Brexit

Friday

Nick Hilton

The Spectator podcast: Review of the year

After all the ups and downs, wins and losses, celebrations and commiserations, 2016 is finally in its twilight hours. We’ve sat some of the Spectator's top staff and contributors down with a glass of mulled wine to steady their nerves as we ask the big questions: What happened in 2016? And what’s coming in 2017? First, with an eye fixed firmly back in June, Isabel Hardman was joined by Tim Shipman, political editor of the Sunday Times and author of All Out War, Nick Cohen, and Spectator editor Fraser Nelson to discuss the first political earthquake of the year: Brexit. Next, we jumped ahead five months (not to mention crossed the Atlantic) for our second 2016 retrospective. If Brexit was the appetiser then the main course was deep-fried Trump.

Thursday

Charles Moore

The Spectator’s Notes | 8 December 2016

‘Are you Charles Moore of The Spectator?’ I answered to that description. ‘Well,’ said my questioner, ‘I am worried that you’re becoming very right-wing.’ We were sitting by the fire in a charming, smoky hut with no electric light and lots to eat and drink. It was a shooting lunch, the sort of occasion where one is seldom held to account for anything. I could have tried to laugh the question off, but my interrogator exhibited high intelligence and class confidence, so I sensed she wouldn’t let me get away with that. Unfortunately, I didn’t know how to answer her. I am not offended by being called right-wing, because I don’t agree with the left-wing view that right-wingery is a mark of personal turpitude.

The Spectator

Power and the people

When The Spectator was founded 188 years ago, it became part of what would now be described as a populist insurgency. An out-of-touch Westminster elite, we said, was speaking a different language to the rest of London, let alone the rest of the country. Too many ‘of the bons mots vented in the House of Commons appear stale and flat by the time they have travelled as far as Wellington Street’. This would be remedied, we argued, by extending the franchise and granting the vote to the emerging middle class. Our Tory critics said any step towards democracy — a word which then caused a shudder — would start a descent into chaos. On the contrary, we said, the choice was between reform or a ‘revolution of the most sweeping character’.

Matthew Parris & Matt Ridley

Unforgiven

Now that almost six months have passed since the EU referendum, might it be time for old enemies to find common ground? Matthew Parris and Matt Ridley, two of the most eloquent voices on either side of the campaign, meet in the offices of The Spectator to find out.   MATTHEW PARRIS: Catastrophe has not engulfed us yet, it’s true. But I feel worse since the result, rather than better. I thought that, as in all hard-fought campaigns, you get terribly wound up and depressed when you lose. Then you pick yourself up, dust yourself down and start all over again. But my animosities — not just towards the Brexit argument, but towards a lot of the people who advanced it — haven’t softened, I’m afraid.   MATT RIDLEY: I noticed that.

Andrew Marr

Notebook – 8 December 2016

One remark from the Christmas party season knocks insistently around my head. It came from Nigel Farage on a staircase in the Ritz. For those who didn’t enjoy 2016, a year of political revolution, he gleefully promised: ‘2017 will be a hell of a sight worse.’ My, my. What did he mean? Had he taken one Ferrero Rocher too many? Or does Farage, like an increasing number of MPs, expect a general election next year, including further dramatic upsets? The biggest reason for pooh-poohing a 2017 election isn’t the Fixed-term Parliaments Act but Prime Minister’s character. Theresa May is extremely cautious and she doesn’t want to test the electorate just yet.

Tom Goodenough

Spectator live blog: The Supreme Court’s Brexit hearing, day four

The Supreme Court's landmark case on triggering Article 50 has now finished. We'll have to wait until January to hear the verdict of the 11 judges involved. But for now you can follow all the main events as they unfolded on our Spectator live blog: 4.20pm: It's all over at the Supreme Court. Lord Neuberger rounds off proceedings by making it clear that the judges are 'not being asked to overturn the referendum'. Before his comments, Eadie attempted to knock down Pannick's view that the 2015 referendum act had political, rather than legal, significance. Not so, said Eadie, who insisted that the Government thought the act 'speaks volumes about the intention of Parliament' and that 'it left the royal prerogative power to give notice' with ministers rather than MPs. 3.

Tom Goodenough

What the papers say: Article 50 debate, Brexit ‘fog’ and ‘looney Labourites’

After MPs voted last night to back the Government’s plan to invoke Article 50 by the end of March, the Guardian says it’s good news that Parliament is now finally using its powers to shape the Brexit process. The paper says it’s ‘extraordinary’ that so much time has passed since the referendum, given how there is still no ‘real clarity about the government’s general aims’ in upcoming negotiations. It says yesterday, however, ‘some fog began to lift’: ‘At last, the great issue of the UK’s future relations with Europe was finally being discussed where it matters most of all, in our elected parliament,’ the paper says.

Martin Vander Weyer

Whatever happened to Sir George? A festive finale for an eventful year

Many (well, several) of you asked me what happened to George, the supermarket chairman who was the anti-hero of my Christmas fable last year. So I tracked him down, somewhere in the provinces, to bring you another episode… ‘Five minutes, Sir George,’ said a young man in black. ‘New boobs OK?’ George nodded, adjusted his embonpoint, and looked at himself in the full-length mirror. How the hell had it come to this? Actually 2016 had begun well. Readers may recall last December’s ‘Free Turkey’ incident, in which a boardroom invasion by carol-singing Santas, led by George’s student son Simon, coerced the supermarket group into giving Christmas fare to the poor in the spirit of King Wenceslas.

James Forsyth

A year of revolution

Few years will live as long in the memory as 2016. Historians will ponder the meaning and consequences of the past 12 months for decades to come. In the future, 180-odd years from now, some Zhou Enlai will remark that ‘it is too soon to say’ when asked about the significance of Brexit. The referendum result shocked Westminster. Michael Gove was so sure it would be Remain that he had retreated to bed on the evening of 23 June and only found out Leave had won when one of his aides telephoned in the early hours of the morning. Theresa May admits in her interview with us on p. 26 that she was ‘surprised’ by the result and had been expecting a Remain vote, based on both the polls and the mood in her own constituency.

Tim Shipman

Brexit’s breaking points

Trying to write the first draft of history on the EU referendum and the leader-ship mess that followed had both its dramatic and its comic elements. My phone never stopped ringing with Eurosceptics keen to tell me why their contribution to a meeting that had previously escaped my notice was the decisive factor in securing victory. But when a vote is so close — 52 per cent to 48 per cent — then it would not have taken much to push the result the other way. Donald Trump’s victory adds some credence to the idea that Brexit was pre–ordained, part of a wave of history. But the campaign turned on several events that were the result of accident, farce or both. If a relatively small number of those who backed Brexit had voted the other way, Remain would have triumphed.

Hugo Rifkind

How to put a positive spin on the bizarre events of this year

This is going to be a positive, optimistic column. I promise. Because, look, let’s be honest, I’ve been a bit moany this year, haven’t I? Which may, I suspect, have been a bit misleading. Read me here, or indeed anywhere, and I suspect you could come away thinking I’ve spent the last 12 months, or at least the last six, lying awake, staring at my expensive north London Farrow & Ball ceiling, weeping sad, shuddering, self-indulgent tears at a world moving beyond my ken. I know, I know. I do go on. Whereas actually, it hasn’t really been like that.

James Delingpole

Don’t try to be liked, and buy your steak at Aldi – the lessons I’ve learned in 2016

Merry Christmas everyone. Here are some things I learned — or relearned — in 2016.   1. That which does not kill you makes you still alive. It’s weird to think that less than 12 months ago I was in hospital, dosed up with morphine, battered and bruised with a broken clavicle, numerous cracked ribs and a pulmonary embolism which can actually kill you, don’t you know. And now it’s as if the whole thing never happened. Well, apart from the hideous titanium plate, like a giant centipede, which I can still feel all stiff across my collar bone. And the bastard hunting ban my family has imposed on me…   2. Hunting is the only thing.

Wednesday

James Forsyth

Commons votes in favour of invoking Article 50 by the end of March

461 MPs have just voted for Theresa May to invoke Article 50 by the end of March. The Tory amendment to Labour’s opposition day motion passed comfortably with only 89 MPs opposing it—and Ken Clarke the only Tory amongst them with 20-odd Labour Mps joining the SNP and the Lib Dems in voting against. Now, this vote is not binding and if the government loses its appeal to the Supreme Court will not be sufficient to satisfy the courts. But it does indicate that the government will be able to get an Article 50 bill through the Commons without too much trouble. It does make you wonder why Theresa May didn’t simply ask parliament to pass an Article 50 resolution before the Gina Miller case made it to the High Court.

Isabel Hardman

Labour remembers what it’s like to be an effective opposition

Is Labour actually managing to do its job as a decent opposition? Yesterday, the party forced the government into a U-turn over whether the Prime Minister must reveal her plan for Brexit negotiations before triggering Article 50. This was over an Opposition Day debate, which leads to a vote that is not binding on the government, and is therefore normally safe to ignore. Ministers have been even more relaxed about these debates over the past few months given Labour has little political heft at the moment, and has on occasion used its Opposition Day slots as a means of internal party management, such as the debate on Yemen.

Tom Goodenough

Spectator live blog: The Supreme Court’s Brexit hearing, day three

It's day three of the Supreme Court's landmark case on the triggering of Article 50. Here's how the day unfolded:  4.15pm: The Supreme Court hearing has now finished for the day. The Lord Advocate, Lord Wolffe has been putting forward the Scottish Government's case. So far, he has told the court that using prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 would be an 'unconstitutional' step. But he makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to veto Brexit. You can read the Scottish Government's full submission to the Supreme Court here. 3.30pm: Ronan Lavery now takes up the argument on behalf of Northern Ireland.

Tom Goodenough

What the papers say: Brexit, political pygmies and repentant Remainers

MPs will vote for the first time today on the Government’s Article 50 timeline. While Labour have said the decision to spell out the plan for Brexit is a ‘welcome climbdown’ by ministers, is this afternoon’s debate merely delaying the actual process of Britain leaving the EU? That’s the Sun’s verdict on today’s proceedings, with the paper saying a ‘coalition of political pygmies’ are ‘stringing out the process in Parliament’. It goes on to say that Theresa May’s opponents ‘should stop pretending’ they are worried about democracy and Parliamentary sovereignty and instead own up to ‘their true aim’ - ‘reversing the referendum result’.

Katy Balls

Theresa May agrees to publish Brexit strategy before invoking Article 50

With the Supreme Court ruling on the government's Article 50 appeal not expected until the new year, Theresa May is facing a more immediate Brexit headache. After around 20 Conservative MPs were expected to back a Labour motion today -- tabled by Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer -- calling for the Prime Minister to 'commit to publishing the government’s plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked', No. 10 has staved off the rebellion by agreeing to Labour's demand. Accepting Labour's motion, ministers have added an amendment of their own -- that the House should 'respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March, 2017'.

Tuesday

Matthew Lynn

Sorry Remoaners. The British peso is on its way back

We were about to see parity with the dollar. It was fetching less than an euro at the airport. Spiralling costs were about to wipe out what little remained of our manufacturing industry, and the RXS’s – that’s the racist, xenophobic scum, in case you were wondering - were all about to lose their jobs. A collapse in the value of the pound over the summer and the autumn was one of the few genuinely worrying economic consequences of our vote to leave the EU – and the Remain camp used it endlessly to demonstrate that the economy was in freefall. It wasn’t quite a full-blown sterling crisis, of the sort that used to crash the British economy.

James Forsyth

Michel Barnier plays hardball on Brexit

Michel Barnier, the Commission’s Brexit negotiator, has been giving a running commentary on Brexit this morning. Barnier, striking a predictably tough stance before the negotiations start, said that he wants the divorce aspects of the Article 50 deal concluded by October 2018, to give sufficient time for ratification. This, essentially, means that there’ll be one year of negotiations from after the German elections next autumn. But Barnier’s position is that only once this deal has been agreed, can talks move on to what the future relationship between the UK and the EU will be. In other words, no talks on trade until the exit process has been agreed. He emphasised that there will be no cherry picking and that the four freedoms are indivisible.

The Spectator

Spectator live blog: The Supreme Court’s Brexit hearing, day two

The second day of the Supreme Court hearing has seen the Government continue to put forward its case for why it should be allowed to pull the Article 50 trigger without the say so of Parliament. And Lord Pannick has been arguing why Parliament must give approval for the start of the process of Brexit. Here's how the day unfolded on our Spectator live blog: 4.30pm: Pannick’s main pitch is about the power of Parliament. He tells the Supreme Court that ‘Parliament is sovereign and only Parliament can remove that which it has incorporated into domestic law’ - meaning that Brexit cannot be started by the Government without the agreement of Parliament.