Headline: I do not believe that Brexit will happen

Sub-Headline : There will be howls of rage, but why should extremists on both sides dictate how the story ends?

Gideon Rachman is in high dungeon at the Brexit vote and as ever he voices the rage and anguish of the plutocrats and oligarchs, that their ideological hobbyhorse, the EU, has been dealt a crippling blow: from ‘extremists from both sides’: Mr. Rachman needs a refresher course in what defines the Democratic State:

But there is no reason to let the extremists on both sides of the debate dictate how this story has to end. There is a moderate middle in both Britain and Europe that should be capable of finding a deal that keeps the UK inside the EU.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8f2aca88-3c51-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html#axzz4Csgx5yw1

Perhaps one might view the vote as the integrating third term in the dialectic of The Rebellion Against the Elites/ The Failure of the Elites to place it within Hegelian parlance. Those ‘extremists of both sides’ and others made up a majority! The political facts are more than clear, yet that can’t interfere with the Capitalist Utopianism, that is the political/intellectual mooring of Mr. Rachman’s faith in what? Certainly not in the democratic process!

Enter this movie melodrama, as per Mr. Rachman’s rhetorical frame, Rupert Harrison with something that resembles political sense, rationality and perhaps, by accident?, something like a regard for the democratic process: all framed in an enlightened economic policy advocacy.

Headline:  We now need a proper roadmap to quell corrosive uncertainty

Sub-headline:  Control and sovereignty, not immigration, were main drivers of Leave vote, writes Rupert Harrison

The nature of that map should reflect the reality — the UK is to leave the EU — but it should also reflect the narrow nature of the vote. It is significant that the polling evidence since the vote suggests that control and sovereignty, not immigration, were the main drivers of the Leave vote. The right aim, therefore, should be some kind of “European Economic Area minus” deal.

Perhaps my enthusiasm was a bit premature, although for The Financial Times, Mr. Harrison’s political/economic rationalism is a refreshing change from the relentless  Brexit Hysterics. But Mr. Harrison offers the hope, that rationality will prevail, in the midst of the current manufactured climate of crisis, and at its headquarters at The Financial Times.

The final challenge is political. The Conservative party must now conduct a leadership contest, decided by party members, in which the contenders will be asked to set out their stall for the UK’s future relationship with Europe. That is not the ideal environment for cool, rational planning in the national interest. To avoid unrealistic promises, the leadership candidates could each be given access to official support from the civil service to help develop their policy platform. The Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition government of 2010-15 provides a possible precedent.

The people have spoken, now we need to figure out exactly what they have said and find a way to make it happen without causing too much damage.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61687770-3c7a-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#axzz4Csgx5yw1

Should my faith in Mr. Harrison’ economic/political rationality be modulated,informed even nullified by this revelation?

‘The writer, a former chief of staff to George Osborne, is chief macro strategist for multi-asset strategies at BlackRock.’

Almost Marx

https://www.patreon.com/StephenKMackSD

My comment @Voice