Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

[...]

How did they solve the Northern Ireland border issue this time?

A pessimist would say they didn’t really solve the problem – they just kicked the can down the road and said they would come up with a solution later on.

The joint text agreed by the EU and UK doesn’t actually spell out what will happen in Northern Ireland. It says three different things: Firstly, the UK government says it will try and get a UK-wide trade deal with the EU that means there is no need for a hard border in Northern Ireland.

In normal circumstances this would mean staying in the single market and customs union. But Theresa May repeated this morning in Brussels that the UK would be leaving the single market and customs union, so it’s not clear how this would be possible. She could be envisaging a Swiss-style arrangement where the UK isn’t in the EEA, but implements individual tranches of legislation on a treaty basis. This would probably still upset Brexiteers keen on leaving the single market, though. It’s a very odd thing to say and the Government hasn’t unpacked it.

Secondly, the agreement says that if a deal like that isn’t possible, “the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland” – which is what they were tried and failed to do, because the DUP blocked the only proposed solution anyone could think of.

Thirdly and crucially, though the agreement pledges “unfettered access” to UK markets for Northern Ireland whatever happens, it places responsibility on the Northern Ireland executive - which doesn’t currently function – to agree any new rules to stop Northern Ireland from diverging from the Republic and thus stop a hard border from forming.

This basically means that if the other points fail, the executive – in which the DUP also has a veto because of powersharing rules – would have to pass the laws to keep Northern Ireland in the single market and customs union, which they say they don’t want.

[...]

The Democratic Unionist Party has revealed that it urged Theresa May not to press ahead with today’s breakthrough deal – because Tory backbenchers had said they oppose it.

The Northern Ireland party pointed to major trouble ahead, by revealing recent private concessions with Conservative backbenchers unhappy about the concessions being made by the Prime Minister.

It also made clear it could yet vote against any final Brexit deal unless unanswered questions about the consequences of “regulatory alignment” with the EU, to avoid a hard Irish border, were settled satisfactorily.

Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, said: “We cautioned the Prime Minister about proceeding with this agreement in its present form, given the issues which still need to be resolved and the views expressed to us by many of her own party colleagues.

“However, it was ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister to decide.”

The Irish Government insisted it had achieved all that it had been seeking in the intensive negotiations over the last few days, pointing to a “guarantee of avoiding a hard border” in the new text.

It reads: “In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”

Similarly, the DUP agreed to move ahead because the Stormont Assembly - when restored – will enjoy a block on any new trade barriers between the Northern Ireland and the UK.

But many Tory MPs are known to oppose this “alignment”, fearing it will prevent the UK striking trade deals with countries outside the EU, seeking different regulations on food and manufactured goods.

The Prime Minister hopes to square the circle by reaching an over-arching free trade agreement with the EU, to begin in 2021 - after a transitional period – that will remove all barriers.

But it may impossible to strike such an agreement. Furthermore, experts have warned it will fall short of the open access currently enjoyed in the single market and customs union.

At a press conference, Ms Foster made clear the DUP believed there was “still more work to be done” on trading outside the EU’s economic structures.

However, it hailed key victories to ensure there will be no separate trading rules for Northern Ireland after Brexit, as appeared possible when it vetoed an original draft on Monday.

“There will be no so-called “special status” for Northern Ireland as demanded by Sinn Fein,” Ms Foster said.

And she added: “We do however welcome the assurance given by the Prime Minister and Brexit Secretary in Parliament that any alignment will be done on a UK-wide basis, ensuring that there would be no barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and our most important market in the rest of the UK.

“We will play a full part with the Government in the second stage of the negotiations on a comprehensive trade deal. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and how we vote on the final deal will depend on its contents.”

In a letter to people of Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister wrote: “These commitments are consistent with our steadfast support for the Belfast Agreement and its successors; the principles that underpin them; the institutions they establish; and, the rights and opportunities they guarantee for everyone.

“This Government will continue to govern in the interests of the whole community in Northern Ireland and uphold the Agreements that have underpinned the huge progress that has been made over the past two decades.”

As things stand, Britain is heading for long-term de facto membership of the single market and the customs union, even if we are technically in neither, in order to preserve the Northern Irish peace process. We will simply have to observe regulations that we have no power over and no say in making. Taking back control, indeed.

People born in Northern Ireland will be able to retain their EU citizenship under the deal struck by Theresa May early this morning.
[...]
“Both Parties acknowledge that the 1998 Agreement recognises the birth right of all the people of Northern Ireland to choose to be Irish or British or both and be accepted as such,” the joint text agreed by the two sides states.

“The people of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens will continue to enjoy rights as EU citizens, including where they reside in Northern Ireland.”

The agreement is in line with a demand in a British position paper released in August, that “the people of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens – or who hold both British and Irish citizenship” will enjoy the rights of EU citizenship.

The European Commission had also suggested in a position paper that “full account should be taken of the fact that Irish citizens residing in Northern Ireland will continue to enjoy rights as EU citizens”.

The rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK and the million Britons living in the EU will be protected post-Brexit, according to the latest deal between the UK government and the EU.
[...]
The report confirms that EU and UK citizens have free movement of rights until the day the UK withdraws from the EU - 29 March 2019. This, in effect, is the cut-off date for EU citizens moving to the UK.
Anyone who arrives before Brexit day will have the right to stay.

Those who are yet to be granted permanent residency in the UK will have their rights protected, so they can still acquire it after withdrawal.
[...]
UK citizens who move elsewhere in the EU before Brexit day will have the right to stay in that country.

However after the UK withdraws, the freedom of movement principles will not be the same for UK citizens living in the EU as EU citizens living in Britain.
... ... ...

A lot more will come over weekend, I suppose.

David Jones, one of the few Tory Brexiteers to publicly criticise the deal Prime Minister Theresa May reached with the European Commission in order to trigger trade talks, said the UK could end up paying a “monstrous” exit settlement two-and-a-half times the £39 billion figure floated by the Government.

The intervention came amid reports that prominent Leave campaigners such as Environment Secretary Michael Gove and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will seek concessions from Mrs May on a sharper break from Brussels as “payback” for their support for her deal with the EU.
Mr Gove is keen to ensure the UK quits the common fisheries policy, despite the PM agreeing that the UK could retain “alignment” with the EU in areas that impact on Northern Ireland, according to the Sunday Times.

The controversial issue of aligning certain standards and practices with the EU after withdrawal was also heavily criticised by Mr Jones, along with the exit payment.

Writing in the Mail on Sunday, the ex-minister said: “'Government sources' were quoted saying the price tag was likely to be £39 billion - down from an earlier-reported £50 billion. However, the deal document contains no such precise figure, reduced or otherwise.

“What it does contain is a set of highly technical mechanisms we would have to follow to work out the eventual Brexit cost to the UK.

“And those mechanisms could land us with a bill, on some estimates, of as much as £100 billion - a figure EU sources were touting earlier this year.”

Cabinet tensions are set to come to a head at a meeting during the week before Christmas when ministers will finally discuss what the “end state” of the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the EU should be.

Pro-European Conservatives are threatening to inflict Theresa May’s first Commons’ defeat on her Brexit bill in a last-ditch bid to have a “meaningful” vote on the terms and conditions of the UK’s exit package.

Government Whips are said to be concerned the Prime Minister could face an embarrassing defeat if enough Tory rebels vote with the majority of opposition MPs over a crucial amendment to the bill next week.

A statement signed by the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on EU relations, shown to the Observer, says that Parliament must be sovereign – as Brexiteers have themselves demanded – and give the final seal of approval to MPs.
[...]
The so-called “meaningful vote” amendment 7 drafted by former attorney general Dominic Grieve calls for MPs to have the final say on any financial settlement and trading arrangements before the UK’s departure becomes law.

It is aimed at ensuring the “softest” Brexit possible with the hope of retaining access to the single market and customs’ union in return for continued payments into the EU budget.
[...]
The cross-party EU relations group, which includes around a dozen Tory backbenchers and former ministers, believes it has the numbers to force through the “meaningful vote” amendment if just 11 Conservative MPs vote with them and the expected number of pro-Brexit Labour MPs support the Government.

Ten Conservative MPs have put their names to the amendment, with the vote due to take place on Wednesday.

The Brexit agreement struck by Theresa May last week must be turned into a legally binding treaty if the UK wants to progress to trade talks, the EU is set to insist – after the British government appeared to row back from its commitments just days after it was agreed.

The Independent understands that the European Parliament is to revise its red lines following comments by David Davis that the agreement was just a “statement of intent” and claims in the Commons by Ms May that the UK would not be bound to pay its divorce bill if no trade talk was inked.

Meanwhile, a leaked draft copy of the European Council’s text on last week’s agreement, set to be agreed by EU27 heads of state and government on Friday, shows the countries will insist that the UK start drafting the deal into law.

MEPs are said to be “pissed off” with Mr Davis’s comments despite the Brexit Secretary having backed away from them the next day and claiming he meant the deal was “more than just legally enforceable”.

Mr Davis’s original comments provoked the Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar to make a public statement at the weekend, commenting that the deal was in fact “bulletproof” while other Irish politicians said the UK would be held “to account” on it.

A draft of the Thursday and Friday summit’s conclusions reported by The Times says: “Negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible.”

While the European Parliament’s resolution is still being drafted, it is understood that the text is likely to contain similar demands to the council’s text, and for the same reason – Mr Davis’s suggestion that the deal might not be honoured.

The EU27 leaders are expected to agree the Council’s text at a Brussels summit on Thursday and Friday, where they will also deem “sufficient progress” to have been made to move to the next phase of talks.

The Prime Minister added to the confusion over Britain’s will to stand by the deal on Monday in the House of Commons. When it was pointed out that paragraph 96 of the deal says the UK will pay the divorce bill even if no full trade deal is completed but only a framework, Ms May replied:

“No, that is not my understanding of the joint progress report or the position that we will be in. It is very clear at the beginning of the joint progress report that this is a set of proposals that have been put forward in the context of negotiating that final agreement.”

EU demand Brexit agreement made legally binding after David Davis says it is just a 'statement of intent'

Quote:

The Prime Minister added to the confusion over Britain’s will to stand by the deal on Monday in the House of Commons. When it was pointed out that paragraph 96 of the deal says the UK will pay the divorce bill even if no full trade deal is completed but only a framework, Ms May replied:

“No, that is not my understanding of the joint progress report or the position that we will be in. It is very clear at the beginning of the joint progress report that this is a set of proposals that have been put forward in the context of negotiating that final agreement.”

The High Court has ordered the Government to stop deporting homeless EU citizens after ruling that the controversial policy is unlawful.

Mrs Justice Lang said measures introduced last year were discriminatory and violated EU law, following a challenge by two Polish men and a Latvian.

The three men were all facing removal because they were found by police and immigration officers sleeping rough, later launching a judicial review.

Mrs Justice Lang said homelessness alone did not meet the legal requirements for deportation, even if accompanied by offences including begging, drinking and nuisance.

“There has been a significant increase in rough sleepers of all nationalities,” she said. “The policy discriminated unlawfully against EEA nationals and rough sleepers.”

The judge issued “quashing” orders throwing out the Home Office’s policy as published in February and ordered it to pay the claimants’ legal costs.

The Government published a revised policy shortly before the High Court hearing, which was too short to be considered and had not received ministerial approval.

Mrs Justice Laing urged the Home Secretary to “take stock and re-consider the terms of the proposed revised policy, in the light of advice from her legal advisers”.

Theresa May has twice refused to rule out dropping part of her Brexit plans to avoid a second humiliating defeat in the Commons next week.

Rebels who gave the Prime Minister a bloody nose to secure a “meaningful vote” on the withdrawal deal have warned her she faces another loss over enshrining the exact Brexit date in British law.

It gives Ms May just a few days to decide whether to press ahead with the move – which she announced in a blaze of publicity last month – or accept she is beaten and pull back.

Arriving in Brussels for the EU summit, she twice ducked questions asking if she was preparing to “compromise”, to avoid a repeat of Wednesday night’s debacle.

Instead, she insisted the EU Withdrawal Bill was “making good progress”, with the Government having won 35 of the 36 votes staged so far.

“So the Bill is making good progress and we are on course to deliver Brexit, we’re on course to deliver on the vote of the British people,” the Prime Minister added.

Meanwhile, Downing Street said there were “no plans to withdraw the amendment” to put the exit date on the face of the Bill, before a vote next Wednesday.

At the start of the week, the No 10 spokesman insisted the amendment would go ahead – a commitment no longer being given.

Pro-EU Tories fear putting the date – 11pm, on March 29, 2019 – on the statute book will make it harder for Parliament to force a change of course and prevent a no deal exit, if the talks fail.

Significantly, the rebels are the same Conservative MPs who defeated the Prime Minister on Wednesday, to give Parliament an effective veto on the withdrawal terms.

When Ms May announced her amendment to put the Brexit date on the Bill, she described it as firm proof she would not “tolerate” dissent – making it hard to climb down.

But Dominic Grieve – who led Wednesday’s revolt – said: “If the Government comes back with that date I’m sure the Government will be defeated.” The warning was echoed by Ken Clarke, a second dissenter.
... ... ...

Philip Hammond has risked angering Tory eurosceptics by saying the UK’s Brexit transition deal would “replicate the status quo”.

The Chancellor said the deal sought by the Government would mean that while the UK “technically” leaves the customs union and single market, it will keep the same rules for trade and immigration for some two years after Brexit in March 2019.

His words are more specific than broad-brush comments Theresa May made about the UK’s desired transition deal, with Brexit-backing Tories likely to be angered by any approach that does not give Britain a cleaner break from EU structures and rules.

They also indicate that the UK is willing to accept Brussels proposals for the transition, which entail maintaining the status quo, even though Conservative eurosceptics are urging Ms May to reject them.