Brexit discussion thread III

Zubeneschamali

demfad wrote: »

The leaked report in question is from the Brexit department (Dexeu) itself! It may be biased, but that makes the figures optimistic not pessimistic.

I would guess that the numbers are compiled by people doing their best, not people trying to generate propaganda one way or the other.

The report was not released by Dexeu, presumably because it lines up with Project Fear and the Brexiteers thought it was bad news. Then someone leaked it, probably for the same reason. But the figures are similar to the ones we have seen before, and I think still somewhat optimistic for a hard Brexit in a years time.

Vronsky

ambro25 wrote: »

The main problem you may have with your search, of course, is that whilst it's relatively easy to conduct rational analyses of the EU's handling of Brexit (because the EU publishes everything about it and has been fully consistent in its decisions, PR and whatnot since about it before June 2016 - and because much everything about what the EU is and how it works is as black and white as the TEU and TFEU permit), it's difficult to conduct reciprocal rational analyses of the UK's handling of Brexit, because that is nothing if not consistently irrational (irresponsible might be a better, less biased adjective ).

I'm mindful that this last paragraph will come across as bias, but I really cannot think of any other way of qualifying May and Davis' handling of Brexit since around July 2016, with however much objectivity you may care to throw at it.

Or just read Peregrinus posts

I think it's wrong to paint the EU approach as entirely open and virtuous. The EU is well capable of selective leaking and counter briefing as it has done to further damage the UK in this process.

ambro25

Vronsky wrote: »

I think it's wrong to paint the EU approach as entirely open and virtuous. The EU is well capable of selective leaking and counter briefing as it has done to further damage the UK in this process.

I don't believe I have done that, but perhaps you can enlighten me?

I'm well aware that the EU is as much a political entity as the UK. For instance, I don't believe the Phase II guidelines were tabled, discussed and agreed by the EU27 Ministers in 2 minutes flat. They were tabled, discussed and agreed by the EU27 Ministers before the Council meeting, which was merely symbolic. And then they were immediately published. Just like the Phase I guidelines very shortly after Theresa May deposited the Article 50 notification. Barnier's timing for his press conference and the contents of same were not as coincidental as they might appear in view of Davis' audience with the Commons Select Committee, either. But both these Guidelines (I and II) and Barnier's various positions ovber the months and to date, have long, long been known, and are no surprise whatsoever to those tuning out the rethoric and paying attention to the details.

There is no other damage being done to the UK by the EU, than what damage the UK has been self-inflicting since February 2016 (and earlier, if you want to factor in the highly-misrepresentative anti-EU rethoric peddled by UK red tops). The EU did not force Theresa May's red lines (which have been doing, and still are, most of the damage) on her or the UK. And it's hardly the EU's fault if the EU27 do their homework on time and to a higher standard than the UK government.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would guess that the numbers are compiled by people doing their best, not people trying to generate propaganda one way or the other.

The report was not released by Dexeu, presumably because it lines up with Project Fear and the Brexiteers thought it was bad news. Then someone leaked it, probably for the same reason. But the figures are similar to the ones we have seen before, and I think still somewhat optimistic for a hard Brexit in a years time.

The Brexit under WTO rules should be a non starter due to the phase 1 comitments to NI which incidently will be one of the regions hardest hit. It assumes trade deals and changes to regulation (employment, environmental etc.)
They report doesn't also account for the initial hit/readjustment due to customs changes so you are right: 8% is low.
They don't analyse the no-deal is better than bad deal Brexit (acrimonious split) which is the airplane grounding, port closing, Euro tunnel ending, economy destroying disaster which is realistically the only 'no-deal' Brexit that could happen.

Rjd2

CelticRambler wrote: »

What's really needed in Britain is a Macron-esque politician/party that bulldozes both the Tories and Labour into the ditch on each side of a middle road back to common sense.

Living in France for the last fifteen years, I watched the two-party systems in the UK, the US and France get progressively more dysfunctional and incapable of actually governing the country. Against that background, "Trump" didn't surprise me, and "Brexit" was only slightly unexpected. It was a pleasant surprise to see the French opt for the radical third way, and even though there are the usual occasional WTF? moments that you get with any party, the mood here is considerably better that it was two years ago.

Could that happen in the UK? For the moment, I don't see how. The tradition of being either Labour or Tory (oh, or LibDem "if you want to waste your vote" ... :rolleyes: ) is probably still too strong, but with the rise of the youth vote, a high-profile candidate leading a non-traditional party with a manifesto of "clean sweep/drain the swamp" could make significant gains and perhaps hold the balance of power. If the DUP can do it, anyone can! :pac:

Yes a Macron style party would do wonders for the UK.

Tories are in danger of becoming a mini UKIP while Labour are content to turn a blind eye to the Antisemitism in the party while also abusing the more moderate members of the party and trying to drive them out.

https://noramulready.com/2018/01/28/today-i-resigned-from-the-labour-party/

a letter which went moderately viral from an ex labour member the other day.

Feel sorry for my British chums that the two main parties are content to play footsie with the worst element of the far right and hard left.


I suppose at least looking at the likes of Ruth Davidson and Thornberry (who has improved massively over the last year or so and has called out the antisemitism in the party) there may be some hope for the some hope for the party in the future. However as UK politics is rotten expect the white walkers of both sides to elect the likes of Mogg and Mc Donnell leader next time round.

And yeah Lib Dems,,,nobody voting them even if Hitler and Stalin were to take over the two lead parties.:eek:

Rjd2

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5454402/trade-chief-liam-fox-tells-eurosceptics-to-live-with-disappointment-and-accept-softer-brexit/

When Liam Fox one of the most prominent Brexiters and definitely to the right of the party is telling the likes of Mogg etc to calm down, you know things are not exactly going well in the leave camp.

Sam Russell

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yes a Macron style party would do wonders for the UK.

Tories are in danger of becoming a mini UKIP while Labour are content to turn a blind eye to the Antisemitism in the party while also abusing the more moderate members of the party and trying to drive them out.

https://noramulready.com/2018/01/28/today-i-resigned-from-the-labour-party/

a letter which went moderately viral from an ex labour member the other day.

Feel sorry for my British chums that the two main parties are content to play footsie with the worst element of the far right and hard left.


I suppose at least looking at the likes of Ruth Davidson and Thornberry (who has improved massively over the last year or so and has called out the antisemitism in the party) there may be some hope for the some hope for the party in the future. However as UK politics is rotten expect the white walkers of both sides to elect the likes of Mogg and Mc Donnell leader next time round.

And yeah Lib Dems,,,nobody voting them even if Hitler and Stalin were to take over the two lead parties.:eek:

The FPTP voting regime makes it near impossible for any kind of new party. There are too many safe seats, and too many split seats where a 35% to 40% gets a candidate elected. Only a clear electoral pact will get a new party established, but who do they have an electoral pact with? The major parties (Labour and Tories) have shown they prefer opposition to an electoral pact or electoral reform, because they will get back in again eventually.

A grass roots rebellion is the only way, and that will not happen under any circumstances. Even the Poll Tax did not bring down MT.

CelticRambler

Yes, but for all intents and purposes, the French have a FPTP system too. 18 months before the presidential election here, it was a straight Left vs. Right contest, with the hard-Right making enough noise to attract attention. Less than 18 months later, the hard Right has all but vanished off the scene, and the traditional Left and Right parties are still staggering about in the shadows wondering what happened.

By pure chance, this afternoon I happened upon this article in the NY Times: Are Republicans Ready to Join a Third Party?

A September Gallup poll found 61 percent of American voters support the idea of a third major political party, the highest level of support Gallup had ever recorded. Young voters seem especially eager to junk the two-party system; NBC reported in November that 71 percent of millennials want another choice.

Those young voters again ... If it can happen in the US, it can happen in the UK - 2020 could turn out to be a milestone election year for both countries.

Enzokk

https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/958326147191799808


So if we follow the path of this tweet, with the agreement the UK gave the EU to get to phase 2 that the UK will ensure the GFA is not violated and the cooperation between the North and South is maintained. This means that the assumptions from the governments own assessment will then be in doubt as it all assumes that the UK/US trade deal will be struck.

This is even with us ignoring all the customs regulatory alignment or whatever wording was used for the single market/customs union. If the UK only commits to the areas in the GFA where cooperation between Ireland and NI is maintained it will most likely scupper a US/UK trade deal. As has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread the agreement struck is actually not for full customs unions alignment but only in certain sectors of cooperation between us and the North.

That is unless we have a border that is in the Irish Sea, but this violates the agreement to get to phase 2 that the DUP wanted. So it's still a mess either way for the UK and I don't see a way out of this to be honest. I am getting more and more convinced the longer Theresa May stalls on her vision for Brexit that we will have a hard Brexit. The longer the uncertainty remains from the UK the likelier it becomes that this will happen in March 2019 instead of December 2020. Theresa May may have done well not to have her cabinet collapse around her, but she is increasing the likelihood of harming the UK (and Ireland) with a hard Brexit. All her work on progressing Brexit with a divided party will be lost because she hid away and didn't make a decision. We saw this with the delayed reactions she has had to any mini-crisis so far.

CelticRambler

... not to mention the difficulty of trying to negotiate any transatlantic deal against the backdrop and potential havoc of a US-EU trade-war.

LuckyLloyd

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Uh oh...

Looks like Brexit isn't a good idea economically. If only we weren't so blind all this time and could have told HMGov before now!



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/30/brexit-would-damage-uk-growth-says-leaked-cabinet-report

RTreporting on it too...
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0130/936950-brexit/

---

Could this be the first sign of the wheels coming off the track...

Nope, the Brexiteers are putting their hands on their ears and shouting 'la la la I can't hear you':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/30/post-brexit-economic-forecasts-bad-must-good-sign/

Nate--IRL--

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Nope, the Brexiteers are putting their hands on their ears and shouting 'la la la I can't hear you':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/30/post-brexit-economic-forecasts-bad-must-good-sign/

Brexit logic at it's finest. Bizarro world.

Economic forecasts are always wrong, so naturally the Government has commissioned some economic forecasts. It has not yet published the economic forecasts because they’re both wrong and unfinished, but promises to publish them at a later...

Nate

Leroy42

At this stage the tories have entered into deep state conspiracy territory, basically claiming that the civil service is actively working against both the wishes of the democratic government and the interests of the state.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

At this stage the tories have entered into deep state conspiracy territory, basically claiming that the civil service is actively working against both the wishes of the democratic government and the interests of the state.

They're probably correct in that the Civil Service is doing what is right for the country, the Tories having lied to the electorate.

murphaph

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They're probably correct in that the Civil Service is doing what is right for the country, the Tories having lied to the electorate.

At some point the electorate also has to take a good chunk of the blame. Whatever about the run up to the referendum, we've now had a more in-depth dissection of what Brexit actually means but the general public (or at least a majority of them) still seems to be sleepwalking towards the cliff edge. It's pretty infuriating and I'm not even directly affected by it.

Sand

murphaph wrote: »

At some point the electorate also has to take a good chunk of the blame. Whatever about the run up to the referendum, we've now had a more in-depth dissection of what Brexit actually means but the general public (or at least a majority of them) still seems to be sleepwalking towards the cliff edge. It's pretty infuriating and I'm not even directly affected by it.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the electorate has other priorities than GDP.

ambro25

murphaph wrote: »

At some point the electorate also has to take a good chunk of the blame. Whatever about the run up to the referendum, we've now had a more in-depth dissection of what Brexit actually means but the general public (or at least a majority of them) still seems to be sleepwalking towards the cliff edge. It's pretty infuriating and I'm not even directly affected by it.

It's detachment, at least as I've experienced it.

No direct, personally-experienced or -measurable consequence = "dunno what that's all about, why can't they just sort it...what time is footy on".

And no, that's not just working class types in the North East or deep Wales. I've experienced it quite a few times recently, when neighbours a few houses away have been querying our house going on the market and we got chatting...and it's your typical 4-bed detached, one of so many others in a leafy MacLean-type '10-bob-millionaires' suburbia development in Nottinghamshire. Most are public service middle-to-higher management types (Council, NHS, etc.) or young-ish retirees.

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

At some point the electorate also has to take a good chunk of the blame. Whatever about the run up to the referendum, we've now had a more in-depth dissection of what Brexit actually means but the general public (or at least a majority of them) still seems to be sleepwalking towards the cliff edge. It's pretty infuriating and I'm not even directly affected by it.

I see what you mean. However, the easy way out of blaming Brussels will always be preferable to politicians than the idea that the electorate is somehow responsible for the current predicament. The public seem to just want the government to get on with this which is a tad worrying given recent developments that clearly show that they are just not capable of delivering though, for the sake of balance I'd like to note the same about the opposition in waiting.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

At this stage the tories have entered into deep state conspiracy territory, basically claiming that the civil service is actively working against both the wishes of the democratic government and the interests of the state.

If you don't like the message then attack the messenger.

Mr Davies dismissed the reports and slapped down Shadow Brexit minister Sir Keir Starmer for exploiting the reports to undermine the Brexit process.

He said: "We have here some London-centric Remoaners – which could be a way of describing the Shadow Secretary of State – who are in the civil service, who didn’t want us the leave the European Union in the first place.

"They put together some dodgy figures to back up their case."

This is Philip Davies accusing the civil service of cooking the books because they (whoever they are in this case) doesn't want to leave the EU.

MUST WATCH: Brexiteer's rant at 'London-centric Remoaners' during heated Brexit debate

This is Philip Davies who thinks parents should decide for children if they should be in the vicinity of second hand smoke. He also spoke for an hour and a half to prevent carers from getting free parking at hospitals, and a month later spoke long enough to stop a bill that would have taught children first aid.

Thargor

Has anyone noticed the headlines on the Telegraph lately? Everything is pretty much anti-Brexit and harsh on Theresa May and the Tories.

Capt'n Midnight

Remember that the UK economy has had a few a few boosts since Brexit was announced. It's not like they'll be able to keep repeating them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42872829

After the referendum, the Bank of England cut interest rates and increased its levels of asset purchases (quantitative easing).

This monetary stimulus acted as a shock absorber.

The fall in the value of sterling was also an economic stimulus, making our exports more competitive.

And the government also loosened the public spending purse strings in the Autumn Statement that followed the referendum, providing a fiscal boost.

The economy is important if you want things like the NHS and pensions paid for.

It's that simple.




There's also that construction company that deferred pension payments so there's now a hole in the pension fund in addition to the debt. Add in all the small companies who will be collateral damage and it's clear that the Magic Money Tree will be called upon again.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42656879

The firm is struggling under £1.5bn of debt, including a pension shortfall of £587m, raising fears about its future.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42870816

In response to a question from Rachel Reeves, chair of the Business Committee, about Carillion's biggest asset being "goodwill" valued at £1.57bn,

In and of itself it's not a biggie, but as a symptom of the economy it isn't a good portent.




Meanwhile Eurozone growth hit 10-year high in 2017

Professor Moriarty

Thargor wrote: »

Has anyone noticed the headlines on the Telegraph lately? Everything is pretty much anti-Brexit and harsh on Theresa May and the Tories.

I look at the Telegraph on a daily basis. I wouldn't have thought it harsh on Brexit at all, especially the oped pieces. The only time they are critical of the Tories is when Farage writes an opinion piece. They do seem to flip flop on their support for May though.

Peregrinus

Vronsky wrote: »

I think it's wrong to paint the EU approach as entirely open and virtuous. The EU is well capable of selective leaking and counter briefing as it has done to further damage the UK in this process.

Well, I wouldn't paint the EU as entirely virtuous, but they are certainly a great deal more open than the UK.

This is partly a virtue made of necessity; when you're consulting extensively with 27 national governments, some of whom are in turn consulting with their own sub-national administrations, the chances of keeping much under wraps for very long are not high. Thus the EU publishes a great deal of its travaux préparatoires, and there's generally a culture of talking quite freely even about that which has not been published. As regards Brexit at any rate, this is in marked contrast to the UK stance, which has been to publish nothing, admit nothing and comment on nothing, because "we mustn't show our hand" (for some reason).

Two thoughts about this:

First, as a remainer myself I can't but think that the UK's secretiveness is bolstered by the fact that reasoned, dispassionate research and analysis will mostly tend to support the remain case, and undermine the brexit case. The UK government is in the awkward position that they are politically committed to brexit, and only after the event are floundering around trying to make an evidence-based case to support brexit, which turns out not to be very easy. (As yesterday's news shows.) So, basically, they don't want to show their hand because it's embarrassingly weak. The EU doesn't have the same problem.

Secondly, one outcome of this "don't show your hand" approach is that the UK has consistently appeared to be (and I think consistently has been) on the hind foot in the Brexit negotiations. Apart from laying down a few high-level (and inconsistent) red lines, they have not taken any initiative. Throughout the process the EU has proposed, and the UK has reacted to the EU's proposals, mostly by accepting them.

And, FWIW, I'm not so sure about the EU engaging in "selective leaking and counter briefing as it has done to further damage the UK in this process". Can you offer any instances? Morality aside, as far as I can see it wouldn't be in the EU's interests to do this, because (a) they don't need to damage the UK; the UK's strategic position in these negotiations is already very weak, and therefore (b) they have more to lose by being seen to "bully" the UK than they have to gain.

Nody

Conservative Dr Phillip Lee raised fears over whether Theresa May could "legitimately lead a country along a path that the evidence and rational consideration indicate would be damaging" after leaked papers revealed that Britain would be worse off out of the EU than if it stayed in.

So now we have the first government minister openly speaking about reversing Brexit; this will become a field day in the Sun I'm sure. The comment section of the independent has the usual clashes but someone decided to harp on the subject of forecasting:

No2EU wrote:

No2EU
"A Government minister has questioned whether Brexit should go ahead if damning assessments on Britain's economic prospects prove accurate."

Nonsensical - the only way to prove them accurate or not is to leave the EU.

And as the previous forecasts were spectacularly wrong why should we even consider it.

Which got an pert and accurate response:

andy55 wrote:

andy55
Your principle of proof would suggest you should test whether a gunshot wound to the head causes death by shooting yourself. Whilst I would not prevent you doing so, it does seem a bit extreme.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, FWIW, I'm not so sure about the EU engaging in "selective leaking and counter briefing as it has done to further damage the UK in this process". Can you offer any instances? Morality aside, as far as I can see it wouldn't be in the EU's interests to do this, because (a) they don't need to damage the UK; the UK's strategic position in these negotiations is already very weak, and therefore (b) they have more to lose by being seen to "bully" the UK than they have to gain.

The only example I can think of is allegations reported by Tim Shipman in his followup to All Out War, Fall Out that Martin Selmayr was engaged in leaking about meetings May had with Juncker. There's another name involved that I can't quite recall. I know this isn't much but I'd consider Shipman a decent journalist.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The only example I can think of is allegations reported by Tim Shipman in his followup to All Out War, Fall Out that Martin Selmayr was engaged in leaking about meetings May had with Juncker. There's another name involved that I can't quite recall. I know this isn't much but I'd consider Shipman a decent journalist.

Mm, yes, now that you mention it details of the May/Juncker/Barnier dinner in Downing Street were clearly leaked from the EU side, rapidly and comprehensively.

However I'd quibble about whether this did "damage to the UK". It was acutely embarrassing for May, but that's not quite the same thing. It highlighted how weak the UK's situation was, and how unrealistic the Tory government's approach to Brexit was, but it didn't make the situation any weaker, or the approach any more unrealistic. (It may in fact have helped to make it a tiny bit more realistic, if anything.)

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mm, yes, now that you mention it details of the May/Juncker/Barnier dinner in Downing Street were clearly leaked from the EU side, rapidly and comprehensively.

However I'd quibble about whether this did "damage to the UK". It was acutely embarrassing for May, but that's not quite the same thing. It highlighted how weak the UK's situation was, and how unrealistic the Tory government's approach to Brexit was, but it didn't make the situation any weaker, or the approach any more unrealistic. (It may in fact have helped to make it a tiny bit more realistic, if anything.)

I'd agree that it probably wasn't damaging. I only put it forward as an example, though a somewhat tenuous one of leaking on the EU's part.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mm, yes, now that you mention it details of the May/Juncker/Barnier dinner in Downing Street were clearly leaked from the EU side, rapidly and comprehensively.

However I'd quibble about whether this did "damage to the UK". It was acutely embarrassing for May, but that's not quite the same thing. It highlighted how weak the UK's situation was, and how unrealistic the Tory government's approach to Brexit was, but it didn't make the situation any weaker, or the approach any more unrealistic. (It may in fact have helped to make it a tiny bit more realistic, if anything.)

That would be the law of unintended consequences! I have no doubt that the leak was an intentional poly by the EU to stir up debate in Britain based on a few home truths and to cause disharmony within the Tory party.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That would be the law of unintended consequences! I have no doubt that the leak was an intentional poly by the EU to stir up debate in Britain based on a few home truths and to cause disharmony within the Tory party.

Neither of which would be damaging to the UK!

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That would be the law of unintended consequences! I have no doubt that the leak was an intentional poly by the EU to stir up debate in Britain based on a few home truths and to cause disharmony within the Tory party.

More seriously, I think the main purpose was to focus the UK government's thinking, to convey to them how unrealistic their position was, and to encourage them to move away from it. Virtually every external commentator saw the UK government's position as wholly unrealistic, and this must have had more effect that Juncker simply telling them at the dinner that he thought it was unrealistic.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

More seriously, I think the main purpose was to focus the UK government's thinking, to convey to them how unrealistic their position was, and to encourage them to move away from it. Virtually every external commentator saw the UK government's position as wholly unrealistic, and this must have had more effect that Juncker simply telling them at the dinner that he thought it was unrealistic.

The core motivation was probably exactly that. However, Juncker, Barnier, Verhofstadt et al are human beings too. I've no doubt that they are insulted by the Little Englander posturing from elements of the Tory party and the Tory press, much of which has been personalised (cf "Drunker Juncker" headlines). Each time a piece of reality from the EU causes Tory infighting, I imagine they engage in a little private schadenfreude.

Vronsky

Thargor wrote: »

Has anyone noticed the headlines on the Telegraph lately? Everything is pretty much anti-Brexit and harsh on Theresa May and the Tories.

I wouldn't agree at all. They are all for going out hard apart from when some sort of analysis says it will be bad - they go soft for a day or so then go back to pushing even harder for hard Brexit.

They want to get rid of May and have Johnson or Mogg in instead though.

The comments are hilarious though. There's a cohort of about 20 hard brexiteers btl steering the conversation, with a similar number of remainers taking pot shots at them.

Vronsky

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, FWIW, I'm not so sure about the EU engaging in "selective leaking and counter briefing as it has done to further damage the UK in this process". Can you offer any instances? Morality aside, as far as I can see it wouldn't be in the EU's interests to do this, because (a) they don't need to damage the UK; the UK's strategic position in these negotiations is already very weak, and therefore (b) they have more to lose by being seen to "bully" the UK than they have to gain.

Just to go further on this: there are two events that stuck in the mind - the leaking of the Juncker dinner discussed above, but more importantly the counter briefing against Davis personally. The leaks against Davis from the EU have effectively painted him as a non-entity in the negotiation and attacking the credibility of the opposite lead negotiator is clearly an attempt to sow further discord in the UK cabinet. The longer the UK is stalled in political paralysis, the poorer the outcome for the UK.

I'm no leaver but that doesn't prevent me seeing the political maneuvering from the EU either.

Nody

Vronsky wrote: »

Just to go further on this: there are two events that stuck in the mind - the leaking of the Juncker dinner discussed above, but more importantly the counter briefing against Davis personally. The leaks against Davis from the EU have effectively painted him as a non-entity in the negotiation and attacking the credibility of the opposite lead negotiator is clearly an attempt to sow further discord in the UK cabinet. The longer the UK is stalled in political paralysis, the poorer the outcome for the UK.

I'm no leaver but that doesn't prevent me seeing the political maneuvering from the EU either.

You don't have to do a whole lot to show Davis being completely useless though; from not bothering to be at the negotiation meetings, to travelling to USA to give an update on the Brexit negotiations (instead of actually do his job and negotiate with EU), to flying around Europe to meet various politicians but not discuss Brexit with them, to his numerous statements and laughable performance of his department etc. In short Davis does a great job of showing how incompetent he is all alone; if anything EU would want someone who actually WOULD negotiate with them rather than an empty balloon taking up space for no reason the few times he can even be bothered to show up for the meetings.

Vronsky

Nody wrote: »

You don't have to do a whole lot to show Davis being completely useless though; from not bothering to be at the negotiation meetings, to travelling to USA to give an update on the Brexit negotiations, to flying around Europe to meet various politicians but not discuss Brexit with them, to his numerous statements and laughable performance of his department etc. In short Davis does a great job of showing how incompetent he is all alone; if anything EU would want someone who actually WOULD negotiate with them rather than an empty balloon taking up space for no reason the few times he can even be bothered to show up for the meetings.

That could be true, or it's also possible we've bought the anti-Davis propaganda.

Personally I don't think Davis is that good, nor do I however think he's the moron he's being painted as.

Nody

Vronsky wrote: »

That could be true, or it's also possible we've bought the anti-Davis propaganda.

Personally I don't think Davis is that good, nor do I however think he's the moron he's being painted as.

His department's performance have been highlighted by UK's own watch dog; him not showing up at the Brexit meetings is also public knowledge and the fact he travelled to the US instead to give an update on Brexit is public knowledge. His speeches in the parliament and his statements to newspapers are once again available through non EU sources to read and review. How the phase 1 negotiations went and the requirement of May to personally intervene multiple times are also known as well as the outcome from the phase 1 negotiations vs. the ingoing positions of both parties.

In short you don't need EU to show you how useless Davis is; there are plenty of neutral sources for you to use to verify his performance yourself (or lack there of).

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

His department's performance have been highlighted by UK's own watch dog; him not showing up at the Brexit meetings is also public knowledge and the fact he travelled to the US instead to give an update on Brexit is public knowledge. His speeches in the parliament and his statements to newspapers are once again available through non EU sources to read and review. How the phase 1 negotiations went and the requirement of May to personally intervene multiple times are also known as well as the outcome from the phase 1 negotiations vs. the ingoing positions of both parties.

In short you don't need EU to show you how useless Davis is; there are plenty of neutral sources for you to use to verify his performance yourself (or lack there of).

There's a lot of factuality to the above, as observed by the notional man in the street... but that is still all public perception and, for what it's worth, I think its more a case of party politics straightjacketing his DeXEU/personal performance, than outright incompetence.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

His department's performance have been highlighted by UK's own watch dog; him not showing up at the Brexit meetings is also public knowledge and the fact he travelled to the US instead to give an update on Brexit is public knowledge. His speeches in the parliament and his statements to newspapers are once again available through non EU sources to read and review. How the phase 1 negotiations went and the requirement of May to personally intervene multiple times are also known as well as the outcome from the phase 1 negotiations vs. the ingoing positions of both parties.

In short you don't need EU to show you how useless Davis is; there are plenty of neutral sources for you to use to verify his performance yourself (or lack there of).

There was that photo of the first session of the negotiations with the EU where his side had a bare table while the EU was stacked with important looking files and folders.

Then you could also listen to the evidence he gave to the Commons Committee on Exiting the EU where he stated that all those sectoral studies on the British economy that he was required to give to the committee and that he boasted about in the previous August did not exist - not one.

I think that photograph and that particular bit of video shows just how bare the cupboard is as far as he is concerned.

Leroy42

ambro25 wrote: »

There's a lot of factuality to the above, as observed by the notional man in the street... but that is still all public perception and, for what it's worth, I think its more a case of party politics straightjacketing his DeXEU/personal performance, than outright incompetence.

So where is the evidence that he is either competent or on top of his brief? Public perception is based on what the public can see.

From his lying (sorry, misunderstanding of what he meant) over the existence of analysis, to his stated position after brexit that clearly showed he had no understanding of how the EU works, to his lack of any details when answering any questions to his new position that he was unaware of report compiled by his department (of which he is the minister) until the day before it leaked. Given his stated disdain for forecasts, why was anybody in his department spending time and resources on something he has said is useless.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

There was that photo of the first session of the negotiations with the EU where his side had a bare table while the EU was stacked with important looking files and folders.

that always reminds me of the time Ronan O'Gara was photographed with his hands in his pockets talking to the Queen and all the shinners got excited, congratulating him for refusing to shake the monarch's hand.

of course, no one bothered to look at the photo before or after when he didn't have his hands in his pockets and was chatting to her and shaking her hand because, well, those photos were boring and uncontroversial.

Nody

Aegir wrote: »

that always reminds me of the time Ronan O'Gara was photographed with his hands in his pockets talking to the Queen and all the shinners got excited, congratulating him for refusing to shake the monarch's hand.

of course, no one bothered to look at the photo before or after when he didn't have his hands in his pockets and was chatting to her and shaking her hand because, well, those photos were boring and uncontroversial.

I'll fully admit the UK team could have a card board box of notes outside the picture; however based on UKs failure to be able to give a position for what or how they wanted things, inc. posting vague statement papers months after the negotiations started I find that highly unlikely. Now it is not Davis job alone to decide the type of Brexit (if anything he should have a brief on what to implement from his boss, the PM inc. what areas he can give in vs. red lines) but once again he does not appear to even be capable of asking for that from his boss or note that it was missing or update her on what he thinks he needs to succeed in the negotiations (be it policy, manpower, expertise etc.).

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

So where is the evidence that he is either competent or on top of his brief?

In his background and political trajectory to date (are you familiar with it?)

Leroy42 wrote: »

Public perception is based on what the public can see.

Indeed, and which was my point: what the public sees, is a weasel treading substantially the same 'creative ambiguity' planks about anything-Brexit as every other UK politician, including Theresa May and those in opposition, husbanding political capital and positioning with constantly trying to be everything to every side, for as long as he can get away with it.

But for Davis, necessarily with less success than others, because he is front and centre as the head of DeXEU.

What the public doesn't see however, is the non-trivial level of smarts and work ethic it takes to reach and stay in that position of influence - which necessarily includes a thorough grasp of the real and factual issues in play, to plan for and parry political danger/attacks based on those.

If you'd ever worked for, or with, a senior-level career political (I'm talking Member of Parliament-level and very senior/top civil service 'mandarins') you'd relate to my point very easily: don't listen to what they say (especially not in choreographed and semi-choreographed instances like speeches, interviews, audiences, appearances before committees, etc.), because politician talk is cheaper than free; look at what they actually do, where they actually end up, and how things actually develop.

The fact that Davis, in his position, is still entertaining as much uncertainty about Brexit, through means fair and (mostly) foul, translates more the enduring state of internal Tory infighting about Brexit, than anything else. Of course, that doesn't make him right about his convictions, nor does it lend any morality or legitimacy to his doublespeak for pushing them and hanging onto his job. But he's a very senior career politician, so surely you're not expecting different?

The take-away point is: I'm no admirer or defender of David Davis, but I know a thing or 10 about senior career politicians, so don't be too quick to dismiss Davis as an incapable imbecile, just because his 'doublespeak' runs contrary to your sentiments/beliefs about Brexit and/or what the UK/DeXEU should be doing about it.

Leroy42

I never said is was an incapable imbecile, but they are faced with a very hefty challenge and appear to be completely unable to deal with it.

You seem to be buying into the narrative that this is all just an act, the crazy man that will suddenly come good at the end to totally outsmart the EU.

But why? It is the UK against the clock, not the EU. What possible purpose could it achieve in pretending to be this unorganised.

Are you really trying to say that when he wrote, in Sept 16, that the 1st jog of the PM was to get a trade deal with Germany, was actually just a plan to make people think he was stupid? And if so why then come out now and say he had changed his mind?

There is plenty of evidence of people being 'smart' enough to get very high up in politics but failing when faced with the real challenges (Brian Cowen springs to mind).

Your point about having to be skilled to get as far as he has falls when you consider the continued failure of May, the lack of any useful skills from Boris etc. It many ways it can be argued that they are in those positions simply to keep them from making a fuss outside the cabinet.

Water John

The senior Tory boys are not trying to outsmart the EU. They are trying to outsmart each other. The Tory Party is inherintly unstable, so they are all jockeying to stay afloat and revelent.

Call me Al

ambro25 wrote: »

There's a lot of factuality to the above, as observed by the notional man in the street... but that is still all public perception and, for what it's worth, I think its more a case of party politics straightjacketing his DeXEU/personal performance, than outright incompetence.

I shall leave you to ponder exhibit A for monumental example of outright incompetence.
The man hasn't a clue. And has also admitted he doesn't need to know too much and still do tge job.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/politicalscrapbook.net/2016/07/britains-new-brexit-minister-david-davis-doesnt-even-understand-how-eu-does-trade-deals/amp/

Eta from an Irish and EU perspective the man is a dangerous fool whose word can't be trusted as far as you could throw it.

Capt'n Midnight

Hot on the heels of Carillion Capita shares have plunged almost 50% after the outsourcing firm warned on profits and announced a major shake-up.

This one is more important though, especially because Brexit means you can't muddle on through, because so many changes are needed to so many systems.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/04/capitas_huge_role_in_government_could_go_under_the_spotlight/

The giant outsourcer held around 50 per cent of public sector technology services contracts

Capt'n Midnight

The Police up North are concerned about Brexit and that nothing's been done for the last 18 months about their concerns.

Brexit: George Hamilton warning over European Arrest Warrant

The PSNI chief constable has said the "biggest practical vulnerability" regarding Brexit is the potential removal of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
...
"From our perspective, we need an alternative arrangement with the Republic of Ireland and, actually, with other countries where there aren't pre-existing or parallel extradition arrangements.
...
"We have been treading carefully to not appear and, in effect not to move into, what is a political debate, but we also feel a certain concern and lack of assurance, actually, that we're saying the same things now that we said 18 months ago."

Nody

And here's a summary of Brexit news from the last 24h:

Britain’s finance industry came a step closer to being locked out of European markets by Brexit today after Brussels officials rejected a City plan for a free trade deal in financial services after the UK leaves.

The plan being pushed by UK financiers proposed that Britain and the EU would continue to allow cross-border trade in financial services on the basis that both sides’ regulations would adhere to international standards.

But European Commission officials have told British financiers in meetings since the start of the year that there would have to be new trade barriers for banks because the UK is leaving the single market.

“They have made it very clear to us that this is unacceptable to them,” one senior British finance executive present at one of the meetings said.

Source 1, Source 2 & Source 3. If May wish to stick with her red lines she can call of phase 2 already as she insisted any FTA had to include financial services.

Those new markets like China? Yea; sorry but even Dr Fox don't expect a FTA to happen any time soon:

Dr Fox indicated that enacting any trade deal or moving to slash tariffs on Chinese products would be “some time away” at the end of the Brexit transition period.

And reduced EU immigration is costing the economy quite a bit which is in no way offset by a potential US FTA.

The cost to the UK economy of cutting migration from the EU would swallow up the benefits of a US trade deal, according to the Government’s leaked impact assessment.

The impact of replacing free movement with stricter immigration controls similar to those for non-EU citizens would far exceed the expected boost of a US deal, Whitehall officials calculated.

It concluded that even a more flexible policy that led to a smaller drop in migration from the EU would outweigh the 0.2 per cent increase in economic growth that a US trade deal is expected to bring.

Oh and remember those AOEs (also known as the trusted trader system; basically companies who handles taxes on behalf of other companies and speeds up the overall customs proicess) that were suppose to make the customs easier for UK? Yea that one is not flying either and will now require EU companies only...

Authorisations granting the status of Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) and other authorisations for customs simplifications, issued by the customs authorities of the United Kingdom will no longer be valid in the customs territory of the Union.

And honestly the biggest whammy for export/import:

The movement of goods which enter the excise territory of the EU from the United Kingdom or are dispatched or transported from the excise territory of the EU to the United Kingdom will respectively be treated as importation or exportation of excise goods in accordance with Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty13. This implies, inter alia, that the Excise Movement and Control System (EMCS) on its own will no longer be applicable to excise duty suspended movements of excise goods from the EU into the United Kingdom, but those movements will be treated as exports, where excise supervision ends at the place of exit from the EU. Movements of excise goods to the United Kingdom will therefore require an export declaration as well as an electronic administrative document (e-AD). Movements of excise goods from the United Kingdom to the EU will have to be released from customs formalities before a movement under EMCS can begin.

Damn you facts and numbers; why can you never align properly with Brexit dogma?

LuckyLloyd

The last few days have been grimly fascinating to say the least. The Civil Service are now being portrayed by Brexiteers in treasonous terms, and there is a glut of opinion pieces in the media about how economic forecasts are always wrong. Paranoia mixed with ignorance - but it only seems dangerous and illogical to those outside the tent.

Meanwhile the Express talks about “BLOCK RIFT” in countless headlines heralding the crack of the EU position.

I don’t know where this can lead really, but it can’t be anywhere sane or good. The gap between the reality of what is possible and the expectations that Brexiteers hold is quite a chasm. I do not see right now how it will be bridged.

CelticRambler

Maybe it'll fall to private enterprise to really drive home to the Great British Sun-Reading Man In The Street what Brexit meaning Brexit really means? Ryanair will put a “Brexit clause” into ticket sales for summer 2019, warning customers that their tickets will not be valid if the issue of aviation regulation after Britain’s departure from the EU remains unresolved.

Nothing like the threat of a cancelled binge-drinking holiday on the Costa to demonstrate what a hard Brexit looks like in real life.