Image by RevolutionBahrainMC (CC-BY-3.0)
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW
Number Ten is worried that Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party is attempting to derail Brexit by using the arcane 'Humble Address' procedure.
You may or may not remember that many moons ago, the Labour Party used a little known parliamentary procedure known as the 'humble address' to force the government to hand over those Brexit impact statements to other MPs.
The humble address is a technical procedural way of allowing MPs to vote on a matter with no bill being presented with the result that the monarch orders ministers to comply with the substance of the address.
Now, Downing Street has recently warned that Jeremy Corbyn may try to use this procedure in order to force the government to rule out leaving the EU without a deal. That would effectively derail Brexit and probably cause us to request an extension to the Article 50 process.
Of course this will not go down well with the Brexiteers in this now Momentum led party, which may explain why there are so many moves to deselect them.
But their party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, may not be so happy about this as he is probably more eurosceptic than most people credit him with.
However, the party seems to need him as a figurehead to attract votes – for now, but how much control does he really still have?
So, could we see a fully anti-Brexit stance taken by Labour in the coming weeks?
According to the FT, the EU chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, seems to be softening his stance on the UK's Brexit financial services plan.
And the news appears to have come at about the same time as The Times says that the UK has warned the EU of a tit-for-tat approach that would damage EU companies.
"The British “tit-for-tat” warning strategy is designed to highlight the damage that could be caused if Britain fails to get a special deal for the City. Such a deal was being resisted completely by Michel Barnier, the chief Brexit negotiator, until his approach appeared to soften last week." Reports The Times.
So, what came first the UK warning? Or the EU softening?
I would put it to you that there would be no need for a UK warning, if the EU softening had come first.
According to the Guardian, the EU document that lays out the future relationship from their side could be very short indeed.
"The EU’s declaration on the trade and security relationship with the UK after Brexit will be just five to 30 pages long, reflecting a lack of time to have an internal debate and scepticism that Theresa May will remain in Downing Street to deliver it, officials in Brussels have disclosed." Says the Guardian report.
Which goes on to say that the UK government wants to see a 'precise and substantive' political declaration to match its own 100 page White Paper on the subject, but EU officials say it is not that important to them.
It seems the EU is smelling a Tory leadership election in the air!
Now back to the Brexit starvation scaremongering.
The claim that a great sandwich blight will be upon us after Brexit day, is still doing the rounds.
Yesterday's Newsnight on BBC2 featured Jim Winship, the director of the sandwich association, saying that sandwich filling choice will be limited after Brexit because there will be no ingredients coming into the country.
At least Tory MP Marcus Fysh was there to call it out for the scaremongering it is, as well as to point out that a no-deal does not mean no trade!
Anyway, the sandwich guru chap missed big trick here. The UK imports about 11% of its wheat so he could have said that there may not be enough bread to go around to use all those fillings anyway.
Finally, William Hague, the former Tory Party leader, is saying that paid political ads need to be banned from social media platforms.
He also said that Russian interference could have cost Hillary Clinton the presidency during the last US presidential elections.
"Democracy will not survive being turned into a system of hidden falsehoods or 'fake news', transmitted from unknown sources to selected people to inflame or reinforce their bitterness or their apathy." He said.
So the Russian Embassy in London responded by Tweeting:
.@WilliamJHague is right to suggest political ads on social media can be dangerous. This is why we are seeking answers from @Facebook on UK-sponsored posts promoted in Russia pic.twitter.com/bW65FM6BUa
— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) July 31, 2018
Now that would be an interesting report to read!