Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

Theresa May has rejected Donald Trump’s assessment of her Brexit deal, insisting the UK will be able to strike new trade agreements – including with the US – after leaving the EU.

Speaking in Wales on the first leg of a UK-wide tour to promote the deal directly to the British public, the prime minister said: “We will have the ability, outside the European Union, to make those decisions on trade policy for ourselves. It will no longer be a decision being taken by Brussels.

“As regards the United States, we’ve already been talking to them about the sort of agreement we could have with them in the future.”

Trump’s comments on Monday that the Brexit agreement “sounds like a great deal for the EU” came as No 10 attempted to marshal support for the arrangement in the face of a chorus of condemnation at Westminster.

The US president said: “I think we have to take a look at, seriously, whether or not the UK is allowed to trade.

“Because, you know, right now, if you look at the deal, they may not be able to trade with us … I don’t think that the prime minister meant that. And hopefully she’ll be able to do something about that.”

May’s spokesman repeatedly insisted on Tuesday that it was clear “in black and white” in the political declaration forming part of the Brexit deal that the UK will have the power to make new trade agreements.

Asked whether the UK’s commitments not to lower environmental standards and other regulations below EU levels will hinder trade with the US, the spokesman added that parliament will have a say on future deals.

“Parliament will want to take a view in relation to all trade deals, in particular looking at the standards which the UK has in areas such as animal welfare,” he said.

The government believes MPs would be unlikely to support any deal that allowed the US to sell chlorinated chicken into the UK, for example.

Privately, senior government sources insisted they were relaxed about Trump’s intervention, which they regarded as the latest example of a tough-talking negotiating style from the man behind the The Art of the Deal.

May’s spokesman said she would not hold a one-to-one meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Argentina this weekend.

“It’s not something that we have requested; the PM’s diary is agreed in advance and she’s meeting with a number of world leaders,” he said. “We’ve met the president on a number of occasions in recent months.”

With a fortnight to go until May presents the Brexit agreement to the House of Commons for approval, she visited a country fair in Wales on Tuesday and will travel to Northern Ireland later in the day to meet local politicians.

While in Northern Ireland, she hopes to underline the fact that the Democratic Unionist party, MPs from which have angrily rejected the Irish backstop, do not speak for everyone in the province.

Downing Street hopes making the argument for her deal publicly could help build up backing among voters and create a supportive backdrop for the meaningful vote on 11 December.

But with more than 90 Conservative MPs expected to vote against the deal, it looks highly likely the government will lose.

Trump had previously raised doubts about May’s negotiating prowess when he came to the UK on a working visit in July. The prime minister later revealed he had suggested she “sue” the EU.

Companies looking for somewhere to store extra supplies of fresh food in the run-up to Brexit in March may be too late, the director general of the food and drink federation has told MPs.

Ian Wright said that warehouses around the UK for frozen and chilled food are "for all practical purposes booked out at the moment".

Space for other goods is available but in the wrong places, he added.

He said some suppliers were being "innovative" to provide extra space.

Speaking to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Mr Wright said that there was no bookable space remaining in the warehouses that can store frozen or chilled produce in the near future.

"We don't know if there are products in those places or people have booked the space to be careful or for production," he said.

"Some innovative providers are doing the Airbnb of warehousing which is very interesting, but for big and medium-sized businesses, that just won't work."
... ... ...

Downing Street has refused to commit to publishing the full legal advice given on the Brexit deal despite a unanimous resolution by the House of Commons, in a move likely to spark a major new process row with Labour and Tory Brexiters.

No 10 has only agreed to publish a “full, reasoned position statement” – a summary of the legal advice rather than the full text – which Labour said would would not comply with the terms of the Commons vote.

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, said the offer was completely unacceptable and said Labour would use every parliamentary mechanism available to challenge it.

The government had initially offered to publish a statement on the legal advice as a concession to MPs when it became clear Labour and Tory rebels from the Brexiter European Research Group intended to force the publication of the full advice during a Commons debate two weeks ago.

However, despite the offer from Cabinet Office minister, David Lidington, at the dispatch box, it became clear during the debate that MPs would not accept the concession and the motion to force publication of the full legal advice was passed.

Labour had used the arcane procedure of a “humble address”, which the party has used previously to force the release of Brexit impact assessments.

The party’s demand to see the legal advice was backed by Tory Brexiteers, and ministers conceded defeat by ordering Conservative MPs to abstain in a Commons vote, after it became clear they would lose any attempt to stop the disclosure when the DUP said it would support the move.

On Tuesday, however, the prime minister’s spokesman said that a “full, reasoned position statement” is what Lidington offered to publish and that would be what was given to MPs, despite the full terms of the motion.

“The position is as set out by David Lidington in his statement to the House a couple of weeks ago,” he said.
... ... ...

Tory loyalist Sir Michael Fallon launched a searing attack on Theresa May's Brexit deal today - warning it is the 'worst of all worlds'.

The former Cabinet minister heaped more woe on the PM as she battles to save the package she has painstakingly thrashed out with Brussels.

The veteran Eurosceptic even suggested that Brexit could be delayed for a few months to make sure the government 'gets this right'.

The situation has become so bad that some senior figures apparently believe the only way the agreement will now get through Parliament is if she agrees to step down in March.

In a bruising interview this morning, Sir Michael - until now seen as a staunch supporter of the PM - made clear he will not support her deal.

'My fear is that this deal gives us the worst of all worlds - no guarantee of smooth trade in the future and no ability to reduce the tariffs that we need to conclude trade deals with the rest of the world,' he told the BBC.

'So, unless the House of Commons can be persuaded somehow that those are possible, then I think, yes, the deal is doomed.'

Mr Fallon also said the Government must heed Donald Trump's last night that the Withdrawal Agreement 'sounds like a great deal for the EU'.

He said: 'It's no use us just brushing that off, saying 'No, no, we can do a deal with America'; he's the President of the United States, and if he says it's going to be difficult, then it certainly looks like it's going to be difficult.

'This is not a good deal and we need a better deal.'

Some in the Cabinet believe the major problem for the Tory party is the Prime Minister herself rather than the Brexit path her deal would set.

This is because the deal is in two parts - a legally binding divorce deal and a looser political agreement on what the final trade deal might look like.

Some Tory ministers believe the second part could be reopened and Brexit salvaged if Mrs May removed herself as an obstacle to changing the deal.

The Prime Minister is on track for a humiliating trouncing when the package she has thrashed out [sic] with the EU is put to MPs on December 11 - amid overwhelming opposition from scores of Tories, Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems. 

Quote:

More: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6433449/amp/Brexiteers-Mays-deal-EU-promises-quit-March.html

[...]
But Trump was, for once, talking perfect sense when he pointed out another flaw in this policy. If we enter the transition period immediately after Brexit on 30 March next year, we will still be bound by all EU rules – without having a say over them – for a period of at least 21 months. The prime minister herself has begun to suggest that this transition period will need to be extended and article 132 of the withdrawal agreement says this extension could last until 31 December 2022. This would mean that for almost four years, the UK would have to follow all EU trade rules and stay inside the customs union.

While it may be possible to begin negotiating a new trading relationship with some countries if they were interested during the transition, nothing could be implemented before the transition period had expired. Nor is it clear that there would be anything to negotiate beyond that point, if there is no solution to the Irish border question. That’s because the backstop is deployed in the absence of a solution, so the UK remains in the customs union indefinitely. None of this would make negotiating a notional trade deal with the UK a high priority for other countries, including the US.
The problem with this deal is not the prime minister so much as Brexit itself. It is not that May won’t deliver on all the promises or fulfil all the expectations that were made for life outside the EU, it is that she can’t. No one can make sense of contradictory promises that are, essentially, nonsense. I am naturally sympathetic to those in my party who want to negotiate a better Brexit – a “Brexit that works for you” – but it will inevitably trip over the same obstacles.
[...]
Alternative Brexit deals are all a trade-off between deep economic costs and loss of sovereignty or control. As the analysis by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research published this week showed, almost any model of Brexit – including that negotiated by May’s government – will mean a catastrophic loss in trade and lower living standards. An option of staying in the European Economic Area, like Norway, may mitigate much of this economic damage but would leave the UK with no influence over the laws we would have to follow – and would leave voters asking, “what’s the point?”

Those who claim any form of Brexit would at least mean everyone can stop talking about it are selling yet another fantasy. The difficulty in agreeing trade deals with the US or anyone else, as well as the inevitable unpicking and restitching of future relationships, would mean the debate will continue for years to come.

On all these counts (and I can hardly believe I am writing this sentence) Donald Trump is right.

Home secretary also indicates ‘tens of thousands’ migration target could be abandoned

MPs might have to vote on the Brexit deal without knowing details of the future immigration policy, Sajid Javid has said, as he also indicated the planned scheme might abandon the target of keeping net annual migration to the tens of thousands.

In a sometimes testy appearance before the home affairs select committee, the home secretary said only that the long-awaited white paper on post-Brexit immigration should arrive before the end of the year.

“The government hasn’t set a final publication date for the white paper, but very shortly,” Javid told the cross-party panel when asked when it would arrive. “I’d certainly say in December.”

Asked whether it would come before MPs vote on the Brexit deal on 11 December, Javid said: “I hope it will come before that, but I’m not in a position to be too specific on the date right now.”

Analysis produced by range of government departments suggests GDP could fall by as much as 10.7%

The UK would be significantly worse off under all possible Brexit scenarios in 15 years’ time, according to a benchmark economic analysis produced by a range of government departments including the Treasury.

The keenly-anticipated document concludes that GDP would be 0.6% lower under the Chequers plan in 2035/36 – although that has been ditched after a revolt from the Tory right – and 7.7% lower in the event the UK crashes out with no deal.

In the worst case of all the scenarios modelled, GDP would be 10.7% lower in 15 years’ time, assuming there is no longer any net migration from the EU and EEA.

Remarkably, none of the scenarios modelled exactly approximate to May’s deal agreed over the weekend. But the analysts produced a scenario based on Chequers with 50% higher non-tariff barriers to help with comparison. That held that GDP would be 2.1% lower in 2035/36.

The analysis also concluded that:

• Under a Norway EEA scenario, GDP would be 1.4% lower in 15 years’ time, worse than the additional scenario produced after May’s deal was signed over the weekend.

• Under a Canada-style deal, supported by Boris Johnson and David Davis, the UK would be 4.9% worse off, the study concludes.

All scenarios were based on an assumption that EU migration rules remain unchanged. If migration rules are dramatically tightened up, to the point where there is zero net migration from the European Union and the European Economic Area GDP would be 1.8% lower.

A regional breakdown also showed that in a no-deal scenario, the north-east of England would be worst affected, followed by the West Midlands, the north-west and Northern Ireland. London would easily be the least affected.

In the best case Chequers scenario, London and the south-east would be the worst affected, although the overall GDP impact would be much lower. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be the least affected.

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May said on Wednesday her government’s analysis of various Brexit scenarios showed that the deal she negotiated with Brussels was the best to deliver on a 2016 referendum and to protect the economy.

“What the analysis shows, it does show that this deal that we have negotiated is the best deal for our jobs and our economy which delivers on the results of the referendum,” she told parliament.

The keenly-anticipated document concludes that GDP would be 0.6% lower under the Chequers plan in 2035/36 – although that has been ditched after a revolt from the Tory right – and 7.7% lower in the event the UK crashes out with no deal.

Switzerland is facing the prospect of losing recognition of its stock markets under EU rules. Some suggest the EU is playing it hard as Brexit talks reach their end-game.

Opposition parties plan to join forces in a bid to force the government to publish the full legal advice it received ahead of the Brexit agreement.

"All parties" would press for contempt of Parliament proceedings if MPs are not shown the advice, Labour's Brexit spokesman Sir Keir Starmer has said.

Theresa May has promised MPs only a "reasoned statement" on the legalities.

Many Brexiteers believe the Northern Ireland "backstop" provision offers the EU an effective veto on the UK leaving.

Mrs May insists the agreement's legal text is clear that any backstop - keeping the UK under EU customs rules until a permanent trade deal was in place - would be temporary.

However, her former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab told the Sunday Times the backstop would last indefinitely - for as long as it takes to negotiate a new UK-EU relationship - "unless the EU allows us to exit".

"The EU has a clear veto, even if the future negotiations stretch on for many years, or even if they break down and there is no realistic likelihood of us reaching agreement," he is quoted as saying.

"That's my view as a former international lawyer, but it is consistent if not identical with all the formal advice I received."

The prime minister's refusal to release the full advice prompted Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party - which has propped up Mrs May's government since the general election in 2017 - to accuse her of having "something to hide".

Ministers insist it is a long-standing convention that legal advice to the cabinet is kept confidential, and that government would otherwise be unable to function.

The row comes ahead of a crucial week for Mrs May, who faces opposition to her Brexit agreement from all sides of the Commons, with MPs due to vote on 11 December.

She spent much of last week trying to sell the deal to business people and the wider public, visiting Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

And at the weekend she sought to reassure world leaders that the deal would be "good for the global economy", when speaking at the G20 summit of the world's most industrialised nations in Argentina.

On Saturday Mrs May lost science minister Sam Gyimah - the 10th resignation since she outlined her vision of Brexit - who warned the UK would be "hammered" in talks over a permanent EU trade deal.

She has also been unable to convince many of her own backbenchers of the deal's merits, with Brexiteers in particular concerned about the effects of the backstop.
... ... ...

Six opposition parties have written a joint letter to the speaker calling for contempt proceedings to be launched against the government over its failure to publish its Brexit legal advice in full.

A European Court of Justice (ECJ) official on Tuesday advised the court to rule that the United Kingdom can unilaterally revoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Advocate General Manuel Campos said the decision to revoke Article 50 would be "incompatible" with EU rules if it required consensus from the bloc's 27 other member states. The ECJ tends to rule in line with such expert opinion.

"That possibility continues to exist until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded," according to Campos' recommendations.

The case was initially brought on by Scottish politicians opposed to the formal divorce from the EU. Their hope is that if the ECJ rules in favor of unilateral revocation, it could pave the way for a "People's Vote" on May's Brexit deal with an option to remain.

Article 50 allows any EU member state to leave the bloc. It was invoked by the British government following the Brexit referendum on leaving the EU, which saw the "Leave" camp win with 52 percent of the vote.