His Mansion House speech offered an opportunity to shift the tone of Brexit policy towards openness, liberalism, free trade and responsible capitalism.
The Chancellor says “yes” when Marr asks if “we’re definitely leaving the EU”, and provides some clarification.
For all the chatter about the Customs Union, leaving the EU in full is still on course. But May’s bungled election has raised the chances of a disorderly outcome.
We would remain bound by the EU’s protectionist tariff structure, and have our trade agreements determined by institutions on which we were not represented.
She cannot be a stationary establishment figure when faced with the restless mood of the voting public. She must move forwards – or we risk a 1997-style wipeout.
He also insists that the Government is pursuing the “same strategic policy” over Brexit as it was before the election.
A joint response to our series on WTO by a former Director-General of that organisation and a former Australian Ambassador to it – via Policy Exchange.
We are keen to gather views from interested parties (such as businesses, industry groups, politicians, academics and others) about what would happen.
Will the UK get a deal? Much depends on whether other European governments or the EU Commission take charge on the other side of the table.
A curious alignment of remainer Unionists and Scottish nationalists was convinced that Brexit would cause the end of the UK. Fortunately, they were wrong.
The Government appears bumbling, directionless and out-of-ideas before Article 50 has even been triggered.
This offers May an historic opportunity.
Lacking tactical coordination or a shared strategic goal, Remainers are suffering for having never had to organise as a faction before the 23rd June.
Most of the latter are used to trying to stop rebellions, not start them.
We will be an ally, not a member, of the United States of Europe.