Brexit

Dear Remainer parliament. Although we’re the voters who spurned the petition for this very course of action, we the undersigned formally request that you please revoke Article 50 at your earliest convenience. For Philip, Oliver, Dominic, Amber, Greg, et al (forgive the familiar first names, but over the last few months we’ve come to feel we know you so terribly well), this appeal from your nemeses may come as a surprise. After all, it was to appease us knuckle-draggers that you invoked the Article in the first place. Apologies for seeming so fickle. But in what Charles Moore has aptly dubbed Europe’s contemporary ‘empire’, all roads lead not to Rome

My first encounter with a plan to hold not one but two referendums on Britain’s European Union membership happened more than three years ago. At least two individuals were actively entertaining the idea. Both were Leavers. Dominic Cummings had proposed it in one of his blogs. Boris Johnson had not publicly endorsed such a thing, but (I know) was discussing it with interest privately. The thinking, as I recall, was similar in both cases. The first referendum would be the one we then faced: asking voters for a yes or no to the idea that in principle we should quit. If the result was Remain, we’d remain. If Leave, there

The Commons has voted by 420 to 110 to approve Theresa May’s decision to ask for an extension to the Article 50 process to the 30th of June. It isn’t a surprise that this motion passed, there is an anti no-deal majority in the Commons, but the 97 Tory votes against and the number of abstentions, including several Cabinet Ministers, highlights how controversial May’s approach is within her own party. May’s approach would become even more controversial if she agreed to a customs union as part of a deal with Labour, as Liam Fox’s broadside against it showed. The talks between the government and Labour finished for the day earlier

Rumours continue to circulate that if a long extension were to be granted by the European Union, it could be flexible. This would mean that Britain could officially depart from the bloc earlier than the agreed-upon exit date if a deal were secured between the UK and the EU27. I’m unsure what about the past two-and-a-half years could make someone think that MPs will pull together and unite around a deal before crunch time. I remain deeply sceptical that a long extension could ever encourage a shorter exit process – evidenced by not one, but two requests for an Article 50 extension in the past six weeks. Putting scepticism aside, there’s

It makes almost no sense for the Brexit debacle to have come down to the issue of an ‘independent British trade policy’. Trade was not a central issue at the referendum and remains wildly misunderstood by public and politicians alike. But we are where we are. If we end up crashing out by accident, or the May government tears itself apart, it will be on the pretext that significant numbers of Tory MPs want that independent trade policy and cannot stomach the restrictions that a customs union would put on Britain’s freedom over trade. It’s hard to know where to start with trying to dismantle the trade illusion, so long

Jeremy Corbyn has insisted that Theresa May hasn’t yet moved on her Brexit red lines in talks with the Labour Party. In a broadcast clip this evening, the Labour leader said: ‘Well, the meetings are very long. A great deal of detail is gone into by both parties. We have people who have been on this case for several years so they’re all very accustomed to it all. We’ve gone into it because the government at last acceded to a request I first made last September that we’re prepared to talk and put forward our views, but talks have to mean a movement and so far there’s been no change

Our Brexit fate is in the hands of France’s president Macron – which is “not a wholly comfortable state of affairs,” in the euphemistic words of a minister. What this minister means is the Prime Minister and her close colleagues are a long way from being convinced Macron will underwrite EU president Donald Tusk’s proposal for the UK to be granted a year’s delay to Brexit, with a break clause to allow us to leave the EU earlier if all the political and legal niceties can be completed earlier. They believe – rightly or wrongly – Macron has three serious reservations with conceding such a longish and relatively unfettered extension:

Is the de facto Brexit default now revoking Article 50 this week rather than a no-deal Brexit on 12 April? I ask because the Prime Minister is now explicitly saying the choice is a binary one between some version of her negotiated deal and not leaving at all (that is what she said in her sofa chat yesterday). The point is that she has no power to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 12 April by delaying Brexit; for a delay, she needs the unanimous agreement of the EU’s 27 leaders. But she does have the unilateral power to prevent a no deal by cancelling Brexit altogether, by revoking the Article 50