Theresa May proposes two-year 'period of implementation' after UK leaves EU - as it happened

The Evening Standard, which under its relatively new editor, the former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, has become a fierce opponent of Theresa May and “hard” Brexit, claims May’s speech represents a partial victory for cabinet “sensibles” (the “soft” Brexiteers like Philip Hammond) over the “creationists” (the “hard” Brexiteers like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove). Here’s an extract from today’s editorial.

Gone is the claim still made by ministers that in 2019 we are leaving the single market and customs union. Whatever the semantics, we now seek a transition for at least two years where we in effect remain inside that single market and the customs union.

Gone is the claim that we can tell the EU to “go whistle” when they ask us to pay up. The cabinet has made it known that it will cough up at least £20 billion for the privilege of leaving.

Gone is the assertion that freedom of movement will end when we leave. When this paper pointed out earlier this week that we would have to accept free movement as the condition of a transition, this was described as “completely delusional” by a Downing Street source. Today it is the official position of Downing Street’s occupants.

In the Politico Europe Brexit Files email briefing David Herszenhorn says EU officials are “perplexed and frustrated” by the slow pace of negotiations and much more interested in what the British team says in the talks, which resume next week, than in what Theresa May says in her speech. He says:

Ahead of the Florence speech, the European Commission made clear that the official reaction would come from Barnier, the dapper French functionary leading the negotiations.

In other words, EU leaders — from Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to Council President Donald Tusk, to national leaders like Angela Merkel of Germany, Emmanuel Macron of France, Paolo Gentiloni of Italy, to Jüri Ratas of Estonia — have no interest in a debate with May about how future generations of Europeans will look back on these times. Nor do they care whether May thinks Britain’s future is bright or dim.

As Barnier said in Rome, what they want is clarity and a swift resolution at the negotiating table. But he was even clearer that what he remains most interested in is not what May says in Florence, but what her negotiating team says in the next round of talks in Brussels next week.

Dario Nardella, the mayor of Florence, has tweeted a welcome message to Theresa May.

In a longer message on his Facebook page, in Italian and in English, he makes it clear what he thinks about Brexit.

Florence, European city of dialogue and capital of culture, welcomes British prime minister Theresa May, who has chosen the historical heart of Europe for her important speech. An event which confirms the strong and deep cultural ties between the British people and our city. Today, once again, we have the opportunity to proudly affirm our determination to build a more and more united, plural and stronger Europe. The Europe of people and cities. A free Europe able to make the dream of those men and women, who bravely saw our future rising from the ashes of World War II, come true. We cannot betray that dream and its ideals.

According to Alex Wickham, this is the backdrop for Theresa May’s speech.

It could be the slogan for a remain speech during the EU referendum.

Henry Newman, the director of the Open Europe thinktank, has written a useful blog about Theresa May’s speech arguing that it will show Britain is heading for a “Canada plus”-type trade relationship with the EU. Or “Ceta plus”, as he puts it: Ceta is the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, the EU-Canada free trade deal. Here’s an extract.

But the “Ceta plus” option is a shorthand for a model in which the UK has control over its future regulatory landscape. The key question is whether the UK will have the ability to diverge in regulatory terms from the EU? Will we be able to say no to certain EU directives and regulations, even if we choose to apply others? Or will we essentially be waiting by a ‘fax machine’, obliged broadly to legislate for whatever Brussels comes up with in the future.

On this battle it looks like May is moving in the direction which key Brexit advocates in Cabinet wanted. This afternoon she is expected to note that there will be areas where we share the objectives of the EU in terms of regulations and are happy to continue to adopt their mechanisms to enforce them; but, crucially, that there will be others where we do not share their objectives and so cannot share their mechanisms.

This discussion around our control over future regulations may sound dull and technical but it is in some senses one of the most important issues of all. For if we leave the EU, relinquish our seat at the table, our vote in the Council and our commissioner, only to take every EU rule without a say over shaping them, we would be in a much worse place than we are now. To make a success of Brexit we need to regain sufficient control to determine our own future. That will come with some costs but mean greater opportunities for our future prosperity.

This is from the FT’s George Parker, who is in Florence.

And Stephen Bush has a good line on the Theresa May speech in his New Statesman morning briefing.

Just as with the forthcoming Taylor Swift album, we’re all hoping that the full record will be better than the pre-released extracts but it doesn’t exactly look like a floor-filler at the moment. It’s long on optimistic paragraphs about the greatness of the United Kingdom and the European Union but short on realism.

In his HuffPost UK daily briefing Paul Waugh suggests having a two-year Brexit transition could have implications for the timing of Theresa May’s own exit. He says:

May’s allies think she has proved she is quietly effective on policy substance (her speech hasn’t changed much at all through the week), while Boris has been loudly ineffective. On the politics, rather than policy, Boris has undoubtedly reminded everyone of his role. But some around May think the two-year transition is also a way of extending her own political lifetime, letting her oversee the process with a handover to a new leader in early 2021. That would allow enough time for her successor to prepare for a general election in 2022, while giving the ‘next generation’ of possible Tory leaders time to build their profile.

UPDATE: Sir Craig Oliver, David Cameron’s former communications chief, thinks the May allies who were speaking to Waugh should not have been so candid.

Today’s Financial Times splash (paywall) says Theresa May will use her speech to firm up her offer to the EU on the rights of EU nationals. It says:

Brussels has demanded that the 3m EU nationals in the country have direct recourse to the European Court of Justice to ensure the rights they currently have in Britain are safeguarded after Brexit.

But the prime minister’s aides have told European diplomats to expect a proposal to ensure UK courts enforce the rights of EU citizens.

Rather than transpose specific policy provisions of any citizen rights deal into domestic UK law — and run the risk that MPs “dilute” the measures, as EU officials fear — parliament would instead make the relevant terms of the exit treaty directly enforceable in UK courts.

British officials have also told negotiators they are considering whether future ECJ case law should be “taken into account” by British judges where relevant to the citizen rights — another key Brussels demand.

The Conservative MP Kirstene Hair has admitted she did not vote in the Brexit referendum because the decision was “very difficult”. Hair, who was elected MP for Angus in Scotland in June, told the Courier newspaper:

I didn’t vote on Brexit. I took the decision not to vote on it. It was incredibly difficult. The first time I’ve never voted in my life.

It was very difficult because you get two arguments, very strong on both sides.

I just ultimately couldn’t make that decision and I thought I would therefore go with the will of the UK which if I’m honest I thought we would remain.

But I left that to everyone else.