Based David Davis.

Note: Davis was a backbencher when he originally presented the challenge.

Based EU still got your back.

Were it not for David Davis (+ Tom Watson) and the British High Court, the ECJ never would've made this ruling.

It's also illegal under the ECHR, to my understanding.

Merely because Davis is a Brexiteer and I know you're not a massive fan of him from what you know (and I want to hear you admit it): you must respect him in bringing this challenge against the British government, right?

(some of which I think are entirely unfounded while others are sound).

Care to elaborate?

but he appears to be a good pick for Brexit minister.

Did you hear the news on him supposedly backing 'soft' Brexit? An interesting twist, given he an arch-Brexiteer.

I only wish Davis were Tory leader, and Hillary Benn Labour leader. Maybe then our politics wouldn't be such a joke.

Honestly, I think that every British politician who's reasonable about this backs a soft Brexit.

Eh, it would have the smallest economic cost, but the average estimate for cumulative cost of hard Brexit is to the order of two year's growth. Not massive, at all. Britain's domestic market is fairly large.

But, I mean, I don't think 'soft Brexit'--defined, for this conversation, as EEA membership--would be a significant loss for the Brexiteers:



This image is accurate, no? Given that my own personal bugbear was sovereignty/constitutional concerns, it really doesn't look like the EEA is a bad way to go.

Although Davis has also voiced his potential support for a transitional deal to be in place while a proper--I presume--FTA is worked out.