The problem with taking an extreme rhetorical position which isn’t supported by evidence is that when hitting any process requiring that evidence, rhetoric isn’t enough. So then you need to decide whether to ignore/attack the law/rules themselves, or moderate your rhetoric. 1/4

Johnson’s a very good example of this over Brexit. He adopted extreme rhetorical positions, refused to even acknowledge alternative views, and then his rhetoric collided with facts/evidence based processes in courts and negotiating rooms. 2/4

He chose (like Trump, of course) to undercut the entire principle of the rule of law, and indeed the primacy of truth, rather than face the possibility of admitting his rhetoric was extreme or unsupported by evidence. He’d invested too much political face in the rhetoric. 3/4

People who adopt extreme, unevidenced positions, refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of other views, & who are thus compelled to attack due process itself when it inconveniently requires a higher standard of evidence than their rhetoric, seems increasingly universal. 4/4