Brexit Weekly Briefing: digging for an agreement on the Irish border in the "tunnel" | Policy

Welcome to the Brexit's weekly Guardian Briefing, featuring the best Brexitland articles of the week, organized to give you a sense of opportunity and hope for the future.

If you wish to receive the briefing in the form of a weekly e-mail, register here. And you can follow our monthly podcast relaunched Brexit Means … here.

Finally, producing the Guardian's independent and in-depth journalism takes time and money. We do it because we believe that our point of view matters and that it can be yours too. If you like our Brexit coverage, please become a supporter of Guardian. Thank you.

Best stories

Although last week, it was reported that the British and Irish governments were about to reach an agreement to solve the Irish border security problem, while the Brexit negotiations are secretly resuming this week, he It is clear that the problem remains the main obstacle. progress.

It seems that the EU is willing to accept a British customs union, with some "deeper" clauses, to replace its specific proposal to Northern Ireland – but that would require Downing Street to recognize that the EU is not the only one in the world. The customs union was indeed permanent. , that Brexiters are unlikely to accept.

And so, Dublin and the EU27 being adamant about the fact that the safety net can not be limited in time, EU officials have rated Theresa May's "50-50" as likely to conclude a border agreement with Brussels that she could sell to her government and to her parliament: the two parties "the competing red lines are still" inconsistent "in key areas.

The government has strongly denied a report that a financial services agreement has been reached and that fishing has become a major bone of contention as a number of EU states are opposed to it. to any customs agreement concluded with the United Kingdom without agreeing on the maintenance of their fleet operating in British waters.

Far from the discussions, the drama was centered on Arron Banks, whose donation to the unofficial permission campaign was the most important of British politics. The Electoral Commission said the National Anti-Crime Agency would investigate several possible criminal offenses committed by the millionaire insurance company, which would have prompted the Brexit suspension.

The banks might not have been "the real source" of £ 8 million of Leave.EU funding, he is suspected. Moreover, new allegations have emerged that he may have misled Parliament, with e-mails leaked showing that, despite his denials, his insurance staff were working on the "Leave.EU" campaign from their offices. the society.

Controversially, he appeared in the BBC show Andrew Marr to insist that there was "no Russian money, no interference" and that it was all his dosh, but he refused to reveal which of his many companies had generated it.

It's a complicated affair (the obscure nature of his company's dealings has caused confusion even in Banks, not to mention Marr), but my colleagues Peter Walker and David Pegg have written two very helpful explanations of why Banks is investigated and what questions he must answer.

All this put more wind in the sails of the campaign for a second referendum, with 1,500 of Britain's top lawyers and more than 70 business leaders signing an open letter to the prime minister calling for a "popular vote" among the warnings of credit rating agency S & P believes that a Brexit without agreement would trigger a long recession in the UK.

And then?

As Parliament interrupts this week, the government hopes that "decisive progress" will be made on Friday on the question of the security of the Irish border, in the hope that Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, will then be able to convene an extraordinary summit on Brexit, possibly on 22 November. , to seal a possible deal.

A cabinet meeting on Tuesday could be marked by progress on the British side, which could eventually help settle the withdrawal agreement by December. This would give Parliament the necessary time to ratify it (which it is by no means sure to do). Of course, none of the above is guaranteed.

Best of the rest

Top comment

The Guardian's editorial insists very much on the suspicion that Aron Banks' money to Leave.EU was not his:

If it turns out that crimes have been committed, Mr. Banks should suffer the consequences. But Leave.EU was not the designated Brexit campaign. It's one thing to show that the electoral law has been broken. This is further proof that the foreign-funded campaign was so effective that it was able to mobilize a sufficient number of voters who would not have been mobilized otherwise. If it is conclusively demonstrated that the referendum was manipulated and that the result is dangerous, the precipitous leap forward to leave the EU should be suspended. We are not here yet. Ministers are rightly afraid to appear to be interfering with the result of the ballot in 2016. They must also ensure that elections are not stolen and that votes are not deprived of their meaning.

Also in the Guardian, Paul Grade says that member states are ready to remain firm on the possibility of a Brexit without agreement because:

The crisis would be short. The impact of customs delays on the UK would be so disastrous that London would come back quickly to the table. In that sense, it does not matter whether the government or the British parliament blocks the agreement. For the EU, no agreement is a final state; it is the continuation of trading by other means. This is not fully understood in the UK, where … no agreement is described as a long and difficult struggle. The EU will not choose this path to argue a point. But the important thing is that the main European leaders think they can take this risk, confident that it will only last a few days before the United Kingdom has to seek an agreement.

Top tweet

Ireland's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Simon Coveney is once again making the main point. Oddly enough, Britain never seems to hear it: