Eu

In the run-up to the referendum, a common argument against Brexit went like this:  “We should not leave the EU, because if we try, the EU will be capricious and irrational, it will not prioritise the welfare of its people, it will instead punish us, we must be afraid of that wrath, forget any merit, we must be prudent”. A similar argument is often discussed at length by Sir Ivan Rogers, and repeatedly published in The Spectator. It is both right and wrong. The people who believe it are not ‘Remoaners’, as some might claim: they are patriots. But I disagree. And for me, this argument is why I voted to

The local election results showed that both main parties are paying a price for the Brexit impasse. This, as I say in The Sun this morning, means that the cross-party talks have a better chance of succeeding than they did. Those in the talks are more optimistic than they have been about getting some kind of agreement, if not a full-blown deal. But they know that things could change very quickly. I understand that the compromise being drawn up goes as follows. The UK would initially enter into a ‘comprehensive customs arrangement’ with the European Union. This would be very similar to a customs union. But the two parties would

The European Union’s official goal — an ever-closer union of people — remains its single most attractive feature. Our continent is marked by its diversity: nowhere can you find a greater range of languages, histories and cultures. Closer co-operation is within everyone’s interests, and the EU has done much to facilitating this. Its mistake was a lack of respect for the democratic traditions of its member states, and when it sought to impose a fixed set of rules over the most culturally and economically diverse club of nations it became a source of instability in Europe. The rise of populist parties in Europe is the most visible sign of the over-reach.

Pretty much everyone I meet says they want all the Brexit uncertainty to end, one way or another. But that is now impossible: even agreement – which seems remote – on some version of the PM’s deal to take us out of the EU would only be a beginning of a sort, not an end, with so much left to decide on what kind of future relationship we need and deserve with the EU. And if there is no backing from MPs for the Withdrawal Agreement that is the divorce from the EU, then we are into a series of choices whose consequences would be to lead to various forms

Management books often repeat the dictum: ‘If there’s one thing worse than making mistakes, it’s not learning from them.’ So let’s apply that smug little idea to Brexit. Before I start, a couple of housekeeping points. I voted Remain, but believe we must leave the EU and honour the referendum result. Second, as a former Brexit minister, writing this is a form of therapy for me. Failure no. 1 — from which many other failures flow — was a lack of honesty. Brexit is the biggest challenge we’ve faced since 1939. It’s complex, existential and will take years. It demands a sense of national endeavour, of ‘let us go forward together’.

After weeks of speculation, Michel Barnier has finally revealed the concession Brussels is willing to grant Theresa May on the backstop. The only problem is one could argue it’s not actually a concession. Instead, it’s the Northern Ireland-only backstop the UK negotiating team previously vetoed. This afternoon the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator told ambassadors the EU is willing to give Britain a unilateral exit from the UK-wide parts of the backstop plan for Northern Ireland. He has since taken to social media to set out exactly what the EU is offering: 4/5 EU commits to give UK the option to exit the Single Customs Territory unilaterally, while the other elements of the

What can the EU do to help the Britons out of their Brexit quagmire? Until very recently, the answer would have been ‘little, if anything’. There is a deal on the table, which Theresa May herself pronounced to be non-negotiable. Well, parliament directed her — and by implication, the EU — to think again and to reconsider the vexed question of the Irish backstop. Does anybody on either side of the channel really want to wreck the future relationship between the UK and the EU over the unsolved issue of the Irish border, as well as risk creating renewed enmity along it? God forbid. The EU’s reluctance to come forward

Westminster is in a flurry this afternoon over Donald Tusk’s comments at a press conference this morning with Leo Varadkar. The European Council president used the platform to declare that he had been pondering of late what that ‘special place in hell’ for ‘those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it safely’ looked like. Tusk even went on to tweet out his comments – just in case anyone had missed the moment in the conference. Adding insult to injury the EU Council president has also been caught on mic laughing about the likely angry response from the British. Tusk is at least

Oh dear. It’s only Monday and already Theresa May’s week appears to have taken a turn for the worse. The Prime Minister’s plan to renegotiate the terms of the backstop has received a strongly-worded rebuke from the European Commission. MPs from the Commons Brexit committee were in Brussels this morning meeting with Martin Selmayr, the commission’s secretary general. Some of those present reported that they left the meeting believing the UK would be able to secure legally-binding concessions on the issue of the backstop. However, on seeing this account reported, Selmayr has taken to social media to put forward a different account of what took place. Jean-Claude Juncker’s close ally tweeted

A rather sinister tweet was sent out yesterday by the Home Office telling EU nationals that if they wanted to stay in Britain they’d best “apply” – not register – for the scheme if they “want to stay in the UK” after 31 December 2020. The tone was quite disgusting. And it raises the question as to whether, with the Home Secretary on holiday, his officials are about to launch into a “hostile environment” scheme in direct contradiction to his personal approach and UK government policy. Language matters. The phrase “hostile environment” summed up the horror of Home Office autopilot: a computer-says-no approach to immigration, with effects on human lives

Theresa May is desperately trying to convince both her European counterparts and her British colleagues that her Brexit plan is a goer. However, the Prime Minister has attracted criticism from across the pond – and this time it’s not from President Trump. Step forward Pamela Anderson. The former Baywatch start turned left wing activist tells Jacobin magazine about her hopes for a Lexit (left wing Brexit) – adding that her preferred rpute going forward is a Jeremy Corbyn government: ‘It is vital that the European Union is thoroughly and fundamentally reformed. Europe deserves a much better form of organized cooperation. And I would really support the UK attempting to create