Chris Giles, economics editor of the Financial Times sternly warns us that "a vote for Brexit would likewise unleash powerful transitions in Britain’s economy. The UK would need to secure access to the single European market, renegotiate EU trade deals with 60 other countries, rewrite thousands of EU regulations into UK law and come to a deal on EU citizens living in Britain and Brits abroad. None of these transitions would be easy; all have uncertain outcomes."
As discussed previously, Britain does not have to renegotiate EU "trade deals" due to the presumption of continuity in international law, and regulations do not have to be rewritten in that they are adopted standards and regulations in the first instance, and single market access requires continuity of convergence. There are plenty of discussions to be had around the finer details but Chris Giles is not even past first base when it comes to the matter of Brexit.
When challenged on this Giles patronisingly responds with a sigh, apparently suggesting Brexit is triggered by a repeal of the European Communities Act. What this tells us is that a man who presumes expertise in such matters is not even reading the debate at the shallow end - where even the odious Fraser Nelson is aware of Article 50 - even if he hasn't grasped basics of how it works.
As much as Chris Giles has no right to be taken seriously as a journalist now, the Financial Times must be held in equal contempt in that this self-righteous, patronising individual is considered sufficiently informed to hold the title of Economics Editor. They have written themselves out of the picture.
More seriously, when the likes of Chris Giles and Fraser Nelson are paid to know what is going on yet fail to grasp the basics of a critical public debate, we are looking an an institutional failure in media, where mediocrity and stupidity is par for the course - and is lagging far behind the blogosphere.
It's easy to see why though. Looking at other prominent figures from within the bubble and we see a class of toadying, self-referential entitled brats who consider the intrusion of us plebs onto their territory as impertinent - and long for the means of shutting us out completely (see below).
Moreover, when challenged on their vacuous outpourings their response is not to engage, but to reassert their ignorance then scamper away, usually blocking in the process. This is their modus operandi.
This prompts some individuals to warn that we would find them more receptive if we watched our p's and q's and doffed our caps accordingly - but experience shows that these parasites run at the first sign of dissent. That is what marks them as bubble dwellers.
As a blogger there is nothing I welcome more than to be challenged with new information, and one can only improve ones own understanding by admitting fault and incorporating new information. Not so for our media, who are defenders of their own orthodoxy in a domain they feel entitled to control. For that reason, it is right that they are humiliated and exposed. They are contemptible.