Are Remainers finally starting to get it? Guido has spotted three in the last week coming out and saying Brexit won’t be stopped. First Wolfgang Munchau wrote in the FT:

“The probability of a reversal is not technically zero, but close enough to be discarded. The probability of a Brexit without a deal is also not large, but much higher than the probability of a successful revocation. The best strategy for smart Remainers is stop the second referendum fantasies and to focus on the period after Brexit. This is when the debate on the future relationship will get truly interesting.”

Then his colleague at the pink ‘un David Allen Green yesterday conceded: “The three legal paths to stop Brexit are blocked”. 

“there seems no serious possibility of such a dramatic reversal. The “mandate” of the referendum will remain, and those who still dispute that there is a mandate are akin to the generals who keep fighting the battles of a previous war.”

The Centre for European Reform’s Charles Grant agrees:

I fear that @davidallengreen is correct in the @FT. Unfortunately the chances of stopping Brexit are minimal; Remainers need to focus on post-March 19. https://t.co/4uZ9X6IqhL

— Charles Grant (@CER_Grant) April 4, 2018

It’s only the cranks still saying Brexit can be reversed…

Some pro-Remain pundits and publications are single-minded in their desire to blindly attack the government, even if it means getting the story wrong. Take today’s Guardian article claiming HMG’s proposal for a system of civil judicial cooperation is a “climbdown from its promise of judicial independence”. This is rubbish – child custody, divorce and small business disputes are a separate issue to the ECJ and judicial independence. It’s pretty basic stuff, the Guardian is misleading its readers because of its desperation to create something out of nothing and criticise the government. Here are Matt Holehouse from MLex and Allie Renison from the IoD, who actually know what they are talking about:

Strange story. Q of us recognising a foreign divorce or bankruptcy only tangentially linked to whether UK under ECJ https://t.co/meWem8l5XE

— Matthew Holehouse (@mattholehouse) August 21, 2017

Totally agree. Not a climbdown. This is ostensibly a pretty sep. issue to ECJ/dispute resolution alternatives

— Allie Renison (@AllieRenison) August 22, 2017

Then there is the FT’s David Allen Green, who this morning praised Michel Barnier and dismissed the UK’s positioning papers as “noisiness“, “bluster and the spin“. Get a grip. As the Sunday Times EU correspondent Bojan Pancevski says in response:

“‘Bluster & spin’ is UK attempting to extract a best possible deal, also for taxpayer. It’s a negotiation. Disagreeing with Brexit is one thing, but believing that the EU is “right” in the talks and spin, bluster free is bizarre. Should HMG simply accept terms as they are given? DD already accepted the “Brexit bill,” transition period, some role for ECJ & paying into EU budget post divorce. So this is far from the alleged intransigence that gets reported… If you think you can reverse Brexit, find a political way to do it, don’t bash own government, civil service for doing what they have to.”

Of course some pundits would rather Britain had voted to Remain. We get it. But there comes a point where they are just supporting the other side, getting it factually wrong and acting against the interests of their own readers. Embarrassing stuff…

Spare a thought for the FT’s columnists – they are really having a tough time of it at the moment. Take David Allen Green, the paper’s legal commentator who has been imparting his Article 50 wisdom to readers of the pink ‘un. In a column headlined “The three steps that mean Brexit may never happen”, DAG voiced his belief that Article 50 may never be triggered:

“Unless Leave create another moment of opportunity – another wrong-footing of the established order – so as to force through the required Article 50 notification, then it may not happen at all.”

Then there was his column titled “Brexit: the facts”, in which he again argued Article 50 might never be triggered:

“There are a number of reasons why a notification may never be sent. During the referendum campaign, the prime minister sought to give the impression that the notification would be sent “straight away”. But when he resigned he said it would be a matter for his successor. It may well be that if the notification was not sent on the day of the referendum result, it may never be sent.”

He couldn’t have been clearer in this tweet:

David’s latest update is that the triggering of Article 50 is now “more likely than unlikely”. He has given up on making predictions:

“My only prediction now is that those who doubted that the Article 50 notification would ever be seen will get a good-natured ribbing by those who never had such doubts.”

8 days to go…