Eu

Following months of tortured negotiation between the UK and the EU, Theresa May delivered her speech in Florence yesterday in an attempt to break the Brexit deadlock. Mrs May proposed a two-year transition period during which Britain would retain its access to the single market and confirmed that the UK Government will honour its commitments to the EU budget. She also spoke of the ‘shared challenges and opportunities’ that face the UK and the EU in a bid to build consensus. Here’s how Europe’s press reacted to the long-awaited speech. France France’s centre-left daily, Le Monde, agrees with Theresa May that Brexit negotiations can be extended beyond March 2019, however, points

After concerns about the Foreign Secretary’s job security bumped Vince Cable’s keynote leader’s speech at Lib Dem conference off the news agenda yesterday, a sense of stability has been restored to Cabinet. Boris Johnson has told hacks in New York that he is not going anywhere – likening Cabinet harmony to ‘a nest of singing birds’. The message from Downing Street, too, is one of quiet confidence that Johnson won’t be departing the frontbench – at least, not this weekend. This suggests two things. Firstly, that May’s Florence speech won’t be as drastic as had first been thought. Secondly, Johnson is coming round to the idea of payments to Brussels continuing during a transition period.

One of the City’s best-known economists, Roger Bootle, discusses whether a success could be made from Brexit, just over a year after Britain to leave the European Union. Bootle begins by explaining the ‘overblown’ nature of the ‘European Single Market’ concept: I don’t think what has been clearly said or argued is that the [European] ‘Single Market’ is vastly overblown. There are advantages and disadvantages of not being part of it. However, I do think it has become a protectionist entity. The original idea for a [European] ‘Single Market’ was a British one supported by former Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. The idea behind the [European] ‘Single Market’ was to

Oh dear. Although Russell Brand once said he had never voted, and never would, as a result of his ‘absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class’, he went on to change his tune when her urged his fans to vote Labour in the 2015 election – and later endorsed Jeremy Corbyn. So, Mr S was curious to discover that Brand has now returned to his old tricks. The comedian-turned-left-wing revolutionary tells the Sunday Times that he didn’t vote in the EU referendum as he was on ‘holiday’: ‘How did he vote in the referendum? He mumbles: “I was on holiday.” He didn’t vote over Brexit? “No,” he

The choice which faced us at the EU referendum has often been presented as lying between the status quo and the unknown, between security and uncertainty. Until the early hours of 24 June last year I was convinced that this would be the clincher: that the British public, though heavily Eurosceptic, would not quite have the balls to overcome their native conservatism and take what many would see as a leap in the dark. Yet Jean-Claude Juncker’s ‘state of the union’ speech today dispels the notion that voting Remain would have been a vote to keep things as they are. Remaining in the EU as it now is was not

After David Davis warned that MPs opposing the government’s EU repeal bill would be voting for a ‘chaotic’ exit from the EU, the Brexit secretary can take heart that the majority of Parliamentarians took his advice onboard. This morning MPs voted in favour of the government’s EU (withdrawal) bill at its second reading by 326 votes to 290, in the first key Commons test of the legislation. On hearing the news, the Prime Minister issued a statement on the ‘solid foundations’ the bill provides: ‘Earlier this morning Parliament took a historic decision to back the will of the British people and vote for a bill which gives certainty and clarity ahead of our

The EU withdrawal bill debate is winding on, with MPs criticising the ‘power grab’ planned by ministers. There won’t be any votes until Monday, and unless something changes, it looks as though the legislation will pass its second reading. Assuming that this is the case, it is much more useful to look at who is threatening to make amendments to the bill at Committee stage. The tone of the Brexit-sceptics so far has largely been reasonably respectful, as they are trying to encourage ministers to make concessions ahead of that. It is rare for a government to be defeated in a committee stage vote, but this bill is different as

Labour’s decision to whip against the EU withdrawal bill might well have more of an impact in the Lords than the Commons. In the Commons, as I wrote on Monday, the number of Tory rebels might well be offset by Labour ones—and I suspect that Labour’s decision to whip against the bill at second reading will make it easier for the Tories to peel off Labour rebels on amendments later on. But in the House of Lords, the government doesn’t have any sort of majority. If Labour whip against it there and team up with Liberal Democrat and cross-bench peers,  the bill could end up only passing with significant amendments.

Last night’s TV debate between Angela Merkel and Martin Schulz poses a nagging question for British conservatives. No, nothing to do with Brexit – the subject wasn’t even mentioned. Rather, why was Theresa May so afraid of going toe to toe with Jeremy Corbyn before the General Election? If only she’d done a Merkel and faced off her main rival on television, she might have won a decent majority – just as Merkel looks set to do in three weeks’ time. Like May, Merkel is widely (and quite rightly) regarded as an uninspiring public speaker. Like Corbyn, Schulz is an assured performer, with a polished ‘man of the people’ shtick.