Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

Tory MPs have now voted five times to narrow the field of their leadership race down to just two candidates. Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss will go head-to-head, and the winner will replace Boris Johnson as prime minister.

Unlike the previous rounds, however, this one has a broader electorate: Tory members will get to vote on which of the pair becomes party leader.

We can expect to see the tenor of the race shift as candidates try to appeal beyond the parliament party, and to the membership in general. But who are these people?

How many?

We do not know how many Conservative party members there are, because the party has stopped releasing official figures.

But we know there were at least 160,000 people in the party when Boris Johnson became PM. This is because that is how many people were eligible to participate in the last leadership contest in 2019. The party says this figure is likely to be higher this time.

Where do they live?

One useful resource for understanding party membership is the Economic and Social Research Council's Party Members Project, run by academics Tim Bale, Paul Webb and Monica Poletti.

The latest figures the project has on Conservative party membership suggests that the member will largely be chosen by people living in London and the south east.

As of January 2020 the project determined that a full 56 per cent of Tory members live in London and the south east. Just 18 per cent live in the Midlands, 20 per cent in the North of England, and 6 per cent in Scotland.

This may go some way to explaining why leadership candidates have not talked much about the government's supposed flagship "levelling up" policy. That is aimed at voters in marginal seats they need to win in general elections, not people taking part in leadership contests.

What's their background?

One thing that stands out about Conservative party members, according to the Party Members' Project data, is that they are overwhelmingly male. 63 per cent of Tory members are male, compared to 37 per cent who are female.

They also skew older: just 6 per cent of the membership is under 24-years-old, while 36 are aged 25 to 49 years old. The majority after 50 and older: 19 per cent between 50 and 64 years old, and 39 per cent over 65.

The members are also generally middle class. 80 per cent belong to the highest social economic group, ABC1, which is used by marketers to denote different backgrounds. This should be considered a rough guide, as NRS social grade system has been the subject of criticism in recent years.

Perhaps more interesting is the fact that 40 per cent of Conservative members earn more than the national average, and one in 20 earns more than £100,000. This is particularly notable given about 4 in 10 are eligible for their pensions.

Data published by the same academics found 97 per cent of Tory members are white, somewhat out of step with the general population where 87 per cent of the population are white.

It should be noted that all political parties have a omewhat middle class, white, and older membership - though according to these figures the Conservative party is the most middle class, the most white, the oldest, and particularly the most male.

What are their political beliefs?

This is a matter of some debate, and difficult to quantify. Generally, however, it seems clear from the data that Tory members' views are somewhat closer to the rest of the British public than at least the most outspoken Conservative MPs.

Take views on climate change: a survey by Opinium earlier this month found that just 37 per cent of Conservative members believe the UK government is "overreacting" on climate action, with 22 per cent saying it is underreacting and 30 per cent saying it it is getting policy about right.

This is in market contrast to the furore among some Tory MPs pushing to scrap net zero. While other surveys have shown climate well down the priority list for members, there is little in the way of active antipathy to climate action.

A similar picture can be seen on the size of the state – a question which seems to preoccupy Tory MPs. In the early rounds of the leadership contests, candidates sought to emphasise the huge tax cuts they would make to win votes.

But this, too, is not something members are nearly as ideological about. Opinium found that just 29 per cent of Tory members want less tax or spending, with 20 per cent saying they want more. 38 per cent say the balance should stay as now.

On the issue of Brexit, however, members are where you might expect them to be: just 24 per cent backed Remain in the EU referendum, with 76 per cent supporting a Leave vote.

A group of elite universities has written to the European Commission warning that science and research are “too important” to be used as part of the negotiations over the Northern Ireland protocol.

The Russell Group said that loss of UK association to Horizon Europe, a major EU research programme, could damage climate change and public health research.

In a letter to Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group, warned that the decision not to confirm the UK’s full association to Horizon Europe until discussions around the protocol are resolved is a mistake.

In the letter, he said that the loss of association with the major EU research programme would make the programme less competitive, and could be damaging to climate change and public health initiatives.

“Scientists cannot control the outcome of debates over the protocol. Yet science and the solutions it can provide to challenges like net-zero and public health will be the ones that suffer,” he said.

“Russell Group universities have been major players in the European research programmes, particularly in the “Excellent Science” schemes.

“Without the UK’s full association, the programme will become less competitive, with knock-on impacts for the excellence and prestige of EU grants.”

Dr Bradshaw said that the UK’s membership was “too important to be used as part of a negotiation and the current impasse shows this is having no leverage over the Northern Ireland protocol”.

The Government published contingency plans for university research on Wednesday, setting out a long-term alternative to Horizon if the UK’s association is not confirmed.

It said that if association is not confirmed to four EU research schemes, the UK will use funding allocated to Horizon in the 2021 spending review to build on existing research programmes.

A Government guarantee from November 2021 will mean that researchers who were approved for funding before 31 December 2022 can continue their work for the duration of their grant.

Universities UK (UUK), a group of 140 universities which previously described the loss of Horizon membership as “political self-harm”, said that the contingency plans represented the first step in clarifying how the Government would invest in research and development “if association proves impossible”.

UUK added: “For more than 30 years, EU research programmes have enabled cooperation between researchers across the continent to flourish, including in critical sectors like health and climate research.

“If the UK is not able to associate, we must ensure that ambitious alternative funding is put in place quickly. The publication provides much-needed information about how this could be achieved.”

The Russell Group represents 24 research-intensive universities, accounting for 21% of the grants signed for scientific excellence.

Dr Bradshaw said: “The Government has made clear that full association remains its top priority, however the publication of these plans mean walking away from Horizon has become a step closer, and the time left to resolve this is growing short.”

Hundreds of laws covering employment and environmental protections could disappear overnight if Liz Truss becomes prime minister after she promised to scrap all remaining EU regulations by the end of 2023.

Despite warnings about the scale and complexity of the task, Truss launched her leadership runoff campaign by promising a “sunset” for all EU-derived laws within 15 months.

Attempting to position herself as the self-styled “Brexit-delivery prime minister”, Truss’s proposed timetable is notably accelerated from that given by Boris Johnson’s government.

Jacob Rees-Mogg had pushed for a similar cliff-edge deadline, seeing the demise of 2,400 pieces of legislation, but two and a half years later, in June 2026. His plan prompted a cabinet row over feasibility, given the scheduled cull of a fifth of civil service numbers, or about 90,000 jobs.

Experts and union leaders said Truss’s proposals would be hugely difficult to achieve in the context of civil service cuts, with warnings it could end up becoming a “bonfire of rights”.
[...]
The foreign secretary is seen as the preferred choice of many Tory members, but Truss has previously faced scepticism from some in the party for her political journey, which she began as a Liberal Democrat before supporting remain in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

Her Brexit plan would mean each remaining EU law and regulation would be “evaluated on the basis of whether it supports UK growth or boosts investment”, with those deemed not to do so replaced. Any EU laws not replaced would simply disappear at the end of 2023, just 15 months after Truss potentially takes power in September.

Truss said this would mean that as PM she could “unleash the full potential of Britain post-Brexit, and accelerate plans to get EU law off our statute books so we can boost growth and make the most of our newfound freedoms outside the EU”.

Sunak has previously said he will appoint a new Brexit minister to go through the remaining EU laws, with instructions for the first set of changes coming within 100 days of him becoming prime minister.

After the announcement of Truss’s plans, unions warned of the potential impact on EU-derived workers’ protections. “These are all essential, not a nice-to-have,” said Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress. “Let’s call this out for what it is – ideological posturing at the expense of ordinary working people.”

Dave Penman, head of the FDA union, which represent senior civil servants, said the task had to be seen in the context of plans to get rid of one in five civil service jobs over the next three years.

“If a new prime minister also wants to review thousands of pieces of legislation, then something needs to give,” he said. “Any serious government needs to demonstrate how it will match resources with commitments, otherwise this is just fantasy politics.”

Another complication is the fact that diverging from EU standards in areas such as employment or environmental protections could bring retaliation from Brussels, given the terms of the post-Brexit trade deal, not least in terms of extra checks.

“The more divergence there is in practice, the more checks the EU will want to impose,” said Catherine Barnard, deputy director of the UK in a Changing Europe thinktank. “The more divergence there is, the more trade friction there will be.”

Barnard, who is professor of EU law at Cambridge University, said there would be concerns about a plan apparently based on the idea that “any retained EU law is bad”.

“Of course, some of it has worked well,” she said, citing the Equalities Act as an example. The Truss campaign said the Equalities Act would not be included in their plans.

Steve Peers, professor of law at the University of Essex and an expert on EU law, said another issue with a guillotine-like end to any remaining laws would be if some covered taxation. Treasury officials have called for EU-based tax laws to be exempt from such plans.

While it remained unclear what would happen at the end of 2023, Peers said, there was a risk the exercise ended as “a bonfire of rights” rather than Truss’s promised bonfire of red tape.

“It is a massive undertaking, and you wonder how thoroughly it will be done,” he said. “It does seem to prioritise ideology over pragmatism.

“I wonder if reviewing what I think would be 2,000 laws in 15 months is the right priority during a cost of living crisis, with lots of other things going on. The UK would have voted for most of them anyway. We have already removed hundreds that don’t work since we’ve left the EU, or that the government wanted to change.”

[... ... ...]
Conservatives habitually mock political opponents for unrealistic pledges, while boasting of their own hard-headedness. But it is the current government that appears addicted to false promises. The myth of Brexit has taken the place of reality, as trade-offs that were the inevitable consequence of leaving the EU are denied in favour of buccaneering fantasies. Having encouraged voters to give up free movement by leaving the EU, politicians now recommend that they blame others for every inconvenience.

Future difficulties with regard to the borders are coming into view. British disabled drivers’ badges may not be accepted in some EU countries, meaning that travellers will face restrictions on where they can go. Roaming charges are being reintroduced for mobile phones, leading to higher bills. Waiting times at borders could get longer with tougher checks that may involve drivers being asked to get out of cars. These were all predictable consequences of Brexit. Practically speaking, none of them ought to be insurmountable. But efficient administration and straightforward communication with the public were never the top priorities of Boris Johnson’s government – and appear unlikely to be those of his successor

Zara is charging British shoppers as much as 50% more than in Spain, while Decathlon partly blames Brexit for markups on e-bikes that can be up to £250 pricier in the UK than in France.

The figures come from a snapshot survey by Guardian Money that examined prices of popular items at pan-European retailers including Ikea, Apple, JD Sports, and H&M, as well as Zara and Decathlon. It compared prices in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Ireland.

It found that while at some retailers, such as JD Sports, prices are broadly similar across Britain and the EU countries, at others prices in the UK are markedly higher. None of the retailers had generally lower prices in the UK.

The findings add another twist to the current UK cost of living crisis.

Zara, Europe’s biggest clothing retailer, has some of the biggest percentage price differentials between the UK and the rest of Europe.

A British shopper pays £49.99 for a linen blend tunic dress at one of Zara’s stores in the UK, equal to €58.70 at current exchange rates. But at Zara in Germany, France, Italy and Ireland, the price is €49.95, and in Spain only €39.95.

A men’s hoodie that sells for £45.99 in the UK, equal to €53.99, sells for only €35.95 (£30.62) in Spain, meaning a buyer in Manchester is charged 50% more than in Madrid for the identical item.

Decathlon, the French sports goods retailer that operates 2,000 stores across 56 countries, charges £1,299.99 for a Riverside electric bike in its UK stores, equal to €1,525. But in France, Spain and Italy, the price for the same item is €1,199. The e-bike buyer at Decathlon’s Brighton store is therefore paying €326 (£278) more than if they popped across the channel and bought it in Dieppe.

Zara is charging British shoppers as much as 50% more than in Spain, while Decathlon partly blames Brexit for markups on e-bikes that can be up to £250 pricier in the UK than in France.

The figures come from a snapshot survey by Guardian Money that examined prices of popular items at pan-European retailers including Ikea, Apple, JD Sports, and H&M, as well as Zara and Decathlon. It compared prices in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Ireland.

It found that while at some retailers, such as JD Sports, prices are broadly similar across Britain and the EU countries, at others prices in the UK are markedly higher. None of the retailers had generally lower prices in the UK.

The findings add another twist to the current UK cost of living crisis.


Zara, Europe’s biggest clothing retailer, has some of the biggest percentage price differentials between the UK and the rest of Europe.

A British shopper pays £49.99 for a linen blend tunic dress at one of Zara’s stores in the UK, equal to €58.70 at current exchange rates. But at Zara in Germany, France, Italy and Ireland, the price is €49.95, and in Spain only €39.95.

A men’s hoodie that sells for £45.99 in the UK, equal to €53.99, sells for only €35.95 (£30.62) in Spain, meaning a buyer in Manchester is charged 50% more than in Madrid for the identical item.

Decathlon, the French sports goods retailer that operates 2,000 stores across 56 countries, charges £1,299.99 for a Riverside electric bike in its UK stores, equal to €1,525. But in France, Spain and Italy, the price for the same item is €1,199. The e-bike buyer at Decathlon’s Brighton store is therefore paying €326 (£278) more than if they popped across the channel and bought it in Dieppe.

Decathlon largely blamed Brexit for the price differentials. It said: “The UK’s exit from the European Union has made it more expensive to import stock. It also meant that Decathlon UK had to expand the size of the supply team in order to deal with the additional administration, costs and duties associated with Britain’s exit from the customs union.

“In the UK specifically, we have the obvious challenges involved in dealing with constantly changing exchange rates, coupled with the post-Brexit burden of having to pay import duties twice on a number of products (once as goods enter the EU, and again once they enter the UK).”

The research findings were shown to Zara but the retailer declined to comment.

The survey had substantial limitations: it only compared prices on a relatively small number of identical items at each retailer, and comparative prices for the UK are subject to change according to daily fluctuations in the euro-sterling exchange rate.

But it was notable that shoppers in Britain are paying either significantly more, or largely the same, as shoppers elsewhere in Europe. Rarely did we find examples of prices that were lower in the UK than on the continent.
... ... ... ... [A lot of detailed examples in the report]

Neither the French nor any other EU member state (except Ireland) is allowed to permit British people to pass freely through an external European Union border, such as those installed at Dover and Folkestone.

In the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with Brussels, the UK government asked for British travellers to be treated as “third-country nationals” – requiring all passports to be checked and stamped.

Previously, French frontier officials were able to exercise discretion and wave motorists through.
[...]
This morning Mr Rees-Mogg echoed the view of other senior Tories, including Jeremy Hunt, that the French are responsible for hold-ups.

The minister for Brexit opportunities said: “They have decided to do that. They failed to get people to turn up and that is what caused delays in Dover.”

“If the French don’t operate the system properly, we get the delays,” he added.

“British people might think that going to Portugal is more fun because the Portuguese want us to go and the French are being very difficult.

“Why should we go and spend our hard-earned money in France with the French don’t want us?

“Portugal has made e-gates available to British tourists and there is something to be said for supporting people who support you.”

Many European Union nations allow UK visitors to use e-gates, but the arrivals must then queue up for their passports to be stamped.

Later another LBC presenter, James O’Brien, said: “Jacob Rees-Mogg is humiliating himself every time he opens his mouth.

Isn't it the shits when there are no good candidates?