More on Brexit on Conlawprof

Professor ZZZ writes as follows:

The Brexit negotiations have been justly mocked in the following fake dialogue which nonetheless captures the spirit of the process so far:

         UK: We want a unicorn

         EU: We don’t do unicorns. None of us have unicorns, There are no unicorns. 
         UK: But we promised unicorns and the people have spoken. We want unicorns

         EU: That’s not really our problem. There are no unicorns. 
         UK: You’re being unreasonable. We demand unicorns

         EU: There are no unicorns 
         UK: You are bullying us with your outrageous demands! 

         EU: Eh? We just said there are no unicorns because... well... there are no unicorns. 
         UK: OK! We get your game. You’re stalling! We’re prepared to walk away without a 
         unicorn you know! (Thinks: that’ll show’em)

EU: There are no unicorns.

UK: You bastards! Nigel was right. You’re out to destroy us. We’ll go and speak to Donald instead. HE has unicorns!

EU: Errrrrmmm, there ARE no unicorns.

UK: That does it. This is our final position. We want unicorns...right now... gold plated... fluent in [G]reek....ermmm.... or we’re off!

EU: Are you still here? There are no unicorns.

UK: DAMMIT! What about a packet of crisps then?

EU: Sorry we’re busy.

(bold added by Tillman)

The problem with this dialogue is it fails to communicate in what way the UK negotiators (or the pro-Leave side) were asking the EU for unicorns—things that don’t exist—as opposed to things that the EU refuses to negotiate about. It is possible that the author off this dialogue had some particular UK demand or demands in mind. But does Professor ZZZ or any other reader of this passage have the same thing in mind? I really doubt it. I don’t think there is any real meeting of the minds here. The mockery (in my opinion) is rooted in something less wholesome.

This is how I read this passage. The author and the people entertained by this passage know Brexit will be a failure, and they know that membership in the EU is an unqualified good. There is no burden on them to explain how the voters got it so wrong, or why those who knew better were unable to make themselves heard and understood. They know the UK negotiating position is wrong, and not just wrong, but downright crazy. But here too—there is no burden on them to explain why that is so. We are just supposed to laugh at the rubes, and those so silly to desire to live in an independent parliamentary state.

In the end, there is something to laugh at here, but it is (I suspect) not what Professor ZZZ had in mind.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, More on Brexit on Conlawprof, New Reform Club (Jan. 21, 2019, 12:43 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/01/more-on-brexit-on-conlawprof.html>. 

Welcome Instapundit readers!