Soo, here we have the two main protagonists attacking the veracity of this article because the writer used to work in asupermarket.
The biased attacking the biased for the sake of, it couldn't be funnier, the article is well written in a civil service academic social scientific manner. Unlike our two resident sh*t stirrers who search the net for newspaper links, misquoting and misunderstanding basic political language. All because they vote didn't go the way they wanted it to.
Chuckle. 
Don't worry about it. It is what he does very often, attempts to change the viewpoint by suggesting to look 'over there ...' and when brought to a discussion it will result in only highlighting the truth like only his opinion represents some facts.
As someone who has been in central government for quite a while, I think the chap has a good sense of interpretation of what is going on. Perhaps a little naive if he thinks that the team he worked in is the best of the civil service but I guess you don't know what you don't know. The reality is that he has highlighted a lot of very valid points, points that I may say I have been highlighting for a long time now.
Where I have concerns with this story is him going public. That is very strange. I could write some books but would never do such a thing. And I have not checked out his past, but if he truly has such limited experience then he is either super smart as I've never seen before, or it was someone else writing this. To me, that is why I find the story a bit fishy. But I could be wrong, I am not that bothered either way.
wow, any need for the name calling? Are we not allowed to post humourous responses here (you may have missed the emoji I put at the end of my first post). I’ve already commented on the article, and the detail within it, and said that it’s been said before by other people, that Brexit would have worked if it wasn’t for that pesky Remainer PM.
The fact that the article has been written like an A Level politics essay is irrelevant, we’re all allowed to have our own opinions, if that’s ok with you?
and now you’re piling in too. It was a humorous first response, as I thought his career rise, coupled with his suggestion that the team he worked in was the best to offer (as you’ve highlighted too) was interesting. Again, I’ve also commented on the content of the article, and shared my thoughts.Why is everyone so delicate, just because I dared to question the narrative.
You yourself have questioned the validity of the article, and the author, but I’m the one trying to change the viewpoint? ’s apparently ok for you to highlight the exact same points I did (questionable career progression, self-confidence, same old reasoning etc), because it’s you and not me..
Ok, let me comment further on the content of the article.Who do you think his intended audience was for it?His use of passionate words like “freedom to liberalise”, “insane and racist doctrine”,“ham fisted EU directives” etc reads like a political campaign leaflet, and not an impartial Civil Servant doing what’s best for the country.
Whilst clearly a passionate writer, and making some good points with regards to risk being part of good business, it reads more like a speech that he delivered in his head, rather than a genuinely argued insight into the Uk Civil Service. I raised his previous experience, as he writes like he and his team were the best of the best, held back only by a PM intent on thwarting them. As I said, many other outlets, and political groups, have said exactly the same, hence it not being particularly “new”.
I’m sorry you find my personal opinion of the piece different to yours.It’s not specifically because I voted to Remain, or because I’m trying to “look over there”, I simply found it to come across like campaign rhetoric as we’ve seen numerous times already.
Well this was all a thoroughly entertaining breakfast read this morning 
(FTFY. Forum etiquette now didn't you know).
An insight into the view of some leavers.
Everyone is wrong but me. And why wouldn't someone believe my propaganda piece from a pro-Brexit website?
Oh and as for the messenger. If I think the messenger is talking rubbish, I'll happily point out my view that he's talking rubbish. I don't remember you being anointed to decide on what's credible and what is not 
Thankfully though not all messengers of Brexit talk such trash.
Chuckles indeed. 
Still struggling to understand judicial process by the way? Yeah I imagine so.
I do look forward though to your providing of evidence as to what I've highlighted. Especially for Weavie, whose contributed more quality to this section than you could ever dream of doing.
Otherwise I'll expect an apology to him for labelling him a sh*t stirrer (I don't require one, personally I care nothing for your sentiment). Totally uncalled for. Just exposes your character more than anything else.
And as for our resident Brexiter cheerleader, it amazes me how he never misses an opportunity 
I'm glad you poured scorn on the chap though, and I will also label the story a bit fishy. As I know you haven't been criticised by others in here for such, so nor will I be 
Evidence of posting partisan newspaper links, nearly every post has a spurious link to a sponsored media anti Brexit sentiment.
Domestic analogy: “The argument from the experience of individual men in domestic society to the experience of states, according to which states, like individuals, are capable of orderly social life only if, to use the Hobbesian expression, they stand in awe of a common power.” Common power relates the application of sovereignty, justice, intuitions and freedoms relating to the common man. This is what democracy envelopes. Research West-phalian sovereignty for further insights.
But you knew all that anyway.
Just like your knowledge of the Kantian, public law, constitutional law, cosmopolitan law, which has been the established system of administering justice between individuals, nation states and relationships within supranational groupings. This is ultimately what the vote is testing, individuals within nation states, right, to decide the rule of law they wish to abide and consent to live under.
The vote and subsequent effects were a clear cut example of negative and positive liberty within a state. The fundamentals of sovereignty and justice were well established long ago before the guardian and the observer came into print.
Non of that matters because you didn't get your own way in the vote. How sad is that. There are lots of arguments made for remain, some of which have merit, non of which have been posted by either you or weavie, your information and knowledge on political, economics is certainly less than A-level. No apologies for my opinion.
The author of the article moved from a Wilko supervisor/section leader job to some civil service job. Unclear what grade or position he held in the DExEU for a couple of years, but never mind.
What is clear, in fact transparently clear, is his hard-line Brexit stance and deep dislike of the current government's policies, or at least what he considers the government's poor handling and lack of execution.
Also his personal opinions, although fairly well expressed, indicate his own lack of understanding and confusion how to handle his DExEU job requirements. This reflects in his opinion of the government's lack of understanding and how to handle Brexit requirements.
Basically, the article is a personal moan & groan piece, nothing more.
Ignoring the first part of your post, which appears to be a selection of OU Politics words thrown together, with no actual evidence to back up your childish name calling, your last point is the most relevant.
You shouldn’t need to apologise for your opinion, and neither should I.In the outside world, everyone sees things differently, and has their own opinions.
Tell me, does it take a lot of practice to be this pompous, or are you a natural?
Your risible attempt at gaining superiority too by attempting to dazzle with talk of law and sovereignty is also quite pathetic.
But alas your diversion falls flat when you reach the final paragraph. And you expose yourself there as nothing more than an individual who holds all those who voted Remain in contempt.
How sad.
See I believe that we're better off in the EU, but I'm willing to accept the EU is not perfect and in the long term I may be wrong.
You on the other hand believe the opposite, yet are absolutely unwilling to accept you could possibly be wrong. Your word is truth and anyone who questions it is incorrect - and then worse, inferior.
There's a term for that, and it isn't complimentary.
Finally as you have so much disdain for partisan newspaper links, I'll look forward to your condemnation of partisan Leaver articles from similar publications in future. As you're not a hypocrite are you?
Edit: Oh and it looks like another poster has now questioned the credibility of the article too. A Leave voter I believe as well.
How startling hey? 