynical hand-wringing — the kind that might win nods in the sophisticated newsroom culture of Fleet Street but will collapse under the weight of history. In the all-encompassing court of public memory, this theatre won't hold up. When British Palestinian reconstructive surgeon Ghassan Abu-Sittah says that in the future genocide museum, there will be a section reserved for the journalists who enabled the horrors, I can't help but have sympathy for the architects and engineers tasked with the herculean challenge of designing a room vast enough to hold them all. Hamza Yusuf is a British-Palestinian writer and journalist whose work focuses on Palestine
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
More than €1bn in EU funds used in discriminatory projects, report says
Hundreds of millions in European Union funds have been used in projects that violate the rights of marginalised communities, a report alleges, citing initiatives such as segregated housing for Roma, residential institutions for children with disabilities and holding centres for asylum seekers. The report, based on information compiled by eight NGOs from across Europe, looks at 63 projects in six countries. Together these projects are believed to have received more than €1bn in funding from the European Union, laying bare a seemingly 'low understanding' of fundamental rights across the bloc, according to one of the authors of the EU-funded report. While the report focused on six countries, those behind the analysis suggested that similar projects were probably widespread across the EU. 'This is really just the tip of the iceberg,' said Ines Bulic of the European Network on Independent Living, describing it as 'unacceptable' that funds provided by European citizens could have been used to amplify the discrimination and segregation of communities that already ranked among the bloc's most marginalised. She pointed to a school in Greece for people with disabilities and special needs, which had been part of a wider EU investment in special vocational schools, as an example. 'What we would like to see is investment in inclusive education, which is very much needed in all of the EU, such as accessible schools, investments in support teachers and other services that allow children to attend regular schools,' she said. Another example she gave was of an institution for children with disabilities in Romania, which had received €2.5m in funding, where children were being sent to live rather than being provided with support to remain with their families. 'This of great concern. It is a right of all children, disabled or not, to grow up in their families.' Other examples highlighted in the report include the construction of social housing for Roma in Romania on the edge of a city. Far from any public service, the homes are built from shipyard containers and do not meet the minimum requirements for thermal or sound insulation and sanitation, the report notes. Several reception centres for asylum seekers across Greece were also flagged for their extremely remote locations and poor living conditions. Those behind the report cited several reasons to explain how millions of euros had ended up being allocated to projects seen as discriminatory. One was a seemingly 'low understanding' of fundamental rights across some governments and parts of the EU, said Andor Urmos of Bridge EU, the organisation that had worked with various civil society groups across Europe to prepare the report. 'That's what we need to tackle in the future,' he said. 'To have a common view, a common understanding that building a segregated school for Roma children is a violation of fundamental rights, as is building a residential institution for people with disabilities or locking up people in reception centres like what is happening in Greece.' The findings dovetail with a raft of recent reports. This week, the Council of Europe said that school segregation was resulting in lower-quality education for Roma, noting that the high concentration of Roma children in certain schools 'appears to be the result of residential segregation, but also of continuing practices by school authorities to educate Roma children in separate classes or buildings'. Last year an EU agency found that the number of people with disabilities who were living in segregated, at times harmful, settings had increased in many EU member states, while civil society organisations have repeatedly accused EU-funded refugee centres of violating people's rights. When contacted, the European Commission said it was aware of the findings of this week's report and was looking into it. 'It is important to highlight that the commission does not fund any organisation that does not fully respect fundamental rights and values,' a spokesperson said. 'In case of violation of the applicable conditions, we have means to terminate the cooperation and recover the money, as necessary.' The report listed projects that were under shared management, meaning the commission relied on national authorities to ensure the legality and regularity of operations, it said. 'Both the EU and its member states must continuously ensure that projects which are incompatible with European values or pursue an illegal agenda, do not receive support from government and European funds,' the spokesperson added. The report highlighted serious shortcomings in how EU funds are being managed and monitored, said Steven Allen of the Validity Foundation, a disability rights organisation that also contributed to the document. 'We can see that both the EU member states, as well as the European Commission, are failing to prevent EU taxpayers money from facilitating and financing serious violations of the rights of multiple marginalised populations,' he said. The report's release was carefully timed to come before planning takes place for the EU's next budget, set to take effect in 2028. Its findings made it clear that the voices of those who often go unheard needed to be included in the decision-making, said Allen. Doing so could help unlock the transformative powers of EU funding, offering the potential to build inclusive education systems or overhaul areas such as public housing, where grievances have been linked to the rise of the far right. 'EU funds do have the potential to be a powerful tool and to provide real, tangible benefits of the EU project to the most marginalised populations on the continent today,' he said. 'And they can indeed be used as an antidote against the rise of creeping nationalism and far-right extremist politics. The funds must be better targeted.'
