Welcome to the Guardian’s weekly Brexit briefing. If you would like to receive it as a weekly email, please sign up here. You can also catch up with our Brexit Means podcast right here.



Also: producing the Guardian’s independent, in-depth journalism takes time and money. We do it because we believe our perspective matters, and it may be your perspective too. If you value our Brexit coverage, please become a Guardian Supporter. Thank you.

Top stories

In the absence of policy announcements (and still fewer decisions), we may as well have speeches. In the first of a series of planned interventions, there were two big ones last week, from Theresa May and Boris Johnson, plus a revealing interview from the European parliament’s Brexit coordinator.

Security strains The prime minister told the Munich security conference the UK would leave the EU’s common foreign and security policy as early as next year but wanted to agree a new security treaty during the transition period because “we shouldn’t wait where we don’t need to”. She also warned of “damaging real-world consequences” if the EU let “rigid institutional restrictions” or “ideology” obstruct a wide-ranging post-Brexit security partnership – but was vague on how the UK would “respect the role of the European court of justice” while also having its “sovereign legal order”. It’s a tricky one: many EU states recognise the UK has resources and expertise the bloc needs, but others believe leaving the single market and jurisdiction of the ECJ should disqualify Britain from being a part of joint institutions such as Europol, EU police databases or EU military missions.

Boris’s billet-doux Britons should be able to work and retire overseas, go on “cheapo flights to stag dos” and fall in love with foreigners every bit as easily after Brexit, Johnson said – but in a speech billed as outlining his vision for a “liberal Brexit”, he also stressed the benefits of a hard separation, including regulatory divergence on financial services, stem cell research and planning laws. Keeping both sides of the Brexit debate happy was always going to be a hard act to pull off and the consensus was he didn’t really manage it.

Guy growls The Brexit coordinator for the European parliament – which has a veto over the final deal – said the UK’s demand that EU nationals coming to Britain during the transition period should enjoy fewer rights than those already in the country amounted to “penalising citizens” and was “not acceptable for us”. Guy Verhofstadt also said the outcome of the talks “will not ... and cannot be” a final deal that means different arrangements for different sections of the economy, or that sees the UK seek advantage through lower taxes and regulations.

Best of the rest

Top comment

In the Guardian, Anand Menon asked whether it might be possible to reverse Brexit, and concluded that even if all the very significant hurdles to a second referendum and remain vote were cleared, which on the face of it looks difficult, a huge number of problems would arise:

Leave aside the questions as to what a reversal will do to trust in government and politics in general among leave voters. Leavers would not simply accept the result and give up. We would wake up to Ukip polling well above 20%. To the Conservatives hopelessly divided and held to ransom by Brexiters. To Labour triangulating, attempting to hold on to both pro-Brexit and pro-remain seats. Remainers are, of course, entitled to try whatever they can to secure the outcome they want. But we should be frank about the numerous, often formidable, hurdles standing in the way of a reversal of the referendum result. And we should be honest about the significant problems such an outcome would generate.

And Polly Toynbee argued that in a “damp squib” of a speech, Boris Johnson could have healed the national rift, but chose to think only of himself and his ambition:

His claimed purpose was to reach out to unite this mortally divided nation. The man who did most to break the country in two could, possibly, have been the man to try to heal those wounds – if he were serious, politically adept and cleverer than he is. His true purpose, we all know, was to secure the votes of Tory MPs to ensure his name is on the two-person ballot paper whenever the prime minister departs, and to win over his small Brexit-fanatic party membership in the shires. Peace and compromise are not in his nature. He could have been Henry V, casting off the Brexit misdeeds of his youth: instead he reaches for the crown as the unreformed vain wastrel he always was, eager as ever to put self before country.

Top tweet

An optimistic take ...