Things can change very quickly. Right now, it does not look like May is going to get the Withdrawal Agreement through parliament. If that gets voted down then all bets are off -- in terms of May's leadership, the tory government, and brexit itself.

I don't know for sure what happens then. Anyone who says they do is deluded IMO. But I wouldn't bet against an election, a referendum, or both.

You may have the second worst attempt of government. But I think when you look at the building that has been lying empty at Stormont for the past 18 months, you probably can't claim "the worst" right now. The people of Northern Ireland -- across the entire political spectrum -- have been badly let down by the suspension of devolved government. If I lived north of the border I'd be bloody furious with the lot of them.

But Wales made a rod for its own back when it voted Leave. It lost (what some might see as) the moral high-ground that the Scots and Northern Irish can choose to occupy when discussing brexit.

I don't think this means a Welsh remainer has any less right to complain about this idiocy than a Scottish or Irish or English one (genuinely, that's not what I'm saying). But it makes it tough for Wales to argue for any kind of special status for the country *within* brexit (in the way the Northern Irish or Scottish may) and it means Welsh objections will carry less weight (in the eyes of the "Will of The People" lot).

There's a bewildering article in the Irish Times where a journalist walks around Holyhead (a town that is hugely dependent upon the port but which voted leave by a large margin). Apparently there's a whole bunch of people in Holyhead who think the town is going to become a thriving fishing community once the UK is out of the EU. It won't. But so long as people (all over the UK -- this isn't just Wales I'm talking about) buy into the lies that were told... then, even if/when brexit is cancelled, there's going to be a lot of anger and resentment.

It's interesting, but I think it's a red-herring in terms of preventing brexit. It makes the argument in favour of a second referendum much easier to make in the court of public opinion; so it's important in that sense I suppose. But because the referendum was technically only "advisory", apparently there's no legal mechanism to overturn the result -- no matter what any campaigner is later found guilty of.

I'm not a legal bod myself; so obviously do your own research on that one; but it's how it was explained by some legal expert on a radio show I heard.

(impeccable sourcing! ;-)

When the UK unilaterally voted to leave, the EU had no choice but to appoint someone to handle the process from their end. This whole thing was never in the EU's interests, but the moment it was forced upon us, it became incumbent upon the EU's negotiator to secure the best deal possible for the remaining 27 members. I think he's done a very good job under near impossible circumstances and with only a tiny fraction of the ill-feeling and rancour that he faced across the table.

Did he do a flawless job? Did he turn brexit into a positive process? Nobody could have. And over the course of two years, with UK tabloids (and bizarrely, the BBC) turned rabid, and straining at the leash to twist his every comment into some kind of weaponised propaganda, I'd suggest he made remarkably few mis-steps.

Just as with Leo Varadkar here in Ireland (a man whose policies I oppose on almost every matter), on brexit I have to commend Barnier (and Donald Tusk) for probably doing as well as anyone could have done with the shitty situation they found themselves dealing with.

All just IMO of course.