Friday 14 December 2018

Clarity is in the ear of the beholder

If there's one thing that the Prime Minister is very good at - exceptionally good, in fact - it's remembering to start every sentence by reminding us how clear she has been, is being, or is about to be.  If it were an Olympic sport, she'd win gold.  The problem is that what follows that statement is invariably either not at all clear at best, and completely meaningless at worst.  Worse still, having given what she (presumably, giving her the benefit of at least a little doubt) believes to be a very clear statement, she takes the bemused and incredulous faces of her listeners as agreement and consent.  The reports today that the EU leaders are unable to offer her much by way of assistance because they don't know what she wants, and feel that she has been far from clear, demonstrate the vital element of clarity which she utterly fails to understand: if those listening don't understand you, that's your problem not theirs.  'Clarity' is defined by the listener, not the speaker.

1 comment:

Spirit of BME said...

How right you are -clarity no matter how much you use the word is the last thig that has applied to this vexed question. Commentators continually say this is “unchartered waters “I beg to differ.
England(andwales) have withdrawn from a foreign super power that was undemocratic and whose rules governed everybody’s lives on a daily basis. I speak about the break with Rome and it is estimated that the Church of Rome ran one fifth of the economy.
In 1533 Little Tommy Cromwell (or it might be Crumwell) put an act through parliament, called Restraint of Appeal to Rome which in short told Rome to “go away”, but out of this act two important basis of English sovereignty, the first being that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and no government can bind a future government by act of parliament. In short parliament can do what it wants when it wants.
The 1957 The Treaty of Rome (unfortunate title considering historical events) was made law by the European Communities Act, but this act was a template for future acts, by stating that any future law not in line with it will be trumped and not enacted.
Some would say what we have is a constitutional muddle as this makes the Treaty of Rome in parliament as sovereign, but the 1533 act still is in force and the mace still abides in the Commons.
If the crown in parliament is sovereign, EU laws along with referendums simply do not fit the model and Mrs May-Day`s agreement could be enacted and simply abolished by a future government.

I hope that`s clear (!!??)