Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

The government has postponed a vote on key bit of Brexit legislation to avoid a humiliating Commons defeat over rules governing tax havens.

Labour grandee Dame Margaret Hodge had tabled a cross-party amendment to the Financial Services Bill, which would have compelled UK overseas territories such as Guernsey and Jersey to be more transparent about business ownership.

It comes as Labour MPs from Leave-backing areas dismissed Theresa May's "Brexit bribe" of £1.6bn for run down towns, saying their "vote is not for sale".

And beleaguered transport secretary Chris Grayling is facing fresh criticism after failing to personally answer questions from MPs about the botched Brexit ferry contracts.

The UK government does not understand how the EU works and so embarks on negotiating strategies which are doomed to fail, Britain’s former ambassador to Brussels has said.

Ivan Rogers, who was Britain’s face in the EU capital from 2013 until 2017, said the UK government always thought it could circumvent the European Commission and deal directly with member state leaders.

But the former permanent representative said the bloc “never works like that” and that the approach – pursued by Theresa May and David Cameron alike – always ended in embarrassment.

“Capitals obviously matter, but I think having lived through this with a number of prime ministers, a number of different negotiations and not just prime ministers – that reflex in the British system always to think that we can deal direct with the organ grinders and not the monkeys: it never works like that. It didn’t work like that in the Cameron renegotiation either,” he told an event at the Institute for Government think-tank.

“That stuff is not done in the way British politics works, leader to leader. It’s done via the bureaucrats, and the Sherpas, and the people at the top of the institutions.

“The Brits constantly either misunderstand that or just don’t realise that circumventing that and thinking ‘Oh, we can go direct to Berlin or Paris or any other capital and square that off’ – and that will be different from the orthodoxy we’re getting out of Brussels – never works.”
... ... ...

“Just got through reading the Lisbon treaty! OMG!!!” and “Why is no one talking about the Lisbon treaty that comes into force in 2020???” Suddenly it’s viral. If you see this everywhere online you may puzzle how the treaty’s 3,000 dense pages have become such hot reading across Facebook, Twitter and Reddit. Look, for example, at what one (now deleted) tweet claims of what staying in the EU means: “Just been reading some of the Lisbon treaty, very worrying. By 2020 we lose our veto, control over fishing, agriculture and more. Also by 2022 all countries must adopt the euro. How can Theresa May and our MPs want to keep us in such an appalling club?”

Post after post is spreading a fake list of the treaty’s contents. If Britain stays in the EU, by 2020 we will be locked into vassalage of a new super-state. There is never, of course, any quote or link to the real treaty. So who’s doing this? Are these posts real, Russian, or US-financed far-right bots, generated by any of the linked Brexit groups under different names? Impossible to tell, says Steve Peers, a professor of EU law at Essex University who has been chasing down this monster with painstaking rebuttals, refuting it point by point. He says the similarity of the words used – the “I’ve just been reading the Lisbon treaty” phrasing – suggests a highly organised and well-financed campaign of disinformation, backed by expensive ads disseminated virally.

If it weren’t so avidly believed and shared, this absurdity could be ignored, but it’s typical Brexitology. Here are its claims: in 2020 all EU countries lose their veto. In 2022 all become states of the new federal nation and must join the euro. The London Stock Exchange will move to Frankfurt to an EU exchange and the EU parliament and court of justice become “supreme”. Borders are lost as Schengen becomes compulsory and countries lose control of planning and tax policies. The UK hands over its armed forces and nuclear deterrent to an EU force.

There’s a lot more of this balderdash, with each claim meticulously debunked by Peers. No, nothing new is about to be enforced: there is no mention of 2020 or 2022 in the real treaty, as all was fixed in 2009. No, the word “federal” is not in there, except in Germany’s official name. No, the veto isn’t being lost, while the need for unanimous votes gets 100 mentions. Some claims sound vaguely plausible: true, we have no absolute control of our fisheries and never did, in or out of the EU. But no, the UK won’t lose the Falklands, Caymans and Gibraltar.

This new wave of fakery has been sparked by Brexiter fears that Britain may not leave after all – or that Labour’s (semi) support for a confirmatory referendum will mean another vote. If so, this is a useful warning of the kind of submarine disinformation the remain cause faces, the ocean of fake facts that never surface into the light of day where they can be refuted publicly. This poisoning of the political bloodstream is hard to counter. Remainers’ weakness is their innocence: they would never fight this dirty. But why is Britain vulnerable to such conspiracy rubbish? Those with the least education are most prone to believe conspiracy theories such as these anti-Europe tropes – and the least educated group are older generations. Britain being undone by its longstanding failure to give a good education to all, cherry-picking the grammar school few for so long, is apt revenge for decades of neglect.
... ... ...

– In treaty text, Spain recognises for the first time the existence of registered Gibraltarians and the Gibraltarian Status Act.

The UK and Spain yesterday signed a tax treaty for Gibraltar and Spain, in a landmark development that will put an end to the “irritating myths” of Gibraltar as an uncooperative and opaque tax jurisdiction.

The agreement seeks to improve co-operation in the field of taxation and assist in the resolution of disputes as to the proper tax residence of companies and individuals based in Gibraltar and Spain.

The treaty also provides for Gibraltar to keep EU-equivalent legislation after Brexit on matters related to transparency, administrative cooperation, harmful tax practices and Anti-Money Laundering.

Gibraltar has long been committed to doing this and has also vowed to comply with OECD and G-20 principles, which already provide for similar standards.

The treaty was signed yesterday in London by the UK’s de facto deputy Prime Minister, David Lidington, and in Madrid by Spain’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell.

Mr Lidington signed the treaty on Gibraltar’s behalf – and only after having been asked to do so by Chief Minister Fabian Picardo – as the UK retains constitutional responsibility for Gibraltar’s external relations, including the execution of international treaties.

For the purposes of the Tax Treaty, the UK therefore acts as the state responsible for Gibraltar’s external relations.

“This is an important moment for Gibraltar and for our relations with our neighbour,” Mr Picardo said.

“This treaty recognises the existence of a separate and distinct tax authority in Gibraltar.”

“Even more importantly, in the treaty Spain recognises, for the first time in history, the existence of registered Gibraltarians and of the Gibraltarian Status Act.”

“This is the Act that determines who are the people that can register and describe themselves as ‘Gibraltarians’.”

“This is massively significant.”

“Additionally, the Gibraltar rates of corporation tax are also recognised by Spain.”

Mr Picardo said that in agreeing to the treaty, Gibraltar had conceded nothing in respect of its absolute autonomy in tax affairs.

“What we have done – as we have long been offering to do – is reach an arrangement with our nearest neighbour to resolve cases of dispute as to the residence of individuals and companies,” the Chief Minister said.

“As a result, I trust we will now be able to end the irritating myth that Gibraltar is anything other than entirely cooperative when it comes to the exchange of tax information.”

“This treaty and the cooperation it supports should put an end to that myth.”

“Indeed we have obtained a commitment from the Spanish Government that the effective implementation of this treaty will lead to Gibraltar being removed from the Spanish blacklist of tax haven jurisdictions in the future.”

“This is also massively significant.”

The Treaty will also bring an end to any doubt about Gibraltar’s inclusion in international conventions which relate to tax and financial services, including the OECD BEPs inclusive framework, which Gibraltar will this week apply to join.

Additionally, the treaty also provides for information to be provided by the Spanish tax authorities to the Gibraltar authorities.

“The flow of information is anticipated to be in both directions,” Mr Picardo said.

“Needless to say, we are fully committed to the commitments associated with this treaty – and the Spanish have said the same.”

“Cross frontier workers will have the benefit of the elimination of double taxation pursuant to the provisions of the law of the state that they are determined to be resident in.”

The historic agreement was also welcomed by Spain, whose Foreign Minister said “it has taken a lot of work…because it is a sensitive subject and there are many interests at play”.

“It’s the first international treaty between Spain and the UK over Gibraltar since the Treaty of Utrecht [in 1713],” Mr Borrell told reporters.

For Spain, he added, the agreement “…seeks to avoid Gibraltar being a focal point for unfair tax competition.”

The tax treaty was negotiated as part of the package of measures to mitigate the impact of Brexit on Gibraltar and the neighbouring communities in Spain.

But unlike the Gibraltar Protocol and the memorandums that stem from it, the treaty is a stand-alone agreement and is not dependent on the UK adopting Prime Minister Theresa May’s controversial Withdrawal Agreement.

The treaty must now be ratified by both the UK and Spanish parliaments. It would come into force a month after both parliaments have ratified the text.

BMW has said it might be forced to stop making the Mini at its Cowley plant near Oxford in the event of a no-deal Brexit, putting more than 100 years of carmaking at the site at risk.

The German automotive firm joined Toyota in warning that an uncontrolled exit from the EU would cost British workers their jobs, as the Geneva Motor Show kicked off with the UK automotive sector under an increasingly dark cloud.

BMW board member Peter Schwarzenbauer, who is responsible for the Mini and Rolls-Royce brands, told Sky News that the future of the Mini brand in the UK was under threat in the absence of a Brexit deal.

He said: “This would be really a huge burden for the Mini brand. If this would come, which is the worst-case scenario, we’d need to consider what it means for us in the long run. For Mini this is really a danger.”

Asked if this might mean BMW moving out of the Cowley plant, on the outskirts of Oxford, he said: “We at least have to consider it because we cannot absorb 10% costs on top of it.”

Cars have been made at Cowley since 1914, when William Morris began replicating US production line techniques there.

Schwarzenbauer also said the company, which employs 8,000 people in the UK, was looking at whether it should move some engine production from Hams Hall in Warwickshire to a site in Austria.

“We have some flexibility on the engine side with Steyr in Austria. We would need to make some adjustments toward Steyr. We are preparing to be able to do it,” he said, adding that a final decision had not been made.

Speakingin Geneva at the event, Toyota’s top executive in Europe said its competitiveness – and workers’ jobs – would be at risk under a no-deal scenario.

Johan van Zyl, chief executive of Toyota Motor Europe, said he could give no assurances that its British staff would keep their jobs until the outcome of Brexit is decided.

Toyota has two major manufacturing plants in the UK, with about 2,600 workers at its Burnaston plant in Derbyshire making the Corolla and 600 employees making engines at Deeside.

“If it’s a bad Brexit of course it will become very difficult,” van Zyl said, speaking to the Guardian at the Geneva Motor Show on Tuesday. “It will have a negative impact on competitiveness.

“We are still hopeful that we will have a realistic outcome that will give us frictionless trade and that will give us no tariffs and barriers between Europe and the UK.”

Toyota invested £240m in its UK operations last year to start production of its new Corolla model at Burnaston, but the imposition of tariffs on exports from the UK to Europe would threaten the British operations.

“Our big drive in the UK is to improve our competitiveness,” van Zyl said. “We’ve said that from the start, and we’ve done our part. We now need to see what the outcome’s going to be of the vote.”

The carmaker has previously warned that significant delays at the border in a no-deal Brexit would force it into “stop-start” production at Burnaston. Like most of the manufacturers who rely on “just-in-time” delivery of parts, Toyota has stockpiled some materials, but can only cover three days of production without a continuous inflow of parts.

While the short-term costs of delays at the border would be bearable for Toyota, van Zyl emphasised that tariffs would threaten future investment. Carmakers generally keep the same basic design for a model for about five to seven years, although decisions on the next round of investment can be made well in advance of that.

Toyota’s caution comes after two fellow Japanese manufacturers with operations in the UK this year took decisions to make new manufacturing investments in their home countries rather than the UK.

Nissan revoked its 2016 decision to build its new X-Trail sports utility vehicle in its Sunderland plant, preventing the creation of 700 jobs in the future. It said Brexit was among the reasons for its decision.

His departure sparked claims the "chaotic" Brexit department was struggling to cope

Mr Rycroft, 57, is the latest in a string of senior figures to leave DexEU, and his departure sparked claims from critics that the "chaotic" Brexit department was struggling to cope with the demands of leaving the EU.

His predecessor Olly Robbins moved to the Cabinet Office to lead talks, while Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay is third person to hold the role after his predecessors David Davis and Dominic Raab both resigned in protest at Theresa May's Brexit plan.

Theresa May appears set for a second humiliating defeat when she brings her Brexit deal back to parliament next week, after the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, rebuffed her pleas for last-minute concessions.

The prime minister urged MPs to “get it done” and back her deal, in an impassioned speech at a dockside warehouse in the leave-voting town of Grimsby.

A vote against the deal would mean “not completing Brexit and getting on with all the other important issues people care about, just yet more months and years arguing”, May told MPs. “If we go down that road we might never leave the EU at all.”

Addressing workers from Ørsted, a Danish energy and wind turbine firm, May also urged the EU to make new concessions over the Irish backstop – the issue that caused many of her MPs to vote against the deal the first time – before last-ditch talks in Brussels this weekend.

The EU “has to make a choice too”, the prime minister said. “We are both participants in this process. It is in the European interest for the UK to leave with a deal. We are working with them but the decisions that the European Union makes over the next few days will have a big impact on the outcome of the vote.

“European leaders tell me they worry that time is running out and that we only have one chance to get it right. My message to them is: now is the moment for us to act.”

But Barnier immediately appeared to rebuff the prime minister, by responding with an offer of reverting to his original plan, the Northern Ireland-only backstop, which May repeatedly said no prime minister could accept, because it risked creating a border in the Irish Sea.

The EU’s chief negotiator said in a series of tweets that the EU was committed “to give the UK the option to exit the single customs territory unilaterally, while the other elements of the backstop must be maintained to avoid a hard border. [The] UK will not be forced into a customs union against its will.”

The Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, immediately replied: “With a very real deadline looming, now is not the time to rerun old arguments. The UK has put forward clear new proposals. We now need to agree a balanced solution that can work for both sides.”

The Northern Ireland-only backstop was vehemently rejected by the government’s partners, the DUP, who fear that it would effectively sever Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain, by requiring checks as goods pass back and forth.

And the DUP’s deputy leader, Nigel Dodds, said on Friday: “This is neither a realistic nor a sensible proposal from Michel Barnier. It disrespects the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom.”

After May lost the meaningful vote by a majority of 230 in January, she promised to seek “legally binding changes” to the backstop. But while talks are expected to continue over the weekend, government insiders have become increasingly gloomy about the prospects for a last-minute shift.

One cabinet source said the mood was so bleak some ministers were speculating the majority could even be almost as large on Tuesday. “Feedback suggests that it’s in a similar place to where it was last time the vote was held,” the source said.

May has pledged to hold two further votes next week if the vote is rejected on Tuesday – allowing MPs the opportunity to rule out no deal, and to delay Brexit.

The Guardian understands another plan under discussion is to hold a third meaningful vote immediately after no deal has been ruled out – in the hope of focusing the minds of Brexiter rebels.

The government has pinned its hopes on negotiating changes that will allow the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, to revise his legal advice warning that the UK could be trapped indefinitely in the backstop.

In his response to the prime minister, Barnier reiterated the current powers of the arbitration panel to suspend elements of the backstop, should the EU be found to have breached its commitment to negotiate in “good faith” to negotiate an alternative.

The British negotiators have been seeking to persuade the EU to go further and allow the UK to free itself from the backstop if the panel found it had made all reasonable efforts to find an alternative solution. Brussels has regarded that move as an attempt to slip in a unilateral exit mechanism to the withdrawal agreement.

Barnier said he was also ready to give “legal force” to the commitments made in a letter in January from Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, and his commission counterpart, Jean-Claude Juncker.

UK sources said there was nothing in the offer that could change MPs’ minds. “It will not be enough to persuade Geoffrey Cox to revise his legal advice about the indefinite nature of the backstop – there is no reason for optimism,” one official close to the negotiations said.

A senior EU official admitted that Barnier’s response could be seen as a “slap in the face”.

Before making public his offer, Barnier had briefed ambassadors to the 27 in what said to have been a “gloomy” meeting. “There has been a total breakdown in trust,” one EU diplomat said.

“They wanted the UK-wide [backstop] and now they don’t like it any more,” added a second. “It’s a strange situation, but there is nothing that should surprise us in British politics.”

“It is very clear that we are running out of time and that you are dealing with a partner preventing solutions to non-existent problems,” the diplomat added.

Comments by the foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, have added to a sense of frustration with Westminster. “We are confronted with absolute populism and that is hard to deal with,” said the diplomat.

Hunt said on Friday that relations with the EU would be “poisoned for many years to come” if Brussels failed to budge.

The single biggest known British political advertiser on Facebook is a mysterious pro-Brexit campaign group pushing for a no-deal exit from the EU. The revelation about Britain’s Future, which has never disclosed the source of its funding or organisational structure, has raised concerns about the influence of “dark money” in British politics.

The little-known campaign group has spent more than £340,000 on Facebook adverts backing a hard Brexit since the social network began publishing lists of political advertisers last October, making it a bigger spender than every UK political party and the government combined.

However, there is no information available about who is ultimately paying for the adverts, highlighting a key flaw in Facebook’s new political transparency tools.

The sophisticated campaign includes thousands of individual pro-Brexit adverts, targeted at voters in the constituencies of selected MPs. The adverts urge voters to email their local representative and create the impression of a grassroots uprising for a no-deal Brexit.

MPs are sent emails signed by a “concerned constituent” demanding a hard Brexit. The emails do not mention the involvement of an organised campaign group.

Britain’s Future’s public presence contains links to just two individuals: an ex-BBC Three sitcom writer turned journalist, and, indirectly, a former BNP candidate who lives on a farm called “Rorke’s Drift” in the Yorkshire dales.

The site’s public face is Tim Dawson, who created the sitcom Coming of Age while still in his teens before going on to contribute to Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps. In recent years he has stood for election to Manchester city council as a Conservative candidate before last year taking control of Britain’s Future.

Dawson’s pro-Brexit campaign group has spent more than a third of a million pounds on targeted Facebook and Instagram adverts over the past few months, including more than £50,000 last week alone, urging voters to email their local MP and tell them to get Britain out of the EU. An unknown sum has also been spent buying up adverts alongside Google search results related to Brexit, suggesting the total amount spent by his organisation on online campaigning could be much higher.

Throughout all this Dawson, who occasionally writes for the Daily Telegraph and the Spiked website, has declined to comment on the source of his funds, other than to tell the BBC that he was “raising small donations from friends and fellow Brexiteers”. There was no answer at his flat in Manchester and he has repeatedly declined to answer questions on how he has access to such high levels of funding, which dwarf many high-profile campaigns.

Britain’s Future has at least five individuals involved in its administration, according to its Facebook page, although there are few clues as to who they are. The Britain’s Future “About Us” page contains a map centred on a remote building in the Yorkshire Dales north of Harrogate. This is Rorke’s Drift farm, named after the 1879 battle in South Africa where a small group of British soldiers made a successful last stand against thousands of Zulu warriors, an incident later depicted in the Michael Caine film Zulu.

The farm is home to Colin Banner, a former British National Party candidate. When contacted by the Guardian he insisted he had no knowledge of Dawson, was not aware of Britain’s Future, and was not involved in placing the adverts.

In a rare statement, Dawson declined to answer questions on funding or who was behind Britain’s Future. He said it was pure coincidence that his website was pointing to the remote home of a one-time BNP candidate and thanked the Guardian for bringing it to his attention.

“Britain’s Future has never associated with, nor would it ever associate with Colin Banner, or any BNP member. I have never met with, spoken to, or associated with Colin Banner, or any BNP member, nor would I want to. To state otherwise would be untrue.

“Designing the website required selecting a point on the map of the UK. The coordinates were randomly selected so the map of the UK would display centrally on the webpage. It was solely a design decision.

“The purpose of Britain’s Future is to represent the views of 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union – regardless of background. This is about delivering on the result of the referendum.”

No law is being broken by Britain’s Future’s campaigning. Outside of an election period it is within the rights of any individual or campaign group to pay to promote political material without declaring who is paying for it. Britain’s Future is not a political party and does not appear to have any intention of putting forward candidates in elections, so is not regulated by laws requiring large political donations to be publicly declared.

Even the anti-Brexit People’s Vote campaign for a second referendum, backed with financing from the billionaire George Soros, has spent less on Facebook Britain’s Future. Its website is essentially a personal blog on arguments for Brexit, with a discrete PayPal button encouraging donations.

Under Facebook’s transparency rules, a representative of Britain’s Future would have been required to provide a valid UK postal address before placing political adverts but this information was not made public. There are no checks on the ultimate source of any funds.

Facebook said it was only thanks to its new political ad transparency tools, introduced after the Brexit referendum and soon to be rolled out across the UK, that it was possible to see the extent of political advertising placed by Britain’s Future and raise questions about their funding. There is no equivalent database for Google, Twitter and other online advertisers.

Dawson previously stood as the Conservative council candidate in Manchester’s Hulme ward last year and finished a distant sixth.He gave an interview to Country Squire Magazine, explaining he had recently embraced politics after becoming exasperated with the leftwing bias of the BBC: “There are lots and lots of Conservatives in this country and they deserve to be represented in our cultural landscape.”

Last month a report from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport warned electoral law was out of date and vulnerable to manipulation by hostile forces, with urgent need of updating.

Lengthy Brexit negotiations, as well as concerns about the border Northern Ireland shares with the Republic of Ireland, have inadvertently sparked new conversations about the prospects for a united Ireland.

As the March 29 Brexit deadline rapidly approaches, parliamentarians have approximately three weeks to formally approve a plan that would allow the U.K. to leave the European Union. A vote in the U.K. Parliament is set for Tuesday.

Beyond agreeing on trade deals with current and future European allies, the U.K. must also establish a plan to address the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Jayne McCormack, a political reporter with BBC Northern Ireland, has followed Brexit's effects in Northern Ireland, and tells CBC's Day 6 why there's now talk of a vote on whether to re-unite with Ireland. .

Theresa May will fly to Strasbourg this evening to try to salvage her Brexit deal ahead of a vote in the Commons tomorrow, the Irish government says.

But Simon Coveney, the deputy prime minister, played down any talk of a breakthrough – saying Ms May would “try to finalise an agreement if that’s possible”.

There was no immediate confirmation of the trip from Downing Street, which said earlier that there were “no plans” for the prime minister to hold further talks.

Mr Coveney said it would not be “helpful” to set out the obstacles still in the way of changes that might satisfy UK MPs, but added: “There are some.”

Earlier, Ms May’s spokesman insisted the meaningful vote would go ahead on Tuesday – but would not be specific about what exactly MPs will be voting on.

He refused to deny she could hold a provisional vote on the hypothetical deal she is seeking in Brussels – with desired reworking of the Irish backstop – despite the failure to persuade the EU to bend on it.

Speaking in Dublin, Mr Coveney said: “The negotiations are ongoing. Many had hoped we would have clarity at this stage, particularly in advance of the vote tomorrow. We don't yet.

“The British prime minister is travelling to Strasbourg this evening, I understand, to try to finalise an agreement, if that is possible, to be able to put that to a meaningful vote in Westminster tomorrow.”

He insisted the EU wanted to be “helpful” on the backstop controversy, but said: “The backstop needs to be there and it needs to be robust.”

Downing Street said only: "We have not confirmed anything at this stage.”

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - A Brexit deal seemed close on Saturday after the EU indicated legal mechanisms London could use to unilaterally leave the contentious Irish border backstop, sources in the bloc said, but the plan was rejected by British Prime Minister Theresa May’s cabinet.

The bloc’s Brexit negotiators on Monday updated envoys of the 27 states staying in the European Union after Brexit on the status of the talks, which have stalled just 18 days before Britain is due to leave on March 29.

“On Saturday evening, it seemed negotiating teams are close to an agreement,” the ambassadors were told, according to a source briefed on the closed-doors meeting.

“But eventually, PM May had failed to convince her cabinet, which she conveyed to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker during their phone call on Sunday evening.”