Obvious obscurantism; overtly obsequious...

---

Opaque or obtuse? [edited] Lots of 'o's describing the government attempts at professional behaviour; they are woefully poor. That and:  'The Government has ignored the basic principles of successful negotiation in its dealings with Brussels', IMHO they have ignored the basic principles of standing up for themselves and those they purport to represent. But David Heathcoat-Amory - once a near neighbour - writing at Brexit Central hits the nail/s on the head; hopefully the nails of the 'Chequers' coffin. Firstly, and most importantly:

"The EU referendum decision was categorical and final. Both sides of the argument agreed this in advance. The Leave decision is not a radical constitutional experiment: Britain will be joining the rest of the world, which is founded on the principle of national self-government, which includes unconditional control over citizenship, borders, laws and trade policy."

Only those with open or hidden invested personal (monetary) interests that are jeopardised would seriously believe anything different. And they are most probably wrong about the 'jeopardised' bit too.



Heathcoat-Armory makes one mistake, he says "At root there is a failure to understand the true nature of the EU", IMHO this is simply not true: May and Hammond, the treacherous senior civil servants in their dealings, plus Soubry, Clarke, Clegg, Blair, Major, Mandelson, Campbell, Adonis et al in their vociferous and increasingly shrieky cries for a 2nd referendum (or cancelling of the 2016 vote) understand all too well the true nature of the EU. That is precisely the problem: the blithering ramblings, the convoluted speeches, the twisting of words and the seeming incompetence at all and every step is all intentional: they know the true nature of the EU and want it!

"The EU is not an association of nation states coming together for certain common purposes. It is a highly self-interested bureaucracy which has one response to any problem: more Europe. Its entire legal order is founded on the principle of ever closer union."

This has always been the case and to be honest, most EU founders, formers and followers have never denied it!

Obvious obscurantism; overtly obsequious...

---

Opaque or obtuse? [edited] Lots of 'o's describing the government attempts at professional behaviour; they are woefully poor. That and:  'The Government has ignored the basic principles of successful negotiation in its dealings with Brussels', IMHO they have ignored the basic principles of standing up for themselves and those they purport to represent. But David Heathcoat-Amory - once a near neighbour - writing at Brexit Central hits the nail/s on the head; hopefully the nails of the 'Chequers' coffin. Firstly, and most importantly:

"The EU referendum decision was categorical and final. Both sides of the argument agreed this in advance. The Leave decision is not a radical constitutional experiment: Britain will be joining the rest of the world, which is founded on the principle of national self-government, which includes unconditional control over citizenship, borders, laws and trade policy."

Only those with open or hidden invested personal (monetary) interests that are jeopardised would seriously believe anything different. And they are most probably wrong about the 'jeopardised' bit too.

Heathcoat-Armory makes one mistake, he says "At root there is a failure to understand the true nature of the EU", IMHO this is simply not true: May and Hammond, the treacherous senior civil servants in their dealings, plus Soubry, Clarke, Clegg, Blair, Major, Mandelson, Campbell, Adonis et al in their vociferous and increasingly shrieky cries for a 2nd referendum (or cancelling of the 2016 vote) understand all too well the true nature of the EU. That is precisely the problem: the blithering ramblings, the convoluted speeches, the twisting of words and the seeming incompetence at all and every step is all intentional: they know the true nature of the EU and want it!

"The EU is not an association of nation states coming together for certain common purposes. It is a highly self-interested bureaucracy which has one response to any problem: more Europe. Its entire legal order is founded on the principle of ever closer union."

This has always been the case and to be honest, most EU founders, formers and followers have never denied it!

Obganiating overactive outlets...

---

A really interesting analysis of press coverage from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Trump's first 100 days. The image left (click to enlarge) will not surprise anyone! If anything it highlights that things are probably worse than some thought. Compare that to coverage of Obama's first 100 days.



Many will say "Hey look, Fox is most pro Trump" but what that really tells you is that Fox is the most balanced; this concurs with my impressions back in 2008 when Fox were the ONLY outlet giving balanced coverage; the rest was just full-time fawning over Obama; it was so obvious and blatant it was quite sickening.



"Donald Trump’s ongoing feud with the media is not the first time a president has felt wronged by the press"; the difference is that he has "taken the fight to the press, openly and with relish." It may appear wrong, even vulgar but I've seen people saying Trump is at fault because some people may believe the media fake news! FFS! "On national television, Trump was the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the usual amount." 41%!!! This is just crazy; the relentless tsunami of negative news (mostly contriving or downright lies from Democrats and their lackeys with dual objectives: stain, damage, topple Trump and cover their own law-breaking.) is bad for the country and by extension, the rest of the world.



Some sound advice: "Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that's at the core of the democratic process."  "The press should also start doing what it hasn’t done well for a long time—focus on policy effects.", i.e. not just rabid coverage of 'Washington' infighting; also:

"Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people’s lives. If they had done so during the presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump’s victory—the fading of the American Dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives have to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but it’s not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those beyond the Beltway."

Shouldn't really need saying. Fourth Estate, do your job.



All quotes referenced within the article. if not from the article itself. 

Obganiating overactive outlets...

---

A really interesting analysis of press coverage from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Trump's first 100 days. The image left (click to enlarge) will not surprise anyone! If anything it highlights that things are probably worse than some thought. Compare that to coverage of Obama's first 100 days.

Many will say "Hey look, Fox is most pro Trump" but what that really tells you is that Fox is the most balanced; this concurs with my impressions back in 2008 when Fox were the ONLY outlet giving balanced coverage; the rest was just full-time fawning over Obama; it was so obvious and blatant it was quite sickening.

"Donald Trump’s ongoing feud with the media is not the first time a president has felt wronged by the press"; the difference is that he has "taken the fight to the press, openly and with relish." It may appear wrong, even vulgar but I've seen people saying Trump is at fault because some people may believe the media fake news! FFS! "On national television, Trump was the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the usual amount." 41%!!! This is just crazy; the relentless tsunami of negative news (mostly contriving or downright lies from Democrats and their lackeys with dual objectives: stain, damage, topple Trump and cover their own law-breaking.) is bad for the country and by extension, the rest of the world.

Some sound advice: "Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that's at the core of the democratic process."  "The press should also start doing what it hasn’t done well for a long time—focus on policy effects.", i.e. not just rabid coverage of 'Washington' infighting; also:

"Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people’s lives. If they had done so during the presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump’s victory—the fading of the American Dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives have to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but it’s not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those beyond the Beltway."

Shouldn't really need saying. Fourth Estate, do your job.

All quotes referenced within the article. if not from the article itself.