Meanwhile, Andrea Leadsom outbid them all when she dreamed of a future when there was “absolutely no regulation whatsoever – no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights – for the smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground”... The original sin of the authors of Brexit was to refuse to admit that it must either bring a shuddering dislocation as Britain tore itself out of an integrated European economy or turn Britain into an EU vassal state that obeyed EU rules but had no say in their formulation. The greater dishonesty was that the EU referendum was never just about the EU. It was a howl of rage from Thatcherites, who cannot accept that their ideology failed, from the old against the young, and from all who could not make their peace with the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the environment science of the 1980s and the multiculturalism of the 2000s. Their leaders see the chance to abolish a modern world they neither like nor comprehend. Hence their fanaticism. Hence their determination to go for broke and tolerate no compromises.
The sticking point has been the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which after Brexit will also become the border between the UK and the EU. Because of the island’s troubled history, both sides want to avoid a hard border with customs checks that could become a source of friction. The problem has been that since the prime minister promised in her Lancaster House speech to take Britain out of both the EU’s single market (to cease being an EU “rule-taker”) and the customs union (to allow it to strike its own trade deals around the world), customs and regulatory checks at the border are difficult to dodge. Ultimately, the border is supposed to become a non-issue under the terms of the comprehensive free trade agreement the two sides are expected to sign at some stage after Britain’s departure on 29 March next year.
Theresa May's Brexit deal: everything you need to know | Politics | The Guardian
A mysterious online advertising campaign attempting to whip up opposition to Theresa May’s Brexit plan has been uncovered by a parliamentary committee. The “sophisticated” campaign is estimated to have spent more than £250,000 in the last 10 months on Facebook adverts calling for the government to “chuck Chequers”. There is no information on who is behind the adverts or where the significant funding is coming from. The campaign uses micro-targeting to ask Facebook users to lobby their MP to oppose Ms May’s Chequers plan, which has been heavily criticised by Eurosceptics who claim it keeps Britain tied too closely to the EU after Brexit.
Theresa May's Chequers plan attacked by mysterious online advertising campaign | The Independent