The need for a new Queens Speech and opportunities to debate Brexit next week + in October either side of the European Summit

There are two issues that have been raised by the decision of the Prime Minister, as agreed to by Her Majesty the Queen: the need for a new Queens Speech, and an opportunity for parliament to debate any matters, including Brexit.

There is ample time for Labour, or other parties, to seek to stop Brexit or to introduce a Vote of No Confidence if they wish to do so. They could, for example, do this next Tuesday, when the House of Commons sits again.

Normally Parliament is prorogued each year in advance of a Queen's Speech. This particular session of Parliament has lasted nearly two and a quarter years – effectively the longest since the English Civil War. We are long overdue a Queen's Speech, and quite understandably a new Prime Minister, and a new ministerial team want to set out a new domestic legislative agenda. Genuinely, all of parliament, from across all political sides, have been waiting for a new Queens Speech since July, when the previous two-year 2017-2019 session ran out. For example, the Labour Leader of the House of Commons, Valerie Vaz MP, called for a new Queens Speech in June of this year in the Commons. For more details on this issue have a read here. 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-and-elections/parliament/is-this-the-longest-parliamentary-session-ever/

What are the consequences of the decision in terms of parliamentary time as compared to the normal agenda? MPs will still return to parliament for the new session, which begins next Tuesday, and then break, for the party conference recess. Labour conference will be in Brighton, the Conservatives in Manchester the following week and so on. Again, any political party who wants to bring a vote of No Confidence can do so next week. For more details on such a situation have a read here.

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/motion-of-no-confidence/

Party conference recess always happens under each and any government. In October, there will be the loss of 3 days business on the 8th, 9th and 10th October. If the Government were committing, as some have argued, "a constitutional outrage", they would be proroguing Parliament until November 1st to ensure that it did not sit between now and November 1st. This is not happening.

Brexit was due to take place on March 31st 2019. Shortly before then the UK Government and the EU27 agreed to delay the Brexit departure date until 31st October 2019. The next European Council is on the 17th and 18th October. The new Prime Minister has already met with President Macron and Angela Merkel and progress has been made to removing the backstop, which remains the chief hurdle to an agreed deal.

The Government has set out a clear timetable, which indicates that if a withdrawal agreement has been reached it would be debated and voted on 21st and 22nd October. This will still give time, both before and after the European Council, to debate Brexit and a potential new Withdrawal Bill. We have already debated Brexit repeatedly; I have voted on three occasions to leave with a deal. It is a matter of regret that Labour, and other opposition parties, have repeatedly blocked the United Kingdom leaving with a deal. It remains both my, and the Prime Ministers, desire for an agreed Deal by way of a Withdrawal Agreement with our partners in the EU.

For too long the deadlock in Parliament has taken the focus away from key domestic issues and I am delighted that Boris Johnson has set out such a bold policy agenda for more police on our streets to tackle violent crime, levelled up school funding, and that the NHS continues to secure the extra £20 Billion it has been promised by this Conservative Government. I accept that not everyone agrees with the result of the 2016 EU Referendum, but I am a democrat and I believe we need to leave the EU and abide by the decision of the Referendum, in light of the assurances given by all political parties, and MPs, both before and after the referendum. I am also of the view that the British people want Brexit sorted and their Government to focus on the domestic renewal of our country.

Prime Minister’s statement on last week’s European Council - full speech and analysis

The Prime Minister Theresa May spoke and did a Q+A in the House of Commons on last week's European Council that she attended in Brussels.

In her statement, Mrs May touched upon the discussions she had engaged in with her 27 European counterparts. She began by noting the agreed requirement for a robust European stance in the face of Russian aggression, Russia’s “indiscriminate” bombing of civilians in Aleppo, and the additional atrocities that are occurring in Syria which she described as “utterly horrific”. The Prime Minister also spoke about how the leaders at the European Council agreed that addressing the root causes of mass migration and a focus on championing free trade around the world were the key mutual priorities for our nations.

At the end as Mrs May discussed what she had told the European Council when updating her counterparts on our position on Brexit:

“I made clear at last week’s European Council that my aim is to cement Britain as a close partner of the EU once we have left. I want the deal we negotiate to reflect the kind of mature, co-operative relationship that close friends and allies enjoy.

A deal that will give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the European market – and allow European businesses to do the same here. A deal that will deliver the deepest possible co-operation to ensure our national security and the security of our allies. A deal that is in Britain’s interests – and the interests of all our European partners. But it will also be a deal that means we are a fully independent, sovereign nation – able to do what sovereign nations do, which means we will, for example, be free to decide for ourselves how we control immigration.

It will mean our laws are made not in Brussels but here in this Parliament. And that the judges interpreting those laws will sit not in Luxembourg but in courts right here in Britain.”

You can read Theresa May’s entire statement here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-commons-statement-on-the-european-council-24-oct-2016

A weaker pound is not necessarily to be feared: this rebalancing is long overdue + our exporters / tourism loves it

The pound has dropped in value. What does this mean and is it a good or bad thing, in the short medium and long term? 
There are both benefits and burdens to Brexit, but what is undeniable is that it is a shock and it causes a reassessment of our currency as compared to other currencies. This has caused a devaluation of the pound as compared to the dollar, the euro and other currencies. This has consequences. Some are not good. For example, imported goods like overseas fuel or non British food stuffs get more expensive. This is the origin of the Marmitegate crisis last week - and we will see some foodstuffs get more expensive in the shops if those shops are importing the produce. 

If you are trying to export your manufactured goods you love the depreciation in the pound. Suddenly your goods are that much cheaper and more competitive. 
Similarly look at tourism: if you run a home grown bed and breakfast or a hotel then the devaluation of the pound as compared to the dollar or the euro is wonderful news. Your product - the great British holiday - is now a lot more attractive to overseas visitors. 
But if you are going on a European or American mini break then your pound buys less dollars or euros. Your holiday abroad got more expensive. Which means many families, I predict, will choose to staycation in the uk next year. Which boosts our uk tourism, hotel, pub and b + b

But don't take my word for it. The guardian is no friend of Brexit, but yesterday it did this assessment of why the pounds devaluation is not to be feared: it is a view. But whilst the jury is out in the future that Brexit holds the reports from business of the consequential devaluation of the pound is that fundamentally it is a good thing. 

A weaker pound works by making exports cheaper and imports dearer. The effect, as after all the other devaluations and depreciations of the past 100 years – 1931 to 1976, 1992 and 2007 – will make the economy less dependent on consumers and more reliant on producers. Lord Mervyn King, a former governor of the Bank of England, thinks the latest fall in sterling is a good thing and he is right.
Put the Brexit vote to one side for a second and ask yourself the following questions: 
- is the economy currently unbalanced? 
- Is growth too dependent on consumer spending and asset price bubbles? 
- Is the productive base of the economy too small? 
- Is it a problem that the UK is running a balance of payments deficit worth 6% of GDP, bigger than ever before in peacetime?
If your answer to these four questions is yes – as it should be – then you need to accept that there is an upside to the falling pound. Indeed, many of those who are now talking about a sterling crisis were last year bemoaning the fact that Greece – trapped as it was inside the eurozone – did not have the benefit of a floating currency and so had to use a brutal internal devaluation involving wage cuts, pension reductions and welfare retrenchment to restore its competitiveness.
The current account deficit will shrink as a result of stronger exports from the manufacturing and service sectors, the boost provided to the tourism industry, and because cheaper domestic goods and services will be substituted for more expensive imports. To say that dearer imports will make life more difficult for consumers is to miss the point. That’s how rebalancing works.

Delighted to be part of annual Newcastle University debate on Northern Powerhouse and progress made

I was recently involved in an excellent and lively debate on the North-South, post-Brexit divide with Newcastle University and Res Publica. This is an annual Newcastle University event. The key points from the discussion were:

• SME-University collaboration  

• The skills gap 

• Devolution and double devolution  

• Metro-mayors 

• Transport infrastructure: HS2 and HS3 

• Productivity  

• The Northern Powerhouse  

Crucially, the conclusion of much of the discussion was that the efforts behind the Northern Powerhouse initiative is an ongoing processes rather than single events, and that silver bullets for the problem do not exist. 

There has been considerable progress since 2010: the Northern Powerhouse,cross-regional cooperation in health, tourism, transport and so on have been key levers and we are already seeing the green shoots of change. The greatest increase in the economically active population has been in the North East. The greatest increase in employment has been in the North East. 

But as the Chancellor Philip Hammond made very clear: we cannot rest on our laurels and we have a long way to go to solve the issue. There are political obstacles along the way: whilst the Greater Manchester area has embraced devolution and these forms of cooperation, integration and synergy, many other areas, including parts of the North East have so far backed off from embracing devolution. 

This is going to need cross business, government, academic, and local political cooperation and action but conversations have been and continue to be very positive. There was much optimism on this issue in the room, and I believe, quite rightly.

Make your own mind up - but do read the report: shock or severe shock? The Treasury analysis of the short term impact of Brexit is here

The Treasury’s analysis of the short-term impact of Brexit offers us two scenarios for the two years following the referendum: a base ‘shock’ and a ‘severe shock’ scenario. The base case means 3.6pc less economic growth in the two years following Brexit, with inflation up 2.3 percentage points and house prices down 10pc.
The full report is here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/313564363/HM-Treasury-Analysis-The-Immediate-Economic-Impact-of-Leaving-the-EUhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/313564363/HM-Treasury-Analysis-The-Immediate-Economic-Impact-of-Leaving-the-EU