The object of the exercise is to absorb within a stable democratic practice a new element which, if unabsorbed, may have fatal effects.
The only way of ruling it out is to change the table itself: in other words, to abandon Brexit, or prepare to – as Remainers should admit.
It amounts to wishful thinking, not a workable, sustainable answer. And it’s not as easy to implement as some of its advocates make out.
The unique nature of divisions over it could overwhelm the Party’s traditional pragmatic instinct for office.
Today, May is swinging towards her Party’s leavers. The logic of the Chancellor’s position, and that of his allies, is to block her – or try to.
The suffrage movement fought for those of all backgrounds to have the vote. This cannot be called into question for the sake of political gain.
There is a now a window of opportunity for a better, more sensible and cross-party debate than the one we had in the referendum campaign.
As a woman in Iowa told us: “It’s like the CEO of the company I work for. I don’t care if you’re the nicest guy in the world. I care that I’m going to have a job from day to day.”
Eight MPs, seven categories. Some of them pro-Brexit, others anti-Corbyn, some both. How supportive of the Government might they become?
The only explanation I can find is that she mistakenly assumed I was just another Tory public school boy, to whom she did not need to bother giving the time of day.
But the majority for such a solution is slender. And well over two in five respondents reject the deal entirely.
I have reluctantly concluded that there needs to be greater regulation of the veracity of claims made by registered participants in political campaigns.
We also need to examine a ‘no deal transition period’ – i.e: a payment for a period of time to enable both the UK and the EU to adjust to the changes ahead of us.
Farage urged everyone to prepare for a second referendum, and concluded: “Next time, as far as I’m concerned, it’s no more Mr Nice Guy.”
Plus: People vote for me to shave off my beard. But the decision was only advisory. And did they have enough information…?