Diane James MEP: Brexit and EU Commentary Archive

Diane James served as a Member of the European Parliament for the South East of England, one of ten MEPs elected for that region, and sat as an independent without party affiliation. This site is an informational archive of the commentary, speeches and articles that were published under her name around 2018 and early 2019. It is not run by her or by her office, and nothing here should be read as a current statement of her views.

Who she is

Her path into politics began with a seat on Waverley Borough Council in Surrey, and from there she moved into the European Parliament, where she became known as a prominent supporter of leaving the European Union. A fuller profile, including her earlier career in healthcare, is on the About page.

What the archive covers

The material centres on Brexit and on how EU institutions work. Pieces in the archive were arranged in several groups:

  • The Brexit Briefings series, short explainers on subjects such as the customs union and a possible second referendum.
  • Longer articles that first appeared in newspapers and policy websites.
  • Posts written around the EU referendum campaign of 2015 and 2016.
  • Reports from the monthly plenary sessions in Strasbourg.

Recent items in the archive

The latest entries on the archived front page covered a spread of subjects, and each is summarised here in neutral terms.

  • Early 2019, Brexit process. Two short commentaries, in December 2018 and January 2019, criticised how the Prime Minister of the day handled the Brexit process, one drawing on an interview with an international news outlet.
  • November 2018, free speech. A piece arguing that the EU’s concern about disinformation could become an excuse for controlling speech.
  • November 2018, energy policy. Material from a Strasbourg speech questioned the environmental record of EU biofuel rules, citing reports from Oxfam Germany and the NGO Fern, and raised concerns about wind farms and birdlife.
  • November 2018, motorsport. Coverage in a UK newspaper said she had urged the EU to change a motor insurance directive, warning that its wording might threaten events such as Formula 1.
  • October 2018, the Irish border. An opinion article for the publication New Europe on the Northern Ireland border question. See Border Rumpus.
  • September 2018, negotiations. Two posts, The Battle for Brexit and Can the European Court Torpedo the Negotiations?.
  • September 2018, copyright and migration. Comments on the EU copyright directive and its effect on online platforms, and on the proposal to enlarge the EU border and coast guard.
  • September 2018, Twitter. An account of an MEP colleague who said an EU official had asked him to delete a social media post.
  • July 2018, live Q&A. A Facebook Live session from Brussels on the Chequers proposal.
  • June 2018, pensions. A short interview on a planned Pan-European Personal Pension product, which she described as a financial power grab. See the pension post.

Recurring themes

Three ideas return again and again across the archived posts. The first is sovereignty: she repeatedly argued that EU membership limited the UK’s ability to set its own laws and trade policy. The second is process: she portrayed the withdrawal talks as slow, with the EU side rejecting British proposals and pushing the UK back to the start. The third is accountability: she questioned how EU institutions handle lobbying, speech and decision-making, and she made these points in speeches in Strasbourg, in newspaper columns and in short social media videos.

Supporters of the same viewpoint will find the archive a convenient record. Those who disagree with it, including many who backed remaining in the EU, can use it to see how the case for leaving was argued in 2018. Either way, dates matter: the Brexit process changed substantially after the period covered here.

A note on perspective

The pieces are opinion and political commentary. They reflect one politician’s viewpoint during a contested period and are included for historical interest rather than as neutral reporting. Readers looking for balanced coverage of Brexit should consult a range of sources.