Troubador

I just want say although I suppose I am still a statist by default (I voted for Brexit after all!) as I'm still ploughing through a lot of material on anarchy and haven't formed my own conclusions yet. I tremendously respect dsayers for his consistency. He seems to cop a lot of ad hominem attacks, and I suspect would be getting a lot of up votes if he was posting the same position 8 years ago, and I suspect would be getting them again for saying the same things 8 years from now. Whichever way you slice it a vote for Trump is a gamble, (just as ultimately my vote for Brexit was!, so I empathise with anyone who wants to roll those dice) and one I am 85% sure I would make myself were I American. However I don't begrudge him sticking to his idea logical guns here, in fact I admire it! I want you to ponder the word philosophy a moment. Take a pause if you need to it is two Classical Greek words love (or friend to) wisdom. Sophia which means wise is a woman's name, and whilst we do live in a world where people take the feels before reals thing way to far any philosophy is incomplete without it. Look at the peaceful parenting philosophy for an example of philosophy firing on full cylinders whilst encompassing the masculine and feminine aspects of the human condition. Although this post is not an argument and nor is it really of much practical utility. Dsayers is a big boy I suspect can weather the slings and arrow perfectly fine on his own. I just wanted to go on record and accept the inevitable downvotes for doing so. Thank you.

I find this a fascinating topic with many interesting things going on under the surface. Although I'd like to echo what dsayers said, game and pua is bullshit. However there are some interesting areas that it springs up from. For a lot of men there is a lot of anxiety in approaching women and how to build initial rapport. So the idea there is some sort of magic bullet system that will help them over it is appealing. Although I am presenting myself as someone who knows something I am most certainly not an expert in all things women, but I was reasonably successful in building an intimite rapport with many women when I was younger. For me the keys were: - Confidence, whatever else went wrong with my upbringing I was fortunate enough to start off with a robust set of social skills and a certain level of self belief when it comes to social interaction. - Make and maintain a decent network of friends, both male and female. If you want to know what women are like, and what appeals to women go directly to the source and have some female friends you can ask. - Just be genuine and be yourself, but as part and parcel of that stand up for yourself and don't let anyone take you for a ride. - Language, learn to master it. Become adept at communicating your ideas in a wide range of contexts, learn wit and humour, but also learn when to be earnest and open. In that social network you built above practice how to hold everyone's attention with an anecdote, story or personal opinion. You'll note all of the above you'll learn through philosophy, all that is left is to attract and maintain people who share your values. Then romantic opportunities practically present themselves, but not in the sense you'll go out to the bar and come home with a different woman every night. The only way to win this 'game' if you even want to call it that is to simply not play it in the first place.

Okay so if you are a proponent of the non-aggression principle, ownership of a gun for self defense purposes is no contradiction. Even if someone else steals and uses that gun to commit a murder that is in no way on you. Likewise if you are an anarchist and vote (essentially in self defense), in an attempt to elect a candidate who promises to retard and maybe even regress the state I find no contradiction. If the candidate lies once having your vote and increases the power of the state the moral fault lies with the politician in the same way as the crime lies with the guy who stole your gun. Trying to maintain an ideological purity whist praiseworthy is akin to saying some people use guns to commit crime therefore nobody can have guns. People invented guns, sometimes you need a gun for defense. People invented democracy, so for crying out loud use your vote in self defense if nothing else. Maintain at the top of your lungs all the way to the polling booth, the iniquities in the system, and your vision for a freer society that doesn't rely on a state, but cast your vote to defend you and yours. If you vote in good conscience for a candidate you believe will do what's right, that's all you can do.

I am a single father of a 3 year old, I simply could not be a committed father that put my child's needs 100% at the forefront, and be in a relationship. Particularly being at such a tender age. Maybe this will change once he is a lot older, and he is old enough to discuss this with. Obviously being selfish I'd love to date again, but for the current stage of child development I'm afraid it's just not possible. Bottom line - building a decent, enduring romantic relationship is an enormous investment of time, resources and emotions. Raising a child to the best of one's ability is even more so. I guess you could half ass parenting and con yourself you are not, or you can half-ass loving someone romantically, but I wouldn't want to give someone who was deserving of my heart a mere portion, such people are worth 100%. I know that probably isn't what you want to hear, but if you can crunch the numbers and come up with a different conclusion I'd love to hear it.

Well it's really tough to say at this stage, strictly speaking that article is entirely anecdotal. All it is referencing is a forum log of one man highlighting what he perceives to be a problem, and several people jumping on it to shut the conversation down, but not to my understanding rebutting his assertion. The tactics were: - How dare you restrict women's choices to sleep with migrants if they want to, you're a sexist! - Holy shit dude, we know there is a problem but we don't want the media coming in here with a microscope. These are the conversations had between aid workers, so at the very least it raises the spectre of something that bears closer examination. My primary concern is towards the children in these camps.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-volunteers-sex-refugees-allegations-facebook-care4calais-a7312066.html I have just come across this article in the independant, but I fear it will not gain much mainstream traction as it involves women sexually exploiting men. I will have a further read around the issue and post more data and analysis going foward, but I just wanted to draw some attention to it as I saw it.

Well I am happy to join the choir BrotherKev! Dogdonnasoth, all you are doing is shifting the goalposts and playing with the definitions of words. The sad thing is it all comes down to your own faith in the end. Just be honest about this please! Can we unpack precisely why you want to persuade everyone to your position? Do you want to start a cult? What I find worrying about your rhetoric is not only are you making claims of God's existence you are also making claims as to god's nature. I can talk of my own personal relationship with divinity, and share experiences of it. However I cannot qualify that beyond my own experience. From those experiences I have inferred certain things, but my studies of various religious texts (and I have several), actually seem to skirt around the issue and the more they try to define and codify a divinity the further they move away from my own central experience. I'm finding reading your posts illicit the same reaction in me.

I for one would take it as an ominous and bad sign if a philosopher never changed their minds about anything. Philosophy is about a constant and lifelong refinement of ideas and thought. Having delved into one or two of these earlier videos that are critical of religion despite being religious I think a large number of those criticisms are valid today. To pick up on dsayers point about his bias, I think he's right. Inflicting a religion on a child as fact does both the child and the religion a disservice. Religions and faith based beliefs, are not in the same category as facts. It is factual to say penguins exist, it's a statement of faith to say some sort of divinity exists. A parents job is to teach their child how to think, not to teach them what to think. I feel personally embarrassed to see threads on here where religious people like myself conflate empirical observable facts with asserting faith based beliefs. They occupy different categories which I would of thought was self-evident, but seems to be beyond the grasp of many people. I'm also a bit mystified by the comments on this thread. Stefan hasn't come out and said Christianity is right and God exists after all. All he's done is observed a lot of Christians are nice to him and personable and observed that at points in human history Christianity has contributed to western civilisation, and thought. Note this doesn't wipe away any negative influences (of which there are many, and leads to the natural conclusion of separation of church and state). However I've not seen Stefan advance any argument that Christianity is off the hook there. All he's done is expanded the conversation. His criticisms of atheism have nothing to do with the truth value of "God doesn't exist". He has again simply observed, and I agree with him is that a lot of atheists end up frequently leaning to the left, and that a belief in the state replaces the belief in God, which lead to some of the same batshit crazy evils people do one another in the name of God. What we all need to unite against is any sort of blind faith, wether that is religious doctrine or a political ideology. Which at present the two most prominent examples are Islamic Fundementalism, and Socialism. If we manage to tackle those if Stefan returns to a more aggressive critique of Christianity then fair enough. At no point in his earlier presentations has he advocated anything close to violence against people like me, all he would advocate is to ostracise me and warn anyone off marrying me. I really don't think either is the end of the world. I also think it's a bit disingenuous to imply he's chasing a certain demographic, all his old videos seem to be up there. You can follow the development of his thinking over time it's right there with no obsfucation.

I can only guess what the response would be, as I can't speak for everybody. My guess is some people would care about the issue and form a charity. That charity would would do evidence based research looking into the problem, in addition to providing support services to help people exit the situation. Upon having solid data to take to the general population they would bring advice and guidance on how we can all collectively combat the problem. There would likely be more than one charity looking into it, but the one that arrived at the most efficient and measurably effective way of combating the problem would rise in prominence and gain more donations. My guess is the solution would involve providing data and guidance into what sorts of parenting lead to people being dragged into bieng trafficked, and the rest of us would ostracise the bad parents, johns and traffickers making it incredibly difficult for either group to interact with the rest of us in productive society. Which would produce disincentives to doing it in the first place. People follow incentives. As long as the consequences outweigh the benefits people will think twice about doing it. Like I say it is a big problem, and as such I couldn't give you a magic bullet solution to it right here. However give me a free society and some like minded intelligent people motivated to look into it, and I am convince we could come up with something. As human beings many of us possess great compassion and empathy so in short those of us that gave a shit about it and not rely on a government to do it for us. Some would be willing to toss in a buck or two to a worthy cause, others would roll up their sleeves and wade into the muck and do something.

Right so the behaviour happens when it's time to finish an activity? To incentivise the behaviour you want instead of using spanking try a star chart. Get some star stickers and make up a chart, include categories like brushing teeth, getting ready when you ask etc whatever you like really. However make sure to include several things he already does. The key is to reinforce his self perception of bieng a good boy. Too often when we tell children they are 'bad' that starts to be incorporated into their identity. So let him choose a star put it on the chart, and positively reinforce with praise. Once he fills a chart and make him aware of this he can choose a special activity: trip to the zoo etc. However make sure it involves plenty of time and interaction with you.

I'd like some more information. Does this happen mostly at bedtime? Tiredness + toddler creates all manner of behavioural outliers. On one occasion a month or so at bedtime I got hit in the face by my toddler. I told him no, but only superficially addressed the problem at the time as he was tired. In my view if the engagement of bad behaviour happens when they are tired it will escalate. The next day I addressed with him why I had said no to him and why I was sad. I explained that being a 6ft tall giant daddy people wouldn't like me hitting them in the face when I got frustrated and he agreed. I explained that one day he would be big and strong. Praised him for being gentle with animals (he is!), and explained it's ok to feel frustrated, but that hitting people is not ok. I said I would always help him if he feels frustrated and angry and we would work it out and make it better together. On a personal level the whole situation because I had dropped the ball and let him get too tired. Him being that tired was my fault not his. It's always worth having a brief scan of situations like these and ask is their any part of the equation that's on you. Not to point of crippling self doubt and recrimination, but just ask "is there something I have gotten wrong and can correct with a tweak here and there to forestall any problems?" Happy to report I have not been hit in the face since. Once or twice in the 48 hours following I could see him thinking about it, which I just reinforced with a firm no. You might find it a struggle if the behaviour is now ingrained, but use your positive relationship with your little boy, and reinforce with consistency. If you can go into more detail I may be able to offer more.

*facepalm* I am a man of faith myself. However there is no logical proof for God, and that is precisely what faith is for. When natural philosophy gave way to the scientific method and we formalised logic and reason into it's modern form we birthed an incredibly useful mechanism for observing the world and understanding it based on reason and evidence. Faith is neither reason nor evidence, except to the person who has it. Now until a diety reveals itself and becomes subject to measurement and empirical observation you are not going to be able to convince anyone with logical proofs, as such is simply impossible, as the whole system relies on providing repeatable observable and verifiable results. Please be careful in discussions like these there is enough evil in the world going around that we all need to start pulling in the same direction. My position is that my faith is an aesthetic choice, that relates to my own personal attempts to grapple with my own mortality and fear of the unkown. Mixed in with a set of personal experiences that have lead me to my faith. However from a purely objective standpoint even those experiences are indistinguishable from a deluded mind. So I invite any atheist to merely regard me as a well meaning fool. In fact I would like to go further in that people shouldn't at any point hang their ideological hat on my experiences, or even what this or that sacred text says. I recognise better men and women than I have walked the earth without one drop of faith, and my overriding priority is to align myself with the good in humanity, not some half understood ancient book. I think my faith helps me personally in that aspiration, but I have observed that is not necessarily the case for other people. Which is why I advocate consigning religion to aesthetics, I may listen to a piece of music or read certain poetry to uplift my mood and better get on with living. Someone else may play a sport or sculpt. Faith exists in that category.

First of all to the OP, that is a remarkably good post. I hadn't considered looking at it in that way. I'm sorry to hear about losing your father, but you have reasoned that whole situation into a teachable moment that could benefit many people. Pure psychological alchemical gold imho. I have had therapy for many years, and I am really reluctant to admit this but I am supposed to be very intelligent (at least two standard deviations above the mean in IQ). However I have this real emotional block involving feeling superior to people. I strive towards egalitarian relationships in my personal life, yet I hold myself back considerably in almost every other way except socially and with regards to raising my son (I refuse to be anything less than the best for him, and I am always working on ways to get better). At this point I am eyeing up diving into psychotherapy, and whilst I find the idea somewhat scary I think it may be the way foward for me. Thank you for taking the time to write that post!

Thanks for the feedback! I hope it helps, I just re-read the thread and I'd just like to add acquire many strategies. Although one may work like a charm it always helps to have something new and fresh to present. As long as it's entertaining and involves interaction with you it will probably be a success! As to your own situation it's incredibly hard to advise on limited information. What I can say is that there is no reason for you to stand there and take abuse. In your shoes I would simply disengage and refuse to engage in discussion until there was some civility present. You mention you are in Europe, if that happens to be the UK then there are parenting classes it might be wise for you both to attend. It sounds very much like you are both set on an adversarial path, and its key you both get the space to analyse this all from your child's perspective. As to yourself take mental stock, like you I have found my circumstances incredibly stress inducing. I simply couldn't have coped without some incredibly fantastic friends and family who have had my back. If you find yourself isolated widen your circle as much as your current circumstances allow. You say you are a student? There will likely be support services available to you through your University, avail yourself of them. Therapy was also something that helped get things into perspective for me, and again something that might be available to you through your University. The virtue here is taking responsibility for, and being engaged and involved with your sons life (which you are), but also to take care of yourself too. I'd also suggest canvassing a wide variety of opinions on here. Obviously provide only as much information as you are comfortable doing so, but feel free to message me if you'd like. Oh and start squirrelling away any spare money you can get your hands on. You may regrettably find yourself in court, acquaint yourself with a decent lawyer as soon as you can. I consulted with one pretty soon into getting into my predicament, and received some sound advice, like to keep a diary on contact I had with my son. In addition if your ex escalates her abuse to either you or your son, do not be hesitant to seek help from the police. Seek out advocacy groups that can assist and provide support. In short get your contingency plans in order, and keep a weather eye on the future. Best of luck!

Well first off I think you've started off on the right foot and are doing well. I'm in a situation not dissimilar to yours only my little boy is three and a half. What is going on here is a perfectly normal developmental marker. He's two and he is beginning to form his personality, preferences and is beginning to exert his will. Believe me you want this to happen and everything sounds like it is going fine. The key is to understand things from his point of view then everything will slide into place. He will have little concept of time and cause and effect yet. From his point of view the journey is an activity in itself that has his full attention and has all these fascinating distractions. To look at it a way that may help his mother when she is trying to get him changed to go out he's basically communicating "I'm so happy and fulfilled in this location doing this activity with you here I don't want any change", and believe you me you or his mother being there is a supremely important part of that equation. It's worth taking a pause to consider that when you feel he's being uncooperative. It's showing he feels safe and happy with you right now, and if I feel that why change anything? That said although I reckon you'll have it down from that the completionist in me feels compelled to throw in a few specific strategies. For my own little boy I worked in the concept of teamwork early on, so we did things as a team, be it clearing up, going out shopping etc etc. With lots of praise and reinforcement, which means lots of things take much longer to complete, as now he likes to take a role in food preparation. I'd do it quicker on my own, but where it pays dividends later is I don't get hissy fits in supermarkets and shops and so on as we have a brief moments explanation before, and we go in and get it done. I give him things to choose between so he gets to exert choice and explore that, inevitably you get the occasional frustration as he wants to do something he can't. That's when in my view you comfort and help him manage his emotions rather than telegraph certain emotions are unacceptable. One initial measure you may get some mileage out of is a star chart, get some stickers and award them for team activities, like brushing teeth, getting changed to go out, anything you wish to make easier. Once he fills up a weeks worth do an activity with him he can choose, with the key point being time spent with you or mum or if you can stomach it both of you. Time with you will be like oxygen atm, so praise each star and let him choose and place it and reinforce how good he's been all week. You are about to hit a fascinating time with him, so much changes so quickly it is a phenomenal privilege to watch a whole new human bieng start to unfold....

I'm a single father and as such have no time for dating these days, perhaps when my toddler is a lot older I'll have another crack at it. Does anyone do free range dating anymore? The online stuff looks so sterile and stage managed. I don't think I'll ever be able to face it, so I hope it never becomes a pre-requisite. Surely being personable and able to strike up a real conversation will always be a plus?

I am religious, but one of my closest friends is an athiest, and I have asked him to be a kind of godless-father if you will to my little boy. Religion is not the only parth to morality and ethics. My golden rule is to encourage my son in what he loves, and not necessarily what I love. Although he's only three he will one day be his own man, and as such he's going to have to find his place in the world on his own terms. I would not be so sure that following a religion simply because it is something his father practices is the wisest thing. Placing an emphasis on teaching him how to think is better than teaching him what to think. Going back to my athiest friend who is most certainly ethical and moral, we have had one anothers backs for many years now. Challenged each other, and shared some great and not-so-great times he is my number one pick for being a positive influence on my little boy.

So we have free will to be good, but hang on truly evil people have no choice because God made them that way? I really don't get where you are going with this? Furthermore the statement judge not lest ye yourself be judged, or however it is phrased isn't a blanket ban on all judgements ever. For example please feel free to put on your judgy pants if I suffer a brain injury and start acting irrationally to the point of endangering others. In fact scratch that feel free to scrutinise my every utterance and action, critique away! I can't promise to self-correct every infraction I may commit in your eyes, but I'll give it a good deep think particularly if you're kind, friendly and wise. In short the prohibition is against setting yourself up as some supreme moral arbiter accepting no criticism yourself. If I'm happy for you to judge me I can judge you right? That would appear to be the deal. If it is reciprocal what's the problem? In addition if I'm ever a mortal threat to people for whatever reason I would want to be judged and neutralised in such a way that no one else got hurt. If that means I'm shot in self defense, or preferably I'm incarcerated peacefully and stuck in a prison or mental institution where I'm no further threat you all go right ahead. That being the case I reserve the right to be part of a community that judges it members with a view towards self improvement and keeping everyone safe, and I will make my own judgements commensurate with my own level of knowledge and wisdom. I don't see how any of that contradicts judge not lest I myself be judged.

Thank you for taking the time to post that. I found it helpful and interesting.

I didn't catch the lower case u in union, apologies. My view is that religion goes very wrong when it becomes concerned in any way with governance. Any faith concerns the transcendent or metaphysical aspects of humanity. The moment it becomes a government or in any way an organisation that dictates it has moved away from its essential purpose to further the spiritual nature of man, and then becomes trapped in cycles of power and control. If it wants to provide places to worship, reflect, study or meditate, gather resources to aid people in desperate times through charitable works. That should be the extent of any religions interactions with the temporal sphere. We have to co-exist with our fellow human beings and that means respecting (not just merely tolerating) other people's choices. A secular attitude is the only way to achieve this. Anyone who cannot get on board with this is incompatible with western civilisation. So we should by no means embrace those who would wish to annihilate these values. I would most likely be an atheist were it not for personal experiences with what I ascribe to be the divine. However nobody should hang their hat on third party experiences I have had. Can we also drop the self righteousness just because we have faith. Greater human beings than me have walked this earth who have had no particular faith, and much much worse ones have walked it with it.

I think you are conflating European Civilization with the European Union. They are not synonymous, there are also crucial cultural differences which actually I for one embrace and enjoy. As an Englishman I relish those aspects we have in common, I am proud of what culturally my nation has contributed, but I am also in awe of a great many of the cultural achievements of my neighbours. I think it would be a very boring world were we all the same. Onto God, indisputably Christian denominations have been at the beating heart of our cultures for over a thousand years. However that too speaks of differing approaches, you have Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the many branches of Protestantism. All of which have produced variations of music, art and architecture. However I keep wanting to come back to the enlightenment, working towards the separation of church and state is crucial. I'm a man of faith myself, but that is my own personal and private experience. My culture is one that recognises this and everyone is afforded the liberty to pursue or not pursue a religion as is their choice. I am reluctant to make Christianity any sort of default, as ideally I want my brothers and sisters of differing faiths, or indeed atheists and agnostics to feel like vital and fully invested members of our shared culture. After all there have been colossal contributions to our culture made by such people. We should also be cognisant of the pre-enlightenment times when nations march under religious banners, even when purporting to worship the same deity, well shit tends to get broken so let's not go back there for heaven's sake...

I haven't found every feminist I have come across to be like that. Plenty are capable of empathy and even compassion for men, but it's always on a case by case basis. The issue is - and it's like a telemarketer with a set patter certain premises are taken as gospel and any deviation is met with the same set of responses. There is one sphere of feminism I have a lot of time for, and that is feminist literary criticism. Although essentially what that seems to mean in practice is merely an examination of literary texts from a female perspective, although it will attract a lot of extremists also. I just happen to find examining literature from as many perspectives as possible quite illuminating. I recall I was in a creative writing retreat at this beautiful mansion, and I'd been assigned to an all female group. We were assigned the task of creating a fictional man, and one of the girls straight off the bat squared up to me personally and said she didn't see why we should have to write a man. I could see value in writing a female as being a man I'd need that skill, so without missing a step I said I was happy to, and had no objections. She then sat down awkwardly as if expecting an argument, and we got on with the task. I was alert to the possibility that she hadn't taken to me for some reason and just put foward my ideas as eloquently and diplomatically as I could. However something even odder happened as we went on the more the women and the initial one specifically started referring to me more and more. Now in these sorts of situations I like to collaborate with equals rather than lead things. I can lead if pressed, but it's not in my automatic comfort zone. I'm happy to follow as well when I'm in the presence of someone that knows what they are doing. I have just noticed a lot of women, even feminists sometimes can fall into a pattern of deferring to men for some bizarre reason, and then when they are frustrated with the end result blame the man for their 'male privilege' rather than work on their own assertiveness. Avail I've come across women such as you describe but they rarely date men for long who actually behave in that manner. Usually they are friendzoned. Such behaviour has always baffled me, as on the rare occasions women have fallen for me when I have no reciprocated it, as much as I may like them as people it struck me as being quite cruel to become too close a friend. I've coming to the end of a casual study of feminism and I must admit I find contemporary feminism baffling int the extreme. To the point where I am not sure I could even give an accurate definition. It's about equality between the sexes, except when it's not. It's about women's agency and Liberty except when a woman makes a wrong choice then on its internalised mysogyny or being a handmaiden towards patriarchy. I could see feminism being a genuine force for good when it starts to examine what it means to be a woman (which I see shades of in feminist literary critique). Promotes self-knowledge amongst women, and it short stops telling women what to do all the time. In short modern women are not taught to be themselves (after figuring out who that may be) and make their mark in the world, they are told they have to be everything at once (mothers, hot shot career women, to simultaneously support the sisterhood and be assertive but not rock the boat), and frankly if I had been raised in an environment with that sort of pressure, without being afforded the space and encouraged to self actualise I would be confused, mentally all over the place, exhausted, frustrated and probably quite unhappy.

As a piece of creative writing it works for me as a meditation on understanding and self knowledge. Specifically on the correct application of the parent/child relationship both in terms of those literal relationships as well as to the individual's inner psyche. The meaning I derived from it takes the child who is vulnerable, innocent and childish paired with the adult traits of protective, experienced and wise. The crucial axis by which this resolves is through love and understanding, as opposed to fear and ignorance. Applied to both a real child as well as our inner children this dynamic is crucial, if one just obeys parental dictates without being taught the why, and especially if done born out of fear rather than love we develop these fierce inner critics that are unable to progress past telling us we are wrong without being able to suggest meaningful avenues to self correct and improve. Am I at all close?

Sex without consent is rape, it's pretty simple. Marriage doesn't alter that definition. In addition talking in terms of obligation we need to unpack what marriage has meant historically. Which essentially has viewed women (and children for that matter) as chattel and part of the man's household.

There is a game plan following Brexit, the idea is to begin negotiations around the world re: our trading relations. Once we are ready to pull the trigger on those treaties the moment we actually leave we are in a stronger position to negotiate with the E.U. We aim to be be in a position that what the E.U. Decides to do is no big factor either way. Basically if we wait to negotiate with the E.U. until we are in a position to say "do whatever you like, we have a sound set of treaties ready to go." Then all the E.U. will be doing is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face, they will follow what is in our interest. The German trade minister has come out to say the doom and gloom he threatened before the vote was basically what George Osborn instructed him to say. The German car industry lobby is not going to tolerate trade tariffs as the U.K. Market is one of its biggest. France has intimated free trade could be negotiated without free movement of people, with a view to re-examining the issue further down the line. My only lingering fear is that bremainers and the media are so sore about losing they want to erode confidence in the U.K. Economy so they can have their "I told you so moment" and market confidence is as much psychology as anything else I could see this happening. However to end on a high note I'd like to thank New Zealand as they have recently offered to loan us some of their top international trade negotiators with decades of experience (we obviously don't having relied on Europe!). It is humbling and very much appreciated to be welcomed back into the international community as a sovereign nation once again by a friendly nation to which we have always had such strong ties.