As regards Brexit, it is blatantly obvious that no set course has been decided upon, in fact, it is fair to say that many Government departments and political leaders (both Conservative and Tory) are still at the brainstorming stage.  There seem to be five main options

1. EEA or full membership of the internal market through a different political structure – Seemingly out of the question due to free movement issues

2. Preferential access to the internal market (for both goods and services), contributions to the EU budget and a dispute settlement procedure not under the aegis of the ECJ. With some form of option for a degree of ‘control’ over free movement.

3  Preferential access to the internal market for goods only, contributions to the EU budget and a dispute settlement procedure not under the aegis of the ECJ. With some form of option for a degree of ‘control’ over free movement.

4. Membership of the Customs Union

5. Full separation, all trade under WTO rules.

Political logic would dictate that Option 2 will be the preferred course to follow, as it avoids (simple) free movement issues and ECJ jurisdiction. Especially as a significant portion of Conservative party funds comes from the service industries, notably the financial sector.

Yet flags as to which Brexit course is preferred are being run up flag poles and then run down again all over the place, by both parties.

Hence, David Davis’ recent reference to paying into the EU budget to get enhanced access to the internal market, is an indication that at least he is acting in a grown-up manner. Making the comment as an aside in the House of Commons is the equivalent of testing the water as to the reaction from his own government’s supporters.

Contributions to the EU budget might be the simplest issue to agree upon, once the amount has been decided. With the UK government having the possibility to spread payments across as many government departments and agencies as possible to ‘bury’ the total amount.

Conservative party

The options are indicative of the major problem the Prime Minister faces. Whatever, deal may be concluded at leat 15% (remainers) to 33.3% (europhobes) of her own party will be profoundly disappointed with the outcome. The hardline eurosceptics will be incandescent if a complete break from the EU is not delivered (including very little legacy payments to the budget). The pro-EU/EEA faction will be bitterly disappointed if a hard Brexit is the outcome.

Whilst Boris Johnson who has no ideological position on Brexit seems to take his position from the latest buffering from the prevailing wind in his own party. It seems that Liam Fox (Department of International Trade) is the lightweight in the triumvirate of Brexiteers at the higher levels of government. it is becoming apparent in UK political circles that Johnson’s ‘false bonhomie’ does not travel well and that his flippancy is becoming a negative.

However, May would find it extremely difficult to replace him with anybody who is not a firm believer in Brexit. It just might be the case from the EU27’s point of view that ‘better the devil you know’.

May’s main problem is that she is the equivalent of a circus acrobat riding two horses around the ring simultaneously. Her dilemma is that at some stage they will diverge and she will be heading for a heavy fall.

May’s other problem is the media, especially the print media and their on-line sites. Over 50% of UK readership figures are represented by newspapers that pursue a hardline on Brexit and tend to support either option 4 or 5 above. This is compounded by the tendency of TV outlets to follow the most bellicose of agendas in their daily news coverage. There is also the issue of social media, where stridency and aggression seems to squeeze out more reasoned approaches. Presently, the Brexit case is being pursued aggressively, with a high degree of efficacy also.

Labour party

The party is split over Brexit in more ways than one. The leadership have an air of insouciance about Brexit. This is for two reasons, they have often espoused beliefs that the EU is a corporate plot inimical to the interests of working people. Corbyn’s pro-EU campaigning had the air of ‘being dammed by faint praise’, He even went on holiday to Portugal during the 6-week official campaign.

The other view (represented by McDonnell more than Corbyn) is that Brexit should be viewed as a ‘transitional demand’ in a Trotskyite sense, so as to take advantage of the political chaos that may well ensue from Brexit and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. This may seem overtly alarmist but McDonnell is a true believer in political Marxist-Leninism and is not opposed to Trotskyite entryism into the Labour party.

Corbyn and McDonnell are far more interested in internal matters than the Brexit process. Corbyn has to discover a strategy that will ensure that his deputy John McDonnel takes over from him. At the moment the MPs have the upper hand in the process and there is no way McDonnell can garner enough support amongst them in order to become leader. Corbyn has to design some constitutional change which would allow the membership to have a vote,

The influx of new members to the Labour party has transformed its membership and there are enough Trotskyites, fellow travellers and in a Leninist sense ‘useful idiots’ to deliver a leadership victory for McDonnell. Corbyn would probably stand down immediately if such a process was put in place.

Whilst the parliamentary Labour party is overwhelmingly in favour of EU membership, a significant portion of their constituencies (especially in the North of England) voted heavily to leave. one of the major defining factors was the issue of immigration generally. Hence, a lot of the newer generation of Labour MPs are prepared to discuss and adopt platforms that oppose complete free movement across the EU.

There is also a covert battle going on between the Shadow minister for Brexit, Keir Starter and the Labour leadership (Corbyn and McDonnell) on several levels.

1. Starmer has not been given the resources normally allocated to a Shadow Secretary of State. He has only one paid full-time special adviser, when other Secretaries of State (e.g. Emily Thornberry, Foreign Minister) have been allocated up to four full-time posts.

2. Starmer is seen as a possible future leadership challenger, especially if he shines at his current post.

3. Starmer is not trusted by the leadership because he was seen to covertly back the attempted coup against Corbyn in the summer.

4. Currently, Starmer’s position is rock solid, if under-resourced, as the leadership has to follow a unity agenda (even if it is extremely fragile).

Despite the Liberal democrats surprisingly winning the seat of the Brexiteer, Zac Goldsmith, I think this will be a 7-day wonder politically and have no bearing on the future development of the Brexit process.

UK Politics generally

One highly worrying development that has yet to raise its head to a great degree (but it will) is that the political atmosphere created by the referendum is very febrile. None of the main two parties have any real sense of trenchant unity and the hardline Brexiteers (from Farage to Liam Fox) have wound their supporters up to such a degree that the political mood in the UK may turn very ugly indeed,

Even if public opinion was turn decisively in favour of remaining in the UK (I would suggest that threshold is somewhere between 55-60% remain to 40-45% leave), the sense of outrage amongst some would inevitably lead to significant levels of political violence. That is how split the UK (mainly in the form of England) is.

Finally, is there the beginning of a realisation that both May and Corbyn are out of their depth as party leaders.