The British government's estimate of how much it will have to pay the European Union as part of its so-called divorce settlement is at least £10 billion ($13 billion) too low, a committee of lawmakers said on Wednesday. Negotiators in London and Brussels have agreed ...
At 10 p.m. on June 23, 2016, Sky News projected the words "IN OR OUT" across the top of a London building as an orchestral score ratcheted up the tension. "In or out—it is too late to change your mind," declared Adam Boulton, the ...
Airbus SE threatened to pull its U.K. investments if Britain walks away from the European Union without a deal, upping the stakes for Prime Minister Theresa May as she fights to deliver a Brexit that won't wreck the country's economy. In the starkest warning yet ...
Brexit campaigner Arron Banks denied on Sunday ever receiving Russian money or assistance for the campaign to leave the European Union. The Sunday Times, citing emails it received from a journalist who worked with Banks on a book, said Banks and his associate, Andy Wigmore ...
The former head of Cambridge Analytica admitted on Wednesday his firm had received data from the researcher at the center of a scandal over Facebook users' personal details, contradicting previous testimony to lawmakers. Cambridge Analytica, which was hired by Donald Trump in 2016, has denied ...
The true shamelessness of Project Fear has reached a crescendo roar. As the clock ticks down to Brexit, they become ever more desperate; lies, such as BMW quitting the UK come, and then go. As Remain thrashes around in its death throes, its ugly, dishonest, anti-democratic face is there for all to see
Even Juncker must be shocked by the lies of Remain
If you have a browse of the newspapers today, you’re likely to find a curious feeling of déjà vu sweeping around you. Propaganda warnings of post-Brexit chaos, Armageddon, and catastrophe, fill what seems to be every page.
Special interests, business lobbying, and mainstream media spin continue, as they did during the Referendum campaign in 2016. This time however, the true shamelessness of Project Fear has reached a crescendo roar.
Everyone by now is well versed in the ‘Project Fear’ tactics designed to scare off voters. During the Referendum campaign such scare stories reached an almost laughable hysteria.
Prime Minister David Cameron implied a third World War could be on the horizon. Chancellor, George Osborne, warned of an immediate emergency budget – which, of course, never happened. Anna Soubry MP claimed a recession would occur simply by a vote to Leave. There were many more lies from Remain, too many to mention. Of course, once the truth transpires which shows a particular claim to be false, there is rarely even a minor mention of it by the press.
To their credit, the Great British Public saw through these hysterical lies and voted against blindly conforming to the mainstream opinions and forecasts, which are continuously flawed, or some might suggest, misleading.
Stories about Airbus and BMW have been the latest part in the Project Fear campaign to dominate coverage. Regarding Airbus, even headlines by the so-called ‘neutral’ BBC read: ‘Airbus warns no-deal could see it leave UK’, and ‘Airbus UK exit warning for thousands of Welsh jobs.’
Of course, Airbus never said this. Furthermore, no mainstream media outlet felt it appropriate to mention the judgement last month from the World Trade Organisation’s Appellate Court which, after nearly a decade of investigations, declared Airbus had been in receipt of $22billion of illegal subsidies from the EU. Hardly a credibly neutral company to be taken seriously during the Brexit process.
BMW were alleged to have joined Airbus in claiming they will leave the UK in the event of ‘No Deal’. Yet only days later this myth was dispelled when Ian Robertson, BMWs Special Representative to the UK, rubbished this Fake News and said the scare stories had been taken from a quote which was used out of context! “We are committed to our operation in the UK, our workforce here, and the fact we sell 250, 000 cars here.” Robertson said, at the car industry’s annual summit in London.
Remoaners seem to continuously paint themselves as having the monopoly on morality: they are the virtuous ones, the truth-tellers, the fact-checkers.
The entire Remain campaign in 2016 was crafted on a strategy to intimidate voters with scare-stories. Countless falsehoods were told by Remainer advocates, many of which have been swept under the carpet: such is the privilege of losing in politics.
What makes Project Fear so shameless is the fact that after so many Remain lies, and forecasts which have been proven to be categorically wrong, they still continue.
The outcome of such an aggressive ‘Project Fear’ strategy is – as arguably happened during the latter stages of the Referendum campaign – the public will stop listening to forecasters and politicians. The merits of peaceful debate will seemingly decline as the public perceive no good to come from engaging with politicians who are only interested in advancing their own agenda at any price, instead of building the best solution.
In the long-term, there is a serious concern that every time a trumped up claim is made, the integrity of our democratic system is further undermined.
Remainers who refuse to accept the result of the Referendum to Get Britain Out of the EU must stop the needless lies, hyperbole and exaggeration.
Such unprincipled short-termism is a cancer upon our society. Remainers must also contemplate what the true price of subverting democracy would be; the anger, division, and feeling of betrayal by Leavers would be genuinely catastrophic for the nation.
The chairman of the European Union summit on Friday said the most difficult issue remain unresolved in Brexit talks, saying time was running out for sides to put their cards on the table.
FILE PHOTO: European Union Council President Donald Tusk and Sweden's Prime Minister Stefan Lofven (not pictured) hold a news conference at the government headquarters Rosenbad in Stockholm, Sweden June 19, 2018. TT News Agency/Erik Simander/via REUTERS
“There is a great deal of work ahead and the most difficult tasked are unresolved,” Donald Tusk told reporters.
Adding that if both sides wanted to reach a deal by October, “This is the last call to lay the cards on the table.”
EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said on Friday that EU leaders had made progress in Brexit talks but big differences remained and he hoped an upcoming British proposal would be “valuable and workable.” JUNE 29, 2018 / 4:53 PM
EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier talks to Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven as they arrive
“On Brexit we have made progress but huge and serious divergences remain in particular on Ireland and Northern Ireland,” Barnier told reporters in Brussels.
“Now we are waiting for the U.K. White Paper and I hope it will contain workable and realistic proposals but let me mention once again that the time is very short,” he said.
Barnier added that the EU wants and “ambitious partnership” with Britain on trade and security after it leaves the bloc next year but one based on the EU’s values.
Brussels fears Hungary because it refuses to bow to imperial technocracy.
FRANK FUREDI SOCIOLOGIST AND COMMENTATOR 29 JUNE 2018
According to the political establishment that runs the EU, Hungary has become a xenophobic, authoritarian society. The Hungarian government and in particular the prime minister, Viktor Orban, are continually denounced for their alleged violations of EU values. The mainstream Western media have picked up the message that it is okay to hate Hungary. They give the impression that Hungary is a totalitarian and viciously anti-Semitic society in which critics of the regime are silenced and the government dominates the media.
Calls to expel Hungary from the EU by pro-EU voices in the Guardian and elsewhere echo an intolerant outlook that is growing within the Brussels oligarchy. Recently, members of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee voted for a resolution that says the situation in Hungary constitutes ‘a clear risk of a serious breach’ of the EU’s values.
Denunciations of the Hungarian government are often justified on the basis that this is a nation that refuses to go along with the migration policies that German chancellor Angela Merkel effectively imposed on the continent. Other Hungarian sins cited by the ‘Kick Hungary out of the EU’ lobby include a new law that makes life difficult for NGOs funded by George Soros.
However, the campaign against Hungary actually has little to do with recent policies adopted by the Orban government. For almost a decade now, Western European critics of Hungary have been calling for its expulsion from the EU. This anti-Hungarian animosity was vividly demonstrated in a debate in the European Parliament in January 2012. The debate, titled ‘Recent Political Developments in Hungary’, was organised in response to concerns expressed by the European Commission (EC) about various recent Hungarian laws. The commission followed up its concerns by launching infringement proceedings against Hungary on three issues: the independence of the national central bank; the retirement age of judges; and the independence of the data-protection authority. Outwardly, at least, this controversy seemed to be a dispute over relatively routine technical matters; but as the debate unfolded, it became clear that the main protagonists were in fact divided by, and motivated by, very different visions of what the best values are.
Before the debate, Europhile commentators in the media had singled out the Hungarian government and its recently enacted constitution – known as the Fundamental Law – as serious challenges to the secular, democratic, liberal values of the EU. That the constitution references Hungary’s national and Christian traditions was seen as bad, and even dangerous. Such sentiments could unleash the xenophobic nationalism of the 1940s that the EU believed had been left behind, we were told.
José Manuel Barroso, then president of the EC, set the tone when he introduced the debate. He characterised his differences with the Hungarian government as an ‘extremely sensitive matter, where I believe we have to be clear on values’. He did not clarify what values were at stake; however, the implication was clear that Hungarian laws and its new constitution violated European values.
During the debate, speaker after speaker condemned the Hungarian government. The Flemish Belgian politician, Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, took to the floor to denounce Hungary’s affronts to European values. He warned that there was more at stake here than technical issues – the fundamental principles on which the EU is constructed were being threatened, he said. He declared:
’What is necessary here is not a debate on technical issues, as we had at the beginning of the year. This is about checking the conformity of the [Hungarian] constitution and cardinal laws with the European values that are enshrined in Article 2 of the treaty: democracy, the rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and so on.’
Verhofstadt demanded that the EU’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs draw up a report into the actions of the Hungarian government to find out whether ‘there exists a clear risk or a serious breach of our values’. His use of the term ‘our values’ conveyed the idea that our way of life is very different to ‘theirs’.
The oddity of this demand – that a member state of the EU, a sovereign nation, should have its values policed – went unnoticed, or at least unremarked upon. This demand for value-policing suggested that the EU’s highly acclaimed celebration of diversity did not apply to different approaches to values across national boundaries. Tolerance for the diversity of values, which has historically been a central feature of liberal thought, was clearly not considered important by those condemning Hungary.
Some of the criticisms of Orban were couched in a more openly hostile language than the legalistic jargon used by Verhofstadt. Daniel Cohn-Bendit of the Greens-European Free Alliance condemned Hungary and lectured Orban that ‘we are here to tell you that you are going in the direction of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and all the other totalitarian authoritarian governments’.
Strip away all the heated talk, and the fundamental value at stake between the EU technocracy and Hungary is that of national sovereignty. The ideal of sovereignty directly challenges the authority of the EU technocracy. That is why those who support national independence and popular sovereignty are frequently accused of the crime of xenophobia. From the standpoint of the EU, what is truly unforgivable is the refusal of the Hungarian government to play the role of neocolonial supplicant in the EU’s imperial drama.
Back in the 1990s, during the negotiations regarding the terms of EU membership, Hungary was assigned the role of a student facing an exam on its capacity to understand and practise European values. In 1993, the European Council laid out its approval procedures, known as the ‘Copenhagen Criteria’, which candidate countries had to meet before they could become EU members. One criterion was the willingness of the candidate to accept and promote so-called European values.
The Copenhagen document stated that ‘any European country may apply for membership if it respects the democratic values of the EU and is committed to promoting them’. This reference to ‘democratic values’ lacked clarity and practical meaning. The rhetoric of democratic values is used by a wide variety of actors – from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the United States – which means it is very much open to interpretation. In practice, the implication was that would-be members of the EU would have to endorse uncritically the political cultureof the EU oligarchy.
The true EU value is that of unconditional acceptance of Brussels’ diktats. This means that when EC president Jean-Claude Juncker instructs an Eastern European government to ‘jump’, the only acceptable response is to ask ‘how high?’. From this perspective, the most dangerous counter-value to those of the EU is that of national independence. What the EU really fears is that Hungary’s behaviour might become infectious, and other member states might start to adopt policies that are consistent with their own national interests.
It is paradoxical that supporters of the EU’s line on Hungary believe they are upholding the values of tolerance and democracy. In truth, they cannot tolerate a nation that has democratically decided to adopt values that are different to their own. The EU is very selective in the way it interprets its own values. Rhetorically, EU ideologues celebrate diversity, yet they are bitterly hostile to those who demand that diversity should also be applied to the realm of values. This is why the campaign against Budapest unabashedly claims that it has the right to impose its values on Hungary whether that nation and its people like it or not.
Since the re-election of the Orban government in April, hostility to Hungary has morphed into a highly politicised and irrational Magyarophobia. The EU establishment regards the massive mandate endorsing Orban’s policies as a direct challenge to its way of life. Isolating Hungary and containing its influence on the political life of other European member states has become a priority for the EU leadership. Scaremongering about the return of fascism in Hungary is really a way of imposing a cordon sanitaire around that country. Thankfully, support for the ideal of sovereignty is not confined to the people of one nation. Hungary’s challenge to the EU’s imperial ambitions may well resonate throughout the continent.
It will affect all our lives. But the negotiations and talks are so hard to explain. So what is Brexit? When will Brexit happen? What's 'hard' and 'soft', what about EU citizens - and when's the deadline? Your questions answered
Britain has voted to leave the European Union, and it'll affect all our lives.
As things stand, Brexit will come into force at the end of March 2019.
But it could be 2022 before you notice any difference - and the path to the door is littered with obstacles.
Some believe Brexit can be stopped. Others fear it could bring down the Government.
Theresa May has only a few months to strike a deal.
She has to get the EU Withdrawal bill through, negotiate the future with Brussels, get her Cabinet to agree and keep the peace in the Tory Party.
Meanwhile the whole saga is so fiendishly complicated it risks leaving you in the dark.
So here is your guide to what is going to happen, what the key issues mean, and the dangers that lie ahead.
What is Brexit?
Brexit has been rumbling on since 23 June 2016 - and Theresa May is in charge
Brexit is Britain's exit from the European Union.
The UK voted 52%-48% in 2016 to leave the 28-nation body after almost 50 years.
That means leaving its single market and customs union (see below), cutting legal ties, ending the automatic right for EU citizens to move to Britain, and reducing or ending budget payments to Brussels.
What are Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit?
Hard Brexit means cutting major ties with the EU and striking out alone, even if it damages the economy. This is backed by a large number of Tory MPs and UKIP.
Soft Brexit means sticking as close to EU rules as possible, even if it means giving up freedom and independence. This is backed by a large number of Labour MPs, and a few Tory rebels.
The Cabinet and the Tory party are split and Theresa May is trying to go for something in between to please everyone. So is Jeremy Corbyn.
When does Brexit happen and when is the deadline?
EU rules are set to continue long after the Brexit Day of 29 March 2019(Image: Getty)
Britain officially leaves the EU at 11pm on 29 March 2019.
However a transition period has been agreed, which means almost all current rules continue until New Year's Eve 2020.
Then there is also a customs 'backstop' (see below) which could continue EU rules into 2021, or even 2022.
However, the deadline to agree the main deal is around October 2018, because it needs time to be agreed by MPs and the European Parliament.
What is the divorce bill?
Brexiteers promised to win £350million a week for the NHS, but it won't happen
(Image: Getty)
Britain's Brexit 'divorce bill' - the amount it'll pay after March 2019 - was finally revealed some 534 days after the country voted to leave the EU.
Downing Street said the figure would be 40 to 45billion Euros - or between £35billion and £39billion.
The huge sum came despite Boris Johnson previously accusing the EU of "extortion" and claiming they could "go whistle".
Brexiteers promised to win back £350million a week for the NHS.
However, the £350million was never going to come back in full because large amounts of it never actually went to Brussels in the first place.
What is the transition period?
Tick tock - the transition period is designed to ensure time doesn't run out
(Image: Science Photo Library RM)
Britain has secured a 'transition period' to achieve a smooth Brexit and give businesses certainty.
This will give us time to prepare for life outside the EU, such as setting up new customs systems and agencies.
But it means Britain has to continue to accept EU rules, including freedom of movement (EU immigration), and European Court of Justice jurisdiction.
Britain and Brussels agreed the transition in December 2017. The key details are explained below.
Britain's Brexit transition deal with the EU explained
Britain will get a Brexit transition period to 31 December 2020, in which time it follows all EU rules without getting any vote on them, has to pay in full to the EU Budget, and free movement continues. This is embarrassing for Brexiteers who said Britain must not be a "vassal state". But it ensures there's no sudden cliff-edge on 29 March 2019 when Brexit begins
A 'backstop' that could keep Northern Ireland in the EU Customs territory must stay in the legal text - weeks after Theresa May said no UK Prime Minister could ever accept it. This would spark fury a it would create a division between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The exact wording and detail of the backstop, though, hasn't been agreed. This fudge ensured the rest of the deal could be completed in time
Britain will be able to sign and ratify trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition period, a major win for Brexiteers. They would come in to force when the transition ends in December 2020
Britain's fishing rights will still be set by Brussels during the transition period - the UK will only be 'consulted'. This is a huge blow to Brexiteers who boasted they'd take back control, and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation fumed: "This falls far short of an acceptable deal". Igniting a major Tory row, Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said fishermen were "deeply frustrated" and beyond 2020, "I will not support a deal which fails to deliver that full control over fish stocks and vessel access" Fellow Scottish Tory Douglas Ross said: "There is no spinning this as a good outcome, it would be easier to get someone to drink a pint of cold sick than try to sell this as a success"
EU citizens who arrive to reside or work in Britain during the transition period (to December 2020) will get the "same rights and guarantees"as people who arrive now. This was a key EU demand and appears to go further than what Britain last offered
UK nationals who arrive to reside or work in the EU during the transition period will get the same rights, which was a key demand by Britain
Gibraltar will be included in the transition deal "to the extent of EU law that was applicable to it" before the deal comes into force
What deal does the government want?
Theresa May with Brexit Secretary David Davis and chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier(Image: REX/Shutterstock)
That is the £350million-a-week question. The Cabinet hasn’t decided.
The EU said we had two choices, the Norway model or the Canadian model, but Theresa May essentially ruled both out.
The Norway option (EEA) would see us paying to access the single market and accepting EU rules, including free movement of people.
The Canadian-EU agreement (CETA) allows for free trade between the two countries but does not include services which is our largest sector.
The Prime Minister claims she will get a bespoke deal for Britain - sometimes called 'Canada Plus'.
This will be a free trade arrangement with frictionless borders and include financial services.
In other words we want a huge array of the benefits of being in the club - but without paying a membership fee.
What is the Norway model?
The Norway model refers to countries being members of the European Economic Area (EEA), but not the European Union.
Remaining in the EEA would grant Britain all the freedoms of the EU’s internal market - including the free movement of goods and people.
Norway is an EEA member, which is why it's called the Norway model.
It means the country is bound by all the EU regulations for those areas, as well as policies on employment, the environment and consumer protection.
But, like Norway, it means the country does not have a say in how those policies are formulated.
How are the Tories split?
Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg says we will be a vassal state during transition(Image: Jack Taylor)
The Tory Cabinet is split on how closely it will align with EU rules after Brexit.
Chancellor Philip Hammond wants us to stay close to the EU to avoid adding red tape and customs delays.
But Brexiteers like David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, believe this will limit our ability to strike competitive trade deals with non EU countries.
There is a powerful Hard Brexit wing on the Tory benches. More than 50 MPs are in the European Research Group, a pressure campaign led by influential MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.
There are fewer Hard Remain MPs on the Tory benches, but they have a huge amount of power because Theresa May has a very thin majority. That means if they team up with a united, Labour they can defeat the government.
How is Labour split?
Slowly, Jeremy Corbyn has shifted Labour's stance towards a 'soft' Brexit(Image: PA)
Labour's leadership says Britain should have a full Customs Union with the EU (see below) but leave the EU single market (also see below).
There is an angry wing of about 50 Labour MPs who say leaving the single market is the wrong decision, and often rebel against Jeremy Corbyn.
Slowly, they have helped persuade the party leader to shift Labour's stance towards a 'soft' Brexit - hence the customs union policy.
Can Brexit be stopped?
Campaigners want a second vote to be able to stop Brexit(Image: Jack Taylor)
At the moment this looks unlikely.
There are campaigns with multi-million pound backing, such as Best For Britain, that are trying to halt the process as we know it.
But stopping Brexit would probably need a second referendum. And we'd need a big change in public opinion to make the pressure hot enough to get one.
Most polls have yet to detect any significant shift since the June 2016 referendum, with those who voted Remain still likely to vote Remain and those who voted Leave still likely to vote Leave.
Both Tory Boris Johnson and Labour's John McDonnell have warned of a public backlash if there was any attempt to overturn the referendum result.
Some diehard pro-EU campaigners still believe it is possible to reverse the decision - but most are focusing on trying to stop a hard Brexit.
The House of Lords tried to do this through the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, where peers passed 15 amendments turning Hard Brexit to Soft. But they were overturned by MPs.
Labour has insisted it is not backing a second referendum. But several times, senior Labour figures have refused to rule out backing one in future. And many backbench MPs openly back a second referendum, calling it a 'People's Vote'.
What will happen to EU citizens?
The right for EU citizens to arrive will carry on until December 2020(Image: PA)
Britain and Brussels have agreed EU nationals can continue arriving, working and settling in the UK until December 2020.
This will also apply the other way round.
But it's not known what rights people will get if they arrive after that.
It's been suggested EU citizens will get preferential immigration rights compared to people from the rest of the world, but that's not confirmed.
What about EU citizens who live in Britain now?
More than 3million EU citizens already live in the UK. They spent months not knowing what would happen, but now it's confirmed.
During 2018, the Home Office will launch an application system for EU nationals seeking to remain in Britain after Brexit.
Those who have been in the country for five years by the end of 2020 will be able to apply for "settled status" - meaning they are free to continue living and working in the UK.
People who have arrived by December 31, 2020, but do not have five years' residence, will be able to apply to stay until are eligible to apply for the status.
What about British citizens who live in the EU now?
More than 1million British citizens live in the other 27 EU countries, like Spain(Image: Getty Images Europe)
More than 1million British citizens live in the other 27 EU countries.
They will have the same rights to stay there as EU citizens have to stay in the UK.
But it's not clear if they'll lose the right to move around and settle in any of the other 26 EU countries.
Perhaps for this reason, applications for foreign citizenship - especially in Germany - have soared since the Brexit vote.
What is the single market?
It's all getting really complicated, but please bear with us(Image: Parliamentlive.tv)
The single market is the EU's united system for trading and exchanging without any borders between 28 nations.
Theresa May has insisted we will leave it after Brexit.
It has many benefits, but in order to stay in it we'd have to sign up for four 'freedoms' - the free movement of goods, services, people and capital.
This would leave Britain unable to crack down on immigration.
What is the customs union?
Customs changes will have a massive effect on the Port of Dover(Image: Dan Kitwood)
The European Union operates as a 'customs union'.
This means the 28 member states can trade freely with each other without any checks or duties on goods.
It also means all the countries in the EU set the same tariffs on imports from non-EU countries.
For example, car imports from the US to the EU carry a 10% tariff, while South Africa has to pay up to 16% on the oranges which it exports to the EU.
Being in the customs union benefits the UK because the EU is our largest trading partner.
But Theresa May wants the UK to leave the customs union, because otherwise we can't sign trade deals with other countries around the world.
What are the two options for customs in future?
Civil servants warned the 'max fac' customs option could cost £20bn a year(Image: Dan Kitwood)
The government has been considering two options for customs, and has not chosen which one it'll stick with yet.
Customs partnership: This would see Britain collect tariffs on all imports on behalf of the EU. If the UK tariff is lower than the EU one, then firms would be able to reclaim the difference. This is favoured by Remainers, but Brexiteers including Boris Johnson say it is "crazy" and will shackle us to Brussels.
Maximum Facilitation ('Max Fac'): This would introduce more checks, but use high-tech tracking devices to monitor the flow of goods. Businesses would operate as “trusted traders” and would be able to pay any tariffs at regular intervals rather than every time they cross a border. Boris Johnson wants this, but the civil service say it will cost firms £20bn a year in red tape.
Why is Northern Ireland such a big problem?
Northern Ireland has become the biggest problem in the talks(Image: AFP)
Northern Ireland is the problem that's been holding up almost all the talks.
That's because it is the UK's only land border with the EU - the Republic of Ireland.
And to make things a lot trickier, Northern Ireland can't just stick a wall up along that border. It has all kinds of special statuses because of its violent history.
The 1990s Good Friday Agreement finally ended the Troubles by banning border checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Theresa May has vowed not to bring these checks - a 'hard border' - back, otherwise she risks a return to violence.
Yet she also wants to bring in a totally different set of customs and trading rules for the UK compared to the EU.
So how does she change the rules in Northern Ireland without isolating it from the Republic?
Two years after the Brexit vote, people are still struggling to work it out.
What is the customs 'backstop' and why is everyone fighting over it?
What is the Brexit customs 'backstop'? Huge Tory row explained
The EU has a customs union. This means all 28 member states can trade with each other without any checks or duties on goods.
Theresa May has said Britain will leave this after December 2020, so she can sign trade deals with non-EU countries.
But officials have warned a new UK customs system won't be ready in time. So they've devised a 'backstop' - a backup plan that will carry on some EU customs rules in the UK if there's no deal.
It is designed to stop ports grinding to a halt and Northern Ireland setting up border posts, which could lead to violence.
Yet Brexiteers were furious because it had no set end date. In a huge Tory row, they warned it would trap Britain half-in, half-out the EU.
After frantic last-minute talks, and threats to quit by Brexit Secretary David Davis, a time limit was put in - December 2021.
Yet the government only "expects" to follow that time limit. It is not legally binding. And the EU poured cold water on it.
Britain and the EU also disagree about what the backstop will do.
EU plans back in March would have kept Northern Ireland aligned with Brussels customs rules, but Theresa May rejected this because it draws a border between the province and the mainland.
So she drew up Britain's own backstop, which is now being put to the EU for discussion.
The UK plan is a "temporary customs arrangement" allowing totally tariff-free trade between the EU and the whole of the UK. So the UK would carry on being in the EU Customs Union in all but name until December 2021.
But the UK also wants to sign new trade deals with nations outside the EU. Britain even wants to implement parts of these deals that don't relate to the backstop.
Brussels has repeatedly said this won't be possible - so the new plan is setting up for a big battle with the EU.
And as time ticks on, the backstop will become less of a Plan B and more of a Plan A. It'll turn from backstop... to frontstop.
What other problems are there?
The UK still needs to negotiate a new aviation deal with the EU(Image: AFP)
The negotiations are not just about trade. The UK and the EU have to discuss data sharing and data protection, regulatory alignment and procurement rules.
Decisions have to be taken on whether we remain in some EU agencies such as Europol, European Medicines Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency.
Then we have to agree police and intelligence co-operation on issues such as the European Arrest Warrant, criminal records sharing and freezing criminal assets.
Is that all?
South Korea could cause problems when it comes to a new trade deal
No. The UK also has to work out trade arrangements with countries that currently have trade deals with the EU.
Britain would like to roll over these trade deals during the transition period.
The problem is that is not in our gift.
While some of these countries have signalled they are willing to rollover the trade agreements, others such as South Korea and Chile are more reluctant.
India, for instance, could demand we grant more visas in return for a deal.
They have sensed an opportunity to exert some leverage on the UK.
When will it come to ahead?
The Prime Minister faces a make-or-break October(Image: Getty Images Europe)
The moment of maximum danger for the Prime Minister will be in October.
This is when MPs will have the opportunity to vote on any deal.
Nothing is certain. It could be the EU and the UK have been unable to reach a deal by this time and will ask for extra time.
This would require the Article 50 deadline of March 2019 to be extended - something which would require the agreement of all 27 EU countries.
It is also unclear if MPs will have the opportunity to send Mrs May back to the negotiating table if they dislike the deal or they will be presented with a take-it-or-leave it deal.
If it is the take-it-or-leave-it option and the Prime Minister lost the vote then we would crash out without a deal.
It could also force the resignation of the PM or, possibly, oblige her to call a second referendum.
Alternatively, MPs could vote to send Mrs May back to the negotiating table which could see the talks delayed beyond March 2019 - again this would require the EU27 to accept an extension to Article 50.
