Tory Brexiters contradict Badenoch criticism of UK-India trade deal
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
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ukraine believes Putin has just ‘one card left to play' in ceasefire talks – and it gives Kyiv an upper hand
Vladimir Putin has 'only one card' left to play - to prolong the killing in Ukraine, according to a senior source in Volodymyr Zelensky's presidential office as Europe conducts top level talks ahead of the Alaska summit this week. Zelensky has not been invited to Friday's meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. And there are deep concerns that the US president will emerge from the encounter taking an even harder line on Ukraine. Europe's leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, have been corralling US officials and White House insiders, and are meeting virtually with the Oval Office to persuade Trump to use the leverage he has over Putin to get him to agree a ceasefire. 'The main thing for Putin is to try to trade land for ceasefires,' the source close to Zelensky told The Independent. 'The ability to kill and to prolong war is the only card Putin has. So, he's trying to play this card.' In February, Trump lost his temper with Zelensky, yelling at him that he didn't 'have the cards' in the conflict with Russia during an infamous press conference in the Oval Office. Now, Ukraine insists, it's Putin who has the weaker hand. Europe's leaders are trying to reinforce that message to Trump so that he feels confident threatening further economic sanctions against countries that import Russian oil - and even to renew arms shipments to Ukraine - to get Putin to suspend military operations. 'Trump does want to finish the killings, it's true, and he has the power to do it. So the question is for him how to do the right thing,' the Ukrainian presidential advisor said. So far Putin has said any ceasefire would have to come on the condition that Ukraine agrees to cede four provinces - Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia - to Russia along with the Crimea. He also wants Ukraine not to use any pause in the fighting to rearm. Ukraine has long agreed to a minimum 30-day unconditional ceasefire and insists that it is willing to discuss grounds for peace. As speculation mounts over what Friday's summit will achieve, Trump has already indicated that he agrees with Russia and that Ukraine should be prepared to agree 'land swaps' of Ukrainian territory. Europe, the UK and Ukraine have ruled out such concessions – especially as part of any deal struck between Russia and America without Ukraine present. Despite the fanfare over the meeting in Anchorage, the US actually has less power, and therefore influence over the outcome of talks, as a result of forcing Kyiv and Europe into taking on more of the burden of the defence of Ukraine. Trump cut all military aid to Ukraine earlier this year. The total US military spend there is €114 billion, which is dwarfed by the EU and UK's current pledged contribution standing at €250 billion. Ukraine's Nato allies now have to buy US weapons to supply Kyiv, but there are now signs that the US could ban that revenue stream. Russia has seen its second largest oil client, India, hit with a total of 50 per cent US tariffs. Twenty five per cent of that was imposed to get Putin to respond to Trump's ceasefire proposals. And if the US decided to open the taps of free military aid again it could tip the tactical balance rapidly in Ukraine's favour. The UK and Europe want Trump to spell this out to Putin. 'Zelensky supports the ceasefire,' the Ukrainian source said. 'The problem is that Putin rejects it and the majority of Ukrainians want to see peace, it's true, but at the same time the majority of Ukrainians reject Russian claims on the territory.'
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer just one crisis away from a Labour coup?
On the Whitehall grapevine, Wes Streeting is seen as a rare success story for the government: a good communicator who is starting to deliver the change Keir Starmer promised. The chatter in Streeting's health department predicts his next stop will be 10 Downing Street. However, the health secretary might face an uphill battle to win over the Labour grassroots in the 'one member, one vote' ballot that chooses the party's leader. Even some of his admirers suspect he might be too right-wing, or 'Blairite', for many of them. Whitehall officials are less flattering about other cabinet ministers. Rachel Reeves 's autumn Budget is described by some as her 'last shot'. In other words, if she can't break out of the doom loop of 'one-off' tax rises to meet her fiscal rules, followed by exactly the same medicine in her next Budget, Starmer might be looking for a new chancellor next year. The prime minister is not immune to speculation about his future. Even his allies admit he cannot afford a repeat of his bad first year on the domestic front. 'Another crisis like the welfare climbdown and it would surely be curtains,' one Labour MP told me. Angela Rayner told last month's meeting of Labour's national executive committee that 'announcements are not enough: people have to see real improvements in their lives, soon.' Significantly, the deputy prime minister added: 'The next 12 months will decide whether Labour wins a second term.' She wasn't talking behind Keir Starmer's back; he was in the room. Few ministers would disagree with her 'one more year' theory. Starmer's problem is that first impressions of a government, prime minister or party leader usually stick, and Labour and his party's dire ratings are getting worse. Although Rayner didn't say it, the logical consequence of her statement is that if Starmer hasn't turned things round by next summer, the question of whether he should lead the party into the next general election will become a live one. The spark might be poor results in next May's mid-term elections, when Labour could lose out to the SNP in the Scottish Parliament, to Reform UK in the Welsh Parliament, and to the Greens and Jeremy Corbyn's new socialist party in English local authorities. Indeed, there's already gossip in Labour land about Starmer's future, which is fully in line with Labour's traditions. The party doesn't kill its leaders like the Conservatives, but makes up for that by debating endlessly in private who would take over if their leader fell under a Number 12 bus in Whitehall. Labour has more in common with the TV series Succession than it would admit. Despite Streeting's Whitehall fan club, the current strong favourite to succeed Starmer is Rayner. Although she insists she doesn't want the top job, it would be very hard to stick to that if it were likely to land in her lap. Rayner is performing a delicate balancing act well. She has carved out a position slightly to the left of Starmer, which is where Labour's heart beats. At the same time, she is publicly loyal to the PM; rocking the boat could damage her succession prospects. In theory, jittery Labour backbenchers, fearing they will lose their seats, could mount a coup against Starmer. In practice, they would need cabinet-level support. How loyal would the cabinet be if the PM came under real pressure? One largely forgotten factor is that only eight of today's 22-strong cabinet nominated Starmer in the 2020 Labour leadership contest – in other words, he was their first choice. They were: Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper, John Healey, David Lammy, Ed Miliband, Bridget Phillipson, Steve Reed and Jonathan Reynolds. That doesn't mean other ministers would dump Starmer in the event of a leadership crisis. When a leader is in real trouble, any politician is bound to consider self-interest. If Rayner still looked a shoo-in, it would suit those who don't want her to succeed Starmer to rally behind him rather than pull the rug. 'Wes [Streeting], Yvette [Cooper] and other big beasts would bolster Keir rather than let Angie [Rayner] take over,' one Labour insider told me. Despite that, it is no longer certain that Starmer will lead his party into the next election. Starmer will soon reflect on his planned fightback during a much-needed holiday, which, knowing his wretched luck when it comes to taking a break, will probably be interrupted by the need to talk to other world leaders about Ukraine and Gaza. The first test of whether Starmer can turn the domestic tide will come in what is becoming an increasingly important speech to the Labour conference in Liverpool next month. 'It's going to be a hard slog from now on,' one close ally admitted.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Backlash after local authorities in India ban meat sales on Independence Day
Several local authorities in India have issued orders banning the sale of meat on Independence Day, triggering outrage among opposition parties and members of the public. At least four municipal bodies in the western state of Maharashtra and one in Telangana have ordered all slaughterhouses and meat shops to remain closed for 24 hours on Friday. India will celebrate 78 years of independence from British colonial rule on 15 August. Meat bans during Hindu festivals have become routine practice in many northern states of India under prime minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party-led (BJP) government. However, the controversial bans are mostly limited to religious festivals. National Family Health Survey data published in 2022 revealed that in more than half of India's 30 states and union territories, above 90 per cent of the population consumed meat and fish. A Registrar General of India survey in 2014 found 70 per cent of people in India eat meat. Civic bodies in Maharashtra 's Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Malegaon and Nagpur regions are among those being criticised for banning the sale of meat during a secular holiday, a move which also brought reproach from the state's deputy chief minister. Ajit Pawar, whose faction of the Nationalist Congress Party forms a coalition government with the BJP in Maharashtra, said it was "wrong to impose such a ban". "In major cities, people of different castes and religions reside. If it is an emotional issue, then people accept it (ban) for a day. But if you clamp such orders on Maharashtra Day, Independence Day and Republic Day, then it is difficult," the deputy chief minister was quoted by the Indian Express as saying. Mr Pawar said people in rural Maharashtra indulge in non-vegetarian delicacies during celebrations. "If we look at the coastal Konkan region, people mostly eat seafood. The tribals are used to non-vegetarian food. The food habit and diversity has to be respected." Former state minister Aaditya Thackeray protested, saying: 'What we eat on Independence Day is our choice.' 'Instead of imposing vegetarianism on the citizens, focus on improving the terrible roads and broken civic service,' he wrote on X. 'Citizens will eat whatever they want to – vegetarian [or] non vegetarian.' The ruling BJP defended the ban, arguing that they were empowered to do so specifically on occasions celebrating India's independence by a 1988 state government order. Navnath Ban, a spokesperson for the BJP in Maharashtra, argued that the move was therefore not a new decision. 'The decision to keep slaughterhouses and meat shops closed on some important days such as Independence Day, Gandhi Jayanti (Mahatma Gandhi's birthday), Mahavir Jayanti, Ram Navmi etc was taken by the then-government in 1988,' he told the Indian Express. 'Since then some civic bodies follow it.' Jitendra Awhad, a member of the Maharashtra assembly, claimed that the state government was 'fuelling a vegetarian–non-vegetarian divide' as only the latest in a string of social controversies. Mr Awhad threatened to host a 'mutton party' on Independence Day, adding: 'On the day we got freedom, you are taking away our freedom to eat what we want.' In the southern state of Telangana, the high court on Monday sought an explanation from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) regarding its order directing meat shops and slaughterhouses to remain shut on the occasion on Independence Day and the Hindu festival of Janmashtami, which will be celebrated this year on 16 August. 'The decision to close down the cattle slaughter houses, meat shops, etc. is taken without citing any reasons and the said letter is a blatant example of colourable exercise of authority without any reason whatsoever,' the petition before the high court read, according to Bar and Bench. Asaduddin Owaisi, MP and member of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, called the ban order 'callous and unconstitutional'. 'What's the connection between eating meat and celebrating Independence Day,' he asked, claiming that 99 per cent of people in Telanga consumed meat. 'These meat bans violate people's right to liberty, privacy, livelihood, culture, nutrition and religion,' he added.
