Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

How is this supposed to be an incentive?

Theresa May will leave office in an “orderly handover” whenever an EU withdrawal deal is done. No one is weeping. The oddity is: we may yet come to miss her, though she has been the worst prime minister of our political lifetimes – bar none. Yet there was one great good purpose in her premiership: by occupying the space, however vacuously, she kept out the barbarian hordes of Brexiteers barging one another out of the way to seize her throne.

Now she has surrendered that one useful role, leaving the country to the untender mercies of those competing in Europhobia for the votes of some 120,000 dwindling Tory party members. To use her deathless phrase, nothing will be changed by her departure. Parliament will be as gridlocked as ever, the combat deadlier with an avowed Brextremist at the helm.

[...]
The prime minister had hoped to remain in No 10 after exit day, and build a legacy that extended beyond the humiliations of the Brexit talks to domestic policy.

But if the withdrawal agreement is passed and Britain leaves the EU in eight weeks’ time, she could now be gone before the summer – after just three years in the top job.

Three ministers resigned on Monday to back an amendment tabled by a cross-bench group of MPs led by the Tory former minister Oliver Letwin to test the backing for alternatives to the prime minister’s deal.

On Wednesday night, Letwin said it was “a great matter of disappointment” that no majority had emerged for any of the eight options debated that day. He said another set of votes would be held on Monday – but he hoped that May’s deal would be accepted before then.

The closest result was on a commitment for the government to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Put forward by the pro-EU Tory veteran Ken Clarke and others, it was voted down by 272 votes to 264.

The only other relatively close vote was on a plan drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, and tabled by the former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, to require a referendum to confirm any Brexit deal. This was lost by 268 votes to 295.

Backers of a referendum said the result showed they were gaining ground. Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson said: “When this parliament has finally made a decision on what Brexit means, I am hopeful that a majority will emerge for any final proposal to be put to a vote, not only by MPs, but also by the people.”

However, 27 Labour MPs defied a three-line whip to vote against a referendum, with one shadow minister, Melanie Onn, resigning in order to do so and three shadow cabinet members abstaining.

May was forced to give her MPs a free vote – and instructed her cabinet to abstain – rather than suffer a string of resignations from ministers keen to signal their support for alternatives.

The government had earlier tried and failed to stop the indicative vote process happening altogether, by whipping MPs to reject the business motion kicking off the debate.

The Brexit secretary, Steve Barclay, said: “The results of the process this House has gone through today strengthens our view that the deal the government has negotiated is the best option.”

Ministers now hope to make a third attempt to ram May’s deal through the House of Commons on Friday – though their prospects of success were thrown into doubt after the DUP said its 10 MPs would vote against it.

The prime minister had been under intense pressure to set out a timetable for her departure, as the leave-supporting wing of her party continued to resist supporting her deal, which was defeated by a majority of 149 earlier this month.
... ... ...

A chart from Simon Usherwood from UK in a Changing Europe, an academic network, explaining the implications of the eight amendments for the EU.

a customs union emerged as the most popular option (or least unpopular, if your glass is half-empty) at 272 noes, 264 ayes; a fresh referendum ran second to that, at 268 in favour, 295 against.

Although all through this process it has seemed to me like all of the politicians (or at least most of them) have been making foolish and damaging choices. So who knows what they will really do.

The EU customs union includes the 28 EU member states as well as Monaco.

The EU also has customs union arrangements with non-EU members: Turkey, Andorra and San Marino.

But under (the EU's) customs union rules, members cannot negotiate their own independent trade deals with countries from the rest of the world.

Instead, free trade deals (ie agreements that reduce or eliminate tariffs between countries) can only be negotiated by the EU as a whole.

As a result, Theresa May's government has ruled out remaining in the customs union after Brexit, arguing it would prevent the UK from setting its own trade policy.

As a result, Theresa May's government has ruled out remaining in the customs union after Brexit, arguing it would prevent the UK from setting its own trade policy.

More than 20 years of peace in Northern Ireland, and now the Brexit is supposed to endanger all that.
Who would want to bomb again? The answer is frightening: those who never stop.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

More than 20 years of peace in Northern Ireland, and now the Brexit is supposed to endanger all that.
Who would want to bomb again? The answer is frightening: those who never stop.

That's why I thought the Norway Option might be nice. If they stay in the Common Market then the Northern Ireland border doesn't become a problem.

The EU has moved into full crisis mode, with officials now setting the terms the UK will have to meet for Brussels to open talks on avoiding an economic meltdown in the weeks after a no-deal Brexit.

In anticipation of a no-deal outcome on 12 April after MPs voted down eight Brexit options on Wednesday, and the likely rejection of the withdrawal agreement on Friday, EU ambassadors on Thursday morning opened discussions on the terms to be set for the bloc to return to the negotiating table.

The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, told the diplomats of his heightened concern during the meeting, and the urgent need to war-game the bloc’s response to it. The EU is to step up its “full-on crisis” preparations, according to a diplomatic note.

It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.

The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory in order to protect the Good Friday agreement, would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
... ... ...

“We will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave" — The official Brexit campaign in 2016

May’s opponents blame the current crisis on her decision to pursue one interpretation of Brexit.

“The British government should have offered some
thing very, very quickly" — High-ranking European official

“We are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again" — Theresa May in 2016

That Ireland felt the need to reiterate its commitment is illustrative of how the country’s leaders saw Brexit as an existential threat.

"There was always a worry that the Irish were the Brits’ Trojan Horse" — Senior EU official

“[Barnier is] a politician who is reassuring for France, but is identifiable in Germany" — Europe adviser in major EU government

“The EU, while strategically myopic, is formidably good at process against negotiating opponents" — Ivan Rogers, former British ambassador to the EU

“Where we are now has been obvious for a long time" — Senior official at No. 10 Downing Street

"We just could not believe the British had accepted the text" — Senior EU official

The first significant blurring of Theresa May’s red lines came in December 2017, with her acceptance of the backstop.

The first significant blurring of Theresa May’s red lines came in December 2017, with her acceptance of the backstop.

For many around May, that a crash would come had been obvious for months. As far back as July 2018, senior figures inside No. 10 Downing Street had warned that her deal, as it was shaping up, was unsustainable. There was just no way a majority in parliament could be assembled for the Brexit the EU was offering.

In truth, the trains had been set in motion far earlier — the collision was the culmination of decisions taken by both sides within the hours, weeks and months that followed the referendum. The EU’s determination not to cut London a special deal; Cameron’s decision to walk away; May’s sweeping promise not to raise a border in Ireland, while at the same time drawing incompatible red lines — something had to give, and it would not be Brussels.

The result, some of the most senior figures in Brussels and London admit, is an outcome in which the negotiations will have fallen short of their limited ambitions — even if a deal is eventually forced through a recalcitrant House of Commons in the coming days or weeks.

The contentious Irish backstop — the root cause of the crisis — has become so toxic for the largest party in Northern Ireland, the DUP, that it risks permanently undermining power-sharing until it is removed and replaced.

Throughout the negotiations, the divisions in Northern Ireland have deepened, and the peace process has been damaged — as the Commission predicted in February 2017.

Most important, few of the major questions created by Britain’s decision to leave the EU have been answered. “The big loss is that they have not settled the question for the future,” one senior official close to Barnier admitted.

Should the EU have resisted the temptation to press home its overwhelming advantage? Should it have allowed the U.K. some cherry-picking? Should it have made Dublin share some of the costs of Brexit by imposing a border with Northern Ireland instead of the backstop?

Many in the U.K. might think so, but few in Brussels, Dublin or any other European capital would agree. “History will judge,” said the senior official.