DOCSLIB.ORG

The Government's Brexit Contract with the British People

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Government's Brexit Contract with the British People The Government’s Brexit Contract with the British people A Brexit Contract between The UK Government and The British People Signed: Signed: FOREWORD The phoney war is over. The Government will trigger Article 50 and officially commence the process of the UK leaving the EU. This fulfils the mandate of June 23rd 2016 and a new national debate must now take place over what is in the UK’s national interest. There is no mandate for the form Brexit takes: responsibility for the outcome now rests with those conducting negotiations and those advocating a hard Brexit. As this process takes place we must ensure people are equipped to make judgements on whether negotiations meet the expectations they had when they voted last year, whether promises made then and since are being fulfilled, and whether our country and economy are likely to be stronger as a consequence of decisions now being taken. A clear direction of travel has been set by the Government – and it is largely based on that set by the Vote Leave campaign. Vote Leave and the Government have made specific promises: leaving is a cost-free option; trade will be enhanced not hampered; there will be major savings from the EU budget; core arrangements with the EU, for example over national security, will remain unchanged; and the integrity of the United Kingdom will be protected. Now that Article 50 is being triggered, people will expect these promises to be delivered: this is the Government’s Brexit Contract with the British people. In our view, political choices have been made that potentially undermine these ambitions and which make the path ahead riskier than necessary. Decisions to leave the Single Market and Customs Union in pursuit of a target to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, to volunteer a red line over the European Court of Justice, and to commit to a full, rapid departure by March 2019 call in to question whether the Government’s Brexit Contract, as it stands, can be honoured. Indeed, if the Contract cannot be honoured we fear it increases the chances of the UK leaving the EU with no deal at all. This would be the worst of all worlds, meaning tariffs on goods trade so higher prices for consumers and businesses, service trade restricted so jobs at risk, and the UK opting for a worse trading position than any other major economy. As patriots, we want the best for our country. As realists, we fear the Government’s Brexit Contract may not deliver that outcome. And as democrats, we think that should be a judgement people and Parliament are able to make. Here we set out the Government’s Brexit Contract with the British people so they can be held to account throughout the Article 50 process. Nicky Morgan MP Chris Leslie MP Nick Clegg MP The Government’s Brexit Contract with the British people 1. SAME BENEFITS OUTSIDE THE SINGLE MARKET. The Government and Vote Leave have promised that there will be no new trade barriers between the UK and EU and no fall in UK-EU trade, with the ‘exact same benefits’ delivered through an FTA as we have within the Single Market and Customs Union. 2. NEW TRADE DEALS READY TO SIGN ON DAY ONE. The Government and Vote Leave have promised to negotiate lots of new trade deals with other world powers that are ready to sign on the day of our departure from the EU. 3. MAJOR SAVINGS FROM THE EU BUDGET. The Government and Vote Leave have promised to increase investment in public services from the intended savings from ceasing to make contributions to the EU budget, including £350m a week to the NHS. 4. NO CHANGE TO NORTHERN IRELAND BORDER ARRANGEMENTS. The Government and Vote Leave have promised to keep the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic open as it is today. 5. PRESERVING CITIZENS’, WORKERS’ AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS. The Government and Vote Leave have promised to preserve the rights currently guaranteed by membership of the EU, which include workers’ and consumers’ rights, environ- mental rights and standards, and the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens residing in EU states. 6. PROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITY. The Government and Vote Leave have promised to secure a deal on security that maintains and enhances our cooperation with the European Union. 7. MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. The Government and Vote Leave have promised that the Union will be stronger not weaker as a result of Brexit. 8. STRENGTHENING SCIENCE AND RESEARCH.. The Government and Vote Leave have promised to retain the same science and research partnerships with Europe as we have today, including the same degree of co-operation in Higher Education. 9. OUT OF THE EU BY MARCH 2019. The Government and Vote Leave have promised that the UK will leave the EU in 2019. 10. DRAMATIC REDUCTION OF MIGRATION. The Government and Vote Leave have promised that Brexit will help them to reduce net migration to the tens of thou- sands, while also pledging that the UK will remain open to talent and skills and that no UK business will be denied the skills they need. 1. SAME BENEFITS OUTSIDE THE SINGLE MARKET. The Government and Vote Leave have promised that there will be no new trade barriers between the UK and EU and no fall in UK-EU trade, with the ‘exact same benefits’ delivered through an FTA as we have within the Single Market and Customs Union. UK Government: Vote Leave: “What we have come up with—I hope to “The idea that our trade will suffer because persuade her that this is a very worthwhile we stop imposing terrible rules such as the aim—is the idea of a comprehensive free Clinical Trial Directive is silly.” trade agreement and a comprehensive Vote Leave, ‘What happens when we leave’ customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have, but also “Our trade will almost certainly continue enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of with the EU on similar to current State for International Trade to go and form circumstances… trade deals with the rest of the world, which The reality is that the hard-headed, is the real upside of leaving the pragmatic businessmen on the continent European Union.” will do everything to ensure that trade David Davis, House of Commons, 24 with Britain continues uninterrupted.” January 2017 David Davis, ‘The Economic Case for Brexit’, 26 May 2016 “What I said was that our objective would be to ensure that we would have continued access to the markets in Europe – and vice-versa – without tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments and that is how we will approach those negotiations.” Greg Clark, Andrew Marr Show, 30 October 2016 Challenges the Contract will face: • Membership of the Single Market and Customs Union facilitates barrier-free trade and full participation within the world’s largest free trade area. The Single Market removes regulatory barriers and provides a guaranteed right to deliver services within the EU without national impediments, which is vital given the UK economy is dominated by service sectors. The Customs Union eradicates customs duties at the borders between EU countries, streamlines customs checks and introduces a common commercial policy. • There is no existing EU FTA or customs co-operation agreement with a third party which offers a comparable degree of frictionless trade to that we enjoy today. The immediate imposition of new barriers, for example Rules of Origin regulations, removed ‘passporting’ rights or new tariffs, and longer-term barriers in the form of regulatory divergence, are likely to arise even in the best-case scenario. • The cost of increased trade barriers, in particular non-tariff barriers hitting service sectors, would be lost trade with our largest trade partner. Evidence shows that being in the Single Market is the trade arrangement which would minimise the impact of leaving the EU on trade, investment, growth and wages.1 Every major sector is linked to the EU Single Market and could be harmed by opting for a sector-by-sector FTA given the interconnections between sectors of the economy. Such barriers could impact on inward investment, and already we have seen warnings over relocation from the auto and aviation sectors. 1 http://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/National%20Institute%20Economic%20Review-2016-Ebell-121-38.pdf 2. NEW TRADE DEALS READY TO SIGN ON DAY ONE. The Government and Vote Leave have promised to negotiate lots of new trade deals with other world powers that are ready to sign on the day of our departure from the EU. UK Government: Vote Leave: “We can't actually sign until the day we leave. “After we Vote Leave, we would immediately But I've got a very strong suspicion there be able to start negotiating new trade deals will be a lot of things to sign that very with emerging economies and the world’s next day.” biggest economies (the US, China and David Davis, House of Commons, 17 January Japan, as well as Canada, Australia, South 2017 Korea, New Zealand, and so on), which could enter into force immediately after the UK leaves the EU.” Vote Leave press release, 15 June 2016 Challenges the Contract will face: • Countries within the Customs Union are members of the EU’s common trade policy and are therefore party to the EU’s FTAs with over 50 other countries. When the UK ceases to be an EU Member State we will no longer be party to these FTAs, which will have to be renegotiated as bilateral agreements.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of an Investigation in Respect Of
    Report of an investigation in respect of - Vote Leave Limited - Mr Darren Grimes - BeLeave - Veterans for Britain Concerning campaign funding and spending for the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU 17 July 2018 1 Other formats For information on obtaining this publication in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Electoral Commission. Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected] The Electoral Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. We work to promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity. 2 Contents 1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 4 2 The decision to investigate ............................................................................. 9 3 The investigation .......................................................................................... 12 4 The investigation findings ............................................................................. 16 Joint spending by Vote Leave and BeLeave ................................................... 16 Vote Leave’s spending limit ............................................................................. 21 Other issues with Vote Leave’s spending return ............................................. 24 BeLeave’s spending ........................................................................................ 25 Mr Grimes’ spending return ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Where Is the EU–UK Relationship Heading?
    Simon Hix Brexit: where is the EU–UK relationship heading? Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Hix, Simon (2018) Brexit: where is the EU–UK relationship heading? Journal of Common Market Studies. ISSN 0021-9886 (In Press) DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12766 © 2018 University Association for Contemporary European Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/89976/ Available in LSE Research Online: August 2018 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. The JCMS Annual Review Lecture 2018 Brexit: Where is the EU-UK Relationship Heading?1 Simon Hix London School of Economics and Political Science 1 I would like to thank Angus Armstrong, Catherine Barnard, Theofanis Exadaktylos, Anand Menon, Jonathan Portes, Brendan O’Leary and Simon Usherwood for their helpful comments on an earlier version.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit Jargon Buster
    Brexit Jargon Buster Brexit Jargon Buster • 1 2 • Brexit Jargon Buster AAgencies European Union agencies regulate a number of regimes for goods and services; the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki regulates chemicals and biocides; the European Medicines Agency, formerly in London is now relocated in Amsterdam responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU; the European Aviation Safety Agency. AIFMD The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This EU Directive regulates the managers (AIFMs) of alternative investment funds (AIFs). AIFMD includes passporting rights (see separate definition) for EU AIFMs to market funds across the EU. The Directive also contains provisions allowing non-EU AIFMs to become part of the passporting regime by way of a ‘third country passport’ (see separate definition) which may, in the future, provide a means for UK AIFMs to retain passporting rights post-Brexit. Competition law Competition laws of the EU are set out in the TFEU. They are a very important aspect of the single market. The European Commission is tasked with developing policy and enforcing the law ensuring that the European Union remains free from business practices that could ultimately be harmful to competition and consumers. In doing so, the Commission works with national competition authorities which are obliged also to apply EU competition law as well as domestic law. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring businesses do not enter into anti-competitive agreements or abuse dominant positions in markets; the consequences of doing so can be severe. Brexit Jargon Buster • 3 The European Commission also assesses very large mergers and state aid.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and Jersey
    BREXIT AND JERSEY Mark Boleat April 2016 Executive summary On June 23rd voters in the United Kingdom will decide whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union. The decision will be of massive importance to the UK, a “leave” vote being followed by years of uncertainty as Britain seeks to establish a new economic relationship not just with the European Union but also with the rest of the world. By extension, the vote will also be of crucial importance to Jersey, given that Jersey’s economy is closely tied to that of the UK and Jersey’s prosperity depends on it being semi- detached to the UK. When Britain decided to seek to join the then EEC in 1971 this was seen as potentially very damaging to Jersey, at the least resulting in increased competition for agricultural products, and at worst threatening the tourism and finance industries if Jersey were to be subject to the full rules of the EEC. In the event Jersey got the best possible deal - inside the common external tariff but outside the EEC generally. These arrangements were set out in Protocol 3 to the 1972 Accession Treaty. In practice, Jersey became loosely attached to the EEC as well as semi-detached to the UK. This was achieved through low- key way, but with good preparation in both Jersey and the UK. The Brexit debate in the UK is as much emotional as rational. Business is strongly in favour of Britain remaining in the EU but finds it difficult to engage in such a debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Anglo-Saxon and Scots Invaders
    Anglo-Saxon and Scots Invaders By around 410AD, the last of the Romans had left Britain to go back to Rome and England was left to look after itself for the first time in about 400 years. Emperor Honorius told the people to fight the Picts, Scots and Saxons who were attacking them, but the Brits were not good fighters. The Scots, who came from Ireland, invaded and took land in Scotland. The Scots split Scotland into 4 separate places that were named Dal Riata, Pictland, Strathclyde and Bernicia. The Picts (the people already living in Scotland) and the Scots were always trying to get into England. It was hard for the people in England to fight them off without help from the Romans. The Picts and Scots are said to have jumped over Hadrian’s Wall, killing everyone in their way. The British king found it hard to get his men to stop the Picts and Scots. He was worried they would take over in England because they were excellent fighters. Then he had an idea how he could keep the Picts and Scots out. He asked two brothers called Hengest and Horsa from Jutland to come and fight for him and keep England safe from the Picts and Scots. Hengest and Horsa did help to keep the Picts and Scots out, but they liked England and they wanted to stay. They knew that the people in England were not strong fighters so they would be easy to beat. Hengest and Horsa brought more men to fight for England and over time they won.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossing the Line Between News and the Business of News: Exploring Journalists' Use of Twitter Jukes, Stephen
    www.ssoar.info Crossing the line between news and the business of news: exploring journalists' use of Twitter Jukes, Stephen Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Jukes, S. (2019). Crossing the line between news and the business of news: exploring journalists' use of Twitter. Media and Communication, 7(1), 248-258. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i1.1772 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY Lizenz (Namensnennung) zur This document is made available under a CC BY Licence Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden (Attribution). For more Information see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183–2439) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 248–258 DOI: 10.17645/mac.v7i1.1772 Article Crossing the Line between News and the Business of News: Exploring Journalists’ Use of Twitter Stephen Jukes Faculty of Media and Communication, Bournemouth University, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 7 September 2018 | Accepted: 4 January 2018 | Published: 21 March 2019 Abstract Anglo-American journalism has typically drawn a firm dividing line between those who report the news and those who run the business of news. This boundary, often referred to in the West as a ‘Chinese Wall’, is designed to uphold the inde- pendence of journalists from commercial interests or the whims of news proprietors. But does this separation still exist in today’s age of social media and at a time when news revenues are under unprecedented pressure? This article focuses on Twitter, now a widely used tool in the newsroom, analysing the Twitter output of 10 UK political correspondents during the busy party conference season.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Annual Report 2005
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Human Rights Annual Report 2005 First Report of Session 2005–06 HC 574 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Human Rights Annual Report 2005 First Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 15 February 2006 HC 574 Published on 23 February 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East) Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells) Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington) Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford) Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock) Mr John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn) Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston) Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge) The following member was also a member of the committee during the parliament. Rt Hon Mr Andrew Mackay (Conservative, Bracknell) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study on the United Kingdom and Brexit Juliane Itta & Nicole Katsioulis the Female Face of Right-Wing Populism and Ex
    Triumph of The women? The Female Face of Right-wing Populism and Extremism 02 Case study on the United Kingdom and Brexit Juliane Itta & Nicole Katsioulis 01 Triumph of the women? The study series All over the world, right-wing populist parties continue to grow stronger, as has been the case for a number of years – a development that is male-dominated in most countries, with right-wing populists principally elected by men. However, a new generation of women is also active in right-wing populist parties and movements – forming the female face of right-wing populism, so to speak. At the same time, these parties are rapidly closing the gap when it comes to support from female voters – a new phenomenon, for it was long believed that women tend to be rather immune to right-wing political propositions. Which gender and family policies underpin this and which societal trends play a part? Is it possible that women are coming out triumphant here? That is a question that we already raised, admittedly playing devil’s advocate, in the first volume of the publication, published in 2018 by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Triumph of the women? The Female Face of the Far Right in Europe. We are now continuing this first volume with a series of detailed studies published at irregular intervals. This is partly in response to the enormous interest that this collection of research has aroused to date in the general public and in professional circles. As a foundation with roots in social democracy, from the outset one of our crucial concerns has been to monitor anti-democratic tendencies and developments, while also providing information about these, with a view to strengthening an open and democratic society thanks to these insights.
    [Show full text]
  • Intro to the Journalists Register
    REGISTER OF JOURNALISTS’ INTERESTS (As at 2 October 2018) INTRODUCTION Purpose and Form of the Register Pursuant to a Resolution made by the House of Commons on 17 December 1985, holders of photo- identity passes as lobby journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting are required to register: ‘Any occupation or employment for which you receive over £770 from the same source in the course of a calendar year, if that occupation or employment is in any way advantaged by the privileged access to Parliament afforded by your pass.’ Administration and Inspection of the Register The Register is compiled and maintained by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Anyone whose details are entered on the Register is required to notify that office of any change in their registrable interests within 28 days of such a change arising. An updated edition of the Register is published approximately every 6 weeks when the House is sitting. Changes to the rules governing the Register are determined by the Committee on Standards in the House of Commons, although where such changes are substantial they are put by the Committee to the House for approval before being implemented. Complaints Complaints, whether from Members, the public or anyone else alleging that a journalist is in breach of the rules governing the Register, should in the first instance be sent to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests in the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Where possible the Registrar will seek to resolve the complaint informally. In more serious cases the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards may undertake a formal investigation and either rectify the matter or refer it to the Committee on Standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Journalists' Interests
    REGISTER OF JOURNALISTS’ INTERESTS (As at 14 June 2019) INTRODUCTION Purpose and Form of the Register Pursuant to a Resolution made by the House of Commons on 17 December 1985, holders of photo- identity passes as lobby journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting are required to register: ‘Any occupation or employment for which you receive over £795 from the same source in the course of a calendar year, if that occupation or employment is in any way advantaged by the privileged access to Parliament afforded by your pass.’ Administration and Inspection of the Register The Register is compiled and maintained by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Anyone whose details are entered on the Register is required to notify that office of any change in their registrable interests within 28 days of such a change arising. An updated edition of the Register is published approximately every 6 weeks when the House is sitting. Changes to the rules governing the Register are determined by the Committee on Standards in the House of Commons, although where such changes are substantial they are put by the Committee to the House for approval before being implemented. Complaints Complaints, whether from Members, the public or anyone else alleging that a journalist is in breach of the rules governing the Register, should in the first instance be sent to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests in the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Where possible the Registrar will seek to resolve the complaint informally. In more serious cases the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards may undertake a formal investigation and either rectify the matter or refer it to the Committee on Standards.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of British and American Cultural Differences on English and American Literature Review Jiao
    2016 4th International Conference on Advances in Social Science, Humanities, and Management (ASSHM 2016) ISBN: 978-1-60595-412-7 The Influence of British and American Cultural Differences on English and American Literature Review Jiao Lei1 Abstract In an era of globalization, cross-cultural communication is not strange to us with studying and travelling abroad, and even immigration becoming a part of our lives. In such an era of international communication being increasingly frequent, learning the culture of other countries will help us to do well in international communication. The paper is going to study, from the British and American history and culture, the differences of all kinds of their present acts in the world and impacts of the historical reasons on their own citizens, to not only let the reader understand the cultural differences between these two countries, but also to get the cause of the difference to better understand their cultures. Key words: British and American Culture; Religion; Literature Review 1 INTRODUCTION First of all, we are going to talk about the homology of British and American culture which is undeniable. British culture is the root and source of American culture with the United Kingdom people accounting for a very large proportion of the early settlers of the United States. Let nature take its course, they brought their culture, their personalities, ways of thinking to this new continent. Moreover, in the major historical events of modern times, many cooperation has occurred in these two countries which brought many common points in their cultural exchanges. However, there is a large difference between these two countries regarding to their own history: the history of Britain is longer than the United States’, because before the industrial revolution, Britain has a long period of agriculture civilization, and much British people's cultural life has been influenced by the upper class of French due to the French occupation.
    [Show full text]
  • Please Note That This Is BBC Copyright and May Not Be Reproduced Or Copied for Any Other Purpose
    Please note that this is BBC copyright and may not be reproduced or copied for any other purpose. RADIO 4 CURRENT AFFAIRS ANALYSIS LABOUR, THE LEFT AND EUROPE TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDED DOCUMENTARY Presenter: Edward Stourton Producer: Chris Bowlby Editor: Innes Bowen BBC W1 NBH 04B BBC Broadcasting House Portland Place LONDON W1A 1AA 020 3 361 4420 Broadcast Date: 29.10.12 2030-2100 Repeat Date: 04.05.12 2130-2200 CD Number: Duration: 27.45 1 Taking part in order of appearance: Gisela Stuart Labour MP Charles Grant Director of Centre for European Reform Roger Liddle Labour Member of House of Lords Chair of Policy Network think tank Brian Brivati Historian of Labour Party Visiting Professor, Kingston University Thomas Docherty Labour MP 2 STUART: We’ve now got 27 countries locked together, and some of those locked into a single currency, in a way which will not address the original problem. Far from it. If you turn on your television sets and watch what’s happening in Greece, what may well happen in Spain and Italy, a deep resentment of the Germans who are currently damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I’m just so sad about it because it didn’t need to happen that way. STOURTON: The MP Gisela Stuart has the kind of background that should make her a solid member of Labour’s pro-European mainstream; she is German by birth and on the right of the party. But in an interview for this programme she has gone public with a view that is, by her own account, regarded as “heresy” on the Labour benches.
    [Show full text]