I believe the opportunities outweigh the threats, and I'm coming round to the idea that in the years to come we will look back on this period and agree that Brexit was the best thing the UK ever did. Fingers crossed saying it though.

I was going to reply with my opinion/issues that I take with Mason (having read his book on Post Capitalism).

But in light of these (and further) inferences you've given, its obvious from this tone that my vocation denies me that right to express it without your prejudice. I honestly though better of you than to resort to this, James.

At least I don't get paid to publish what I type on here, and my career has no bearing of influence on the general public, unless their car breaks down in the middle of the M25. :)

Vacuous bullshít. What do you contend in the opinion piece?

Just to be clear for the hard of thinking, I, like Hodgy, wish to know what specifically Mason's detractors object to. And yes, I have lost my temper.

Come on, lads, it's really simple. Just jot down below (for posterity) what's wrong with the opinion piece.

one thing he failed to mention
MP'S will now actually have to do something, instead of getting cival servants to do everything, not that any of that actually matters, big corperations run this country not the goverment, as proven when the eu followed the plan for europe set out by the ceo's of phillips siemens and volvo done many years ago, in fairness this bit is true though.
Politicians of all sides need to grasp one idea urgently: that Brexit is a mandate to begin making economic policy in the national interest first. Under a working global system, what’s good for your trading partner is usually good for you, because the system feeds the upside back to you

Playing Devil's Advocate here, I would start with the fact that Mason makes no obvious attempt to explain what a "post-global disaster zone" actually is. It may (or may not) be something that regular Guardian readers are already initimately familiar with, but in an opinion piece particularly, I would expect an author to be trying to bring people round to his point of view, and not just preaching to the converted, so it would be vital to ensure that something as fundamental to the article's meaning as this be properly understood.

Next, there's the fact that the piece is built up in large part of a series of self-affirming non sequiturs. For example "Osborne didn't have a contingency plan for Brexit, because it goes against everything he's ever believed in". In which parallel linguistic or logical universe does that second statement in any way demonstrate a causal relationship to the first? It's like trying to explain away the fact that someone never bought home insurance by pointing out they've deep-down "always been morally opposed to burglary and arson". Or his statement that "the impact of zero interest rates is to make investing in Britain less attractive". I'm sorry, but what? How, outside of the narrow scope of buying government bonds or placing deposits in British banks would it put inviduals or companies off developing in this country, if it costs them less to take out loans here to fund that development?

Lastly, and I appreciate it's become an over-repeated point of late, the question of the overall negative tone of the piece shouldn't so hastily be dismissed. If he's so worried about what the future holds for the country, he might have tried to offer a little more constructive advice, and a little less of the doom and gloom. Yes, by all means have an opinion, but be realistic also about the limits of what can be achieved (other than putting your audience to sleep) by endlessly regurgitating it in an infinite number of different ways.

You use wording to describe me as unintelligent, and then want me to reply?

Whilst I appreciate your annoyance; I consider that its not the way to react if you want to hear or constructively engage with another's view.

And also calling my absence conspicuous? If my attendance here is mandatory over and above my job and other personal goings on then I must have my priorities wrong < insert the "someone is wrong on the internet" meme here > .

The Mason article is soon to be yesterday's news so as far as I'm concerned I'm leaving that there and going back on topic; Tomorrow I look forward to seeing who's who in the proposed reshuffle. :)

This is now the second time JT has slipped off his perch.

I've had dealings with religious folk before, and they, too, are fine while you are agreeing with them.

Come on JT, let's play nicely.

I've made it clear to you that I'm NOT about to debate the merits of an article written by someone not qualified to comment. I mean, if you wanted religious guidance, would you go to your pastor, or to me?

JT reminds me of the preacher in Zulu

"sir, be quiet now will you; there's a good gentleman" :D

Who would be actually Qualified :wonder:

More noise.

Some fair points. Just about to go in to an all day meeting so may come back to it later. Thanks for a considered post.

So someone with a degree in "Music and Politics", who's won awards for business journalism isn't qualified to comment. On that basis who is?

As for not debating articles on that basis, what makes you qualified to make that decision?

Opinions are like a**eholes, everyone as one.

and some more valid that others

and the bigger the ar5e the bigger the opinion almost like cacks :thumb:

I found Mrs May's speech outside Number 10 today most optimistic. I fervently hope she's able to deliver on her intentions once she's settled in. If she does, the country will be a much better place.

Talk is cheap, every PM (both tory and labour) trots out the same platitudes

You could easily generate a new PM speech by using a random word generator, but giving extra weight to words like

Opportunity, hard work, compassion, build, future, aspirational, better, together, success, belief

There you go , you wondered why Boris was quiet

Good grief, who could have guessed at that appointment?!

I suppose Boris would have refused to sit on the naughty step being the Northern Ireland Secretary. But quite a shrewd move by the PM as now Boris has to be nice to EC heads of state and as a cabinet member has to tow the party line. Bet Gove is spitting blood.


David


PS. I am as cynical as the rest but I did think the PM's No 10 speech was encouraging and genuine. Time will tell.

I do think a women PM is good actually

If she's as good as Maggie then she'll be very good. Waits for shouts of derision! :)

Derisive shout: Aaaarrrggghhh!

Her speech was pretty good, but anyone can do a nice speech, I'll judge when she's done something worth judging ;)

At the moment, I'm more interested in what all the Bexiters who were harping on about the unelected in Brussels think about our new unelected PM? :P

I know she can hide behind the fixed term parliament legislation, but as far as I'm concerned, a change of leader should trigger a general election! But apparently she's listening to us, so we should expect the election announcement by the weekend! :D

I agree, I think the new PM is a good candidate.
But I do think appointing BoJo as FS is her first blunder. The Duke of Edinburugh wouldn't have been a worse choice.

Not from me.

Why? Bliar and Brown did it, the precedence is already set.

Yeah, Brown! He was really popular wasn't he! :Suspiciou

I personally don't have a problem with it tbh

it is a function of our constitution being driven by precedent

and we elect a government not a PM (I think that Job is appointed by the Queen)

if we want to change it - then presumably we can create a law, like we did with fixed term parliaments

I do wonder at her appointment of Boris !!

here is his witty limerick about the Turkish President

“There was a young fellow from Ankara, Who was a terrific wankerer.

“Till he sowed his wild oats, With the help of a goat, But he didn’t even stop to thankera.”

what could possibly go wrong