Far too many Remainers are using the phrase 'when we leave the EU' in their speeches, rather as though there was an inevitability about it. We would not send a person to prison after a trial based on such lies and flimsy evidence, and any sentence would be easily over-turned on appeal. Are we really going to change the whole strategic direction of the country without an appeal? I could live with 'if we leave the EU', for now.
If you are in any doubt about the lies then see Richard Corbett's useful blog list. As a Labout MEP he is in a position to know something about the reality of the EU.
Chuka Umunna has suggested that the three Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox and Davis) cannot be let off the hook for their referendum promises (Independent). Since the three of them are now in pole position to turn their dreams into a proposal - not, one hopes a reality - then their trial may yet come, provided Parliament has the guts to test them under fire. A second referendum might be needed, if only to satisfy the general public that they had had their say: but this time with a proper question, or series of questions.
A C Grayling has set out the philosophical reasons as to why Parliament should have the final say in whether to trigger Article 50 or not. It remains to be seen whether MPs will do as they should in a representative democracy and use their skill and judgement to consider the big picture and what is best for the country as a whole; or whether they will crumple under the thought of de-selection and give in to the so-called will of the [misinformed and gulled] majority.
The Lords appear to be stirring themselves up to cause trouble which is encouraging but they were quickly slapped down by the PM with a repeat of her 'We are going to make a success of Brexit' line. Sod, the vote: could someone ask her why she is even considering Brexit given the quality of the evidence in front of her?
What we really need is someone, or some party around whom we can all cohere. The Labour Party is in turmoil, the Lib Dems are unable to get their voices heard and only the Guardian and Independent seem to be leading the charge at the moment. They are being reviled by the Brexiteers for their pains. The Express and Mail seem dedicated to 'hard Brexit', the Sun is worrying about the colour of our passports and, as one might expect, the Star is more interested in well-endowed girls in 'celebrity' television programmes.
Releases from both sides attempt to demonstrate the collapse or non-collapse of the financial market 'post Brexit' to make their case, as though we had already left. We have not left. We are simply living with a black hole of uncertainty which is understandably giving everyone the jitters.
An excellent piece by John Lanchester in the London Review of Books sets out the economic implications very clearly. Brexit will achieve the objectives of limiting migration but we are all going to be poorer and the poorest and oldest - the groups who were most likely to vote to Leave - are going to suffer the most. Classical Greek justice perhaps but not a happy result in the long term.
My present hero is the ever-perceptive, intelligent and articulate Alastair Campbell. Love him or hate him he knows how to phrase an argument. He wrote a cracking piece for the NewEuropean, an infinitely better version of a piece I had been pondering, and followed it up with a plug on his blog.
As Alastair says, we have no idea what people were actually voting for when they voted to Leave. Politicians are picking the Brexit narrative to suit their own agendas. We owe it to ourselves to be clear as to which particular problem we are solving.
And Nick Clegg is stirring himself to challenge the 'Brexit Government' with a series of questions about the future. If anyone knows how easy or difficult to know about trade negotiations, then it is he since he was an EU trade negotiator in his past. His first move was to correct some naivety of David Davis' about the nature of the EU, hardly reassuring given that DD is of the three Brexiteers.
We still need a strong, senior, informed and credible figurehead to lead the charge against Brexit. I guess no one wishes to step forward for fear of being labelled, and dismissed, as an establishment figure. Come on one of you.
As things stand, I can see us heading for one of those awful British compromises which gives everyone a little of what they want and ends up with a dog's dinner. We will probably try and half-solve five problems at the same time while jumping off the high board without knowing what is below. The Norwegian model, which is already heading for the reject pile, seems to me to be a good example of the worst of both worlds.
Informed opinion is increasingly suggesting that Article 50 is a long way off as we do need to get our ducks in a row first. But who has ever cared about informed opinion when political manouvering is involved?
