Welcome to the Guardian's weekly Brexit briefing, a summary of developments as the UK gallops towards the EU door marked "exit". If you would like to receive it as a weekly email, please sign up here. The Brexit briefing is taking a two-week break and will be back on 7 January. In the meantime, you can listen to our latest Brexit Means podcast. Also: producing the Guardian's independent, in-depth journalism takes a lot of time and money. We do it because we believe our perspective matters – and it may be your perspective, too. If you value our Brexit coverage, please become a Guardian Supporter and help make our future more secure. Thank you. The big picture So now the hard bit starts. Eighteen months after the referendum and 16 months before the UK formally leaves the EU, Theresa May's government will finally have to discuss what it wants Brexit to mean – and what it will give up to get it. The EU27 ruled at their Brussels summit last week that sufficient progress had been made on the three key points of the divorce talks – citizens' rights, the Irish border and the financial settlement – to allow negotiations to move on to discussions about a transition period and Britain's future outside the bloc. It marked a major step forward for Brexit and a real achievement for the prime minister, who the day before the summit had suffered a humiliating defeat in the Commons over a meaningful vote for MPs on the final deal. Eleven Conservative rebels, led by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve, backed an amendment to May's flagship European Union withdrawal bill, handing the government – by 309 votes to 305 – its first Commons defeat over Brexit. Now May must try to pull together her deeply divided cabinet to come up with what the EU27 are demanding before March, when they are prepared to start proper trade talks: a clear vision of how the UK sees the desired end state of Brexit. The conundrum remains: align standards and regulations, prioritise access to the single market and sacrifice control over laws and borders, or diverge from EU standards, control laws and borders and sacrifice privileged single market access? The EU has made plain that the UK cannot do both. Squaring the circle is not going to be easy. Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has promised to present his vision of a "liberal" Brexit in the coming days that avoids Britain becoming what he has called a "vassal state" of the the EU.
Meanwhile, the Tory rebels who defeated the government last week are urging May to face down the hardliners, reach out to Labour and form a cross-party alliance for a soft Brexit that would enjoy the support of a large majority in the Commons. The transition period, the top priority for January, is already the subject of an almighty row, with the chancellor, Philip Hammond, saying single market and customs union rules will of course still apply – as the EU27 have said – and the former Brexit minister David Jones describing that as "anathema". Have a good festive break; it's going to be a full-on new year. The view from Europe The EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, gave us a taste of what is to come, telling the Guardian that Britain cannot have a special trade deal allowing financial services firms in the City to trade freely in the EU: There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn't exist. [This is a consequence of] the red lines that the British have chosen themselves. In leaving the single market, they lose the financial services passport. Given Britain's red lines, the only feasible deal would be one similar to the Canada-EU Ceta deal, Barnier said, with extra non-economic cooperation on judicial affairs, defence and security, and aviation. Barnier also said a trade deal could be agreed within a strict two-year transition period but would have to be ratified by more than 35 national and regional parliaments, and that the UK must follow all EU rules and regulations during that transition period. Trade agreements with the rest of the world could be negotiated but would not be allowed to enter into force during that time, he added. Stefaan de Rynck, Barnier's chief adviser, made the EU's position on a few points quite clear too, in an event at Chatham House. Businesses would only get absolute certainty about a Brexit transition – which, incidentally, he said was not yet "a given" – when the withdrawal agreement was finalised, probably in October 2018, he said. The UK would have to accept new rules that came into force during the transition period, he said, and while it would get a "bespoke" trade deal in the sense that it would not be exactly the same deal as, for example, Canada's, it could not have access to the single market just for some sectors of the economy. Meanwhile, back in Westminster To lose a vote on one amendment to the EU withdrawal bill could seem bad luck (or perhaps bad counting); to lose two would be downright careless, and the government has apparently decided not to risk it. With the marathon committee stage of the bill (when amendments are submitted) finally coming to an end this week, ministers have backed down on plans to enshrine in law the Brexit date as 29 March 2019. Critics had complained that this was both pointless and overly inflexible, with Tory MPs threatening to rebel in sufficient numbers to repeat the defeat the government took last week. While No 10 has yet to officially say it is backing down, it is understood May will support a compromise whereby the date will stay in place but with the caveat that MPs can push it back as needed if the EU27 agree. Elsewhere, the repercussions of last week's rebellion were continuing, and not in a good way: several of the 11 Tory MPs who voted against the government disclosed that they had received threats and abuse. Grieve, whose amendment it was that passed, said he had reported death threats to the police and blamed the vitriol of the pro-Brexit media. Another MP, Anna Soubry, was sent multiple messages saying she should be hanged as a traitor. She said newspapers who had referred to Brexit "mutineers" and the like had "frankly lost the plot" and had helped inspire such emotions. You should also know: Read these … In the Guardian, Martin Kettle argues that the government's Commons defeat last week opened up new and far-reaching possibilities, of a second referendum and indeed the whole leaving process coming off the rails: The passing of the Grieve amendment is a big moment for May and for the Tory party. It may be a freak high tide of revolt against May's Brexit strategy. Alternatively, it may be a watershed moment after which the whole landscape of Brexit options looks different. Boris Johnson said yesterday that Brexit was unstoppable. Well he would, wouldn't he? But the events of this week have actually raised the opposite possibility – that May's Brexit can be still be changed, and perhaps even stopped. Matthew d'Ancona reckons Brexit's new political lexicon – "vassal states", "traitors" and "enemies of the people" – is a reminder of the dangers of populism: Whether or not this counts for much on Twitter and Snapchat, the fact remains that sovereignty lies with the Queen-in-Parliament. It is sensationally unfashionable to say so, but I am not sure that what is loosely called "the sovereignty of the people" is such a good thing. Since Rousseau hailed the "general will", the history of those who have declared themselves its authentic voice has been, shall we say, patchy. The 20th century was an object lesson in the perils of populism and the autocracy and fascism it so easily leads towards ... The next time you hear someone claiming to speak for "the people" – and you will – be sure to count the democratic silver. Tweet of the week The Guardian's sketch writer John Crace, creator of "the Maybot", is not optimistic: | 
Posts
Theresa May in Downing Street. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images 
No comments:
Post a Comment