Brexit

There will be chaos at the ports. Only the occasional root vegetable will be sold in the supermarkets. The factories and farms will run out of workers, and the planes will all be grounded on the runway. We have yet to get an official warning about how the black death will ravage the land, or how cannibalism will make a comeback. But it may just be a matter of time. As we head into the New Year, and as our departure from the European Union, quite possibly without any form of deal, draws closer, the warnings will become ever more darkly apocalyptic. As 2019 starts, we still don’t have much idea what will happen with Brexit. We may grudgingly accept Theresa’s May’s deal.

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 fires and roast potatoes, which will help with bonding.

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 compared the restaurant to...

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, to reconcile it with the EU’s claim to be an organisation which promotes free trade and free movement of people and goods.

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 scrutiny. And, like any campaign, we will make mistakes from time to time. Ross Clark pointed one of these out on Coffee House.

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 or isn't) is a way of dressing up no deal with a nice bow.