Some progress was seemingly made in preparatory talks in Brussels, while in Washington Liam Fox hoped to bring good news of a US-UK trade deal

Welcome to the Guardian’s weekly Brexit briefing, a summary of developments as the UK heads to the EU door marked “exit”. If you would like to receive it as a weekly early morning email, please sign up here.



You can listen to our latest Brexit Means … podcast here. Also: producing the Guardian’s independent, in-depth journalism takes a lot of time and money. We do it because we believe our perspective matters – and it may be your perspective too. If you value our Brexit coverage, please become a Guardian Supporter and help make our future more secure. Thank you.

The big picture

Round two of the preparatory talks on a Brexit settlement took place over four days in Brussels, and were described by the Brexit secretary, David Davis – who was there for the beginning and end – as “robust”.

Some progress was seemingly made, but the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, stressed at the closing press conference that his side desired more clarity from the UK on the so-called divorce settlement – what it would pay to leave the bloc.

Clarification on this was “indispensable for us to negotiate”, Barnier said, indicating wider frustrations with continued British vagueness on some areas.

There was seemingly some progress on another vexed issue, that of the respective post-Brexit rights of EU nationals in the UK, and overseas Britons living in the region.

However, Barnier said, a stumbling block remained the issue of whether the rights of EU nationals in the UK would be overseen by the European court of justice, something Theresa May has ruled out.

The view from Europe

Barnier had some further strong words of warning for the UK when, last week, he met members of the House of Lords European Union committee. He warned that EU states could refuse to approve a trade deal with the UK unless the government gave assurances that it would not use Brexit to deregulate and lower standards:

The mechanics of this divergence should not lead to unfair competition, because if we do not answer this question – of course, you can help us to find solutions to this because you have so much expertise, skill and competence, and you can help us to have a level playing field – I can tell you that there will be major difficulties in obtaining ratification of any future agreement in all countries, because there will be campaigns against the negotiations.

He said there would be outrage across Europe if Britain refused to pay for EU budget commitments already agreed:

There are thousands of town halls, municipalities, businesses and universities that have undertaken projects on the basis of those undertakings and commitments. If we are to cut 15% or whatever – that is the UK share – there will be an explosion everywhere across the board. You cannot build a relationship in trust on a situation like that. That is why we have to solve this question calmly and objectively.

Meanwhile, back in Westminster

Amid the Brexit negotiations, for every position agreed in Brussels, there is a parallel process of political adjustment back in London.

The big shift following the latest discussions came with an acknowledgement from a UK cabinet source that the need for a business-friendly transitional deal was likely to include the continued free movement of people for up to four years.

This acceptance has been seen as a victory for those in May’s cabinet pushing for a more pragmatic and less ideological approach to the Brexit process.

The other strand of the political manoeuvring – the post-Brexit trade landscape – was played out in Washington, where the international trade secretary, Liam Fox, hoped to trumpet news of initial talks on a future UK-US trade deal.

Instead, a clearly irritated Fox saw the narrative somewhat derailed by questions about chlorine-washed chicken, part of concerns that the trade deal with America could lead to imports of food with lower safety standards.



While Fox complained the UK media were “obsessed” with the chicken issue, for others it highlights the compromises the country might need to make to shore up the economy after leaving the EU.

You should also know

Read these

In the Financial Times, Janan Ganesh argues (paywall) that Brexit was born not out of chaos and disorder, but from the complacency of a population which has taken stability for granted:

The median Briton, who is 40, has no recollection of national crisis: no devaluation, no three-day week, no conscript war, none of the floor-to-ceiling greyness of the postwar years, when austerity entailed the rationing of basics and not just tight public-sector pay settlements, none of the little humiliations that came with being poorer than other European countries and shut out from their embryonic project of union. Even the background spectre of a world-ending nuclear exchange had more or less passed by the time this notional citizen became a teenager … To remain vigilant after such a benign experience of history is too much to ask. The temptation is to treat order and gradual progress as things ordained by nature – to believe that electoral choices cannot threaten these cosmic entitlements. Politics becomes a kind of elevated sport: a means of venting and expressing oneself at low risk.

In the Guardian, Labour’s shadow trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, argues that Brexit must also mean leaving the single market and customs union:

Brexit arose from key political, rather than trade, objectives: to have control over our borders, to have sovereignty over our laws, not to submit to the European court of justice, and not to pay money into the European budget … I campaigned to stay in the EU, but as a democratic politician, I have to recognise that these objectives provide the benchmarks by which leave voters will judge the future trade relations we negotiate with the EU. Unless the new agreement delivers these objectives in substantial measure, we will find it difficult to justify the final result to the 52% who voted leave.

Tweet of the week

The former head of the official Leave campaign in the Brexit referendum, Dominic Cummings, gives his somewhat robust assessment of the man now leading that Brexit process for the UK, David Davis.