Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

For the poll voters were asked the question: "If you had to choose between them, who would you prefer as prime minister?"

Among the general public, Jeremy Hunt led Boris Johnson by 41 per cent to 29 per cent, with the remaining 30 per cent "don't know".

However among only Conservative voters, Mr Johnson led 49 per cent to 39 per cent. For Brexit Party voters, it was 69 per cent to 17 per cent.

YouGov said Boris was falling back among the public while perceptions of Jeremy Hunt were improving.

"It is impossible to tell whether the changes are because of the coverage of Boris Johnson's personal life, the campaign itself, or just a reflection of Jeremy Hunt becoming the sole "anti-Boris" candidate, and therefore being seen more positively by those people opposed to Johnson's coronation," says YouGov director Anthony Wells.

Transport companies are being asked to bid to provide extra freight capacity to be used in the event of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.

The hurried ferry procurement process as the UK prepared to leave the EU on 29 March cost taxpayers more than £85m.

That included £34m in a settlement and legal fees with Eurotunnel - which said it was not considered for the contract.

This time the government is undertaking a full public tendering process before awarding the new contracts.

The government had previously awarded Seaborne Freight, DFDS and Brittany Ferries contracts worth more than £100m - all of which were eventually cancelled.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling faced calls to resign after he was forced to axe a £13.8m contract with Seaborne Freight, a company with no ships or trading history.

All three previous contracts - intended to offer extra capacity and relieve potential congestion at ports like Dover - had been awarded without a full public tender process and prompted legal action from Eurotunnel.

The government also had to pay more than £51m to cancel agreements with DFDS and Brittany Ferries when the UK asked the EU for an extension to the withdrawal process meaning it did not leave as planned on 29 March.

This time, the Department for Transport is pursuing an open process, inviting bids from all "suitably qualified freight operators".

Andrew Dean, a former government lawyer who is now director of public law at Clifford Chance, said: "The department has played a straight bat, having opted to follow a relatively low-risk procurement approach that is open to suppliers from across the EU and beyond."

BBC business correspondent Joe Miller said that Eurotunnel would be able to bid this time around, as the notice invites applications "regardless of transport mode", as long as they offer "roll-on, roll-off capacity" for lorries.

Seaborne Freight confirmed it would not be bidding again, while Britanny Ferries said it would "carefully consider" what capacity it could offer the government.

Jeremy Hunt has said he would back a no-deal Brexit with a "heavy heart" but would, unlike Tory rival Boris Johnson, not commit to a deadline for leaving.

He told the BBC leaving the EU was a "democratic promise" that must be kept, whatever the economic repercussions.

But he said the quickest way to leave was via a new deal and guaranteeing a specific exit date was a "fake debate".

UK-led cancer and climate trials at risk as British researchers become liability

British researchers say they are being shut out of bids for major European research partnerships, or asked to keep a low profile, because of fears that the threat of a no-deal Brexit could contaminate chances of success.

An analysis by University College London of the latest EU research funding data shows that UCL and eight other Russell Group universities were running around 50 big European research collaborations a year in 2016, but only 20 in 2018.

Researchers say that taking a back seat is harmful to prestige, and also means they have less opportunity to steer the direction of research and are likely to have a smaller slice of the funding. Many are voluntarily not leading, however, because they fear that if UK academics are in charge of an important proposal, the research may not be funded.
... ... ...

The problem with assessing the intentions of a serial liar is that disbelief becomes second nature. So when Boris Johnson stated his Brexit plans in interviews last week and over the weekend it was largely overlooked. The media and public preferred to focus Johnson’s absurd claim that he enjoys arts and crafts of the vehicular variety. Less a dead cat than a dead kitten.

What makes Johnson’s intentions even harder to assess is his absence of principles. He belongs to a vanishingly small group of Britons who believe in neither leave nor remain. It is not that he has changed his mind but that he has never much cared either way. For Johnson, Brexit was a passing bandwagon to the premiership, and he was prepared to climb aboard. It is testament to his political skill that he has hoodwinked the Brexit zealots into believing he is their man.

So could he be Johnson the pretender, the man who seized the Brexit crown only to betray those who handed it to him?

Johnson claimed that his “plan A” was to leave “with a standstill between the UK and the EU so we keep going with the existing arrangements until such time as we have completed our free trade agreement and we use that period to solve the questions of the Northern Irish border”. Rather than pausing the process inside the EU, it seems that Johnson might propose to park Britain just the other side of the line. 31 October would be a symbolic exit, legally out but practically in – Brexit in name only. It would be a dropkick of the can down the road.

Such a plan could perhaps be described as the “backstop triple-plus” – that is, the customs union plus the single market, free movement and the full financial contribution. It would take the original 21-month transition negotiated by Theresa May and reformulate it to be “as short as possible, as long as necessary”. Doubtless the political declaration would commit to a Canada-style free trade agreement, a mutually agreed target end date for the negotiations, and empty promises to explore alternative arrangements for the Irish border. Is this what is giving Johnson “supreme confidence” that we will be out of the EU “do or die”?

It could be a superficially attractive option, which might appear capable of achieving a majority in parliament. As it wouldn’t really mean leaving, it would surely meet Labour’s “six tests”. It would unite Labour MPs from strongly Brexit-supporting constituencies, such as Lisa Nandy, with those who have advocated a Norway-style agreement, such as Stephen Kinnock. Johnson may calculate that it would deliver enough Labour votes to cancel out the irreducible core of European Research Group (ERG) opponents. The EU itself would be delighted: no impediments to the single market, the weight of the UK economy in trade negotiations, and our sizeable financial contribution with none of the aggravation caused by British Europhobes. Crudely, the UK would effectively remain in the club, albeit with no say, and Nigel Farage would be kicked out of the European parliament to boot.

But it is also a plan that is doomed to failure. If such a proposal were to be made, it would come unstuck in precisely the same way that May’s deal died on the backstop. The EU simply does not believe that alternative arrangements are possible for the Irish border. So the EU will refuse to commit to a legally binding end date for such a transition period. Johnson is badly miscalculating if he thinks the EU will abandon Ireland for the sake of a deal with the UK. Moreover, given how advantageous this arrangement would be to other EU member states, there would be virtually no incentive for negotiations on the future partnership to ever reach a conclusion.

It would be quite the comeuppance for leave campaigners. After decades of poisoning Britain’s relations with our neighbours and three years of squabbling, the only Brexit they could make work would be one where we never really leave but give up control rather than take it back. Stubbornness would be its animating purpose; the Brexit project would have defeated itself. Shrewd Brexiters would know the clock will be ticking until the UK goes from such a standstill transition back to full membership, only with a worse deal than today, losing both the rebate and the opt-outs we currently enjoy.

As a result, it would not face the 34 Tory opponents from May’s third attempt to pass the withdrawal agreement but more like the 75 who voted against it at the second attempt. Even if they believed that we would eventually arrive at a free trade agreement, the typical negotiation length is five to seven years, meaning as much as an additional £80bn in financial contributions with no say over how they are spent, the continuation of free movement (good for the country but detested by many Brexiters) and the entirety of EU regulation. So much for the promise of “taking back control of our laws, borders and money”.

What’s more, if this is his strategy, Johnson is also badly misreading the mood of the Labour party. Sentiment is drifting away from a second referendum and towards revoking article 50 by a parliamentary vote. But more than that, this sort of plan would face fierce hostility from Jeremy Corbyn himself. Corbyn’s long-held Euroscepticism is firmly in the Bennite tradition: opposed to the EU on grounds of democracy and accountability. Labour’s six tests for Brexit would be replaced by Tony Benn’s five questions for the powerful. A solution that leaves Britain effectively in the EU but with no say runs entirely counter to his principles. If there was any plan that could provoke Corbyn from acquiescence to Brexit into outright opposition, this would be it.

Even if it were to pass parliament, it would provoke an immediate general election. The government has a working majority of just three, and if Johnson were to deceive the ERG in this way, they would surely prevent him from being able to govern. It would provide the Brexit party with the perfect narrative of betrayal: leavers would say “we never left”, and remainers would ask “what was the point?” Both would be right. Can Johnson really believe it is possible to hoodwink the nation with a wheeze that leaves us in the EU but with no say? With the right split between the Tories and the Brexit party, it is hard to see the path to a general election victory in November. For that reason, the most likely outcome continues to be an October election prior to a no-deal exit, where Johnson calculates that he will have five clear years to clean up the mess and turn things around. And gaining and retaining power for himself is the only principle to which Johnson has ever shown any fidelity.

Soon-to-be-sacked Philip Hammond threatens revolt, telling MPs 'It will be for the House of Commons to ensure that that doesn't happen'

Philip Hammond has warned a no-deal Brexit will cost the UK £90bn, as he urged MPs to join him in stopping the new prime minister from carrying it out.

The chancellor – who is likely to be sacked by either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt – said it would be “wrong” for any government to pursue a crash-out departure from the EU.

“The government's analysis suggests that, in a disruptive no-deal exit, there will be a hit to the Exchequer of about £90bn,” he told MPs, revealing the figure for the first time.

Mr Hammond again refused to rule out joining a Labour-led vote of no confidence to topple a Tory prime minister about to carry out a no-deal Brexit.

And, hinting strongly at his intentions, he said: “I believe that it will be for the House of Commons, of which I will continue proudly to be a member, to ensure that that doesn't happen.”

The warning comes after Mr Hunt hardened his Brexit stance, setting a fresh deadline of 30 September for Brussels to budge on the Irish backstop controversy before a no-deal Brexit becomes inevitable.

UK and EU Brexit negotiators came up with a solution - known as the Irish backstop - to avoid border checks.

If used, the backstop would keep the UK in a very close relationship with the EU until a trade deal permanently avoiding the need for checks is agreed.

However, the backstop proved unacceptable to many Conservative MPs, who worried the UK would be trapped in it.

Their opposition eventually led to Theresa May's resignation as prime minister.

Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt have pledged to go back to the EU to negotiate changes to the backstop. They believe they could do this before the current Brexit deadline of 31 October.

A "wealth of solutions" including technology could avoid the need for a hard border after Brexit, insists Boris Johnson.

Jeremy Hunt also says he will fund solutions to deliver his "cast iron guarantee" to avoid a hard border in Ireland. He believes this could be done using existing technology.

Supporters say mobile phone technology, or putting microchips on lorries, could track goods and avoid the need for border posts.

However, the EU does not currently share a single border with a non-EU country where checks have been completely eliminated.

That includes Norway (not in the EU) and Sweden (an EU member) - which share one of the most technologically advanced borders in the world. Their main crossing point processes about 1,300 lorries a day, with each waiting 20 minutes on average.

The EU has said it will consider other solutions to the Irish border problem, but only once the current Brexit deal has been signed off. It has also expressed doubts about a technological solution:

"We looked at every border on this Earth, every border the EU has with a third country - there's simply no way you can do away with checks and controls," its director-general for trade, Sabine Weyand, said in January.

The EU's legal requirement is that some products have to be physically checked - chemicals and food are among them.

Another proposal has been for checks on animals and other goods to be allowed to take place in "mobile units away from the border". But that would require the EU to change its own rules.

Alongside technology, Mr Johnson has also talked about a trusted trader scheme. Businesses would be allowed to by-pass checks once they've proven to be trustworthy and have met certain standards.

For it to work, the UK would need to persuade the EU to recognise it.

But setting up such a scheme would a take a lot of time and cost a lot money. The UK would also need to come up with an effective way of enforcing it and prevent smuggling.

Achieving all of this by 31 October would be extremely difficult.

Should the UK leave the EU with no deal on 31 October, then, in theory, checks will be required immediately.

But no one has started building border posts and the UK and Irish governments don't want a hard border.

One suggestion, under this scenario, is that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland could keep the same rules and standards. But that would mean Northern Ireland's rules would be different to the rest of the UK.

The DUP, which the UK government relies upon for a majority in Parliament, has said it will not accept this.

Alternatively, checks could take place between Ireland and mainland Europe instead - but such a move would undermine Ireland's place in the EU.

In truth, no one knows what will happen.

'The Bank of England's predictions are that it wouldn't be quite that bad, but it could be very serious'

A no-deal Brexit could inflict almost as much damage as the 2008 financial crash, Jeremy Hunt has admitted – before vowing to carry it out if necessary.

“The Bank of England's predictions are that it wouldn't be quite that bad, but it could be very serious if we get this wrong,” the foreign secretary said.

The admission is the starkest assessment yet of the impact of crashing out of the EU, which both Tory leadership candidates say they are ready to do on 31 October.

The 2008 crash – or ‘Great Recession’ – was the worst economic disaster since the Second World War, triggering a recession that lasted more than a year.

Unemployment soared to 2.68 million people – the highest level since 1994 – and manufacturing output took more than a decade to recover.

Nevertheless, Mr Hunt said the UK had to make that “choice” if the EU refused to renegotiate Theresa May’s divorce deal, to allow withdrawal to go ahead with an agreement.

“This is a country where we do what the people tell us, so we have to deliver Brexit,” he said.

“We have to make it a success and part of the way we'll make it a success first of all, preparing for a no-deal Brexit.”

The comments came in an interview with ITV’s Peston programme – hours after Philip Hammond, the chancellor, warned MPs the cost to the UK of a no-deal Brexit would reach £90bn.

On Tuesday, Brexit party MEPs decided to take a stand against the undemocratic EU they’d been elected to democratically. Rather than do something frivolous such as returning their wages, they decided to turn their backs at the playing of the European anthem during the parliament’s opening ceremony, a move only slightly classier than mooning.

When the 29 Brexiteers were elected to the European parliament, many were concerned that they wouldn’t represent the UK properly. And yet here they were on day one already crapping themselves for attention – and as such were representing the UK better than we possibly could have imagined. Shortly afterwards, Nigel Farage tweeted proudly “The Brexit party has already made its presence felt”, and he’s right, in the same way that a toddler smearing spaghetti on the walls of a fancy restaurant while repeating every swearword they know will grab the attention of their parents. Who knows what the party has in store next, but we should probably set our faces to apologetic cringe mode just in case.

We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem. It does not concern us. Any way of bringing about the revolution is fine by us.

If we succeed in getting sixty or seventy of our party’s agitators and organizers elected to the various parliaments, the state itself will pay for our fighting organization. That is amusing and entertaining enough to be worth trying.

Brexit Party leader says he has 'had enough' of 'threats' that Scotland could become independent if UK leaves EU without a deal

The break-up of the United Kingdom would be "regrettable" but a price worth paying to deliver Brexit, Nigel Farage has said.

The Brexit Party leader said he did not believe that Scotland would leave the union but that his priority was for the UK to be an "independent self-governing nation" outside the EU.

Several senior Tories, including Jeremy Hunt, have warned that leaving the EU without a deal would pose a major threat to the union, with Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's first minister, ploughing ahead with plans for a second referendum on independence.

On Thursday, Ms May warned Mr Hunt and his rival to be prime minister, Boris Johnson, that one of their "first and greatest" duties must be strengthening the union.

But Mr Farage insisted that Brexit should be the "number one" priority - even if it means the UK breaking up.

He told ITV's Peston: "Being an independent self-governing nation is the number one. If there were parts of the United Kingdom that didn't wish to stay part of it that would be deeply regrettable but I just don't believe that to be the case - I really genuinely don't believe it."

He added: "They said if we voted Brexit that the United Kingdom will break up. We're three years on, we're not seeing that in any way at all. Frankly we've had enough of all these threats. I don't see any possibility of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom to join this United States of Europe that is being built, and having to sign a commitment to join the Euro. In the case of Scotland I just do not see that happening."

Mr Farage poured cold water on speculation that he could make a pact with the Conservatives at the next election, especially if Mr Johnson is elected as leader of the party, saying he would only be willing to hold discussions if the next prime minister showed the were willing to deliver a no-deal Brexit.

He said: "We're back to trust, aren't we? Who on earth would I trust?

"If we had a new Conservative leader who said, ‘right, I’m going to face down the House of Commons and, if necessary, I will call a general election this autumn on us leaving on 31 October,' – if a Conservative leader had the guts to do that then, of course, if they wanted to come and talk to us, we would be prepared to listen.

"We would meet them, I guess, in the demilitarised zone because, at the moment, whenever my name or the Brexit Party name comes up, all we get is abuse and insults, so I don't think we're very close to a deal."

He also defended Brexit Party MEPs' decision to turn their backs when the European anthem way played in the European Parliament chamber earlier this week, saying he had "no regrets whatsoever".

He said: "We were there, they were about to play the European anthem, the president of the European Parliament said 'it is respectful to stand up for the anthems of other countries' so basically saying the European Union is now a country. Did they ever ask anybody whether they wanted to become to be a country?"

He added: "We didn't shout, we didn't make any noise, we just quietly followed the instructions we'd been given to stand up but decided to turn our backs on things.

"All through history there are traditions of people turning their backs on things - one thinks of the Canadian parliament where those campaigning for women rights turned their backs a few hears ago on Trudeau. These things happen."
... ... ...

Wow. They’re quite serious about cutting ties with the EU. I didn’t even consider this option.

I’d’ve thought the queen may have something to say about the parceling off of her bits.

I’d love to know what she makes of current events

MPs will find a way to stop a no-deal Brexit if the next prime minister tries to force one through, a senior cabinet minister has said.

David Gauke, the justice secretary, predicted that “a way will be found” to stop Britain leaving the EU without a deal, given a majority of MPs are opposed to such an outcome.

It is unclear whether the House of Commons has the power to force the government to avoid no deal, but Mr Gauke said he thought MPs would find “other mechanisms” to stop it from happening.

He also criticised Boris Johnson’s Brexit policy and called on the former foreign secretary to rule out suspending parliament, saying such a move would be a “constitutional outrage”.

Mr Gauke is a vocal opponent of a no-deal Brexit and is likely to be moved out of the cabinet if Mr Johnson is elected as prime minister. The current Tory leadership frontrunner has said he only wants cabinet ministers who would be willing to deliver no deal.