RugbyRebels

Lead story in the Times today comes with the headline 'Criticism of May banned in Grenfell safety deal' essentially the firm engaged to review safety of public buildings after the Grenfell disaster was gagged from saying anything critical of the PM in their review. This clearly has nothing to do with a public interest argument

Wider the government has used gagging orders on 40 charities and 300 companies from being critical of them in public as part of deals costing the public £25 billion

I know from various IT companies that unacceptable criticism for project delays, cancellations and failures to meet stated aims includes pointing out government frequently doesn't understand what it wants nor how it can be accomplished, and that government is one of the worst customers for changing requirements

The government is a real pain for changing plans mid term and causing delays and cost. Part of the issue is the lead on time for big projects means that requirements can and do change. But political views often cause delays. The MOD could save a fortune on procurement if they just built against the original design in most cases.

Where they change minds there should not be gag clauses stopping firms from discussing concerns on the basis it embarrasses the government to be seen to waste money

Theresa faced with getting a kicking at the cabinet meeting to try and approve her deal has responded in typical fashion for her, she's kicked the can down the road and delayed the meeting

She's flat out betting not the bank but the country her best chance is to take up time to negotiate by instead prevaricating, it's her one constant having herself imposed a deadline to set about dithering in an attempt to strong arm government and parliament

Hague makes a reasonable point about compromise, and really if we do leave any outcome is worse

We'll have to see what comes next. Though this isn't the biggest deal as keeps being said,that'll be the trade deal not the withdrawal deal

Digby wrote:Hague makes a reasonable point about compromise, and really if we do leave any outcome is worse

We'll have to see what comes next. Though this isn't the biggest deal as keeps being said,that'll be the trade deal not the withdrawal deal

It’s been obvious for a long time that any deal with the EU would be worse than our current membership. Anything else was fantasy.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Hague makes a reasonable point about compromise, and really if we do leave any outcome is worse

We'll have to see what comes next. Though this isn't the biggest deal as keeps being said,that'll be the trade deal not the withdrawal deal

It’s been obvious for a long time that any deal with the EU would be worse than our current membership. Anything else was fantasy.

Compromise or a second vote look the options

Personally I still think the Norway option is the best interim measure. I’d favour a second referendum but there are major risks with that which require consideration.

Another option that is all too possible is that we crash out with no deal.

I just can't see Parliament approving no deal

First rate summing up from the excellent David Allen Green- https://www.ft.com/content/c4847aca-e7f ... b8afea6ea3

Finally, there is an irony in the loud demands by Brexiters for parliamentary votes and disclosure of government information. When they believed they had the upper hand, they clapped and cheered at the UK government’s secretive and executive-minded approach. When the courts dared to say that parliament should have a formal role in the process, Brexiters dubbed the judges as “enemies of the people”. But now we can see the type of Brexit one gets when there has been no transparency or real parliamentary accountability.

The flaw in the Brexiters’ approach is that it has not taken parliament or public involvement seriously, for all their demands to “take back control”. So, for the ERG and their supporters at least, they are now getting the Brexit they deserve.

Sadly we're getting the brexit they deserve too

fivepointer wrote:First rate summing up from the excellent David Allen Green- https://www.ft.com/content/c4847aca-e7f ... b8afea6ea3

Finally, there is an irony in the loud demands by Brexiters for parliamentary votes and disclosure of government information. When they believed they had the upper hand, they clapped and cheered at the UK government’s secretive and executive-minded approach. When the courts dared to say that parliament should have a formal role in the process, Brexiters dubbed the judges as “enemies of the people”. But now we can see the type of Brexit one gets when there has been no transparency or real parliamentary accountability.

The flaw in the Brexiters’ approach is that it has not taken parliament or public involvement seriously, for all their demands to “take back control”. So, for the ERG and their supporters at least, they are now getting the Brexit they deserve.

Ha ha! “Thank fuck for Gina Miller” as JRM probably hasn’t been quoted to say.

fivepointer wrote:First rate summing up from the excellent David Allen Green- https://www.ft.com/content/c4847aca-e7f ... b8afea6ea3

C&P for those the other side of the paywall?

Puja

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:First rate summing up from the excellent David Allen Green- https://www.ft.com/content/c4847aca-e7f ... b8afea6ea3

C&P for those the other side of the paywall?

Puja

Seconded

I got access via twitter. But here's the full piece.

On Tuesday, the news came that the UK and the EU negotiators had reached a deal of sorts on the text of the Brexit withdrawal agreement, including on the backstop arrangements for the Irish border.

This agreement in principle is not the one to be formally signed and executed. What it means is that the text is sufficiently agreed for both sides to revert to those instructing them for approval.

We do not know yet exactly what the text says, but two observations can be made. First, both teams of negotiators can only act within the parameters of their political masters. So what has been achieved is an intersection on the Venn diagram of the talks: something both sides can supposedly live with. But the negotiators can only do so much; it is now for their respective political masters to decide.

Second, the draft agreement will be based on the Joint Report agreed between the UK and the EU in December 2017 and reaffirmed in March 2018. There should be little, if anything, in the current draft that is not connected to the Joint Report.

These two observations, if correct, show the shock and outrage from the pro-Brexit European Research Group of UK politicians as either synthetic or ignorant. There is nothing that should be a real surprise, even if it is a disappointment. In December 2017, the obvious implication of the Joint Report was that Northern Ireland would remain in the single market and customs union, and that meant the UK would also have to. The provisions did not have any other sensible meaning.

There was perhaps no real doubt that an agreed withdrawal agreement text would be produced. The issue of the Irish border was about what means should be in place to keep the border open. Both sides wanted to achieve this end and two sides negotiating in good faith and sharing a common end will usually agree.

Now the draft agreement passes from the realm of law and policy to that of politics, and here the position is far less clear. There is a non-trivial chance that the UK parliament will not accept the withdrawal agreement. What happens then is uncertain, though the default position is plain.

As a matter of EU and international law, the EU treaties cease to apply to the UK on March 29 2019, unless that is somehow averted by a formal action. Similarly, as a matter of domestic law, the European Communities Act 1972 will be repealed on the same date unless, again, some formal action stops or delays this.

Politicians threatening to vote against the withdrawal agreement therefore run a serious risk. A departure without a withdrawal agreement would have catastrophic consequences for cross-border trade and legal certainty and for those UK and EU citizens relying on EU rights.

Some of those on the ERG side of the issue do not mind this, averring that it is a price worth paying for independence. Those on the remain or soft Brexit side, however, will be trusting that there is an intervening event, such as an Article 50 extension or revocation or even a further referendum, as no rational, responsible person would see the chaos of a no-deal Brexit as an acceptable price.

The problem for those on the Remain or soft Brexit side is that there is no firm indication of such an intervening event. So it would seem irresponsible to seek to vote down the withdrawal agreement, hoping that the EU or the UK government will blink. The story of Brexit negotiations to date is that the EU has not blinked when people hoped they would.

Finally, there is an irony in the loud demands by Brexiters for parliamentary votes and disclosure of government information. When they believed they had the upper hand, they clapped and cheered at the UK government’s secretive and executive-minded approach. When the courts dared to say that parliament should have a formal role in the process, Brexiters dubbed the judges as “enemies of the people”. But now we can see the type of Brexit one gets when there has been no transparency or real parliamentary accountability.

The flaw in the Brexiters’ approach is that it has not taken parliament or public involvement seriously, for all their demands to “take back control”. So, for the ERG and their supporters at least, they are now getting the Brexit they deserve.

fivepointer wrote:First rate summing up from the excellent David Allen Green- https://www.ft.com/content/c4847aca-e7f ... b8afea6ea3

Finally, there is an irony in the loud demands by Brexiters for parliamentary votes and disclosure of government information. When they believed they had the upper hand, they clapped and cheered at the UK government’s secretive and executive-minded approach. When the courts dared to say that parliament should have a formal role in the process, Brexiters dubbed the judges as “enemies of the people”. But now we can see the type of Brexit one gets when there has been no transparency or real parliamentary accountability.

The flaw in the Brexiters’ approach is that it has not taken parliament or public involvement seriously, for all their demands to “take back control”. So, for the ERG and their supporters at least, they are now getting the Brexit they deserve.

Spot on.

JRM was interviewed on Channel 4 news tonight. He looked a bit sick and the day of reckoning fast approaches where he has to either shut or up bring down his own government, or potentially face another referendum.

What strikes me is that we would appear to be 52% leaving the EU and 48% remaining inside.

I think we are probably only really about 20% leaving the EU with the additional 32% being the loss of influence from no longer having any say in what the EU chooses to do in the future.

As much as I hate what has been agreed, its just the withdrawal agreement. Let’s see where we are in a few years.
The problem as I see it was A50 arbitrarily giving a two year deadline for negotiations and the EU refusing to negotiate prior to it being triggered. Everyone keeps saying it takes 5 years to negotiate a free trade agreement. By the time we properly leave on 01.01.21 that will be just shy of 4 years from A50 being triggered. Add in the previous 6 months of messing around you’re near 4.5 years. Take into account the amount of resources and time chucked at getting virtually no where and the fact that the EU and UK are obviously already incredibly closely aligned, then I’m sure they could’ve put together Canada ++ by 2021.
Of course, I say all this knowing that the biggest problem is the playground fight that has been the UK’s response to the referendum result.

That's 5 now: Before parliament has even opened for the day!
Dominic Raab (Brexit Secretary)
Esther McVey (Work and Pensions Secretary)

Shailesh Vara (Junior Northern Ireland minister)
Suella Braverman (junior minister at the Department for Exiting the EU)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (PPS to the Education Ministers)

Mellsblue wrote:As much as I hate what has been agreed, its just the withdrawal agreement. Let’s see where we are in a few years.
The problem as I see it was A50 arbitrarily giving a two year deadline for negotiations and the EU refusing to negotiate prior to it being triggered. Everyone keeps saying it takes 5 years to negotiate a free trade agreement. By the time we properly leave on 01.01.21 that will be just shy of 4 years from A50 being triggered. Add in the previous 6 months of messing around you’re near 4.5 years. Take into account the amount of resources and time chucked at getting virtually no where and the fact that the EU and UK are obviously already incredibly closely aligned, then I’m sure they could’ve put together Canada ++ by 2021.
Of course, I say all this knowing that the biggest problem is the playground fight that has been the UK’s response to the referendum result.

Even if true Canada ++++ would be a shit outcome, although they are all shit outcomes at this point with some more inclined than others to believe their own shit doesn't stink

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:As much as I hate what has been agreed, its just the withdrawal agreement. Let’s see where we are in a few years.
The problem as I see it was A50 arbitrarily giving a two year deadline for negotiations and the EU refusing to negotiate prior to it being triggered. Everyone keeps saying it takes 5 years to negotiate a free trade agreement. By the time we properly leave on 01.01.21 that will be just shy of 4 years from A50 being triggered. Add in the previous 6 months of messing around you’re near 4.5 years. Take into account the amount of resources and time chucked at getting virtually no where and the fact that the EU and UK are obviously already incredibly closely aligned, then I’m sure they could’ve put together Canada ++ by 2021.
Of course, I say all this knowing that the biggest problem is the playground fight that has been the UK’s response to the referendum result.

Even if true Canada ++++ would be a shit outcome, although they are all shit outcomes at this point with some more inclined than others to believe their own shit doesn't stink

I’m not sure we needed you to act out the playground fight analogy.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:As much as I hate what has been agreed, its just the withdrawal agreement. Let’s see where we are in a few years.
The problem as I see it was A50 arbitrarily giving a two year deadline for negotiations and the EU refusing to negotiate prior to it being triggered. Everyone keeps saying it takes 5 years to negotiate a free trade agreement. By the time we properly leave on 01.01.21 that will be just shy of 4 years from A50 being triggered. Add in the previous 6 months of messing around you’re near 4.5 years. Take into account the amount of resources and time chucked at getting virtually no where and the fact that the EU and UK are obviously already incredibly closely aligned, then I’m sure they could’ve put together Canada ++ by 2021.
Of course, I say all this knowing that the biggest problem is the playground fight that has been the UK’s response to the referendum result.

Even if true Canada ++++ would be a shit outcome, although they are all shit outcomes at this point with some more inclined than others to believe their own shit doesn't stink

I’m not sure we needed you to act out the playground fight analogy.

Good news I won't be needed as I don't quite understand what's required there, however I'm confident 80% of the British public support my position

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Even if true Canada ++++ would be a shit outcome, although they are all shit outcomes at this point with some more inclined than others to believe their own shit doesn't stink

I’m not sure we needed you to act out the playground fight analogy.

Good news I won't be needed as I don't quite understand what's required there, however I'm confident 80% of the British public support my position

You are Rory Stewart and I claim my £10

I think we all know Rory is just Ronnie Wood in disguise

May is right on the available options.
Its take her deal, leave without a deal or remain. Thats it. The EU wont renegotiate (as was expected) so we are down to deciding on one of the 3 alternatives.
So a deal that most people reckon is seriously flawed and seems to satisfy very few, a no deal that would likely cripple large parts of the economy, or keeping the current arrangement as members of the EU.