Eu

The UK and Brussels are currently engaged in a waiting game – only no one is sure who is waiting for whom. EU leaders had been expected to announce the terms and length of an Article 50 extension this Friday. However, that decision has been put on hold in light of Boris Johnson's call for a general election – with MPs voting on a motion on Monday. Speaking in Brussels following a meeting of ambassadors, Michel Barnier – the EU’s chief negotiator – said 'no decision' had been made on a way forward. A decision is likely to be made on Monday or Tuesday. EU leaders want to wait and see what happens with the election vote.

Reflecting on Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, I have many questions. Why are people who rejected the possibility of Northern Ireland being subject to EU rules and regulation via a contingent backstop now embracing the certainty of that happening? How could anyone reasonably expect the DUP to sign up to something that really does make Northern Ireland a very, very different part of the Union? Something they were repeatedly promised would never be conceded. Why are none of the people who used to be furious about the '£39 billion' (actually less now but never mind) objecting to paying it now? Why shouldn’t MPs have at least a superficial analysis of the economic trade-offs made in this deal?

It is one of the most remarkable turnarounds in recent political history. On Wednesday afternoon, the Brexit talks seemed pretty much dead—hence my piece in the magazine this week. Even the optimists in Downing Street were struggling to see anyway through. But by Friday lunchtime, the UK and the EU were agreeing to intensify negotiations as they searched for a deal. As I say in The Sun this morning, the negotiations going on in Brussels this weekend are serious: they aren’t just for the show. This doesn’t, though, mean that a deal will definitely be done. But things are on the move. Now, the sheer pace of this turnaround is a reason for caution.

Boris Johnson has written to European Council president Donald Tusk, setting out key aspects of his government’s approach to Brexit. The four-page letter has a number of positive points but also some worrying ones. The good bits: The letter condemns the Irish backstop as undemocratic and inconsistent with both UK sovereignty and the Good Friday Agreement. It also rightly notes that the backstop would lock the UK into a customs union with the EU indefinitely with no means of escape. The letter also states that the UK government cannot continue to endorse the commitment its predecessor made in the Joint Report of December 2017 to ‘full alignment’ with wide areas of the single market and customs union.

One thing on which Remainers and Brexiteers can agree is that Brexit delayed is Brexit denied. The government continues to proclaim that the UK will leave the EU on 31 October with or without a deal. But No. 10 is acutely sensitive to the possibility of a parliamentary manoeuvre designed to compel the executive, through legislation, to seek a further extension of Article 50 to delay Brexit yet again. But Boris Johnson should keep calm about this prospect, for an unlikely saviour – the president of France, Emmanuel Macron – could come to his rescue. Whatever Brexit extension legislation Parliament might push through, any further extension of Article 50 requires unanimous EU Council of Ministers’ support.

Italy is preparing to go back to the polls and this time Matteo Salvini looks set to return as the undisputed king of Italian politics. His Lega party (formerly the Northern League) has split with its coalition partner, the Five Star movement. For Salvini, the appeal of a general election is obvious: Five Star’s popularity has slumped during the 14-month government, but Lega’s has soared. It now boasts of being the biggest party not only in the north of Italy but — previously unimaginably — in the south. So Salvini can now ditch his coalition partner and seek his own majority. If he succeeds, this will cause fresh headaches for Brussels and embody a far deeper conundrum.

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 leave. I am an autonomous and free human being. I am also a citizen of a society. I surrender my freedoms in order to make that society function.

The local election results showed that both main parties are paying a price for the Brexit impasse. This, as I say in The Sun this morning, means that the cross-party talks have a better chance of succeeding than they did. Those in the talks are more optimistic than they have been about getting some kind of agreement, if not a full-blown deal. But they know that things could change very quickly. I understand that the compromise being drawn up goes as follows. The UK would initially enter into a ‘comprehensive customs arrangement’ with the European Union. This would be very similar to a customs union.

The European Union’s official goal — an ever-closer union of people — remains its single most attractive feature. Our continent is marked by its diversity: nowhere can you find a greater range of languages, histories and cultures. Closer co-operation is within everyone's interests, and the EU has done much to facilitating this. Its mistake was a lack of respect for the democratic traditions of its member states, and when it sought to impose a fixed set of rules over the most culturally and economically diverse club of nations it became a source of instability in Europe. The rise of populist parties in Europe is the most visible sign of the over-reach.