1. "First of all, most generally, the vast majority of what Marr hopes for could be achieved without Brexit actually happening – and indeed would actually be easier to do without having to cope with the economic consequences and resource implications of Brexit."
Maybe. But that is what the public voted for in the belief that their views would be adhered to. (Interestingly, those who say that the referendum was non-binding make one massive mistake - legitimate expectation is a valid ground of judicial review. So any PM who did NOT take us out of the E would have the decision easily challenged by pretty much any of the 17.4m).
2. "Third, many of the opportunities Marr thinks Brexit might offer are good for the left or for the right, but not for both sides of British politics."
But no phenomenon in economics is either 100% good or 100% bad. Every phenomenon will be good for some, bad for others. Marr is simply postulating on ways in which Brexit could be good for those at either end of the spectrum. So you've attacked the strawman.
3. "I have little doubt that Parliament will continue the Brexit process, but the words about the judiciary sail very close to ignoring the Rule of Law, and imply that the judges in the Supreme Court are acting politically."
Quaint constitutional theory would have us believe that the separation of powers enures and that the judiciary doesn't politick. I'm afraid the reality is very different. The Supreme Court decision will cover new ground. Therefore, as they are prone to do, the appellate courts will be making law. Something else that constitutional theory says they don't do.
Lord Reid (a senior Law Lord) gave a lecture in 1967 in which he admitted that judges make law and are under no illusions about what they are doing.
The Miller case is a decision based on law and politics and acting politically is inevitable in such a case, like many others in constitutional legal history.
The point on the laxity of the original Referendum Act is valid. Though one suspects that the Government didn't WANT a clear, detailed instruction for what happened next as they felt it could imply that the Brexit process would be straightforward. Arguably they wanted us to believe it would be difficult.
4. "Even whether Britain should stay in the Single Market (or not) or the Customs Union (or not) were not solved before the referendum."
Yet, Stronger In, Vote Leave and the Government all said that a vote to leave was a vote to leave these arrangements. There's the mandate for it. It couldn't have been made clearer, despite the deviously-edited video by James McGrory's organisation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA
5. "One of the main reasons the referendum debate was not exhaustive was that the country’s major broadcast journalists did not understand the issues and did not push the leaders of the Leave camp about those."
Simply false, as the above video will demonstrate.
6. "This takes the Article 50 exit process at face value, and assumes that Britain will be out of the EU at the end of that process Yes, formally the UK will be out ..."
So we will be out of the EU, then? Like Marr said?
7. "...[B]ut as Ivan Rogers, someone with a lot more detailed info on the process than Andrew Marr, has said – the full process will likely take a decade."
Another strawman. Marr does not state or imply that he feels that all trade negotiations and deals will be completed by the time the Article 50 notice period expires. So why attack am argument or implication he hasn't made?
8. "Plus as Theresa May has now even begun to acknowledge, the only thing the UK is likely to be able to get in two years is a transition deal. While that is in place, Britain will have the very opposite of what Marr demands, namely no say in the EU institutions, but no gain of control whatsoever – because the UK will still be in the Single Market and Customs Union during the transition, will have to accept the Four Freedoms if that is so, and will probably still be subject to the ECJ and pay into the EU budget. If there are sunlit uplands, they will not be reached in two and a bit years."
We will be subject to the ECJ in such a situation.
As a temporary arrangement there would be no problems with this situation apart from frustration that a total extrication has not yet been executed.
9. Marr - "This is odd; and it is a dangerous wasted opportunity. Parliamentary power, expanded and reinforced, gives new opportunities to both the left and the right to change Britain. Rather than being paralysed by fear, we ought to be on the lip of a great invigoration of our democracy. "
Worth - "Perhaps Marr has not seen May’s efforts to keep Parliament out of the Brexit process by refusing a vote on when to trigger Article 50?"
Disingenuous. That Parliament would be more powerful post-Brexit is undeniable. The fact that she thinks she has the sole rights over Article 50 via the prerogative doesn;t change this. At best, you've argued an irrelevant point. May would not be able to curtail Parliamentary power either pre- or post- Brexit.
10. "Brexit was at least in part driven by nostalgia."
Who says? You are equating the fact that older people voted for Brexit with nostalgia. It could easily have been out of the remembering of a time when our institutions were not subject to European ones with dubious democratic credentials.
In these circumstances the motivating factor would actually be democracy and accountability, not nostalgia. The latter refers to baseless sentimentality, not the recollection of how things were leading to a reasoned decision.
11. "Brexit is supposed to rejuvenate British democracy – should choice over the variant of Brexit hence not lie with Parliament?"
Well, no. How can a Parliament negotiate en masse?
And you have rightly pointed out that the choice of Brexit is not May's choice. Even if Parliament was able to negotiate the Brexit deal as a bloc you've made the error of refuting your own argument and not realising it. The choice of Brexit wouldn't be merely down to Parliament's choice in such a situation, just as it isn't merely down to May's now.
12. "Second, the Department for International Trade was set up on 14th July, a time when the government had no idea whatsoever what its Brexit strategy was..."
The fact remains: if we remained in the Single Market we would not be able to negotiate our own deals. The fact May's set up a department to do this implies that she sees us outside the SM arrangement.
13. "Yes, might is the most important word here regarding the sector by sector approach. Perhaps almost certainly not would be better – because the EU will see it as further cherry picking by the UK. And as the Switzerland case (that operates this way) shows, it’s hellish time consuming and complex to do – and no way possible within two years."
Why is the 2 year time factor an issue? I thought you'd already argued and accepted that all deals will not be concluded in this timescale. So how can you use that factor as a specific criticism when you accept that no other type of deal will be concluded in this period, either?
14. "So it’s deceit then? It has taken back control, but actually there will be no change?"
No, it would be an inevitable quid pro quo situation in negotiations. Interesting that you have no problem with the deceit of the Cameron Government promising to adhere to our decision in the referendum and then reneging on it.
How come you're concerned with the electorate being misled, suddenly?
15. "This is horribly poor. For a start Port Talbot is threatened by Chinese steel dumping. Which country prevented the EU acting to prevent the dumping? Yes, the UK. Under a Tory government."
I'm afraid your argument is 'horribly poor'. It's disingenuous and yet again a strawman attack. Marr is discussing the ability of the Government to intervene to save the steel industry. He rightly points out that State Aid rules prevent it.* He is not discussing the pressure the global steel market exerts on Port Talbot and other UK steelworks. So why would he mention Chinese steel dumping?
*Incidentally Corbyn, Kinnock and many on the Left pointed to Italy's government intervening in its steel industry to argue that it could be done even whilst we are in the EU. This is in gross ignorance of the ongoing Commission investigation into the illegality of it. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-115_en.htm
16. "Remember Lloyd’s are already drawing up contingency plans."
Which consists of opening an office with minimal staff in an EU location. London was the World's premier insurance market long before 1 January 1973.
17. "Trump then Marr sure is that! Plus the USA accounts for 17% of UK exports, while the EU accounts for 44% of UK exports."
And even if no deals are reached and the UK has to reply on WTO rules that trade will continue. The cost will be £9bn. That is de minimis compared to the value of exports.
Incidentally, as most people know, that 44% figure is deliberately misleading. Exports to non-EU countries via Rotterdam are taken to be exports to the EU for that statistic.