Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

1. WHITEHALL SABOTAGE. If we’re making no progress in trade negotiations, that’s because the civil service is doing its best to scupper a successful Brexit. That power-crazed madman Jeremy Heywood will stop at nothing to ensure he is bossed by Brussels, and the snooty bastards at the Treasury are working to subvert the national will out of spite. Even as our finest ministers strive manfully to cut Britannia free of its enslaving chains, all they hear from functionaries is “It’s a bit more complicated than that”. It’s only complicated because they want it to be.

2. REMAINERS TALKING DOWN THE COUNTRY. God knows we tried to reach out to them, with our gently teasing admonitions for being elitist snobs who just needed to get over it. But did they concede that a glorious future is at hand, if only we all wish for it? No, my friends, they did not. Instead, they sulkily point out how the things they predicted would happen are in fact happening, as if this somehow proves they were right. And since, inexplicably, the world agrees them, the whiners’ prophecy is being fulfilled.

3. THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. It appears the UK economy has sunk into a recession. Now, the whiners will tell you that this has got something to do with the vast uncertainty created by taking a fundamental decision about the nation’s future without a clue about how to implement it. In reality, of course, the recession has been caused by the same global economic headwinds that had absolutely nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis, which was all Gordon Brown's fault.

4. ECONOMISTS. Since they nearly all said that Britain would be worse off if it voted Out, they now feel compelled to tell us that things are indeed worse. OK, maybe they are worse. But think about it: if we hadn’t voted Out, the economy might be even more calamitously buggered than it is now. This is logically unassailable. But do economists ever point it out? Do they Brussels. Yet sadly, global businesses, investors, consumers, and lots of other people who frankly lack gumption or vision, take these so-called experts seriously.

5. MARK CARNEY. Let’s get this straight: the Canadian governor of the Bank of England doesn’t want Britain to succeed, because then we’d be a direct competitor to his motherland. But with his honeyed voice and perpendicular jaw and incessant references to “data”, this man has gone a long way to convincing much of the public that he is some kind of disinterested authority on Britain’s economy. In reality, of course, he is out to destroy it, and seems to be making a pretty good fist of doing so.

6. EU BUREAUCRATS. You know those people we spent years attacking for being interfering, self-enriching, incompetent fools? Turns out they are now keen to make our lives as difficult as possible. The way to deal with this, of course, is to mount a national campaign of vilification. Another one. Before long they will be begging for mercy.

7. THERESA MAY. Look, we all wanted her to succeed. We knew she wasn’t one of us, but she wasn’t exactly one of them either, so we gave her a chance. Yet perhaps it is time to admit the possibility that the Prime Minister isn’t making this work because, when it comes down to it, she just doesn’t share our blood-pumping, sap-extruding belief in Britain unbound. In short, she’s just too damn reasonable. It’s time to embrace the unreasonable man. What’s Boris doing these days?

8. THOSE OTHER BREXITEERS (i). Not only can we not get the Remainers to present a united front to Brussels, it seems that we can’t even rely on our fellow Brexiteers. Most of us are on the same page: take back control of our borders, blue passports, compulsory blazers, onwards and upwards to the sunlit uplands. But there are some among our own ranks who frankly don’t get it. These latte-sipping media types simper on endlessly about the importance of retaining access to the single market and seem awfully keen on Norway. Why don’t they just go and join Remain?

9. THOSE OTHER BREXITEERS (ii). Hey guys, the problem is this: Brexit got hijacked by the roast beef and two veg brigade, OK? For us it was always about unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit, shaking off the dead hand of Eurocrat regulation, being more human, that kind of thing. We had to go along with all that anti-immigration stuff but believe me we were biting our tongues and crossing our fingers. Some of our best friends are Turkish.

10. NONSENSE, IT IS WORKING.

From Brexit-lite in the EEA to full Brexit with tariffs, the UK will have two years to negotiate once article 50 is triggered

Britain will have two years to negotiate its preferred relationship with the EU after triggering article 50, the formal mechanism for leaving. Civil servants and ministers are currently working on the basis of three broad scenarios for Brexit with differing levels of access to the single market and acceptance of free movement.

1. Brexit-lite (Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein model)
Many pro-EU campaigners are hoping the UK may be able to get away with staying part of the European Economic Area. This would mean the UK still had access to the single market, with no tariffs on most goods (except much of agriculture and fisheries). Essentially, it would pay into the EU for this privilege and abide by many EU trade laws, but without participation in Brussels.

However, the catch is that the EU would almost certainly demand a continuation of free movement, which is unacceptable to many of those who campaigned and voted for Brexit. It is the model thought to be favoured by the Treasury, which is concerned about the economic impact of leaving the single market, but not contemplated by a number of other ministers who believe it is not tenable to maintain current border arrangements with the EU.

2. Customised Brexit (Switzerland, Turkey or Canada models)
This appears to be the scenario most favoured by Downing Street, as Theresa May has said she wants a bespoke relationship with the EU for the UK, rather than the inflexibility of an off-the-shelf relationship. While some EU countries have cautioned the UK it cannot expect an “a la carte” approach of picking and choosing what it wants from Brussels, others – such as Germany – have sounded more open to creating a special new relationship. In this situation, divorce from the EU would probably be relatively amicable and require a negotiated free trade agreement.

For example, Canada’s deal with the EU, which took years to agree, offers tariff-free access for most goods, but not a number of agricultural products and not on car exports for seven years. Withdrawing from the official single market would allow Britain to end the current free movement arrangements for EU citizens. However, those rights would probably end up becoming a key plank of trade negotiations, with issues such as EU citizens’ access to benefits, healthcare and the right to move to the UK for work all up for discussion.

3. Full Brexit (Russia or Brazil model)
If the UK falls out with the EU, it may end up defaulting to trade relations on World Trade Organisation terms. This would only happen in the event of a messy parting in which the two sides cannot agree terms or an extension of negotiations within two years of triggering article 50.

The UK would have the flexibility to impose tariffs on the EU and the EU would be able to do so back to the UK, which could raise prices of consumer goods. Britain would also be able to comprehensively end free movement of EU citizens, and would have to make decisions about the terms of their right to remain in the UK.

Britain and the US are thick as thieves; The LIBOR scandal will show that, if anyone's interested in looking.

We must continue to be very clear that “Brexit means Brexit”, that we’re going to make a success of it. That means there’s no second referendum; no attempts to sort of stay in the EU by the back door; that we’re actually going to deliver on this.

- The cabinet has agreed that getting a Brexit deal that will allow the UK to control immigration will take precedence over getting a deal that gives full access to the single market. That is the implication of the statement that the deal “must mean controls on the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe but also a positive outcome for those who wish to trade goods and services.” The word “controls” is specific; the phrase “positive outcome” is vague, and could mean very little.

- MPs will not get a vote on the decision to invoke article 50, triggering the formal two-year EU withdrawal process, the cabinet has confirmed.

- Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be consulted over Brexit, but will not get a veto, the cabinet has confirmed.

A spokesperson for the prime minister has issued a statement about what was discussed at the political cabinet - the phase of today’s cabinet meeting set aside for party political matters. The spokesperson said:

"The prime minister chaired political cabinet at Chequers this afternoon.
The meeting began with a discussion led by Patrick McLoughlin. He spoke about the strength of the Conservative party, with membership growing by almost 50,000 over the summer. Looking ahead to conference he announced the largest attendance in over a decade and that the theme would be “A country that works for everyone”. The prime minister added this reflected the fact that we are a united party and a united government, getting on with the job of delivering on the issues that British people care about. This was contrasted with the inward looking and divided opposition.
It was agreed that the opening day of conference would be about global Britain - showing that we are more outward looking than ever before. In a discussion about Brexit the PM said that there were two related imperatives: getting the best deal for people at home, and getting the right deal for Britain abroad.
There was a strong emphasis on pushing ahead to article 50 to lead Britain successfully out of the European Union - with no need for a parliamentary vote.
Furthermore, several cabinet members made it clear that we are leaving the EU but not leaving Europe, with a decisive view that the model we are seeking is one unique to the United Kingdom and not an off the shelf solution. This must mean controls on the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe but also a positive outcome for those who wish to trade goods and services.
On the agenda and discussed at length was the commitment to the devolved nations to make sure that Brexit works for all - but cabinet members were clear that it is the United Kingdom’s government’s decision to establish its terms and on when to trigger article 50."

Since Britain’s vote in June to quit the European Union, its government has promised repeatedly to make a success of withdrawal, known as Brexit.

More than two months later, however, it still cannot say how.
[...]
British officials currently have neither the expertise nor the staff for the tortuous exit negotiations, which are likely to last at least three years and possibly much longer. Some analysts have even said they might take a decade.

But perhaps what they lack most of all is a game plan.

“At the moment, they haven’t got a clue,” said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a London-based research institute. “It is such a difficult challenge with such disparate leaders at the top of government, with such different views, that they are trying to work out how to respond.”
[...]
British officials currently have neither the expertise nor the staff for the tortuous exit negotiations, which are likely to last at least three years and possibly much longer. Some analysts have even said they might take a decade.

Supporters of leaving the bloc say that Britain’s economic muscle will allow it to negotiate a better deal. (Mr. Johnson has said that his “policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it.”) But there is no sign yet that the European Union will breach its principles by allowing Britain full market access without the usual quid pro quos on issues like freedom of movement.

One British strategy would be setting political objectives — like regaining national sovereignty, rejecting free movement and renouncing the right of the European Court of Justice to trump British law — and fitting the economy around such aims.

The alternative tactic would be to prioritize key economic sectors — particularly London’s financial services industry — and to try to retain as much access to the single market as possible, while compromising only the minimum over free movement, European law and budget contributions.
[...]
“What is interesting, is how little Theresa May has said,” said Anand Menon, professor of European politics and foreign affairs at King’s College London. “It would be good to get some sense of whether the government wants absolutely no free movement of workers or is willing to accept some free movement; do they want to retain passporting? Is the priority to avoid a situation where there are tariffs on cars?”

Some wonder how useful access to the single market would prove in the long run, even if it could be negotiated. That is because Europe’s market is not written in stone but is the sum of various European laws, many of which are updated regularly.

For example, the passporting rights prized by London’s financial sector are based on at least nine separate pieces of European legislation, any of which can be amended.

When Britain quits the bloc, it will have no vote on how those laws are updated or how new ones are framed, and legislation could easily be skewed to favor competitors in Dublin, Frankfurt, Milan or Paris. That fear has prompted British banks to press for legal agreements to prevent unilateral European changes to any new rules on market access — a clear sign of the risks they face.

“The single market is dynamic and not static,” said Mr. Grant, adding that countries like France and Germany “would say, ‘We will listen to your views, but we will write the rules.’ ”

Over all, Mr. Grant said that for Britain, “the trade-offs will be painful, and that’s why the government has said very little: It doesn’t want to admit that it is in a pickle.”

I agree with O'George, and said in these fora many years ago that the lack of provision for national sovereignty would haunt the EU.

“But I won’t pretend it is all going to be plain sailing. There will be some difficult times ahead. We will be looking ahead to the autumn statement. So in terms of how we are going to position things, the detail will be coming out then. What I’m clear about is I am going to continue as we have done in government over the last six years ensuring we are going to live within our means.”

European Council President Donald Tusk said there will be no negotiations with Britain on the terms of its departure from the EU until the Government formally invokes the two-year leaving process.

Speaking in Hangzhou, Mr Tusk said such pre-negotiations are not in the interests of the remaining 27 EU members.

"We need to protect the interests of the members of the EU that want to stay together, not the one which wants to leave," he said.

“But I won’t pretend it is all going to be plain sailing."

The lack of any provision for national sovereignty, ...