Brexit

In any deal, says the Sun, ‘no party should agree to the rules being set by the other side’. So the Prime Minister is ‘reassuringly spot on’ to insist we cut ‘direct ties with the European Court of Justice’. Whatever some might say, ‘make no mistake..’ the ECJ is no independent institution’, argues the paper – and instead, the court has been the ‘hothouse’ for the ‘ever-growing superstate’ of the European Union. Theresa May’s decision to turn Britain away from the court should be welcomed; and the terms the government put forward in its position paper, which it published yesterday, ‘strikes a decent balance’. Now, we can be grateful that ‘any

A key question in the Brexit talks is how any deal between the EU and UK will be upheld. The government has begun to address this today, publishing a paper on enforcement and dispute resolution. One thing is clear: ministers are committed to extricating the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In fact, the main point of the paper could be summed up as spelling out why Britain cannot agree to the ECJ being the arbiter of any Brexit deal. The government is entirely right about this. Sovereign states do not and should not enter into agreements in which the meaning and effect of the

There are plenty of theories about what led to the Brexit vote. Now, Al Gore, has a new one to add to the pile. The former vice president – who has been busy promoting his new film by labelling those who question him ’deniers’ – says the EU referendum result was brought about because of… climate change. Gore suggested that the war in Syria was caused by ‘climate refugees’ flooding into the cities. This, in turn, by Gore’s version of events at least, kickstarted the wider refugee crisis – eventually leading Brits to vote out last June. Here’s what Gore told the New European: ‘Long before the civil war in Syria began

To the Business School at the University of Edinburgh to be interviewed on the theme of ‘Great Political Disasters’. Main criteria for inclusion: decisions, often taken for short-term reasons, whose unforeseen consequences have echoed down the ages. Everyone will have their own little list, but mine included the Balfour declaration, Partition, Suez, Wilson’s failure to devalue in 1964 (which haunted subsequent Labour governments), Denis Healey’s IMF loan in 1976 (which he later admitted had been unnecessary and which led to the Winter of Discontent and the election of Margaret Thatcher), the poll tax, Iraq and the Brexit referendum (yes, I realise that the jury is still out on that last

As Brexit continues to dominate the headlines there is, understandably, a great deal of anxiety surrounding the UK’s future prosperity, and our ability to protect and grow Britain’s reputation as a major business centre. What is agreed almost across the board is that we must ensure we make post-Brexit Britain an attractive business environment. The referendum was a largely political event, but its economic consequences are enormous and will be felt for years to come. If we want a positive economic outcome from the vote, then UK business needs to flourish. But what’s talked about far less is how to create the conditions that will allow that to happen, which makes Number

‘Here we go again’, says the Sun, which criticises the ‘chorus of doom-mongers’ who pop up whenever the government proposes a ‘sensible, serious suggestion for moving towards Brexit’. On Tuesday, this reaction was sparked by details setting out plans for a customs union after Brexit. Now, a fresh wave of cynicism has greeted the idea of a ‘frictionless’ border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. “It can’t be done,” they groan,’ says the Sun – expect, according to the paper, it already is. Take the border between Norway and Sweden, for example, which has ‘almost exactly the same arrangement that is being proposed for Ireland’. It’s true there’s a risk of opening

Avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is the government’s top aim in Brexit talks. Brussels wants much the same: the EU Parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt has insisted that there should be no return to a fixed border. This is an aspiration shared by the EU, which makes the issue one of its three priorities before Brexit talks can proceed to the next stage. The Tories’ new friends-in-government are also agreed – and so, too, is the Irish government. Rarely does Brexit generate such unanimity. So if all sides are agreed, you’d be forgiven for thinking things should be straightforward. Unfortunately not. While it’s clear what

Writing in the Times today, Hugo Rifkind charges that centrists do not want to smash up the existing order and start again. As someone who runs a centrist think tank, I can only say: guilty as charged, your honour. And if it please the court, I’d like a further crime to be taken into consideration: I like Britain. By that I mean I don’t recognise the bleak caricatures of this country offered by many people who define themselves as Right or Left.   The Right’s description of a country enfeebled by regulation and tax and divided by migration is a nonsense that ignores the necessary role of the state in making markets