Ok, everyone three minutes remaining, so we will be closing comments soon. This has been such a good debate, and so much informed commenting going on below the line (great to see!)
Join our weekly debate at the same time next week.
My message to Theresa May around Brexit: be clear and honest
Start with honesty – not magical thinking about a new “unique” British model destined for disappointment. If immigration is her red line, Theresa May shouldn’t pretend she can get “a positive outcome for those who wish to trade goods and services.” Almost everything everyone says about Brexit is, as it has always been, unlikely to be true. Unknown unknowns start with what the divided cabinet wants, close-in or far out? More unknowns: what will 27 countries tolerate? In disruptive French and German elections expect grandstanding Sarkozy-type revenge attacks on us. No-one knows what we want or what we can get, in a multi-dimensional chess game played in a fog of trade war lasting years. Placating Brexit maniacs, such the Brexit press already shouting “betrayal!” while playing the double bluff of foreign trade deals means fooling a lot of people a lot of the time. May should aim for clarity and honesty – but don’t hold your breath.
A view from Germany, via the comments:
Guy Hornsby, a “passionate Remain voter” and project manager from London, has got in touch via our form with this view.
I never wanted Brexit and want it even less right now. The best that can be hoped for is retaining access to the Single Market with concessions on immigration (an emergency brake of sorts, even though I’m pro-immigration, I believe this is non-negotiable). This will avoid having to negotiate endless trade deals or uplift many EU Regulations into UK law. Any alternative will mean years of complex, fraught negotiations with countries uninterested in giving us a good deal, while our labour market collapses from the loss of EU workers (NHS will be worst hit) and we bicker over our stagnating economy. It’ll be like this for 10-15 years.
What do I think will happen? Arguments, lobbying, and disappointment all round. We can’t retain access to the Single Market without free movement of labour. We can’t hope to avoid a shock to the economy without it. We (apparently) voted for Brexit to ‘solve’ immigration (no mention of outside-EU workers, already under a points system, funnily enough) so that’s also a non-negotiable. So there will be an impasse, likely ploughed through by civil servants and a Tory government being lobbied from all angles. I expect concessions for the city or the Square Mile will be hit hard - and however much we want its influence to ebb, it’s 20% of our GDP and a huge tax slice - and immigration to be central, so we’ll be having to negotiate costly trade deals that aren’t Canada plus, or Norway-lite, or anything. And these negotiations will be going on after May’s long gone. I expect we’ll not really know what Brexit looks like until at least 2025.
Here is a selection of comments from the debate below the line. The variety of imagined scenarios - from both Leave and Remain supporters - reveal, if nothing else, that it’s going to be very hard to come up with a deal that pleases everyone.
‘The Norway option’ (for now)
Step 1. The Norway option. Include as many EU rules as the EU insists on - including free movement - with the sole red line being that the UK is completely free to trade with the rest of the world, and will suffer no interference in our efforts to do so.
Step 2. Continue as before, while establishing improved trade links with the wider world.
Step 3. Once the UK has a sufficiently broad base of trading partners, we return to the EU and tell them that we no longer require unfettered access to the single market, and as such will be withdrawing from the 'Norway option' and coming to a new arrangement which does not include free movement - if that means WTO rules then so be it.
‘Better to get the best possible deal with the neghbours across the channel’
I see a lot of people are hoping for a hard brexit where trade with the EU is minimized and all the focus should be on trade with the Commonwealth and purely english speaking countries. This is pure fantasy and will never happen. Countries do the majority of trade with their closest neghbours for obvious logistical reasons. Australia, India etc will of course want a trade deal with the UK but it will never replace the trade done with the EU which is on the doorstep. Better to get the best possible deal with the neghbours across the channel instead of these delusions.
‘The EU has no incentive to give the UK a favourable relationship’
The EU leaders have said that they want the UK out of the EU as quickly as possible they do not want protracted negotiations they are also acutely aware of the immense damage to the EU inherent in giving the UK a special deal . As was stated by the EU before and during the referendum out means out .
The EU has moved on and there is simply no incentive or advantage to it giving the UK a favourable relationship . Quite the contrary ,if it allows the UK to pick and choose whilst it is not even a member state what message does that convey to those nations which are members . Some seem to think that the Brexit negotiations will follow a similar path to those which allowed the UK to pursue various opt outs but the situation is completely changed . The poisonous anti EU campaign of the last thirty or forty years and which culminated in the vote to leave has left the very strong perception in the EU of a country i.e the UK which not only wanted to leave but also wanted the EU to implode . Yet now the architects and fellow travellers in that campaign want a 'special ' deal . Dream on .
‘We have a very limited time to negotiate a good divorce agreement’
If the UK plays its cards right, it may be able to gain an EEA deal and then attempt to use the safeguard measures in the EEA agreement to limit the free movement of persons.
The idea of some kind of CETA or Swiss type deal (without the free movement treaty) is absurd. We have a very limited time to negotiate a good divorce agreement. Nowhere near enough time for anything 'bespoke' to be achieved.
As for 'WTO rules', where do we even start? Perhaps watch the Treasury Select Committee session on the 13th July - it gives you some idea of how incredibly moronic this path would be.
I expect to report on Brexit for the next five years
What’s increasingly struck me about Brexit is how incredibly complex it is. Every time I look to research into a new bit of British life to see what the implications are, my mind starts to boggle. Take passports, for example. It seems like bringing back a navy blue passport will be a PR win for Theresa May, would please a lot of Leave voters, and be a real symbol of “taking back control”.
So, first of all you’ve got to make sure that the rest of the EU and the rest of the world will continue to accept UK passports issued with the European Union design and name on them after the actual day of Brexit. I can’t imagine they would be refused, but you’d probably need to explicitly clarify they would still be valid. There will be people whose passports expire a few days before the date of Brexit who will need to renew them for travel in that period, so you also have to decide whether you are going to continue issuing passports in the EU design that expire in 10 years, or whether you gradually taper this down.
If you’ve got 10 year EU-style passports being issued that means you have to commit to all the equipment at our borders still being able to read the data on those passports for at least a decade. That probably means whatever you do about the new passport design, the chips etc have got to be compatible with the existing equipment. So even though we’ve taken back control, we’d still have to adhere to the EU data standard. You can anticipate that there will be a rush of people wanting to replace their passports early, so before you start issuing them you need to have stockpiled enough of the new design and make sure there isn’t going to be a huge overwhelming backlog of applications.
None of this is insurmountable, it is quite clearly possible to switch from one set of passport designs to a different set on a specific day, because we did it in reverse. But, what you’ve got to do is synchronise this change with all the other changes you are making. And you’ve got to find the civil service and ministerial time for it, with a civil service that has been reduced in size over the last six years. Possibly it would require some legislation which might take up a bit of parliamentary time. And it is the least of your worries, but you probably also have to remember to change all the signs at every single border crossing. And changing passports is just ONE element in the whole of Brexit. It’s all achievable, but I genuinely expect to be reporting on the process of Brexit for the next five years.
Updated
We’ve been hearing from Remain voters frustrated at what they see as the incoherence of the Leave campaigners, and their inability to decide what Brexit means - and the implications that this will have for the Brexit negotiations.
“It seems inevitable that it will be driven by political manoeuvring rather than the national interest,” says David Ward, and NHS Manager in Norfolk.
“Whatever shores up the PM’s position within the party and wins votes will be the favoured option. The future of our country will effectively be determined by polls and lobbying.
“It’s utterly ridiculous that various people keep telling us what the result meant and therefore what should happen next.
“Even if anyone had set out a coherent plan, the question wasn’t about immigration, trade or anything else, but an in/out option on EU membership. Given the narrow margin and the wide range of motivations, an insistence that leaving has to mean reduced immigration, or withdrawal from the single market, or anything else is unsupportably dogmatic.”
'Hard' Brexit?
We heard from a reader hoping for a ‘soft’ Brexit, but what’s the difference between a ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Brexit? This issue was tackled in today’s Guardian editorial:
The brute fact facing ministers is that, if Brexit means a European Economic Area deal (a so-called soft Brexit), it will be seen as a betrayal of working-class leave voters in favour of those in a City that wanted to remain. But if Brexit means instead a migration clampdown and little access to the single market (hard Brexit) it will fuel business’s demands for laxer regulation and lower business and personal tax regimes, creating an Irish-style regime outside the EU, with profoundly serious consequences for the poor as inequality widens and public spending is cut further.
And here’s how a ‘hard’ Brexit would look to one of our Leave-voting readers, who sets out the stall as:
No concessions to the EU. No payments to the EU, no open border to the EU, no EU legislation. Trade with the Commonwealth and emerging economies. Tax EU imports of goods and services. Existing EU citizens to have right of abode whilst paying UK taxes. Free NHS access for UK, Irish only.
Updated
May is hoping for a 'bespoke' deal which requires compromise
Theresa May has been clear that she intends to take Britain fully out of the EU, saying “Brexit means Brexit”. Her problem is that it means different things to different people. Not even government ministers share the same views about how far to detach from the single market, how much to restrict immigration from the EU, how parliament should be given a say and when to trigger article 50 starting the process of divorce from Brussels.
On top of that, European leaders have shown varying degrees of flexibility and understanding towards Britain during May’s tour of European capitals to test the mood about how Brexit should be carried out. May is hoping for a “bespoke” deal with the EU but this will require reserves of diplomacy and probably compromises along the way. The prime minister has already asked for blueprints from cabinet ministers about how to achieve Brexit and civil servants are planning for all the different scenarios. She appears to be adopting an approach of careful planning and consultation before the serious negotiations get underway.
We’ve heard from a Darryl, 36, who works in London’s financial services industry, who hopes for a deal which “retains EU passporting for financial services and single market access,” but who expects the right wing of the Tory party to force through a ‘hard’ Brexit.
I work in finance and strongly believe the City and therefore the economy is going to be detrimentally impacted by Brexit. So far there appears to be a great deal of complacency over what will happen when Brexit arrives - we have seen a tiny fraction of the real impact.
I have started to learn German in the expectation that the job market here is going to be a wasteland for a while.
What should Brexit look like?
Some interesting views below the line on this ...
Any solution which does not deliver Brexit will leave a festering sore which will leave both the country and the Tory party festering. Two months after the referendum, the sky hasn't fallen in, WWIII hasn't started and the Remain camp is left looking like a pack of fools. I'm no fan of Theresa May, but she does know that we can't go back.
Hopefully the Court Cases in October will mean that the Houses of Parliament have the opportunity to debate a proposed Brexit Plan that will be used as a basis for Article 50. A costed breakdown of the Brexit Plan and projected consequences, can be put before the electorate in a 2nd Referendum. The electorate will then be in no doubt what they are actually voting for.
Seeing as the Guardian seems unable to join the dots, perhaps I can. Theresa May cannot back out of invoking Article 50 (Brexit means Brexit). But she knows what a nightmare it will be. So how is she going to deal with a situation she doesn't want?
The referendum was only 'advisory' and so it has to go through parliament. The one who decided the referendum was only advisory was Philip Hammond, who is now her chancellor. The majority of MPs are pro-EU (about 450). She knows (as do many Tory MPs) it will not pass through parliament. So she has to make it look like she is doing her utmost, otherwise she will have riots and rebellions on her hands.
I doubt Britain will get a 'have your cake a eat it' deal
It is now clear from the announcement after yesterday’s cabinet meeting that the government wants a bespoke Brexit deal with the EU – rather than an existing model such as Norway’s – that will give it control over EU immigration while at the same time favouring trade in goods and services (which essentially means single market access, particularly for financial services).
Unfortunately, it is very hard to see what would induce the EU and its 27 remaining member states to agree to such an arrangement. The newer members will not easily surrender on freedom of movement. The older ones, with Eurosceptic parties challenging hard on immigration in elections next year, simply cannot afford to give Britain a “have your cake and eat it” deal.
If there is one clear message to have come from every European capital in the past two months, it is that single market membership comes at a price, and part of that price is accepting freedom of movement. This is not a question of “punishing” Britain, but of domestic political imperatives and the future survival of the EU. There can be no cherry-picking, as several leaders have said.
So this will be a difficult circle for the prime minister to square, particularly since Britain does not start from a particularly strong negotiating position: if the UK-EU trade relationship were to revert to standard WTO terms, both the European and the British economies would be damaged – but Britain’s would, undeniably, take the relatively bigger hit.
How to contribute
Want to join our debate but lacking in a Guardian commenting account? You can sign up for one here. Prefer to comment via an anonymous form? There’s one at the bottom of the live blog.
It’s almost as if they knew we were going to be debating this today. A new Twitter account popped up this morning with the handle @DExEUgov, which sounds a bit like a new Playstation game, but is, in fact, the government department for Brexit, headed up by David Davis.
Follow us for updates on the UK's negotiations to leave the European Union and to establish the future relationship between the EU & the UK
— Exiting the EU Dept (@DExEUgov) September 1, 2016
Welcome to our debate
British prime minister Theresa May has said that “Brexit means Brexit”, and that the government must push ahead with plans for Britain to leave the European Union (EU). But, in an ideal world, what would our new relationship with Europe look like?
May held a meeting this week to discuss a Brexit action plan and one of the outcomes was that immigration will be a red line in any negotiations. However, experts claim that any limit on this could put our access to the single market under threat.
The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has said otherwise: arguing that Britain could retain membership of the EU with restrictions on freedom of movement, something European diplomats called a “pipe dream”.
Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, said immigration controls put the UK on track for a Canada-style agreement, with free trade for manufactured goods but not necessarily for services.
“Whatever system we go for it is going to be unacceptable to our partners if we want access to the single market. We will only have limited access to the single market and have to content ourselves with a free trade agreement, which would not cover many of our key services sectors including financial services,” he said.
Are there any other issues that we may have to compromise on? What worries you most about a Brexit deal? Will we have to chose restricting immigration over the single market? What must be included, and is anything currently being overlooked?
May and her team have emphasised that Britain will still be open for business and that we are more outward-looking than ever before”. What Brexit deal can make this a reality?
Discuss with us from 12pm-2pm in the comments section, or by filling out the form below.
Updated
"How should Theresa May deliver Brexit?" is perhaps the wrong question. It's not only her that will enable Brexit, but the entire EU, who don't have much incentive to give her what she wants. If the UK doesn't yield on immigration, then it's out of the Single Market.
If the UK is prepared to go that far, the EU won't stop it. And the EU will most certainly not retreat from its principles (4 freedoms) just to keep the UK in.
A point to remember is that any restrictions placed by the UK on EU immigrants would be reciprocated for UK citizens living in the EU (these people would be well advised to take out local citizenship ASAP).