Is it any wonder that the vast majority of the population have no idea what Article 50 is? Is it incompetence on the media to barely mention it or deliberate lying by omission?

Isn't it amazing as soon as a minister points out the EU element the story suddenly slides down the pecking order of importance.

I'm not sure things are sliding down the agenda. Watch for Cameron tomorrow.

You'll know when it happens!

More like blame Paterson for his handling of the issue ... daring to tell the truth.

Member States are entitled to take unilateral action on acquiring evidence of a health threat - which must subsequently be confirmed by the Commission. That's what happened with BSE. In this case, as Paterson has made very clear, there is no evidence of a health threat. Under such circumstances, a ban cannot be justified under EU law. If it was done, the importers could claim damages from HMG and we the taxpayers would have to foot the bill.

Thus, it is very easy to make cheap points ... as Ann Macintosh ... but in the grown-up world, things are a little bit more complicated.

Edited by user 11 February 2013 11:20:06(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The moral of the story is we abide by the rule of law, which is why our country is better than France. I hope you are not suggesting that our government should start breaking the law (our law which EU law is) which it willingly signed up to. That is a slippery slope I strongly suggest we don't encourage.

If we don't like EU law (or the rules of the club) then we leave until then we don't have a choice. We're not French, we're British, so let's try to uphold some standards eh?

It might be dying but it's still infecting everything. If my experience is anything to go by there are vast swathes of the middle classes, well educated ones too, who still form their views after consulting these shit-for-brains media. Try to point out to them that their so-called quality press is anything but and you have all of 10 seconds to do it before the shutters come down. You might as well dance a jig instead while reciting a nonsense poem with a jester's hat on for all the effect it has. It is practically impossible to overcome their mental inertia.

You can discern their true reaction to what you say in their body language and how they respond by closing down. It doesn't matter if you start to give them some actual facts and background. Too much detail! And they have no intention of checking any of it out — too busy with more immediate things. Besides, in their eyes by now you are clearly some kind of obsessive. Case closed. Summary: "He's telling me X when the FT, The Times and the Telegraph ('for God's sake!') say it's all about Y. And he expects me to take HIS word for it? Tsk!"

I always remember a conversation during a brief coffee break with a professional colleague quite a few years ago now. It stuck in my mind for the blank reaction I got. I don't remember the details now (only the reaction). It was all rather pleasant chit chat but above the level of the boringly mundane, more of a general take on professional concerns, until at one point something was said that triggered an idle thought in me that was tangentially related to what we were discussing but prompted by its appropriateness as an example of how strange reality can be. The person concerned had high mathematical ability but had never done any physics worth mentioning. (We knew each other's general backgrounds quite well.) Mine was a throwaway remark about some counterintuitive result of special relativity (I think it was the addition of velocities) which I prefaced with a suitably tailored non-patronising introductory comment. I was expecting the reaction: "Oh, that's interesting. I didn't know that. I see what you mean. Ha ha, yeah!. :)"

Instead I got a silent blank stare which struck me as rather cold. So strange and unexpected was it that it threw me. I was stumped and didn't know what to make of it. We continued for a while but the atmosphere had changed. Then it was back to work. I meant to revisit this and try to find out what had gone wrong but never had the chance as our ways parted shortly afterwards and there was never a relaxed moment to broach the subject again (oh so delicately of course).

The effect was as if during a polite and civilised conversation I had torn off an enormously loud fart and pretended not to hear it. No one would say anything but the occasion would be noted. And nothing would ever be the same again.

The only rational explanation I could come up with was that the result I mentioned was regarded by my colleague as "completely nuts and against all experience" whereas I and others with similar backgrounds had mostly become inured to the surprise, had learnt about it when we were very young and had assimilated it rather easily, being now only aware that it was not terribly common knowledge so some would still find it odd. But no big deal. Or so it seemed.

All very strange. It still kind of bothers me. I guess I must have been thought barking mad. But surely not — we had worked closely on quite a few things in the past and our strengths were well known to each of us? It's all a big mystery to me.

Anyway, that was a case well settled in the literature and uncontroversial but I get something of the flavour of that reaction—only not quite so extreme—whenever I mention the inadequacy of today's media.

You just know you're not going to get anywhere. There is never enough time to put a case. Even if there were, you'd have to make pretty damned sure you'd boned up well beforehand and have it all at your finger tips — an impossible task for most of us mortals. Moreover, we're most definitely NOT talking about giving the equivalent of a stunningly neat two-line proof but about overwhelming any opposition to the idea with truckloads of excruciatingly boring detail. It takes a long time to stuff a camel through the eye of a needle.

I think the only way with friends and colleagues is to keep pointing out the contradictions and piling on the ridicule and sarcasm with a shovel, only all in very short doses. Chip, chip, chip, then maybe crack and shatter!


OT: The snowflakes are huge here.

Edited by user 11 February 2013 13:15:58(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

There was evidence. It wasn't good evidence, but it was evidence. And, in the highly charged atmosphere of the time, it was enough to satisfy the commission. As for the current situation, doesn't it strike you that Paterson is making a point? He is outing the elephant ... look at his sub-text.