Brexit's McExperts

The biggest problem I have with self-appointed #Brexit "experts" is their total lack of intellectual agility. They keep telling us what won't work but won't lift a finger to float something that will. We are dealing with people who are not remotely interested in solutions.

Anyone can shoot down a bad suggestion - and there are plenty of those to keep them in business but trying to do anything in the system of rules we have is difficult and the real talent examines the system for workarounds. Instead they just tell us everything is impossible. The most obvious one being that there is no cherry picking from the single market - when in fact the adaptive framework of the EEA is designed to do exactly that. There are hundred of exceptions and opt outs.

And then with the wider WTO rules, they system is not a list of do's and don'ts. The WTO system is a framework designed to encourage adherence to the principles of the WTO - which actually gives policy makers a lot more scope than is generally imagined.

To say that "WTO rules do not allow XYZ" somewhat overlooks the volumes of waivers, safeguards, opt outs and blind eyes in the system, not to mention existing rulings and historical precedents. If we only listened to these people then we would never do anything at all because there would be so little scope - but Brexit is going to require quite a lot of rule bending and a lot of wider cooperation in the WTO system.

Course our gifted class of Brexitologists will never actually explore any of this because it might mean they have to admit there are options that 1. they didn't think of and 2. suggest that the impossible might actually be possible after all.

Being that they are predominantly remainers (who still think remaining is an option), they will continue to lie by omission. Shamefully we see Brexit reporters getting pally with them, forming their own groupthink to the point of not being receptive to any alternative ideas.

You will get no argument from me that David Davis is on another planet, and the IEA/Brexit Central bunch talk utter rubbish, but going after them really is low hanging fruit - and still doesn't change the fact we need answers to difficult problems.

It is that lack of integrity and curiosity which is ultimately regressing the Brexit debate. @UKandEU are certainly not honest actors, nor are the IoD or IfG. Mainly they are parasitic timewasters seeking only to enhance their prestige and public profile - and because our media has no expertise of its own, FT especially, they then rely on these chancers and media whores while doing no independent verification and using them as the default source simply because they are sanitised and carry prestige.

Partly this is because they are readily accessible on Twitter which saves them from having to do any leg work, but increasingly I find the real experts are nowhere near Twitter and much further down the food chain.

What we actually have is a class of McExperts. Cheap, readily available prestige which supplies ample copy for reportage and editorial fodder for Guardian morons. Extruded Verbal Material. They are all complicit in misinforming the debate.

These are the people largely responsible for promoting the myths that "Norway adopts all the rules and has no say" - and only now they are in a blind panic about the direction of Brexit do they reexamine the mythology they have spread. And will these people take any responsibility for what they have done? Fat chance.

Instead they will expect to be applauded for telling us what the rest of us have known for years now - as if we weren't capable of finding the facts ourselves. They then have the temerity to demand politeness. What nerve! These parasitic pondlife are simply not owed any respect - and certainly they should face unpleasantness for the damage they've done. Their insult to us is far greater than any name I might have called them.