I had reason to be awake in the night (even as teenagers offspring can get ill) and so I began doodling a mindmap on the choices available on Brexit. This resulted:
Click on the image and then click the resulting screen again and you will get a large version. Alternatively, this is the bullet-pointed version:
- There are only three Brexit choices left
- Accept the EU offer (Accept)
- Leave without a deal (Leave)
- Remain in the EU (Remain)
- Leave requires no action; the passage of time will deliver it and we supposedly have legislation in place to manage it.
- Accepting the EU offer requires a parliamentary vote in favour. It seems incredibly unlikely that this will be secured. This option, then, seems to be dead.
- Remain would require a second referendum in practical political terms even if the first was not legally binding.
- Leave appears to have very little parliamentary support:
- Maybe 50 or so Tory MPs
- Maybe 5 hardcore believers in Labour and 10 or so whose constituencies are hard core Leave
- Maybe to DUP
- It is officially opposed by the Tories, Labour, SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Greens. Sin Fein will not vote.
- Once Accept ceases to be an option because most of these parties also oppose it, and because renegotiation is not possible by 29 March, then since these parties also oppose Leave only Remain is a viable option for them.
- Remain requires a second referendum to be popularly legitimate. The question is what is the question that a second referendum is asked to decide upon?
- Since Accept will have been resoundingly rejected by parliament it seems hard to have it on the ballot paper.
- There has to be an option other than Remain in the ballot paper. If it is nit Accept it has to be Leave. This is despite the fact that there is even less parliamentary for it than there is for Accept.
- Remain has to be an option or only leave options, in varying forms, are presented.
- In other words, given the pressure of time only Remain and Leave (which is hard Brexit, which few ever thought the original referendum was about) can now be considered as options for a vote.
- This creates a conundrum.
- Who would fund Leave?
- Has it a viable election mechanism?
- What will the rules be?
- Would the EU extend Article 50 if an election was not possible by 29 March?
- And what is the likely outcome i.e, can this risk be taken by parliament?
- The risk of a vote for Remain
- There is no risk in holding a second vote for Remainers. Accept is not going to happen. By default, and without further action Leave will - which exactly explains the actions of the far Right in the Tory party in creating as many distractions as possible now to waste time - and so losing a second vote is a risk free consequence for Remainers - because without the vote Leave will happen anyway.
- All the risk of a second vote is for Leavers then: they have everything to lose when the status quo is that they are winning.
- The risk of a second vote for many Remainers is that a vote for Leave will legitimise that course of action. C'est la vie: Leave is legitimate anyway. Parliament passed Article 50 notice and the EU exit act: Leave can and will happen without action being taken. Leave is legitimate now.
- The big risk of Remain wining is a violent reaction (and I mean violent reaction) from those who thought they were leaving and will not then do so as a result of a democratic decision. Given that the issue for many who wish to Leave is one of national (mainly English) identity this has to be accepted as a possibility. A minority could react in this way. It is not a reason to give up a democratic process. What has to be explained is why this change of course is necessary. That, though, will be projected as Project Fear 2.
- This issue apart there is no reason not to go for the vote. I say that thinking there is at best a 50% cha nice of Remain winning. I am not optimistic. I do want resolution. I want Leave to be properly chosen if that is what we are to do - so no argument remains. And if people want to change their minds and that is what the whole basis if democracy is - then I also want that possibility to be exercised given that so much more is known now than it was when this whole process began.
- My choice then?
- A second referendum with two choices:
- Remain
- Or Leave with no deal.
- Only Michel Barnier really loses. And he has always said he would rather we remained.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
While I “remain” of the opinion I have held all along that leaving the EU is too difficult to do, so we stay, the “May option” has an interesting attractiveness to an Independinista like myself:
The UK leaves the EU on the terms that are currently in offer. The independence campaign starts. To the question of trade, the answer is now very simple. We ask Europe to stay in the customs union on the same terms as Less Britain. We tell them that after independence we may well seek full membership if the people of Scotland chose to. We do NOT (this is the bit I like the best) have to negotiate with Westminster at all. They are in the customs union, but have no say as to who is also in the customs union.
Astonishing as it seems to a dedicated remainer, the above seems attractive and practical.
I totally agree with Richard’s analysis and am sad but not surprise that the first comment on it refuses to address the issue for what it is but instead treats it as a tactical opportunity to further some other political end. Unfortunately, I suspect that many others would do likewise.
As an aside Richard, how would you feel about a 3-way people’s vote with single transferrable voting? I don’t like the idea but it would be interesting to hear your and other contributors’ thoughts.
I have suggested it previously and commentators here rejected it out of hand
I can’t see why people can’t list priorities 1, 2 and 3 but apparently many think that too hard
I watched the Fintan O’Toole interview someone posted on here last week and it was very illuminating about referendums. As he rightly points out referenda are alien to British culture but meat and drink to the Irish. Cameron should have taken Irish advice before embarking on the Brexit referendum and we would not be in this mess now. Particularly the leave side should have articulated precisely what a vote for them would mean. The Irish approach would be to offer the public your choice of 3 options in a referendum and if no one choice secured a majority the top two would have a run off vote a short time later. Seems very straightforward and democratic.
Michel Barnier seems to have undergone gender reassignment 🙂
You suggest under conundrums: Who would fund ‘Leave’. That didn’t seem to be a problem last time.
More of a problem perhaps is who would lead the case for Remain. And how would that be funded ?
Both sides of the argument would need to be funded by government, and spending would need to be closely monitored. And something would have to be done to ensure the impartiality of the BBC,
The referendum has left us in the ridiculous position of having a Remainer supervising the Leave process without even her own party’s backing.
The EU has said, has it not that that the Article 50 deadline would be extended to allow a second referendum or general election to take place?
I think another referendum would be a nonsense, as the first one was. What is required is a general election with two cross-party alignments of laying out the case for Leave and Remain. The winning coalition then responsible for implementing policy with its mandate. This won’t happen because tribal loyalties will prevent its even being considered.
The only satisfactory solution to my mind is to go back to membership as was while we sort out our own governance then embark upon the withdrawal proposition if it has backing, or attempt to negotiate terms which mean the UK (if there still is one) is comfortable remaining as part of the EU.
It has a kind of parallel with the current situation in Northern Ireland, where the devolved parliament is suspended. We simply accept Brussels rules until we sort out or differences.
The much called for standard GE is not going to solve anything as far as I can see since voters will be offered a choice of Leave -the Tory-way or Leave-the-Labour way. Both parties are split on the issue and neither seems likely to be able to deliver amicably.
It really is time we grasped this opportunity to put our house in order and designed party alignments fit for the 21st rather than the 19th century.
Gender reassigned – darned autocorrect!
I’d go with that. Go back to membership as was whilst we sort out our own governance. Quite how that happens I don’t know. In my ideal, a cross-party coalition leading to a combination of PR, a realignment/break-up of the major parties and much more regional government including within England
One can but hope
Sure the EU has made it practically impossible to leave. There is a certain Irony however that the EU is imploding in slow motion with the stand off v Italy. The structural faults inherent in the EU has contributed more to the growth of the right wing across Europe than anything else post WW2. This isn’t going to go away..actually to reform in a way which could harmonise Europe, starting with abandoning the euro and Germany paying “reparations” for the damage it has caused to Southern Europe, just isn’t going to happen. The EU has caused outright misery for so many people the discontent will get stronger. Brexit is a sideshow to what’s happening in Italy and yet so many want to point to Britain as a disruptive element to an otherwise universally happy Europe. This is far from the truth. The EU model is flawed for The Southern countries so much so it will break it is just a matter of when.
Please don’t equate the euro and EU
It really is a very basic error
We are not in the euro
Very well thought out Richard – amazing how clarity of thought and inspiration can happen in the wee hours (my theory is there is no pressure of day to day living so the brain has the freedom of creativity). And I do like a nice logical progression – nicely set out.
I was watching a presentation by Alyn Smith MEP to a small group last night, I won’t post a link unless you request it (it’s on you tube if required, but Scottish things and the SNP in particular tends to induce such hostility, best to leave it out). He was explaining and clarifying a few things Brexit – his stance is of course that Brexit shouldn’t happen, but if it must then it should be done with the least pain (my interpretation).
Some key points from him, someone inside the EU system, that maybe could be taken into consideration:
1. There is a (cross-party) legal submission on revocability of Art. 50, which the uk government is fighting against – we should all bear in mind that this uk government has thrown millions of pounds of uk tax payer money at legal fees in various courts for various things to do with ensuring democracy does not affect them – which also involves the idea that article 50 period might be extended. Art. 50 has an absolute time restriction, but if this can be extended, then laws can be continued and internal fractions (to the uk) can be resolved before negotiation, and there is still inside contact with the EU. As soon as we are out, we are treated as an external country. The Supreme Court (? one of them anyway) should make a ruling just before the vote in parliament on the withdrawal agreement.
2. This is only the exit agreement, not negotiations on trade deals. These are the basics – pay your dues, ensure the good Friday agreement is not broken, and ensure EU citizens rights.
3. The idea that there are only two choices – this deal or no deal – is false. There is no reason for there to be a no-deal, further negotiations are possible. Theresa May’s proposal is a bad deal – perhaps on purpose to try and force a no-deal? I am suspicious that her hedge fund manager husband might be driving much of her idealology, and it is that strata that stand to gain an awful lot from a no deal situation. (Sorry, I will try to keep on subject, there is so much that could be said about possible motivations!)
4. All British politicians have lost their standing and credibility worldwide because of the U.K. government’s lack of integrity, competence and engagement over Brexit. Wider ramifications are no support within the UN, and other countries with little interest in giving good trade deals in the future. This is already done. If it can ever be undone, I wouldn’t know. Arrogance and superiority is certainly not going to save the day.
5. Leaving the EU suddenly became a whole lot more under the vacuous statement ‘Brexit means Brexit’ – leaving the customs union, leaving the free market, leaving the ECHR (this, I believe, is T Mays own personal need, she fought tooth and nail with them when she was Home Secretary, I believe she hates human rights) – wider ramifications are that this means being out of EURATOM (sp?) and a myriad of other bodies, collaborative and funding bodies – if this was the plan, there should have been mechanisms in place and policies on how to deal with each at least after 2 years you’d have hoped so. Hah. Alyn made the point that e.g. Norway has to pay in individually to each thing, the beaurocracy they deal with is immense (I watched a committee meeting of the Lords where they interviewed a Norwegian diplomat on this).
5. This is all to do with internal Tory party politics, with no thought of what is the best for the country or even for what people want (two distinct things, it seems). As above, this has lost all uk politicians any kind of respect worldwide. It may be being driven by others orbiting – not in the public eye – the Tory party.
6. Any further referendum has to be debated in Westminster and the questions decided on – a repeat of leave-remain is unlikely to resolve anything. A new referendum could also include ‘stay in customs union’ and other such nuances. Mechanisms for presenting a bill may be in the making.
7. The best deal, economically and culturally, IS to stay in the EU. Any other deal will be a worse deal. But if leaving the EU is necessary, there a plenty of different deals to be had, IF the government were to actually engage in negotiations.
Well, that was my interpretation of some of Alyn Smiths points. As usual, what we are told in the news, and in particular the BBC, is not what is actually happening. That our supposed democracy means that the Tories still appear to get a lot of popular support is sad. Labour cannot be relied on to show any kind of coherence on Brexit. Those are your choices. A Tory government, supported by the state broadcaster, has destroyed the uk international reputation. And in many cases supported by Labour. The politicians need to grow up.
You refer to violence Richard – that has been perpetuated and made acceptable, that vile unthinking hatred of anything ‘other’, by the government of the day. I get too upset thinking about what they have done to social security, poverty, disabled rights, the English NHS, and a whole host of things, I don’t want to comment, but just to say that the uk government language demonstrates their desire for others to hate as much as they do. But, the government of the day COULD mitigate and make hatred and violence unacceptable behaviours.
I probably haven’t helped here, and I do prefer your clarity of thought on the issues! A further vote on the issue, yes maybe this is the only option that might be open but maybe not the remain-no deal choice?
I think what would be more important is a complete change and tighter regulation on how Westminster politics works – that is the root cause, and the fact the wider public feel powerless to change it, shows it is not a true democratic institution. (If only).
Thanks – please post the link
Alyn Smith MEP on Brexit
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VarqZNknsTg&feature=youtu.be
Bear in mind it is just a small local meeting, so a relaxed setting and the recording a bit glitchy.
Thanks
Further to the Art.50 court case – I did indeed get my courts mixed up. The case was taken to the court of sessions, to get it referred to the European court of justice, so that the court of sessions could make a ruling on the matter. The U.K. Government made the appeal to the Supreme Court, here is a link (the full text is even fairly brief)-
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal-application-for-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union-v-wightman-and-others.html
Which they have just lost, and were never likely to win, because you can’t appeal something that hasn’t been already ruled on! Why on earth did the government waste time and (our) money on this? Wonder if the news will mention this,,,
The ECHR is not part of the negotiations and the UK will remain a participant; this is confusing the ECHR with the European Court of Justice.
John Harris has (another) good article in the Grauniad today
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/brexit-class-labour-conservative-leave-peoples-vote
It’s something that many of us have pondered. The relative silence in the face of lies and deceptions told with the purpose of rigging a democratic process. Not that such things are new. Austerity was based on a misdirection after all.
Perhaps what we need is a pause. A pause of anything brexit to allow, and it would have to be speedy, for a commission to investigate all the campaigns involved and report back to the population. Any offenders could be barred from taking any further part in any campaigns. This year we have imprisoned people for protesting against fracking, mostly by sitting in the road. Surely what we have seen in the Europe referendum is a much greater threat? Once the report has been published and digested, we could have another vote.
The sad thing is the result might be the same. Go ahead, piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.
Agreed
Agree re John Harris – his Anywhere But Westminster series of videos has been very thoughtful. His family background in West Cumbria and South Wales also helps (Ive spoken to him)
Agree re John Harris – his Anywhere But Westminster series of videos has been very thoughtful. His family background in West Cumbria and South Wales also helps (Ive spoken to him). He gets it
Very good analysis, which I agree with including your lack of optimism in Remain winning a second vote.
However I noticed today that Rightmove are saying asking prices for houses are declining… if people (Daily Mail readers especially) start thinking that Brexit is damaging their property values then I could see a swift shit against Brexit!
(Maybe I awoke a bit too optimistic this morning!)
Maybe….
Worth also reading John Harris’s article from paragraph seven on, as he comes to much the same conclusion, Richard, though his comments about what Labour has to do are also accurate I think. Sadly, I doubt Corbyn can bring himself to take the required action, although possibly he could be pursuaded.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/brexit-class-labour-conservative-leave-peoples-vote
(The rest of the piece is also spot on too).
Agreed
Very well argued
I find this idea of a violent reaction to remaining after after another vote unlikely. If Rees Mogg wants to riot he stands to lose more than many of us have ever had! leavers are overwhelmingly older than even he is and overwhelmingly – if they vote at all – Conservative voters. I doubt they are especially violent.
People like the EDL are of course but are there really enough of them? I suppose they could resort to bombing. But as you point out, that should not be a reason to prevent a vote. Fishermen having to be physically courageous in their everyday lives, could arguably turn nasty I suppose but surely they now realise that the EU is our biggest and pretty much only export market for fish? and the UK catch is often sold more profitably there with things like squid having virtually no UK sales!
I wouldn’t underestimate the propensity for humans to commit irrational acts of counter-productive aggression, which can escalate into wider violence taking on a momentum all of its own. Think soccer hooliganism. Violence is never logical.
The past 2 years suggest extreme Brexiteers are uncompromising and want OUT at any social or economic cost (which they deny, of course). They loathe the EU with an irreconcilable emotional fervour. No ifs, no buts. “I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts”. And they know exactly which buttons to push in order to recruit from the larger ranks of less extreme Brexit voters.
Hence, it’s difficult to see how this episode in our history can end peacefully. I’m afraid Cameron and cronies – possibly unwittingly – opened up a Pandora’s Box. “Sow the wind. Reap the whirlwind.” Epithets abound!
Maybe I’m feeling overly pessimistic having just watched the remastered series of Ken Burns’ brilliant documentary ‘The Civil War’ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098769). However, in 1860 no American could have possibly anticipated the mass slaughter of their fellow countrymen that ensued over the following 5 years. While historical analogies are never totally relevant in terms of actual outcomes, but they provide a valuable insight into the human behaviour that triggers them.
Before the grammar gestapo arrest me – ‘proverb’ not ‘epithet 🙂
Peter May says:
“I find this idea of a violent reaction to remaining after after another vote unlikely.”
Apparently Sadiq Khan agrees with you, Peter. Or maybe he’s just banking on there not being another vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/19/boris-johnson-unused-water-cannon-sold-for-scrap-at-300000-loss?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR1CjDDU9fE_jkCDbinhC-7U8lxh4QwuftLUIDLrjwGu8OVd0xLW4o2A9vQ
I see the predicted rebellion by the hard Brexiteers has, surprise, surprise, failed to materialise Andy – those 48 letters seem to be mysteriously thin on the ground. And in the same vein, I really doubt there’ll be riots if Brexit never happens (here’s hoping), so I see where Sadiq Khan is coming from.
Or perhaps I’m wrong, and he’s selling the water cannon because Johnson wasted yet more public money on old junk not fit for use. Maybe there’ll be hordes of enraged Leavers screaming that they’ve been denied their golden unicorns and platinum encrusted flying pigs.
I voted LEAVE – for my own reasons – although then, as now, I didn’t think that giving the People the responsibility (legally binding or not), of deciding on such an important matter, was a very good idea – giving that, even if perfect information (both for and against) had been both available and disseminated, the vast majority would have ignored it (as, I believe, happened with the threat of a ‘punishment budget’ and the ‘promise’ written on the side of the bus) – and that Parliament should have ‘manned’ up, and have done its job.
Force Parliament to decide (if possible – is it too late?). Hopefully that way the anger that’s expressed (and, as Richard, I believe there will quite a lot if it decides, as it would, to Remain) will be directed towards it, and not taken out on it’s citizens (including MPs, Police, etc.).
Hope your teenager(s) make quick recovery.
Meanwhile, thanks to you for an incisive analysis – just wish there was any politician in the three main political parties who was capable of such in-depth reasoning.
And tomorrow I am still supposed to be having my right knee fully replaced. Today’s post has arrived – no last-minute cancellation unless there’s one waiting for me in the hospital at 7a.m. tomorrow…
Should be back in the land of the just-about living on Thursday or Friday.
Good luck
Take care
Allow time for recovery
But I know how amazingly liberating this can be – so look forward to it after the pain!
@Jennifer (aka Jeni, Havantaclu) Parsons
Best wishes with the op. Don’t be brave accept all the painkillers you can get 🙂
You shall go to the ball 🙂
Good luck Jeni and do the exercises too
As a role model, a close friend and cycling mate had one done and we were cycling in the Alps less than 6 months later! Had the other one done the next year. He was ruthless on the exercise front but it worked
George,
Not sure how this reply thing works, so while this is addressed to you it may turn up almost anywhere. “Some other political end” is the lifetime’s aspiration, work, and political campaigning issue for many of us. The choice of being in the European Union was denied to us in Scotland after we were promised that the only way we could stay in Europe was to vote “no” in 2014. Voting 62% in favour of staying in Europe, and only NI being offered the single market + £1bn for their votes sums it all up nicely. Everything Richard says is true BTW. If you are in South Britain, I am genuinely sorry you have to deal with these Tory/Ukip imperial nutters, but up here we have a life raft and I believe must get on it immediately. Feel free to join us.
On a related tangent why is more being made of Rees-Mogg moving some of his financial operations to Eire? If, indeed, it is true.
Is that ‘isn’t’? I have been rung about it….
Yes, should read isn’t.
One thing I would dispute is that May’s agreement “seems incredibly unlikely that this will be secured.” Much as I agree that it’s a terrible option, I also think that MPs are supine, fearful and spineless enough to vote it through (perhaps on a second attempt for added “drama”), because they (wrongly) think it’s a way to just get over Brexit.
Maybe Labour should think the unthinkable ( below) if only to avoid a General Election completely focused on Brexit, which wouldn’t necessarily go well for us ?
Agree to support the proposed deal which essentially means that there will be no change in anything until the end of 2020. What happens after 2020 is still subject to ongoing negotiations.
In return for supporting the deal Labour would expect a place/ places in the negotiating team. Should also insist on an emergency spending programme for the period of negotiations, to prop up public services and to crank up the transition to a no carbon economy ( as outlined in the Green Transition document )
The above is unlikely to be agreed by the Prime Minister and her diminished team ( but who knows? ) . In the likely event that such an offer is rejected then Labour would participate in voting the deal down,on the basis that it has no confidence in the Tories negotiating a satisfactory deal on their own. Labour would be likely to defeat the deal in an uncomfortable alliance with Tory Brexiteers the SNP and angry Ulster Unioinists, and attempt to fight the subsequent likely General Election on wider ground than simply ‘in’ or ‘out’ .
I don’t see how no deal could be allowed onto the ballot paper.
When people talk about how planes would not be able to fly leavers say that’s ridiculous, of course planes could still fly — and they are correct — planes would still fly, because there would be a mini-deal to ensure they do. So that’s not no deal.
Of course when people say no deal, they mean there should still be agreements on ensuring the supermarket shelves aren’t empty, people still get their medicine, and so on.
But once you start with the things that obviously there would have to be an agreement on, the list keeps getting longer and no one is sure exactly where the cut off point is.
So you could either have no deal on the ballot paper that means no deal, no mini deals, no agreements on anything — people wouldn’t get their medicine and could die, planes would be grounded, there would be gridlock at the ports, legal chaos, uncertainty for EU 27 citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU 27, and so on — or, you have no deal meaning deal no-deal, but then who defines exactly what would be agreed in the event of no deal?
Unless you mean people not getting medicine and grounded planes etc then no deal cannot be clearly defined, and the lesson of the last referendum is that it’s a mistake to include an option on the ballot paper that is not clearly defined. The only options on the ballot paper should be clearly definable.
Remain obviously can be clearly defined.
As can May’s deal.
The only other viable options with so little time are off the shelf arrangements — so single market and customs union or Canada with a sea border. The former is pointless because we stay in these institutions without a say in the decisions, while the latter gets closest to what the Brexiters want without allowing people to vote for the no deal chaos, but the problem is that this option would create a sea border against the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, so would it be fair to include an option that allows the majority to impose it’s will on the Northern Irish minority?
There are no perfect options, but I think the least bad option is remain versus May’s deal with a mandate to implement SuperCanada+++ once Brexiters can demonstrate that the technology they claim exists can sort out the border. That’s the hardest Brexit I can see being a viable option for the ballot without either the no deal chaos or imposing a sea border against the wishes of Northern Ireland.
I am a Remainer, but I have a lot of problems with this Richard:
1) I accept that Accept will be beaten.
2a) You have left out an important step – MP’s have to vote for there to be a 2ndEURef. I see that as equally unlikely.
2b) You have also left out an important consequence – there will be lawlessness on the scale of the Poll Tax riots at least if we go to a 2ndEURef before March ’19, Remain wins and Brexit is called off. The thought of that will put off a lot of first time Remainer MPs. (Also, it doesn’t really lance the boil: the call for Re-Brexit at some point will remain unless the result is resoundingly Remain, say above 66%).
3) You have admitted that the Hard Brexiteers just have to stall and distract and nothing else, and at the end of March we just leave. That, then becomes the most likely outcome. It will happen… unless…
This is what I believe will actually happen:
1) Accept (May’s deal) is beaten by MPs – majority of 50-100.
2) There will be horrendous noise, May will face a challenge, Labour call for a GE, lots of calls for a 2ndEURef. It will all be beaten back when May decides to stick and wins the Tory leadership poll.
3) By this time it will be middle of January (at the earliest). May goes to Brussels and wins some concessions that the EU were keeping in their back pocket – possibly some quick wins that were going to form part of a post transition deal (security, fishing rights that are especially good for North Sea communities, etc.)
4) May puts a new and improved Accept deal to MPs: she offers them do or die for real, my way or the highway. MP’s terrified of ‘no deal’ get the vote through for the improved Accept
The upside for Remainers is that we are so closely aligned to the EU that 5 – 10 years down the line we may be able to make a case for going back in.
I accept the possibility
Richard, if thats what you can produce blearyeyed at 2 in the morning, I nominate you as Brexit Secretary.
How long is the appointment? More than 2 weeks?
You’d get more done in 2 weeks than the others did!
Not hard!