UK Parliament gets new chance to offer options on Brexit

LONDON — Britain’s Parliament gets another chance Monday to offer a way forward on Britain’s stalled divorce from the European Union, holding a series of votes on Brexit alternatives in an attempt to find the elusive idea that can command a majority.

With just 12 days until the U.K. must come up with a new plan or crash out of the bloc, the House of Commons was considering a variety of alternatives to Prime Minister Theresa May’s unpopular Brexit deal. Two ideas — staying in the EU customs union or holding a second referendum on Brexit — have emerged as the most likely plans to succeed.

May has ruled out both those ideas. But the divorce deal she negotiated with the EU has been rejected by Parliament three times, leaving Britain less than two weeks from a no-deal Brexit that could cause turmoil for people and businesses on both sides of the Channel.

The chief executive of industrial manufacturer Siemens U.K. implored British lawmakers to unite around a compromise Brexit deal, saying the country’s political chaos was making the U.K. a “laughing stock.”

Juergen Maier urged lawmakers to keep Britain in a customs union with the EU, saying that would allow frictionless trade to continue. In a letter published by the Politico website, Maier said “where the U.K. used to be beacon for stability, we are now becoming a laughing stock.”

May’s spokesman, James Slack, said the prime minister understood that “business wants certainty,” and urged lawmakers to support May’s thrice-rejected Brexit deal.

May could try to bring her Brexit agreement back for a fourth time later this week. Slack said the prime minister “believes there is a majority in the House for leaving in an orderly way with a deal,” and her agreement was the best on offer.

Slack rejected speculation that the government could take drastic action, such as asking Queen Elizabeth II to suspend Parliament or getting her to refuse to sign legislation.

“We don’t have any intention of involving the queen,” he said.

Monday’s votes in Parliament follow an earlier round last week in which none of the eight Brexit options on offer secured a majority.

Staying in the EU customs union or holding a new Brexit referendum were on the table Monday, along with other “soft Brexit” alternatives and a call for a no-deal Brexit in which Britain leaves the EU without a deal on April 12.

The range of choices, and lack of consensus, reflect a Parliament and a government deeply divided over how — and whether — to leave the EU.

Justice Secretary David Gauke said leaving the bloc without a deal was “not the responsible thing for a government to do.”

But his Cabinet colleague Liz Truss said it would be better than a soft Brexit.

“I think that we are well prepared for no deal,” Truss, who is chief secretary to the Treasury, told the BBC. “I don’t have any fear of no deal.”

The divisions within May’s government over what to do next have left many Britons exasperated — including Conservative Party lawmakers.

Chief Whip Julian Smith, whose job is to ensure that Conservative legislators vote for government-backed policies, called the public Cabinet squabbling “the “worst example of ill-discipline in British political history.”

May has less than two weeks to bridge the hostile divide that separates those in her government who want to sever links with the EU and those who want to keep the ties that have bound Britain to the bloc for almost 50 years.

EU leaders will hold a special summit on April 10 to consider any request from Britain for a longer delay to Brexit — or to make last-minute preparations for Britain’s departure without a deal two days later.

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said Monday that it was time for the British Parliament to spell out what it wanted on Brexit.

“A sphinx is an open book in direct comparison with the British Parliament,” he told the Saarland state legislature in Saarbruecken, Germany. “We must get the sphinx to talk now. Enough of the long silence.”

___

Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this story.

___

Follow AP’s full coverage of Brexit at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit

Danica Kirka And Jill Lawless, The Associated Press

The Canadian Press

syndication.thecanadianpress.com/rss/69467d8c-ad4b-48a4-895e-9e19d79c6c8e

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Peckford: Hallelujah! Supreme Court of Canada to hear Newfoundland and Labrador charter case

COVID-19 / 10 months ago

Supreme Court will not hear case about government’s violation of rights and freedoms

Alberta / 11 months ago

Alberta looking to ban electronic vote tabulators ahead of next provincial election

Uncategorized

Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax

Published on January 16, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Carson Binda

BC Government promised carbon tax would reduce CO2 by 33%. It has done nothing.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the British Columbia government to scrap the carbon tax as new data shows the province’s carbon emissions have continued to rise, despite the oldest carbon tax in the country.

“The carbon tax isn’t reducing carbon emissions like the politicians promised,” said Carson Binda, B.C. Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Premier David Eby needs to axe the tax now to save British Columbians money.”

Emissions data from the provincial government shows that British Columbia’s emissions have risen since the introduction of a carbon tax.

Total emissions in 2007, the last year without a provincial carbon tax, stood at 65.5 MtCO2e, while 2022 emissions data shows an increase to 65.6 MtCO2e.

When the carbon tax was introduced, the B.C. government pledged that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent.

The Eby government plans to increase the B.C. carbon tax again on April 1, 2025. After that increase, the carbon tax will add 21 cents to the cost of a litre of natural gas, 25 cents per litre of diesel and 18 cents per cubic meter of natural gas.

“The carbon tax has cost British Columbians a lot of money, but it hasn’t helped the environment as promised,” Binda said. “Eby has a simple choice: scrap the carbon tax before April 1, or force British Columbians to pay even more to heat our homes and drive to work.”

If a family fills up the minivan once per week for a year, the carbon tax will cost them $728. The carbon tax on natural gas will add $435 to the average family’s home heating bills in the 12 months after the April 1 carbon tax hike.

Other provinces, like Saskatchewan, have unilaterally stopped collecting the carbon tax on essentials like home heating and have not faced consequences from Ottawa.

“British Columbians need real relief from the costs of the provincial carbon tax,” Binda said. “Eby needs to stop waiting for permission from the leaderless federal government and scrap the tax on British Columbians.”

Uncategorized

The problem with deficits and debt

Published on January 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss

This fiscal year (2024/25), the federal government and eight out of 10 provinces project a budget deficit, meaning they’re spending more than collecting in revenues. Unfortunately, this trend isn’t new. Many Canadian governments—including the federal government—have routinely ran deficits over the last decade.

But why should Canadians care? If you listen to some politicians (and even some economists), they say deficits—and the debt they produce—are no big deal. But in reality, the consequences of government debt are real and land squarely on everyday Canadians.

Budget deficits, which occur when the government spends more than it collects in revenue over the fiscal year, fuel debt accumulation. For example, since 2015, the federal government’s large and persistent deficits have more than doubled total federal debt, which will reach a projected $2.2 trillion this fiscal year. That has real world consequences. Here are a few of them:

Diverted Program Spending: Just as Canadians must pay interest on their own mortgages or car loans, taxpayers must pay interest on government debt. Each dollar spent paying interest is a dollar diverted from public programs such as health care and education, or potential tax relief. This fiscal year, federal debt interest costs will reach $53.7 billion or $1,301 per Canadian. And that number doesn’t include provincial government debt interest, which varies by province. In Ontario, for example, debt interest costs are projected to be $12.7 billion or $789 per Ontarian.

Higher Taxes in the Future: When governments run deficits, they’re borrowing to pay for today’s spending. But eventually someone (i.e. future generations of Canadians) must pay for this borrowing in the form of higher taxes. For example, if you’re a 16-year-old Canadian in 2025, you’ll pay an estimated $29,663 over your lifetime in additional personal income taxes (that you would otherwise not pay) due to Canada’s ballooning federal debt. By comparison, a 65-year-old will pay an estimated $2,433. Younger Canadians clearly bear a disproportionately large share of the government debt being accumulated currently.

Risks of rising interest rates: When governments run deficits, they increase demand for borrowing. In other words, governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing. In response, interest rates rise, and subsequently, so does the cost of servicing government debt. Of course, the private sector also must pay these higher interest rates, which can reduce the level of private investment in the economy. In other words, private investment that would have occurred no longer does because of higher interest rates, which reduces overall economic growth—the foundation for job-creation and prosperity. Not surprisingly, as government debt has increased, business investment has declined—specifically, business investment per worker fell from $18,363 in 2014 to $14,687 in 2021 (inflation-adjusted).

Risk of Inflation: When governments increase spending, particularly with borrowed money, they add more money to the economy, which can fuel inflation. According to a 2023 report from Scotiabank, government spending contributed significantly to higher interest rates in Canada, accounting for an estimated 42 per cent of the increase in the Bank of Canada’s rate since the first quarter of 2022. As a result, many Canadians have seen the costs of their borrowing—mortgages, car loans, lines of credit—soar in recent years.

Recession Risks: The accumulation of deficits and debt, which do not enhance productivity in the economy, weaken the government’s ability to deal with future challenges including economic downturns because the government has less fiscal capacity available to take on more debt. That’s because during a recession, government spending automatically increases and government revenues decrease, even before policymakers react with any specific measures. For example, as unemployment rises, employment insurance (EI) payments automatically increase, while revenues for EI decrease. Therefore, when a downturn or recession hits, and the government wants to spend even more money beyond these automatic programs, it must go further into debt.

Government debt comes with major consequences for Canadians. To alleviate the pain of government debt on Canadians, our policymakers should work to balance their budgets in 2025.