Westministenders: The Tory Civil War – The Knives Are Out Again. A Big Battle Looms.

[RedToothBrush]

Today has seen the publication of a story about how Johnson and Gove are holding May hostage in a ‘soft coup’ and have made various demands over what they want for a hard Brexit. The letter which was for May’s and Barwell’s eyes only has some how leaked. Don’t forget how Gove has just joined the Brexit Cabinet.

It comes at a time, when the Observer is also leading with an editorial demanding Johnson goes over his handling of the Nazarin Zagheri-Ratcliffe case as well as his long list of poorly judged comments which have had diplomatic consequences and another newspaper is leading with a story about how 40 Tories are ready to no-confidence May.

It all smacks of a personal battle between May and Johnson to govern the party, which has been playing out publicly for some time, most noticeable in the parallel Tory party conference leadership speeches and Johnson’s freelancing.

Johnson also seems to be potentially caught up, with what happens in the Mueller investigation due to a photo and lying about having met Misfud which could be politically damaging.

Priti Patel’s –sacking-- resignation also fits in neatly with the story. The Foreign Office were not informed and there is the curious side story that May DID know various details but told Patel to keep quiet, so not to embarrass the FCO. Or more to the point, be seen to be undermining Johnson.

Whether this is true or not we don’t know. It does have implications if its true, but it also says something if its not too. Why leak the story at all? Once again its about the Johnson v May dynamic.

As it stands, if Gove and Johnson have been leading May then why would they decide to ditch her and go for power without her?
Notably Gove has the best satisfaction scores of the Cabinet amongst Tories on Conservative Home too. He has had a lot of favourable comments over his statements over pesticides. The pair seem to have put differences aside and are working together. And May has become more and more of a liability. Johnson, also came second favourite to be Tory leader amongst Tories (if you discount don’t knows and none of the aboves). Maybe they fancy their chances…

Or it’s a last ditch attempt to cling on to that power as threats that Johnson might finally get the boot – if Zagheri-Ratcliffe does have her sentence extended and Johnson’s position is no longer tenable for even May’s self-preservation. Whilst much has been framed about it being about May’s political survival, its definitely not just her whose future is in doubt. Who was the ‘dead wood’, that young Tories demanded be ditched in a reshuffle to bring in young blood? Either way, Gove has firmly hitched his wagon to Johnson's effectively repeating Johnson's dismissal of Zagheri-Ratcliffe's case.

Anyway another week and another set of high political drama is a foregone conclusion.

A round up of other developments this week:

Tory Party / Government

1. May announces intention to enshrine Brexit leaving date in law to force rebels to tow the line. This has many implications, not least tax related and putting more pressure on the UK government. It’s generally regarded as a desperate move by anyone sane.
2. The Impact Assessments were a dogs dinner that was done at the last minute, and were not worth the paper they were written on. There was no detail to them.
3. Priti Patel’s –sacking—resignation after having undocumented and unauthorised meetings with a series of Israel ministers. And then lying about it.
4. Penny Mordaunt, who lied about the UK not having a veto to stop Turkey joining the EU, replaced Patel.
5. Damien Green Porn. Another ex-policeman is backing the story that it was found on his computer despite Green’s denials.
6. The ongoing Zagheri-Ratcliffe story with Iran and Johnson’s gaff and none apology
7. Photograph of Johnson with ‘The Professor’ Misfud has been found. This links Johnson to how events in the US might pan out. If there are lots more revelations in the Mueller inquiry about him, then that might reflect on Johnson and make him subject to some difficult questions. Politically this might be problematic for Johnson.
8. Claims that the whips office leaked the name of someone who reported allegations against Nigel Evans which occurred 6 months after Evans had been cleared of rape and the sexual assault of six men
9. Suspended Tory MP Charlie Elphicke has complained that he is yet to be informed of what he has been accused of.
10. Young Tory MPs issue threat to May that she brings in young blood and gets rid of ‘dead wood, who do nothing but screw up’. Give her until the New Year to do so.
11. 40 Tories apparently ready to no confidence May.
12. Lord Ashcroft’s latest poll reveals a very small percentage of people want a no deal situation despite all the noise of it being a good idea.
13. Lord Ashcroft mentioned in the Paradise papers. Reported as domiciled in Belize despite assurances given to parliament that he would give up his non-dom status and pay tax in the UK as a Lord.

Parliament / Opposition both inside and outside parliament
14) May facing a possible revolt over Universal Credit. MPs due to vote on reducing wait times.
15) Talk that there are enough Tory Rebels prepared to back a Dominic Grieve amendment to force a meaningful vote on the Brexit Deal.
16) May under increasing pressure from business leaders to make a deal after a meeting with them at no. 10.
17) Lots of distraction in the Paradise Papers generally which raises the question over the power and influence of the super rich versus the poor. This plays well to Labour’s narrative and against the idea of a low tax post Brexit Britain.
18) Lord Kerr, author of the a50 clause states that May has misled the public and insists that it is reversible.
19) New Money Laundering and Sanctions Bill in the Lords. Government looking to omit 4th EU directive on tax avoidance. Naturally raises questions about whether UK would adopt new rules due to come into force the week after Brexit Day.
20) Money Laundering Bill also has lots of overlap with immigration and home office operations, raising some rather sinister questions over who could be affected and why. Potential for abuse seems to be huge.
21) Leave leaning Cornwall and Grimsby seeking special status in the face of Brexit – in line with remaining to preserve business / economic interests
22) Suicide of Welsh Assembly Labour member who was under investigation for sexual harassment
23) A Labour MP accuses the already suspended fellow Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins of inappropriate behaviour.

EU
24) Ireland demands the UK stays in the customs union.
25) Brexit talks have not progressed at all despite apparently being speeded up. Barnier saying that progress in December only possible if UK makes moves on the settlement deal. Prospect of stage two being delayed until March being raised. This leaves just 7 months to come to a deal, which plays to the No Deal Crowd’s interests.
26) EU believe the UK are not working in the best interests of the UK and there is a failure by May and Davis to understand the process or what No Deal will mean.
27) EU signalling that there is no bespoke transition. Only available options ae EEA or EFTA fudges.
28) Increasing view in Brussels that No Deal likely. EU think May hasn’t got the authority to come to a deal and its easier for her to drag UK off the cliff. Though they have doubts she will survive much longer.

World
29) Trump sides with Putin above the US Intelligence Community over the Russian election interference. On Veterans Day.
30) US’s Wilbur Ross said UK will have to dump European food safety standards and that losing our passporting rights to the EU would harm our interests with the US.
31) Developments in Lebanon, with it being said that Saudi Arabia said to have declared war. Many would consider this to be a proxy war against Iran. Crown Prince has purged political opponents including several with significant Wall Street interests. Eight died in a helicopter crash.
32) Large scale far right march in Poland as part of their Independence Day.

@jburnmurdoch
Added EUref results to our analysis of the areas of England most exposed to future economic pressures, for @pestononsunday:

• Every one of the left-behind areas at risk of going further backwards voted Leave
• Every area that voted Remain is well-placed to cope with future shifts

Weirdly, I've just realised @ThatTimWalker has blocked me on Twitter. Odd because a) I'm pretty normal and rational and b) I'm not very prolific. I'm intrigued.

Pain
Missing from that list is St Albans @ 62.7% remain with Anne Main MP voting Leave as "The EU is undemocratic, costly and leads to uncontrolled mass immigration.”

According to this astonishing Anne Main MP
"From financial to business, most of the EU’s free-trade agreements do not cover services and there is not a single market for services in the EU. We are one of only two member states who trades more with the rest of the world than Europe.”

and then
"The cost is staggering. We spend £20 billion a year in Brussels and get around half of that back. Our net contribution is over £11 billion. EU bureaucrats decide where the money is spent, and the rebate is up for grabs. This is a huge sum and it’s taxpayer’s money, not the EU’s.”

Anne also thinks
“Most of our laws now come from Brussels and MPs here are powerless to stop laws that we do not want. The UK is outvoted more than any country in the EU."

Noooo I'm not bitter nor do I hold a grudge oh no.

And St Albans voted for Main again in the most recent GE

I can't remember if it was in this thread (there have been so many), but I mentioned a while back that my DW (EU national) had applied for, and been turned down for, a Permanent Residence card, having been here for 40 years, always worked, raised family etc., like many others.

After the initial rejection, we re-applied with kilos of documentation and have just received notice that confirms her permanent right of residence (which she automatically had after 5 years, but anyway ...Yippee). The interesting thing is that despite being here since 1978, the notice states that "..., the date on which you are deemed to have acquired permanent residence in the UK is: 06 April 2011."

We have no idea where this arbitrary date came from. We sent documentation dating both before and after that date (including a letter from HMRC confirming that she's been paying NIC since 1978). It doesn't really matter, as it's still over the 5-year threshold, but why would they come up with such an illogical date? Do they just pluck these things out of the air? Why not just say "more than 5 years" or accept the irrefutable evidence that she's been here for 1978?

Also, in the explanatory notes, it states "If you leave the United Kingdom, you will normally be re-admitted as a person with right of permanent residence provided that you have not been away for longer than 2 years." OK, that's actually not in keeping with her current rights as an EU citizen (we still have FOM), but never mind (although I do, deeply). But how would this work? What if we left for 20 months, then came back. Could we hang around here for a couple of weeks and go off for another 20 months? Or would we have to wait another 5 years until we're let back out again? The notes are silent on this question.

The whole exercise has been very frustrating and Kafkaesque (?) and the weirdly illogical nature of the Home Office's decision-making remains quite mystifying.

This is the first period since the Tsars were overthrown that Russian and US leadership, in both politics & business, have so much in common;
I think you are mistaken there, BigChoc.
US business and politics has always been ruthless, unscrupulous and expansionist, and has always sought hegemony. Russia has caught up fast.

BIG difference, in earlier years, neither the US nor the UK wanted to destabilise democratic European governments and replace them by the far right...They wanted to head off problems and support stability, not subvert democratic countries in order to loot them
Again, not so fast...
The UK is irrelevant, really.
The US was happy with stability as long as other sovereign states were toeing the US foreign policy line. It pursued stability over democracy whenever there was a choice. Any hint of stroppiness - calls for economic justice, an end to corruption, more inclusive democracy, justice - and there was an 'intervention.'

Hence the massive and completely illegal interventions in South American and Central American politics, often to the extent of propping up brutal dictatorships where life was very cheap. Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador during the 1970s and 80s were hellholes thanks to the CIA. Let's not forget the installation of the Shah of Iran either, or the support of his regime. Economies in Central and South America withered and poverty and criminality grew while the elites pocketed American cash and terrorised their people. The cash flow ended as soon as the USSR fell, and the shambles was fully revealed. Only the drug business remained.

The fact that Europe was spared intervention was due to Europe's ability to create societies that were relatively egalitarian, democratic, and prosperous enough to keep communism unattractive as a political solution to systemic issues.

Mistigri, I think you place too much trust in the liberal leanings of the American public as a factor that will ensure continued US support of the liberal west. In the first place, the American public is not as liberal leaning as many in Europe assume. Secondly, the American public has been shut out of meaningful contribution to debate on the foreign policy objectives of the American government for decades and this trend has only been accelerated since the Citizens United decision that allows domestic and foreign policy to be driven by big donors.

Even before this development, however, the general aims of foreign policy were never spelled out and the means of carrying it out never subjected to public scrutiny - the brutality that was carried out in South and Central America in furtherance of American foreign policy aims went virtually unnoticed in the US. Manipulation of the US media has been very effective.

Mainstream broadcast news in the US is big business. NPR and PBS are the only networks that take seriously the responsibility of providing unbiased coverage and detailed analysis. The rest is self serving garbage, but sadly NPR and PBS only reach a small minority of the public.

The Russian anti-liberal agenda and its global policy objectives are not aligned with those of the EU or, traditionally, of the US and it's hardly a stretch to believe that a country which is led by a man of Putin's intellectual and (a)moral calibre would have spotted the disruptive potential of information technology.

Don't discount the intellectual and amoral calibre of Robert Mercer or the Koch brothers, or any of the multi millionaires so contemptuous of democracy and liberal/progressive/humanitarian ideals. All of them have spotted the disruptive potential of information technology.

The socially conservative agenda of Russia is very much aligned with conservative agendas elsewhere. Europe is streets ahead of the rest of the world in terms of human and civil rights and workers' rights, and very much the odd man out. America talks the talk but does not walk the walk. You get the odd community or county or sometimes even a state that is a good place to live, with open/transparent government, low levels of corruption, solid regulation of banks and business, fair courts (remember, judges are elected up to a certain level). For the most part, the rest sucks. People elect the likes of Roy Moore just in order to stick it to the gummint.

In a suburb close to me, the mob-affiliated mayor (mayor for life, apparently; a true 'untouchable') has been using the tax funds earmarked for the high school as his personal piggybank for decades by means of paying exorbitant sums for services rendered by hand picked outside contractors - cleaning companies, security companies, IT specialists - companies that are owned and controlled by relatives and bosom buddies of the mayor. The school has about a 3% graduation rate (I am only exaggerating slightly).

HashiAsLarry Sun 19-Nov-17 08:55:19
When talking about what would swing the public vote wrt to interference as we were, Russia is a more usable bogeyman than the us.
I agree with this.

Hasenstein - I think you should inform one of the more sympathetic newspapers of the situation. They might be able to write something up about it, and any publicity about how dysfunctional the Home Office is good.

Math I hold by my analysis of Russia & US, because your post doesn't contradict what I actually posted
You just seem hypersensitive towards any criticism of Russia & Putin and keep diverting it by addressing other issues about the US.

1. Me: "This is the first period since the Tsars were overthrown that Russian and US leadership, in both politics & business, have so much in common;"

While the USSR existed, a powerful communist threat, Russia / USSR was a counterweight, an alternative, which moderated capitalism in Europe, particularly of the aggressive hard right type in the US and to some extent in the UK
After the USSR collapsed and particularly since the rise of the oligarchs, Putin and the hard right, there is no counterweight, but instead more of the same, pulling in the same direction.

You: US business and politics has always been ruthless, unscrupulous and expansionist, and has always sought hegemony. Russia has caught up fast.

I've never disputed this.
My whole point is that Russian business doing the same strengthens the ruthless drive of business to weaken all constraints against maximum profits, i.e. to change laws wrt unions, workers' rights, environmental protection, product safety etc

2. Me: "neither the US nor the UK wanted to destabilise democratic European governments and replace them by the far right.^'

Your reply was entirely about US destabilising non-European countries.
I specifically excluded the Middle East, but I also don't consider South or Central America, Asia, Africa as part of the West

Currently, the US govt under Trump wishes to destroy the EU because of economic rivalry and also because of the EU support for climate change initiatives which powerful US industries & donors oppose^

red, woman, anyone ?
Post-Brexit, even in the runup, how far would a desperate, damaged Tory govt go wrt action against E27 countries ?
Against the RoI in particular ?

Worst case = rogue state:
turn the intelligence services and dirty tricks on E27 countries, to support far right movements there, to smear politicians of the left, centre or centre-right
All in the hope of getting a better deal, if some current E27 govts are replaced

The negotiating strategy of DD & the govt in the Brexit negotiations was to divide & rule

• to get the support of some poorer countries by offering large sums for development
• and to appeal to more rightwing nationalist govts, e.g. in E Europe

They may ramp this up, in desperation as disaster looms for the Tory party

We already see the hard right media cheering on the far right in E27 countries.
The hard right is now in govt. How long before they follow ?
It may even have started, for all we know.

We see the demonising and smearing the RoI, for standing up to Britain - in the interests of their own country
There is strong evidence during the Troubles of the UK carrying out murders, dirty tricks and other subversive acts inside the RoI
Possible that the UK will again target ( has already targeted ?) the RoI for at least subversion of the govt, maybe regime change

imo, the RoI is in significant danger from a hostile British Tory govt

Particularly from those like Gove who always hated the GFA and want to destroy it.
Who are outraged that the RoI has the power to wreck their Ultra version of Brexit - and hence bring down the Tory govt
Who want to force the RoI, maybe not into the UK, but at least more under British control.

What would stop this:

• the Tories lose power before they can do much more
• they are too incompetent to have much effect
• heads of the intelligence services refuse, fearing later prosecution; or their officers leak
• the moderate Tories regain control of their party and move to an EEA / EFTA Brexit
• the Irish-American lobby use their political clout to bring the US hammer down

btw, I disagree with Math that the UK is "irrelevant" in Europe wrt wrecking moderate govts, advancing the hard right, ruthless capitalism

Proximity is so important, as with trade: proximity is a force multiplier
Motivation: a Tory govt desperate to survive, facing economic catastrophe, could see destabilising the EU as essential for its survival and allocate resources accordingly,
whereas US business sees destabilisation as just another source of increased profit, but are not desperate at all.

Britain is probably not strong enough to create the alternate Single Market the govt seems to want;
however, it takes much less power & competence to damage an existing structure than to create a new one.

DrAW17* And St Albans voted for Main again in the most recent GE

Beth Rigby
Beth Rigby
@BethRigby
Big news overnight as coalition talks fail. Leaves Germany in political turmoil and Merkel’s future thrown into doubt > German coalition talks collapse

www.politico.eu/article/german-coalition-talks-collapse/amp/

+ the Irish-American lobby use their political clout to bring the US hammer down

Of your options, this one is the most likely, or the only one, IMO.

Sorry this thread is not very cheery, but so many MPs must be living in fear at the moment, particularly women MPS.

Red this thread should be renamed 'We told you so"
Another thread saying what we did way back when.

Mike Hind‏Verified account
@MikeH_PR
Some thoughts. Take them or leave them.

1. The Brexit headbangers have been (as always) more switched on than their opponents ever since the shock of finding themselves on the winning side but in a power vacuum last June. They have quietly re-armed.

2. They have tested the boundaries of normal discourse ('Enemies of the People', 'Brexit Mutineers', death threats for Gina Miller etc) and found nobody with any influence policing them. That was Theresa May's job but she, of course, focuses on party - not country.

1. So now - in a kind of Lord Of The Flies scenario - the Brexit headbangers find there is no one actually in charge. No responsible adult.

KILL THE PIG. CUT HER THROAT. SPILL ITS BLOOD.

Hence the clear threats to female Conservative MPs who aren't headbangers.

1. But this is only a practice run. They have been developing their information WMDs for a different scenario.

KILL THE PIG. CUT HER THROAT. BASH HER IN.

For when this government collapses and they face a Labour administration. With a small majority.

1. If you think boundaries of civil political society are being transgressed now, wait for a Corbyn-McDonnell government.

KILL THE PIG. CUT HIS THROAT. KILL THE PIG. BASH HIM IN.

They got a shock this June. A renewal of the power vacuum that appeared last June.

1. They'll need scapegoats for the failure (because it's not possible) to deliver on the sunlit uplands - and those will be anyone who isn't with them.

KILL THE BEAST. CUT HIS THROAT. SPILL HIS BLOOD.

There's no one to challenge the posh boys of Brexit & their big money backers

1. There may be more Thomas Mairs skulking in the shadows.

That's exactly what those Conservative MPs are meant to be thinking.

No one has their backs.

The Tom Borwicks, Matthew Elliotts, Daniel Hannans can do what they please.

1. Unfortunately, all the descriptions of this have already been fielded, so they now lack rhetorical impact.

But don't delude yourself that we aren't in the middle of a coup.

And don't rely on the 'State' to protect you when the State is what they're

1. Welcome to the banana monarchy of Britain.

Corrupt to the core and guided by the most ruthless hands since

10. It's like a banana republic. But with shit weather.

end rant.

Interesting Twitter thread from Tanya Bueltman @cliodiaspora in response to a Gisela Stuart item on BBC Daily Politics where she interviews German business leaders:

Let's revisit this. Turns out one of those @GiselaStuart spoke to for her clip doesn't like Brussels/EU all that much going by his Twitter feed: speaks of 'Brussels bloodsuckers', and 1/

'spineless German politicians' failing to protect people from 'greedy tentacles of Brussels'. What a funny coincidence, right .... 2/

Not funny at all is that he also happily shares stuff from the AfD. The circle of hate comes full circle ... again. 3/

And viewers got even more conned than I had outlined already. Plus this casts an even bigger question mark over the whole programme. Was there no checking in place for any of this? 4/

Thanks to @antoni_UK for the heads up. 5/5

Who is this German interviewee? None other than Dr Markus Krall, who seems to be the new darling of the MN Brexiteers.

mobile.twitter.com/cliodiaspora/status/932340537537024002

Merkel's future being in doubt bad news for Brexit though you will be told differently. Other German political figures are less sympathetic.

Also talk that the vote on DUP money will be wrapped up into the budget vote. In other words any hostility to DUP killed as otherwise it's against budget too. This could be a smart move. If the budget goes down really badly for its other content, it could be bad, but they are likely to vote for it regardless.

Word is no money for NHS elsewhere.

I thought that without a majority Govt the Lords could vote down the Finance Bill? So, there could be some fireworks.

Accidental post earlier.
Merkel's future being in doubt bad news for Brexit god I hope so.

Merkel's future being in doubt bad news for Brexit

I suspect it introduces a moving target and some unknowns into the process. The last thing Brexiteers need right now is a hardline German attitude of "You want to leave, good. Can't happen soon enough, let's get this thing done" as that rather spoils the fantasy they need to peddle back home about the nasty EU.

I notice the BBC vox pops still only seems to feature people who believe it's the EU delaying Brexit. (Which I only hear because MrsLH likes to listen to the news when we're out driving. Mainly we enjoy podcasts).

So as I understand it two of the hurdles in Germany's coalition talks were:

1. Asylum, immigration and family reunification; and
2. EU and eurozone policy.

After much infighting, the CDU and CSU agreed that a new government should pursue a limit of no more than 200,000 people entering Germany for humanitarian reasons p, but there's Issues about family reunification too.
Another issue is whether Germany wants to support or limit broadening the eurozone and bailouts, plus climate change issues about closing coal fired power plants.


Thoughts.....( probably wishful thinking.)

If the result of all this, is perhaps after another German election, that Germany pushes for new EU limits on immigration and a limit on the eurozone. Could that result in an impression of likely imminent reforms to the EU, creating a changed Union that we could try staying in?

Thing is it would all be too slow and too late wouldn't it?

If the German issues lead to a climate where the EU looks likely to make visible reforms, then if we had a sensible government it could say look we want to postpone leaving for say 5 or 10 years. The time is not right just now, some changes are imminent and we need to observe and influence those changes from within the EU, and then reassess our position in say 2025?


http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-coalition-talks-what-are-the-sticking-points/a-414010966_

Could that result in an impression of likely imminent reforms to the EU, creating a changed Union that we could try staying in?

There isn't enough irony in the world to accommodate a situation where the UKs exit from the EU makes it more like what the UK wanted to start with.

Laura Kuenssberg‏ @bbclaurak
Cabinet minister who describes himself as ‘sensible leaver’ says ‘what we are willing to agree on Bill is one issue... but is EU capable of agreeing anything with Germany in crisis?’

I suspect to see more of this.

It gives a good reason to scrap the a50 date in law. Not our fault of course, but the political turmoil in Germany means they will not be able to agree.

It also, of course, means that No Deal is also more likely too.

Lawyers For Britain‏**@lawyers4britain**
Budget, immigration, ECJ oversight – that's probably not a bad interpretation of the key demands made by voters. If we left the EU but remained in SM or Erasmus, how many would protest? But say we left, but remained under ECJ j'diction, how many then?

George Peretz QC‏*@GeorgePeretzQC*
This is a classic example of the poor reasoning - both illogical and anti-democratic - that has got us into this mess.
It asks what, when one gives it any thought, is the wrong question about the referendum result.
The question it asks is, essentially, what sort of Brexit did those who voted Leave want?
But since Leave won by a squeak, and with no agreed plan for Brexit (just a series of options), that is the wrong question.
It is wrong, first, because no one really knows what Leave voters wanted. They weren’t asked to give reasons. All we know is that they wanted to leave.
But it is the wrong question for a more important reason: it fails to include the 48% who voted Remain. Every remain voter’s views as to the right type of Brexit also counts, and counts as much as any Leave voter’s.
And given the narrowness of the vote, that points to a soft Brexit, keeping close trade and social relations with the EU - something EEA-ish. A compromise all but the extremes could live with.
Some Leave voters may cry “betrayal”: but that should not stop a compromise that most can live with.
The PM’s mistake has, from the outset, been to ask this wrong question: “what did Leave voters want?”. The question she should have asked is “what version of Brexit can command a broad consensus across Leave and Remain?”.
That mistake has led to all the other mistakes: treating Brexit as a matter to be decided by the PM and her coterie as the sole permitted interpreters of “the will of the people”; premature use of A50; attempts to sideline Parliament; the language calculated to enrage Remainers.
What is needed is a genuine discussion involving the whole country about what sort of Brexit we all can live with (in the Cabinet would be a start but it needs to go much wider).
Responsible Brexiters would be calling for that: unfortunately, like @lawyers4britain, too many think that the only question is how to read the entrails of the referendum result.
A question which - like priests of some cult - they seem to regard themselves as uniquely qualified to answer. /ends

IMO The situation with Germany now offers an opportunity to do some reframing of the debate. This is an opportunity that can be taken by hard leavers or soft leavers / remainers. The question is who will take it.

Right now, Germany is looking at a minority government or early elections just like the UK.

Given public opinion is not very supportive of the UK and we all know how a minority government frightened of elections and who might get in instead, is working out, its worrying.

The key issues in breakdown of talks here in Germany were:

Immigration / refugees- but only Muslim immigration.
Noone except the Uk cares about FOM of other EU citizens

Coal-fired powerplants:
The Green's want to close them down; the CDU/CSU & FDP don't, because of effect on the economy
The UK has been driving the initiative to phase out coal - I read that since 2012, the UK already drastically reduced UK energy production from coal to only 1% of the total.

VERY unrealistic to expect that the EU will change enough before March 2019 for the Uk public to want to stay in.
The only thing that might change UK public opinion is if major economic effects of Brexit are felt sufficiently early

Of course, those traitorous Tory MPs - traitors for thinking of the country, not just the Tory party - might force a change, because they really should be aware of the economic downturn coming, landing at their door

I read that since 2012, the UK already drastically reduced UK energy production from coal to only 1% of the total

By drastically reducing our capacity.

There isn't enough irony in the world to accommodate a situation where the UKs exit from the EU makes it more like what the UK wanted to start with

Except of course the UK did not (and does not) know what it wanted.

So true that the government's starting premise was wrong.Despite some empty words after the referendum, there is no indication of attempts to find some sort of exit compromise that the 48 and 52 percents and abstainers could live with. Perhaps because there isn't one.