Thread by @EmporersNewC

We are here today to deliberate the case of one Daniel John Hannan MP who stands charged with being the most cynical liar in British politics.

(Thread)

Admitted into evidence to support the case against him is a self-created film in which Mr Hannan argues what will happen to our trading relationship if we vote to leave the European Union.

In this evidence, Mr Hanan can be seen inventing a “European Single Market”. A single market that Moldova and Ukraine are apparently part of.

For the clarification of the jury, there is no such market. There is only a series of individually agreed preferences.

After creating said “European Single Market”, Mr Hannan then goes on to talk about the “Internal Market”.

The Internal Market being the name of the actual European Single Market. eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chapte…

Having talked about the real Single Market, he then brings in a new word “Common Market”. This Common Market of Mr Hannan has apparently got a widespread number of members who are, in truth, not members of anything like an actual Common Market.

Finally, Mr Hannan can be seen arguing that “we're not walking out of the Single Market”. Leaving the question, is he referring to the Internal Market, the Common Market that doesn’t exist, or the Single Market that does not exist?

Of particular note is the logical sentence construction between his statement regarding the real Single Market, and his statement regarding the non-existent ‘Common Market’.

As they jury, you must ask yourself if this is clever and deliberate subterfuge.

Another question that you, as the jury, must consider is: Has Mr Daniel John Hannan deliberately conflated the Common Market and the Internal Market for EFTA advocates, who consider membership of the Single Market as returning to the market we joined in 1975?

If you consider that Danial Hannan has conflated the Internal Market with a number of fantasy creations, interweaving them in such a manner that it sounded like Single Market membership was not at risk, then you may conclude that he is the Leonardo da Vinci of liars.

Having reviewed the argument of the plaintiff, the argument for the defence is a simple one: Dan Hannan knows absolute nothing about trade, and uses terms ignorantly, indiscriminately, and indeterminately.

Firstly the defence argues that there is a “European Single Market” by virtue of the fact there are trade agreements with the EU. These do not create a Single Market, and therefore he is clearly ignorant of what a Single Market is.

Entered into evidence was clear proof that Dan Hannan had to have the difference between a free trade agreement and the Single Market explained to him on national television.

There is also evidence which indicates that Mr Hannan’s understanding of the Common Market is equally weak.

I speak, of course, of the footage where the accused can be seen arguing that the “Common Market” is being extended to Moldova.

The defence argues that either Mr Hannan has a long history of conflating other countries with the EEA, or he simply doesn’t know which countries are in the EEA.

In other evidence Mr Hannan can be seen using the “Free Market” and the “Single Market” as if they were the same thing.

The Free Market, not being the Single Market, the Common Market, Mr Hannan's non-existent Common Market or Mr Hannan's non-existent European Single Market.

To summarise, the case for the defence is that Dan Hannan does not understand the first thing about trade in any conceptual or practical sense.

infacts.org/dan-hannan-twi…

That when Daniel Hannan talks about the “Single Market” he could be referring to “The Common Market”, the “Single Market”, or any one of a number of fantasy creations which are absolutely not a Single Market.

And the defence would have you believe that when Daniel Hannan refers to the “Common Market”, he could be talking about any one of a number of markets. The Single Market, the Common Market, the Free Market, or even Billingsgate Market.

You are now asked, as the jury, to consider if the prosecution’s case has merit. Did Daniel John Hannan invent a Single Market that the UK wasn’t going to leave before proceeding, through three layers of obfuscation, to conflate it with the real Single Market.

Or, if you believe the case for the defence. That Dan Hannan is a gibbering idiot. Someone who eloquently talks about trade while having absolutely no understanding of the subject and the terms in which he employs.

I should warn the jury that if you do believe the case for the defence, you must also conclude that Dan Hannan has spent the better part of his life relentlessly pursuing a course of action without any understanding of the trade-offs and implications involved.

Please weigh up the evidence carefully and return to the court one of two possible verdicts on the man brought before you.

If you are considering retweeting, may I ask you retweet the top tweet, because any verdict must be based on the evidence, and the evidence alone, and not on the common understanding he is a mendacious little twerp. /End

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1072172117704237056