The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

@Blandy Re: the civil servant, who knows. It's not very important in the grand scheme of things, but for the sake of continuity it makes sense for him to move on now - whether he actually went native or not.

In terms of everything being a mess I don't know how that call can be made unless you've got some really good sources. The detailed negotiating position is rightly being kept very close hold until A50 is declared. 

I think what events since June 23rd do show is the weakness of the charge that the Leave side 'should have had a plan/had no plan' etc. 

Cameron explicitly forbade Whitehall to do any contingency planning before the vote, an act of hubris that marks him (and will mark him historically imo) as probably our worst post-war PM. 

Since June it has taken a whole of Government effort coordinated by a dedicated Brexit team of 400 civil servants to draw up the negotiating position, and they're still not ready yet. 

Without access to and control of all the levers of state power it is simply impossible to do the necessary research and planning to come up with anything more detailed than a direction of travel and a wish list of objectives. Leave did that, i.e. control of our laws, borders/immigration and money.

If you recall the Ministers who backed Brexit were denied briefings on the EU and not allowed to task the resources of their own departments, even as the Whitehall machine was used to campaign for Remain. Despite stacking the deck in his favour Cameron still lost - interesting to note the Treasury's dire predictions of immediate economic collapse are now described by them as "scenarios"! Without project fear I suspect the margin for Leave might have been even bigger. 

Leave was not the government, indeed many of people pushing for it were not even in the governing party. It seems unrealistic to me that they could have done significantly more other than make the arguments  that they did, minus the squalid 350M to the NHS lie - I wouldn't be surprised if Gove was behind that. 

Re the civil servant - whatever his views (and we don't know them) he did at least have long experience of negotiating with the EU, and bods from the EU have said he was both good at it and utterly committed to getting the best for Britain in the past. So losing him just before negotiations are about to start seems "unwise" rather than to "make sense" in my reading.

In his leaving letter he said that the civil service people involved don't know what the Government's position is or what the aims are. That is pretty damning. The idiot IDS claims they don't know because they aren't trusted, but tbh that's clearly an idiotic lie.

Leave fanatics have a list of incompatible dreams. It's not even a wish list of objectives.

You're spot on about Cameron and the whole failing to plan for Brexit etc. However it's also true that the long term leave fanatics have not the first idea either. People like Gove and David Davis and Gisella Stuart and others revealed that throughout the past 12 months. I'd have thought they'd have had more of an idea. I suspect the margin for leave was only what it was, because of their scaremongering about immigration and 350 million for the NHS which you mention - But we've kind of discussed all the lying bastards before.

I was a deeply unenthusiastic remain voter, who's not that bothered about leaving , but I am massively bothered that the people responsible are utter efftards.

[Awol]

34 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

It'll probably be fine.

All we need is to find a skilled, knowledgeable, competent negotiator who really believes in Brexit.

Oh.

Sir Tim Barrow, political director at the FCO, before that Ambo to Russia.

He has a beard. We're saved. 

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think its a bit harsh to call Cameron our worst post war prime Minister when we've a war criminal and a woman who sold the country's assets to banks for a pittance in the running. 

Yes, it's becoming a more fiercely competitive field. It's now a 3 horse race, and before long could become a 4 horse race the way things are going.

[colhint]

how hard can it be to be a negotiator, surely the EU have a set of criteria countries have to meet, and as we have been trading with them for years surely we must meet them. I remember reading that it took Canada 7 years to make a deal. 7 years how can it take that long.Whats to check, what obstacles can they possibly have against Canada

[Chindie]

13 minutes ago, colhint said:

how hard can it be to be a negotiator, surely the EU have a set of criteria countries have to meet, and as we have been trading with them for years surely we must meet them. I remember reading that it took Canada 7 years to make a deal. 7 years how can it take that long.Whats to check, what obstacles can they possibly have against Canada

Thousands of things. From agreeing standards for more or less everything to securing agreement to all those agreed matters from every nation.

The Canada deal took all that time and nearly fell apart because a single region of Belgium would not agree to it as it felt it was a threat to farming. 

Brexit potentially brings opportunities for EU states to increase their own standing - if Wallonia, the Belgian region that didn't like the Canada deal, sees the opportunity to help its farmers by filling a gap British farmers currently trade in, for instance, they could try to force negotiations to their benefit. Repeat as nauseum for all of Europe.

Even if we rock up to Brussels and bend over the negotiating table with a giant sign above our arse that says 'We're just going to stick to the standards and regulations we already have agreed with you, ok?' (which presumably isn't in the spirit of Brexit, since it was all about 'taking back control') there's no guarantee that the others at the table won't look to take advantage anyway.

[colhint]

so its about protectionism then by the member states. and if we cant make that deal does all trade stop or what? I'm wondering how important these deals are, I mean there are no deals with The US or China, but I bet there are billions of dollars of trade between them.

[tonyh29]

59 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yes, it's becoming a more fiercely competitive field. It's now a 3 horse race, and before long could become a 4 horse race the way things are going.

At the risk of going OT I can't see how Brown survives being on the list 

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by tonyh29

[Chindie]

It works both ways.

Trade won't suddenly stop but it'll instantly become more difficult, subject to various trade control measures, which ultimately will mean every piece of trade is more difficult (and therefore expensive) and may eventually mean markets look for easier options. 

There's trade everywhere even without free trade deals but even that requires some wrangling. We are one of the biggest trade partners of Bangladesh, with no deal, but we'd be foolish to ignore one of the biggest economies on the planet on our doorstep with no deal in place.

[chrisp65]

37 minutes ago, colhint said:

how hard can it be to be a negotiator, surely the EU have a set of criteria countries have to meet, and as we have been trading with them for years surely we must meet them. I remember reading that it took Canada 7 years to make a deal. 7 years how can it take that long.Whats to check, what obstacles can they possibly have against Canada

 

11 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The Canada deal took all that time and nearly fell apart because a single region of Belgium would not agree to it as it felt it was a threat to farming. 

Brexit potentially brings opportunities for EU states to increase their own standing - if Wallonia, the Belgian region that didn't like the Canada deal, sees the opportunity to help its farmers by filling a gap British farmers currently trade in, for instance, they could try to force negotiations to their benefit. Repeat as nauseum for all of Europe.

Even if we rock up to Brussels and bend over the negotiating table with a giant sign above our arse that says 'We're just going to stick to the standards and regulations we already have agreed with you, ok?' (which presumably isn't in the spirit of Brexit, since it was all about 'taking back control') there's no guarantee that the others at the table won't look to take advantage anyway.

I know of two banks that have been building and converting vast areas of 'office' space in Malta.

Now, I can see how millionaire traders and whatnot might not feel like a move to Malta. But they've spent a fluffton of money on i.t. and broadband and floor space and car parking and infrastructure and on site malls of shops. So, I'd imagine Malta have an interest in making it awkward in some way for London to keep its current position and status in the world of european finance.

They might not get what they want, they're only Malta. But I wouldn't expect them to just sign off and agree to the U.K. carrying on as if we hadn't left the union.

[Chindie]

Malta is growing as a financial services hub, they'll push to increase that, however slightly, if they can. There's a decent number of insurers and related business out there, they'll want more.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Sir Tim Barrow, political director at the FCO, before that Ambo to Russia.

He has a beard. We're saved. 

He sounds like a sensible appointment to be fair. 

[peterms]

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

He doesn't specify which bible prophecy so is he fortelling the prophecy of Micah of Moreseth and the end of the world or Micah of Richards where we all get rich for being a cock and doing **** all ?

[peterms]

The march of the Micahs?

[Awol]

Looks a bit like Martin O'Neill done up for St Patrick's Day.

[Brumerican]

Clearly mental elf problems.

[colhint]

is he standing next to corbyn

[StefanAVFC]

Quote

Theresa May will make a major speech on Brexit in an attempt to quell criticism that the government is not yet clear on its negotiating objectives for exiting the EU, as former diplomats hit out at the intense levels of criticism that ministers and civil servants have had to operate under.

The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, and the Brexit secretary, David Davis, are contributing to the speech, expected later in January. It is expected to address Britain’s access to the European single market and a new immigration system for EU citizens.

May will restate that control of borders will be a red line for the government, inevitably making economic access a lower priority.

That means the government must be prepared for Britain to stop being a full member of the single market, although the prime minister has said she has an objective to secure maximum access for companies to trade with the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/05/theresa-may-plans-major-speech-defuse-brexit-criticism?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Considering we've been told over and over again since June by people that this wasn't solely a vote against immigration, why is May using this as her red line policy?

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Considering we've been told over and over again since June by people that this wasn't solely a vote against immigration, why is May using this as her red line policy?

Well, it's like this as far as I can tell. Despite al lthe stuff about how Britain can/will prosper if it leaves the SIngle Market and is free to negotite our own trade deals etc. it is abundantly clear that the overall impact of leaving, economically, is and will be negative, in terms of jobs, finance and all the rest. 

The only thing that the Gov't can cling to, which is perceived as a positive is "control over immigration". Therefore from their perspective it makes sense to highlight this "positive advantage" of being Out as a red line.

There are no other positives. People who favour leaving might claim "sovereignty to make our own laws" or whatever, but the Gov't know that's basically a slogan that doesn't apply in the real world in the 21st Century. Just about everything of any consequence is governed by Internationally agreed standards, rules, regulations and obligations - from defence to manufacturing to finance to human rights. There are exceptions, but those are unlikely to win favour - 

"Our red line is we want to be able to pollute more" or "our red line is we want to be able to remove workers employment rights" are not really appealing slogan, even to hard line tories.

So immigration is the fig leaf, really. It's going to come back and bite the Gov't on the arse in due course, naturally.

But that's the mess they're in. The alternative would have been to say "staying in the single market (as now) is our red line" which would have meant compromising on immigration, and the fanatics would have been up in arms.

 

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well, it's like this as far as I can tell. Despite al lthe stuff about how Britain can/will prosper if it leaves the SIngle Market and is free to negotite our own trade deals etc. it is abundantly clear that the overall impact of leaving, economically, is and will be negative, in terms of jobs, finance and all the rest. 

The only thing that the Gov't can cling to, which is perceived as a positive is "control over immigration". Therefore from their perspective it makes sense to highlight this "positive advantage" of being Out as a red line.

There are no other positives. People who favour leaving might claim "sovereignty to make our own laws" or whatever, but the Gov't know that's basically a slogan that doesn't apply in the real world in the 21st Century. Just about everything of any consequence is governed by Internationally agreed standards, rules, regulations and obligations - from defence to manufacturing to finance to human rights. There are exceptions, but those are unlikely to win favour - 

"Our red line is we want to be able to pollute more" or "our red line is we want to be able to remove workers employment rights" are not really appealing slogan, even to hard line tories.

So immigration is the fig leaf, really. It's going to come back and bite the Gov't on the arse in due course, naturally.

But that's the mess they're in. The alternative would have been to say "staying in the single market (as now) is our red line" which would have meant compromising on immigration, and the fanatics would have been up in arms.

 

What a sad state of affairs we're in that our PM is pushing policy to appease fanatics. The whole 'control over immigration' is a false dichotomy anyway. We already control non-EU immigration and with proof like that Leadsom article a few pages back, i'll predict EU immigration won't drop with that control anyway (and certainly not to the levels that these fanatics will be expecting) when employers realise that EU immigrants are propping up our economy.

So as you say "overall impact of leaving, economically, is abundantly clear that the overall impact of leaving, economically, is and will be negative, in terms of jobs, finance and all the rest" all for the illusion of control on immigration. It's so depressing.

Staying in the single market should be our number one priority. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by StefanAVFC