I don't know about Orville, but I have a suspicion about his monkey friend. Anyone calling themselves 'Cuddles' is probably some sort of sex pest.
What the fuck!? The thread formally known as "I haven't heard a single compelling reason for Britain to leave the EU." - Page 29
Couldn't help reading this using inner Partridge voice.
Personally I'm glad nothing ever came out about Tony Hart. That would have crushed me.
I don't think any of us have a right to be surprised, though.
Lots of fascinating parallels if you delve into the history of the various stalled, and then eventually successful, attempt to join the EEC in the 60s and 70s. The arguments on both sides of the are almost word for word, although we definitely got the dumbed down version this time around (plus a healthy dose of post-9/11 and Iraq War paranoia). There is a fascinating irony in the fact that it was economic malaise that provided the glue for the consensus to join in the 70s, and it was once again economic malaise that likely provoked many of the votes to leave.
Here is a good starting point for anyone interested in the history.
One of the things I used to think I could rely upon in this life was the knowledge that the Daily Mail was implacably in favour of Brexit, labelling anyone questioning of the wisdom of the thing a saboteur or traitor, and relegating any negative news to the smallest font and least read of its printed and electronic pages.
Now, it's as if the world has turned upside down. The second biggest story on its website.
That's got to be a sign even the Daily Mail is jumping off the bandwagon before it rolls over the cliff. It's about right timing wise... you could still spin this as 'incompetence' on the part of the negotiators and 'it would have gone alright with the right people', which makes you unequivocally backing this cluster fuck we've found ourselves in still not that much of an about face. Hell, they supported the Nazi's once, the Daily Mail can weather being on the wrong side of history with regards to Brexit.
It's blatantly clear that no-one in the ruling or media class actually wanted this. Those on the Brexit side were quite happy to bang the drum about immigrants and regulation to further their sales and agendas, but now it is actually happening it's the last thing they want. If we actually completely left the EU, the Daily Mail and Sun news quota would be reduced by about 20% now they can't complain about Bendy Bananas and ECJ court rulings.
To summarise in turn your accurate summary of the situation...
What. A. Shitshow.
Philip Hammond, our Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister for anyone who doesn't know heraldry) is now saying the PM and Cabinet have not specifically discussed the relative merits of any of the possible outcomes of leaving the EU or any particular preference. His reasoning is that it would be premature to consider what the future might look like until the discussions on what that future may be have begun. Some might say it is precisely the possible outcomes that need to be considered and evaluated before you serve notice you are going to have choose between them.
A bit like doing assessments of the impact of leaving and the various end states on sectors of the economy. Which the Secretary of State For Exiting (Exciting?) the EU promised Parliament, and now says don't exist. Because, to paraphrase, just because you are looking at the impact of something doesn't make that an impact assessment and he was ordered to release impact assessments, so in fact he is complying by not releasing anything because they don't exist. Even though he previously said they did. 58 of them in fact.
Oh, and the Chancellor has just publicly promised to settle past liabilities regardless of the nature of the agreement on the future relationship with the EU. Which is a good thing to confirm, but unfortunately is also the diametric opposite of the language the British government tried to agree with the EU linking the liability payment and the outcome of future trade talks. Language they tried to agree only two days ago.
I think the Tories would possibly breathe a sigh of relief if they weren't to be in government on 31 March 2019. The Brexiteers are small in number even if they are loud in voice.
I think it might have been possible to safely exit the EU (notwithstanding my view of the complete lack of merit in doing so) with at least a ten to fifteen year lead in time for the internal debate to be had explicitly in the UK on what third party relationship the UK wants in the long term with the EU and other countries, probably also a necessary discussion amongst the EU28 about the long term design of the bloc, followed by the negotiation with the EU. Even that would have been tricky because the EU would most likely still have taken the utterly reasonable stance of saying we aren't going to talk about the future until you definitely say you are leaving. Might have helped somewhat if there had been anything like a genuine reason precipitating the need to reconsider the relationship and perhaps not choosing to generate bad blood by instigating the crisis as the EU continues to grapple with a number of other issues.
All water under the bridge now, though. Shitshow.
Who would have thought, indeed.
According to some Tories, you can solve it all with cameras and algorithms.
So Brexit is going well.
I mean, you literally couldn't make it up. Incompetence bordering on the criminal.