Image by FCO (CC-BY-2.0)
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW
Boris Johnson falls short of directly criticising Theresa May. But he does say that over the last 18 months it is as if a fog of self doubt has descended over the government.
Boris Johnson eventually got to make his personal statement at about three o'clock this afternoon.
This would usually have taken place straight after PMQs at a little after half twelve, but for some reason there was a lot of urgent business that suddenly cropped up that kept him at arm's length from both the dispatch box and the PMs half hour Q&A session.
And talking of PMQs, a couple of the Theresa's own MPs niggled the her a bit. First the Tory Brexiteer Andrea Jenkyns, the one who had recently received veiled threats over campaign funding from Tory central, asked:
"Can the Prime Minister inform the house at what point it was decided Brexit means Remain."
Which to be fair, is a very good question and well asked. And the reply of – it never did because Brexit still means Brexit – won't wash with any true Brexiteer.
And then later the recently resigned David Davis asked the PM if she would publish the documents that he had recently been working on as Brexit secretary once they were completed.
"The Department for Exiting the European Union carried out a study of all of the previous free trade deals that the European Union has done in order to create a draft free trade deal which was based solely on European precedent.
"The department, until I left at least, was working on a legal text of such a draft treaty as one fall back option in the current negotiation.
"Would she agree to publish that text when it's complete?"
But the reply was that she wanted a bespoke deal for the UK not an amalgam of previous deals.
So I take that as a no and as an avenue to now remain unexplored.
Anyway, back to Boris.
In a strong resignation personal statement, the former Foreign Secretary said that the PM's Lancaster House vision had never been translated into a negotiating position or an offer to Brussels.
Instead, he said, we dithered and burned through our negotiating capital and agreed to hand over a £40 billion exit fee with no discussion over our future economic relationship.
We accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over key aspects of the withdrawal agreement.
And worst of all – he continued – we allowed the question of the northern Irish border, which had hitherto been assumed on all sides to be readily soluble to become so politically charged as to dominate the debate.
And he went on to say that when he and his Brexiteer colleagues suggested technical solutions to the border question, they were never properly examined as if such things had become intellectually undesirable.
In fact he said it became taboo to suggest technical fixes.
He then went on to place the Lancaster House speech alongside the Chequers proposals and pointed out the stark truths.
Lancaster House said that laws will once again be made in Westminster, while Chequers talks about harmonisation with the EU and a 'common rule book'.
Lancaster House says it would be wrong to have to obey EU regulations with no say on what those rules are, but Chequers now makes us rules takers.
Lancaster House says we won't be half in or half out, but Chequers keeps us in lock-step with so much of the EU, with disputes ultimately coming under ECJ jurisdiction.
We are volunteering for economic vassalage, he said, calling the Chequers plan 'miserable' and urging a return to the 'glorious' vision of Lancaster House.
But although he made an extremely good Brexit speech, he did not personally attack the PM or demand she go. She has lost her way – but there is still time to reset and get back on the Lancaster House speech path – was his message.
One does have to wonder if the threats of votes of no confidence, general elections and a Marxist Momentum fuelled Corbyn led Labour government had anything to do with it?
And in my opinion he should have launched a broadside at May's advisers.
Anyway, let's see if the message is received, understood and acted upon because, if not, it does not take a rocket scientist to see trouble coming down the line for the PM and the Tory party.
In fact, there is now an online change.org petition asking the 1922 Committee to ditch Theresa May and her advisers to get back on Brexit track. (https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-1922-committee-for-motion-of-no-confidence-in-mrs-may)
And talking of rocket scientists.
In a welcome statement Sam Gyimah, the Science and Universities Minister has announced the building of a UK satellite launch station in Northern Scotland and also put an extremely strong case for the UK to launch its own global satellite navigation system should the EU take what the minister called an 'irrational' position and kick us out of the Galileo project.
In fact he said, speaking at the House of Commons dispatch box, should the EU take this path of denying UK access to Galileo, it would be punishing itself with huge costs, project delays and the loss of invaluable technical expertise.
He also pointed out how good this would be for the UK science industry as a whole and that there would be deeper collaboration with NASA.
Carol Monaghan of the SNP welcomed the news of the new space port to be constructed in Scotland saying that it will add to the 18% of the UK space industry that Scotland is currently host to.
And in answer to a questions the minister said that we will be in a position to launch small satellites from the early 2020s.
The Lib Dem MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Jamie Stone, also welcomed the news that the launch site would be placed in his constituency saying it would give a 'boost' for the local economy – I know I can hear the groans. But it gets worse, the minister replied that he was pleased at the 'big blast' that Sutherland was getting from this announcement.
I just hope we do get on with our own system as soon as possible whatever, and sell the resulting product to the EU – a much better outcome than giving the bloc all our expertise. Not only that, it is another stamp of our independence as a nation.