Both Houses of Parliament have cravenly caved in to the bullying by the whips and given our PM the right to do just about anything she likes with Brexit. She alone can decide whether 'the deal' we manage to negotiate - if any - will be 'the best deal' and can implement it without any parliamentary scrutiny or agreement by voters.
Others have pointed out the absurdity that every other country in Europe will have the right to vote on the deal but we, the people most affected by it, will not. He ho for democracy.
We have triggered Article 50 without, apparently, there being any plan in place for right up to the wire David Davis was mumbling and prevaricating to the Parliamentary Select Committee, admitting that his Department had not done any work on a whole range of issues.
The Article 50 letter - a distinctly poor piece of drafting - contained veiled threats which went straight up the noses of the other Members of the EU and caused our government to 'clarify' things which is usually a synonym for 'tactical retreat'.
The view from the rest of the world was a combination of shock and disappointment. A correspondent in the the Washington Post put his finger on the Britain's delusions of empire.
Then we had 'Gibraltar-gate' and Lord Howard got out his rusty sabre to threaten Spain with an invasion.
At a more detailed level, we have seen Davis et al, 'clarifying' a whole range of issues including, apparently, that migration will not be stopped. Health workers: a special case. Coffee shop baristas: a special case. Highly skilled scientists: a special case. Students: let's take them out of the reckoning.
I seem to remember David Davis saying at the despatch box that we would have 'exactly the same trade deal' as before. It now seems he did not mean 'exactly' the same deal as before. He meant that the deal would be even better.
What he did not say is what that deal would be or how one would judge whether it was 'exactly the same', 'the same' or worse. Any one of them would of course be 'much better' because DD would say that it was and the PM would then activate it with her sweeping powers. Hey ho for democracy or logic. Never let facts get in the way of a good spin.
Meanwhile, we have seen a whole string of former ministers saying that things have gone too far. Lord Heseltine, freed from his role in the party is now peeing into the tent as hard as he can. Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, John Major, Lord Patten - an alliance that on could only dream about - is united in its opposition. Sadly the numbskulls simply respond with lines like 'yesterday's men'. Playing the man and not the ball as usual.
Chris Patten's piece in The World Economic Forum was particularly good.
A bunch of Leavers tried the same when they took exception to the gloomy conclusions of the Select Committee report and simply walked out. In a response in the New Statesman, Pat MacFadden took them to task and suggested that they should face up to the arguments and not simply walk out.
All of this was well summed up in an article on the Citizen of Nowhere blog which asked Are you angry yet? This concluded that:
- We’re not going to gain sovereignty, we’re going to lose it (the government's own paper was honest to admit that we have always had sovereignty even if it has not felt like it)
- We’re not going to reduce immigration
- We’re not going to get better trade arrangements than we already have
- We’re not going to save the money we send to the EU
- We are going to lose a lot of money and a lot of jobs
- We may break up the UK
All of which begs the age-old question: then why are we leaving the EU? Oh yes, because we voted for it.
Why?
Why?
