19th November 2021
Here is a government minister:
For clarity, I have set out my and the Government's position on our negotiations with the EU over the Northern Ireland Protocol in the @UKHouseofLords this morning. pic.twitter.com/s062DD26S9
— David Frost (@DavidGHFrost) November 18, 2021
*
“For clarity…
“I would like to make our position… 100% clear….
“I want to be clear…”
And so on.
This minister is not even the worst politician in this respect – the former prime minister Theresa May often seemed incapable of saying anything without prefacing with how she was making something clear.
But David Frost’s latest verbiage means it is perhaps time for me to state on this blog a couple of rules about clarity that I have often tweeted.
*
The First Rule of Clarity
If you have to describe a thing as “clear” then it usually is not.
The Second Rule of Clarity
The stronger the intensifier for “clear” (for example, “very clear”, “absolutely clear”, “crystal clear”) the less clear that thing will tend to be.
*
The rules also apply to “clearly” – and this is always a tell in a litigation letter or legal argument that the author has no confidence in what they are saying.
Compare and contrast:
“This passage clearly shows that…”
“This passage shows that…”
The very fact you are having to gloss what the passage means indicates that the passage is not clear.
If the passage were clear, the gloss would be redundant.
*
Going back to the example above, Frost says three times – in a tweet and his quoted speech – about things being clear.
If the position were clear he would, of course, not need to tweet or make a speech in the house of lords saying things were clear.
As it happens, there is no clarity about what the government’s position on Article 16 is – and it seems to change every weekend with the Sunday papers.
And the reason why the position is unclear is that the thinking (or lack of thinking) is unclear.
Fog everywhere, as Charles Dickens would put it.
*
These are rules – and not laws.
They are not laws in the scientific sense – like Godwin’s law – which are perhaps affirmed rather than broken.
Nor in the jurisprudential sense, the usual fare of this blog.
Of course, there will be exceptions to these general rules.
But: clear is a good strong word describing a good strong concept.
And if you do take clarity seriously, you will never have to say so aloud.
Is that clear?
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
“To tell you the truth, I think that was the best blog you have ever written.” As a politician might say if he/she thought it was rubbish (I didn’t).
It’s one of several tiresome tropes which the government media advisors would do well to discard. I’d say it also conveys a snarkiness implying that either the subject or interlocutors must be thick if they thought the minister meant something else by what the minister believes they have said. It’s in the same lexical grab-bag as “As I’ve said before…” and all the “interpretation”/“context” nonsense
What appears to be the case is that Frost is working to bore us to death with the whole sorry saga, so whatever he ends up signing will be greeted only with a sigh of relief and the placing of all the earlier versions in the bin. So, in fact, clarity is the last thing he wants, because the result is unlikely to meet the fantasies set out at the beginning. Sigh. What a waste of energy.
With respect, Minister …
Frost’s threats on triggering A.16 are starting to sound a little like Yossarian’s Catch 22.
That is an odd statement.
“Whatever messages to the contrary the EU” (a legal person, without brain or eyes) “may think they” (ah, they, the people, not it, the body) “have heard” (from whose mouth?) “or read” (think they have read?? either the words were on the page or they were not; either they expressed a position with clarity and precision or they did not) “our position has not changed [since July]”.
All the meetings, all the negotiations, all the conversations and exchanges of bits of paper, all the reiteration and shifting of positions were for naught. We are no further forward today than we were in July. The minister has been wasting his and our (and their) time for the last four months. Clearly.
More like “Waiting for Godot” than “Catch 22”.
Well, shall we trigger Article 16? Yes, let’s trigger Article 16. [they do not trigger Article 16]
You say “rules”, I say “heuristics”. It turns out these can lead to laws. See https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/heuristics-and-law
https://twitter.com/georgewparker/status/1461684267864444933?s=21
However clear he thinks he is being I get the impression that business is not on his side.
There’s nothing scientific about Godwin’s Law, which is actually an observation. Perhaps Boyle’s Law might have been a better example of a law in the scientific sense.
I think in the case of Lord Frost we should make allowances. He is faced with negotiating partners with a much deeper knowledge of the trade agreement and the consequences of every action he might try to take to break it. He must be constantly reminded of the nonsense of his position and the knowledge of his own inadequacy. His only relief is one sided megaphone negotiations via the media and twitter where the other side is an amused and baffled spectator unable to reply with to his outpourings. Unfortunately this only makes his lack of substance public. The words clear and mud have never been more closely linked.
Classic comment !
There is something wrong in Lord Frost’s use of the subjunctive.
‘I want to be clear that I will not’ is making a promise.
‘I want to be clear that I would not’ is something with wriggle-room.
Attuned to the subject, I’ve noticed how few people just ‘work’ these days.
Most seemingly work ‘hard’
And, increasingly, usually, work ‘very’ hard (by their own explanation).
Do they really.
As with ‘very clear’, the uplifting adjectives, are more usually indicators of the downward performance.