Back to reality

On March 29th, Brexit happens. As a simple matter of International Law, the articles of the European Union will no longer apply to the UK (and Gibraltar). If the UK does nothing else, this still happens. At the moment, no one is suggesting stopping Brexit. Not the PM, as leader of the Conservative Party, nor Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party.

It is likely that this attitude might change, or change forced upon May by Parliament as they finally get to finish the debate on her WA which was negotiated with the EU. If MPs reject it, as it seems they might, then it makes both no deal and no Brexit much more likely. But, as no deal Brexit requires no effort on the part of May, her Government or of the Brexiteers, then no deal is more likely.

If Parliament "instructs" the Government to do something else, withdraw A50 or suspend it, then it is probable that the Government would challenge that, so we would be left with the biggest constitutional crisis since 1940, maybe ever, as to who is supreme in our constitution.

And there would be about two months to sort it out.

Or Brexit would happen.

Anyway.

Brexit, or leaving the EU by using A50 has to be done in accordance with the leaving country's constitution, if it was n't clear as to which is supreme, and one wanted to leave, and the other didn't, then maybe the EU would suspend A50, or say it would, as a suspension had to be asked for by the UK. We could be in a position where the Government wants Brexit to go ahead, and Parliament doesn't.

Some potentially crazy days ahead.

And for what its worth, what I would like to see are two things:

1. Evidence based decision making. Looking at projections from, say the DExEU, The Treasury and the Bank of England all saying that all forms of Brexit, even the mildest, are economically damaging, and then saying, on the record, that upon reflection, Brexit is sill, and lets not go there. And for the media to give accurate balance not to each side of the argument, but to, for example, the three impact assessments mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. I mean there are two arguments for a flat earth, but we don't give 50% to the flat earthers as well as scientists. There are two arguments for Global warming, 95% of science saying its real, and 5% saying its hokum. We don't give both sides equal time there, so why should we in Brexit where almost all economic and financial experts, reports say Brexit is bad, and people like Gove, Fox and the IFS says it is good, why do the BBC say, give the latter more than 50% of their time when the majority of the economic, political and financial world think UK has lost its collective mind?

2. Tell the truth. And back up with what politicians say with facts to show they're telling the truth. And the media calling out lies for being lies, and calling lies lies because that's what they are. Not mis-speaking. Lying. And, you know, maybe looking at politicians prior words on a subject and see if it still tallies up. I mean its not hard. And joined to (2) the media actually employing people who understand the subject they're supposed to be questioning about. If a journalist can't understand that the WTO options isn't a "deal" that what hope does the populace have?