Oh dear a bleating little lamb calling plaintively for his mother: He's wandered away from the safety of the flock and now the great shepherd (EU) will be needed to save him... or something like that.
Ugh, we've got Christoph Scheuermann writing in Spiegel Online The Waiting Game: Playing for Time After Brexit attempting to "change the tune" concerning reacting from Brexit: Instead of the "little foolish lamb (Reference attribution) will be left to be ripped to pieces by the wolves if it dares to stray from the EU flock", it's now "let the poor bleating blighter suffer for a bit all alone" before the good shepherd of the EU arranges a sort of "Association Membership" deal for the UK to lure it back to the flock of other frightened sheep.
Well, it's an attempt to capture the tone of superiority and the priestly orthodoxy of the Pro-EU politicians/lawyers/economists/journalists and it's also highly revealing too. It's show their attitude and beliefs in such a construct as the EU and hence just potentially how divergent they could be from what British voters actually are comfortable with in their relationship with the EU.
- Political Supranational Union
- Common Regulatory Region or Regulatory Portal (for the UK)
That sorts out the dreary mess that has plagued so much poor communication on the EU in UK Political discussions all the shadow games played out in place of actual substance and policy.
However what's is left is the other indication above concerning that "Regulatory Portal" and here anyone on all sides of the argument need to pay attention:-
- There's not going to be a short-term change here
- Keeping it is not going to be an ultimate destination either (EEA)
- It's going to continually be under the forces of change of globalization and hence any policy needs to be made concerning "trend" or "direction of travel" as opposed to for example "Association Membership" orbiting the EU.
Oral evidence: The UK's Future Economic Relationship with the European Union
There's a good summary that clarifies this: Brexit | On why, as a matter of law, triggering Article 50 does not require Parliament to legislate.What is perhaps not appreciated is something that I will predict will rule the decision-making process and needs to be verbalized clearly:-Professor Dougan: The day of the constitutional lawyer has come. We are all aware that there is a very important legal debate happening within our own country about whether Article 50 can be triggered purely by Royal Prerogative, about whether Article 50 should be triggered by primary legislation, about whether there is some combination of parliamentary and governmental participation that we need to secure. We are all probably aware that this issue is likely to end up in the superior courts for a judicial determination, which will effectively settle the issue for us.
There must be an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that the EU rules and hence motivations are divergent and different from the UK rules and hence motivations as expressed in the EU Referendum.
And that is to come back to the idea of Supranational design (lol sounds like supernatural) compared to what we the UK have left over from the Referendum: That Regulatory Portal idea from Dr. RAE North. That is something we can and must and should work with and on and about. And interestingly this perhaps may explain a lot of the subsequent flood of discussion and focus on the EEA which was so ruthlessly and so crookedly removed from the IEA Brexit Prize process.
Funny how things look now? A failure to make this distinction is a failure to progress the argument away from blockheads such as Dougan and other Pro-EUs who will always look for complications and barriers and complexity additions to the problem of withdrawal from the EU. The very opposite to finding solutions that are to quote FLEXCIT: The Market Solution:-
- It is intended to show that an orderly exit is plausible and practical and can be largely risk-free.
- Leaving the EU is a big step and there can be no serious dispute that a botched process could have dire results.
- Even in trade with the rest of the world, the EU is often the regulatory portal through which we access other markets so it has a huge influence on non-EU trade.
- To achieve a trouble-free exit, we must have an exit plan. Without that, we believe the "leave" campaign will not succeed.
- Our plan, therefore, has to be accurate, honest and pragmatic.
- And we start with a basic premise. After nine treaties and 40 years of political and economic integration, there can be no clean break
- The next point is that negotiations will not take place in a political vacuum.
- This means that our negotiators will not have a free hand.
- It starts with each of the parties setting out their opening positions but, to achieve a satisfactory outcome, both sides will have to listen to each other. Compromise will be essential.
- Proposals cannot be taken seriously unless they are politically attainable and publicly acceptable
- With this in mind, we stress that great care should be taken with exit scenarios based on economic models.
- Then, we must point out that all solutions must fit with others.
- In our view, that means we must – in the short to medium term – stay in the EU's Single Market.
- To stay in the Single Market, acceptance of the principle freedom of movement is non-negotiable. We can abolish freedom of movement or we can stay in the single market. We can't do both.
- We must accept a short-term compromise over freedom of movement.
- Under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which defines the exit procedures, negotiations are set to last two years.
- That confronts another reality. Brexit presents an existential threat to the EU.
- Taking all that into account, we propose six stages to our plan. Its very essence is that it is split into stages.
- In conclusion, we explain how leaving the EU becomes a process requiring continuous and flexible development. That repeats our central point: leaving the EU is not a single event but a multi-stage process.
- In short, by leaving the EU, we are not ending a relationship.
Here you can see the monumental difference between "problematizing" Brexit as opposed to carefully summarizing (introduction in a pamphlet form of the full treatment or worked and living document itself) the principle properties of Brexit (this itself above is merely a highlighted selection from a selection) for brevity.
But as much as pointing out this difference, the other differences need pointing out:-
- Bad Plan = "Negatives"
- No Plan = "Vacuous"
- Any Plan = "Disastrous"
- Knowledgeable Plan = "Practical"
Lynx At Large!