Unfortunately our language doesn’t have great words for concisely and precisely describing three-dimensional rotations, precession, etc. in plain words. (We can be precise by using diagrams or mathematical notation, or writing an extended paragraph of explanation.)
Of course if we define the rotational axis to be the “north pole”, then it doesn’t make sense for it to be moving east, or even south: by definition whatever direction it points is always north.
What they seem to mean is, if we predict the pole’s future path over the surface of the planet, previously it was moving toward Canada, and now it’s moving toward England. Relative to the N–S–E–W coordinate frame we use today, if we keep that coordinate frame static, the modified path of the pole is to the “east” of its original path.
TL;DR - For a long while, the pole was slowly moving toward Canada. Then for about a decade, it slowly moved toward Europe. Now since about 2012, it is slowly moving toward Greenland. Based on gravity measurements, it looks like changes in global groundwater levels and icecaps are responsible for the changes in direction.
I believe are saying is that its moving (more) towards the eastern hemisphere (actually, only slightly east of London) than it was previously (when it was heading towards canada)
