EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Furunculus]

You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow more vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books.

i take the point, but I think we can look at other workplaces and see the enormous increase in productivity and professionalism** that has occurred in just the last generation.
then we look at politics and wonder why similar improvements are gloriously absent...

** i work in local government, so perhaps we had more catching up to do...

[Pannonian]

i take the point, but I think we can look at other workplaces and see the enormous increase in productivity and professionalism** that has occurred in just the last generation.
then we look at politics and wonder why similar improvements are gloriously absent...

** i work in local government, so perhaps we had more catching up to do...

I've not worked in government, but I have served in a jury. While we were theoretically free to decide, that freedom had limits, and quite rightly. The status quo unless there were 10 out of 12 in favour of changing it. This stopped a bare majority from returning a contentious decision. Anything approaching a BS argument got pulled up by the judge. This stopped clever lawyers from bamboozling an average citizen body with rhetoric. A foreman advised on procedure. This stopped said average citizen body from just running off in a direction without precedent.

That worked well enough for what it was supposed to do. On the same basis, Brexit fails every safeguard. BS arguments were allowed to run rampant without check. Evidential arguments were dropped in favour of nebulous arguments of principle, with responsibility for making it real brushed aside. A bare majority is used to justify radical measures not seen since WW2.

Other than, we won, you lost, how does Brexit make this country better? Are there other ways of going about things, without the damage that brexit involves?

[Fragony]

How about a 6 procent growth of youreconomy

[Pannonian]

How about a 6 procent growth of youreconomy

Given that the head of ERG reckons we may not see material benefits of Brexit for another 50 years, I'm not sure where you got that number from, if you're suggesting a jump in economic growth as a result of Brexit. However, what is actual historical evidence, and not supposition pulled from one's backside, is that the UK had the highest growth rate of the big EU countries prior to the referendum, while it is now bottom of the EU 28. Perhaps that jump will come as a result of the recent EU-Japan trade agreement, as suggested by our Trade Minister Liam Fox.

[Furunculus]

I've not worked in government, but I have served in a jury. While we were theoretically free to decide, that freedom had limits, and quite rightly. The status quo unless there were 10 out of 12 in favour of changing it. This stopped a bare majority from returning a contentious decision. Anything approaching a BS argument got pulled up by the judge. This stopped clever lawyers from bamboozling an average citizen body with rhetoric. A foreman advised on procedure. This stopped said average citizen body from just running off in a direction without precedent.

That worked well enough for what it was supposed to do. On the same basis, Brexit fails every safeguard. BS arguments were allowed to run rampant without check. Evidential arguments were dropped in favour of nebulous arguments of principle, with responsibility for making it real brushed aside. A bare majority is used to justify radical measures not seen since WW2.

Other than, we won, you lost, how does Brexit make this country better? Are there other ways of going about things, without the damage that brexit involves?

I realise that some countries do have lots of safeguards to guide society down the 'appropriate' path, and there is nothing wrong with it per-se, but it is not what I want for britain.
I believe there is a need for a society and culture that embraces change, and is able to focus sufficiently on the objective of shaping that change in its favour.

The biggest threat to an attitude that embraces change is fear. A fear that demands comforting certainties. Certainties best provided for by creating institutional blocks to ‘dangerous’ change.

Such institutions would include:
A desire for a consensual political culture, one where disagreement results in calibration rather than adversarial challenge.
Formalised by a proportional electoral system that fractures ideology among smaller more coherent parties, and forces them to compromise to achieve a governing coalition.
A desire for a less dangerous political governance, one where potential bandwidth for action is deliberately limited in order likewise limit the scale of possible damage.
Formalised by a constitutional roadblocks where the power of parliament is curtailed, where elements of the constitution remain verboten, and super-majorities are required to legitimise change.
A desire for a less fractious political discourse, one where contentious issues are dealt with by ‘taking the politics out of the matter’, and leaving it to expert opinion to arbitrate.
Formalised by a supranational system of governance that categorises democracy into areas of fixed technocratic competence, and a residual component left for the state to play with.

The biggest threat to the focus required to shape external events is a lack of confidence. A lack of confidence that instinctively hedges against perceived inadequacies. Hedging that creates institutions incapable of asserting legitimacy in the face of contention.

Such institutions would include:
A desire for accommodation of multiple identities, in which the nation accepts the aims and expectations of sub-groups as not achievable within the wider whole.
Formalised by a highly federalised structure of regional parliaments, leaving a ‘national’ Senate without the political legitimacy to pursue an activist Foreign Policy.
A desire to prioritise social equity, in which areas of government activity which do not meet this goal are steadily re-prioritised to the point where they are no longer strategic in capability.
Formalised by the political downgrading of Defence & Foreign Policy as important offices of state, and the growing functional co-dependence on allied nations to fill in fundamental gaps in capability.
A desire to prioritise understood outcomes over leaps in progress, in which the framework of operation militates against risk.
Formalised by the gradual encroachment of the Precautionary Principle in public policy making, beyond existential problems with long term horizons.

So, Mr. F, you might ask, is the above just a long and convoluted way of saying; “change is great, as long as it’s only the change I am comfortable with”?

Not an unreasonable question, I suppose, and the answer is “yes”. But it’s worth pointing out that these preferences only enable possibility, they do not mandate it, and that that possibility for change has no direction, either for or against my own preferences. I’m fine with that.
I live in an area where my vote will never elect a Parliamentary representative, but I do not seek a proportional electoral system whereby my ‘wasted’ ballot will have some direct purpose.
I firmly believe in both free enterprise and a world where Jeremy Corbyn could end it if elected, and I do not seek a political consensus that excludes what I consider to be his extreme ideas.

I am doubly amused by outrage against brexiter rejection of experts. The outraged are busy creating a straw-man for their own angry rejection, serving only to build a tempest of fury that takes them further away from the real motivations of those they despise.

What happened is simply this: In a normal representative democracy an institution can appeal to your identity as a powerful representation of your beneficial-collective, or, appeal as an institution intended to create a public good on behalf of that collective. Beyond this point you leave political policy making and move into dry civil-service implementation. But the EU is a hybrid that crosses policy and implementation. What was sold as a very technocratic body designed to do quite apolitical things – such as facilitate the convergence of technical standards – has now morphed into an arbiter of public policy. Indeed, key areas of political policy making such as a justice, social, and economic policy.Should prisoners vote? What is the maximum number of hours that can be worked? Should we discourage high-frequency trading?

These areas of policy could not be questioned, because, well, that is the nature of the aquis! As an EU competence they could not be amended or scrapped by national lawmaking. This sits rather poorly with the notion of a Sovereign Parliament, able to lawfully enact anything that a simple majority of its lawmakers agree to. Sorry, out of bounds. This sits equally poorly with a public culture that accepts a majoritarian electoral system, and expects the same lack of impediments to direct plebiscites. Hold on there, that’s not for you to decide. So what is to be done? Simples; pretend the EU isn’t making political choices upon which success or failure can be pronounced. No, it is all simply technocratic implementation of common standards. It is not subject to preference, the appropriate committee has deemed this outcome to be optimal.

This is the context into which Gove dropped his bombshell on experts. He called time on the conspiracy that hid political governance behind a façade of dry technocratic implementation.

[Husar]

i take the point, but I think we can look at other workplaces and see the enormous increase in productivity and professionalism** that has occurred in just the last generation.
then we look at politics and wonder why similar improvements are gloriously absent...

That sounds like an apples and oranges comparison. Where are the big productivity improvements in kindergartens and in sports? Do your footballers run 100% faster now and do your kindergarten teachers care for 500 children each? You can't just compare every "people business" with a factory that produces shoes. Unless you actually want to replace politicians with an AI...

[Montmorency]

Given that the head of ERG reckons we may not see material benefits of Brexit for another 50 years, I'm not sure where you got that number from, if you're suggesting a jump in economic growth as a result of Brexit. However, what is actual historical evidence, and not supposition pulled from one's backside, is that the UK had the highest growth rate of the big EU countries prior to the referendum, while it is now bottom of the EU 28. Perhaps that jump will come as a result of the recent EU-Japan trade agreement, as suggested by our Trade Minister Liam Fox.

Spain had bigger. In 2015 3.4 vs. UK's 2.3, according to the World Bank. (Ireland had up to 26% because taxes and bookkeeping. China wishes they could formulate numbers like that.)

<snip>

So you're a post-political radical without any particular agenda?

[Furunculus]

So you're a post-political radical without any particular agenda?

i certainly sympathise, but I don't consider myself part of [their] movement, as my polity retained a robust adversarial political system rather than having it emerge at the end of the cold war...

[Montmorency]

i certainly sympathise, but I don't consider myself part of [their] movement, as my polity retained a robust adversarial political system rather than having it emerge at the end of the cold war...

You misunderstand. This isn't an Eastern-European "movement" - the fall of the East bloc was merely a defining moment in the post-political order and dynamic, as sloganized in "the end of history". The critique of post-politics is a broader philosophical reaction to the postwar liberal consensus (originally by leftist radicals). Now for example, the "alt-right" can be considered a post-political movement seeking a return to the dynamics of the "properly political" - which for them happens to be either fascism or monarchism, really. Reading about the "post-political" is helpful in understanding what the 20th century was, and how the 21st century is different.

[Furunculus]

You misunderstand. This isn't an Eastern-European "movement" - the fall of the East bloc was merely a defining moment in the post-political order and dynamic, as sloganized in "the end of history". The critique of post-politics is a broader philosophical reaction to the postwar liberal consensus (originally by leftist radicals). Now for example, the "alt-right" can be considered a post-political movement seeking a return to the dynamics of the "properly political" - which for them happens to be either fascism or monarchism, really. Reading about the "post-political" is helpful in understanding what the 20th century was, and how the 21st century is different.

you know more about it than i.

perhaps I placed too much stress on the word "emergence" in the first line of the linked article:

"Post-politics refers to the critique of the emergence, in the post-Cold War period, of a politics of consensus on a global scale"

[Pannonian]

Leavers already starting to campaign in a second referendum, and in the same old manner. This has apparently been going round sympathetic Facebook circles. I won't pin that blog's extreme right politics on Mr.Knocker, so I'll just look at his own words and the points that he makes. Most of the stuff is deceptive in some way, but some of it is just plain lies to anyone with even a bare minimum of knowledge on the matter. Unfortunately, as our Trade Minister shows, most of the UK don't have even that much. I'll highlight a couple of points first.

Let’s reverse this and look at the consequences of staying. This time telling the truth.

These outcomes have already been agreed and would happen:
...
5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.
6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.

5. The ECJ have actually ruled the exact opposite. With both the UK government and the EU27 both arguing, for different reasons, that article 50 was now out of their hands, the ECJ ruled that all member states remained sovereign, and that the UK can do whatever it likes on article 50 for as long as it was a member state. That's the big nasty ECJ defending the UK's sovereignty against the UK government's and EU27's attempts to allocate blame and control.
6. Contrary to the claim at the head of the list, the agreement is that, should the UK decide to remain, it would do so under existing conditions. So the whip hand that Ireland and the other members of the EU27 currently have over the UK would also be in the UK's hands. The UK is desperate enough for a border solution that it is willing to give up Northern Ireland to achieve this; this is a testament to how much leverage a member state has over an outside state. Adopting 100% of what the EU decides without a voice isn't a consequence of Remain; it is a consequence of May's or indeed any agreement, which needs "equivalence" in order to facilitate trade, but which has withdrawn from the EU. In short, it's not Remain that causes the UK to have to adopt everything without a voice; it is Leave.

This is an example of the lies and deception that is currency in Leave's campaign, how it often directly contradicts reality, and how it shifts all responsibility onto Remainers. When the discourse is as filled with lies as this, how much authority does a democratic decision have?

[Pannonian]

Not quoted in the blog post, but was in the original Facebook post being circulated, here's the opening section citing Richard Knocker as the author of the list of facts.

From: Richard Knocker (Ex-pilot in the Gulf wars)

OK so we’ve had the worst-case scenario for leaving the EU given to us by numerous outlets ranging from the Bank of England to the spoiled prepubescent acting momentum supporter and everyone in-between.
So, I am now going to tell you the worst-case scenario of remaining in the EU based on actual known factors and figures, sourced from the public records of the UK Government, the EU Parliament, The Bank of England, the CBI, Migration watch, The Stock exchanges around the world, the IMF, and the UN.
So those of you who think that this little rant is a tin foil hat moment by myself think again and go and fully research and cross reference what I am about to tell you and remember this is worst-case scenario that could happen unless I clearly point out where it will happen by either a date or other factor.

Note the author, titled as "Richard Knocker (Ex-pilot in the Gulf wars)", thus appealing to patriots who support soldiers. Except that Mr.Knocker has denied being the author of this post.

Q: Are you responsible for this rubbish too?
Richard Knocker: Nope wasn't me I am afraid someone has used my name but I definitely didn't write it
Richard Knocker: I don't know that many words and I definitely haven't read the Lisbon treaty!
Richard Knocker: I saw it on another FB post somewhere but not written or posted by me
Carly Jeffrey: It's doing the rounds

Is this legitimate freedom of speech, leading to a healthy debate and an appropriate democratic decision?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Given that the head of ERG reckons we may not see material benefits of Brexit for another 50 years, I'm not sure where you got that number from, if you're suggesting a jump in economic growth as a result of Brexit. However, what is actual historical evidence, and not supposition pulled from one's backside, is that the UK had the highest growth rate of the big EU countries prior to the referendum, while it is now bottom of the EU 28. Perhaps that jump will come as a result of the recent EU-Japan trade agreement, as suggested by our Trade Minister Liam Fox.

While I agree that Frag's "6%" is not in the immediate offing, I would suggest that almost any economic projection 50 years out is a bit flawed.

If a hard Brexit takes place, the UK will be thumped pretty hard. After that, not being idiots or nincompoops, they will adjust to the new economic realities. It will not take two generations to reestablish a healthy economy, just as it will not leap to 6% growth after a single year's "hiccough."

[Pannonian]

While I agree that Frag's "6%" is not in the immediate offing, I would suggest that almost any economic projection 50 years out is a bit flawed.

If a hard Brexit takes place, the UK will be thumped pretty hard. After that, not being idiots or nincompoops, they will adjust to the new economic realities. It will not take two generations to reestablish a healthy economy, just as it will not leap to 6% growth after a single year's "hiccough."

50 years is a number to ensure that today's leading Brexiteers will never have to be called to account for their promises, whilst still just being within reach of the very young.

[Husar]

Leavers already starting to campaign in a second referendum, and in the same old manner. This has apparently been going round sympathetic Facebook circles.

Come on, he probably copy-pasted that from The Onion for fun. If anyone believes all that, you need to fund the school system instead of the NHS.

[Pannonian]

Come on, he probably copy-pasted that from The Onion for fun. If anyone believes all that, you need to fund the school system instead of the NHS.

It's circulating around Facebook circles, which was a strategy used by Leave last time round (after having phished people to get a list of likely receptives). Due to how social media and Facebook in particular is run, posts like these go around in an echo chamber that reinforces what people are inclined to believe without admitting the relevance of actual facts and evidence. Leave realised last time round that, in a democratic system, everyone has the same number of votes, and it's much easier to reinforce voter opinions within these echo chambers than it is to rebut lies. Last time round, they ran a competition, fronted by celebs, seemingly to get football fans to talk about football and win prizes, but whose actual purpose was to get a list of football fans whose demographic can be relied on to identify with a tribe without too much analysis or debate. They've already got that list and the echo chamber they'd set up, and all they need to do is disseminate the new lies/re-disseminate the old ones.

NB. The above isn't conspiracy theory. The head of the Leave campaign actually admitted this was what they did. The HoC were, the last I heard, trying to compile a list of ads that Leave ran within that echo chamber, but Leave weren't cooperating, and the ads only circulated within those circles. The initial phishing alone would have invalidated normal electoral campaigns, but since the referendum wasn't run using those rules (being theoretically advisory rather than legally enforceable), Leave was free to abuse the rules as much as they liked.

[Pannonian]

A Christmas tale by JK Rowling (the author of the Harry Potter books).

And lo, unto her did appear a host of Corbyn defenders, who did descend upon her mentions, and she was not sore afraid, because she was used to it. And the host did sing with one voice, ‘ungodly woman, thou foolest us not. We know the true reason thou despisest Saint Jeremy.’ 1

And she did say unto them ‘share thy hot take.’ And with righteous wrath they did declare, ‘thou fearest Saint Jeremy, friend of the poor, because he shall take from thee in taxation much more even than Herod, and so thou attackest the meek and honest saviour of this land.’ 2

And she did reply, ‘I shall not call ye dimwits, for it is the season of goodwill, but tis not Saint Jeremy who shall tax me, nay, not even if he enters the house of Number Ten, for my tax rates are set by Queen Nicola, in whose kingdom I do abide, and unto her I do pay
3

my full portion, seeking neither to flee to Monaco nor to hide my gold in far flung lands, like St Jacob, Patron Saint of Filthy Hypocrites.’ ‘Speak not of hypocrites!’ cried the host, ‘for thou dost claim to care about the poor yet doth rail against their champion, St Jeremy!’ 4

And she did answer, ‘How shall the poor fare under Brexit, which thy Saint hath always in his secret heart desired, yet he hath not admitted what was in his heart, lest fewer attend his next Sermon on the Glastonbury B Stage.’ And they did answer, ‘Saint Jeremy will achieve
5

a miracle, and he shall bring forth a Jobs First Brexit and all the land shall rejoice.’ And she did answer, ‘bollocks.’ But she bethought her of the season of goodwill, and repenting of her ire she did speak further. ‘I have, for all my life, voted Labour, yet now I cannot.’ 6

‘But his goodness doth shine out of his every orifice!’ cried the host, swarming anew into her mentions. ‘Behold his beard! Look upon this picture of him being led off by police when he was protesting racism in all its forms!’ And she did say, ‘I have looked upon his beard 7

...and also upon this picture. It is a good picture and I do like a beard, as I have oft declared. Yet must I protest, thou it breaketh my heart so to do, that this party of Labour, which I have so long loved, has become, under St Jeremy -‘
8

‘Speak not of the Jews!’ cried the host. ‘Why must thou speak so oft of the Jews?’ ‘Yea, I must speak,’ said she, ‘for when Jews no longer feel safe in Labour then I too must leave.’ And one of the host did shout something about the Rothschilds
9

and he was hastily hushed by his brethren, who did declare, ‘he is not one of ours, thou he sports a #JC4PM halo.’ And another did speak and he said, ‘it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel,’ and she did put her face in her hands and want to weep. 10

But she did then look up and see many stars shining brightly in the sky and lo, they did arrange themselves before her eyes into a ‘who would make the best Prime Minister poll’ and she did cry, ‘Will ye not raise up your eyes to the Heavens? See there the People’s mind!’ 11

And they did look up at the stars and read there that St Jeremy was, as for ages past, in third place after Pontus May and Don’t Know. And she spake further, ‘do ye not see that St Jeremy is hurting your party, yea, that his inability even to organise a vote of no confidence
12

doth embolden and strengthen this calamitous government, of which all despair?’ But they did close their eyes to the stars and some did answer, ‘you are a fool who doth not understand St Jeremy’s master plan’
13

and others still did beseech the woman to descend from the ivory tower in which, for the purposes of this story, they would wish her to dwell. And they besought her to descend into Bethlehem, and go to a certain allotment,
14

where she would find the Messiah busy with his marrows and she would be filled with the spirit of Momentum. But she did shake her head and declare that she was and would remain an unbeliever, yet full sorrowful she was, for Labour had been her home. 15

And the host did despise and condemn her, and many did tell her to fuck off and join the Tories, and before they did depart one of their number cried unto her, ‘it’s because he’ll tax you more, isn’t it,’ and she did sigh and wished him a Merry Christmas. 16X

[Husar]

I know Facebook, I have an account there.

And I also know that some people believe anything posted there, especially if it fits their existing beliefs.
The point was to say that a) I strongly believe this is crazy and b) something needs to be done.

Earlier today I saw some American on Facebook who claimed Belgium could only afford a healthcare system because all the EU members send it so much money and that these special circumstances just can't work everywhere.
I did however try to explain (in short) why he was wrong after I told him how his argument is very stupid and wrong.

Anyway, remember to fund your schools with all the excess money you will have after leaving.

[Fragony]

A Christmas tale by JK Rowling (the author of the Harry Potter books).

And lo, unto her did appear a host of Corbyn defenders, who did descend upon her mentions, and she was not sore afraid, because she was used to it. And the host did sing with one voice, ‘ungodly woman, thou foolest us not. We know the true reason thou despisest Saint Jeremy.’ 1

And she did say unto them ‘share thy hot take.’ And with righteous wrath they did declare, ‘thou fearest Saint Jeremy, friend of the poor, because he shall take from thee in taxation much more even than Herod, and so thou attackest the meek and honest saviour of this land.’ 2

And she did reply, ‘I shall not call ye dimwits, for it is the season of goodwill, but tis not Saint Jeremy who shall tax me, nay, not even if he enters the house of Number Ten, for my tax rates are set by Queen Nicola, in whose kingdom I do abide, and unto her I do pay
3

my full portion, seeking neither to flee to Monaco nor to hide my gold in far flung lands, like St Jacob, Patron Saint of Filthy Hypocrites.’ ‘Speak not of hypocrites!’ cried the host, ‘for thou dost claim to care about the poor yet doth rail against their champion, St Jeremy!’ 4

And she did answer, ‘How shall the poor fare under Brexit, which thy Saint hath always in his secret heart desired, yet he hath not admitted what was in his heart, lest fewer attend his next Sermon on the Glastonbury B Stage.’ And they did answer, ‘Saint Jeremy will achieve
5

a miracle, and he shall bring forth a Jobs First Brexit and all the land shall rejoice.’ And she did answer, ‘bollocks.’ But she bethought her of the season of goodwill, and repenting of her ire she did speak further. ‘I have, for all my life, voted Labour, yet now I cannot.’ 6

‘But his goodness doth shine out of his every orifice!’ cried the host, swarming anew into her mentions. ‘Behold his beard! Look upon this picture of him being led off by police when he was protesting racism in all its forms!’ And she did say, ‘I have looked upon his beard 7

...and also upon this picture. It is a good picture and I do like a beard, as I have oft declared. Yet must I protest, thou it breaketh my heart so to do, that this party of Labour, which I have so long loved, has become, under St Jeremy -‘
8

‘Speak not of the Jews!’ cried the host. ‘Why must thou speak so oft of the Jews?’ ‘Yea, I must speak,’ said she, ‘for when Jews no longer feel safe in Labour then I too must leave.’ And one of the host did shout something about the Rothschilds
9

and he was hastily hushed by his brethren, who did declare, ‘he is not one of ours, thou he sports a #JC4PM halo.’ And another did speak and he said, ‘it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel,’ and she did put her face in her hands and want to weep. 10

But she did then look up and see many stars shining brightly in the sky and lo, they did arrange themselves before her eyes into a ‘who would make the best Prime Minister poll’ and she did cry, ‘Will ye not raise up your eyes to the Heavens? See there the People’s mind!’ 11

And they did look up at the stars and read there that St Jeremy was, as for ages past, in third place after Pontus May and Don’t Know. And she spake further, ‘do ye not see that St Jeremy is hurting your party, yea, that his inability even to organise a vote of no confidence
12

doth embolden and strengthen this calamitous government, of which all despair?’ But they did close their eyes to the stars and some did answer, ‘you are a fool who doth not understand St Jeremy’s master plan’
13

and others still did beseech the woman to descend from the ivory tower in which, for the purposes of this story, they would wish her to dwell. And they besought her to descend into Bethlehem, and go to a certain allotment,
14

where she would find the Messiah busy with his marrows and she would be filled with the spirit of Momentum. But she did shake her head and declare that she was and would remain an unbeliever, yet full sorrowful she was, for Labour had been her home. 15

And the host did despise and condemn her, and many did tell her to fuck off and join the Tories, and before they did depart one of their number cried unto her, ‘it’s because he’ll tax you more, isn’t it,’ and she did sigh and wished him a Merry Christmas. 16X

Harry Putter.

Love Rowling though, not as much as Roald Dahl but she certainly knows how to write cool children's books, love the Harry Potter books

[Pannonian]

I know Facebook, I have an account there.

And I also know that some people believe anything posted there, especially if it fits their existing beliefs.
The point was to say that a) I strongly believe this is crazy and b) something needs to be done.

Earlier today I saw some American on Facebook who claimed Belgium could only afford a healthcare system because all the EU members send it so much money and that these special circumstances just can't work everywhere.
I did however try to explain (in short) why he was wrong after I told him how his argument is very stupid and wrong.

Anyway, remember to fund your schools with all the excess money you will have after leaving.

Don't think that, just because something is plainly idiotic, people won't believe it. Our Trade Minister, Liam Fox, welcomed the recently concluded EU-Japan trade agreement, saying that it would mean an extra several billion in trade for the UK, making Brexit a success. His twitter readers pulled him up on the bloody obvious; the agreement is between Japan and the EU, which thanks to Brexiteers like Fox, the UK will no longer be part of, meaning that even within the confines of a single tweet, Fox managed to contradict himself and claim something that was plainly false. This is our Trade Minister, on a subject matter which he is supposed to be the designated expert on in the Cabinet.

A lot of Brexiteering among the voters is just apathetic ignorance. But most of the Brexiteering from their theorists is just straight out mendacity, seen most clearly in dismissing the vast body of expert opinion whilst pointing to obscure publications and think tanks with outlying opinions. You'd have to be well read up to know of the latter, but you'd have to be mendacious to dismiss the former. They know how the game works: all voters have one vote each, whether they're qualified experts in economics or members of a Facebook echo chamber.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

50 years is a number to ensure that today's leading Brexiteers will never have to be called to account for their promises, whilst still just being within reach of the very young.

True. And economic modeling at that range in years with the untold variables involved make climate science look exacting by comparison.

[Furunculus]

everything I read from you, Pan, is completely absent of nuance or empathy.

everything you describe is a Manichean dichotomy between the obvious moral worth of Remain and obvious mendacious deceit of leaving.

am I wrong in thinking this, perhaps a misunderstanding I have created, from misreading some quirk of the way you write?
do you hold any recognition that:
1. people can be honest in their motivations to leave
2. people can have well thought out motivations to leave, even if you disagree with those motivations
3. that a surprising percentage of leave voters will combine both honest and well thought out motivations

i don't understand how someone can be so totally absent any kind of understanding over why 52% of your fellow elecorate may have come to a different opinion than yourself. it is a little frightening!

[Husar]

everything I read from you, Pan, is completely absent of nuance or empathy.

everything you describe is a Manichean dichotomy between the obvious moral worth of Remain and obvious mendacious deceit of leaving.

am I wrong in thinking this, perhaps a misunderstanding I have created, from misreading some quirk of the way you write?
do you hold any recognition that:
1. people can be honest in their motivations to leave
2. people can have well thought out motivations to leave, even if you disagree with those motivations
3. that a surprising percentage of leave voters will combine both honest and well thought out motivations

i don't understand how someone can be so totally absent any kind of understanding over why 52% of your fellow elecorate may have come to a different opinion than yourself. it is a little frightening!

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No, that group is nowhere near the entire 52%.

And I still think their position is heavily flawed. Being sincere doesn't make a position intelligent and being well-thought-out does not make it moral. This also means that in many cases 1 and 2 appear mutually exclusive to me, making the group of 3 very small.

[Fragony]

That's right, some people just not like IT even they want you to do something. There where perfectly fine trade agreements long before the EU overhead existed. Thee are stil there. IT is just a needless bureaucracy trying to survive (IT won't)

[Husar]

I don't know why Information Technology bothers you so much.

[Pannonian]

That's right, some people just not like IT even they want you to do something. There where perfectly fine trade agreements long before the EU overhead existed. Thee are stil there. IT is just a needless bureaucracy trying to survive (IT won't)

Like the fine trade agreement that our Trade Minister recently welcomed, saying that it will increase the UK's trade by several billion? That was the last concrete matter that our relevant minister spoke about on the subject. Do you agree with his assessment?

[Pannonian]

everything I read from you, Pan, is completely absent of nuance or empathy.

everything you describe is a Manichean dichotomy between the obvious moral worth of Remain and obvious mendacious deceit of leaving.

am I wrong in thinking this, perhaps a misunderstanding I have created, from misreading some quirk of the way you write?
do you hold any recognition that:
1. people can be honest in their motivations to leave
2. people can have well thought out motivations to leave, even if you disagree with those motivations
3. that a surprising percentage of leave voters will combine both honest and well thought out motivations

i don't understand how someone can be so totally absent any kind of understanding over why 52% of your fellow elecorate may have come to a different opinion than yourself. it is a little frightening!

On 1, see what the Brexit leaders are doing. I know of Lawson (former chairman of Leave), Farage, Rees Mogg and Redwood making preparations to evacuate themselves or their investments abroad. In Redwood's case, he's actually written that economic prospects post-Brexit aren't good, and his clients should hold off on investing in Britain. I don't see how, in any value system, hypocrisy can be seen as honest.

On 2, see the overwhelming weight of expert opinion. 90+% of economics experts have predicted economic downturn post-Brexit, and even the head of ERG does not see any upturn for some 50 years. And the opinions of the haulage industry which you refuse even to look at. How is that well thought out? The overwhelming body of opinion said that pi is a complex number that cannot be simply expressed. Versus the lone opinion that pi is 3.2. The Georgian congress passed a Bill ruling that pi equals 3.2. Should people have been understanding of the possibility that this exercise of democratic will has its case?

Democracy does not prevent stupidity. If something is stupid given all the evidence showing it to be so, the democratic argument does not mean otherwise. Stupid is stupid, no matter how democratic it is dressed up to be.

[Furunculus]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No, that group is nowhere near the entire 52%.

And I still think their position is heavily flawed. Being sincere doesn't make a position intelligent and being well-thought-out does not make it moral. This also means that in many cases 1 and 2 appear mutually exclusive to me, making the group of 3 very small.

Congratulations. You pass the adult test, whereby it is possible to acknowledge the validity of other points of view. Even where you do not agree with them!

[Furunculus]

On 1, see what the Brexit leaders are doing. I know of Lawson (former chairman of Leave), Farage, Rees Mogg and Redwood making preparations to evacuate themselves or their investments abroad. In Redwood's case, he's actually written that economic prospects post-Brexit aren't good, and his clients should hold off on investing in Britain. I don't see how, in any value system, hypocrisy can be seen as honest.

On 2, see the overwhelming weight of expert opinion. 90+% of economics experts have predicted economic downturn post-Brexit, and even the head of ERG does not see any upturn for some 50 years. And the opinions of the haulage industry which you refuse even to look at. How is that well thought out? The overwhelming body of opinion said that pi is a complex number that cannot be simply expressed. Versus the lone opinion that pi is 3.2. The Georgian congress passed a Bill ruling that pi equals 3.2. Should people have been understanding of the possibility that this exercise of democratic will has its case?

Democracy does not prevent stupidity. If something is stupid given all the evidence showing it to be so, the democratic argument does not mean otherwise. Stupid is stupid, no matter how democratic it is dressed up to be.

Hmmm, fails the adult test where it is possible to acknowledge the validity of ideas you do not yourself hold.

[Fragony]

Like the fine trade agreement that our Trade Minister recently welcomed, saying that it will in, tadecrease the UK's trade by several billion? That was the last concrete matter that our relevant minister spoke about on the subject. Do you agree with his assessment?

Several billions is wat tof pay the EU, tradedeals that were already done at whatsapp we call the are left undone, and these are all you need. Tot make IT look live you are suddenly isolated you are only lees messed with in reality