Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

These aren’t hard Brexiters. They’re political extremists
[...]
Frankly, we were mourning already, and few of us had any illusions about Johnson himself, who tries on opinions like clothes, discarding them as the mood and weather takes him. He essayed this “ho, for the open seas!” garb apparently for fun, and finds himself thrust on to the world stage dressed as a clown. So you could say he’s already had his comeuppance; whether he’ll ever have the self-awareness to realise it is merely a coda to this disaster.

None of the arguments in his remain column are surprising. He pointed out that there would probably be an economic shock, which was obvious. He raised the prospects of a disgruntled Scotland, an emboldened Russia, a Europe in which your children and grandchildren aren’t free to work, to sell things, to make friends, to find partners – all true, none of it original.
[...]
No serious government would have Johnson in its cabinet, but would that he were an aberration. Theresa May’s appointments – most recently, the announcement of her European Union exit and trade committee – are all made to appease the most extreme elements of her party. Boris Johnson, David Davis, Liam Fox, Chris Grayling, Andrea Leadsom, Amber Rudd, Priti Patel, Patrick McLoughlin – leaving aside the specific deficiencies of each character, they are all known now as “hard Brexiters”, for which the umbrella term is “political extremists”.
[...]
First, we must evaluate what the leave side set out to solve: a dislike of Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker; a generalised anxiety that the government kept promising to control its borders but didn’t seem able to; some confusion around laws concerning the shape of bananas, created by Boris Johnson (the confusion, not the laws); a desire to control things that no nation alone can control (how much its currency is worth relative to others; who wants to invest in it; mass movements of people escaping conflict).

Only now does the picture solidify: we are in the grip of the most fervent radicals, people willing to sacrifice everything – grants, investment, trade, security, standing, solidarity, legal apparatus built up by decades of painstaking cooperation – at the altar of a concept (sovereignty) that nobody really understands, and a principle (taking back control) that is abstract to the point of meaninglessness.
[...]
Other qualities attached to extremism are less evident: you’d expect the hard Brexiters to be taking delight in their own victory, where instead there is only a querulous obsession with naysayers. You’d think, given the burning fury of their convictions, that they would be overflowing with plans, yet the plan extends no further than to protect themselves from scrutiny and debate. You’d hope for consistency and coherence; in its place, the bizarre spectacle of a party claiming to have been against the single market all along, because Michael Gove once said so.

To be simultaneously so certain, and yet so chaotic, is perhaps an inevitable condition for extremists, but one you’d only see when doomed to observe them at close range. The question is not whether they can last, but how much damage they can do before they fall.

Solicitors rush to register with Law Society of Ireland as only those based in EU states can appear at the European court of justice

More than 700 British solicitors have applied to register with the Law Society of Ireland this year as lawyers scramble to secure professional rights of audience in European courts.

The precautionary investment, which cost each applicant about £300, is a way of guaranteeing access to the higher EU courts and tribunals in Luxembourg that deal with community law, which would be lost in the event of Brexit. Only lawyers from EU states can appear at the European court of justice.
[...]
Stephen Denyer, the director of strategic relationships at the Law Society of England and Wales, said: “It’s a long-established practice for English solicitors to qualify as Irish solicitors. It works in both directions. We fully understand why these solicitors would think it was a useful insurance policy. No one knows actually what Brexit is going to look like.”

Mickael Laurans, the head of the Law Society of England and Wales’s Brussels office, said: “A lot of people are applying. There’s a next step in order to practise but a lot of them are not going the full way and obtaining [an Irish] practising certificate. Maybe it’s an insurance policy.”

Senior Conservative MPs fighting a hard Brexit have seized on a forgotten Government promise to let Parliament decide the response to any referendum result.

Ministers agreed, exactly six years ago, that referendums “cannot be legally binding” – which meant MPs and peers should decide “whether or not to take action” on the verdict given by voters.

The Prime Minister is locked in a court battle for the right to use the ancient royal prerogative – legal authority derived from the Crown – to trigger the Article 50 withdrawal process, ignoring Parliament.

But, in October 2010, David Cameron’s Government stated exactly the opposite in a little-noticed response to an inquiry by a House of Lords committee.

That inquiry concluded that “because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory”.

In response, then-constitutional reform minister Mark Harper stated: “The Government agrees with this recommendation.

“Under the UK’s constitutional arrangements, Parliament must be responsible for deciding whether or not to take action in response to a referendum result.” ... ... ...

MPs worried about a hard Brexit have stressed their aim is not to derail Brexit, but to ensure proper Parliamentary involvement in the decisions that will follow.

In 2010, the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution also stated, on referendum results: “It would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.”

Asked why the Government had changed its position since 2010, a spokesman for the Prime Minister, said: “Parliament voted by a majority of six to one to hold the referendum – and it is a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party to deliver on its outcome.

“Triggering Article 50 is therefore something for the Government to deliver.”

Under pressure from MPs last week, Ms May said they had numerous opportunities to “discuss, debate, question” her strategy, insisting: “Parliament's going to have every opportunity to debate this issue.”

Petition
Amend the Treason Felony Act to make supporting UK membership of the EU a crime.

The Treason Felony Act be amended to include the following offences:
'To imagine, devise, promote, work, or encourage others, to support UK becoming a member of the European Union;
- To conspire with foreign powers to make the UK, or part of the UK, become a member of the EU.'

More details
It is becoming clear that many politicians and others are unwilling to accept the democratic decision of the British people to leave the EU. Brexit must not be put at risk in the years and decades ahead. For this reason we the undersigned request that the Treason Felony Act be amended as set out in this petition.

(These provisions to become law the day the United Kingdom leaves the EU).

A lawyer representing the UK Government has said it is "very likely" MPs will be able to vote on the final Brexit agreement between the UK and the European Union. ... ... ...

Downing Street has since confirmed that he was representing the Government's position.

The judges have said they will rule on the historic legal challenge "as quickly as possible".

Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales reserved their decision on Tuesday at the end of a three-day hearing.

After hearing closing submissions from lawyers at the High Court in London, Lord Thomas announced: "We shall take time to consider the matter and give our judgment as quickly as possible."
[...]
Because of the urgency and constitutional importance of the case, any appeal is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, before the end of the year.

Theresa May has been given a stark warning from both Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande that Britain faces a “rough” and “hard” negotiation as she pursues a tough approach to Brexit negotiations including a clampdown on immigration.

The prime minister updated her fellow leaders with a short speech on Britain’s plans for leaving the EU after a dinner of scallops, lamb and iced vanilla parfait in Brussels that had been dominated by a tense debate on Russia.

No EU leader responded to May, following the lead of the European council president, Donald Tusk, who had wanted to avoid discussion of Brexit.

Speaking after the summit, Merkel said the speech repeated what EU leaders already knew but was nevertheless important.
...
Earlier in the day the French president said the EU was prepared to make things difficult for the UK if May pursued a tough approach to Brexit negotiations.

“I said very firmly: Theresa May wants a hard Brexit? The negotiation will be hard,” said Hollande.
[...]

As Merkel has caused some real problems within EU, she should not now start playing the tough guy.

1. Hard and tough and take years of nastiness.

2.Fair and correct and making the best of the situation

3. It does not come to divorce (Brexit) at all.

What about Brits in EU? Do they have to leave too?
Some sort of exchange of people? One Brit for one EU national?

A leading cabinet minister has warned the House of Lords that its future is at risk if it tries to block Brexit.

The senior figure said the government may have to "do a Lloyd George" and flood the upper House with friendly peers if those already there undermine the drive to implement the EU referendum result.

Some Tories in the Lords, where Conservatives are in a minority, have demanded Theresa May let Parliament vote on her preferred Brexit deal before talks with the EU begin. If she refuses, they have threatened to stymie other pieces of legislation the government needs to pass through the Lords to make Brexit happen.

But the cabinet minister told The Independent: "Unelected peers should think very carefully about defying a decision taken by the public in a referendum.

"We might have to do a Lloyd George and create a thousand peers."

As a Liberal Chancellor, George threatened to flood the Lords with new peers who would pass his "People's Budget" of 1909, when the existing Tory–dominated House refused.

... ... ...