Ross Clark

We don’t hear much of the phrase 'despite Brexit' any more – it is just a little too obvious. Instead, pro-remain news sources have decided to apportion good economic news on the weather and the World Cup. This morning, the ONS announced that GDP growth in the three months to the end of July had risen to 0.6 per cent, the fastest for a year and doing much to make up for a sluggish first quarter. The Guardian was quick to identify what it saw as the reason, giving the news the headline: 'UK Growth Picks up to 0.6 per cent after World Cup and heatwave boost.' The BBC followed suit, saying: 'UK growth helped by World Cup and warm weather', and the FT: 'The UK’s scorching summer fuelled a recovery in retail and construction.' That is, of course, a consensus.

The government was always onto a loser whether or not it published the 24 technical notices laying out what would happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. If it didn’t publish them it would be accused of a cover up. If it did and they were terrifying it would provide ammunition for the Remain brigade. And if it published them and they weren’t terribly frightening? Then Remainers would accuse ministers of having their heads in the sand. The latter scenario is pretty much where we are today. There are few stand-out headlines from the 24 documents for anti-Brexit commentators to get their teeth into.

It is another black day for Project Fear. The latest employment figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) show yet another fall in unemployment, to 1.36 million or 4 per cent of the adult population. There have never been more people employed in the UK economy, and the unemployment rate is at its lowest since early 1975. It wasn’t supposed to be this way, according to George Osborne’s crystal ball. In May 2016, a month before the referendum, he warned us all that should we vote to leave the EU we could expect unemployment to rise by up to 500,000 within two years. Admittedly, George himself has bagged a few jobs since then, but I don’t think his work ethic is wholly responsible for the rise in employment.

News comes this morning, after much speculation, of an organised attempt to create a new British political party, called United for Change, funded by LoveFilm entrepreneur Simon Franks. It doesn’t have any MPs yet, apparently, and may not have any when it launches this autumn. Is there a hole in the market for a new political party? Yes, but not a party of what the Metropolitan Left likes to call the ‘centre’. The gaping hole, as has become clear from the saga of Boris and burqas, is for a non-woke conservative party – one which unashamedly espouses conservative values without hoovering up every metropolitan liberal cause which passes beneath its nose. Senior Conservatives have inadvertently been making the case for such a party over the past 48 hours.

How utterly predictable. As I wrote here on 5 July, Michel Barnier’s ‘considered’ judgement has been to pour a very large bucket of eau onto Theresa May’s carefully-crafted proposals to try to reach a compromise with the EU. Her time, her officials’ time and the time her cabinet spent at Chequers was utterly wasted. Barnier was always going to turn his nose up at whatever Britain proposed. It has been clear for months that that is his strategy: to stonewall all proposals put to him by Britain in the hope that he will be able to bounce Britain into a bad deal (for us) at the last moment.

You don’t have to read too much of the tweets and other comments directed at Margaret Hodge and other Jewish Labour MPs to appreciate that Labour has a very big problem with anti-Semitism. But is the party’s refusal to adopt the full working definition of anti-Semitism produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance an example of its failings? Absolutely not. Firstly, on a general point, it is never a good idea to allow pressure groups – however worthy their intentions – to lay down the rules on language.

Brexit will, of course, lead to a crash in the number of foreign students coming to racist, xenophobic Britain. We know this because the Guardian keeps telling us so. To quote one headline in the paper from April: “Vice-chancellors urge action to stop predicted 60 per cent fall in EU students”. The story went to quote Prof Julia Black, pro vice-chancellor for research at the LSE, who said: “It is hard to model how many students would pay fees 50 per cent higher when they could be taught in English in other countries for less or for free. We know from research studies that these European students just want to study in another country, so it doesn’t have to be Britain.

It would be easy to dismiss the Independent Commission on Referendums as a branch of the lobby trying to overturn the Brexit result – even if it does contain a token Leave campaigner, Gisela Stuart. Its pretentious title could easily lead people to mistake it for an official, government-sanctioned inquiry rather than a unsolicited piece of work by academics at the Constitution Unit, UCL. It is utterly certain that the commission would not have been set up had the Remain side won the day two years ago. Yet even so, the commission is right when it concludes that referendums “work best when they are held at the end of a decision-making process to choose between developed alternatives.

Today has been so bigged-up as a day of destiny for Britain that it can only deliver disappointment. Even if we do have white smoke rising from the chimneys of Chequers by the end of the day, together with a photo full of strained smiles as the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary apparently agree on a blueprint for Brexit full of delicate compromises and trade-offs, why does anyone think that Michel Barnier and his team will give the nod to what is agreed? It is remarkable how little this matter has been raised over the last few days. We have had endless speculation on the internal politics of the cabinet. We have had rumours of resignations, a last minute summit at which David Cameron is said to have talked Boris out of a threat to resign.