Surely the rational approach is as follows: make it clear that the UK hugely values the immense contribution to the UK economy made by those who have taken the trouble to move from elsewhere in the EU to the UK. But ultimately the right to remain in the UK post Brexit must depend on reciprocity. If we don’t make that point, surely we render our overall negotiating position much weaker than it need be?

Let’s be clear: restrictions on UK financial institutions’ ability to operate across the EU post Brexit if ‘passporting’ were curtailed is just one form of trade restriction like any other.  It is just that this is what it is called when applied to invisibles.  It is no different from the UK saying that, post Brexit, we will apply different type approval rules for cars made in continental Europe.  Illegal under WTO rules?   Maybe but we’ve got to be prepared to play hardball if we are going to get the best outcome for those in both the UK and elsewhere.   How long does it take to get the WTO to rule on a complaint? Quite some time I would surmise and BMW and Daimler Benz might not be so happy to have to stomach the costs to their businesses in the meantime.  

One must view Juncker’s comments about nation states in the context of his situation. Both he and several of his predecessors originate from small, relatively insignificant countries and it is only to be expected that, as such, they would be of the view that their influence is hugely greater sitting in Brussels as part of a much larger entity. Such sentiments are entirely normal. Any notion that nation states at least in Europe are going to somehow melt away is clearly crazy. Let’s be frank: the two continental European states that matter are France and Germany. Are they about to subsume their national identities into a bi-national superstate? I doubt it. Ironically, the main historic reason behind France’s advocacy of ever greater European integration has been the desire to keep Germany in check. Why? To help keep France safe and sound. Yet another of those nutty European inconsistencies…

It’s not surprising that the bickering over departmental responsibilities has started.  Ask anyone who works at one of our embassies or consulates and they will tell you that the FO is primarily a trade-promoting body. So how can you split responsibilities?

Now that the dust has settled a bit since the Brexit vote, albeit with historically low interest rates and historically high levels of popular dissatisfaction with governments across Europe, I have noticed that Mr Juncker has been uncharacteristically quiet.  Is he on an extended Brussels vacation or has he been encouraged to keep stumm?  Does anyone know, or care, for that matter?