Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

listermint

Twitter reporting it's all kicking off in No.10

Cains out


And reports of Cummings and frost out or up in arms.

Jizique

listermint wrote: »

Twitter reporting it's all kicking off in No.10

Cains out


And reports of Cummings and frost out or up in arms.

Yes, Lisa O’Carroll reporting
https://mobile.twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1326650740505534464

Shelga

I don’t understand what the row is over- can someone summarise? I’ve attempted to find out online but can’t take in any more British nonsense today.

Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings are mates. Johnson wants to promote Cain to the currently vacant position of Chief of Staff. This does not clash with Cummings as his chief advisor so what’s the problem?

VinLieger

Shelga wrote: »

I don’t understand what the row is over- can someone summarise? I’ve attempted to find out online but can’t take in any more British nonsense today.

Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings are mates. Johnson wants to promote Cain to the currently vacant position of Chief of Staff. This does not clash with Cummings as his chief advisor so what’s the problem?

The journal are reporting this is down to Carrie Symonds having a problem with him.....

Shelga

VinLieger wrote: »

The journal are reporting this is down to Carrie Symonds having a problem with him.....

Ok thanks, so Cummings and co are angry that Symonds is dictating who can and cannot be in certain positions in No. 10? Can’t blame them in that case, I have to say...

Anyway, it’s not like they’re leaving the transition period in 50 days or anything, phew.

listermint

Shelga wrote: »

Ok thanks, so Cummings and co are angry that Symonds is dictating who can and cannot be in certain positions in No. 10? Can’t blame them in that case, I have to say...

Anyway, it’s not like they’re leaving the transition period in 50 days or anything, phew.

Smart girl then if she's against giving that pair a tighter grip in No.10.

Anything that pisses off Cummings should be widely lauded.

Tell me how

Shelga wrote: »

I don’t understand what the row is over- can someone summarise? I’ve attempted to find out online but can’t take in any more British nonsense today.

Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings are mates. Johnson wants to promote Cain to the currently vacant position of Chief of Staff. This does not clash with Cummings as his chief advisor so what’s the problem?

Carrie Symonds, the unelected fiancee of the PM, has a problem with Cain, the unelected communications director being appointed to the role of Chief of Staff leading to Lee resigning from his current role which has upset the unelected Dominic Cummings, chief advisor to the PM and David Frost, the unelected Chief negotiator for the PM in critical ongoing negotiations with the EU, which the UK has left, so it can avoid the influence of unelected people on UK governance.

Strazdas

VinLieger wrote: »

The journal are reporting this is down to Carrie Symonds having a problem with him.....

Telegraph says Symonds and Cain had a falling out over a photo of her he posted on Instagram last summer. Not sure why this would cause a bust up but it did apparently.

MBSnr

^^^ Preston has a different take from Kuenssberg

https://mobile.twitter.com/Peston/status/1326660670452953088

Spanish Eyes

What a drama. Nothing on the main news sites yet, but it's late and tomorrow will tell whether this issue is important or not I suppose.

Peregrinus

McGiver wrote: »

Unlikely. That article doesn't say so.

Also, if the offending clauses in the IMB aren't removed any deal (if agreed) won't come into effect.

I suppose the EP would scrutinise and EU27 ratify it but only provisionally.

There's going to be a no-deal period, because of this, however short it is.

Current state of play is that the offending clauses are out of the Bill - the House of Lords removed them. Government policy is that they will be reinserted when the Bill returns to the Commons, but that policy will change if/when an FTA is agreed. So if they do agree an FTA and part of the deal is dropping the offending IMB clauses, dropping the IMB clauses doesn't take any time at all; they just announce that they won't be reinsertign them when the Bill returns to the Commons.

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

Current state of play is that the offending clauses are out of the Bill - the House of Lords removed them. Government policy is that they will be reinserted when the Bill returns to the Commons, but that policy will change if/when an FTA is agreed. So if they do agree an FTA and part of the deal is dropping the offending IMB clauses, dropping the IMB clauses doesn't take any time at all; they just announce that they won't be reinsertign them when the Bill returns to the Commons.

So you could possibly say it was a colossal waste of time?

Peregrinus

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So you could possibly say it was a colossal waste of time?

Oh, God, no, the waste of time is the least of it. It's much worse that that.

- Lasting reputational damage to the UK as a credible international actor that can be relied upon to observe the obligations it enters into.

- Diminution of belief in UK's good faith in its engagement with the EU FTA negotiations, leading to (a) weakening of an already weak negotiating position, and (b) increased determination on part of EU that any FTA must contain provisions allowing rapid and robust response to attempted backtracking by EU.

- Seriously adverse impression created with incoming US administration.

- Damage to people's belief in the "special relationship' when it appears that senior people in UK government had no clue how this would play in US. Just how special can the relationship really be if senior UK figures are so wholly unaware of how their counterparts in US think?

- Creates entirely avoidable need for humilating government climbdown in order to make FTA possible.

- Creates avoidable need for government supporters to humiliate themselves by pretending to believe (a) implausible government explanation of why offending clauses were considered necessary in the first place and quite possibly then (b) implausible government explanation of why subsequent climbdown on this issue is in fact a triumphant victory.

- Increased impression in UK that its government is utterly cack-handed. This is not a government whose reputation for competence stands high to begin with.

Basically, the thing is a shambles from beginning to end with signficant adverse consequences both for the government and for the country. All we need now is for the government to announce its climbdown in a garden centre car-park between a dildo shop and a crematorium, and the parallel would be perfect.

marno21

Johnson has to date been completely upfront in congratulating Joe Biden for winning the US election and referred to Trump as the “previous president” in parliament.

Now that he faces a hostile actor in the US when it comes to all matters Brexit and ill thought out policies which appeal to those influenced by sound bites and social media posts using third rail issues to cause division, will there be a change of approach here? Surely the strategy has to be reprofiled?

Peregrinus

marno21 wrote: »

Johnson has to date been completely upfront in congratulating Joe Biden for winning the US election and referred to Trump as the “previous president” in parliament.

Now that he faces a hostile actor in the US when it comes to all matters Brexit and ill thought out policies which appeal to those influenced by sound bites and social media posts using third rail issues to cause division, will there be a change of approach here? Surely the strategy has to be reprofiled?

A Biden administration is not a "hostile actor . . . when it comes to all matters Brexit". There's only a problem in the US if the UK implements Brexit in a way which undermines the GFA. The hostility Johnson Johnson needs to worry about is from the forces that insist that Brexit must only be implemented in a way which undermines the GFA. And they're not in the US; they're much closer to home.

Tell me how

marno21 wrote: »

Johnson has to date been completely upfront in congratulating Joe Biden for winning the US election and referred to Trump as the “previous president” in parliament.

Now that he faces a hostile actor in the US when it comes to all matters Brexit and ill thought out policies which appeal to those influenced by sound bites and social media posts using third rail issues to cause division, will there be a change of approach here? Surely the strategy has to be reprofiled?

Did you miss the release of his congratulations containing a 'watermark' of Trumps name?

Looked shoddy.

VinLieger

Tell me how wrote: »

Did you miss the release of his congratulations containing a 'watermark' of Trumps name?

Looked shoddy.

Also wasnt he a few hours behind Starmer as well as other EU leaders?

Enzokk

Some commentary from the negotiations that is going on in London,

https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1326909858034163712?s=20

Seems like the sides are still apart, especially if you take this assessment as well,

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1326904303173373959?s=20

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1326904306285617152?s=20

With the story about Lee Cain and Cummings going along with Frost I would have been more optimistic about a deal, but seeing as both of the other two will be staying it still seems like ideology will trump sense.

CrabRevolution

It's a bit ironic that they use the phrase "Post brexit reality" to describe their demands which are based on absolute fantasy.

ancapailldorcha

CrabRevolution wrote: »

It's a bit ironic that they use the phrase "Post brexit reality" to describe their demands which are based on absolute fantasy.

On a more positive note, we're less than two months away from the Brexit unicorn being dismembered by reality. The coalition is about to be sundered and a lot of people are about to be very, very disappointed. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the new year.

eire4

CrabRevolution wrote: »

It's a bit ironic that they use the phrase "Post brexit reality" to describe their demands which are based on absolute fantasy.

So very right you are. I am coming more and more to the conclusion that at least a short period without a deal might actually be best as it will give them a good hard dose of reality.

Seth Brundle

Whilst most people will by now have heard of the large truck parks in Kent, one issue that I hadn't heard or thought about is the facilities for the drivers, which apparently has already become an issue...

Kent could become the “toilet of England” in less than eight weeks unless dedicated loos are provided for thousands of lorry drivers who could be held up in the county for hours by post-Brexit border checks, campaigners have warned.

They say Kent’s main roads and laybys are already littered with bottles of urine and bags of excrement and the problem could become much worse after 31 December.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/12/post-brexit-lorry-queues-could-make-kent-toilet-of-england?CMP=share_btn_tw

Thargor

I love the way so many Brexit twitter threads these days end in people asking for Mark Francois' take on proceedings and wondering where he is...:D

Mr.Wemmick

SNIP. No insults please.

fash

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Whilst most people will by now have heard of the large truck parks in Kent, one issue that I hadn't heard or thought about is the facilities for the drivers, which apparently has already become an issue...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/12/post-brexit-lorry-queues-could-make-kent-toilet-of-england?CMP=share_btn_tw

I think it was on Peter Foster's twitter that I was reading about the difficulty British truck drivers are going to have with health insurance given their general state is health. It's going to be interesting.

McGiver

Peregrinus wrote:

Current state of play is that the offending clauses are out of the Bill - the House of Lords removed them. Government policy is that they will be reinserted when the Bill returns to the Commons, but that policy will change if/when an FTA is agreed. So if they do agree an FTA and part of the deal is dropping the offending IMB clauses, dropping the IMB clauses doesn't take any time at all; they just announce that they won't be reinsertign them when the Bill returns to the Commons.

That's not the current state of play. HMG can table it again in the HoC and put the clauses back. They signalled, publicly, they intend to do so. If that happens the HoL wouldn't be able to remove the clauses again.

The EU know this. EU (and that includes Ireland) would be crazy if they believed another signature of the HMG on another treaty after the experience with the WA and the IMB. HMG simply cannot be trusted.

The UK signed the WA, reneged on the WA with the IMB, now they sign another treaty promising that they won't renege again on the WA and/or the new treaty - and anyone should seriously believe that?

The current UK regime have lost all credibility and any last remnants of EU trust they could have had.

Jizique

McGiver wrote: »

That's not the current state of play. HMG can table it again in the HoC and put the clauses back. They signalled, publicly, they intend to do so. If that happens the HoL wouldn't be able to remove the clauses again.

The EU know this. EU (and that includes Ireland) would be crazy if they believed another signature of the HMG on another treaty after the experience with the WA and the IMB. HMG simply cannot be trusted.

The UK signed the WA, reneged on the WA with the IMB, now they sign another treaty promising that they won't renege again on the WA and/or the new treaty - and anyone should seriously believe that?

The current UK regime have lost all credibility and any last remnants of EU trust they could have had.

Interesting Newsnight; Cummings gone before Christmas but with some (almost snide) comment about his interest in Russian literature.
Big pivot to climate change which means it is just as well trump is gone

trellheim

That's not the current state of play. HMG can table it again in the HoC and put the clauses back. They signalled, publicly, they intend to do so. If that happens the HoL wouldn't be able to remove the clauses again.

What ... of course the Lords can put them back, they are independent of the commons

Besides the ping-pong to resolve, only the use of the Parliament Act can override the Lords and there are several brakes built-in ( the only other option is to get the Queen to create 260 Tory peers) .

Mr.Nice Guy

The timing of these departures at 10 Downing Street is concerning. I get the sense there is a realisation by many that whatever happens now with Brexit, deal or not, there is going to be a bitter fallout. And those that get out before the fallout hits can play the part of Captain Hindsight. 'Well, see, what I would have done instead is...'

Jizique

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The timing of these departures at 10 Downing Street is concerning. I get the sense there is a realisation by many that whatever happens now with Brexit, deal or not, there is going to be a bitter fallout. And those that get out before the fallout hits can play the part of Captain Hindsight. 'Well, see, what I would have done instead is...'

You are so right; there will be a bitter fallout.

Sound like an “adjustment period” for Northern Ireland