Brexit

We’re closing 2018 by republishing our ten most-read articles of the year. Here’s No. 2: Steerpike on the many problems with May’s Brexit deal: Theresa May’s government has teetered on the point of collapse over her proposed Brexit deal. The withdrawal agreement between the UK and Brussels led to Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resigning in protest. However, May’s remaining ministers have since attempted to rally around her at least in the short term. Speaking on Friday, Liam Fox – the International Trade Secretary – gave a speech in which he declared ‘a deal is better than no deal’. This is rather different to May’s old claim that ‘no deal is

Why us? Why is the UK the first – and only – country to decide to leave the EU? Greenland, Algeria (when it was part of the French empire) and the French Caribbean island of St Barthélemy have all been in the EU and are no more, but the UK is the first full member country to hold a referendum and decide ‘enough’. Why us, and not one of the many other members nursing doubts about the EU? There are many reasons, none of which are to do with us being more inward looking or racist. We are an island, but arguably the most outward looking EU nation. We do

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

I stood next to Jean Claude-Juncker, then president of the European Council and prime minister of Luxembourg, when news flashed up on the TV screens of the astonishing rejection by French voters of the draft European Constitution in their 2005 referendum. He could have responded in so many ways, to try to understand why the voters in traditionally one of Europe’s most Europhile countries emphatically rejected further EU integration. But his immediate response, without drawing breath, was: “They will just have to vote again.” In fact, the French voters weren’t trusted to give the right answer second time around, and so the treaty was pushed through the French parliament instead.

Q. Christmas could be tricky in our home this year: roughly half our dinner guests are Remainers, the rest Brexiteers. Before I carve the turkey, should I announce that any discussion about the EU is strictly off-limits, or would it be wiser to divert differences of opinion into a harmless party game afterwards (charades would seem appropriate)? A. Traditional Christmas resentments will be heightened if Brexit differences are used to wage proxy wars — so yes, do decree the toxic topic off-limits. Distract with proxy referendums. Take votes on whether you attend Midnight Mass, bother with Brussels sprouts etc. With luck you will have landslide Yes votes for roaring log

Here we go again. The New York Times has a habit these days of publishing pieces which take a rather dim view of Brexit Britain. The paper has published a questionable report on ‘austerity Britain’ complete with a slew of glaring omissions, news of Brits allegedly stockpiling food, an article on British cuisine with glaring inaccuracies and most recently asked UK citizens to get in touch with their accounts of experiencing petty crime in the capital. Now the paper has turned its ire on the UK franchise Bluebird London. The restaurant has opened shop in New York. The reviewer wasn’t impressed by the dishes on offer and so has naturally

When Boris Johnson was foreign secretary, he was admonished for accusing the EU of wanting to administer ‘punishment beatings’ to Britain for its temerity in wanting to leave the EU. In the months since it has become clear just how apt his description was. At every turn, the EU has acted with one aim in mind: to try to ensure that Britain suffers from exiting the EU, in order to deter other member states from contemplating leaving the bloc. Today’s memo from the EU, laying out the plans for what would happen in the event of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit is a case in point. It is hard, reading this document,

A few months ago, the People’s Vote campaign was on the fringe of the national conversation. Today, we are seen by an ever-growing number of MPs as the best – perhaps only – way forward to break out of the current political impasse. As it becomes more likely that the British people will be given the right to have the final say about whether they wish to proceed with a Brexit that can never fulfil the promises made in the referendum of 2016 – or offer terms as good as the deal we’ve already got in the EU – we accept that the media will subject our every statement to increased

Several cabinet ministers have publicly backed a series of indicative votes in the Commons on the various Brexit options. I understand why, but they’re wrong: this approach is both messy and misguided. The best thing for MPs is to spend their Christmas break thinking carefully. Those who have criticised Theresa May’s Brexit deal should carefully think through their opposition. It’s my view that reports of the death of May’s deal are greatly exaggerated. It’s obvious there are only now three real options when it comes to Brexit: Leave with no deal; Leave with May’s deal; or, don’t Leave. Every possible path falls into one of these three boxes. Managed no deal (whatever that is