Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

23 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Time for you leavers to stop talking in terms of dreamlike hopes and start telling us what information you have that the business committee doesn't have that would suggest they're wrong.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/brexit-car-industry-no-deal-thousands-jobs-risk-millions-investment-business-committee-warn-a8233506.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

We could subsidise car exports if we can’t get a fta, nobody cares about the car industry anyway it will be fully robotic in the next couple of decades.

[Guest MattP]

Can anyone square how the EU can come up with this document on Northern Ireland given the wording of paragraph 45 of the agreement signed in December? 

 

As an aside it was wonderful to watch Labour (Barry Gardner) using the "they sell more to us than we sell to them" argument yesterday when asked why the EU would give us a bespoke customs deal with trade influence after spending the last 18 months arguing against that whenever a Tory Brexiteer mentioned it as clout in negotiation. Bravo.

 

This is going to get weirder.

Edited 1 March 2018 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

39 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Sorry mate, didn't mean to sound rude.

 

The issue with the Labour policy is that it wasn't at all defined what "a new customs union" is. If it's the same as the current customs union, why not just remain in the EU CU? Otherwise we might expect some changes, but what changes are they? For example, Corbyn says he wants . I wish everyone would just set out their ideas so I could see them all, it's so painful having to try and dissect every single speech for any hint of policy. In fairness to Labour, the government's position is just as ambiguous!

 

I suspect by "a customs union" they mean something along the lines of what we currently have, so that would preclude being able to create our own trade agreements, but having no say whatsoever on the agreements that are made on our behalf.

 

I never really had Major as a PM in my memory (was too young at the time), but I grew up with Blair, Brown, Cameron and now May, and personally I didn't like Cameron at all. For all the faults I see in Major at least he stood up for his beliefs, to my eyes Cameron had none of his own beliefs. That's without going into Major's personal background and his struggle itself, which is admirable to say the least. Maybe it's because I never really saw him as PM that my views are skewed to the negative, nobody really discusses the general good any PM does, the negative gets much more airtime.

 

No problem.

 

I've not seen Corbyn's speech, but Starmer said that "a customs union" would effectively be near-identical to "the EU customs union":https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/25/labour-backs-staying-in-eu-customs-union-keir-starmer-confirms. Only EU members and a few minor territories are in the EU CU, so presumably Labour believes it's impossible to stay in that. There's another, more limited EU Customs Union with Turkey, which Labour is not advocating.

 

But there's another reason for Labour's parallel Customs Union.....

The main change Starmer mentioned was that he'd want the UK to have input into external trade agreements signed jointly by the EU/UK with third countries. Whether the EU would agree to that is anyone's guess. On the face of it, it seems unlikely. But Labour policy otherwise is to be in an identical customs union, to keep close to single market regulations (while leaving SM & abandoning free movement) and not to deregulate to undercut the EU on employment, social and environmental standards....so it may not be as impossible an ambition as it might seem. Maybe the EU would agree that? We'll only find out if the govt falls and Corbyn ends up in Downing St within the next year. The problem is firmly in the Tories' in-tray for now.

 

Of course, Hard Brexiteers will not like even the compromise of joint EU/UK external trade deals. They'll believe that the UK can negotiate better external trade deals than the EU. Personally, I struggle to see how the UK, a single nation of 65m could hope to even match the deals done by the EU, a bloc of 500m+ people with, by definition, a bigger potential for trade and a wider array of output. That's unless it slashes tariffs/regulations for foreign business, which will have obvious implications for tax take, public spending  and social/employment/environmental standards.... But that's a matter opinion.

 

In truth, I think Major was neither brilliant nor disastrous - and he had a difficult hand to play (as did Cameron, to be fair). Major got a lot of stick as he seemed a dull if decent man, with a reedy voice, but it was members of his own party who caused a lot of his problems - and not just Brexiteers, there were a series of personal scandals (e.g. Mellor). I wonder how his affair with Edwina would have been greeted - as another "Back to Basics" scandal or showing him as a more interesting character than we'd realised? Cameron was a smooth PR man, like Blair, but will go down in history with a very bad record, whereas Blair's record will be more mixed (disastrous policy in Iraq, under-achievement re. incomes/equality, cock-up over immigration, but N. Ireland peace agreement - for which Major also deserves credit - and many years of economic stability & increased social spending).

 

Edited 1 March 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We could subsidise car exports if we can’t get a fta, nobody cares about the car industry anyway it will be fully robotic in the next couple of decades.

The 900,000 Brits employed in the industry would probably beg to differ.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

But there's another reason for Labour's parallel Customs Union.....

The main change Starmer mentioned was that he'd want the UK to have input into external trade agreements signed jointly by the EU/UK with third countries. Whether the EU would agree to that is anyone's guess.

I think unlikely is optimistic, may as well believe in unicorns if people think the EU will let us join them for trade negotiation as part of a customs union.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Can anyone square how the EU can come up with this document on Northern Ireland given the wording of paragraph 45 of the agreement signed in December? 

 

As an aside it was wonderful to watch Labour (Barry Gardner) using the "they sell more to us than we sell to them" argument yesterday when asked why the EU would give us a bespoke customs deal with trade influence after spending the last 18 months arguing against that whenever a Tory Brexiteer mentioned it as clout in negotiation. Bravo.

 

This is going to get weirder.

At the same time though the Tories agreed to iy in phase 1. It was along the lines of we'll have a solution or if not stay as we are. It suggested the whole uk would stay on regulatory alignment but I believe the EU has only included n.Ireland within the wording as it considers whether or not the UK and n.Ireland are aligned to be an internal uk matter.

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

At the same time though the Tories agreed to iy in phase 1. It was along the lines of we'll have a solution or if not stay as we are. It suggested the whole uk would stay on regulatory alignment but I believe the EU has only included n.Ireland within the wording as it considers whether or not the UK and n.Ireland are aligned to be an internal uk matter.

Can you post that Todd?

 

I've not seen that, but if so it seems the agreement was rushed through by both sides without much thought or clarity.

 

The EU must have known when they produced that paper yesterda no British government could ever agree to it.

Edited 1 March 2018 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think unlikely is optimistic, may as well believe in unicorns if people think the EU will let us join them for trade negotiation as part of a customs union.

 

You might be right. I've no idea. My impression was that Starmer wanted input before the EU negotiated the external deal, not joint negotiations....though the EU might not even accept that. But even if you are right, for now Corbyn has the "advantage" of not being in power. Someone on here said the other day that Labour was also wanting to "have its cake and eat it" but just wanted a different "Labour cake". A good image and might be right. I guess we'll only find out if May's govt falls and Labour form the next govt. For now, it's May's unrealistic proposals that are up for negotiation with the EU....

 

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

I've not seen that, but if so it seems the agreement was rushed through by both sides without much thought or clarity.

 

The EU must have known when they produced that paper yesterda no British government could ever agree to it.

 

The 3-option scenario, with NI staying in the Customs Union as fall-back third option, does seem to be established fact. I remember being surprised at May signing up to that in December.

 

I presume May hoped to kick the Irish border can down the road a bit, hoping to get onto talks about the transition and the post-Brexit trade deal in the meantime.

I don't know whether she hoped that a technological solution might turn up, precluding any need for the convergence-or-border dilemma. Otherwise, maybe she hoped to gain concessions on the post-Brexit trade deal that would allow her to sell the NI climbdown to her party and voters, if not to the DUP? Or maybe she hopes that the EU will agree to renege on the border deal - that the UK and EU will jointly sell out the Republic of Ireland? I don't see any of those 3 hopes as realistic, but might be wrong.

Edited 1 March 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

You might be right. I've no idea. My impression was that Starmer wanted input before the EU negotiated the external deal, not joint negotiations....though they might not even accept that. But even if you are right, for now Corbyn has the "advantage" of not being in power. Someone on here said the other day that Labour was also wanting to "have its cake and eat it" but just wanted a different "Labour cake". A good image and might be right. I guess we'll only find out if May's govt falls and Labour form the next govt.

 

The 3-option scenario, with NI staying in the Customs Union as fall-back third option, does seem to be established fact. I remember being surprised at May signing up to that in December.

 

I presume May hoped to kick the Irish border can down the road a bit, hoping to get onto talks about the transition and the post-Brexit trade deal in the meantime.

I don't know whether she hoped that a technological solution might turn up, precluding any need for the convergence-or-border dilemma. Otherwise, maybe she hoped to gain concessions on the post-Brexit trade deal that would allow her to sell the NI climbdown to her party and voters, if not to the DUP? Or maybe she hopes that the EU will agree to renege on the border deal - that the UK and EU will jointly sell out the Republic of Ireland? I don't see any of those 3 hopes as realistic, but might be wrong.

That's the beauty of any Labour policy on Europe now, no matter how fanciful they can say "we hope to agree...." and propose it, for the Tories it has to actually be serious, workable and of course, be negotiated. Andrew Neil explained it far better than me yesterday but they are basically asking for more than Paris has whilst bing outside the EU.

 

I remember reading the document back in December but I can't remember any of the details, I can't really be bothered to go through it all again, I can't see the logic in agreeing to anything that the DUP won't agree with, even with the support of Tory and Labour MP's for a deal where Northern Ireland has a different customs system that she could get through parliament, it would result in the collapse of the confidence and supply agreement.

 

It's a strong play from the EU though, I think it's totally immoral but they have certainly put the all the pressure now onto the British government, May is going to have to come up with something to solve this in the speech tomorrow, this is the most important speech she will make in her life. Let's see what she has got, get this wrong and it's unforgivable.

[Nick]

For me, the vote has happened and I doubt there will be a second referendum but I do wonder if the deal that is finally struck will be upheld by parliament vote - I do wonder if by then what has been negotiated will look like a looming economic crisis by then.

 

If we are leaving, I disagree but so be it - what I want now and have wanted for some time is a convincing strategy, strategists, negotiators and some real idea of the options and consequences. Sadly we seem to be bumbling forward in a rather amateurish way arguing amongst parties, the public, press and it feels all rather blind. I was angry that Article 50 was triggered so quickly despite the mountain of work to be untangled ahead looking impossible to complete in the timeframe, it just seemingly was an act to uphold democratic values and the will of the people rather than a realistic response to the challenges ahead and the timeframes required.

 

I read a few different brevet related articles each day from various sources and its all back biting, cat scratching, semantics, digs and constant political soundbites somehow designed to keep us all convinced of our own beliefs rather than any substance of answers for the general public.

 

I just feel despair and apathy right now and just want to be convinced that the future might contain something other than a large economic crash as we get toward and beyond leaving. Love to have the same confidence in those negotiating on the British side as I do the European.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

That's the beauty of any Labour policy on Europe now, no matter how fanciful they can say "we hope to agree...." and propose it, for the Tories it has to actually be serious, workable and of course, be negotiated. Andrew Neil explained it far better than me yesterday but they are basically asking for more than Paris has whilst bing outside the EU.

 

I remember reading the document back in December but I can't remember any of the details, I can't really be bothered to go through it all again, I can't see the logic in agreeing to anything that the DUP won't agree with, even with the support of Tory and Labour MP's for a deal where Northern Ireland has a different customs system that she could get through parliament, it would result in the collapse of the confidence and supply agreement.

 

It's a strong play from the EU though, I think it's totally immoral but they have certainly put the all the pressure now onto the British government, May is going to have to come up with something to solve this in the speech tomorrow, this is the most important speech she will make in her life. Let's see what she has got, get this wrong and it's unforgivable.

 

That's the difference between being in government and in opposition generally, I suppose. In opposition you just have to appeal to voters, but in govt you have to implement your policies.

 

I'm not familiar with the EU process prior to signing external trade deals but presume all the EU nations have input via EU institutions....though it would certainly be unrealistic of Labour to expect greater input than other EU nations. I'm sure the EU would never agree to that - but maybe they'd agree to the UK making submissions to EU institutions (possibly without voting rights, though, as non-EU members)? I do take the point, though, that Labour's policy may be as unrealistic as the Tory policy.

 

I don't see how the EU move can be deemed immoral if it's only formalising something that May signed up to - cunning, perhaps, but maybe the UK needs to be a bit more cunning?

 

I agree that the stakes are getting higher all the time - and May's speech will be fascinating. I don't know how long the rebel amendment on the Customs Union has been postponed for, do you? Some commentator was saying the other day that under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, May cannot make that a vote of confidence. Although they were saying that she could call on her party to "back me or sack me", as Major did, by resigning as party leader and then re-standing immediately, challenging any rivals to stand against her...

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

For me, the vote has happened and I doubt there will be a second referendum but I do wonder if the deal that is finally struck will be upheld by parliament vote - I do wonder if by then what has been negotiated will look like a looming economic crisis by then.

 

If we are leaving, I disagree but so be it - what I want now and have wanted for some time is a convincing strategy, strategists, negotiators and some real idea of the options and consequences. Sadly we seem to be bumbling forward in a rather amateurish way arguing amongst parties, the public, press and it feels all rather blind. I was angry that Article 50 was triggered so quickly despite the mountain of work to be untangled ahead looking impossible to complete in the timeframe, it just seemingly was an act to uphold democratic values and the will of the people rather than a realistic response to the challenges ahead and the timeframes required.

 

I read a few different brevet related articles each day from various sources and its all back biting, cat scratching, semantics, digs and constant political soundbites somehow designed to keep us all convinced of our own beliefs rather than any substance of answers for the general public.

 

I just feel despair and apathy right now and just want to be convinced that the future might contain something other than a large economic crash as we get toward and beyond leaving. Love to have the same confidence in those negotiating on the British side as I do the European.

Agree with this in hindsight although the EU were also telling us at the time to get on with it but it was our choice. Given it's a two year period it was pretty daft, we should have made sure we had full preparation on everything before doing it, if that took an extra year or so then so be it, May effectively had until about now to trigger it to still enable us to leave before the next general election.

 

Farage and Corbyn both called for it to be triggered on the day of the result as well, had that happened we would now have just three months before we left.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Labour say they won't be taking any more of Max Mosley's money but have no plans to pay back the 500k 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43229971

[Realist Guy In The Room]

What has to happen in my opinion, is no brexit at all, or the hardest possible brexit.  

 

By hardest possible, I mean WTO and hard border in Ireland.  We should do that and then if the consequences are dire or if it all turns out rosey, we’ll know exactly who was right and who was wrong.  No ambiguity, no ifs no buts.  Any compromise or fudge of any kind, the argument would never end.

 

If the country suffers badly, tough shit.  Sometimes a hard lesson is whats needed.  If the country prospers, hard Brexiteers can say ‘I told you so’ and we can all just enjoy the new prosperous world.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

What has to happen in my opinion, is no brexit at all, or the hardest possible brexit.  

 

By hardest possible, I mean WTO and hard border in Ireland.  We should do that and then if the consequences are dire or if it all turns out rosey, we’ll know exactly who was right and who was wrong.  No ambiguity, no ifs no buts.  Any compromise or fudge of any kind, the argument would never end.

 

If the country suffers badly, tough shit.  Sometimes a hard lesson is whats needed.  If the country prospers, hard Brexiteers can say ‘I told you so’ and we can all just enjoy the new prosperous world.

3

 

Not possible because it would never pass through parliament.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Not possible because it would never pass through parliament.

Then they should apologise to the public and forget the whole thing.

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Then they should apologise to the public and forget the whole thing.

 

Agreed.

 

They should never have asked the public in the first place - we elect them to make these decisions for us because Joe Public is too stupid to understand the consequences.

[Guest MattP]

27 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

What has to happen in my opinion, is no brexit at all, or the hardest possible brexit.  

 

By hardest possible, I mean WTO and hard border in Ireland.  We should do that and then if the consequences are dire or if it all turns out rosey, we’ll know exactly who was right and who was wrong.  No ambiguity, no ifs no buts.  Any compromise or fudge of any kind, the argument would never end.

 

If the country suffers badly, tough shit.  Sometimes a hard lesson is whats needed.  If the country prospers, hard Brexiteers can say ‘I told you so’ and we can all just enjoy the new prosperous world.

No deal is an option but it's not desirable, of course we should try to achieve a negotiation that gives us the best of both Worlds or as close to it as we can.

 

I still think we'll end up with something that avoids tariffs with the EU, both sides punishing each other still isn't a scenario I envisage.

 

The country has came through far harder challenges than this before.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

Agreed.

 

They should never have asked the public in the first place - we elect them to make these decisions for us because Joe Public is too stupid to understand the consequences.

Should we cancel General Elections as well?

 

You know the political knowledge the average person has, it's laughable. 

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Then they should apologise to the public and forget the whole thing.

Then you'll probably get a parliament that is pro-Brexit (as I explained earlier, constituency wise it was 61-39% leave)

 

What do you do then? 

[Buce]

 

European parliament rejects UK's Brexit transition proposals

Theresa May’s concession over rights of EU citizens coming to UK after March 2019 do not go far enough, MEPs say

 

The European parliament has issued an embarrassing snub to Theresa May’s concessions over EU migrants, rejecting the UK’s offer in a move that casts fresh doubt on the prospect of reaching an agreement on the transition period by March.

 

In a sudden volte-face on Wednesday, the Home Office slipped out a proposal paper on EU migrants who arrive after March 2019 under which they could secure five-year temporary residence permits, rather than the two-year ones previously proposed by ministers.

Despite previously insisting during a trip to China that she wanted to treat EU nationals arriving during the transition period differently from those already in the country, the prime minister appeared to have responded to pressure to backtrack in the hope of sealing an agreement on the terms of the 21-month cushion after Brexit.

But at a meeting of the European parliament’s Brexit steering group on Wednesday evening, led by the former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, MEPs concluded that the UK had not gone far enough.

Verhofstadt said in a statement that the UK’s position was unacceptable to the parliament, which will have a right to veto any withdrawal agreement.

 

The body was unhappy with the UK’s revised proposal, under which EU migrants who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period would still not have the same rights once it ends to bring family to join them as EU nationals already resident in Britain who have secured “settled status”. They would instead have to pass a minimum income threshold test.

The announcement will cast doubt on the prospects of reaching an agreement on the transition period by a European council summit at the end of March, as desired by the UK. The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has already warned in recent weeks that that goal is in doubt because of differences between the two sides.

Verhofstadt said: “We have taken note of the UK government policy statement and the clarification it provides for EU citizens who will go to the UK during the Brexit transition period and will in principle have the right to settle permanently in the UK.

“However, we cannot accept that there will be any form of discrimination between EU citizens who arrive before the start of the transition and after.

“The full European Union acquis [the accumulated legislation, legal acts and court decisions of the EU] must apply during any transition, including for citizens, and no differentiation can take place.”

 

However, the British government’s paper says EU migrants arriving during the transition period who wish to stay for the long term will also have to register within three months of arrival and their rights will only be enforceable in UK courts, and not through the European court of justice.

Verhofstadt said: “It can certainly not be the case that EU citizens arriving during any transition period are forced to accept a lower standard of rights, in particular those relating to family reunion, child benefits and access to judicial redress via the European court of justice.”

 

According to the UK’s paper, the concessions had been made because “it is important to provide certainty to business and those EU citizens who wish to move to the UK during the implementation period as to the terms under which they will be able to remain in the UK and make a life here once the period is over”.

The development, however, makes it less likely that the differences between the UK and the EU over the terms of the transition period can be settled in the next few weeks.

The UK has also not agreed with the proposed end date of 31 December 2020 or the EU’s proposals to keep the status quo on fisheries.

The government also wants a right to prevent new EU laws applying to the UK during the transition period if they could be shown to be harmful, something that is being resisted by Brussels.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/01/european-parliament-rejects-uks-brexit-transition-proposals

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Should we cancel General Elections as well?

 

You know the political knowledge the average person has, it's laughable. 

 

Under the current fptp system you may as well.

 

A switch to PR would ameliorate it to an extent.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

Under the current fptp system you may as well.

 

A switch to PR would ameliorate it to an extent.

Well that's certainly not happening for the forseeable future now, a change to the voting system would also require another referendum

[Rogstanley]

I was going to say they've had May's pants down by rejecting that deal but it's such a horrible image.

 

I don't understand the negotiating tactic. She keeps giving everything away, and now the EU have basically said actually we want more, May has put herself in a position where now needs to fight just to get back to square one. 

 

Surely one of the first rules of negotiating is that you don't go in with your best offer straight away? What is she playing at?

[Buce]

Tony Blair: Theresa May has no hope of achieving Brexit aims

Ex-PM says government risks sacrificing peace in Northern Ireland ‘on the altar of Brexit’

 

Tony Blair has said Theresa May has no hope of delivering her negotiating aims if she takes the UK out of the single market and customs union, saying she instead risked sacrificing peace in Northern Ireland “on the altar of Brexit”.

The former prime minister, who is to make a major intervention in Brussels before May’s Brexit speech on Friday, said the Irish border crisis illustrated the “central dilemma” facing the UK and said it was “sickening” to hear senior politicians question the relevance of the Good Friday agreement.

 

On Wednesday, the future of the Brexit negotiations was left in the balance when May dismissed the EU’s proposal for a “backstop” plan under which Northern Ireland would in effect stay in the customs union and single market to avoid a hard border, as an attack on the UK’s constitutional integrity.

In comments in support of his predecessor as PM, John Major, who has called for a Commons vote on a second referendum, Blair condemned the government’s approach as unrealistic, and said it was only by staying in the single market and customs union that a hard border could be avoided.

Talking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said: “On John Major’s speech, I really think people should read it and study it. It is heartfelt and very analytical as to what the problems are.

“Neither he nor I want to make her [May’s] position difficult. This has gone far beyond that. The problem that she has is that there is no way round the dilemma: what she thinks is that it is possible to get the Europeans to give us access to Europe’s markets without the same obligations that the rest of Europe has in the single market. That is not possible.

“It is not a question of a tough negotiation or a weak negotiation. It is literally is not going to happen.”

Blair will on Thursday call on EU leaders to be ready to offer the UK a palatable way back into the union by rethinking its attitude to immigration, something he said he was confident that Brussels would be prepared to do.

May is to make a speech on Friday in which she is expected to reaffirm her decision for the whole of the UK to leave the single market and customs union.

 

he will propose a system of “managed divergence” under which the UK could retain frictionless trade in some sectors by staying close to EU laws while changing regulations in other sectors to gain a competitive advantage.

The Brexit secretary, David Davis, has doubled down on that position by reportedly threatening that the UK will not honour its £35bn-£39bn financial settlement with the EU unless Brussels backs down on attempts to keep Northern Ireland subject to European Union rules. In a letter to Conservative MPs, reported in the Times, he said the payments would not be finalised until all the issues had been addressed.

But Blair said the UK had a choice of staying close to the EU, minimising economic damage and averting a risk to peace in Northern Ireland, or freeing itself from Europe’s rules “in which case you have economic damage” and a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Blair expressed disgust at senior politicians, such as the former Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson and the Labour MP Kate Hoey, questioning the relevance of the Good Friday agreement, which has helped maintain peace since 1998.

He and Major had warned during the referendum that leaving the EU could disrupt peace on the island of Ireland.

On Labour’s move to support a new customs union with the EU, he said: “I think the Labour party shift is sensible, although frankly I think they will very soon find that we have got to move further in order to solve the dilemma ourselves.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/01/tony-blair-pm-has-no-hope-of-achieving-brexit-aims