Brexit

The United Kingdom is a country governed, in large part, by convention —but in the heat of the Brexit debate, those conventions are beginning to evaporate. The Speaker of the House of Commons overturned long-standing procedure to limit Theresa May’s room for manoeuvre. The opposition used a humble address to the sovereign to force the publication of the government’s full legal advice on the withdrawal agreement, though the convention is that such advice is confidential. Parliament then impinged on the executive’s crown prerogative powers by passing a law dictating how the prime minister must behave at an EU summit. Under May, Downing Street sighed at such behaviour but grudgingly accepted

The argument about whether Boris Johnson would have to resign if he lost a confidence vote is continuing to rage at Westminster. There is, though, an angle to this argument that is being neglected. Right now, the Labour leadership is clear that it won’t back anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn to be prime minister. This means that even if Boris Johnson lost a no-confidence vote, it is not clear who could command the confidence of the Commons. With no alternative government ready to go, then an election would be the obvious answer.  Things become more complicated if an alternative government could somehow be formed. In these circumstances, there would be

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

It’s a strange beast, the internet. On Monday night, I was slightly reluctantly dragged onto Newsnight to discuss Brexit. Attentive readers will know that I very rarely write or speak about the subject. There are many reasons for this, one of which is that I said most of what I had to say three years ago when I cast a vote in a referendum. Another reason – I must admit – is that I have wanted little to no part in the bile-fest of the last three years. I would like us still to have a country after this, and there seems very little chance of that if both halves

Does the arrival of Boris Johnson in Downing Street signal the end of the politics of branding and the beginning of the politics of principle? Can we already see in the announcements and actions of the Johnson Government a new style of politics? The early signs would suggest so. Boris’s first speech outside No.10 was devoid of fluff. The promises – extra police, delivering Brexit on time – were clear and precise and will provide an easy way to judge his record. Another source of optimism is the clear difference between Boris and his predecessor. Whereas May stirred up resentments with misleading gender pay gap publications and talk of burning

Boris Johnson’s Downing Street is being quite clear that if the EU wants to talk then it needs to be prepared to reopen the withdrawal agreement. If the EU isn’t prepared to budge on this, the message is that there will be no deal. The EU isn’t inclined to take this threat that seriously right now. The view is that parliament will find a way to block the UK leaving without a deal or Boris Johnson will get cold feet. Even if the UK does leave without a deal, many in the EU reckon that within months the UK will be so keen to come back to the table that

You have to admit that Brexit party MEPs have a fun job. Imagine turning up to work to insult your colleagues, ridicule your duties and still collect a pay cheque. As I am fortunate enough to enjoy my work, though, I don’t think it is jealousy that makes me find at least some of their posturing obnoxious. “Every day MEPs get a “media briefing” from the EU,” Martin Daubney MEP informs us: No, in fact. If anything, the EU is offering evidence against bias. First, these words came not from an EU employee but British philosopher John Gray. Second, Gray does not call Brexit “far right” and specifically criticises the