Well, Boris, predictably perhaps, has become the new Prime Minister. Whilst it is still a Tory government with - presumably - the objective in part of preserving itself as a political entity, it has some signs that quite radical change in government focus if not parliamentary reform is on the agenda.
Let's face it, we were never going to get the full shake-up of Westminster that we've mooted for the entire period of the Brexit process, but what we do have now is the possibility - let's not describe it beyond that for the moment - that there is a dynamic in play with a gathering of individuals who are prepared to think outside of the orthodoxy of traditional Westminster behaviour. That's a positive to be built upon. We need politicians and government alike to start being upbeat about what needs to be done, being enthused by the challenge of a Britain with a new mode of leadership (we hope) and equally stimulated to start seeing the opportunities rather than the rabbit holes all of the time. Gone are the soothsayers of May's government. Out have gone the detractors and opponents that have infested the positions of high office. Yet there are still loud noises being made by the leaderless army of anti-Brexit campaigners, an army of convinced sceptics who would prefer the inclusiveness of a federalised Europe rather than seeing the opportunities that Britain could develop if allowed to. In short, we are still very much divided on the whole issue of Brexit.
There is an imperative here, is there not ? If there is acceptance that Brexit was legally mandated and undertaken, that parliament set Article 50 in motion and that all party manifesto's (perhaps excepting the SNP and the LibDems) supported the principle of leaving the EU then that is what must happen if the very idea of democracy is to hold water. A rebuttal of Article 50 or a second referendum - as things legally and constitutionally stand - would not be legal. What would be the legal status of a 'Let's stay in the EU' majority vote emerging from a second referendum ? Remainers would no doubt argue that it took precedence. Leavers would say that the first vote was the legally binding one. Division and further schisms would continue. That is not what this country needs. We need bold, imaginative and positive leadership from Westminster, not an endless continuance of mealy mouthed pundits predicting either Utopia or Armageddon. That time has passed and now we need government to grasp the nettle and fulfill the legal mandate of leaving. And if we have to leave with no deal that will be unfortunate, but it would perhaps underline how short-sighted and petty the EU have become toward anyone challenging their club rules. Britain needs the global market to play in. It needs the choices of doing deals with those who wish to do deals with us - and not everyone will, there will always be some who choose a different path of their own - and Britain needs to recover that sense of worth, of self-pride, confidence and ambition that the EU stifles.
Our circumstances may not be perfect but they are looking infinitely better than they did under the previous government, and once the Brexit phase is concluded one way or the other, then we can turn much needed attention to our domestic and social agendas.
If this government is not perfect, then so be it - seldom do we achieve perfection. But let them get on with the job, stop squabbling and detracting and let's all push for the new pathway for Britain to follow.