In the cold light of day, it's relatively difficult to see the possible positive outcomes of Brexit. The UK Government has thus far only been clear that 'Brexit means Brexit'. Nothing else is certain.
What exactly is a "Hard Brexit"? How is it different from "Soft Brexit"? Is there a "Hard Brexit" with "Soft" bits like a chocolate covered marshmallow?
With hundreds of his own MPs having no confidence in his leadership, Jeremy Corbyn is simply incapable of uniting his own party, let alone leading the country. But whilst it would be easy to sit back and watch Labour continue to tear itself apart, we in the Conservative Party have a duty to expose just how dangerous, expensive, and downright reckless the policies that they offer now are.
We cannot shape a new European future at such a time of fragility by indulging in nostalgia - none of us, including the UK, can bring back the past. The European Parliament and myself are committed to keep the European Union and its Member States fit for the challenges of the 21st Century: to increase citizens' rights, their freedom and their security. I believe a close relationship between the EU and the UK is instrumental to ease this task, but clarity is needed. The ball is in the British camp.
'Project Fear' claimed if we voted to leave the EU our universities would face financial ruin. We were told academics would flee the UK. We were told UK students would no longer be able to study abroad. False, false, false.
Real social mobility is definitely crucial if we're to help 'just managing' families. But we need a broader focus on progression in work, on building homes, and on geography to reduce segregation and connect people to growing economies. That's how we improve mobility in the here and now.
Analysis of the referendum results by Chris Hanretty of the University of East Anglia suggests that 70% of Labour-held constituencies either probably or definitely voted Leave. Seeing as Labour's official position in the referendum was for Remain, this shows a huge disconnect with the views of the people the party claims to represent.
The announcement of the National Living Wage will always be associated with George Osborne. But if its implementation is managed skilfully, it could rank high among Theresa May's lasting achievements.
What we are seeing now is similar to a couple that decide to separate but haven't actually done so yet. The children, initially shocked, continue with their normal routine until the change actually happens. It's there in the background but not in the day-to-day.
Instead of playing this tax avoidance game, we have to call tax avoidance what it is: tax dodging. It is wrong. At a time of deep economic insecurity after years of austerity economics, ensuring that enough tax is raised is a matter of national security. A Corbyn-led Labour government will make the changes that are necessary to make a difference.
Parliament will be standing up for fair taxes. For all companies to pay responsible tax and to play by the same set of rules. If Parliament steps up, we won't be the last country to do so. But the UK will be at the front of the pack. Right where we should be.
In 2015, a massive 58% of live births in London were to mothers who themselves were born outside the UK. For contrast, this compares to 11% of births in the North East region of England (the lowest proportion) and 27% for England and Wales as a whole.
There is no doubt that 23 June 2016 was a watershed moment for our country. But what type of watershed will it be? Will Brexit signal the decline of the UK as a global power, a potential break up of the Union and a voluntary resignation from the world stage with a shrinking economy and a divided population? Or will it force us to confront some stark realities and bridge some of the deep fissures in our society and in our economy? Can we use Brexit as an opportunity to think afresh about how to create a more united society, a more just economy and forge a new role in the world?
Any public health measure must always consider the financial impact of action. But it is simply misleading to talk about possible financial impact of a measure without also talking about the economic burden we are already facing. The economic argument for action is huge - £27billion a year. That's why we can't afford not to introduce the soft drinks industry levy.
The reality is that in a parliamentary democracy you can make all the impassioned speeches you like, hold meetings and marches but without winning a parliamentary majority you can't win. Those losing £30 per week ESA, or losing DLA as the switch to PIP continues , or facing the working tax credit cuts in the future, need us to win that majority.
If you think Brexit is a rollercoaster so far, we've only just started the ride. And the eerie silence you hear from Government as we supposedly gear up to the big negotiations doesn't bode well either. We're going to have to brace ourselves for turbulent times and face up to some pretty fundamental questions.