Eu

Ahmet Davutoglu’s resignation comes at a sensitive moment for the EU’s migration deal with Turkey. Why did the prime minister fall from the sultan’s favour, and what does it mean? Over the past few weeks Davutoglu appeared increasingly worried about the hollowing out of his position. He had every right to be frustrated. In late April his grip on the AK party was weakened, as party bosses decided to stop him from appointing provincial party executives. Davutoglu has been, of course, head of government and head of the ruling AK party in name only. The real chief sits in a 1000-room presidential palace overlooking Ankara. The Turkish presidency is supposed

‘England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her interactions, her markets and her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions.’ This classic Eurosceptic statement was made, as Daniel Hannan reminds us in his excellent book Why Vote Leave, by a great European, Charles de Gaulle. He was explaining why France was rejecting our attempt to join the EEC in 1963. The General understood what the European project was, and why Britain was not a

An enjoyable aspect of the EU referendum campaign is the nervous condition of the Financial Times. Unable to maintain its usual pretence at judicious balance under the strain, it has become the Daily Mail of the Europhile global elites, warning of the Seven Plagues which will afflict us if we vote to leave. Rather as the Mail loves the headline beginning ‘Just why…?’, so the FT all-purpose referendum headline begins ‘Fears mount…’ Its star columnists like Philip Stephens and Janan Ganesh pour withering scorn on Eurosceptic ‘nostalgists’ and bigots. Although they — and most of the paper’s writers — are highly intelligent, it does not occur to them to take

It was all smiles for the camera as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other EU top brass visited Nizip refugee camp in the south-east of Turkey over the weekend. A photo opportunity with the Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu and some refugees dressed in traditional costumes preceded the tour. I was among the journalists covering this sanitised pitstop in Gaziantep, a city close to the Syrian border. The whole event marked a month since the migrant deal between the EU and Turkey. Human rights groups have criticised the deal, which allowed failed asylum seekers to be deported from Greece back to Turkey. They argue that the EU has turned its back on refugees –

The Netherlands was one of the six original founders of the European Union. We, the Dutch, have always been internationally orientated, progressive, tolerant and open, and as a nation and a people, we still are. But our attitude towards the centralistic, expansionist, and undemocratic EU has become increasingly sceptical. For us, the EU no longer represents a dynamic view of the future but – on the contrary – many feel that it has fallen victim to precisely the kind of static, special interests politics that it was meant to transcend. It has turned out to be a 1970s solution for a 1950s problem. It was hardly surprising, then, that two thirds

Nick Cohen is predictably over-the-top in his response to Boris Johnson’s piece about President Obama’s intervention in the Brexit debate in today’s Sun. He begins by claiming he’s approaching this subject ‘with the caution of a lawyer and the deference of a palace flunkey’. He then goes on to reprimand Boris for suggesting Obama has an ‘ancestral dislike of the British empire’ on account of his ‘part-Kenyan’ heritage and links this to his support for the Remain campaign. We’ll come to that comment in a minute, but Cohen goes on to conflate these remarks with the worst excesses of the birther movement: I’m not someone who throws accusations of racism around