Theresa May said, following the High Court ruling – that triggering Article 50 (to start the process of leaving the European Union) would require a vote in Parliament – that she was determined to deliver Brexit in full. What on earth does she mean?
Yes, it means we will stop electing members of the European Parliament. We will withdraw from the institutions of the EU, including the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Court of Justice.
UK citizens will no longer be recruited to the EU civil service. EU agencies in the UK will be relocated.
Mrs May has repeatedly said that the people of Britain had voted to end freedom of movement. How the heck does she know what drove the 17 million who voted Leave?
Boris Johnson said he simply wanted to secure a better working relationship with the EU. “On the subject of cake, I am in favour of having it and eating it”, he said.
Michael Gove, by contrast, not only wants the UK to turn its back on the EU, but hopes that move will trigger the disintegration of the EU.
I have always supported European co-operation. The EU was always more than an economic club.
It was political, a reinforcement of democracy and a bulwark against totalitarianism, a framework for cultural exchange and a means of promoting European influence in the world in a post imperial age.
It has its flaws, aggravated by the financial crash and lack of financial discipline, but it helped lead the former Soviet satellites out of the darkness of the Iron Curtain into the democratic light.
The outcome of the referendum does not change my view that Britain’s and the EU’s interests are best served by our being an active member.
The Act of Parliament that paved the way for the referendum was advisory. I recognise that, by a narrow margin, people voted to leave but the Government should set out how we are going to do that.
However, as a nation, we should reserve the right to reconsider if it becomes apparent that the outcome is deeply damaging to the UK’s interests.
A group in Germany is urging Angela Merkel to offer the UK concessions on free movement. It may not get anywhere as it will require a change to the rules for all member states to be acceptable.
But it might open the way to the UK continuing within the single market and so lower the risks of losing investment and financial institutions.
It would almost certainly mean the UK continuing to contribute to the EU and would, of course, mean conforming to single market rules, which, if we have left, we would no longer influence.
It is too early to call the outcome of the referendum benign or otherwise.We haven’t left yet. So far there has been a ten per cent deterioration in the value of the pound, which, combined with the rising oil price has already put 10p on a litre.
Food prices are set to rise and even the boost to exports may be minimal, because so much of the products we trade have significant imported element.
We do not know what assurances the Government gave Nissan to build new models in the UK or what it may cost.
We are surely entitled to know how the Government propose to balance continuation in the single market against free movement and if the price for “controlling our borders” is to be shut out of the single market with the likely transfer of jobs and investment out of the UK.
If that were the case, then the Government should surely explain where the compensating jobs and investment will come from.
Keynes said; “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do?” If it becomes clear that the cost of leaving the EU is deeply damaging and there is evidence that the public mood shifts back to remain or at least stay closely engaged, it is surely undemocratic for the Government to insist that one vote on June stands for all time.
There is no short cut for Scotland we have to fight for common sense across the UK.
Second piece: Aid spending subject to the law
Pritti Patel, the International Development Secretary, has said she wants to use the aid budget to promote trade and investment, but she is prepared to underspend and will stamp out misspending and corruption.
She seems to be unaware that she is constrained by legislation in terms of what she can do. She is also, by implication, trashing the record of her predecessors.
Under British law, UK aid must not be tied to domestic political or commercial interests and should be focused on poverty reduction.
The Government must spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on aid, promote gender equality and report annually to Parliament.
Official Development Assistance is defined by the OECD Development Advisory Committee and promoting UK trade and investment would not count.
What the UK spends on development assistance is undergoing its second five-year review. It may lead to a change in which countries and agencies receive more or less of our aid spend.
Time will tell whether Ms Patel is engaged in slash and burn of the aid budget or high flown rhetoric.
As we turn our back on Europe, it would give a very negative signal if we turned away from the world’s poor for which the UK has a proud record of delivering.
Third piece: Traditional Western values under attack
Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. So it seems. The financial crash has cast a long shadow that has given us the rise of UKIP, the SNP, populist movements across Europe and ultimately Brexit and Trump.
This is characterised by pandering to nationalism and stirring up resentment against both the perceived elite and outsiders rather than recognising individual rights and liberties, pluralism and diversity.
In the ascendant now, it demonstrates the tyranny of the majority.
It seems that once secure Western values are under attack from inside and cannot be taken for granted. Vladimir Putin, a ruthless, aggressive control freak is admired even as he threatens the Baltic States.
We are facing the prospect of the disintegration of the EU and NATO and conflict and disorder. Nothing lasts forever. The Roman Empire lasted 1000 years and collapsed in 25 to be followed by 1000 years of stagnation.
As a Liberal, I accept we must address alienation, not pander to it by stoking division. It will be harder than ever but never more necessary.