The combination of a terror atrocity, mass deployment of troops, an election campaign and no legislature takes us into unchartered waters.
This highest of five threat levels means that “an attack is expected imminently”. They are set not by the Prime Minister, but by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre.
The Government must try to build from the essentials out – security, legal certainty, frictionless trade. Zero tariffs would be the icing on the cake.
The companies are on solid ground over encryption; their footing is less sure, however, when it comes to pro-terror material on the net.
At best, sending him to Guantanamo failed – and at worst it backfired spectacularly.
Downing Street may have briefed in advance that there’s no real comparison. But she will clearly play on it for all it’s worth.
The President doesn’t indulge in euphemism or try to dodge the abhorrent idea. And he’ll keep on talking about it.
We don’t need more laws with anti-strike provisions – the Government already has the tools to deal with the transport crisis.
A range of significant obstacles would need to be cleared to set about forming such a defence force. None of them is anything to do with Britain’s membership of the EU
There is still no sign that the Government can find a workable definition.
If the head of one person is attached to the body of another, which of them survives – if either?
After Paris and now Brussels, let’s avoid claims based on gut feelings, out-dated information or – dare I say it – wilful misunderstandings.
The balance of the safety argument is for leaving. But neither referendum outcome will dampen the fanaticism of our home-grown extremists.
Technical security, good intelligence and confidence in our values saw us through against communism. We need all of them to see the West through this again.
But we must only consider them at the right time, and only when we know some facts, not as a tasteless kneejerk.