Legal niceties -- pshaw!

The Graun comforts its readers by promising really difficult times ahead when they can constantly say they told us so.  A 'senior civil servant at DexEU until March this year' --ie one of those plotting a mere KitK at Brexit until rumbled said:

“It is not a clean break: what it does is it takes us legally out of the EU. But what it can’t do is undo all of the very close economic ties that we have with the EU, on which so much of our trade as a country depends. And nor would we want to undo all of the close security ties that we have with the EU,”... He said claims his erstwhile colleague Olly Robbins had sought to stymie the government’s negotiating efforts were “complete nonsense”. [By the way, O Robbins has now 'taken a job at the investment bank Goldman Sachs.']

As usual, he just cannot see the point of any merely legal autonomy, or reversion to normal forms of trading and cooperation:

“And because of the importance of those ties both for the EU and the UK, it will remain hugely important to have those expressed through a formal relationship

Naturally, as a bureaucrat, he wants to go further:

as a minimum, some of the procedures, not least in the Houses of Parliament, are going to have to be codified for clarity on what the rules are

Nothing whatsoever to do with his sympathy for Remainer manoeuvring of course. Surely he would never lie to teh Guardian 

J Freedland can always be relied upon to support the latest wheezes and talk up thrilling crises. The written constitution long-game ploy is gaining ground, after years of quiet complacency by liberals, of course:

John Bercow is surely right [could have ended the sentence there] to suggest that, once this Brexit crisis has passed, a written constitution will be essential, one that would spell out the limits on executive might – stripping the prime minister of, for example, the power to suspend parliament.

After all:

as Prof Meg Russell of UCL’s Constitution Unit puts it: “The political constitution cannot operate properly if parliament is not sitting.” Under our system, parliamentary sovereignty is the whole shooting match: it is the constitution. “If you shut parliament, it’s very hard to say your constitution is working.”

So Parliament wasn't working during the 5 week summer vacation or during the other breaks, including those for party conferences.Parliament is the only location for Government work? That helps beef up the quinquennial vote as the very essence of democracy of course. But the first story raises a few problems for that view I would have thought...