UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 367

On June 21 2017 04:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Simply put, if you and your mate agree that he owes you 20 quid for the pints from last weekend (both have a pretty hazy memory) you don't really care if he comes back and says he can't pay because his girlfriend forbids him to pay you because you were dealing with him and not the girlfriend in the first place.

On June 21 2017 05:29 KwarK wrote:
It's not David Davis's money, the you and your mate analogy isn't valid. If you and your mate agree that his dad owes you twenty quid and you try to collect he'll tell you to fuck off.

On June 21 2017 05:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


Did you even read my last post?

On June 21 2017 05:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


Did you even read my last post?

To clarify. Again.
You could have Celine Dion doing the actual negotiation and wouldnt make a difference. There is assumed to be a direct line of communication between the entity behind the negotiation and whatever proxy it decide to use. So when I say final offer I do mean the one that the entire cabinet, the PM and everyone else has signed off on.

The problem with the British system is that the entity charged with negotiating, that is the goverment with the pm and the cabinet, not DD or Celine Dion, doesnt have the power to actually accept it.
This is weird from an international perspective.
Thats why its a UK problem if an agreement doesnt pass parliment because either parliment should have negotiated themselves or the should have given the PM the power to settle the negotiations.

Which brings us back to the original point of using an unstable goverment as some kind of excuse to not accept a deal. There are no rules in international politics but that also means you cant use your own national quirks as excuses. Its all based on the honor system so if you just spent 2 years hammering out a deal with someone, told them it was fine, then turn around and tell them to get fucked that will come back to bite you.

Essentially the parliment can tell the goverment to get bent but the UK will have egg on its face and the EU will still think the last bid stands at the next round of negotiations.

On June 21 2017 01:15 Ghostcom wrote:
Lastly, UK is not even close to the country which has net paid the highest % of GNI to EU so they comparatively have very little to complain about concerning funding the EU budget

YESTERDAY by: David Allen Green

On Monday, in plain sight, there was an important U-turn by the UK on the first formal day of the Brexit negotiations. The UK government will not openly admit this, of course. Ministers and their press officials are pretending “nothing has changed”. But something has changed, and it is significant. The U-turn was fundamental.

The reversal is on the issue of “sequencing” — that is, the order in which things will be discussed between the UK and the EU in the negotiations about Brexit. This is an especially critical issue in that there are two agreements in play. First is the exit agreement, which deals with all outstanding issues caused by the departure so as to ensure that it is an orderly process: in effect, the divorce agreement. Second is an agreement on the future relationship between Britain and the EU, particularly the terms of trade.

The inter-relationship between these two agreements is what makes sequencing a major concern for the UK. The EU wants there to be “sufficient” progress on the former — addressing issues of money, citizenship, the Irish border and so on — before there is engagement on the latter. Britain, on the other hand, knows its leverage on the latter is reduced unless the two agreements are negotiated alongside each other. This is why in May, before the general election, the relevant UK minister David Davis said the issue of sequencing would be the “row of the summer“.


But the “row of the summer” did not even get to midsummer’s day. It was instead the row-back of the summer. On Monday, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, openly said at a joint press conference with Mr Davis that the UK had accepted the EU’s approach to sequencing. The divorce issues would be discussed first. The EU had got its way.

Some sought to defend the government and praised this as a “compromise”, but there was nothing given to the UK in return. Others described it as a “concession”, but that implies some (limited) choice in the matter. Britain had no choice. This was neither a compromise nor a concession. It was a capitulation.

That the capitulation was coming became obvious on Friday. The BBC journalist Damian Grammaticas tweeted that EU sources were discussing that UK had accepted the EU’s sequencing. Politico Europe then sourced the same claim to two EU diplomats. It was clear that the reversal in Britain’s position was being mentioned almost in passing by EU officials as they prepared for the first formal day of negotiation.

The Department of Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) then issued on Friday what seemed to be a denial. I blogged about this curious and evasive statement on my Jack of Kent blog. The Dexeu statement, though wordy, did not expressly deny the claims of a U-turn. And when the direct question was posed to Dexeu as to whether the BBC journalist’s claims were correct or incorrect there was no further comment.

The significance of the reversal is stark. It shows that the government’s blustering demands may not survive the reality of the negotiation. The merit of the EU’s slow and methodical approach — which this blog has detailed here, here, and here — shows. Preparation has made a difference: it has prevented poor performance.

The U-turn also demonstrates the disparity in clarity and transparency between the two sides. The EU has been unafraid to be open about its approach. Its insistence that the negotiations be phased was set out in its published guidelines. The reasoning for these issues being settled first was also set out (see paragraphs one to 17 of the guidelines) and, to any objective or impartial reader, it is compelling. No sensible person would disagree that these issues are and should be a priority.

The UK government, on the other hand, seems to think it can get away with publishing almost nothing. That it can make do with ministerial boasts and official misdirections. While the EU publishes its “position papers” in each part of the negotiation, it would be unimaginable for Britain to do the same, even if it had settled positions on any of the issues. The government is so used to improvisation and secrecy, it is wrongfooted by the EU’s diligence and candour.

And this goes to the heart of the problem of the negotiations. The UK government, and many in the media, appear to believe that the EU is not being serious about Brexit. That the Union is spinning its positions and will eventually cut a deal on Britain’s terms if the latter shouts loudly enough, in English. That the exit will be determined by the quick politics of the lobby and the briefing, rather than the slow politics of constructive dialogue and open communication.

The EU has a quite different mindset. It sees Brexit as a process, not a jamboree. The key concern for the EU27 and the negotiating team is to establish and maintain unanimity in respect of what needs to be dealt with to prevent a disorderly Brexit. That unanimity of content and purpose has already been achieved, and is now pretty much irreversible. Day one of the negotiations was not step one in the exit process for the EU, more like a step six or seven. It would take something considerable and unexpected now to blow the European negotiators off their tracks. As this blog has described: for the EU, this is Brexit by timetable.

This does not mean, of course, that Britain should just accept what the EU prescribes. But it needs to raise its game and stop underestimating its opponents. The easy option of playing to the domestic media will not work. Britain needs properly to engage and to show how the EU’s interests will be served by outcomes attractive also to the UK.

But the government still seems not to get this. It will not even admit its U-turn on Monday. The current ploy is to hide under the “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” phrase of the EU, but without realising (or acknowledging) that that mantra is for the divorce deal not the trade deal.

Perhaps the U-turn was also necessary for another reason. Just as Edmund Blackadder once said that an election campaign would be fought on “issues, not personalities” because his candidate Baldrick “doesn’t have a personality”, the UK will negotiate Brexit on divorce matters not trade policy, because it currently does not have a post-Brexit trade policy.

In any case, the reversal on sequencing is welcome. Realism has broken through, even if slightly. The question now is how well the UK copes with the EU’s other demands on the various divorce issues. The sequencing issue was ultimately about process more than substance, and substantial defeats will be harder to mask from the press and the public than procedural ones. Britain should use this reversal as an opportunity to reset its negotiation approach. And if if does not do so, and unless something unexpected happens, this may not be the last U-turn by the UK in the Brexit negotiations.

On June 21 2017 16:05 Deleuze wrote:
Thought the following blog from the FT might be interesting. If only for the Blackadder reference.

The UK government is between a rock and a hard place, with the UKIP base and leave voter base on one hand, and need for a transparent and efficient entry into negotiations with the EU. A right dog's dinner.



www.ft.com

On June 22 2017 05:41 Artisreal wrote:
Is that a bad thing for the media or is everyone just accustomed to Boris giving horrid interviews?

On June 21 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote:
1 isn't an assumption, it's a UK Supreme Court verdict. Brexit must be executed by a Parliamentary vote. The only valid acceptance of the agreement would be a Parliamentary vote and without the vote there is no agreement, merely a proposal. But wait, you say, surely Parliament can pass that authority to someone else. Constitutionally impossible, the negotiator would have to make promises that whatever he agreed to would be voted on and passed by Parliament and that is a promise he would have no ability to deliver on because Parliament cannot be bound or compelled.

There is literally no possible way for the British negotiating team to have any kind of power on behalf of Britain. They can offer to take a proposal to Parliament and use whatever influence they have to try and pass it. But they cannot offer Parliamentary approval because Parliamentary approval is not something that can be offered. Authority and power are not synonymous.

Does that make sense?

Theresa May can say "I approve of these terms and I will do all I can to try and have Parliament approve them" because she is speaking of her own personal approval and of her ability to influence her the Conservative Party MPs. That is an offer she can make because it is conceivably within her power to deliver. Theresa May cannot say "Parliament accepts these terms" or "Parliament will ratify my acceptance of these terms" because the first has not happened and the second is outside of her power to promise.


I'm not sure you understood my second assumption, if you were referring to something I said. My belief is that the Conservatives will do all they can to hold onto power for the next five years and therefore will avoid any vote of no confidence for fear of losing it. Brexit represents a potential vote of no confidence should they lose. Brexit cannot be brought to a vote without the assent of the Conservative party. Therefore any Brexit vote we might see will be one that the Conservatives believe they both will not lose and one which will be politically advantageous to them.

That one is an assumption (unlike 1 which is immutable fact). The three possibilities are that Parliament holds a Brexit vote and it passes, Parliament holds a Brexit vote and it fails or Parliament holds no vote.

In the first scenario could consist of a harsh treaty or a kind treaty. However given that the Conservatives depend upon the UKIP vote and give overweight influence to them I would be extremely surprised if the Conservatives chose to pass a harsh treaty that gives up money or sovereignty. It would be a betrayal of their supporters and would cripple the party politically. A kind treaty, yeah, they'd pass that.

The second scenario is extremely unlikely. They'll count the votes ahead of time and if they don't have the votes they won't hold the vote. They'd sooner call a general election than be defeated on a Brexit vote after all their work.

The third scenario is the default if they can't get anything better. If the EU only offers the Conservatives terms that the Conservatives know would either destroy them politically or they could never get through the house then they'll stall and see what happens.

Again, my second point is all assumption but I don't think it's unreasonable. They're not going to trigger their own defeat in the Commons, nor alienate their base.

On June 22 2017 05:52 thePunGun wrote:

Careful or you might end up being number 2 on the list of germans, Boris headbutted in "the Johnson"!

On June 22 2017 06:11 Artisreal wrote:

Wow. This video is definitely an understatement of what happened in the interview. I just listened to it. Wow.
I'm sure he's busy being foreign secretary so he doesn't have time for petty domestic affairs.