Or do Brexiteer politicians get a free pass for treating people as if they are thick and making all Brexiteers look thick, because it allows them play victim when people react and call them thick?
Is this some political genius play where Brexiteer politicians say thick things, people repeat those thick things, they are called thick, and then they build their motivation from the outrage of being called thick?
Or is it just that the Brexit politicians are thick?
Is is possible, so that we can actually work out where we are, if people just stopped saying thick things?
I just think it would help at this point.
And now we're subjected to a chain reaction, because once something thick is out there, the thick thing gets spawned.
Apparently saying thick things, spreading thick things, repeating thick things is fine in the UK, but call someone thick who does that and you get told that's not conducive to winning people around.
At what point is it acceptable to call people thick who consistently say and repeat thick things that are thick?
Instead people are shamed into not calling out people who say things that are thick.
What we should really be doing is shaming those people for saying the thick things they are saying.
The fact we don't is exactly why we have debates with 'due impartiality'.
People in the UK can go onto a television show, and without actually understanding the issues, unleash a torrent of thickness with no fear of being shamed. Instead their views are given the same respect as those that do know what they are talking about.
And if our society is going to sit back and do nothing and allow our progression to be weighed down with meaningless discussions based on completely stupid propositions, then we are thick!
We debated Brexit for over 4 years and now businesses aren't ready and some have suggested surprise at what they have had to do.
How is that reality possible after 4 years?
We've known we were going to have an FTA since Boris became PM. That's over a year to have proper discussion about the realities of that trade model.
Instead we've had 4 years debating mindless statements about how we didn't need an Irish sea border, that we had a major hand, that the EU were punishing us, or whatever stupid assertion that was made.
There were people in trade who were having intelligent debates on this, but who was invited to the debate? Dan Hannan, a man so thick he couldn't work out the tariff on Chilean wines after several attempts.
His reward for not calling him thick? For not treating an opinion drawn from the lowest level of factual engagement? He is on a trade advisory panel for the government!
How is this helping us as a country???
A nation with a system that elevates the profile of someone who doesn't know about trade into a position where they are advising their country on trade is acting in a particularly thick way.
And that's what this lead to. The UK is thick right now, and it will continue to be thick until it learns to ask the question: "How many times does someone say something that is thick before we actually call them 'thick', and stop inviting them back to ask their opinions?" /End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Customers will know, for example, that their data is safe under GDPR.
Potential employees will know the company respect their rights more than the Peruvian immigrant with a plummy voice who hasn't done a hard days work in his deceitful sad little life.
The problem with the regulatory argument is that the invention that leads to regulation tends to be regulated at the national level before the EU level. The EU then provides a European forum for regulatory convergence and a dominant power to represent it internationally.
There is also the inconvenient fact that the regulations are put together working with industry, and in this case it will be the same companies.
Essentially leading to very similar regulations in the same sort of time frame as other EU countries, only we won't get any input into the European recognised regulations or have the same weight in the global forums.
In terms of how we're here on fish, the list goes on and on. There are a multitude of complex reasons which get over simplified to "It's the EU's fault".
And I don't believe in saying "fishare just x of the economy", the government should be doing their best to set policy to support all business no matter the size.
If we take exports, and a very simplistic view. We're looking at ~64% of our exports go to countries we don't trade with on WTO rules and ~40% of exports go to countries we do.