Both Parties have reached agreement in principle across the following three areas under consideration in the first phase of negotiations, on which further detail is set out in this report: protecting the rights of Union citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the Union; the framework for addressing the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland; and the financial settlement.
8 December 2017 JOINT REPORT FROM THE NEGOTIATORS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT ON PROGRESS DURING PHASE 1 OF NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 50 TEU ON THE UNITED KINGDOM'S ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
1. This report, presented jointly by the negotiators of the European Union (Union) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), records the progress made in the first phase of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) on the UK's orderly withdrawal from the Union.
2. Both Parties have reached agreement in principle across the following three areas under consideration in the first phase of negotiations, on which further detail is set out in this report: a. protecting the rights of Union citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the Union; b. the framework for addressing the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland; and c. the financial settlement.
3. Progress was also made in achieving agreement on aspects of other separation issues.
4. The positions detailed in this report form a single and coherent package. Agreement in principle has been reached on the package as a whole, as opposed to individual elements.
5. Under the caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the joint commitments set out below in this joint report shall be reflected in the Withdrawal Agreement in full detail. This does not prejudge any adaptations that might be appropriate in case transitional arrangements were to be agreed in the second phase of the negotiations, and is without prejudice to discussions on the framework of the future relationship. Citizens' rights
6. The overall objective of the Withdrawal Agreement with respect to citizens' rights is to provide reciprocal protection for Union and UK citizens, to enable the effective exercise of rights derived from Union law and based on past life choices, where those citizens have exercised free movement rights by the specified date.
7. To date, both Parties have reached a common understanding on the following.1
8. The specified date should be the time of the UK's withdrawal. 1 This common understanding is based on a more detailed consensus between the Parties, as expressed in the latest joint technical note that summarises the UK and EU positions.
Page 2 of 15
9. The use of Union law concepts in the citizens’ rights Part of the Withdrawal Agreement is to be interpreted in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the specified date;
10. Union citizens who in accordance with Union law legally reside in the UK, and UK nationals who in accordance with Union law legally reside in an EU27 Member State by the specified date, as well as their family members as defined by Directive 2004/38/EC who are legally resident in the host State by the specified date, fall within the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement (for personal scope related to frontier workers, see paragraph 15, and for social security, see paragraph 28);
11. Within the scope of application of this Part of the Withdrawal Agreement and without prejudice to any special provisions therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality will be prohibited in the host State and the State of work in respect of Union citizens and UK nationals, and their respective family members covered by the Withdrawal Agreement;
12. Irrespective of their nationality, the following categories of family members who were not residing in the host State on the specified date will be entitled to join a Union citizen or UK national right holder after the specified date for the life time of the right holder, on the same conditions as under current Union law: a. all family members as referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC, provided they were related to the right holder on the specified date and they continue to be so related at the point they wish to join the right holder; and b. children born, or legally adopted, after the specified date, whether inside or outside the host State, where: i. the child is born to, or legally adopted by, parents who are both protected by the Withdrawal Agreement or where one parent is protected by the Withdrawal Agreement and the other is a national of the host State; or ii. the child is born to, or legally adopted by, a parent who is protected by the Withdrawal Agreement and who has sole or joint custody of the child under the applicable family law of an EU27 Member State or the UK and without prejudging the normal operation of that law, in particular as regards the best interests of the child;
13. The UK and EU27 Member States will facilitate entry and residence of partners in a durable relationship (Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC) after the UK’s withdrawal in accordance with national legislation if the partners did not reside in the host state on the specified date, the relationship existed and was durable on the specified date and continues to exist at the point they wish to join the right holder;
14. The right to be joined by family members not covered by paragraphs 12 and 13 after the specified date will be subject to national law;
15. Those who on the specified date are working as frontier workers, as defined under Union law, fall within the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement;
Page 3 of 15
16. The UK and EU27 Member States can require persons concerned to apply to obtain a status conferring the rights of residence as provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement and be issued with a residence document attesting to the existence of that right. Where the host State requires persons concerned to apply for a status, no status is obtained if no successful application is made, subject to paragraph 17e. The UK and EU27 Member States can also continue with the present system under which entitlement of rights under the Withdrawal Agreement may be attested by any other means of proof than a residence document;
17. Administrative procedures for applications for status will be transparent, smooth and streamlined,2 in particular: a. The Withdrawal Agreement will specify that the host State cannot require anything more than is strictly necessary and proportionate to determine whether the criteria have been met. The Withdrawal Agreement will contain provisions that follow a similar approach to the provisions on evidential requirements in Directive 2004/38; b. The host State will avoid any unnecessary administrative burdens; c. Application forms will be short, simple, user friendly and adjusted to the context of the Withdrawal Agreement. The host State will work with the applicants to help them prove their eligibility under the Withdrawal Agreement and to avoid any errors or omissions that may impact on the application decision. Competent authorities will give applicants the opportunity to furnish supplementary evidence or remedy any deficiencies where it appears a simple omission has taken place. A principle of evidential flexibility will apply, enabling competent authorities to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant where appropriate;
d. A proportionate approach will be taken to those who miss the deadline for application where there is a good reason. Applications made by families at the same time will be considered together; and e. Where an application is required to obtain status, adequate time of at least two years will be allowed to persons within the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement to submit their applications. During this time period, they will enjoy the rights conferred by the Withdrawal Agreement. Residence documents under the Withdrawal Agreement will be issued free of charge or for a charge not exceeding that imposed on nationals for the issuing of similar documents;
18. Pending a final decision by the competent authorities on any application made for status under the Withdrawal Agreement, as well as a final judgment handed down in case of judicial redress sought against any rejection of such application, the citizens' rights Part of the Withdrawal Agreement will apply to the applicant. The host State may remove applicants who submitted fraudulent or abusive applications from the territory under the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38/EC, in particular Articles 31 and 35, even before a final judgment has been handed down in case of judicial redress sought against any rejection of such application;
2 For information: the UK has published a technical note – see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/citizens-rights-administrative-procedures-in-the-uk - setting out proposed procedures under its national law, which it will continue to develop over the coming months.
Page 4 of 15
19. Decisions taken under the procedure for obtaining status under the Withdrawal Agreement will be made in accordance with the objective criteria established in the Withdrawal Agreement (i.e. no discretion, unless in favour of the applicant). There will be safeguards in the Withdrawal Agreement for a fair procedure, and decisions will be subject to the redress mechanisms and judicial controls provided in Directive 2004/38/EC;
20. The conditions for acquiring the right of residence under the Withdrawal Agreement are those set out in Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC, including the right to change status;
21. The conditions for acquiring the right of permanent residence under the Withdrawal Agreement are those set out in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC, with periods of lawful residence prior to the specified date included in the calculation of the conditions set out in Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2004/38/EC; 22. The UK and EU27 Member States can apply more favourable national provisions in accordance with Article 37 of Directive 2004/38/EC;
23. In order to obtain status under the Withdrawal Agreement by application, those already holding a permanent residence document issued under Union law3 at the specified date will have that document converted into the new document free of charge, subject only to verification of identity, a criminality and security check and confirmation of ongoing residence;
24. Systematic criminality and security checks can – in the specific context of acquiring status under the Withdrawal Agreement – be carried out on all applicants for status under the Agreement and applicants can be asked to declare criminality. Any consequences arising from such checks and declarations shall be subject to the procedures in paragraphs 17 to 19;
25. Persons who acquired the permanent residence rights in the host State under the Withdrawal Agreement can be absent from its territory for a period not exceeding five consecutive years without losing their residence right under the Withdrawal Agreement; 26. Any restrictions on grounds of public policy or security related to conduct prior to the specified date of persons covered by the Withdrawal Agreement will be in accordance with Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC;
27. Any restrictions on grounds of public policy or security related to conduct after the specified date will be in accordance with national law;
28. Social security coordination rules set out in Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 will apply. Social security coordination rules will cover Union citizens who on the specified date are or have been subject to UK legislation and UK nationals who are or have been subject to the legislation of an EU27 Member State, and EU27 and UK nationals within the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement by virtue of 3 This includes beneficiaries of the Withdrawal Agreement who hold valid domestic immigration documents conferring a permanent right to reside in the host state (such as UK Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) status).
Page 5 of 15
residence. Those rules will also apply, for the purposes of aggregation of periods of social security insurance, to Union and UK citizens having worked or resided in the UK or in an EU27 Member State in the past;
29. Rules for healthcare, including the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme, will follow Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. Persons whose competent state is the UK and are in the EU27 on the specified date (and vice versa) – whether on a temporary stay or resident – continue to be eligible for healthcare reimbursement, including under the EHIC scheme, as long as that stay, residence or treatment continues;
30. For rights and obligations set out in Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 on the coordination of social security systems, a mechanism will be established to decide jointly on the incorporation of future amendments to those Regulations in the Withdrawal Agreement;
31. Equal treatment will apply within the limits of Articles 18, 45 and 49 TFEU, Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 including rights of workers, self-employed, students and economically inactive citizens with respect to social security, social assistance, health care, employment, self-employment and setting up and managing an undertaking, education (including higher education) and training, social and tax advantages;
32. Decisions on recognition of qualifications granted to persons covered by the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement before the specified date in the host State and, for frontier workers, the State of work (either the UK or an EU27 Member State) under Title III of Directive 2005/36/EC (recognition of professional qualifications where the person concerned was exercising the freedom of establishment), Article 10 of Directive 98/5/EC (lawyers who gained admission to the host State profession and are allowed to practise under the host State title alongside their home State title) and Article 14 of Directive 2006/43/EC (approved statutory auditors) will be grandfathered.
Recognition procedures under these Directives that are ongoing on the specified date, in respect of the persons covered, will be completed under Union law and will be grandfathered. Legal effects of the citizens' rights Part 33. It is of paramount importance to both Parties to give as much certainty as possible to UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK about their future rights. The Parties have therefore reached agreement on the following specific set of arrangements to implement and enforce the citizens’ rights Part of the agreement.
34. Both Parties agree that the Withdrawal Agreement should provide for the legal effects of the citizens' rights Part both in the UK and in the Union. UK domestic legislation should also be enacted to this effect.
35. The provision in the Agreement should enable citizens to rely directly on their rights as set out in the citizens' rights Part of the Agreement and should specify that inconsistent or incompatible rules and provisions will be disapplied.
Page 6 of 15
36. The UK Government will bring forward a Bill, the Withdrawal Agreement & Implementation Bill, specifically to implement the Agreement. This Bill will make express reference to the Agreement and will fully incorporate the citizens' rights Part into UK law. Once this Bill has been adopted, the provisions of the citizens' rights Part will have effect in primary legislation and will prevail over inconsistent or incompatible legislation, unless Parliament expressly repeals this Act in future. The Withdrawal Agreement will be binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member States from its entry into force pursuant to Article 216(2) TFEU.
Consistent interpretation of the citizens' rights Part
37. The Agreement establishes rights for both UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. To protect those rights and give citizens legal certainty, a consistent interpretation and application of the citizens' rights Part is in the interest of both Parties to the Agreement and therefore appropriate mechanisms should be established to ensure this.
38. This Part of the Agreement establishes rights for citizens following on from those established in Union law during the UK’s membership of the European Union; the CJEU is the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation of Union law. In the context of the application or interpretation of those rights, UK courts shall therefore have due regard to relevant decisions of the CJEU after the specified date4 . The Agreement should also establish a mechanism enabling UK courts or tribunals to decide, having had due regard to whether relevant case-law exists, to ask the CJEU questions of interpretation of those rights where they consider that a CJEU ruling on the question is necessary for the UK court or tribunal to be able to give judgment in a case before it. This mechanism should be available for UK courts or tribunals for litigation brought within 8 years from the date of application of the citizens' rights Part.
39. Consistent interpretation of the citizens' rights Part should further be supported and facilitated by an exchange of case law between the courts and regular judicial dialogue. In the same vein, it is envisaged to give the UK Government and the European Commission the right to intervene in relevant cases before the CJEU and before UK courts and tribunals respectively.
40. The implementation and application of the citizens' rights Part will be monitored in the Union by the Commission acting in conformity with the Union Treaties. In the UK, this role will be fulfilled by an independent national authority; its scope and functions, including its role in acting on citizens' complaints, will be discussed between the parties in the next phase of the negotiations and reflected in the Withdrawal Agreement. There should be regular exchange of information between the UK Government and the Commission.
41. The approach agreed in the context of the citizens' rights Part of the Withdrawal Agreement reflects both Parties’ desire to give those citizens certainty. It in no way prejudges discussions on other elements of the Withdrawal Agreement, including 4 According to paragraph 9 of this report, the use of Union law concepts in the citizens’ rights Part of the Withdrawal Agreement is to be interpreted in line with the case law of the CJEU by the specified date.
Page 7 of 15
governance, other separation issues or any possible transitional arrangements, nor discussions on the future relationship.
Ireland and Northern Ireland
42. Both Parties affirm that the achievements, benefits and commitments of the peace process will remain of paramount importance to peace, stability and reconciliation. They agree that the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement reached on 10 April 1998 by the United Kingdom Government, the Irish Government and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations (the '1998 Agreement') must be protected in all its parts, and that this extends to the practical application of the 1998 Agreement on the island of Ireland and to the totality of the relationships set out in the Agreement.
43. The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union presents a significant and unique challenge in relation to the island of Ireland. The United Kingdom recalls its commitment to protecting the operation of the 1998 Agreement, including its subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, and to the effective operation of each of the institutions and bodies established under them. The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls.
44. Both Parties recognise the need to respect the provisions of the 1998 Agreement regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent. The commitments set out in this joint report are and must remain fully consistent with these provisions. The United Kingdom continues to respect and support fully Northern Ireland's position as an integral part of the United Kingdom, consistent with the principle of consent.
45. The United Kingdom respects Ireland's ongoing membership of the European Union and all of the corresponding rights and obligations that entails, in particular Ireland's place in the Internal Market and the Customs Union. The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to preserving the integrity of its internal market and Northern Ireland's place within it, as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union's Internal Market and Customs Union.
46. The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. They are made and must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and United Kingdom.
47. Cooperation between Ireland and Northern Ireland is a central part of the 1998 Agreement and is essential for achieving reconciliation and the normalisation of relationships on the island of Ireland. In this regard, both Parties recall the roles, functions and safeguards of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the North-South Ministerial Council (including its cross-community provisions) as set out in the 1998 Agreement. The two Parties have carried out a
Page 8 of 15
mapping exercise, which shows that North-South cooperation relies to a significant extent on a common European Union legal and policy framework. Therefore, the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union gives rise to substantial challenges to the maintenance and development of North-South cooperation.
48. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting and supporting continued North-South and East-West cooperation across the full range of political, economic, security, societal and agricultural contexts and frameworks of cooperation, including the continued operation of the North-South implementation bodies.
49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.
51. Both Parties will establish mechanisms to ensure the implementation and oversight of any specific arrangement to safeguard the integrity of the EU Internal Market and the Customs Union.
52. Both Parties acknowledge that the 1998 Agreement recognises the birth right of all the people of Northern Ireland to choose to be Irish or British or both and be accepted as such. The people of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens will continue to enjoy rights as EU citizens, including where they reside in Northern Ireland. Both Parties therefore agree that the Withdrawal Agreement should respect and be without prejudice to the rights, opportunities and identity that come with European Union citizenship for such people and, in the next phase of negotiations, will examine arrangements required to give effect to the ongoing exercise of, and access to, their EU rights, opportunities and benefits.
53. The 1998 Agreement also includes important provisions on Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity for which EU law and practice has provided a supporting framework in Northern Ireland and across the island of Ireland. The United Kingdom commits to ensuring that no diminution of rights is caused by its departure from the European Union, including in the area of protection against forms of discrimination enshrined in EU law. The United Kingdom commits to facilitating the related work of the institutions and bodies, established by the 1998 Agreement, in upholding human rights and equality standards.
Page 9 of 15
54. Both Parties recognise that the United Kingdom and Ireland may continue to make arrangements between themselves relating to the movement of persons between their territories (Common Travel Area), while fully respecting the rights of natural persons conferred by Union law. The United Kingdom confirms and accepts that the Common Travel Area and associated rights and privileges can continue to operate without affecting Ireland’s obligations under Union law, in particular with respect to free movement for EU citizens.
55. Both Parties will honour their commitments to the PEACE and INTERREG funding programmes under the current multi-annual financial framework. Possibilities for future support will be examined favourably.
56. Given the specific nature of issues related to Ireland and Northern Ireland, and on the basis of the principles and commitments set out above, both Parties agree that in the next phase work will continue in a distinct strand of the negotiations on the detailed arrangements required to give them effect. Such work will also address issues arising from Ireland’s unique geographic situation, including the transit of goods (to and from Ireland via the United Kingdom), in line with the approach established by the European Council Guidelines of 29 April 2017.
Financial settlement
57. Both Parties have agreed a methodology for the financial settlement. 58. This methodology consists of: a. a list of components; b. a set of principles for calculating the value of the financial settlement and payment modalities; c. arrangements for continued participation of the UK in the programmes of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) until their closure; and d. financial and related arrangements for the European Investment Bank, the European Central Bank, European Union trust funds, the Facility for Refugees in Turkey, Council agencies and also the European Development Fund. Components of the settlement UK participation in Union annual budgets to 2020 59. The UK will contribute to, and participate in, the implementation of the Union annual budgets for the years 2019 and 2020 as if it had remained in the Union (including revenue adjustments5 ), on the basis of the applicable Union legal provisions including the Own Resources legislation. By derogation, any amendments to the Multiannual Financial Framework Regulation or Own Resources Decision adopted after the date of withdrawal, having an impact on the UK’s financial obligations, will not apply to the UK. 5 This will include the UK’s share of net financial corrections and fines imposed until 31 December 2020, once definitively settled.
Page 10 of 15
60. The normal process of annual revenue adjustment in respect of the year 2020 will be completed in accordance with the Own Resources Decision and the other relevant Union provisions. Amounts to be returned to, or returned by, the UK will be calculated as if the UK had remained in the Union. The UK will also participate in the surplus exercise with respect to 2020. In the second phase of negotiations, some simplification of the revenue adjustment procedure including time limitation could be agreed between the UK and the Union. Outstanding commitments at the end of 2020 – Reste à liquider (RAL)
61. The UK will contribute its share of the financing of the budgetary commitments outstanding at 31 December 2020 (RAL). Liabilities, contingent liabilities and corresponding assets
62. The UK will contribute its share of the financing of the Union's liabilities incurred before 31 December 2020 except for liabilities with corresponding assets6 and any assets and liabilities which are related to the operation of the budget and the Own Resources Decision 7 .
63. The UK will remain liable for its share of the Union’s contingent liabilities as established at the date of withdrawal. For those related to guarantees given by the Union budget to support financial operations (e.g. back-to-back loans for financial assistance, financial operations managed by the EIB such as EFSI or the external lending mandate, financial operations managed by other financial institutions, Union budgetary financial instruments), the UK liability will be limited to decisions on each financial operation adopted prior to the date of withdrawal. By derogation, for contingent liabilities related to legal cases as a result of participation in the budget, programmes and policies, the cut-off date will be 31 December 2020
8 . In the event of triggering of the Union contingent liabilities for which the UK is liable, the UK will receive its share of any subsequent recoveries.
64. As the provisioning needs for the financial operations associated with these contingent liabilities decline, the UK share of the paid-in guarantees constituted from the budget until the end of 2020 will be returned to the UK, provided that it has not been used for covering losses on the underlying financial operations, as well as any gains from these financial operations to be returned to all Member States, even if such funds would be recommitted. 65. Similarly, as the financial operations supported by the net asset of the European Coal and Steel Community in liquidation and of the European Investment Fund decided before the withdrawal date, mature, the UK will receive its share. 6 In this context, the following will not be included in the financial settlement: Union financial assistance loan assets and the associated balance sheet liabilities, and assets corresponding to property, plant and equipment and provisions related to the Joint Research Centre nuclear sites dismantlement, and all lease-related obligations and all provisions other than in respect of fines, legal cases and financial guarantee liabilities, intangible assets and inventories, any assets and liabilities relating to the management of foreign currency risk, accrued and deferred income. 7 Outstanding pre-financing advances, receivables, cash, payables, and accrued charges including those related to EAGF or already included in the budgetary RAL will not be included for the calculation of liabilities. 8 The triggering event will be decided in the second phase.
Page 11 of 15
66. Union assets relating to Union space programmes (EGNOS, Galileo & Copernicus) are not part of the financial settlement. The UK’s past contribution to the financing of space assets could be discussed in the context of possible future access to the services offered. Principles for calculating the value of the financial settlement
67. The implementation of the agreed methodology and the schedule of payments will be based on the following principles: a. The UK will not finance any commitments that do not require funding from Member States, and will receive a share of any financial benefits that would have fallen to it had it remained a Member State. In particular, the value of the RAL, as audited by the European Court of Auditors, will be adjusted to take into account the actual implementation of the Union’s commitments, taking into account decommitments and assigned revenue. The UK opt-outs leading to non-participation in Union programmes existing at the date of withdrawal will continue to apply in respect of the financial settlement. b. Except for the UK payments relating to UK participation to Union annual budgets to 2020 as set out in paragraphs 59 and 60, the UK share in relation with the Union budget will be a percentage calculated as the ratio between the own resources made available by the UK from the year 2014 to 2020 and the own resources made available by all Member States, including the UK, during the same period. c. Payments arising from the financial settlement will become due as if the UK had remained a Member State. In particular, the UK will not be required to incur expenditures earlier than would be the case had it remained a Member State unless agreed by both sides.9 It may be appropriate for the UK and the Union to agree on a simplified procedure for settling some elements of the payment schedule in the second phase of negotiations. Such a procedure should be based on an agreed forecast and, where appropriate, provision for subsequent review and correction.
68. The financial settlement will be drawn up and paid in euro. 69. Data for the calculation of UK obligations will be drawn up from publicly available sources where possible, and audited by the European Court of Auditors. Additional information necessary for the calculation of the UK’s share of Union obligations will be transmitted to the UK. The Union will provide the UK with the management and accounting information necessary to verify the components of the financial settlement in a timely manner.
70. The second phase of the negotiations will address the practical modalities for implementing the agreed methodology and the schedule of payments. 9 The UK’s share of the liability related to pension and other post-employment benefits for Union staff and staff from the European Defence Agency, the European Union Institute for Security Studies and the European Union Satellite Centre as established on 31 December 2020 will be paid when these amounts fall due, unless an earlier schedule is agreed. The accounts record this liability in accordance with standard international accounting practice. This liability has a long time-span and the forecast of its net present value (NPV) depends on a number of assumptions and is sensitive to, in particular, the real discount rate, which has a historically low value at the time of drafting of this Joint Report. Page 12 of 15 UK participation in programmes of the MFF 2014-2020
71. Following withdrawal from the Union, the UK will continue to participate in the Union programmes financed by the MFF 2014-202010 until their closure (excluding participation in financial operations which give rise to a contingent liability for which the UK is not liable as from the date of withdrawal). Entities located in the UK will be entitled to participate in such programmes. Participation in Union programmes will require the UK and UK beneficiaries to respect all relevant Union legal provisions including co-financing. Accordingly, the eligibility to apply to participate in Union programmes and Union funding for UK participants and projects will be unaffected by the UK’s withdrawal from the Union for the entire lifetime of such projects.
72. In the second phase of negotiations it could be agreed that some rules related to Union programmes that would be considered as not relevant in relation to a departing Member State would not apply. As part of the second phase of negotiations, the Union and the UK could also decide to agree to simplified procedures so as to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens extending well beyond the end of the current multiannual financial framework, provided that they respect the sound financial management of the Union budget and do not result in discrimination in favour of the UK or UK beneficiaries. The UK and the Union could also agree on administrative procedures to facilitate the management of specific programmes.
73. The UK states that it may wish to participate in some Union budgetary programmes of the new MFF post-2020 as a non-Member State. Other components of the settlement – Union bodies and funds related to Union policies European Investment Bank (EIB)
74. The financial settlement should not disrupt the operational functioning of the EIB as a result of the UK withdrawal in relation to the stock of operations (i.e. loans and other financial instruments) at that point.
75. In this context, the UK will provide a guarantee for an amount equal to its callable capital on the day of withdrawal. This guarantee will be decreased in line with the amortisation of the stock of EIB operations at the date of withdrawal, starting on the date on which the outstanding stock reaches an amount equal to the total subscribed capital on the date of withdrawal and ending on the date it equals the total paid-in capital on the date of withdrawal, both as defined in the EIB statute.
76. The UK share of the paid-in capital will be reimbursed in twelve annual instalments starting at the end of 201911. The UK remains liable for the reimbursed amount of paid-in capital until the outstanding stock of EIB operations equals the total paid-in capital on the date of withdrawal, at which point the liability will start to be amortised in line with the remaining non-amortised operations. 10 European Agricultural Guarantee Fund scheme 2020 is not financed by the MFF 2014-2020. 11 The first eleven instalments will be EUR 300 000 000 each and the final one will be EUR 195 903 950.
Page 13 of 15
77. Apart from these reimbursements, the EIB will not make any other payment, return or remuneration on account of the withdrawal of the UK from the EIB or on account of the provision by the UK of a guarantee.
78. Any call to the callable guarantee or the paid-in (cash or guarantee) will be “paripassu” with calls on or payments made by the Member States provided that it is used for covering operations at the withdrawal date or for covering risks (such as ALM (Asset-Liability management) risks or operational risks) attributable to the stock of operations at the date of withdrawal. For other such risks not associated with specific loans and not attributable to the stock of operations built after the date of withdrawal, the UK responsibility will be proportional to the ratio between the stock of outstanding operations and the total amount of operations at the date of the event.
79. The UK will maintain the EIB's privileges and immunities under Protocols 5 and 7 annexed to the Treaties throughout the amortisation of the EIB's stock of operations at the date of withdrawal.
80. The UK considers that there could be mutual benefit from a continuing arrangement between the UK and the EIB. The UK wishes to explore these possible arrangements in the second phase of the negotiations.
81. After the date of withdrawal, UK projects will not be eligible for new operations from the EIB reserved for Member States, including those under Union mandates. European Central Bank (ECB)
82. The paid-in capital of the UK in the ECB will be reimbursed to the Bank of England (BoE) after the date of withdrawal. Modalities and other practical arrangements will be established by the ECB Governing Council following the rules of the Treaties and its Protocol 4. Facility for Refugees in Turkey,
European Union trust funds
83. The UK will honour the commitments it made before withdrawal for participating in the Facility for Refugees in Turkey and the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa. The existing modalities of payments will be maintained unless otherwise agreed in the second phase.
European Development Fund (EDF)
84. The UK will remain party to the European Development Fund (EDF) which is governed by a separate international agreement and is outside the Union budget until the closure of the 11th EDF. The UK will honour its share of the total commitments made under this EDF and the payments related to its share of the outstanding commitments made under previous EDFs. The existing modalities of payments will be maintained unless otherwise agreed in the second phase.
85. The UK share of the Investment Facility of the EDF from successive EDF periods will be returned to the UK as the investment matures. Unless agreed otherwise, the UK’s capital share will not be recommitted beyond the end of the 11th EDF commitment period or rolled over into subsequent periods. Reflecting the ongoing commitment in
Page 14 of 15
relation to the EDF, the UK and the Union will agree on governance arrangements in the second phase, that take into account the continued participation of the UK in the 11th EDF, that the EDF falls under a separate international agreement and the UK’s withdrawal from the Union.
86. The Commission welcomes the UK Government's offer to discuss with Union Agencies located in London how they might facilitate their relocation, in particular as regards reducing the withdrawal costs. Other separation issues
87. In the negotiations to date, both Parties have engaged in thorough discussion of the other separation issues in scope in this phase. These discussions have enabled good progress in identifying areas of convergence and divergence. The below text records the progress made in achieving agreement on a number of issues. There remain areas where further discussions will be required to reach agreement during the next phase of negotiations. 88. The UK and the Commission have both proposed further issues for consideration in this phase. However, where there was not mutual agreement that an issue should be discussed in this phase of the negotiations, it has been agreed to return to it later.
89. On Euratom-related (nuclear specific) issues both Parties have agreed principles for addressing the key separation issues relating to the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom. This includes agreement that the UK will be responsible for international nuclear safeguards in the UK and is committed to a future regime that provides coverage and effectiveness equivalent to existing Euratom arrangements. Both sides have also agreed the principles of ownership for special fissile material (save for material held in the UK by EU27 entities) and responsibility for spent fuel and radioactive waste.
90. On ensuring continuity in the availability of goods placed on the market under Union law before withdrawal both Parties recognise the need to provide legal certainty and minimise disruption to business and consumers. Both Parties have agreed the principles that the goods placed on the market under Union law before withdrawal may freely circulate on the markets of the UK and the Union with no need for product modifications or re-labelling; be put into service where provided in Union law, and that the goods concerned should be subject to continued oversight.
91. On cooperation in civil and commercial matters there is a need to provide legal certainty and clarity. There is general consensus between both Parties that Union rules on conflict of laws should continue to apply to contracts before the withdrawal date and non-contractual obligations where an event causing damage occurred before the withdrawal date. There was also agreement to provide legal certainty as to the circumstances under which Union law on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements will continue to apply, and that judicial cooperation procedures should be finalised.
92. On police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters there is a need to provide legal certainty and clarity. Both Parties broadly agree on the principle that all
Page 15 of 15
structured and formalised cooperation procedures ongoing on withdrawal date that have passed a certain threshold (to be defined) should be completed under Union law.
93. On ongoing Union judicial procedures, both Parties have agreed that the CJEU should remain competent for UK judicial procedures registered at the CJEU on the date of withdrawal, and that those procedures should continue through to a binding judgment.
94. On ongoing Union administrative proceedings both Parties have deepened their understanding of the respective positions, and explored some areas, such as competition, state aid and examinations of the Community Plant Variety Office.
95. On issues relating to the functioning of the Union institutions, agencies and bodies, both Parties agree that an arrangement which closely mirrors Union privileges and immunities should remain applicable to activities that took place before withdrawal and as regards new activities foreseen in the Withdrawal Agreement; that both sides continue to ensure compliance with obligations of professional secrecy; and that classified information and other documents obtained by both sides whilst the UK was a Member State retain the same level of protection as before withdrawal. ***
96. This report is put forward with a view to the meeting of the European Council (Article 50) of 14 and 15 December 2017. It is also agreed by the UK on the condition of an overall agreement under Article 50 on the UK's withdrawal, taking into account the framework for the future relationship, including an agreement as early as possible in 2018 on transitional arrangements.
[ Ongoing Brexit Negotiations and results Phase 1 – 8 Dec 2017 ]
---------------------
Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU
By Alex Hunt & Brian WheelerBBC News
18 December 2017
What's happening now?
The UK has voted to leave the European Union. It is scheduled to depart at 11pm UK time on Friday 29 March, 2019. The UK and EU have now agreed on the three "divorce" issues of how much the UK owes the EU, what happens to the Northern Ireland border and what happens to UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK.
Talks are now moving on to future relations - and a plan for a two year "transition" period to smooth the way to post-Brexit relations.
What does Brexit mean?
It is a word that has become used as a shorthand way of saying the UK leaving the EU - merging the words Britain and exit to get Brexit, in the same way as a possible Greek exit from the euro was dubbed Grexit in the past.
Why is Britain leaving the European Union?
A referendum - a vote in which everyone (or nearly everyone) of voting age can take part - was held on Thursday 23 June, 2016, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain in the European Union. Leave won by 51.9% to 48.1%. The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting.
Find the result in your area
What was the breakdown across the UK?
England voted for Brexit, by 53.4% to 46.6%. Wales also voted for Brexit, with Leave getting 52.5% of the vote and Remain 47.5%. Scotland and Northern Ireland both backed staying in the EU. Scotland backed Remain by 62% to 38%, while 55.8% in Northern Ireland voted Remain and 44.2% Leave. See the results in more detail.
What changed in government after the referendum?
Image copyrightPA
Britain got a new Prime Minister - Theresa May. The former home secretary took over from David Cameron, who announced he was resigning on the day he lost the referendum. Like Mr Cameron, Mrs May was against Britain leaving the EU but she played only a very low-key role in the campaign and was never seen as much of an enthusiast for the EU. She became PM without facing a full Conservative leadership contest after her key rivals from what had been the Leave side pulled out.
Where does Theresa May stand on Brexit?
Theresa May was against Brexit during the referendum campaign but is now in favour of it because she says it is what the British people want. Her key message has been that "Brexit means Brexit" and she triggered the two year process of leaving the EU on 29 March, 2017. She set out her negotiating goals in a letter to the EU council president Donald Tusk. She outlined her plans for a transition period after Brexit in a big speech in Florence, Italy.
How did the snap election change things?
Theresa May surprised almost everyone after the 2017 Easter Bank Holiday by calling an election for 8 June (it had been due in 2020). She said she wanted to strengthen her hand in Brexit negotiations with European leaders. She said Labour, the SNP and other opposition parties - and members of the House of Lords - would try to block and frustrate her strategy. However Mrs May did not increase her party's seats in the Commons and she ended up weakened, having to rely on support from the 10 MPs from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party. You can get more detail on the 2017 election here.
What has happened to the UK economy since the Brexit vote?
David Cameron, his Chancellor George Osborne and many other senior figures who wanted to stay in the EU predicted an immediate economic crisis if the UK voted to leave and it is true that the pound slumped the day after the referendum - and remains around 10% lower against the dollar and 15% down against the Euro.
But predictions of immediate doom were wrong, with the UK economy estimated to have grown 1.8% in 2016, second only to Germany's 1.9% among the world's G7 leading industrialised nations. The UK economy has continued to grow at almost the same rate in 2017. Inflation has risen since June 2016 to stand at 3.1% - the highest for nearly six years - but unemployment has continued to fall, to stand at a 42 year low of 4.3%. Annual house price increases have fallen from 9.4% in June 2016 but were still at an inflation-beating 7% in the year to October 2017, according to official ONS figures.
Brexit negotiations
They officially started a year after the referendum, on 19 June, 2017. Here's a picture from that first session:
The UK and EU negotiating teams meet face-to-face for one week each month, with a few extra sessions also thrown in ahead of EU summits. Their first tasks have been trying to get an agreement on the rights of UK and EU expat citizens after Brexit, reaching a figure for the amount of money the UK will need to pay on leaving, the so-called "divorce bill", and what happens to the Northern Ireland border. Agreement on these issues was reached on 8 December: 'Breakthrough' deal in Brexit talks. They are now discussing a "transition" period and future relations between the UK and the EU.
What is the European Union?
The European Union - often known as the EU - is an economic and political partnership involving 28 European countries (click here if you want to see the full list). It began after World War Two to foster economic co-operation, with the idea that countries which trade together are more likely to avoid going to war with each other.
It has since grown to become a "single market" allowing goods and people to move around, basically as if the member states were one country. It has its own currency, the euro, which is used by 19 of the member countries, its own parliament and it now sets rules in a wide range of areas - including on the environment, transport, consumer rights and even things such as mobile phone charges. Click here for a beginners' guide to how the EU works.
Media captionHow does the European Union work?
What is Article 50?
Article 50 is a plan for any country that wishes to exit the EU. It was created as part of the Treaty of Lisbon - an agreement signed up to by all EU states which became law in 2009. Before that treaty, there was no formal mechanism for a country to leave the EU.
It's pretty short - just five paragraphs - which spell out that any EU member state may decide to quit the EU, that it must notify the European Council and negotiate its withdrawal with the EU, that there are two years to reach an agreement - unless everyone agrees to extend it - and that the exiting state cannot take part in EU internal discussions about its departure.
What date will the UK will leave the EU?
For the UK to leave the EU it had to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which gives the two sides two years to agree the terms of the split. Theresa May triggered this process on 29 March, meaning the UK is scheduled to leave on Friday, 29 March 2019. It can be extended if all 28 EU members agree, but at the moment all sides are focusing on that date as being the key one, and Theresa May is seeking to put it into British law.
What's going to happen to all the EU laws in force in the UK?
The Conservative government has introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to Parliament. If passed, it will end the primacy of EU law in the UK. This "Great Repeal Bill", as it had been called, is supposed to incorporate all EU legislation into UK law in one lump, after which the government will decide over a period of time which parts to keep, change or remove. The government is facing claims from Remain supporting MPs that it is giving itself sweeping powers to change legislation without proper Parliamentary scrutiny. Read a full guide to the bill.
What is the Labour Party's position on Brexit?
Labour's position on Brexit was tweaked in mid-August, when the shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, announced that the party now wanted to keep the UK in the single market and a customs union during a transition that could last for up to four years.
Labour would also accept free movement of people, payments into the EU budget and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice during the transition. This is a considerably "softer" version of Brexit than the one advocated by the government, but there are still divisions within the party about whether the UK should try to stay in the single market in the longer term.
What do 'soft' and 'hard' Brexit mean?
These terms are used during debate on the terms of the UK's departure from the EU. There is no strict definition of either, but they are used to refer to the closeness of the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
So at one extreme, "hard" Brexit could involve the UK refusing to compromise on issues like the free movement of people even if it meant leaving the single market. At the other end of the scale, a "soft" Brexit might follow a similar path to Norway, which is a member of the single market and has to accept the free movement of people as a result of that.
What is the single market?
The single market is seen by its advocates as the EU's biggest achievement and one of the main reasons it was set up in the first place. Britain was a member of a free trade area in Europe before it joined what was then known as the common market. In a free trade area countries can trade with each other without paying tariffs - but it is not a single market because the member states do not have to merge their economies together.
The European Union single market, which was completed in 1992, allows the free movement of goods, services, money and people within the European Union, as if it was a single country. It is possible to set up a business or take a job anywhere within it. The idea was to boost trade, create jobs and lower prices. But it requires common law-making to ensure products are made to the same technical standards and imposes other rules to ensure a "level playing field".
Critics say it generates too many petty regulations and robs members of control over their own affairs. Mass migration from poorer to richer countries has also raised questions about the free movement rule. Theresa May has ruled out the UK staying in the single market. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said continued membership of the single has to be an option in negotiations with Brussels. Read more: A free trade area v EU single market
What's the difference between the single market and the customs union?
The customs union ensures EU member states all charge the same import duties to countries outside the EU. It allows member states to trade freely with each other, without burdensome customs checks at borders, but it limits their freedom to strike their own trade deals.
It is different from a free trade area. In a free trade area no tariffs, taxes or quotas are charged on goods and services moving within the area but members are free to strike their own external trade deals.
The single market is a very different beast - it is not just about the trade in goods. It allows the free movement of people, money and services as if the EU was a single country.
Who is negotiating Britain's exit from the EU?
Theresa May set up a government department, headed by veteran Conservative MP and Leave campaigner David Davis, to take responsibility for Brexit. Former defence secretary, Liam Fox, who also campaigned to leave the EU, was given the new job of international trade secretary and Boris Johnson, who was a leader of the official Leave campaign, is foreign secretary. These three are each set to play roles in negotiations with the EU and seek out new international agreements, although Mrs May, as prime minister will play the key role. Who's who guide to both sides' negotiators.
How long will it take for Britain to leave the EU?
The Article 50 process lasts two years so the intention is for the UK to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. EU law still stands in the UK until it ceases being a member. But there is currently uncertainty about how final the break will be on that day - a number of UK and EU figures back the idea of having a "transition" period of around two years to allow a smooth implementation of whatever Brexit deal is negotiated and minimise disruption to businesses and holidaymakers etc.
Why might Brexit take so long?
Unpicking 43 years of treaties and agreements covering thousands of different subjects was never going to be a straightforward task. It is further complicated by the fact that it has never been done before and negotiators will, to some extent, be making it up as they go along. The post-Brexit trade deal is likely to be the most complex part of the negotiation because it needs the unanimous approval of more than 30 national and regional parliaments across Europe, some of whom may want to hold referendums.
So why can't the UK just cut all ties in March 2019?
The UK could cut all ties, but Theresa May and others would like to avoid such a "cliff-edge" where current regulations on things like cross-border trade and travel between the UK and the EU ends overnight. They think it would harm the economy.
How are talks going?
As mentioned already, there has now been agreement on the three 'separation issues' of the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU; the 'divorce bill' the UK pays the EU and also arrangements for the Northern Ireland border. Talks are now on future relations, including trade, between the UK and EU after Brexit. These talks are likely to focus on the terms for a 'transition period' of around two years to smooth the change in relations.
What happens if there is no deal with the EU?
Prime Minister Theresa May says leaving the EU with no deal whatsoever would be better than signing the UK up to a bad one. Without an agreement on trade, the UK would have to operate under World Trade Organisation rules, which could mean customs checks and tariffs on goods as well as longer border check for travellers.
There are also questions about what would happen to Britain's position as global financial centre and the land border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. There is also concern that Brits living abroad in the EU could lose residency rights and access to free emergency health care. Here is a full explanation of what 'no deal' could mean
What happens to EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens in the EU?
The agreement between the UK and the EU provides what Theresa May says is certainty to the 3.2 million EU citizens in the UK - as well as citizens of the three EEA countries and Switzerland that they will be able to carry on living and working in the UK as they have done with their rights enshrined in UK law and enforced by British courts. UK citizens in the EU will also retain their current rights with what the EU's Jean-Claude Juncker called a cheap and simple administration procedure.
The proposal provides a cut-off date of Brexit day - 29 March 2019 - for those to be covered by the rules. Babies born after that date to people who have qualified under these rules will be included in the agreement. EU citizens legally resident in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will be able to leave for up to five years before losing the rights they will have as part of the proposed Brexit deal. Healthcare rights will continue as now although it is not clear yet what status an EHIC card would have for other travellers after Brexit. For the full details please see the UK-EU agreement.
It's worth saying that even if no deal was done, EU nationals with a right to permanent residence, which is granted after they have lived in the UK for five years, should not see their rights affected after Brexit. It is also worth saying that we don't yet know what rights there will be in future for EU people who want to move to the UK after March 2019 and for British people wanting to move and live in the EU.
What about EU nationals who want to work in the UK
Any EU citizen already living and working in the UK will be able to carry on working and living in the UK after Brexit. The current plan is that even after Brexit, people from the EU will be able to move to work in the UK during a "transition" phase of up to three years. However they will have to register. A permanent proposal for post-Brexit immigration is not likely to be known for a few months yet, although it is widely expected that there will be a work permit system along the lines of that for non-EU nationals.
What does the fall in the value of the pound mean for prices in the shops?
Media caption Shoppers will need to keep a close eye on how much they are spending
People travelling overseas from the UK have found their pounds are buying fewer euros or dollars after the Brexit vote. Even if the pound regains some of its value, currency experts expect it in the longer term to remain at least 10% below where it was when the referendum happened.
This means exports should get a boost as UK goods will be cheaper, but imported goods will get more expensive - some price rises for food, clothing and homeware goods have been seen. The latest UK inflation figures have the rate at 3%, above the target level, but not out of kilter with recent years.
Will immigration be cut?
Prime Minister Theresa May has said one of the main messages she has taken from the Leave vote is that the British people want to see a reduction in immigration. She has said this will be a focus of Brexit negotiations as she remains committed to getting net migration - the difference between the numbers entering and leaving the country - down to a "sustainable" level, which she defines as being below 100,000 a year.
The rate of increase in the size of Britain's population has slowed significantly since the Brexit vote. This has largely been driven by an increase in emigration from the UK by citizens of Poland and the other East and Central European countries. There were still 230,000 more people coming to live in the UK than leaving in the year to June 2017, according to the latest estimates - still way above the government's target of 100,000 but 80,000 below the previous year. Read more: What has been Brexit effect on migration?
Could there be a second referendum?
It seems highly unlikely. Both the Conservatives and the Labour Party have ruled out another referendum, arguing that it would be an undemocratic breach of trust with the British people who clearly voted to Leave.
Will MPs get a vote on the final Brexit deal?
Yes. Theresa May has promised there will be a Commons and Lords vote to approve whatever deal the UK and the rest of the EU agree at the end of the two year process. This vote was proposed as a "take it or leave it" one.
Mrs May suffered her first defeat as PM however when enought Tory rebels joined with opposition parties to back an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill which means that any Brexit deal can become law only if MPs have voted for it.
Will I need a visa to travel to the EU?
The UK government wants to keep visa-free travel to the UK for EU visitors after Brexit and it is hoping this will be reciprocated, meaning UK citizens will continue to be able to visit EU countries for short periods without seeking official permission to travel.
If visitors from EU countries wanted to work, study or settle in the UK they would have to apply for permission under the proposals.
No agreement has been reached yet, however. If it is decided that EU citizens will need visas to come to the UK in the future, then UK citizens will need visas to travel to the EU.
Image copyrightReuters
Will I still be able to use my passport?
Yes. It is a British document - there is no such thing as an EU passport, so your passport will stay the same. In theory, the government could, if it wanted, decide to change the colour, which is currently standardised for EU countries.
Has any other member state ever left the EU?
No nation state has ever left the EU. But Greenland, one of Denmark's overseas territories, held a referendum in 1982, after gaining a greater degree of self government, and voted by 52% to 48% to leave, which it duly did after a period of negotiation. The BBC's Carolyn Quinn visited Greenland to find out how they did it.
What does this mean for Scotland?
Image caption Nicola Sturgeon says a new independence referendum in Scotland is likely
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said in the wake of the Leave result that it was "democratically unacceptable" that Scotland faced being taken out of the EU when it voted to Remain. Ms Sturgeon has officially asked for permission for a second referendum to be held. She had wanted the vote to be held between the autumn of 2018 and spring 2019, but after losing seats at the 2017 general election she has put her plans on hold with no referendum likely until 2021. Theresa May has said a second referendum should not be held during the Brexit process.
What does it mean for Northern Ireland?
The land border between Northern Ireland and EU member the Republic of Ireland has been a key part of the Brexit talks. There is currently a common travel area between the UK and the Republic. Like Scotland, Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU in last year's referendum. The result in Northern Ireland was 56% for Remain and 44% for Leave.
Both sides agreed they did not want a return to a "hard border" - that means no physical infrastructure, such as customs posts. But the wording to agree on this proved tricky.
What has been agreed is that the UK 'will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement'.
How much has Brexit cost so far and how much will it cost by the end?
There is much debate about the long-term costs and benefits to the UK economy of Brexit - but what we do know for certain is that the EU wants the UK to settle any outstanding bills before it leaves.
There have been no official estimates published of the size of the bill, which covers things like pension payments to EU officials, the cost of relocating London-based EU agencies and outstanding EU budget commitments.
But the figure has been thought likely to be one of up to 50bn euros (£44bn). We don't yet know over how many years that will be or what exactly it would include and Downing Street says they are confident it will end up being below £40bn.
The UK could leave without any Brexit "divorce bill" deal but that would probably mean everyone ending up in court. If compromise can be achieved, and if payment of the bill were to be spread over many years, the amounts involved may not be that significant economically.
Why pay anything?
Media captionThe UK government has ensured that it will honour pre-Brexit vote commitments
How will pensions, savings, investments and mortgages be affected?
During the referendum campaign, David Cameron said the so-called "triple lock" for state pensions would be threatened by a UK exit. This is the agreement by which pensions increase by at least the level of earnings, inflation or 2.5% every year - whichever is the highest. Theresa May had proposed ditching the 2.5% part of the lock in the party's election manifesto, but as part of the post-election deal with the DUP the triple lock was again guaranteed.
There was an early post-referendum cut in interest rates, which has helped keep mortgage and other borrowing rates low. The reasonably strong performance of the UK economy, and the increase in inflation led to the Bank of England raising interest rates from 0.25% to 0.5% in November 2017 - the first increase in interest rates for 10 years. Interest rates going up generally makes it more expensive to pay back a mortgage or loan - but should be good news for savers as they should get amore interest on their money.
Will duty-free sales on Europe journeys return?
Journalists and writers on social media have greeted the reintroduction of duty-free sales as an "upside" or "silver lining" of Brexit. As with most Brexit consequences, whether this will happen depends on how negotiations with the EU play out - whether the "customs union" agreement between Britain and the EU is ended or continued.
Will EHIC cards still be valid?
Image copyrightThinkstock
If you are already living in another EU country on the day the UK leaves the bloc, your EHIC card - which entitles travellers to state-provided medical help for any condition or injury that requires urgent treatment, in any other country within the EU, as well as several non-EU countries - will continue to work.
After that date, for EU citizens wishing to travel to the UK or UK citizens wishing to travel to the EU, it is unclear about what will happen because no deal has yet been reached.
Probably not, says BBC Europe correspondent Chris Morris, because there's no EU-wide law on vehicle registration or car number places, and the EU flag symbol is a voluntary identifier and not compulsory. The DVLA says there has been no discussion about what would happen to plates with the flag if the UK voted to leave.
Could MPs block an EU exit?
Could the necessary legislation pass the Commons, given that a lot of MPs in the current Parliament - all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservatives - were in favour of staying? The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. The withdrawal agreement also has to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.
So in theory they could block the UK's EU exit. But in practice that is seen as very unlikely given that a majority of people voted for Brexit in the referendum.
Will leaving the EU mean we don't have to abide by the European Court of Human Rights?
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg is not a European Union institution. It was set up by the Council of Europe, which has 47 members including Russia and Ukraine. So quitting the EU will not exempt the UK from its decisions.
The Conservatives are committed to sticking with the Human Rights Act which requires UK courts to treat the ECHR as setting legal precedents for the UK during the Brexit process.
What about the European Court of Justice?
The Court of Justice of the European Union - to give it its full name - is the EU's highest legal authority. It is based in Luxembourg. It is an entirely different thing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
It is the ECHR not the ECJ that has often upset British politicians by making it harder, for example, to deport terrorist suspects. The ECJ interprets and enforces the rules of the single market, settling disputes between member countries over issues like free movement and trade. It is at the centre of pretty much everything the EU does and it having the power over UK actions has been a key issue for those arguing for the UK to leave to the EU to regain full sovereignty.
Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed that Britain will not be under the "direct" jurisdiction of the ECJ after Brexit. But the UK government has not ruled out remaining under its jurisdiction during the Brexit transition period that is planned after March 2019.
After that, there will need to be a new mechanism for settling disputes between the UK and the EU but what form that take has yet to be decided. There has been talk of an ombudsman, or some other third party, being appointed to settle disagreements.
The initial stages of the Brexit deal, published on 8 December 2017, do give limited powers to the ECJ in terms of EU citizens living in the UK for up to eight years.
Will the UK be able to rejoin the EU in the future?
BBC Europe editor Katya Adler says the UK would have to start from scratch with no rebate, and enter accession talks with the EU. Every member state would have to agree to the UK re-joining. But she says with elections looming elsewhere in Europe, other leaders might not be generous towards any UK demands. New members are required to adopt the euro as their currency, once they meet the relevant criteria, although the UK could try to negotiate an opt-out.
Who wanted the UK to leave the EU?
The UK Independence Party, which received nearly four million votes - 13% of those cast - in the 2015 general election, but who saw their vote collapse to about a quarter of that at this year's election, has campaigned for many years for Britain's exit from the EU. They were joined in their call during the referendum campaign by about half the Conservative Party's MPs, including Boris Johnson and five members of the then Cabinet. A handful of Labour MPs and Northern Ireland party the DUP were also in favour of leaving.
What were their reasons for wanting the UK to leave?
They said Britain was being held back by the EU, which they said imposed too many rules on business and charged billions of pounds a year in membership fees for little in return. They also wanted the UK to make all of its own laws again, rather than being created through shared decision making with other EU nations.
Immigration was also a big issue for Brexit supporters, They wanted Britain to take back full control of its borders and reduce the number of people coming here to live and/or work.
One of the main principles of EU membership is "free movement", which means you don't need to get a visa to go and live in another EU country. The Leave campaign also objected to the idea of "ever closer union" between EU member states and what they see as moves towards the creation of a "United States of Europe".
Who wanted the UK to stay in the EU?
Then Prime Minister David Cameron was the leading voice in the Remain campaign, after reaching an agreement with other European Union leaders that would have changed the terms of Britain's membership had the country voted to stay in.
He said the deal would give Britain "special" status and help sort out some of the things British people said they didn't like about the EU, like high levels of immigration - but critics said the deal would make little difference.
Sixteen members of Mr Cameron's Cabinet, including the woman who would replace him as PM, Theresa May, also backed staying in. The Conservative Party was split on the issue and officially remained neutral in the campaign. The Labour Party, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats were all in favour of staying in.
The then US president Barack Obama also wanted Britain to remain in the EU, as did the leaders of other EU nations such as France and Germany.
What were their reasons for wanting the UK to stay?
Those campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU said it got a big boost from membership - it makes selling things to other EU countries easier and, they argued, the flow of immigrants, most of whom are young and keen to work, fuels economic growth and helps pay for public services.
They also said Britain's status in the world would be damaged by leaving and that we are more secure as part of the 28 nation club, rather than going it alone.
What about businesses?
Big business - with a few exceptions - tended to be in favour of Britain staying in the EU because it makes it easier for them to move money, people and products around the world.
Given the crucial role of London as a financial centre, there's interest in how many jobs may be lost to other hubs in the EU. Some UK exporters say they've had increased orders or enquiries because of the fall in the value of the pound. Others are less optimistic, fearing products for the European market may have to be made at plants in the EU.
Image caption Boris Johnson was one of the most prominent Leave campaigners
Who led the rival sides in the campaign?
Britain Stronger in Europe - the main cross-party group campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU was headed by former Marks and Spencer chairman Lord Rose. It was backed by key figures from the Conservative Party, including Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne, most Labour MPs, including party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Alan Johnson, who ran the Labour In for Britain campaign, the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance party and the SDLP in Northern Ireland, and the Green Party. Who funded the campaign: Britain Stronger in Europe raised £6.88m, boosted by two donations totalling £2.3m from the supermarket magnate and Labour peer Lord Sainsbury. Other prominent Remain donors included hedge fund manager David Harding (£750,000), businessman and Travelex founder Lloyd Dorfman (£500,000) and the Tower Limited Partnership (£500,000). Read a Who's Who guide. Who else campaigned to remain: The SNP ran its own remain campaign in Scotland as it did not want to share a platform with the Conservatives. Several smaller groups also registered to campaign.
Vote Leave - A cross-party campaign that has the backing of senior Conservatives such as Michael Gove and Boris Johnson plus a handful of Labour MPs, including Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer, and UKIP's Douglas Carswell and Suzanne Evans, and the DUP in Northern Ireland. Former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson and SDP founder Lord Owen were also involved. It had a string of affiliated groups such as Farmers for Britain, Muslims for Britain and Out and Proud, a gay anti-EU group, aimed at building support in different communities. Who funded the campaign: Vote Leave raised £2.78m. Its largest supporter was businessman Patrick Barbour, who gave £500,000. Former Conservative Party treasurer Peter Cruddas gave a £350,000 donation and construction mogul Terence Adams handed over £300,000. Read a Who's Who guide. Who else campaigned to leave: UKIP leader Nigel Farage was not part of Vote Leave. His party ran its own campaign. The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition also ran its own out campaign. Several smaller groups also registered to campaign.
Will the EU still use English?
Yes, says BBC Europe editor Katya Adler. There will still be 27 other EU states in the bloc, and others wanting to join in the future, and the common language tends to be English - "much to France's chagrin", she says.
Will Brexit harm product safety?
Probably not, is the answer. It would depend on whether or not the UK decided to get rid of current safety standards. Even if that happened any company wanting to export to the EU would have to comply with its safety rules, and it's hard to imagine a company would want to produce two batches of the same products.
Here are a selection of questions sent in - you can ask yours via the form at the end of this page
Which MPs were for staying and which for leaving?
The good news for Edward, from Cambridge, who asked this question, is we have been working on exactly such a list. Click here for the latest version.
How much does the UK contribute to the EU and how much do we get in return?
In answer to this query from Nancy from Hornchurch - the UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out. Only France and Germany contribute more. In 2014/15, Poland was the largest beneficiary, followed by Hungary and Greece.
Image caption The UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out
The UK also gets an annual rebate that was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher and money back, in the form of regional development grants and payments to farmers, which added up to £4.6bn in 2014/15. According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - nearly double what it was in 2009/10.
The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn. Read more number crunching from Reality Check.
If I retire to Spain or another EU country will my healthcare costs still be covered?
David, from East Sussex, is worried about what will happen to his retirement plans. This is one of those issues where it is not possible to say definitively what would happen. At the moment, the large British expat community in Spain gets free access to Spanish GPs and their hospital treatment is paid for by the NHS. After they become permanent residents Spain pays for their hospital treatment.
In some other EU countries such as France expats of working age are expected to pay the same healthcare costs as locals but once they reach retirement age their medical bills are paid by the NHS.
If Britain remains in the single market, or the European Economic Area as it is known, it might be able to continue with this arrangement, according to a House of Commons library research note. If Britain has to negotiate trade deals with individual member states, it may opt to continue paying for expats' healthcare through the NHS or decide that they would have to cover their own costs if they continue to live abroad, if the country where they live declines to do so.
What will happen to protected species?
Dee, from Launceston, wanted to know what would happen to EU laws covering protected species such as bats in the event of Britain leaving the EU. The answer is that they would remain in place, initially at least. After the Leave vote, the government will probably review all EU-derived laws in the two years leading up to the official exit date to see which ones to keep or scrap.
The status of Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas, which are designated by the EU, would be reviewed to see what alternative protections could be applied. The same process would apply to European Protected Species legislation, which relate to bats and their habitats.
The government would want to avoid a legislative vacuum caused by the repeal of EU laws before new UK laws are in place - it would also continue to abide by other international agreements covering environmental protection.
How much money will the UK save through changes to migrant child benefits and welfare payments?
Martin, from Poole, in Dorset, wanted to know what taxpayers would have got back from the benefit curbs negotiated by David Cameron in Brussels. We don't exactly know because the details were never worked out. HM Revenue and Customs suggested about 20,000 EU nationals receive child benefit payments in respect of 34,000 children in their country of origin at an estimated cost of about £30m.
But the total saving would have been significantly less than that because Mr Cameron did not get the blanket ban he wanted. Instead, payments would have been linked to the cost of living in the countries where the children live. David Cameron said as many as 40% of EU migrant families who come to Britain could lose an average of £6,000 a year of in-work benefits when his "emergency brake" was applied. The DWP estimated between 128,700 and 155,100 people would be affected. But the cuts would have been phased in. New arrivals would not have got tax credits and other in-work benefits straight away but would have gradually gained access to them over a four year period at a rate that had not been decided. The plan will never be implemented now.
What will happen to pet passports?
The answer to Alan Rippington's question, the European Commission says, is that pet passports will, like everything else, form part of the negotiations.
The UK introduced the pet passport scheme in 2000, replacing the previous quarantine laws. It means you and your dog, cat or ferret can travel between the UK and the EU (and other participating countries) as long as it has a passport, a microchip and has been vaccinated against rabies.
Of course, until the UK actually leaves the EU, the scheme continues as normal.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "The UK has a long history of world-leading animal welfare and biosecurity standards, which we are committed to safeguarding and improving, securing the best deal for Britain as we leave the EU."
Has Brexit made house prices fall?
So far, the answer is no. But there has been anecdotal evidence of house prices falling at the top of the market in Central London and the annual increase in the price of property has fallen from 9.4% at the time of the referendum to 4.9% a year later.
What is the 'red tape' that opponents of the EU complain about?
Ged, from Liverpool, suspects "red tape" is a euphemism for employment rights and environmental protection. According to the Open Europe think tank, four of the top five most costly EU regulations are either employment or environment-related. The UK renewable energy strategy, which the think-tank says costs £4.7bn a year, tops the list. The working time directive (£4.2bn a year) - which limits the working week to 48 hours - and the temporary agency workers directive (£2.1bn a year), giving temporary staff many of the same rights as permanent ones - are also on the list.
Most of the EU-derived laws on the UK's statute books will be copied across into UK law so that businesses can continue to function on the day Britain leaves the EU, in March 2019. Future governments will then be able to amend or scrap them.
Brexit may also generate "red tape" of its own - if the UK leaves the single market and the customs union, businesses could face more paperwork as they cross borders into EU countries.
Will Britain be party to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership?
Ste, in Bolton, asked about this. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - or TTIP - currently under negotiation between the EU and United States would create the biggest free trade area the world has ever seen.
Cheerleaders for TTIP, including former PM David Cameron, believed it could make American imports cheaper and boost British exports to the US to the tune of £10bn a year.
But many on the left, including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, fear it will shift more power to multinational corporations, undermine public services, wreck food standards and threaten basic rights.
US President Donald Trump is not a fan of the TTIP agreement, which means it is now seen as unlikely to be agreed - but whatever happens, when the UK quits the EU it will not be part of TTIP and will have to negotiate its own trade deal with the US.
What impact will leaving the EU have on the NHS?
Paddy, from Widnes, wanted to know how leaving the EU will affect the number of doctors we have and impact the NHS.
This became an issue in the referendum debate after the Leave campaign claimed the money Britain sends to the EU, which it claimed was £350m a week, could be spent on the NHS instead. The BBC's Reality Check team looked into this claim.
Before the vote Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned that leaving the EU would lead to budget cuts and an exodus of overseas doctors and nurses. The Leave campaign dismissed his intervention as "scaremongering" and insisted that EU membership fees could be spent on domestic services like the NHS.
Since the referendum spending on the NHS has continued at the same level as planned. EU citizens working for the NHS are expected to get the right to stay in the UK, although details on EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens elsewhere in the EU are yet to be finalised (see earlier answer).
Sally Miller bought a house in Spain nine years ago and plans to retire there in the next five years. She asked how Brexit will affect this.
Image copyrightGetty Images
The BBC's Kevin Connolly says:
The issue of free movement - the rights of EU citizens to live and work in the UK - was a huge issue in the Brexit referendum of course, and will be a big part of the exit negotiations.
We've heard quite a bit from the British side already with the government saying that securing the status and rights of EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU is one of the government's earliest priorities, and specifically that it is looking for a reciprocal deal.
So you might feel the mood music is encouraging but all we can say for sure is that, while there are no guarantees yet, it will be a big part of the Brexit negotiations to come.
Jonathan Eaton is a Briton living in the Netherlands with his wife, who is Dutch. He asks what rights to benefits and housing he will have if he has to return to the UK.
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith says:
The short answer is there is no easy access to benefits. As it stands at the moment, Brexit aside, you will have to pass what's known as a habitual residence test which was introduced in 1994 and applies to British citizens just as EU citizens.
The rules have been tightened up which means for some benefits, if you have been out of the country you can't even think about applying for the test for several months. For example, when it comes to jobseeker's allowance, you cannot even take the test to apply for those benefits for three months. And that was done to stop EU citizens coming here and just getting on benefits straight away.
After three months, you can take the test which looks at your English language skills, what sort of efforts you made to find work before coming to the UK. It also considers how strong a tie you have to the UK, whether you have property or family here and what your intentions are in terms of staying and working, or returning.
But once you have taken the test, if you pass it then you should be eligible to apply for a range of benefits, as long as you meet the usual requirements in terms of income and showing you are looking for work. That is likely to continue when we move fully on to Universal Credit.
The one sort of unknown in the whole system is what happens with Brexit negotiations, in terms of guaranteeing the rights of British nationals abroad.
And we simply don't know what that will involve and whether in any way that might impact on how soon you can apply for benefits when you come back to Britain.
Will I have to buy a new passport and driving licence, and will my rights to use them freely across Europe be taken away from me after Brexit, asks Francis Lee.
Kevin Connolly says:
At the moment UK passports carry the words European Union and British driving licences have the blue square with yellow flags of the EU. That will presumably change after Brexit but it seems likely that the change will be phased in so that you'll simply get documents with the new design when the old ones expire. That's what happened, I seem to remember, when the UK joined the EU. Anything else would be expensive and risk flooding the system, after all.
The right to use them freely is an interesting question. When we talk about restrictions on freedom of movement we generally mean the freedom to live and work in another country. If Britain poses restrictions on the EU in that respect then it can expect some kind of response.
But in terms of tourism there are plenty of non-EU countries whose citizens can visit the UK for up to 90 days without a visa. And, as part of the Brexit negotiations, you'd expect similar arrangements to be discussed for the UK.
Both sides need each others' tourists and, after all, if you can drive a car in the United States on a UK licence then it doesn't seem fanciful to assume that you'll be able to do the same in Europe in future.
It is very clear that the PM and the government want to leave the tyranny of the European Court of Justice. Why has leaving the European Court of Human Rights (an organisation far more hated than the ECJ) been ignored, asks Barry Fryer.
Kevin Connolly says:
Two different courts here of course, so two different bits of politics. Crucially, the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution and that's why discussions about leaving it have not formed a key part of the Brexit debate.
The European Court of Justice - the ECJ - is one of the primary institutions of the European Union and administers EU law. So, while it might have a role in supervising a future trade deal, part of the goal of Brexit was to remove the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction.
The European Court of Human Rights which, as Barry points out, can be even more controversial, is a body set up not by the EU but by member states of the Council of Europe, a separate institution which contains countries that aren't EU members.
It's this court which has produced rulings which have been controversial in the UK, including blocking the extradition of Abu Qatada and establishing the right of serving prisoners to vote in elections - and leaving the EU won't change anything here.
Adrian Wallis runs a small electronics company and wants to know about export tariffs after Brexit, and what they'd mean for his business.
Kevin Connolly says:
As long as Britain has been in the EU we haven't really talked much about tariffs. That's because all trade within the European Economic Area is tariff-free. On top of that the EU has trade agreements with 52 other countries as well.
After Brexit, Britain is going to have to negotiate new deals all on its own. That's both a problem and an opportunity.
For example you can use tariffs against foreign imports to protect businesses you care about, as the EU does with agricultural produce, but you do then run the risk of retaliation from your trading partners.
The key body in all of this is the World Trade Organisation and at the moment the UK is only a member via its membership of the EU.
One bit of good news is that the UK will automatically become a member in its own right as soon as it leaves the EU.
That matters because in the period when the UK is negotiating a new trade deal with the EU, and that could take years, trade would be conducted under WTO rules.
At the moment, for non-food items, that implies an average tariff of about 2.3%.
But suppose the EU were to impose a 10% tariff on UK car imports, for example. Well, then the UK could impose the same tariff on German and French cars.
In theory, an economist would say that creates a situation where everyone has an incentive to sort out a better deal for their consumers.
The snag is that these things take years, if not decades. They tend to be done on a country-by-country and sector-by-sector basis.
So if Adrian is waiting to find out the implications for his business, then I'm afraid he's going to have to be patient.
Maybe very, very patient.
What impact will leaving the European Union have on the UK's long term political influence in Europe, asks Peter Hoare.
Norman Smith says:
There are basically two views on what will happen in terms of clout when outside the EU.
View one is that the UK projects power and influence in the world, working through organisations such as the EU and that on our own it'll be a much diminished force.
View two is that unencumbered by the other 27 members, the UK can get on with things and start adopting a much more independent, self-confident, assertive role on the world stage.
My take is that not much is probably going to change.
I say that because the UK'll still be a member of significant organisations such as the UN and Nato, and will still be co-operating with EU partners. For example, there will still be close ties on defence with the French.
The UK will still be the same old Britain, will still have significant military force, will still be a wealthy country and will still be a nuclear power, so I don't think people will suddenly think the UK's an entirely different country.
Are other countries likely to leave the EU and if so could we start a new free trade area, asks David John.
Kevin Connolly says:
Funnily enough, I was discussing this question just the other day with a French politician, a conservative and a real Europhile, and he said he thought if there was a free vote in France tomorrow, as the right wing National Front would like, that the French would vote to leave.
But generally speaking I can't see much prospect of a tidal wave of insurrectionist, exitism sweeping the continent. When a country like Ireland has a spat with the EU about tax, for example, it does annoy Irish politicians, but most mainstream leaders in the Europe have grown up with the idea that the EU has brought peace and prosperity for decades.
Lots of them see plenty that irritates them about the European Union, but they mainly argue that the benefits hugely outweigh the irritations. And in countries where you do find Euroscepticism, such as Poland and Hungary, there is also a healthy awareness that there are huge financial benefits to membership.
As for the future, we will see. If the UK were to get a fantastic Brexit deal then maybe others would be tempted to go.
But the truth is, lots of European politicians want the EU to be tough with Britain precisely to stop other countries from following it through the door.
As to Britain forming its own free trade area, I think it seems an awfully long shot and on balance it is unlikely, not least because there are not that many free countries around available to recruit into another free trade area.
Britain could perhaps join the Free Trade Association along with Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. But of course it would be joining under existing rules, so the likeliest future for a post-Brexit UK, I think, is a future where it tries to do the best deal possible with the EU and then looks around for other free trade deals.
But that would fall short of creating a free trade area based on the UK itself.
What will happen to the borders in Gibraltar and Northern Ireland, asks Nigel May.
Kevin Connolly says:
I think the question of what is going to happen to borders after Brexit is one of the most difficult of the lot.
Since 1985 when Spain joined the EU, it has basically been prevented from closing the border with Gibraltar as a way of applying pressure to the British territory.
In fact, 12,000 Spanish people cross into the territory to work every day and the area of Spain around Gibraltar is a pretty depressed area so they are important jobs.
On the other hand, the Spanish have talked openly about this being an opportunity to get Gibraltar back. Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, its minister of foreign affairs, said in September the UK's vote to leave the EU was "a unique historical opportunity in more than three hundred years to get Gibraltar back".
But at a minimum, as things stand, it looks to me as though they could certainly re-impose border controls if they chose to.
The situation with Ireland's border is more complex.
For those of us for whom Northern Ireland is home, the total disappearance of military check points on the border is one of the most tangible daily reminders of the end of the Troubles and no one wants a border like that back.
But, when the day comes when Ireland is in the EU and the UK is not, then the Irish border of course is also going to be the UK's land border with the European Union.
Conservative leader Theresa May has said we don't see a return to the borders of the past, but the reality is that if Britain leaves the common customs area, then presumably some sort of checks are going to be necessary on that border.
And if the UK wants to stop Polish or Romanian migrant workers using Dublin airport as a back door into the UK, then it is going to have to do something about that too. The UK has published a paper setting out its preferred options.
Of course, what it will all mean for towns and villages like Belleek and Belcoo in County Fermanagh, which more or less straddle the border, is hard to imagine.
How will access to healthcare change for expats living in the EU, asks Veronique Bradley, who lives in Italy.
Kevin Connolly says:
Healthcare is one of those issues that remains relatively simple as long as the UK remains in the EU.
It is just part of a range of citizens' rights that apply across the entire union. After Brexit, I suppose there will be two possibilities.
The first and easiest would be that the negotiators come up with a reciprocal deal that keeps the current arrangements, or something a bit like them, in place.
If they don't, the situation will depend on the individual country where you live.
For the Bradleys in Italy, for example, residents from non-EU countries, and that will soon include the Brits, will have to finalise their residency status, acquire an Italian identity card and then apply for an Italian health insurance card.
If they visit the UK at the moment, access to the NHS for non-resident Brits is not straightforward unless you have a European health insurance card.
The right to treatment is based on residency, not on your tax status.
So, even if you live abroad and pay some British tax on a buy-to-let property for instance, you might find yourself getting a bill for any NHS treatment you end up getting while you are back in the UK.
What will happen to EU nationals who lived and worked in the UK and now receive a British state pension, asks Peter Barz, a German citizen living in the UK.
Norman Smith says:
If you are an EU national and you get a British state pension, nothing much should change, because the state pension is dependent not on where you come from, but on how long you have paid National Insurance contributions in the UK.
So it doesn't matter whether you come from Lithuania or Latvia or Transylvania or Timbuktu, what counts is how much you have paid in terms of National Insurance contributions.
There is one wrinkle though and that is that you have to have paid in for at least 10 years.
Under the current rules, if you are an EU citizen and haven't paid in for 10 years, you can point to any contributions you have made in your native country and say, "I paid in there", and that will count.
That works for EU countries and another 16 countries with which the UK has social security agreements.
Once we have left the EU, you will no longer be able to do that unless we negotiate new reciprocal agreements.
If we don't then potentially, if you have paid in fewer than than 10 years' worth of National Insurance contributions, you will not get a British state pension.
Is it possible to be both an EU citizen and not an EU citizen, asks Declan O'Neill, who holds an Irish passport.
Kevin Connolly says:
I should probably declare some sort of interest here as a dual Irish and British national myself.
Of course, anyone born in Northern Ireland has an absolute right to carry both passports.
Declan might be happy to know that this is one of the few questions where I can't see a downside as long as you are happy and comfortable carrying both passports.
The Irish document means you continue to enjoy the benefits of EU citizenship, and the British passport will give you full rights in the UK at the same time.
Call it one of the clear joys of coming from Northern Ireland, alongside the rolling hills, rugged coastline and enjoyable breaks between the showers.
All you have to do is remember to carry the Irish passport when you are joining the EU citizens-only queue at the airport in future.
Is there a get-out clause for Article 50, asks Gillian Coates.
Norman Smith says:
I think the honest answer is you would have to be a legal eagle to answer this.
But my take on it is that legally it looks like once we trigger Article 50 we are locked in, and that is certainly how the European Parliament reads it.
And there is a view that if we were in this two-year process after triggering Article 50 and we wanted to get out of it, then ultimately that would be a decision for the European Court of Justice.
However, in the real world I think it is likely to be rather different, whatever the legal protocol.
I think the truth is, if we were trundling along and decided it was all going to be catastrophic and we have got to pull up the handbrake pretty sharpish, a lot of other EU countries would be probably be laughing at us, but I think at the same time they would probably be quite pleased we weren't going.
So I think the short answer is: legally, it doesn't look so good if you want to get out of it, but politically, it probably can be done with the support of other European leaders.
Eric Degerland asks when UK passports are going to change.
Kevin Connolly says:
This takes us to the heart of an issue that lots of people really care about. It will be a real and palpable sign of Brexit when there is a new UK passport without the words "European Union" on the front cover.
Sadly, the short answer is we don't really know when the change will come about.
But we can say that the cheapest thing for the government to do would be to phase in the new passports as people's old ones expire.
So if you're looking forward to getting back that blue hard-back passport we had in the old days, you may have a long time to wait.
Will Irish citizens be exempt from this five-year residency requirement, and continue to be afforded equal treatment with UK nationals?
Yes, Irish citizens residing in the UK will not need to apply for settled status to protect their entitlements as the UK government is committed to protecting the Common Travel Area arrangements.
Would EU citizens still be able to move to the UK in the next two years until March 2019?
Yes, they would. The UK is a member of the EU until it withdraws, so the freedom of movement rules will apply until then.
Why shouldn't British courts have full jurisdiction over the rights of EU citizens living in the UK? Wasn't that the whole point of Brexit?
The UK government says the European Court of Justice will not have jurisdiction over EU citizens' rights. The EU demands that it does. This is an important sticking point in the Brexit negotiations.
How can a lifetime stay be guaranteed? Could a future government change the law?
Once the UK leaves the EU, any future government will in principle be able to propose amendments to the rules and the UK Parliament would decide on the new law.
I plan to retire to France within the next two years and buy a property. Will this be possible after Brexit?
You can buy property and retire anywhere in the world, subject to the rules of the country you are retiring in. So, you'll be able to do that but we don't know what your exact rights will be until the UK and EU conclude the citizens' rights negotiations.
I'm an EU national living in the UK but my wife is from outside the EU. Is her status going to change?
Your wife, as a family member of an eligible EU citizen who has been resident in the UK before we leave the EU, will also be eligible to apply for settled status with you, provided that she too meets the settlement criteria and has been in a genuine relationship with you while resident in the UK.
---------------------------
BBC News
Profile: NATO
The defence alliance Nato has intervened in several conflicts, most recently in the rebel effort to topple the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
Formed in 1949 to counter the threat of post-war communist expansion as the Soviet Union sought to extend its influence in Europe, Nato - the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation - is the world's most powerful regional defence alliance.
It has traditionally stated its general aim as being to "safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation" of its members by promoting "stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area".
Members agree that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all, and that they will come to the aid of one another. (Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty)
Originally consisting of 12 countries, the organisation expanded to include Greece and Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955. However, then, as now, the alliance was militarily dominated by the United States.
In 1955 the Soviet Union created a counter-alliance called the Warsaw Pact, which dissolved after the break-up of the USSR in 1991.
The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland became the first former Warsaw Pact countries to gain Nato membership in 1999.
The next historic step came in 2004 when Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, republics of the USSR until its collapse in 1991,
along with Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania were welcomed as Nato members at a ceremony in Washington.
Bosnia, Montenegro and Serbia have joined Nato's Partnership for Peace programme - a first step towards membership. At a summit in Bucharest in early April 2008, NATO countries invited Albania and Croatia to join on schedule.
Greece vetoed Macedonia's application, but the alliance agreed that the country would be invited when it settles its dispute with Greece over its name. The International Court of Justice ruled in 2012 that Greece had been wrong to veto the application. This opens the way to a new Macedonian bid.
Development
Image caption Nato led a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo
Nato was set up in the post-World War II atmosphere of anxiety, largely to block Soviet expansion into Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and subsequent demise of the Warsaw Pact, therefore, left Nato with no obvious purpose.
Since then Nato has used its defensive role to justify a more proactive approach to "out of area" activities - arguing that instability in any part of Europe would constitute a threat to its members.
Thus, at the end of 1995 it organised its first ever multinational Implementation Force (Ifor), under a United Nations mandate to implement the military aspects of the Bosnian peace agreement.
In 1999 the alliance launched an 11-week campaign of air strikes against Yugoslavia to push Serb forces out of Kosovo. The strikes were the largest military operation ever undertaken by Nato, and the first time it had used force against a sovereign state without UN approval. The Nato peacekeeping force remains in Kosovo, although it has been scaled down from 16,000 to about 6,000 by 2012.
In 2003 Nato took its operations outside Europe for the first time when it assumed strategic command of the UN-mandated peacekeeping force in and immediately around the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Changing relationships
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Nato embarked on a series of steps designed to build new relationships with former Warsaw Pact countries and particularly with Russia, which was profoundly suspicious of the alliance's plans to expand eastwards.
In 1994 Nato offered former Warsaw Pact members limited associations in the form of the Partnership for Peace programme, allowing them to participate in information sharing, joint exercises and peacekeeping operations.
But this simply appeared to confirm Russian fears that Nato posed a creeping threat to its security.
The Nato-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established in May 1997 to give Russia a consultative role in discussion of matters of mutual interest. While Moscow was given a voice, it rarely felt that it was really listened to.
Russia's fears intensified when in 1999 the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland became the first former Soviet bloc states to join Nato, bringing the alliance's borders 400 miles closer to the Russian frontier.
Aftermath of 11 September
Image caption The establishment of a Nato-Russia Council was agreed at a summit in 2002
The 11 September 2001 attacks on targets in the US were a pivotal moment for Nato. The US did not involve the alliance in the international military campaign that followed, even though Secretary-General George Robertson quickly invoked Article Five of the Nato constitution declaring an attack on one member to be an attack on all.
Russia's supportive reaction following the attacks proved to be the catalyst for a thaw in relations with Moscow. The establishment of the Nato-Russia Council was agreed in May 2002. This body gives Russia an equal role with the Nato countries in decision-making on policy to counter terrorism and other security threats.
However, the relationship with Russia continued to be difficult. Russia was unhappy that the Nato expansion of early 2004 brought the alliance to its borders. Relations took a marked turn for the worse after the brief Russo-Georgian war of August 2008, when Nato announced that cooperation would be suspended until Moscow pulled all its troops out of Georgia.
Relations improved after Barack Obama assumed the US presidency in January 2009, and Nato announced in March 2009 that it would be resuming high-level contacts with Russia.
However, relations took a turn for the worse in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine and was accused of supporting separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. The developments appeared to give Nato, which some described as a Cold War relic, new relevance.
Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the Ukraine crisis "reminds us just how important Nato is. The idea of collective defence has become more important given how Russia is using force to change borders in Europe."
Issues and challenges
Disputes between Germany, France and the US over the 2003 invasion of Iraq caused one of the worst crises in Nato history. The alliance itself played no part in the invasion, although most member countries did. It later assisted in training Iraqi security forces.
Nato has since shaped a new role for itself. It took command of the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan in 2003 as part of a growing awareness of the global terrorist threat, and set up a 9,000-strong rapid reaction force for swift deployment to trouble spots anywhere in the world.
Image caption Nato involvement in the Libyan conflict was problematic
However, the reluctance of many Nato governments to supply reinforcements for the Afghan mission raised questions about the alliance's ability to sustain such large-scale operations.
At a key summit held in Lisbon in November 2010 the alliance adopted a new "strategic concept" or mission statement that pledged it to cut costs while prioritising defence against new emerging threats, such as cyber attacks.
Nato allies also agreed to deploy a missile defence system to cover all of the territory of its European members, complementing US plans for a missile defence shield.
And agreement was secured on moving towards Afghan control of internal security, which is due to begin in July 2011 and envisages full Afghan control by the end of 2014.
The imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya in March 2011 posed a tricky problem for the alliance. Although countries such as Britain and the US were keen for Nato to play a major role in heading the operation, some Arab governments were initially uneasy at the prospect of Nato command.
Following a period of disagreement and confusion, Nato agreed to take on the responsibility of enforcing the no-fly zone, which proved crucial in defeating pro-Gaddafi forces in October.
A chronology of key events:
Image caption Nato's first supreme commander, Dwight Eisenhower
1949 April - Twelve states - Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States - sign the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington DC.
1950 - US General Dwight Eisenhower appointed supreme Nato commander.
1952 - Greece and Turkey join the alliance.
1955 - West Germany joins Nato; the Soviet Union and eight Eastern European states respond by forming the Warsaw Pact.
1966 - French President Charles de Gaulle announces France's intention to withdraw from Nato's military structure in protest at the dominance of US commanders.
1967 - Nato's new headquarters opened in Brussels.
1982 - Spain joins Nato.
1990 - Nato and Warsaw Pact states sign the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty (CFE) and publish a joint declaration on non-aggression.
1991 - Warsaw Pact is dissolved; Nato sets up the North Atlantic Cooperation Council as a forum for consultations between Nato members, East European states and the former Soviet republics.
1992 - Nato announces its readiness to support peacekeeping activities in the former Yugoslavia.
1993 - Nato agrees to offer former Warsaw Pact members limited associations with the alliance in the form of the Partnership for Peace programme.
Bosnia operation
1995 - Nato embarks on its first-ever military operation by launching a campaign of air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions to force the Bosnian Serbs to negotiate a peace settlement; Nato deploys thousands of troops - the Implementation Force (Ifor) - to monitor and enforce a ceasefire in Bosnia.
1997 - Ifor is replaced by a smaller force called the Stabilisation Force (Sfor); Nato and Russia sign the Founding Act to establish a framework for security cooperation.
Nato-Russia Permanent Joint Council set up to give Russia "a voice but no veto".
1999 - The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland become the first former Soviet bloc states to join Nato, taking the alliance's borders some 400 miles towards Russia.
1999 - Nato begins an 11-week campaign of air strikes against Yugoslavia over Kosovo without UN approval; former British defence secretary George Robertson becomes secretary-general.
2001 - Disarmament operations in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
2001 September - After 11 September attacks on targets in the US, Secretary-General Robertson invokes Article Five of the alliance's constitution spelling out that an attack on one is seen as an attack on all. However, Washington chooses not to involve Nato in the US-led military campaign which follows.
2002 May - Russian, Nato foreign ministers agree to set up Nato-Russia Council, in which Russia and Nato countries will have equal role in decision-making on policy to counter terrorism and other security threats.
2002 July - Secretary-General George Robertson visits Ukraine. He says further political, economic and military reforms are necessary before Ukraine can join Nato.
Expansion
Image caption George Robertson, secretary-general between 1999 and 2004
2002 November - Seven countries - Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia - invited to join alliance at summit in Prague.
2003 February - France, Germany and Belgium temporarily block US move to offer military support to Turkey in event of war in Iraq. They say it amounts to military planning and thus could undermine diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict.
2003 June - Nato defence ministers agree to radical overhaul of alliance's military operation. Command structure streamlined to enable deployment of lighter, more flexible forces.
Afghan role
2003 August - Nato takes control of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan, its first major operation outside Europe.
2003 October - Nato launches 9,000-member rapid-reaction force which can be deployed anywhere in the world at short notice.
Image caption Nato troops became involved in the conflict in Afghanistan
2003 October - US ambassador to Nato says Franco-German plan to set up independent European military planning HQ is threat to Nato's future. EU leaders seek to allay US fears, saying European defence policy intended to complement, not rival, Nato.
2004 January - Jaap de Hoop Scheffer succeeds George Robertson as secretary-general.
2004 March - Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia formally welcomed in Washington as new members.
Bosnia handover
2004 April - Nato signs agreements establishing Russian military liaison offices at Nato HQ.
2004 December - Nato hands over peacekeeping duties in Bosnia to a new European Union-led force, Eufor.
International Court of Justice says it has no jurisdiction in a case brought by Serbia and Montenegro challenging the legality of Nato's 1999 bombing of the then Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis.
2005 December - Nato foreign ministers agree to expand the alliance's role in Afghanistan. Plans include the deployment of thousands more troops in the south.
2006 31 July - Nato takes over command in southern Afghanistan from the US-led coalition.
2006 September - Troops engage in fierce fighting with the Taleban in southern Afghanistan.
2008 April - Bucharest Summit invites Albania and Croatia to join Nato. Decisions on Georgia and Ukraine deferred until December. Postpones Macedonian membership until dispute with Greece settled.
2008 May - Nato members Germany, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy and Spain to staff and fund new cyber defence centre in Estonia, which last year blamed Russia for weeks of attacks on its internet structure.
Strained relations
2008 August - Nato says there can be no "business as usual" with Moscow unless it pulls its troops out of Georgia. Russia halts all military co-operation with Nato.
2008 September - Nato delegation visits Georgia to express solidarity following war with Russia. Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer criticises EU-brokered ceasefire deal for allowing more Russian forces to remain in breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
2009 March - Nato says that high-level contacts with Russia will be resumed after Nato's 60th anniversary summit.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy announces that France is to return to Nato's military command.
2009 April - Nato's 60th anniversary summit. Albania and Croatia are formally inducted, increasing membership to 28.
2009 July - Anders Fogh Rasmussen takes over as secretary-general.
2010 October - Nato foreign and defence ministers meet to discuss a proposed new "strategic concept" or mission statement for the alliance, drawn up by Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
2010 November - New "strategic concept" is agreed at Nato summit in Lisbon. The meeting also reaches agreement on establishment of missile defence shield for Europe - reaching new level of understanding with Russia in the process - and endorses 2014 as date for withdrawal of Nato troops from Afghanistan.
Image caption Nato involvement in the conflict in Libya helped topple Muammar Gaddafi
2011 March - UN Security Council approves imposition of no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians from Col Gaddafi's forces. Nato agrees to take on responsibility for enforcing the no-fly zone.
2011 July - Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says the Libya missions is extended for another three months and will continue to be extended for as long as necessary. He says the Gaddafi government should not try to "wait Nato out".
Nato deploys peacekeepers in the north of Kosovo after a border post with Serbia was burnt down and a Kosovo policeman killed in an attack by local local Serbian nationalists who reject Kosovo independence.
2011 October - Nato formally ends its Libya mission after the fall of the last Gaddafi stronghold, and offers to help the new government with security matters.
2011 November - Pakistan halts Nato ground supplies to Afghanistan after a Nato airstrike kills 24 of its troops.
2011 December - The International Court of Justice rules that Greece was wrong to have blocked Macedonia's Nato membership application in 2008. The ruling will make it harder for Greece to oppose another Macedonian bid.
2012 February - A leaked Nato reports says the Afghan Taliban are helped by Pakistani security services and enjoy wide public support, causing a rift with the Pakistani government and raising questions about the organisation's continuing role in Afghanistan.
2014 September - US President Barack Obama visits Estonia to reassure the Baltic states that they can count on Nato protection, amid concerns about Russia's recent seizure of Crimea in Ukraine.
2015 January - NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan ends.
Nato members will want to be reassured by General Mattis
This meeting of Nato defence ministers is the first formal alliance get-together since the arrival of the Trump administration in Washington. Mr Trump's initial suggestion that Nato was in some sense "obsolete", along with his stated desire to do deals with Moscow, set alarm bells ringing in many capitals, where Russia is seen as a re-emerging strategic threat.
Many in Europe see elements in the Trump administration as having an in-built antipathy towards multilateral institutions. There were also fears about certain officials' closeness to Moscow - a worry that the US might seek a strategic dialogue with Russia over Europeans' heads. Accordingly, the resignation of the president's controversial National Security Adviser Michael Flynn will not prompt many tears in Europe.
America's European allies will, though, at least to some extent, have been reassured by the subsequent noises that have come out of Washington. But they will want to hear direct reassurance from Gen James Mattis - Mr Trump's new defence secretary - that the alliance retains its centrality in US security thinking.
They will also want confirmed that all of the steps that the Obama administration took to reinforce deterrence in Europe - the deployment of additional combat brigades and an intensive series of exercises - will continue under the new man in the White House.
Image caption Poland is one of just five Nato members to meet spending the spending benchmark in 2016
Of course Gen Mattis will come with some messages of his own. President Trump - indeed the US Congress - wants to see the European allies shoulder more of the cost of their own defence.
Washington has shown that it is willing to stump up troops and equipment, but while collective Nato expenditure is rising, too many Nato governments have been sluggish in bringing their expenditure up to the agreed target of 2% of GDP. According to the latest Nato figures only five allies, Estonia, Greece, Poland, the UK and the United States met or exceeded the 2% benchmark in 2016.
The demand from Washington that its allies spend more on their collective defence has been a consistent one over recent years. As a former Nato commander, Gen Mattis knows the alliance well and he has heard all of the excuses before. He will deliver the familiar message with more punch and with a clear implication that this time the US administration expects to see prompt action.
Gen Mattis also wants to see Nato become more agile and better at decision-making especially at times of crisis. Washington wants to see the alliance playing a greater role in international efforts to defeat terror and to help prop up failing states.
This is a difficult area which causes divisions among the alliance's European members as much as between European capitals and Washington. Iraq - where Nato has already agreed to conduct a small amount of training - could become a test case.
The Americans are already thinking about what will happen after Mosul is fully re-captured. As the situation on the ground transitions from all-out war-fighting, there will be a continuing need to build Iraqi capabilities. Here there are lots of things that the US believes Nato countries could do - training for border patrolling, instituting defence reforms and so on. So far the response among allies to the small-scale effort in Iraq has been, shall we say, limited.
As far as Washington is concerned, Nato countries don't just need to spend more - they need to significantly enhance their capabilities and be relevant to the sort of real-world tasks in which the US wants its partners to be engaged.
Nato's response to a more assertive Russia is all very well but it threatens to open up fissures between northern and eastern allies, on the one hand, who directly face Russia's modernising forces and countries on Nato's Mediterranean flank, on the other, who confront a very different set of challenges.
Image caption The alliance is faced with a more militarily assertive Russia
As the paroxysms in Syria and Libya have shown, the migrant or refugee crisis has repercussions throughout the Middle East and much of Europe.
At this meeting, Nato ministers want to apply a small corrective to enhance the focus on threats from the south. It's a modest start - a small command hub at the joint forces headquarters in Naples whose job will be to explore what Nato can contribute to dealing with the complex security challenges on its southern flank.
But as well as a demand for a more dynamic Nato agenda the US is eager to reassure its allies. A senior US Congressional delegation is visiting the Nato headquarters this week. The Nato meeting is followed by Europe's premier annual security event - the Munich conference - after which the US vice-president himself will also be stopping by at Nato.
It is all something of a curtain-raiser for the US president's own first visit to the alliance which will take place in late May. That looks set to be a fairly brief event - little more than a lunch - in Nato's brand new headquarters building, which inconveniently will not be finished in time for the summit.
By then it is hoped that Mr Trump will have fully made his peace with Nato. If not, a reduced scale summit in an unfinished building holds risks as well as opportunities. The headline writers could have a field day.
The hope is that this Nato ministerial meeting will set the course for more harmonious relations between the alliance and its most important, albeit mercurial member.
----------------
Profile: European Union
24 September 2015
Image caption The EU's 27 member countries co-operate politically and economically
Monday, 30 April, 2001, 10:58 GMT 11:58 UK
Brussels Treaty
The Brussels Treaty was the first attempt after the Second World War to use European integration to prevent further conflict.
It was drafted and signed in 1948 by France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK signed the Brussels Treaty.
It agreed on military assistance as well as economic, social and cultural co-operation.
It paved the way for the Western European Union and Nato.
How the EU began
The European Union grew out of a desire for peace in a war-torn and divided continent. Five years after World War II ended, France and Germany came up with a plan to ensure their two countries would never go to war against each other again. The result was a deal signed by six nations to pool their coal and steel resources in 1950.
Seven years later a treaty signed in Rome created the European Economic Community (EEC) - the foundations of today's European Union. The UK was one of three new members to join in the first wave of expansion in 1973. Today the EU has 28 member states with a total population of more than 500 million.
The EU has grown steadily from its six founding members to 28 countries. Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands signed up to the EEC, or Common Market in 1957. Britain, Ireland and Denmark joined in the first wave of expansion in 1973, followed by Greece in 1981 and Portugal and Spain five years later. Eastern Germany joined after unification and Austria, Finland and Sweden became part of the EU in 1995. The biggest enlargement came in 2004 when 10 new member countries joined. Romania and Bulgaria joined in 2007 and Croatia was latest to sign up in 2013.
The European Union, or EU, describes itself as a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity.
The organisation oversees co-operation among its members in diverse areas, including trade, the environment, transport and employment.
On 1 May 2004 the EU took in 10 new members, most of them former communist countries, in a huge step along the road towards dismantling the post-World War II division of Europe.
The new joiners were the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.
However, plans to introduce a constitution - intended to ensure the smooth running of the enlarged EU - faltered repeatedly at various national referendums until the revised "Lisbon" reform treaty was adopted. It came into force in December 2009.
History
Over half a century earlier, it was the devastation caused in Europe by World War II which underlay the feeling imperative to build international relationships to guard against any such catastrophe recurring.
French statesmen Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman are regarded as the architects of the principle that the best way to start the European bonding process was by developing economic ties.
This philosophy was the foundation for the Treaty of Paris of 1951. It established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which was joined by France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Under the Treaty of Rome which came into force in 1958, these six countries founded the European Economic Community and European Atomic Energy Community to work alongside the ECSC.
In 1967 the three communities merged to become collectively known as the European Communities (EC) whose main focus was on cooperation in economic and agricultural affairs.
Denmark, Ireland and the UK became full EC members in 1973, Greece joined in 1981, Portugal and Spain in 1986, Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995.
Maastricht and beyond
The Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht in 1991, formally established the European Union as the successor to the EC.
At the same time, Maastricht expanded the concept of European union, introducing a common foreign and security policy and moving towards an EU coordinating policy on asylum, immigration, drugs and terrorism.
EU citizenship was brought into being for the first time, allowing people from member countries to move freely between member states. A new Social Chapter - from which the UK opted out - laid down EU policies on workers' rights and other social issues.
Crucially, Maastricht established the timetable for economic and monetary union and specified the criteria for countries wanting to join.
The subsequent Stability and Growth Pact tightened up these criteria, stressing strict fiscal discipline and coordination and laying down penalties for failing to control budget deficits.
Monetary travails
The single European currency, the euro, was officially adopted by 11 member states in 1999. Greece, which took longer to meet convergence criteria, joined two years later. Denmark, Sweden and the UK chose not to join.
The failure of many eurozone countries to stick to the self-imposed rules on government debt triggered a major financial crisis in 2009.
Jointly with the IMF, the EU approved a series of multi-billion-euro bailouts to contain the problem, starting with 110bn euros for Greece in May 2010, 85bn euros for Ireland in November and 78bn euros for Portugal in May 2011.
This and other emergency measure failed to restore confidence as the indebtedness of Spain, Italy and Cyprus also prompted concern. Rifts opened up about between richer and poorer countries how to deal with the crisis, with Germany emerging as the the chief advocate of austerity.
In December 2013, EU leaders approved a set of rules for managing the closure of failing eurozone banks, intended to minimise the need for taxpayer-funded bailouts.
Other key issues
Supporters of the 2004 influx of new member states saw enlargement as the best way of building economic and political bonds in Europe and end past divisions of the past.
Critics voiced concern than expansion would deliver new economic burdens, make decision-making harder and open up richer members to an influx of immigrants from former communist states.
Bulgaria and Romania joined in January 2007, Croatia in mid-2013, and in 2009 Serbia submitted a formal application to join. Talks about Turkey's possible accession began in October 2005.
To prepare for the first big wave of enlargement, a convention was established in 2002 to draft an EU constitution to streamline and replace the complex array of treaties and agreements governing the union, and more clearly define its powers
A draft charter agreed at an EU summit in June 2004 for ratification by individual member states - either by parliament or referendum - but was dealt a severe blow in when it was spurned by French and Dutch voters.
The constitution was put on hold, and instead, Lisbon Treaty was agreed after long negotiations, and signed December 2007.
While preserving the substance of the constitution, it is simply amends previous European treaties, rather than marking any fundamental new shift in powers.
The new pact also nearly foundered when it was rejected by voters in Ireland in a 2008 referendum. But EU leaders persevered and the Irish approved it in a second referendum in October 2009, allowing ratification to be completed in the following month.
New presidency
The Lisbon Treaty created a new post - president of the European Council. Elected for a two-and-a-half-year term, it replaces the practice of rotating the council presidency among member states every six months.
The first holder, Herman van Rompuy, was elected in 2009. He was succeeded by former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in 2014.
The treaty ushered in a wider rebalancing of powers. The European Parliament was put on an equal footing with the Council for most issues, including the crucial areas of the budget and agriculture.
National vetoes were also removed in some areas, although they will remain on tax, foreign policy, defence and social security.
In addition there will be a redistribution of voting weights among member-states, to be phased in between 2014 and 2017, with 55% of member-states being entitled to pass certain measures as they account for 65% of the EU population.
A plan to reduce the size of the European Commission - roughly speaking, the EU's executive - from 2014 so that not every member-state will have its own commissioner was watered down, however.
The current president of the commission is former Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker.
He was elected - despite objections from the UK, which considered him too keen a support of a fully federal EU - in October 2014, having been the candidate of the largest party in the European Parliament in the May 2014 European elections.
Among challenges facing him are the continuing instability of the eurozone, and failure to reach agreement on how to deal with waves of refugees and migrants from Syria, who began arriving in the Balkans in large numbers in the summer of 2015.
------------
EU Milestones - BBC News
Introduction
For over 50 years European nations have been forming an "ever closer union", resulting in the European Union as we know it today.
1948: Plans for a peaceful Europe
After the end of the Second World War, Europe looks for ways to prevent another outbreak of conflict.
France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK sign the Brussels Treaty agreeing on military assistance, economic, social and cultural cooperation.
A year later the same countries set up the Council of Europe - a forum for all European countries to discuss informal co-operation.
1951: The first step: Schuman's vision
Schuman: Europe's founding father
The "Six" - France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - sign the Treaty of Paris establishing the European Coal and Steel Community which comes into force in 1954.
The treaty is based on French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman's 1950 declaration that coal and steel resources should be pooled to avoid European countries waging war on one another.
The key European institutions also emerge at this time. The High Authority - which will later become the European Commission - is set up with Jean Monnet, the inspiration for the Schuman declaration, as its president. The treaty also establishes the Common Assembly - later the European Parliament - as well as the Council of Ministers and the Court of Justice.
A year later the Six also sign the European Defence Community (EDC) treaty in Paris. But after only two years the EDC collapses causing Jean Monnet to resign from the High Authority.
1957: The European Community is born
The Six sign the Treaty of Rome
The "Six" - France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries - sign the Treaty of Rome - the foundation of the European Community.
It sets up the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) which work alongside the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) founded in 1951.
The EEC establishes a nine-member commission based in Brussels and all three communities share a Parliamentary Assembly headed by Robert Schuman and a Court of Justice.
The following year, preparations for a Common Agricultural Policy - which will eventually be launched in 1962 - begin at a summit in Stresa in Italy.
1960: EFTA: Another Europe?
An alternative to the EEC Six emerges when the "Seven" - Austria, Denmark, Norway Portugal Sweden, Switzerland and the UK - set up EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. Finland, Iceland and Liechtenstein also join later.
Like the EEC, EFTA aims to establish free trade in western Europe but it differs in that it opposes uniform external tariffs and does not want to put member countries under the authority of supranational institutions.
Eighteen months after EFTA is set up, its driving force, the UK, applies to join the EEC. UK membership of the EEC is stalled when French President Charles de Gaulle vetoes it, but eventually all but three of EFTA's members end up leaving the Association to join the EEC.
1965: Moving closer
A treaty is signed merging the three communities - the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community. But they are still most commonly referred to as the EEC, which remains the most powerful of the three.
A single Council of Ministers and European Commission for the unified communities are established.
1973: The first expansion
De Gaulle had vetoed UK membership
The European Community expands to include Denmark, Ireland and the UK.
Britain had faced strong opposition to its membership from French President Charles de Gaulle, who vetoed its application a decade earlier.
Britain only holds a referendum on its membership two years later in 1975 and the British public votes to stay in the EEC.
Norway had also been gearing up to join in this round of expansion, but in its referendum in 1972 Norwegians decided against membership and negotiations to join were stopped.
1979: The road to the Euro begins
The European Monetary System (EMS) is introduced on the initiative of the Commission President Roy Jenkins setting Europe on the road towards the euro.
The EMS is made up of the European Currency Unit (Ecu) and the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).
The Ecu - originally a unit for the community's internal budget - takes on some of the characteristics of a real currency and is used, for example, in travellers' cheques and bank deposits.
It is also the denomination for the ERM - a system which gives national currencies a central exchange rate against the Ecu. Each currency can fluctuate above and below this rate within certain boundaries. All the community's members apart from the UK join the ERM at this time.
In this year, Europeans vote in the first direct elections to the European Parliament.
1981: Greece joins
Greece joins the EEC and becomes its tenth member.
1986: Towards a single market
Spain and Portugal join and take the community's number up to 12.
A year after EC citizens got their first European passports, the European flag is raised above the Commission's Brussels headquarters to the tune of Europe's common anthem.
The Single European Act, which modifies the Treaty of Rome is signed and comes into force the following year. It sets up a framework for the Single European Market by increasing the Commission's powers and introducing qualified majority voting for a number of issues.
1991: Maastricht makes the Union
European leaders meet in the Dutch town of Maastricht and draft the Treaty of the European Union - a major amendment to the 1957 Treaty of Rome and the agreement which officially changes the European Community into the European Union.
The long and difficult negotiations highlight the divides between countries which want more integration and those, particularly the UK, which want co-operation to remain voluntary.
The treaty sets up a timetable for economic and monetary union and lays out the convergence criteria which countries must meet to adopt the single currency.
In the social chapter of the agreement, Europe for the first time introduces policies covering issues such as workers' pay and health and safety at work. Britain negotiates an opt-out from this chapter, meaning it is not part of the main treaty.
By changing the European Community into the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty expands into two new areas. Firstly it takes on a common foreign and security policy and secondly judicial and home affairs, coordinating policy on asylum, immigration, drugs and terrorism.
Maastricht also makes the people of the 12 member countries European citizens for the first time giving them the right to move freely and live in any member state and to vote in local and European elections in any EU country.
Europe also begins work on one of the major challenges that will preoccupy it for the next decade - its eastwards enlargement into the former Soviet block. In December it signs Europe Agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
1993: Maastricht's rocky ride
Eventually the Danish vote "yes"
On 1 January the Single European Market takes effect - the objective of the first European treaties. Trade tariffs are scrapped but Duty Free shopping manages to cling on until 1999.
In November, the Maastricht Treaty comes into force, two years after it was negotiated.
The Treaty had a rocky ride as several member states faced opposition to its ratification. In Denmark it was initially rejected in its first referendum but scraped through the second time round. France also voted by a whisker to adopt it in its national referendum and it only just squeezed through the British parliament under strong pressure.
1995: The borders come down
Austria, Finland and Sweden join the Union, bringing membership up to 15.
Most continental Europeans can now leave their passports at home as the Schengen agreement comes into force and scraps border controls.
France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and the Benelux countries are the first to put the agreement in place, followed later by Austria, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Greece.
The UK and Ireland stay out of the agreement due to fears of terrorism and illegal immigration.
1997: Amsterdam: the start of a two-speed Europe
Europe's leaders sign the Treaty
The heads of government meet in Amsterdam and draft a new agreement which updates the Maastricht Treaty and starts to get the EU ready for its eastward expansion.
Laws on employment and discrimination are strengthened and the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty becomes an official part of EU law.
The Schengen agreement, scrapping border controls becomes part of EU law though Ireland and the UK maintain their opt-outs. This gives the EU more say on immigration and asylum.
Amsterdam aims to make the EU more democratically accountable and extends the parliament's powers. Qualified majority voting is introduced into new areas, reducing individual countries' powers to veto new measures.
This is also the beginning of a two-speed Europe. The treaty allows for "closer co-operation" or "flexibility" between countries which want to forge ahead on certain issues.
1998: First moves towards enlargement
The EU takes its first steps eastwards and opens negotiations with six countries hoping to join the union.
Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Cyprus become the 'first wave' of applicants.
Applicants negotiate conditions for accepting the body of European laws, also known as the acquis communautaire. Most importantly for the candidates, the negotiations decide in which areas of the law they may be granted opt-outs, allowing them to phase in reforms more slowly.
A year later, another group of countries gets its foot in the European door when at the Helsinki summit in December 1999 the EU decides to open membership negotiations with another six countries.
Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Malta now form the second wave of candidate countries.
January 1999: The euro is born
Markets begin trading in euros
Eleven countries meet the convergence criteria and so pass the test to allow them to adopt the euro as their official currency on 1 January. Greece joins them two years later but Sweden, Denmark and the UK stay out.
For now, the national currencies are still in use, but they will be phased out by 2002.
March 1999: Crisis at the Commission
MEPs debate the scathing report
The EU faces its darkest hour yet as in an unprecedented move the entire European Commission resigns amid revelations of fraud, nepotism and mismanagement.
After a tense standoff with the European Parliament, all 20 commissioners including President Jacques Santer resign to prevent the parliament from sacking them after a scathing report into mismanagement at the commission reveals a complacent bureaucracy and culture of favouritism.
In September Romano Prodi is appointed new president of the commission promising radical change in the way it is run. Parliament approves his new commissioners - only a handful of the old commissioners are re-appointed.
2000: Tough talks at Nice
Nice: long nights and tough talking
European heads of government meet in the southern French city of Nice for long nights of negotiations to thrash out the nitty-gritty of EU institutional reforms.
The toughest talk is over the number of votes each country will get once the union expands and acrimony breaks out between the big and small countries. Talks almost break down a number of times.
The summit agrees to limit the size of the commission and increase the president's powers. Vetoes make way for qualified majority voting in a number of new areas but members keep their vetoes on social security and tax.
"Enhanced co-operation" is given the go-ahead, allowing fast-track countries to press ahead with new policies without waiting for other members.
Candidate countries, who also attend the conference, say it is a big step towards enlargement but Commission President Romano Prodi is disappointed.
Many issues are dealt with in a makeshift way and are left for more rigorous negotiations at the next conference in 2004.
2004: Enlargement at last?
The draft Nice treaty expresses hope that some of the current candidate countries will take part in elections to the European Parliament in 2004 - suggesting that the front-runners in the first wave could be members by then.
But 2004 will be a tough year for the EU as the issues left unresolved by Nice will have to be settled at an inter-governmental conference which aims to define what powers lie in the hands of the union and what the member states retain.
-----------------------
BBC News Tuesday, 29 October, 2002, 14:08 GMT
Excerpts: EU draft 'constitution'
Giscard d'Estaing: The draft prejudges nothing
A draft constitutional treaty prepared by the Convention on the Future of Europe, headed by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, has come under fire from both eurosceptics and euro-federalists.
Convention representatives
National governments and parliaments
European Commission
European parliament
13 candidate countries
Non-governmental organisations and academia
It is just a skeleton text, which will be fleshed out as the convention continues its work, before publishing a final proposal next year.
In its present form it avoids committing itself on some of the most controversial issues, such as whether there should be a new President of the Council of EU member states.
"The inclusion (or non-inclusion)... of some articles, and the exact content of others, will depend on the Convention's proceedings," says a paragraph at the top of the text.
"Their treatment in this text is in no way intended to prejudge the result of the Convention's debates."
The following are excerpts from the draft:
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe
I: Definition and objectives of the Union
Article 1: Decision to establish [an entity called the European Community, European Union, United States of Europe, United Europe]
A Union of European States which, while retaining their national identities, closely co-ordinate their policies at the European level, and administer certain common competences on a federal basis...
Article 2: This article sets out the values of the Union: human dignity, fundamental rights, democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, respect for obligations and for international law.
Article 3: Objectives of the Union. This article establishes the general objectives, such as:
protection of the common values, interests and independence of the Union
promotion of economic and social cohesion
strengthening of the internal market, and of economic and monetary union
promotion of a high level of employment and a high degree of social protection
a high level of environmental protection
encouragement for technological and scientific progress
creation of an area of liberty, security and justice
development of a common foreign and security policy, and a common defence policy, to defend and promote the Union's values in the wider world
...
II: Union citizenships and fundamental rights
Article 5: This article establishes and defines Union citizenship: every citizen of a Member State is a citizen of the Union; enjoys dual citizenship, national citizenship and European citizenship; and is free to use either, as he or she chooses; with the rights and duties attaching to each.
...
III: Union competence and actions
Article 8: This article establishes the principle that any competence not conferred on the Union by the Constitution rests with the Member States...
It would set out the rules for effective monitoring of subsidiarity and proportionality. The role of National Parliaments in this respect would be mentioned.
...
IV: Union institutions
Article 15 bis: When the Convention has discussed it, this article could establish the term of office and appointment procedure for the Presidency of the European Council, its role and responsibilities...
Article 19: This article would raise the possibility of establishing a Congress of the Peoples of Europe, determine its composition and the procedure for appointing its members, and define its powers...
...
VIII: Union action in the world
Article 41: This provision should set out who represents the Union in international relations, taking account of competences already exercised by the Community.
In the light of the Convention's future work, it would define the role and future rank of the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy.
...
X: Union membership
Article 43: This article establishes the principle that the Union is open to all European States which share its values and wish to pursue them jointly, which strictly respect fundamental rights, and which accept the Union's rules of operation.
...
Article 46: This article would mention the possibility of establishing a procedure for voluntary withdrawal from the Union by decision of a Member State, and the institutional consequences of such withdrawal.
The EU force could replace S-For as early as next year
Nato has approved a deal on military partnership with the European Union, paving the way for a European rapid reaction force.
We are now able to conduct operations where Nato does not want to get involved
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
Nato said the EU would now have access to Nato military planning facilities with immediate effect.
The accord - which had been held up for two years by Turkish opposition and the row with the EU over Turkey's accession talks - was forged at an EU summit in Copenhagen.
The EU now plans to set up the 60,000-strong force for peacekeeping operation in Macedonia and Bosnia, which could be operational as early as next year.
Correspondents say that the EU needs its own military capability if its foreign policy is to become more effective.
'Difficult negotiations'
The Nato Secretary General, George Robertson, hailed the deal as a vital breakthrough in relations between Nato and the EU.
EU aims to be able to deploy its troops within 60 days
"Today Nato and the European Union have taken a major step forward in putting into effect the strategic partnership between the two organisations," he said in a statement.
While EU foreign policy envoy Javier Solana said he now looked forward to relations on a "different footing" between the two organisations.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the agreement was reached after "very difficult" negotiations.
"We are now able to conduct operations where Nato does not want to get involved. It is complementary to Nato," Mr Blair said.
The long-awaited deal was agreed in principle in October, but was held up by a row between Turkey and Greece over control of Nato's military assets.
Turkey - a member of Nato but not the EU - has balked at the prospect of the EU having access to Nato assets when they then might be used against Turkish interests.
But on Friday, Turkey said it worries had been resolved.
In a concession to Ankara, the EU leaders agreed that Cyprus - which is due to join the EU in 2004 - would not take part in any EU military operation that uses Nato assets.
Balkan operations
The delay forced the EU to acknowledge last month that it would miss a 15 December deadline to take over from about 700 Nato peacekeepers in Macedonia - planned as the EU's first military operation.
In November, Nato agreed to extend its mandate in the Balkan state, but said it would greatly scale it down.
In a draft text of the conclusions of the Copenhagen summit, the EU said it could take over the operations in Macedonia "as soon as possible in consultation with Nato".
The EU also asked Mr Solana to start talks with the UN envoy in Bosnia, Paddy Ashdown, on the EU succeeding the Nato-led S-For troops.
Mr Robertson said that while details of the deal had to be worked out, there was a determination to complete the task by March next year.
--------------
BBC News
Monday, 31 December, 2001, 14:45 GMT
The EU's military ambitions
Finland is adapting to post-Cold War realities
By the BBC's Chris Morris in Brussels
On the edge of Europe, Finnish troops in winter camouflage crawl through the snow to attack a tank on exercises less than 100 kilometres (60 miles) from the Russian border.
For years, Finland was mired in awkward neutrality, stuck between Nato and the Warsaw Pact. But times are changing, and the East-West divide has gone. Now the Finns are offering troops for a new military initiative.
As a member of the European Union, Finland intends to be part of the EU's new rapid reaction force.
By 2003, the EU wants to be able to deploy 60,000 troops within 60 days to troublespots around the world. The aim is to give the EU some kind of military capability as its common foreign policy splutters into life.
Military requirements
It will not be easy. Military spending across Europe is falling, and the EU still lacks many of the ingredients for successful military deployments. It needs heavy airlift, better intelligence, and the right kind of troops. Some of these things are in the pipeline, but they will take years to arrive.
Finland, with the Soviet Union next door, previously steered a neutral course
Critics argue that the plan is fatally flawed.
The man who has to prove them wrong keeps a hectic schedule. Javier Solana spends half his life on the road. As the EU's High Commissioner for Common Foreign and Security Policy, his task is to represent the 15 member states collectively on the world stage.
We travelled with him for a few days, from Brussels to Jerusalem, from Ramallah to Berlin.
There is an air of organised chaos - timings are tight, meetings are delayed, conversations overrun. But however imperfect, the EU now has a team in the field.
Greater EU role
Breaking bread with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat may seem a long way from debates over European defence capabilities, but there is a link. If EU foreign policy is to become more effective, it needs a military component. Not as a threat, just as a fact of life.
Javier Solana: Bolstering the EU's military profile
"By the time we complete the process of enlargement, the European Union will have twice the population of the United States and four times the population of Japan," says Mr Solana.
"We don't want to be a superpower, but we have to get used to playing a greater international role, having a military arm to help with crisis management - and peacekeeping is an important part of that, it's inevitable."
Mr Solana travels with a small team of officials. If this is the prototype for some kind of future European diplomatic service, there is a long way to go.
The intention is clear. Already the largest donor of development aid in the world, the EU is now looking to punch its weight in other areas of foreign policy.
Disputes
"Of course there are shortcomings, and different countries have different priorities," says John Palmer, director of the Brussels-based European Policy Centre. "But there has been progress in the last few years."
The trouble is that internal disputes often hijack the best laid plans, especially in the European Union.
When the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, invited his French and German counterparts for dinner in London to discuss the crisis in Afghanistan, smaller EU countries were mortally offended. A few names were added to the party list at the last moment, but the bad blood lingered.
Balkan flashpoint
So where will the real test emerge? When it comes to defence, probably in the Balkans, where thousands of European troops are already based under Nato and UN command.
Kosovo is proving a tough test for peacekeepers
The last major Balkan conflict - in Kosovo in 1999 - provided the spur for the EU's current defence initiative.
Kosovo was a European problem, but the military response was mostly American. It forced Europeans to face facts. They were ill-prepared to carry out operations in their own backyard, and they knew they could not rely on automatic American help forever.
In Macedonia, a German-led Nato force provides security for international observers, and liaises with local villagers. It is part of a precarious but important success in conflict prevention.
Macedonia is also exactly the type of operation the EU wants to do - keeping the peace in Europe, and using a military presence to create long-term stability.
But at the moment, the rapid reaction force is an empty shell - the height of its immediate ambition a possible police deployment to Bosnia.
But Euro-optimists, like European Commission President Romano Prodi, look to the future.
"To have the euro we needed almost 45 years," Mr Prodi argues. "So don't be surprised if we need a lot of time to build - through democracy - our common foreign policy."
It is easy to dismiss the EU's defence initiative, and the whole idea of a common foreign policy, as a non-starter. But despite all the problems, the EU knows its credibility is on the line. There is considerable political pressure for success.
In one way or another, the EU feels the time is right to raise its international profile.
--------------------
BBC News
Sunday, 11 February, 2001, 13:02 GMT
Call to boost Euro armies
The new force would be ready for action in troublespots
Britain's top military officer has said that Europe must beef up its own defence forces, rather than relying on the US.
Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Charles Guthrie warned that if Europe did not do more for its own defence, then the Americans would do much less.
"The Americans are going to be preoccupied in lots of things around the world which we don't want to get involved in and there will be some things in Europe which they don't want to," he told the BBC Breakfast with Frost programme.
Guthrie: US is a key nation in Nato
"I think they are going to do less. If we don't do more, they are going to do much less."
But in his last interview before retiring later this week, Sir Charles insisted the proposed European rapid reaction force would complement not threaten the Nato alliance.
"We must keep (the United States) really leading the Nato alliance because they are the key nation," he said.
Political differences
But he acknowledged that France saw the proposed new European force as an alternative structure to Nato.
The United States fears that the 60,000-strong European Union force, due to be ready for deployment from 2003 in conflicts around Europe, could drive a wedge between Nato allies.
An EU force could act independently of Nato
The opposition Conservative party argue the plan will alienate American allies at the expense of Europe.
But Sir Charles said the force should not be used as a political football.
"It is not about being eurosceptical. It is not about being europhile. It is about what is right for our country."
US missile plans
Asked about the US plans for a National Missile Defence system, Sir Charles said he had been struck by the determination of the new administration in the US to press ahead with project.
"I have just been to Washington and I have talked to a lot of Americans about this. And they are going to do it, I feel absolutely sure they are going to do it," he said.
Under current US plans, the system would require the use of an early warning radar site at Fylingdales on the North Yorkshire moors.
Tory leader William Hague has pledged to support the plan, but government ministers have insisted they will not even consider whether to facilitate the project until firm proposals are put forward by the US.
No women on the frontline
In his final stand against political correctness, Sir Charles opposed allowing women into the frontline.
He said Britain was not ready to see women killed in battle.
At the moment women can serve in nearly all jobs in the RAF and in most jobs in the Navy except on submarines.
But they have been kept out of frontline army regiments. Sir Charles said that his job was not social engineering, but producing the best fighting forces possible.
-------------
BBC News
Wednesday, 12 December, 2001, 20:16 GMT
The EU gets teeth
France is said to have committed its aircraft carrier to the EU force
EU leaders want to announce at the Laeken summit that the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) - and its keystone, the planned rapid reaction force - is "operational".
When we say ESDP is operational, we mean that it has the basic framework to fulfil basic tasks such as humanitarian rescue missions
UK Europe Minister Peter Hain
Europe has long wished to match its economic muscle with political and military weight - as it was notably unable to do in Kosovo - and this is perceived as the moment of truth.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has suggested that the force should be "visible" in post-Taleban Afghanistan, along with the military contributions made by individual member states, even though it is not intended to be fully formed until 2003.
By then it should be able to deploy a force of 60,000 men in less than 60 days and to sustain them for a year.
Limitations
There is only a limited amount the force, in its present state, could do.
"When we say ESDP is operational, we mean that it has the basic framework to fulfil basic tasks such as humanitarian rescue missions, not that it has the ability to engage in peace enforcement operations," UK Europe Minister Peter Hain said last month.
The force is intended ultimately to carry out what are known as the Petersberg tasks:
Humanitarian and rescue tasks
Peacekeeping tasks
Tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking
However, in the light of the 11 September attacks there has been talk of either adding to this list, or redefining it, possibly to include something like the bombing campaign in Afghanistan.
Special forces
One idea is to create a European special forces capability. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana will deliver a report on this at the summit.
The force's main problems at the moment are shortages of certain types of hardware, and disagreements with Greece over a deal giving EU soldiers access to Nato facilities in Turkey, and Nato's military planning capability.
The biggest hardware shortages are in the realms of logistics and intelligence gathering - wide-body aircraft and roll-on-roll-off ships, transportable docks, communications equipment, satellites, aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, used for reconnaissance.
Most European governments appear confident that the shortfalls can be met, but one recent study, by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, says they are simply not spending enough on defence to buy the necessary equipment by 2003.
---------------
BBC News
Friday, 13 December, 2002, 21:06 GMT
EU clinches expansion deal
EU flags will be flying in 10 new capitals
The European Union has reached a financial deal with 10 candidate members, paving the way for the largest expansion in its history.
The agreement at the summit in Copenhagen was reached after the EU pledged to make 1bn euros available to Poland - the largest of the candidate countries - almost immediately after it joins.
The other nine leading candidates in this first wave of expansion were offered up to 300m euros in extra aid, a deal readily accepted by the majority.
The 10 candidates - eight former Communist states from Central and Eastern Europe plus Cyprus and Malta - are now preparing for entry into the bloc in 2004.
"For the first time in history Europe will become one because unification is the free will of its people," said Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission, the EU's executive arm.
"Accession of 10 new member states will bring an end to the divisions in Europe."
In other developments at the EU's Copenhagen summit:
Talks on brokering a deal on the reunification of Cyprus have collapsed
Turkey has been told it cannot begin negotiations on joining for two years
Nato announced a deal with the EU, paving the way for the creation of the first EU military force - an agreement that had been held up by Turkish opposition.
Poland had initially asked for an extra 2bn euros to be made available - arguing that without extra subsidy its farmers would face ruin inside the European single market.
Possible timetable
December 2002: 10 countries invited to join
April 2003: Accession treaty to be signed in Athens
May 2004: New members join
December 2004: Turkey invited to start membership talks
The 1bn euro offer was the symbolic gesture the country sought, but it is not in fact new money, says the BBC's Oana Lungescu.
Instead, the funds promised to Poland for infrastructure projects will be paid much faster than originally planned, to balance Poland's budget after it begins to pay hefty EU membership dues.
This should help its strained budget and in particular its ailing farming industry without increasing the overall amount it will eventually get.
The new funding deal offered the 10 candidates about 1.5bn euros more than a previous package that was approved in October.
Turkish woes
Separate talks were held on the margins of the summit to broker a deal on the reunification of Cyprus.
The United Nations - which was sponsoring the negotiations - said on Friday that there had been no agreement on creating a federal, decentralised system, which would have allowed Cyprus to join the EU as a united nation.
The failure of the talks may result in EU membership only for the internationally recognised, Greek Cypriot-run part of the island.
BBC News
Friday, 25 October, 2002, 18:22 GMT 19:22 UK
EU reaches landmark expansion deal
The deal follows a Franco-German breakthrough
European Union leaders meeting in Brussels have agreed on a complex deal to finance the bloc's eastward expansion starting in 2004.
The biggest-ever enlargement of the union is now within reach
Summit statement
"We have an agreement," Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters after a two-day summit of hard haggling over numbers, and the future of agricultural subsidies.
He said the financial arrangements agreed at the summit would now put to the 10 applicant countries - Cyprus, Malta and eight East European nations - in Copenhagen on Monday.
Formal invitations to become members will be issued at a mid-December EU summit in Copenhagen, bringing to an end the Danish six-month presidency of the union.
Under the deal hammered out in Brussels:
Farm subsidies for new member-states will be gradually phased in over a period of nine years
The farm budget, now standing at 40bn euros will rise to 45bn euros by 2006, increasing by 1% per year until 2013 to offset inflation
The newcomers will receive 23bn euros in structural aid over the first three years
The EU will ensure that they do not pay more into the EU budget than they get back, between 2004 and 2006
"This has been a very successful summit. It represents a major step forward towards the historic decision on enlargement," said Mr Rasmussen.
Candidates shortlist
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
"Now we have an agreement that gives the [European] Commission and the presidency the necessary mandate to finalise negotiations with the 10 candidate countries."
He said he was confident the applicant countries would accept the deal on offer.
The main obstacle to an agreement was removed on Thursday, when France and Germany agreed to a compromise on their long-standing differences over the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
Shared pain
The UK and the Netherlands, headed a group of members saying that the deal did not go far enough to limit the size of the bulging CAP budget, but appear to have lost the argument.
The CAP does damage to the developing world - we have to make sure there is change
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
Mr Blair insisted on adding a line to the summit declaration saying that the agreement to cap subsidies until 2013 was "without prejudice" to a more fundamental overhaul of the system.
France, which favours the continuation of the CAP in its present form, hit back by repeating its demand for an end to the UK rebate, President Jacques Chirac describing it as "the last unreformed cost in the EU budget".
BBC correspondent Tim Franks says the deal reached involved pain for all sides, but the leaders accepted it as a price worth paying for the reunification of Western and Eastern Europe.
No date for Turkey
The leaders said they hoped Romania and Bulgaria would be ready to join the EU in 2007.
But while they praised Turkey's progress towards meeting EU membership criteria they did not set a date for the beginning of entry negotiations with Ankara.
In other decisions, the EU leaders agreed:
A compromise aimed at resolving a dispute between Greece and Turkey blocking the launch of the EU rapid reaction force
A proposal for a cheap, easily available travel document for residents of Kaliningrad to pass through Lithuania to the rest of Russia
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he would seek Turkey's approval for the text on the rapid reaction force next week.
Although Turkey is not a member of the EU, it is a member of Nato, and has been barring EU access to Nato assets.
The proposal on Kaliningrad will be put to Russian President Vladimir Putin on 11 November.
Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, meanwhile, has sought to play down his government's disappointment over the fact that it will not be allowed to begin talks on entering the EU until 2004.
Turkey had been pressing for an immediate start to its negotiations on joining the EU.
It has been kept waiting for decades because of its poor human rights record, but the newly-elected government believes a recent rush of new legislation means it deserves to begin talks soon.
Turkey will be able to begin negotiations in two years' time, provided that it meets EU requirements on human rights.
And Nato has now announced that a deal with the EU has been reached, paving the way for a European rapid reaction force.
The accord had been held up for about two years by Turkish opposition - and the row with the EU over Turkey's accession talks.
Under the deal, EU can draw on Nato's assets and planning for the 60,000-strong force.
------------------
Spread across the heart of Europe, the EU institutions form the framework for co-operation between the 15 member states. Spread across the heart of Europe, the EU institutions form the framework for co-operation between the 15 member states.
The European Commission is the only EU institution which can initiate legislation. Before it can propose new laws, it has a duty to consult with interest groups and experts to ensure the interests of the European Union as a whole are served.
Once the commission has formed a proposal, either for a new law or for the annual budget, it submits it to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to pass or reject it.
The parliament also has responsibility for supervising the 20 commissioners and is the only institution with the power to sack them. Commissioners are appointed by the Council of Ministers and then approved by Parliament.
Once legislation has been passed, the Court of Justice makes sure it is interpreted uniformly across all the member states and tries to iron out any differences between European and national laws.
The Court of Auditors is the watchdog for the budget, checking that the money is being well spent and trying to give European citizens value for money.
---------------
Brexit deal: Theresa May's agreement with Brussels
By Chris MorrisReality Check correspondent, BBC News
8 December 2017
The UK and European Commission have reached an agreement that should allow them to move Brexit talks on to the next stage.
So here's the first linguistic somersault. This agreement is designed to lock in the progress made so far, and allow technical experts to continue to work on it during the second phase of talks.
But EU negotiations always work on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that raises the prospect that if the second phase runs into trouble, then what has been agreed so far could, in theory, unravel.
That is certainly not the intention on either side, but it underscores that the negotiating process still has a very long way to run - and the hardest part is still to come.
The separation agreement on citizens' rights will not fall under the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (officially called the CJEU but commonly referred to as the ECJ) which was the initial demand from the European Union.
But the ECJ will continue to play a role, because this agreement says UK courts will have to pay "due regard" to its decisions on an indefinite basis.
And for eight years after Brexit, there will be a mechanism for UK courts to refer questions of interpretation directly to the ECJ.
It is a compromise, but the sort of compromise that some supporters of Brexit will find hard to stomach.
This detail on citizens' rights is important.
The agreement will apply to anyone taking up residence before the UK leaves the EU, so people could still take the decision to move next year, or even in early 2019, and they would be fully protected by it. That option will remain open for new arrivals until the day the UK leaves - currently presumed to be 29 March 2019.
In fact the European Commission argues that the "specified date" should be considerably later. In an official communication to the European Council it argues that during a transition all EU citizens should have all their rights upheld. In other words, it says, the "specified date" should not be the actual date of withdrawal, but the final day of a transition period (potentially two years later or even longer).
There are also a lot of technical details hidden in the weeds of the agreement that remain to be negotiated, and that's why some groups representing citizens who are caught up in this dilemma are far from happy.
The reaction of the European Parliament, which has taken a tough line on citizens' rights, will be important because it has to ratify the final agreement.
This is the key phrase in the long section setting out how the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will operate after the UK leaves the EU.
The preference on both sides is for an ambitious free trade agreement, which will address many of the concerns that have been raised (although questions of customs duties would still have to be addressed).
As a backstop though, the UK has guaranteed that it will maintain "full alignment" with the EU's single market and customs rules that govern cross-border trade.
It is a form of words that everyone can (just about) live with for now, but there is plenty of tough negotiating ahead.
It's not entirely clear how full alignment could be maintained without Northern Ireland staying in the single market and the customs union, especially as there is no such thing as partial membership. It is another sign that the competing demands that have been discussed this week have been sidestepped, but not fully resolved.
This sentence about the financial settlement is a bureaucratic masterpiece, and suggests that plenty of detail still needs to be sorted out behind the scenes.
For months, the money appeared to be the most intractable issue in the withdrawal negotiations, but money is easier to finesse than borders or courts.
A method for calculating the bill has been agreed, but the calculation of an exact UK share will depend on exchange rates, on interest rates, on the number of financial commitments that never turn into payments, and more.
The question of how and when payments will be made still needs to resolved, but it will be a schedule lasting for many years to come, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever be able to give an exact figure for the size of the divorce bill.
UK sources say it will be up to £40bn, but some EU sources expect it to be higher than that. No-one can say for sure, and both sides want to keep it that way.
Update 11 December 2017: This piece was amended to take account of the European Commission's view on the specified date for EU citizens' rights.
-------------------
BBC News
Brexit: 'Breakthrough' deal paves way for future trade talks
8 December 2017
The prime minister said the deal will allow more to be invested in "priorities at home"
PM Theresa May has struck a last-minute deal with the EU in a bid to move Brexit talks on to the next phase.
There will be no "hard border" with Ireland; and the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will be protected.
The so-called "divorce bill" will amount to between £35bn and £39bn, Downing Street sources say.
The European Commission president said it was a "breakthrough" and he was confident EU leaders will approve it.
They are due to meet next Thursday for a European Council summit and need to give their backing to the deal if the next phase of negotiations are to begin.
Talks can then move onto a transition deal to cover a period of up to two years after Brexit, and the "framework for the future relationship" - preliminary discussions about a future trade deal, although the EU says a deal can only be finalised once the UK has left the EU.
A final withdrawal treaty and transition deal will have to be ratified by the EU nations and the UK Parliament, before the UK leaves in March 2019.
Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, whose opposition on Monday led to talks breaking down, said there was still "more work to be done" on the border issue and how it votes on the final deal "will depend on its contents". Mrs May depends on the party's support to win key votes in Westminster.
The pound was trading at a six-month high against the euro as news broke of the draft agreement.
What has been agreed?
Guarantee that there will be "no hard border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic and that the "constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom" will be maintained.
EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa will have their rights to live, work and study protected. The agreement includes reunification rights for relatives who do not live in the UK to join them in their host country in the future
Financial settlement - No specific figure is in the document but Downing Street sources say it will be between £35bn and £39bn, including budget contributions during a two-year "transition" period after March 2019
The UK government and the EU want to maintain the free flow of goods, without border checks that they fear could threaten a return to The Troubles, but the DUP does not want Northern Ireland to be treated differently to the rest of the UK after Brexit.
The joint EU-UK document says any future deal must protect "North-South co-operation" and hold to the UK's "guarantee of avoiding a hard border".
The agreement also says "no new regulatory barriers" will be allowed between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and that Northern Ireland's businesses will continue to have "unfettered access" to the UK internal market - a passage thought to have been added to meet DUP concerns.
But it also sets out a fallback position if the UK fails to agree a trade deal. This could prove controversial because it says there will continue to be "full alignment" between the EU and Northern Ireland on some elements of cross-border trade, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement.
The DUP would have preferred this not to be in the agreement, says the BBC's Chris Morris, and there could be some hard negotiating to do further down the line.
Agreement has been reached on what happens to the three million EU citizens living in the UK and more than a million UK citizens in EU states after Brexit.
EU citizens currently in the UK would be allowed to continue living and working there - and those already in the country who do not yet have permanent residency would be able to acquire it after Brexit.
Freedom of movement could continue for two years after March 2019, although the UK says new arrivals will have to register.
The plan is that UK citizens in living in an EU country would get the same rights, although they would not retain them if they moved to another EU country.
For eight years after Brexit, UK courts will be able to refer cases involving EU nationals to the European Court of Justice for interpretation.
But the campaign group the 3million, which represents EU citizens in the UK, said there was "still no clarity around the registration criteria for these rights" and said of the eight years: "Our rights should not have an expiry date".
A figure is not mentioned in the text of the agreement but Downing Street sources says it will be between £35bn and £39bn. It will be paid over four years and the precise figure is unlikely to be known for some time.
EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said the EU had agreed to drop the cost of relocating UK-based EU agencies from the final divorce bill.
The prime minister said it would be "fair to the British taxpayer" and would mean the UK in future "will be able to invest more in our priorities at home, such as housing, schools and the NHS".
What happens next?
Technically a future trade deal cannot be signed while the UK remains a member of the EU but "preliminary and preparatory discussions" can begin.
But the EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said the withdrawal treaty and transition deal need to be ready by October 2018 - in order that they can be ratified by March 2019, before the "real negotiation" begins on the future relationship.
Mr Barnier suggested on Friday that the only option for a future trade arrangement was a Canada-style deal, rather than a one based on Norway, which retains free movement and unrestricted access to the single market but pays into the EU budget.
The European Council wants the UK to remain a "member" of the EU's customs union and single market and to remain under the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice during the transition period, according to a leaked document.
What has changed since Monday?
Media captionDUP leader Arlene Foster welcomes "no red line down the Irish Sea"
The DUP, whose opposition on Monday led to talks breaking down, say there have been six "substantial changes" to the text.
Party leader Arlene Foster said they would mean there was "no red line down the Irish Sea" - meaning no customs barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
But BBC Northern Ireland economics editor John Campbell says there is a lot of hard negotiating to come and compromises to be made.
Another interpretation of the deal is that that it still leaves the door open for a special status for Northern Ireland, he adds.
Media captionIreland's Taoiseach Leo Varadkar: "This is not the end but it is the end of the beginning"
Theresa May's cabinet colleagues heaped praise on her, with Environment Secretary Michael Gove saying it was a "significant personal political achievement" for Mrs May while Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tweeted: "Congratulations to PM for her determination in getting today's deal."
But Labour's Brexit spokesman Sir Keir Starmer said Mrs May should "seriously reflect on her approach to the negotiations so far".
He added: "Despite being two months later than originally planned, it is encouraging that the European Commission has recommended sufficient progress in the Brexit negotiations."
Media caption Jeremy Corbyn: "My party stands for a completely different future when we leave the EU"
Media caption Britain will pay "an extravagant sum of money we don't owe" and leave it unable to make its own trade deal, says Nigel Farage
DUP Leader Arlene Foster said it meant that Northern Ireland would "not be separated constitutionally, politically, economically or regulatory from the rest of the United Kingdom" and "in all circumstances the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the UK internal market".
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: "Move to phase 2 of talks is good - but the devil is in the detail and things now get really tough."
Lib Dem leader Vince Cable, who backs a referendum on the final deal, said "it reduces the risk of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit" but questioned if it would last or be "torn apart by Theresa May's own MPs".
Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage told the BBC the estimated bill was "way more than we need to pay" and he was unhappy that the European Court of Justice would continue to have a role for up to eight years. "The whole thing is humiliating. We have collapsed at every level."
Media caption "No champagne" for the Brexit negotiators, who "have to drink water"
Media caption Jean-Claude Juncker: "Sufficient progress" will see Brexit trade talks begin
Media captionTusk: 'Breaking up is hard, building a new relationship is harder'
We are now able to conduct operations where Nato does not want to get involved 
