Tory Brexiters contradict Badenoch criticism of UK-India trade deal
A series of senior Conservatives have contradicted Kemi Badenoch after she criticised a landmark UK-India trade deal because it temporarily exempts seconded Indian workers from national insurance payments in the UK.
Tories including Oliver Dowden, who was deputy prime minister under Rishi Sunak, said the deal should be hailed as a dividend of Brexit that would bring economic growth and cheaper goods from India.
The deal was announced on Tuesday after more than three years of negotiations. It cuts tariffs on a series of goods and will add an estimated £4.8bn a year to the UK economy by 2040.
In an initial response, the shadow trade secretary, Andrew Griffith, praised it, saying it showed the government recognised 'that reducing cost and burdens on businesses in international trade is a good thing, and that thanks to Brexit, we can do'.
But later on Tuesday the tone changed, with Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary – who regularly roams beyond his brief – tweeting that the national insurance exemption, which applies mutually to seconded UK workers in India, showed that 'British workers come last in Starmer's Britain'.
Badenoch, the party leader, soon followed suit, saying in a tweet that this was 'two-tier taxes from two-tier Keir'.
But several influential Tories and figures from the pro-Brexit camp pointedly disagreed, noting that such opt-outs for seconded workers, which prevent double taxation, were routine in trade deals and had featured in some negotiated under the Conservatives.
Dowden, who is still an MP, welcomed the deal, writing on X that it 'builds on significant progress made by [the] previous Conservative government'.
Steve Baker, who dealt with trade as a Brexit minister under Theresa May, wrote: 'This deal is great news. It further cements the path which I and others worked so hard to secure … The tax issue will likely turn out to be a red herring. We should be celebrating that a Labour government has furthered free trade in the national interest outside the EU.'
Another leading Tory Brexiter, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was business secretary under Liz Truss, tweeted: 'Cheaper food and drink including rice and tea, footwear and clothing thanks to a welcome trade deal with India. Exactly what Brexit promised.'
Praise for the deal – and scepticism about Badenoch's view – also came from some influential Brexit campaigners. In an opinion piece for the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan, a Tory former MEP who is now a peer, wrote that the UK had 'pulled off something that no other country has, at least not on anything like the same scale'.
Noting that some people had criticised the deal based on the tax issue, as well because of worries about its impact on migration and apparently uneven tariff reduction, he wrote: 'All three are nonsense.'
Shanker Singham, a pro-Brexit trade economist who advised Liam Fox when he was international trade secretary, wrote on X: 'This is a significant achievement for UK trade policy. If the UK can lock in a deal with the US, it will be one of the few countries with deals with the key trade players.'
He approvingly retweeted a post from another trade expert who pointed out that in 2012 under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, a UK-Chile trade deal exempted seconded Chilean workers from UK national insurance contributions for five years – compared with three years in the India deal.
Defending the deal on Wednesday, the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, said he expected that the deal overall would bring a net contribution to tax revenues, not a deficit.
'This is not a tangible issue,' he told Sky News. 'This is the Conservatives – and Reform – unable to accept that this Labour government has done what they couldn't do and get this deal across the line.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Royal College of Pathologists comes out against assisted dying
The Royal College of Pathologists, which represents medical examiners, has come out against assisted dying. It said it could not support Kim Leadbeater 's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because of the role that it was expected to play in the assisted dying process. Under the Bill, assisted deaths will not be automatically referred to a coroner, which is usual practice for potentially unnatural deaths and when a drug, authorised or otherwise, brings about death. This will mean that it is for medical examiners to scrutinise assisted deaths. The professional body that represents them says that they are not qualified to do so and warn that a lack of resourcing means that medical examiners may be pulled away from other parts of their vital work. Ms Leadbeater on Tuesday defended not involving coroners in the process. She said there was 'no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry' because adequate safeguards were in place. It comes as the Bill returns to the Commons for a debate on Friday, and a vote on the legislation is expected next week. Dr Suzy Lishman, senior adviser on medical examiners for the Royal College of Pathologists, said that the college had no position on the 'ethical issues' of legalising assisted dying. In a statement, Dr Lishman said: 'The college's concerns relate only to the involvement of medical examiners after an assisted death has taken place. 'As part of their scrutiny, medical examiners would need to review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do. 'Notification to the coroner following an assisted death would ensure independent judicial review, which is particularly important given the concerns raised by many individuals, organisations and medical royal colleges about the lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill for vulnerable people. 'Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review these deaths. The medical examiner system was implemented to detect problems with medical care, not to identify discrepancies or malintent in the legal process required for assisted deaths.' Dr Lishman also raised concerns about the need of 'significant' training and resources needed for medical examiners to be able to perform the role in the process. She said that this would risk 'potentially taking medical examiners away from their current important role'. The Royal College of Pathologists concluded: 'Coronial referral for assisted deaths would be in line with current regulations, with all deaths due to a medical intervention or medicinal product being notified.' Last year, Thomas Teague KC, the former chief coroner for England and Wales from 2020-24, expressed concern about the lack of coroner involvement in the Bill. In a letter to The Telegraph, he wrote: 'Since the coroner's jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard.' A letter signed by around 1,000 doctors from across the NHS published this week said that the Bill is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. They said: 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.' The Royal College of Pathologists is the latest royal college to come out against the legislation, after the Royal College of Psychiatrists voiced their opposition to the Bill last month. Ms Leadbeater said: 'The Bill does not prevent any assisted death being referred to a coroner, however this would not be required in the majority of cases. 'Coroners investigate deaths that have been reported to them if they think that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death is unknown, or the person died in prison or in custody. None of these would apply to a legal, assisted death under the terms of this Bill. 'Eligibility for an assisted death would have been assessed in advance by two independent doctors and a multi-disciplinary panel overseen by a commissioner who would be a High Court judge or retired judge. 'Each of these assessments would be subject to the extensive safeguards contained in the Bill to protect everybody, including the most vulnerable. 'Consequently, most cases would not require a judicial investigation after a person has died, and there would be no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry. 'However, in the event of any doubt at all, it would be open to a medical examiner, a family member or anybody with concerns to ask a coroner to investigate.'
The Sun
19 minutes ago
- The Sun
Ed Miliband accused of ‘rewriting history' after claiming winter fuel axe was to stop millionaires cashing in
ED Miliband was accused of 'rewriting history' yesterday after he claimed scrapping winter fuel was about stopping millionaires getting payments. The bungling Net Zero Secretary tried to justify Labour's original decision to strip the handout by suggesting the pensioners who would've missed out were all rich. 2 2 But some of them earned as little as £12,000 per year. Mr Miliband said: 'The principal question was, the richest in our society, should they get the winter fuel payment, should millionaires, should the richest get the winter fuel payment? 'I think the answer for most people to that is no.' The Net Zero Secretary's desperate bid to explain scrapping winter fuel payments – before the decision was partially reversed – was blasted by senior Tories, who accused him of spouting a 'pack of lies'. Shadow Energy Secretary Andrew Bowie told The Sun: 'Red Ed is even more out of touch than we thought if he thinks people will believe this pack of lies. 'The economy is worse off than when they found it - taxes higher, unemployment higher and living standards lower. 'He is just trying to rewrite history to try and cover up Labour's embarrassing U-turn.' Meanwhile, a flagship Net Zero plan has been spared ahead of next week's spending review — to opponents' dismay. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has ensured his £13billion warm homes scheme will not be downgraded after negotiations with the Treasury. Chancellor Rachel Reeves decided not to cut the cash which allows heating upgrades through better insulation, solar panels and heat pumps.
The Sun
19 minutes ago
- The Sun
B&M has slashed the price of a GIANT bar of Dairy Milk to just £1
B&M has slashed the price of massive Dairy Milk chocolate bars to just £1. The budget retailer has reduced the price of the Cadbury fan favourite by a whopping 66 per cent. Shoppers will be able to bag a bargain at the budget retailer, taking home the 850g chocolate bar for £2 less than usual. The chocolate bars of plain Dairy Milk were once selling in B&M stores for £3. Now shoppers will be able to get their hands on the massive chocolate block at a discounted price. The bargain is subject to availability with stores that don't usually stock the product not selling it at the discounted rate. Cadbury is a fan favourite in the UK and is the second largest confectionary brand in the world. The firm makes dozens of flavours of chocolate bars which are sold in stores across the UK. Discounts and offers are often available for the bigger bars with smaller bars sometimes included in meal deals for a discounted rate. The plain Dairy Milk chocolate bar offers no bells and whistles, just a large block of quality milk chocolate. B&M are now offering nearly a kilogram of the British classic for just £1. The massive discount offered by B&M will net punters a huge block of chocolate for next to nothing. We've outdone ourselves with this one' say Cadbury Ireland as they reveal new limited edition bar 'coming soon Typically 850g of Cadburys chocolate would set back shoppers anywhere between £3 and £5. The offer can be snapped up at any B&M store as long as they have the snack in stock. The budget retailer is known for its impressive deals and offers, regularly reducing fan favourite items by huge amounts. 2 The current B&M discount works out at £1.17 per kilogram of chocolate. The offer is currently active but no indication of when it will end has been given. It could finish any moment so sweet tooth shoppers better be quick. B&M often slashes the price of big name brands, with some items getting even cheaper if the B&M app is used. The B&M app lets shoppers scan items while they are shopping to discover discounts and offers not listed on shelves. How to save money on chocolate We all love a bit of chocolate from now and then, but you don't have to break the bank buying your favourite bar. Consumer reporter Sam Walker reveals how to cut costs... Go own brand - if you're not too fussed about flavour and just want to supplant your chocolate cravings, you'll save by going for the supermarket's own brand bars. Shop around - if you've spotted your favourite variety at the supermarket, make sure you check if it's cheaper elsewhere. Websites like let you compare prices on products across all the major chains to see if you're getting the best deal. Look out for yellow stickers - supermarket staff put yellow, and sometimes orange and red, stickers on to products to show they've been reduced. They usually do this if the product is coming to the end of its best-before date or the packaging is slightly damaged. Buy bigger bars - most of the time, but not always, chocolate is cheaper per 100g the larger the bar. So if you've got the appetite, and you were going to buy a hefty amount of chocolate anyway, you might as well go bigger.
