Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

Brexit talks have been thrown into jeopardy after revelations that the UK government is to table legislation that will unpick some of the withdrawal agreement that Boris Johnson signed with the EU in January. It is one of the most startling turns in the four-year Brexit saga.

Opinion is divided as to whether this is sabre-rattling that will force the EU into a trade deal, or whether it will ultimately torpedo the talks.

What is this legislation?
The internal market bill is due to be published on Wednesday and will include elements that are expected to “eliminate the legal force of parts of the withdrawal agreement”.

The government is seeking to override the Northern Ireland protocol that requires checks on goods, animals and food crossing the Irish Sea from Great Britain into Ireland and rules on state aid for British firms. It is effectively giving the UK unilateral powers at ministerial level to decide what goods will go through the full panoply of checks and tariffs and which goods will not.

In July a white paper was published on the internal market, which is designed to ensure trading rules are the same in all four nations of the UK. The internal market legislation has already proved unpopular with the devolved governments in Wales and Scotland because of proposals for bodies that will ensure trading standards are uniform across the four nations.

What is the government saying?
Details are not known yet but government sources have confirmed the Financial Times report describing it as a “sensible fallback” in case the ongoing Brexit trade talks collapse and the UK leaves the single market and the customs union without a deal when the Brexit transition period ends on 31 December.

The environment secretary, George Eustice, said the government was “committed” to the withdrawal agreement, and the Northern Ireland deal had always included “loose ends” that needed to be tidied up, including “the type of administrative customs processes” that will be implemented on goods crossing the Irish Sea.

What is the reaction in Ireland?
The plans have astonished the Irish government. Simon Coveney, the foreign affairs minister, who was central to the negotiations that led to the withdrawal agreement, has said it was a “very unwise” move.

Neale Richmond, an MP from the same party, who also takes a keen interest in Brexit, described the reports as “extremely worrying”.

Richmond said: “The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty with obligations to International law. It cannot simply be overridden with domestic legislation. No doubt our negotiator, Michel Barnier, will approach this in a calm and patient manner as ever, but one must wonder: if the British government seriously intend to proceed along this path in order to sate domestic difficulty then why would anyone sign any treaty with them in the future?”

Can the UK break the withdrawal agreement?
The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty and legally binding. This is why the Irish, with the full backing of the EU, were so keen to get the arrangements for the Irish border nailed down in the withdrawal agreement. They knew the UK could not subsequently wriggle out of the deal without risking its international reputation as a trustworthy nation that stands by its legal commitments.

Practically, however, the government can do what it likes as it has an 80-strong majority.

A UK official acknowledged that the move would cause some “debate” with the EU. Others have said the move could be seen to be a “draconian” manouevre aimed at opting out of the full commitments on Northern Ireland.

Is the timing significant?
The revelations emerged on the eve of the resumption of talks on trade and the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The eighth round of negotiations are to start on Tuesday and the outlook is bleak.

Downing Street is saying the legislation had to be tabled in order to get it on to the statue books by 1 January. Others say the government knew how sensitive the Northern Ireland protocol was and deliberately chose it to force the EU to compromise on other elements in the talks.

What is the mood?
Nobody expects progress in the talks this week. Multiple sources say a leader-level political summit is now the only way to break the impasse.

What is on the agenda?
[pic "Agenda for round 8 of Brexit talks Photograph: Agenda for round 8 of Brexit talks/European Commission" @ original]
There are 11 “tables” of themed negotiations, including fair trade, governance, nuclear energy and mobility of social security rights for British and EU citizens affected by Brexit
What are the stumbling blocks in talks?
The main two stumbling blocks are state aid and fisheries.

The EU is concerned that after Brexit the UK will start pumping money into businesses, giving it a competitive advantage over EU member state factories and services. Downing Street wants the freedom to do just that as part of its levelling up programme and as part of a strategic effort to boost tech industries in the UK.

UK officials say the EU has nothing to be concerned about as the UK has repeatedly made it clear it “will not be a high subsidy regime”. Neither, they say, will Boris Johnson be taking orders from Brussels to share plans on state aid.

Although it represents less than 0.1% of GDP, fisheries remains a totemic issue for Brexit-supporting communities, and therefore of political value.

Again, the EU protests that the UK has yet to put forward a legal text for line-by-line discussion about a deal.

The impact on the German car industry is likely to be devastating as the UK is one of its largest markets.

The latest Brexit dispute could end up in the European court of justice if it breaches the withdrawal agreement signed by Boris Johnson in January, legal experts have warned.

A dispute would trigger a specific legal process ending in the Luxembourg court – and if the UK was found to have breached the international treaty it signed in January, the EU has powers to punish the country.

The court can impose a heavy fine on the UK, suspend part of the withdrawal agreement, launch trade wars and impose tariffs or even sanctions on British exports.

“Because the agreement is an international treaty, the EU could bring proceedings against the UK, under the dispute resolution mechanism of the agreement,” said Catherine Barnard, a European law professor at Cambridge University.
[...]
In the event of a dispute a process would be triggered involving an initial three-month arbitration to try to resolve the matter.

“If the arbitration raises issues of EU law, which this absolutely seems to do, then it’s up to the court of justice,” said Barnard.

A UK official close to the Brexit talks played down the significance of the move, claiming it was necessary to give ministers these powers to ensure the Good Friday agreement was upheld in the event of no deal.

But the official said the internal market bill to be unveiled on Wednesday was designed to uphold the promise that traders in Northern Ireland would have unfettered access to the UK market.

“I think this is politics over law,” said Barnard. “I think they are trying to make it clear to the EU that they need to make some movement in the talks and they are using something as sensitive as the Northern Ireland protocol in order to precipitate that. But it is a very high-stakes gamble.”

At the heart of the issue is article 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which means tariffs are payable on goods entering the Republic of Ireland from another part of the UK via Northern Ireland. ...

The UK has been arguing that goods that remain in Northern Ireland – for example, food going from Tesco distribution centres in the Midlands to Belfast – should not be liable to duties.

It wants ministers in London to draw up the list of the goods “at risk” of going on to the republic, thus minimising the disruption in the internal British market.

Sources say the EU’s working assumption is that all goods are at risk of going into the republic – even goods on Tesco shelves – because the region is so small.

Lord Ricketts, the chair of the EU security and justice sub-committee, believes this is the real reason behind the new legislation, and accused the government of trying to opt out of parts of the agreement it does not now like.

“They signed a treaty containing such checks, then denied it, and now plans to breach the treaty,” he tweeted.

Those EU nations won't stop importing vehicles made in the UK, post-brexit.

The impact of a no-deal Brexit on the automobile industry would be potentially catastrophic. There is no other industry that is more tightly integrated than the European automotive industry, with highly complex supply chains stretching across Europe and production relying on ‘just-in-time’ delivery.

Indeed, as >this fact sheet< illustrates, the EU and UK automotive industries are closely interwoven today.

• 51% of all exported UK-built cars were bought by customers in the European Union last year.
In fact, more than 8 out of 10 passenger cars made in the United Kingdom are exported.

• The other way around, less than 4 out of 10 cars made in the EU27 are exported (38.3%), with roughly one third of total exports heading to the UK (or 12.4% of total production).
• The EU represents 85% of the UK’s passenger car imports by volume.

The court can impose a heavy fine on the UK, suspend part of the withdrawal agreement, launch trade wars and impose tariffs or even sanctions on British exports.

This "court" has no power over non-EU states, so tell 'em to shove their fine up their khyber pass.

The UK can source whatever they like from other nations.

That's laughable

why did the UK then agree to it, sign the relevant treaties etc???

then they disregard the agreement as you described in your above post

I would say to my honourable friend that, yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.

Hitler's continued pressure for return of the Polish corridor and his subsequent invasion of Poland were followed by declarations of war...

No other country (apart from the USA who broke EVERY treaty with Native Americans) has broken more treaties that Germany.

Eighty years later the Forth Reich rules the EU and after offering the UK a Canada +++ deal, subsequently cancelled it when it seems likely it would be accepted.

Jonathan Jones is NOT quitting over the Irish issue. The FT is reporting that Jones departure is over the Governments hardline Brexit stance.

Eighty years later the Forth Reich rules the EU