A curious alignment of remainer Unionists and Scottish nationalists was convinced that Brexit would cause the end of the UK. Fortunately, they were wrong.
We will be an ally, not a member, of the United States of Europe.
Such a deal would, on balance, be better than Most Favoured Nation Status. But MFN would be better than a bad deal – and giving up on regaining control of our borders.
It’s time for mistaken claims to the contrary to be consigned to history.
My new study for Civitas sets out a practicable alternative to an agreement at any cost.
The arguments are more finely balanced than in the case of the Single Market, but maintaining the present arrangement would blunt the point of Brexit.
The Chancellor suggested that thoughtful politicians incline to one. But the more thoughtful one is about it, the more problematic it looks.
EEA membership would give us the best of both worlds – remaining in the Single Market while also being free to control migration.
Such temporary arrangements are complex, time-consuming and have a nasty habit of becoming permanent.
There is a trade-off between the long-term interest of the economy and the short-term interest of many Leave voters.
The widespread presumption that everything is a matter for negotiation is damaging nonsense. Once we identify the issues which we can decide, Ministers can start taking decisions.
The group wants a Hard Brexit. Either way, the Government should move Article 50 before next spring is over.
Advice to the Government’s transitional team.
Continental Europe needs the financial services of London just as much, if not more, than London needs its financial exports to Continental Europe.
You may want less migration. You may want more. But either way, we would have more control – instead of a policy that has already failed.