A week when Cameron comes back with a deal that sounds more and more like "Peace in our Time" as we come to terms with what it actually means.
Cameron savages Boris in the chamber and the Tories go into infighting mode.
Cameron's good friend and Justice minister joins the Out camp on the basis that the EU, essentially, gave nothing much away and the UK is expected to deal with ever encroaching EU "state".
The analysis of the claims of Michael Gove come to the conclusion that:
They are both right, sort of.
Whilst Cameron is right in that the agreement is legally binding, that is in International law. However Gove is right that the agreement is NOT legally binding under EU law. However Cameron is right that the European court of justice can't ignore the agreement. BUT Gove is right in that if the European court of justice decides that the agreement breaches EU law, then it can rule against them. Note, the treaties constitute EU law and the agreement has been made to modify them.
In short. Gove is right, if the European court of justice decides that a case breaches one of the treaties, then it will rule against the agreement. However the UK could then raise a UK law which blocks EU law and stick two fingers up. At which point the UK would be fined.
Is this the agreement that was to fundamentally change our relationship with the EU? Sounds like same ole same ole to me...
Then Corbyn decides to personally insult Cameron and Cameron's response is, I'm sure, something many have wanted to say to him but couldn't' t find the way.... Then the press say that Cameron has enacted a personal attack on Corbyn...
Meanwhile Trump is attacked by the Pope and he wins his next contest by a landslide from the two runners up...
Meanwhile I did a bit of checking up. Here is the next one I want to hear politicians debate but , of course, they won't.
I want them to debate how much global visibility California has. How much global respect it has. How many people listen to it when treaties are being made. How it's influence in the world is gauged.
Why?
Because California has the larges GDP of all of the US states. It is just slightly less than the GDP of the UK. California is a "member state" of the United states of America.
According to the Maastricht treaty and the Lisbon Treaty, there is a country called the European Union. It has a diplomatic service, it has an army, it has courts and it negotiates trade treaties for the European Union.
The UK is a "member state" of the European Union. Note, not a Nation State but a Member State. Our passport is a European passport. Don't believe me? get it out and read the outside cover. We read top to bottom and left to right. The first words on our passport are European Union, not United Kingdom.
So all that safety and economic benefit comes with a price. That price is the loss of our national identity. Perhaps not now and perhaps not in 100 years, but, eventually. When everyone alive has never met anyone who knew the UK as a Nation State. Maybe longer. The EU doesn't care, it has "forever".
So, in my mind, the "safety" and "economy" chimera that is being sold to us comes at a price nobody wants to talk about. I have one word for it.
California.
So much for the same old same old.
I am, personally, more interested in hoping, against hope, that somehow the three people missing in the power station collapse are still alive. For them and for their families.