Eu

The issue of sovereignty has mysteriously disappeared from the debate over Brexit. Some business-focused commentators even like to assert that in a ‘global, interconnected world’, sovereignty is meaningless. But a court judgment, delivered earlier this month, perfectly illustrates what is at stake. The case is about national security. Specifically, it is about the legality of techniques used to identify and disrupt people intent on unleashing terror: the kind of terror we have seen recently in Manchester, Westminster, Borough Market and Parsons Green. The technique at issue is the bulk collection of communications data (BCD). This data is the ‘who’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘with whom’ of communications, not what was written

After concerns about the Foreign Secretary’s job security bumped Vince Cable’s keynote leader’s speech at Lib Dem conference off the news agenda yesterday, a sense of stability has been restored to Cabinet. Boris Johnson has told hacks in New York that he is not going anywhere – likening Cabinet harmony to ‘a nest of singing birds’. The message from Downing Street, too, is one of quiet confidence that Johnson won’t be departing the frontbench – at least, not this weekend. This suggests two things. Firstly, that May’s Florence speech won’t be as drastic as had first been thought. Secondly, Johnson is coming round to the idea of payments to Brussels continuing during a transition period.

One of the City’s best-known economists, Roger Bootle, discusses whether a success could be made from Brexit, just over a year after Britain to leave the European Union. Bootle begins by explaining the ‘overblown’ nature of the ‘European Single Market’ concept: I don’t think what has been clearly said or argued is that the [European] ‘Single Market’ is vastly overblown. There are advantages and disadvantages of not being part of it. However, I do think it has become a protectionist entity. The original idea for a [European] ‘Single Market’ was a British one supported by former Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. The idea behind the [European] ‘Single Market’ was to

Oh dear. Although Russell Brand once said he had never voted, and never would, as a result of his ‘absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class’, he went on to change his tune when her urged his fans to vote Labour in the 2015 election – and later endorsed Jeremy Corbyn. So, Mr S was curious to discover that Brand has now returned to his old tricks. The comedian-turned-left-wing revolutionary tells the Sunday Times that he didn’t vote in the EU referendum as he was on ‘holiday’: ‘How did he vote in the referendum? He mumbles: “I was on holiday.” He didn’t vote over Brexit? “No,” he

The choice which faced us at the EU referendum has often been presented as lying between the status quo and the unknown, between security and uncertainty. Until the early hours of 24 June last year I was convinced that this would be the clincher: that the British public, though heavily Eurosceptic, would not quite have the balls to overcome their native conservatism and take what many would see as a leap in the dark. Yet Jean-Claude Juncker’s ‘state of the union’ speech today dispels the notion that voting Remain would have been a vote to keep things as they are. Remaining in the EU as it now is was not

After David Davis warned that MPs opposing the government’s EU repeal bill would be voting for a ‘chaotic’ exit from the EU, the Brexit secretary can take heart that the majority of Parliamentarians took his advice onboard. This morning MPs voted in favour of the government’s EU (withdrawal) bill at its second reading by 326 votes to 290, in the first key Commons test of the legislation. On hearing the news, the Prime Minister issued a statement on the ‘solid foundations’ the bill provides: ‘Earlier this morning Parliament took a historic decision to back the will of the British people and vote for a bill which gives certainty and clarity ahead of our

The EU withdrawal bill debate is winding on, with MPs criticising the ‘power grab’ planned by ministers. There won’t be any votes until Monday, and unless something changes, it looks as though the legislation will pass its second reading. Assuming that this is the case, it is much more useful to look at who is threatening to make amendments to the bill at Committee stage. The tone of the Brexit-sceptics so far has largely been reasonably respectful, as they are trying to encourage ministers to make concessions ahead of that. It is rare for a government to be defeated in a committee stage vote, but this bill is different as

Labour’s decision to whip against the EU withdrawal bill might well have more of an impact in the Lords than the Commons. In the Commons, as I wrote on Monday, the number of Tory rebels might well be offset by Labour ones—and I suspect that Labour’s decision to whip against the bill at second reading will make it easier for the Tories to peel off Labour rebels on amendments later on. But in the House of Lords, the government doesn’t have any sort of majority. If Labour whip against it there and team up with Liberal Democrat and cross-bench peers,  the bill could end up only passing with significant amendments.

Last night’s TV debate between Angela Merkel and Martin Schulz poses a nagging question for British conservatives. No, nothing to do with Brexit – the subject wasn’t even mentioned. Rather, why was Theresa May so afraid of going toe to toe with Jeremy Corbyn before the General Election? If only she’d done a Merkel and faced off her main rival on television, she might have won a decent majority – just as Merkel looks set to do in three weeks’ time. Like May, Merkel is widely (and quite rightly) regarded as an uninspiring public speaker. Like Corbyn, Schulz is an assured performer, with a polished ‘man of the people’ shtick.

There is a growing perception that Britain is floundering in its EU negotiations, with a professional team from Brussels running rings around our bumbling amateurs. It is an idea that is being put about by the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, who this week appealed for Britain to begin ‘negotiating seriously’. As he has found out, the strange dynamic of British public debate at present means that EU spin is repeated uncritically by those hostile to Brexit. It can seem, at times, as if we are in the grip of hysteria normally seen during the final days of an election campaign. This is not to say that the British side

Fifty billion? Seventy-five? In its wilder moments, the FT might even splash on a hundred billion pounds as the minimum cost of our exit from the European Union. As the negotiations over our departure reach perhaps the thorniest issue of all, the final bill will have to be settled. But what should it be? If the hardliners on both side would calm down for a moment, then the answer should be very simple. We should agree to cover the cost of the disruption our departure creates, but only in return for a fair deal on trade. It is probably a mystery to most people why we have to pay anything

For months, Labour has been moving ever closer to the Tory position on Brexit while pretending that it isn’t. First, it backed Brexit. Then in June, John McDonnell told Robert Peston that he couldn’t see continued membership of the single market being ‘on the table’ in Brexit negotiations. He added that people would interpret membership of the single market as ‘not respecting that referendum.’ In July, Jeremy Corbyn told Andrew Marr that single market membership is ‘dependent on membership of the EU.’ Barry Gardiner has even suggested that the UK would become a ‘vassal state’ if it were to remain in the single market after Brexit. Today, Sir Keir Starmer writes in the Observer that, unlike Liam Fox and Philip Hammond,

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