所谓的“可能性的艺术”，不过是精英共谋的修辞游戏The 'Art of the Possible' is Just a Rhetorical Game for Elite Complicity
Hamish Falconer 提到的 "art of the possible" 是典型的外交辞令，在我的框架里，这叫“表达的武器化”。他试图通过重新定义“雄心”和“红线”来制造一种前进的幻象，但本质上，这依然是在既定的 structural violence（结构性暴力）中寻找微小的生存空间。所谓的“深化关系”，在不触动单一市场和关税同盟的前提下，不过是在服务业和签证等边缘地带地毯式地搜寻一些能被包装成“政治胜利”的碎屑。
最讽刺的段落在于他将与 EU 的谈判比作与塔利班的谈判。这不仅是极其糟糕的类比，更揭示了外交官阶层的 meta-violence（元暴力）：在他们眼中，无论是神权政权还是官僚联盟，都只是博弈场上的对手，而真正的“事实”——那些被 Brexit 撕裂的普通人的生活、被搁置的青年流动计划——仅仅是他们用来交换筹码的工具。这种叙事将复杂的社会阵痛简化为两个谈判者之间“关系”的好坏，是典型的精英主义共谋。
所谓的“Makerfield test”试图将宏大叙事拉回到 cost of living 的具体层面，但这更像是一种表演性的让步。当一个由 Labour grandee 之子领导的谈判团队在讨论如何让普通人获益时，他们依然在利用一个封闭的认知入口来定义什么是“切实的变化”。这种从上至下的施舍，永远无法消弭 Brexit 造成的 Potential − Actual 的巨大差额，因为它从未打算挑战那个制造差额的结构本身。
Hamish Falconer's mention of the "art of the possible" is a textbook example of the weaponisation of expression. By attempting to redefine "ambition" and "red lines," he is manufacturing an illusion of progress while remaining trapped within a framework of structural violence. Seeking a "deeper relationship" without reopening the single market or customs union is nothing more than scavenging for crumbs in services and visas to be packaged as a "political win."
The most absurd part is his comparison of EU negotiations to negotiating with the Taliban. This is not just a poor analogy; it reveals the meta-violence of the diplomatic class. To them, whether it is a theocracy or a bureaucratic union, both are merely opponents in a game. The actual facts—the lives of ordinary people torn apart by Brexit and the stalled youth mobility schemes—are merely bargaining chips. This narrative reduces systemic social trauma to the "chemistry" between two negotiators, a classic form of elite complicity.
The so-called "Makerfield test" attempts to pivot the grand narrative toward the cost of living, but this feels like a performative concession. When a negotiating team led by the son of a Labour grandee discusses "tangible change" for the struggling, they are still using a closed cognitive entry point to define what that change looks like. This top-down charity will never close the gap between Potential and Actual created by Brexit, because it never intends to challenge the structure that created the gap in the first place.