It is a glaring act of mental collectivisation to lump Our Future, Our Choice in with those who think that over 75s should not be allowed to vote.
The unique nature of divisions over it could overwhelm the Party’s traditional pragmatic instinct for office.
Could the Government reassert its wrongly denied constitutional veto on such a Bill by advising the Monarch not to grant it Royal Assent?
The Environment Bill gives us the chance to cement Britain’s position as a world leader in clean, sustainable progress.
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.
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.
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.
Government dialogue with an organisation doesn’t mean Ministers rewarding it. Rather, it means engaging with it.
It would be swift, fair and democratic solution to this sorry saga, allowing us to get back to meeting the challenges that helped fuelled the Brexit vote in the first place.
It’s not hard to find reasons to be frustrated with the Government, but we are still delivering for the British people.
Breaking her promise in such a way would enrage many voters, divide her Party, and cost the nation dearly in lost Brexit opportunities.
Opposing it in the hope of something better risks ending up with the worst possible outcome: no Brexit at all.
Only 13 of the more than 100 colleagues who are publicly opposed have said that their position is solely based on that aspect of the plan.
Other countries manage to do this far better than we do; it is not right that Britain should fall behind on such a simple act.
It is certainly not the Brexit that people voted for. As Bill Clinton might have said about the main issue: It’s the Sovereignty, Stupid!