Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

The exclusive survey for The Independent by BMG Research showed 51 per cent now back remaining in the union, while 41 per cent want Brexit.
[...]
When a weighted sample of some 1,400 people were asked: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?” – 51 per cent backed Remain, and 41 per cent backed Leave.

7 per cent said “don’t know” and 1 per cent refused to answer.

After “don’t knows” were either pushed for an answer or otherwise excluded, 55.5 per cent backed Remain and 44.5 backed Leave.

The prime minister’s weakness and Conservative divisions mean she can only control her party by concealing basic truths about the Brexit process

Theresa May is a prime minister who faces an enormous challenge to recast Britain’s relationship with Europe in the wake of the EU referendum vote. But the Brexit statement she gave to the House of Commons on Monday was based not on reality but on unreality. The picture of Britain and Europe that she painted for MPs following last week’s EU summit does not and will not exist. Mrs May’s Brexit Britain is a fantasy island.

The underlying fantasy is that Mrs May is the master of Britain’s fate in these negotiations. This is not true. It was the European Union, united, clear and principled in its approach, that shaped the first phase of Brexit talks, which came to an end last week in Brussels. It will be the same in phase two, which will begin shortly. The final deal about the future trade terms on which the UK leaves the EU will not be settled by March 2019. All that will be settled before that is what the EU in April called “an overall understanding on the framework for a future relationship”. As the EU then went on to say, any free trade agreement must “encompass safeguards against unfair competitive advantages through, inter alia, tax, social, environmental and regulatory measures and practices”.
[...]
A second fantasy is Mrs May’s insistence that the two-year transitional period that she is seeking is an “implementation” period. This is a trick. In order to calm leavers, Mrs May pretends the framework will be agreed before March 2019 and implemented after Brexit between 2019 and 2021. This is not true either. The negotiation to produce a real trade deal will take place after March 2019, not before. There will be nothing to implement in 2019. That is why there were reports at the weekend that Mrs May is being pressed to stay on until 2021 to prevent trade talks being ruined. But by then the UK will have left the EU and a general election will be upon us. There is no way whatever that this can be the “smooth and orderly” Brexit that Mrs May claims to be overseeing.

The third great fantasy is in many respects the most dangerous of them all. This was embodied in last week’s European council decision on phase one. As Mrs May put it on Monday, Britain is committed to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, to maintain the common travel area with Ireland and, crucially, to avoid a hard border in Ireland. But these goals – all massively desirable – are not compatible with the UK’s departure from the single market and customs union, to which Mrs May remains committed. Any future regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU – between the UK and Ireland – can only create a dangerous situation on the Northern Ireland border with the republic.

It is hard to know which is worse: that Mrs May knows this and does not mind such an outcome, or that she knows it and is pretending to parliament and the public that it is not a problem. Either way, this is the politics of impossibilism and of circle-squaring. Either way, British politics is crying out for truth not fantasy on Brexit. But Mrs May will not and cannot provide it.

Theresa May described the decision to revert to the “iconic” colour as an “expression of our independence and sovereignty” away from the EU.

But the Home Office confirmed that the UK voluntarily adopted common passport criteria from the European Economic Community (EEC) and was not obliged to keep it.

Boris Johnson’s pledge to build a ”global Britain” after Brexit has been branded “hot air” after it emerged the Foreign Office was hollowing out embassies around the world to fund diplomatic posts in Europe.

The Foreign Office plans to hire 50 extra staff for embassies within the European Union and promote ambassadors to a more senior level in smaller nations such as Malta and Luxembourg, officials have told MPs.

The idea will be funded by cost-cutting measures for diplomatic missions in places such as Asia and Africa, in a move at odds with Mr Johnson’s claims that the UK will play a greater role on the world stage after it leaves the EU.

Critics seized on the news as a sign of the impact of Brexit on Britain’s diplomatic and trade relations amid growing concern over how Whitehall departments will cope with the sheer volume of work involved in preparations for leaving the EU.

In evidence to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, reported by The Times, Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan said: “We are developing proposals for making savings across Asia-Pacific, south Asia and Afghanistan, the Americas and Africa to release about £4.2 million worth of savings to fund these 50 new jobs.”

The Foreign Office also plans to hire 50 extra staff to help Whitehall departments cope with the challenges of Brexit.

Ryanair has applied for a British air operating licence to ensure its domestic UK routes can keep flying after Brexit.

The Irish airline has repeatedly warned that flights could be grounded after March 2019 unless a new framework for aviation is agreed between Britain and the EU.

A British licence would guarantee the airline could continue to operate routes between London, Northern Irish and Scottish airports, as it could otherwise be classified as a “foreign” airline in the UK after Brexit.

Ryanair filed for a licence just before Christmas using a new UK subsidiary, after a similar move in October from the Hungarian budget airline Wizz Air, which wants to expand operations at its base in Luton.

The airline said in a statement on Tuesday: “A subsidiary company, Ryanair UK, filed an application on 21 December for an air operator’s certificate with the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK. This may be required for Ryanair’s three UK domestic routes in the event of a hard Brexit in March 2019.”

Ryanair’s rival, easyJet, made a similar move in the other direction last year by opening a new headquarters in Vienna for easyJet Europe, allowing it to continue operating intra-EU flights.

While ministers have insisted that negotiating a liberal arrangement for aviation after Brexit is a priority, airlines have been pessimistic over the prospects of retaining current freedoms to fly domestic routes.

Flying rights are currently governed by EU-wide deals, and the aviation sector has no natural fallback arrangement to protect them without a deal.

EasyJet’s move to establish a separate subsidiary cost it about £10m, and Ryanair had indicated reluctance to spend any comparable sum preserving its minor domestic routes in Britain, saying last year it was still considering whether to simply axe the routes. Many flights between Scotland and Stansted were picked for cancellation during the recent pilot rostering fiasco.

Though flights between the UK and EU are major revenue earners, Ryanair’s internal UK routes account for about 2% of its business.

The airline said last year that it planned to pivot its growth away from Britain, warning that the lack of clarity over Brexit could cause disruption and affect demand. However, other airlines have dismissed the prospect of flights being stopped by Brexit.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn face significant challenges within their own parliamentary parties over Brexit, a new survey of MPs has found.

Almost three-quarters of Conservative MPs surveyed (74%) think it would be unacceptable for freedom of movement to continue during a transition period, while 63% oppose the European Court of Justice having jurisdiction in the UK after March 2019.

The Prime Minister suggested in her Florence speech, in September, that the UK would be prepared to accept EU rules during a transition arrangement.

On the other side of the House, 90% of Labour MPs believe single market membership is compatible with Brexit, in contrast to what Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly claimed. In this respect, Labour MPs seem more aligned with the party membership than the leadership.

A recent poll of Labour party members found 87% believe Britain should stay in the single market.

The research was conducted by Ipsos MORI in November and December 2017 on behalf of The UK in a Changing Europe together with the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary University of London. Interviews were conducted with 105 MPs, face-to-face, and findings are weighted to reflect the composition of the House of Commons.

... ... ...

Exclusive: Key figure on the European Parliament's Brexit steering group tells The Independent UK officials did not object to the plans in meetings

The UK has already “agreed in principle” to a Norway-style Brexit transition period in which it accepts all EU rules with no power to shape them, a senior figure in Brussels has told The Independent.

A key member of the European Parliament’s Brexit team said British negotiators raised no objections to the plans, which would mean accepting free movement and customs union rules, and falling under the European Court’s jurisdiction.

The suggestion that Theresa May’s team has all but swallowed the transition proposal from Brussels will anger Conservative MPs, who believe it leaves Britain a “vassal state” for some two years after Brexit.

Data from a survey of Tory MPs on Monday suggested three-quarters oppose a transition in which free movement for EU citizens continues.

A government source told The Independent that while Ms May has set out a desire to achieve a transition or “implementation” period on “current terms”, exactly how it will work has not been decided.

Belgian MEP Philippe Lamberts said that the UK is going along with proposals that mean after Brexit in March 2019, Britain will continue as a member of the EU in “all but name” until at least December 2020.

During that period, the UK would have full access to the single market, adhere to free movement rules and those of the customs union and follow edicts from the European Court of Justice.

The UK would also continue to pay into the EU budget, but will not have any voting rights or a seat at the European Council – a situation akin to Norway’s current relationship with the EU.

[... ... ...]

A government source said details of how the transition will operate including in relation to critical areas such as the customs union and immigration are still subject to negotiations.

A Brexit department spokesperson also echoed Ms May’s remarks in response to the MEPs’ comments, saying: “The UK is looking to agree, by March, a time-limited implementation period on current terms, meaning there will be just one set of changes for businesses to manage.

“But we will no longer be an EU member state, the EU treaties will no longer apply and we will have left the single market and the customs union.”

... ... ...

The ICM survey, conducted as part of a Guardian reporting project, found 47% of people would favour having a final say on Brexit once the terms of the UK’s departure are known, while 34% oppose reopening the question.

Excluding the roughly one-fifth who do not have a view gives a lead of 58% to 42% for a second referendum, showing rising interest in the idea as concern grows over the direction of recent negotiations.

The increased backing has come from both sides of the debate, with one-quarter of leave voters in favour of having another referendum on the final deal.

Now, Britain has asked for an extension of sorts, a "transition period" to ease out of the EU without an abrupt impact on businesses. And the European Union has agreed to a temporary plan that you might sum up as:

Brexit? What Brexit?

Under instructions for the EU negotiator just approved by the other member countries, the United Kingdom would spend March 2019 through December 2020 acting just like an EU member ... minus the voting power.

All existing EU laws and policies would still apply. Any new EU laws would also apply (a provision the U.K. is objecting to). The U.K. would still answer to some European courts.

In short, the "status quo" would be enforced, except that the U.K. wouldn't have any say in EU decisions.

"The U.K must know these rules of the game and accept them in the first place," EU negotiator Michel Barnier said on Monday, according to Politico Europe.

The instructions for the negotiator are not a final deal, but they seem likely to stick. The countries in the European Union voted to approve those guidelines in just two minutes, Reuters reports.

The British government has largely welcomed the plan, with a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May saying the proposal was well aligned with the British position, the wire service reports. After all, a "transition period" was requested by the British in the first place.

The cost to the UK economy of cutting migration from the EU would swallow up the benefits of a US trade deal, according to the Government’s leaked impact assessment.

The impact of replacing free movement with stricter immigration controls similar to those for non-EU citizens would far exceed the expected boost of a US deal, Whitehall officials calculated.

It emerged this week that analysis conducted for the Department for Exiting the EU (DexEU) concluded Britain would be worse off after Brexit regardless of the terms of the country’s departure from the EU.

The government’s position was set out in August in a future partnership paper on the customs union. We will be leaving the EU and the customs union and it is not government policy to be members of the customs union or a customs union. That paper in August set out two possible options and they are a highly-streamlined customs arrangement and a new customs partnership with the EU.

One region which voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU would suffer 16 per cent hit to economic growth in event of 'no deal'
[...]
London will see the least damage, according to the controversial forecasts which ministers were forced to release amid pressure from Labour and pro-EU Tories.

MPs have been reading the documents, prepared by Whitehall officials for the Department for Exiting the EU, under controlled conditions, but the figures have been leaked.

It has previously emerged that officials expect the UK as a whole to be worse off after Brexit regardless of the terms of its departure from the EU.

According to regional forecasts, every area of the UK will suffer a decline in GDP.

The North-east would take an 11 per cent hit to economic growth under the Government’s preferred outcome of a free trade deal with the EU, while leaving with no deal will result in a 16 per cent dip, and staying in the single market would cause a 3 per cent decline.

The North-east overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum.

In the West Midlands, a free trade deal would result in an 8 per cent hit to growth, compared with 13 per cent under no deal, and 2.5 per cent if the UK stays in the single market.

Northern Ireland would suffer an 8 per cent dip in growth after a free trade deal, a 12 per cent dip in the event of ”no deal”, and a 2.5 per cent fall in the single market.

By comparison, London would sustain just a 2 per cent hit to growth if the UK gets a free trade deal, 3.5 per cent in a no deal scenario, and just 1 per cent if the country stays in the single market.

... ... ...

The exclusive BMG Research survey for The Independent suggests around three-quarters of the public have little idea as to what Theresa May wants overall, but also specifically in relation to critical areas like trade and immigration.

There is acute confusion over the Government’s approach to the land border in Northern Ireland, ironically an issue supposed to have been settled already, which more than 80 per cent of the public said was “unclear”.
[...]
The poll asked respondents to consider a series of different areas of the UK’s withdrawal negotiations and whether the Government’s plans are “clear or unclear”.

On “overall plans for Brexit” 74 per cent said Ms May’s plans were unclear (“not very”, 35 per cent, “not at all”, 39 per cent), while just 17 per cent said they were clear (“very”, three per cent, “somewhat”, 14 per cent).

Trade is the most important area of negotiations economically, but the poll suggested 74 per cent of the public are in the dark about what the Government is trying to achieve (‘not very’ 36 per cent, ‘not at all’, 38 per cent), while just 15 per cent though it is clear (‘very’, three per cent, somewhat, 12 per cent).
... ... ...

Theresa May’s speech on Brexit talks failed to move beyond “vague aspirations” and did not lay out “credible legislative proposals” to break the deadlock in talks, the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator has said.

Reacting after the Prime Minister’s third major speech on leaving the EU, Guy Verhofstadt said he hoped that “serious proposals have been put in the post” by the Prime Minister, as Ms May’s plans received a frosty reception in Brussels.

“Theresa May needed to move beyond vague aspirations, we can only hope that serious proposals have been put in the post. While I welcome the call for a deep and special partnership, this cannot be achieved by putting a few extra cherries on the Brexit cake,” Mr Verhofstadt said following the speech.

“Our relationship must be close and comprehensive, but this is only possible if the UK Government understands that the EU is a rules based organisation, as there is little appetite to renegotiate the rules of the single market to satisfy a compromise crafted to placate a divided Conservative party. "

“Prime Minister May's re-confirmation of our December agreement on the Irish border is reassuring. We now need credible legislative proposals detailing how the UK seeks to achieve this in practice.”