All journalism is suffering from the same illness. Nick Robinson no more than anyone else. Nor any less either.

The illness I'm talking about is the boneheaded refusal of English newsmen to address the future

And many newsmen have built this group mythology around themselves that predicting the future is "a mug's game".
And it shows up something deeply wrong in the way Englishmen think.

I think that a willingness - and you notice I didn't say ability, just willingness - a willingness to address the future is a necessary part of journalism.

Let's not be mystical about the future. We're not talking about gambling. What we mean by "addressing the future" is addressing the consequences of present behaviour.

You don't say to a scientist that predicting consequences is "a mug's game".
Predicting consequences is pretty much what science is about.

Of course you can't predict human behaviour in all its ways. But you can predict the law. And you can predict the limitations of political action.

This is where political journalism is often primitive. It seems to recognise no constraint on political behaviour.

Political journalism lends credence to bullshit

So you want reality, where do you start?
You start from the fact that the European Union is a body of law. It cannot give Britain anything that will undermine its own legal order

And you can predict with complete confidence that Europe will not undermine its own legal order.

And that is a "prediction" only if you don't understand the world you live in.

So Brexit is a choice. You either live within Europe's legal order, where it is taken on trust that your standards are identical to everyone else's.

Or you remove yourself from that legal order, and you lose that trust along with it.
You still have to meet European standards in anything you sell to them. But they no longer take it on trust that you've met them.

So the fact is that leaving the European Union imposes great cost on ourselves, to no benefit whatsoever.
And that is fact. It is legal fact, and that is the consequence of leaving the European Union.

And that is the kind of future you need to be bale to foresee if you're going to call yourself a journalist.
These are called legal consequences.

As I see it, if you're not addressing the consequences of political choices. If you are only repeating whatever chundering garbage comes out of Blobby Johnson's mouth, you are not a journalist at all. You're a groupie.

Journalism is knowing that there are consequences to Boris Johnson's behaviour. Journalism is finding out what those consequences will be, and who is going to have to pay for them.

Johnson has got himself and this country into a legal and financial mess that he has got no idea how to get himself out of.

That's the news. That's journalism.

Boris Johnson's political stupidity is now very likely to end up destroy the country itself.
Johnson is going to resign because he always runs away. We know that about him. THAT is journalism.

So I predict these things;

Johnson is going to resign. The Tories realise we can't afford Brexit and try to undo it, and realise they can't. We get another election. The SNP gets another referendum. Scotland votes for independence.

These consequences of Brexit have been so obvious for so long that if you can't see them, at least in likelihood if not certainty, then you're too ignorant to be a journalist.