As we all know, the referendum was called to attempt to heal, or cauterize, the split in the Tory party. Our new PM is continuing business as usual, refusing to reveal anything. This gives the illusion that she is competent and in control before we start the real hard graft of negotiation.
Her real objective is to be all things to all men, thus avoiding further splits within the Tory party. Thankfully, people like Ken Clarke are harder to silence.
In reality of course, she is completely out of her depth and surrounded by three blind mice pulling her every which way.
Bored journalists, starved of news from insiders, are trawling through the archives and finding statement after statement showing that the leading protagonists have been changing their views like weather vanes. Who was it told a Goldman Sach's audience earlier this year that leaving the EU would be an economic disaster? Oh yes, it was the former Home Secretary, now PM. So she can stand with Boris on the 'changed your position a little haven't you dear' step. Why should I believe anything you say? Integrity? Forget it.
Over the last few days the fog has occasionally lifted but then collapsed in a mess.
Nicola Sturgeon joined a meeting at No 10 to open discussions about the way forward. She came out and described the talks as deeply frustrating, declaring that there was no noticeable plan. To add embarrassment to the government's position, she then reported to the Scottish Parliament that the so-called hotline to the Brexit department had taken 36 hours to return her call. Do you think we are as casual with the Nuclear War hotline?
John McDonnell, for Labour, echoed Nicola's thoughts by saying that the government was making things up as they went along. He has noticed at last. Good.
Chancellor Philip Hammond rocked the boat by appearing to discount a hard Brexit. He received the PM's 'full support'. Poor man. He has to go back to the Treasury which is probably explaining to him just how ghastly things look. He has already dropped the Manifesto promise of reducing the deficit within this parliamentary term.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd joined the PM in saying that the aim was to get migration down to the 'tens of thousands'. Theresa May failed to achieve this as Home Secretary. She seems determined to deliver on the targets which she failed in her previous job. Perhaps someone should remind her that the target was set her by the former PM and nobody now believes anything he says.
The government was not totally successful in not revealing its negotiating hand. The big news of the week was that Nissan had received unspecified assurances from the PM which encouraged them to continue to invest in the UK.
'Incredulous', was the general reaction to the news which led to further stonewalling when Minister Greg Clarke was asked to reveal the content of a letter to the company.
Can we assume that there is now another Brexit shopping list which includes special treatment for the City of London, car manufacturers and ... ? The list will only get longer. Fishing rights are sure to be on the agenda once someone explains the issue (slowly) to George Eustace.
The preliminary decision to permit a third runway at Heathrow also caused flurries. Several cabinet ministers were on record as opposing this. The previous PM had promised no third runway, 'no is,no buts'. Ah, but that was then and this is now. I recall being promised no fourth terminal, many years ago with much the same level of assurance.
The thought of Boris lying down in front of the bulldozers was just too joyful to contemplate. The resignation of the poisonous Zac Goldsmith and the forthcoming by-election in Richmond is going to be a wonderful side-show.
Despite the government's attempts not to allow Parliament any say in Brexit matters, the Commons was allowed one vote: a Early Day Motion asking that EU citizens should have the right to remain in the UK was voted down by 293 to 250. So they can still be used as bargaining 'cards'. No doubt Liam Fox is delighted.
He will be less delighted to be reminded by a Polish MEP that he could not start negotiating a new arrangement with the EU until we had left.
There were also several good news pieces by those who should know, pointing out just how complex it would be to set up trade agreements. Somehow, it is hard to have confidence that Liam Fox could even get to first base with them.
Of course, it would be good to know whether we are aiming to have access to the Single Market in future (as promised by some Brexiteers) or not (as suggested by others).
A witty article by Damien McGuinness explained one of the big problems faced by British negotiators: the difference between a Germany No and a British No. One means 'No', the other means 'Please try and persuade me'. No wonder our European friends do not understand us. Mind you, I am not sure I do either.
The pound is now trading at a 30 year low, 15% below its value in June.Microsoft (and others) are beginning to put up their prices, recognising that this is likely to be the new reality.
To conclude, three cheerful posts from like-minds caught the eye:
- Some one called James Christie explains why the referendum question and answer were flawed and how undemocratic they are
- John van Reenan formerly of the LSE describes himself as a derided expert takes a longer and wider look at the referendum and the drivers for the result
- And finally, Polly Toynbee points out that the public are turning against Brexit and wonders when Theresa May will listen. Optimistic, perhaps, but at least she is prepared to say the unthinkable: it is not a question of what sort of Brexit. The question should be Brexit or no Brexit? The right (compassionate, economically-informed, global, responsible, peaceful, co-operative) answer is obvious
