Correct Governance: Power From High To Low

Correct Use Of Power: Maximal discharge to the lowest point possible across the widest space possible = The Environment

Traditionally the lowest level of group-building of the Nation is thought of through a human-centric perspective as first "SOVEREIGNTY" then the next level as "LOCALISM" within that politically defined group of people or for a democracy: It's "Demos". But I think it's time to open up a new argument and a level below these levels. Taking The Harrogate Agenda as a template and looking at the initial 2 levels:-

Our six demands...

1. Recognition of our sovereignty: 

The peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland comprise the ultimate authority of their nations and are the source of all political power. That fact shall be recognised by the Crown and the Governments of our nations, and our Parliaments and Assemblies; 

2. Real local democracy:

The foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to the national government; 

3. Separation of powers:
4. The people’s consent:
5. No taxation or spending without consent:
6. A constitutional convention:

I'd like to posit a lower layer below even these where work must be done or to borrow one of my favourite blog posts from EUReferendum.com : EU Referendum: back to basics :

"It is a given that, if you want to build a house, it must have foundations. But when you've completed the house and moved in, you don't have "foundation warming" parties, or preen over cocktails about the structural soundness of the concrete, its depth and the skill in its laying.

In fact, most householders rarely give a thought to what's underneath them – even though, if the foundations weren't there – or if they failed - they would very quickly know about the consequences, and the expense of the remedial measures."

A "Demand Zero" needs to be inserted, in my opinion:

0. Environment As Primary Political Power Discharge:

Correct Governance dictates that nations must discharge power into the environment to a suitable proportion: It is the most effective way of discharging power both across the largest space and including for the future of politics for future people and the changing needs and demands of those and thus of the need for human organization systems to continually renew, and not only for the present and their immediate concerns but for the future demos as well. Symbolically this may be 50% for "Nature" the rest 50% for "People". Perhaps these proportions are idealistic, for now, but they present a firm foundation for future work on further political frameworks such as Sovereignty and then Localism and what these may end up becoming. Why? First power must be discharged in the most effective way possible. Secondly such a basis exists at a Global level for all nations and all populations and without people it's a scalable solution. What is successful in one nation can be replicated in yet another. Naturally the parameters of "the wealth of nations" according to this criteria are very different from the current "measures in place". Themselves more a measure of the imbalance in power between high and low and thus their true cost to people very much hidden for the time being.

On the surface this idea or "ENVIRONMENTALISM" may seem to be close to some ideas exhibited by the likes of "The Greens" or "The Extinction Rebellion" ie that environmental supporters naturally gravitate towards similar people forming similar groups as they share similar demands.

But where this idea links both Brexit and Global Agenda Setting comes from another EUReferendum.com blog post: Brexit: the exercise of power . Far from Brexit being a stupid, ball-wreaking exercise, it's cutting through the problem with people, with all these groups and laying the foundations first of all to future (50/100/200yrs etc...) unforeseen successful transformations of human society: Globally.

Far from a loss of identity, connecting to the global agenda more directly will unleash "new energy"

What I find to be a big failure with the EU is that it's own exercise in power is mired in the failures of groups of people what was recently quoted from Hume as "the incurable narrowness of the soul". Too much of the structure like so many human organizations, ends up internally regulating it's members behaviour as opposed to being a foundation for it's members to reach new heights. Cutting away from this and becoming a world leader in the Global Environmental Initiatives is a path to a more positive, clearer future for decision-making by not only the present people of the UK but also the future people of the UK when they are passed the torch with which to see the world around them as it is, instead of indebting them to our present failures added also to our dysfunctional behaviour routines as a group of people. As important, those who are in positions of power and how they exercise that power and what they are PERMITTED, by people, to perform with that POWER.

Paradoxically far from losing Sovereignty by discharging power in this way, I believe it's the first necessary step towards creating real sovereignty and thence real localism and thence real democracy - for the UK. Why? Then we might start assessing the real costs to our actions and being more rational about how we act and how we behave and what decisions we NEED to take.

It's a big, big exercise of work and will take a long, long time and will involve everyone.

Voters, Voting Systems, The Vote: A Councel Of Perfection

Which Problem? The Vote {The Subject}, The Voting System {A Result or "verdict"}, The Voters {Behaviour}.

A Councel Of Perfection :

"Instructions or advice given for one to attain an ideal but unfeasible or unrealizable standard / advice that is ideal but not feasible."

One of the recurring arguments against the EU is, in so many words, is that it "fails us" because as a state of political relationship it is "less democratic" either than we ought to be experiencing or than what we originally used to experience and both of these at the same time. Finally the 3rd strand; the idea that the UK could become more democratic than either past state or present state without the EU and secondly with a reform of the UK itself.

What about the arguments supporting the EU? That the UK may exert more influence, that the UK economy is dependent on the EU that it would not function as successfully without EU membership?

On both sides of the argument, the problem is this:

"Is 'what is going on', really what it is, or is it not? And if not, what not?"

In the film, "12 Angry Men", this process of unveiling what exactly is going on, takes place. First the subject (the details of the crime as reported) is communicated. It leads to decisions based upon this information by the voters or jury which then leads to an early potential verdict, accordingly. Subsequently however 1 of the voters wishes to question a component of detail and the accuracy of this in the picture of what happened and thus re-examine the subject's accuracy: If the suspect is guilty or innocent and does the verdict sufficiently report on that - specifically as opposed to merely return a set of numbers cast by 12 men. Subsequently yet again, the behaviour of one of the voters is revealed to be a source of occlusion to certainty and accuracy and thus a verdict according to the system of voting is thrown wide open.

In effect what is revealed is that after a number of processes (or indeed dramatic developments) different components of the council of men in the court house and in the room of deliberation and amongst themselves, exert different strengths of contribution. In this case 'what is going on' is seen to actually transform several times via these different strengths of contribution from the 3 main categories. Thus the question of "what not"? is significantly pertinent.

If the categories warp the question in the minds of the voters, how can a successful decision be made via democratic means across millions of voters?

Traditionally politics seems to have produced a situation where larger parties promote more and bigger policies and thus gain more votes due to both coverage and monopoly and on policy to which large groups of people are all beholden on for example, education, hospitals and of course taxes etc.

Thus in this situation the actual voting system itself shapes the impression given. This may be necessary in some ways: Overall things continue as usual. But it may not be sufficient for the future of politics...

What is interesting about Brexit/EU Referendum is that this was more skewed towards the subject forming the impression given. Irrespective of the debate over what was promised, the actual voting system of Leave or Remain Membership of the EU was clear and of less confounding influence. Thus the last category constituted the biggest challenge: The UK Voters.

A shift might happen in the future for politics: Instead of large multi-issue parties dominating, there may be smaller single issue specific issue parties. Where there are policies that span across people then the solution is for Local Politics for those localities across those more nebulous areas of human life. Are we seeing this already? I think so: SNP, "London", Green, Brexit etc.

At present however, the current mode is that these parties or groups all imitate and sound like the larger parties and hold such little faith in their own mission and purpose for the groups they intend to represent, when they adopt this approach instead of paving a new approach. They adopt the same rhetoric, the same sales pitches, the same flawed councels of perfection.

From councels of perfection to a confederation of imperfection: It might be an interesting future for politics:

Brexit: much effort for little result

So, for all the hype, nothing much changes – here or abroad. Specifically, in the EU-27, there is no substantial move either for or against "Europe", but nothing which will threaten the status quo either. And so ends an enormous amount of effort with very little to show for it.

And the European Parliament still ain't democratic.

From Brexit To Withdrawal Agreement: The Shape Of Water

The UK Withdrawal From The EU is the longest part even before ANY/ALL Brexit plans. FLEXCIT is the only realistic Brexit plan beyond this first stage. The representation of Brexit has been bogus in almost 100% of all publications by politicians and news-media I've seen. Likewise the representation of the EU as not defined by it's supranational nature has been bogus and misrepresented as well. This supranational border defines the shape of events to come.

In the past I've argued that that the quintessential definition of Brexit is the SAME definition to which any WORD in the English Oxford Dictionary is put under: That is the minimum representation under other definitions. If we apply this rule, then:

Brexit = "UK Leaving the (major) Political Institutions of the EU ONLY" as required to be members of, under the membership rules as written into the EU Treaty itself. In short order these are as per Wiki:

The institutions of the European Union are the seven principal decision making bodies of the European Union (EU). They are, as listed in Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union:

• the European Parliament,
• the European Council,
• the Council of the European Union,
• the European Commission,
• the Court of Justice of the European Union,
• the European Central Bank and
• the Court of Auditors.

I've always said that Brexit CAN include anything else under the sun outside of the EU, but DOES NOT HAVE TO, as a place to begin.

Although I think this is true. It is not acceptable for some reason, to many people, perhaps because of trust issues or any number of other reasons, notable amongst many the "forceful personality" root to so many peoples' method of making decisions.

As such the above is very much and EXCLUSIVE argument: It defines everything else as secondary to it's proposition. Instead I've come up with the opposite: An INCLUSIVE argument and this blog sets it out, using pictures, analogies, substitute measures not to PROVE but to CONCEPTUALIZE what our Final Brexit deal or even Withdrawal Agreement will look like:-

The Shape Of Water: Is defined by it's borders, by the shape of the CONTAINER it is in: It's still ALL water however

Fundamentally what Brexit comes down to is as per 2 stand-out quotes from Sir Ivan Rogers:

"The more he looked at the issues on how, from outside the EU, the UK would be able to secure its vital interests, the more obvious the conclusion that being even “just outside” was radically different from being “just inside” the fence."

"The problem is that, in dealing with the EU, the states of being just inside the perimeter fence and supposedly just outside it, are very radically different. On leaving, we become, in EU parlance, a “third country”. "

I've even given these 2 quotes the "colour of water" to drive the point home! This point cannot be A PRIORI enough now that the UK has indeed triggered Article 50.

There's no going back: The EU Referendum result determines WHICH SIDE OF THE FENCE the UK now operates under for the future. Even arguing for social reasons that the decision was a mistake is now a void argument: Those politics are now encapsulated BACK into Westminster as per Representative Democracy and UK political process as per how the UK operates it's national decision-making. I don't care that that process has many problems for now given the precise nature of the argument made in this blog. I don't care what the "Fantasy Horse-Trading Manager" scenarios that politicians and people and news-media are all indulging each other in.

We are on the "other side of the fence" now, already.

What becomes very interesting however, is that all the arguments about what Brexit should contain are actually not contained by what the SUBSTANCE or features that are captured immediately, but by this "fence or border". Brexit is very defined not by what is in it, but by it's borders and the most significant border that defines it's "shape" is the first one: Outside the EU Treaties and political institutions of membership. Every other arguments that fails to address this is bogus.

In the above diagram I've mocked up an analogy with respect to distance.

Leaving the EU is a larger distance than all the rest of the other "Brexit Plans" put together, ie the distance between each of them from one end to the other even though that total distance is still large - except the Non-Plan "No Deal aka WTO False Representation which is off the chart. Think of it this way, leaving the EU is Brexit Number 1. Trying to do any of the non-Single Market Brexits as well is Brexit Number 2. We only voted for 1 successful Brexit not x100 Brexits.

The social-emotional responses to Brexit, disproportionate actual lack of contribution: A drop in the ocean

Thus in fact, all Brexit plans will not and do not describe the "reality of leaving the EU". The simple Linear scale of move 1 place away from the EU for each type of Brexit model is total and utter nonsense. Again it may look nice for campaign and emotional-social support reasons and give our MPs the semblance of debating usefully or even encapsulating the nations' Leave emotions but it does not do anything USEFUL. Likewise the Remainers as per Ivan Rogers are actually "Reversers". Totally useless and ignoring this side of the fence change that has already happened.

There's only one plan I've seen that comes CLOSEST and is worth mentioning: FLEXCIT. It seems to me that FLEXCIT is about as EXTREME a Brexit Plan that is possible and will still require much additional work to make up the difference from being outside the EU as much as it contains solutions that also work. In fact Dr. RAE North of EUReferendum.com has argued precisely this, consistently for years, if anybody has been paying attention!

In the above picture I've tried to demonstrate this "non-linear degrees of separation" from leaving the EU.

And here's the conclusion, or the "shape of water": The Withdrawal Agreement IS Brexit in the beginning. The closer it is to the "fence" of the EU the more it's within the "habitable zone of departure". Bear in mind in the analogy above, given the EU Referendum result, the EU is "too hot" and the No Deal No Plan Disaster is "too cold". The rest of the Brexit Plans are not in the "habitable zone" by a long long way. Even FLEXCIT is just within the so-called "habitable zone" of Brexit immediately after leaving the EU.

I've represented this with symbolic numbers:

10,000 miles from the EU to outside the EU whatever relationship.

1,000 miles plus to the above, from copying the EU and building upon the flexible EEA framework which is the 1st stage of FLEXCIT.

100,000,000 plus all the above for the No Deal No Plan Brexit Disaster.

The fact of the matter is, the only reasonable Brexit plan, FLEXCIT has enormous extra work on top of it within the 1st "10,000 miles" as it were to make up, which should be the prime duty of the Withdrawal Agreement.

It's a very simple representation, not very sophisticated and bearing only tiny resemblance to reality of Brexit in all it's enormous complexity. But I think in essence the picture is more accurate than anything published officially about Brexit (which is a terrible indictment of our enormous and expensive national decision-making machinery that the tax-payer spends so much money every year paying into): Brexit first has to transfer successfully across the fence via the Withdrawal Agreement, which means it's defined by this container and thus all Brexit discussion should concentrate on this "ZONE" for a successful "Withdrawal Agreement". Some of which in the upcoming years should start to resemble a similarity to FLEXCIT.

Remainers and Leavers = Withdrawers.

I suggest reading FLEXCIT for insights into what this will shape up to be like.

Brexit-Day = "The Day Of The Ivan Rogers"

Sir Ivan Rogers: "Who's been Paying Attention?" Probably the not the petitioners or marchers or many others for that matter...

There's much song and dance about what B-Day will eventually look like. It could be very bad. But if it is to be good, which is the real argument that affects so many people, then it is not so hard to consider what it SHOULD look like, if we FOCUS on the arguments as opposed to the people making them. The above riff on "The Day Of The Jackal" is precisely that:

LIVE: Sir Ivan Rogers appears at European Union Select Committee ~ Just shy of ~5,000 views

In conversation with Sir Ivan Rogers ~ 12,500 Views

Sir Ivan Rogers: Where did Brexit come from and where is it going to take the UK? ~ Just shy of 80,000 Views (a bit better!)

Text Version:

UCL Brexit Ivan Rogers Text Speech

Back in 2018:

Sir Ivan Rogers delivered a lecture on ‘The real post-Brexit options’ at the University of Glasgow on 23 May 2018

March 1st 2019: Der Spiegel: "What Surprises Me Is the Extent of the Mess"

EUReferendum.com :

Brexit: the Rogers speech 2018

Brexit: a bucket of cold water Jan 2019

Babel-17: "Whither should these creatures go, unless it were to the moon?"

"Whither should these creatures go, unless it were to the moon?"

As per Dr. RAE North's blog of today, Brexit: hope dies last, sometimes the "Noise" level is so high, that there is almost ZERO "signal" or meaning or sense to be found. In fact, it's world-wearying,  to focus on the consequences of how politics operates as a large system in the UK, thus in such a situation the best resort is to enjoy some laughter and look to other more worthwhile things.

More interesting, the time is drawing nearer when Swallows arrive back to the UK, once more and for me very joyously. A few years ago I recorded my first swallow on the 9th April and then a year later 14th April. I believe last year they arrived later due to the colder weather. I look forward to seeing them this year and even have a pre-formed nest ready to aid and encourage them in their nesting activities. However, it reminded me of this story of yore concerning birds and Swallows, and hence relevance to Brexit as believed by so many people 'chanting away':

Fantastically Wrong: The Scientist Who Thought That Birds Migrate to the Moon

"English minister and scientist Charles Morton, who in the 17th century wrote a surprisingly well-reasoned, though obviously totally inaccurate, treatise claiming birds migrate to the moon and back every year

Aristotle, who reckoned that some birds hibernate while others simply transform into different species when winter comes around. Redstarts, for instance, morph into robins in winter—a fantastical claim that’s easier to understand when you consider that redstarts indeed migrate to Africa as robins make their way to Greece.

Later, the great Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder wrote of the pygmies, a race of tiny humans in Africa that do eternal battle with cranes (the birds, not the construction equipment). He notes “that in springtime their entire band, mounted on the backs of rams and she-goats and armed with arrows, goes in a body down to the sea and eats the cranes’ eggs and chickens, and that this outing occupies three months.” It’s an echo of Homer’s mention of cranes in the Iliad, birds that do indeed migrate from Europe to Africa

Medieval bestiaries, sorts of zoological encyclopedias that every once in a while contained actual facts, often featured the barnacle goose, which supposedly grows on trees over water. It was a convenient explanation for geese simply turning up, seemingly out of nowhere, after their migration. Also convenient: Catholics aren’t supposed to eat meat other than fish on Fridays, but because the barnacle goose isn’t born from an egg, wrote Gerald of Wales in 1187, “in some parts of Ireland, bishops and men of religion make no scruple of eating these birds on fasting days, as not being flesh, because they are not born of flesh.” (The same logic has variously been applied to beavers, whose tails apparently taste like fish, as well as the giant rodent capybara of South America, which spends so much time in marshes that some argued to the church that it should be classified as a fish.)

In the 16th century, the great cartographer and writer Olaus Magnus championed the theory that swallows disappear in the winter not because they travel to tropical climes to pick up coconuts, but because they bury themselves in the clay at the bottom of rivers. They come together in the fall in huge swarms, then sink down into the mud en masse, only to reemerge in the spring."

Fantastically Wrong! But why should 99% of EVERYONE speaking about Brexit be less wrong given the relative comparison between State of knowledge VS reliance on current PEOPLE of knowledge and the theories they write about today?

Why is the tendency seemingly 9/10 that people focus on the PERSON, not the ARGUMENT?

Only the other day I was enjoying "improving the conditions for some tadpoles in puddles of water". Watching them turn from tiny black dots, into thin black lines then rotund bodies with larger tails and with enough supplementary water added regularly enough, hopefully "make the TRANSFORMATION" into small amphibious adult frogs and a better chance for next years' frog-spawning (they need more small pools of permanent water to effect this improvement as the adult habitat is more than adequate for a larger population if this bottle-neck at the spawning and developing stage can be corrected). How much more rewarding than having to deal with the hurricane of nonsense uttered by so many people now about Brexit?

As said in a previous blog, the idea is that people can use words, put them together to form apparently logical representations of their stances, but be either "Fantastically Wrong!" or worse as per Babel-17:

"During an interstellar war one side develops a language, Babel-17, that can be used as a weapon. Learning it turns one into an unwilling traitor as it alters perception and thought."

Most people don't even realize they're tools for strains of thought that merely reinforce The Establishment's "Version of Events": The so-called people of knowledge who are all Propagandists fighting THEIR "wars". Worse people will argue without pause in defence of 'their' version of events, "as unwilling traitors" or "unaware traitors" to be more accurate with all the bottled-up passion and bad faith in discussion that that entails: Thus producing the self-fulfilling prophesy "Swallows Flying To The Moon Every Winter."

But back in the real world, there's so much happiness to be found in welcoming our Swallows back once again from Africa.

The Great Mistake: "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale!"

The defence of politicians by it's own members of the Establishment and thence the profusion of confusion that they have created can be summarized by the shift of focus required and the tone of both pessimism and whinging pom'ing of:

1. The government COULD never do it! ~ This argument focuses on the divisions in the inner circle of British Politics.
2. The people WOULD never allow it! ~ This argument focuses on the divisions in the outer circle of British Politics.

The Great Mistake with both of these positions and the focus on them, is this, in effect: A shift to "Superior People talking FOR other people." In effect REPLACING their inclusion, REPLACING working through their views, ensuring all these views are viewed as NEGATIVE. Of course the received wisdom is to "take all the above and reach compromise"...

Dr. RAE North summarised this succinctly: Brexit: a failure to communicate
Brexit: a failure to communicate

"Worst of all, despite the EU Member States, individually and collectively demanding that we tell them what we want from Brexit, we are unable to deliver a collective or consensus view. Now, more than ever, it thus appears that the failure to come up with a positive agenda is acting to our disadvantage, something to which I drew attention back in 2011."

"Then I referred to a parliamentary debate on 15 October 1940 when, as the wreckage of London lay around them, MPs gathered to find out whether the government was prepared to make a definitive statement on war aims. But Churchill refused, point blank. He was guardian of the status quo, suppressing any debate on the issue. "

"Churchill's Information Minister Duff Cooper, very much supported the idea, and had been speaking secretly for it in Cabinet. On this day, he expressed his support as far as he could, but had been brought up sharply by Richard Stokes. He was the Labour MP for Ipswich, a Military Cross winner (and bar) in the First World War, a stern critic of British tank design and soon to become an arch critic of the area bombing policy. "

"Cooper, said Stokes, had enunciated what we were fighting against, but not what we were fighting for. "[It] is no use fighting for a negative object. You must have a positive one, and the sooner that [is] stated the better"."

"And that's exactly what we were lacking during the referendum campaign and what we lack now. It is all very well wanting to get out of the EU – the "negative object". But what are we to do with our new-found freedom? Where is our "positive object"? Until we have one, we are going nowhere. We have emerged from our own private war without one, and we are on our way to losing the "peace"."

"The idea of needing a "positive object", I called the Stokes precept. And for want of that, we are frozen in time, unable to decide where we want to go and unable to communicate our needs. At the time, in 2011, I wrote that we will continue to lose our battle until we are able to deal with the issues put by Richard Stokes, back on that awful day of 15 October 1940. "

"We are still losing."


Instead of the above "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale!" escaping into defeatism, how about actually engaging with reality instead:

3. The argument says we SHOULD do this.

This is a positive object: FLEXCIT: Continuous & Flexible Exit Plan

The negative arguments dominate so many comments and contributions made by people who allowed superior people to talk FOR them instead of people being positive for themselves and forming their own arguments to contribute positively.

The results:

After Years Of Brexit make-believe, reality is finally closing in on our politicians

Summarized from behind the pay-wall here by Dr. RAE North:

"With the millions of words so far written, it is probably fair to say that no-one has approached the task of managing the Brexit process with the same degree of coherence that found its way into the Flexcit plan, or evolved their thinking to such effect as has emerged on this blog, with the help of its readers.

The proof, as they say, is in the eating. At no time have we ever been lost for ideas of where to take Brexit, or ever been uncertain as to what needed to be done. While the Johnny-come-latelies pad out the ether and newspaper columns with ever-more unworkable schemes, there resides in those who contributed to the Flexcit plan a body of knowledge which the political (and media) classes have never been able to match.

As it stands, using the EEA template remains the best bet, although it is unlikely that we can rely on Efta embracing our membership. That creates complex but not insurmountable problems on how to replicate the institutional structures necessary to administer the agreement. And then there will still be dozens of supplementary agreements that will have to be negotiated, not least on customs cooperation and VAT.

By comparison with the clarity we are able to offer, such has been the inadequacy of the official UK negotiating team that we are left with the wholly unsatisfactory Withdrawal Agreement as the best (and only) option in town, and nothing on the table to follow."

The Greatest Mistake the British Public ever made was conceding SO MUCH POWER to a detached political class, who neither can speak for people or act for people: For a flourishing democracy and thus prosperous number of nations: That is up to everyone.

3rd Referendum vs. No Deal: "Ave imperator, Rationes morituri!"

"The Gladiators: Priscus and Verus": Arguments Must Die Or We Will Pay The Price!

It should be obvious which arguments are weak, weaker and weakest. The survival and strength of the other arguments slaying these first and thinning their numbers depends upon it.

It should be obvious, but if you look at both Westminster and The News-Media a.k.a.:

"The Politico News-Media Nexus"

It clear the reverse is true.

Pete North Politics Blog

has exemplified this in 2 brilliant blogs recently and it is very very necessary corrective before SOLUTIONS REVEAL THEMSELVES more clearly:

The death of centrism is long overdue

UK Politics has decayed into a mixture of STUPID "tv soap-opera + with game show": Personalities and emotion now compete instead of Arguments and reason.

"The first question you have to ask here is that is politicians are indulging in virtue signalling trivia, who is actually running the show? If this is the trivia that similarly occupies our media, then there's a lot of important conversations we are not having.""But this is also indicative of a politics in a state of intellectual decline. These are far from isolated incidents. A while back I happened to tune in to a long debate about what should and shouldn't be allowed in children's packed lunches. It tells us a lot about what politicians thinks they are there for. They seem to think that it's their job to ban things, tax things or subsidise them. It tells us that they feel entitled to boss us around."

The rush for censorship is the swansong of the establishment 

The legacy news-media distributes REAL FAKE NEWS and at the same time complains about the cheaper imitation called: "Fake News" that they helped create and sustain.

"But that is exactly what they will do. They will attack from all angles. There will be larger regulatory initiatives to "take back control" of the debate, compelling social media platforms to strangle the life out of debate. There will then be a raft of criminal measures they can liberally enforce whenever an MP feels insulted. This, as ever, is coupled with demands for "civility" in politics."

"Civility, though, is just code for uncritical. Any criticism at all will be deemed as crossing the line. Ordinary people can expect to have the plod hammering on their door at 6am on account of a tweet. A few exemplary cases will make the plebs think twice before mouthing off. This is also why we will see more abuse of the libel system by rich political figures."

Both of the above arguments:

1. 3rd Referendum
2. No Deal Brexit

Should have died the day the Referendum Result was achieved. What has Parliament, Government and the Journalists been doing all this time?

The Politico News-Media has failed the people and the people will pay the price for this failure with the deal to be achieved on a new relationship with the EU, post-Brexit.