It’s not by chance that David Davis was out of government for so long. He’s incompetent and lazy. You can’t help but wonder if he wasn’t brought back in from the cold because of that alone.
Apropos of nothing, I was watching the final episode of Fergal Keane's "The Story of Ireland" repeated on BBC4 last night, and was interested in a quotation from Sean Lemass that Ireland, after the War of Independence:
"started off like all the other newly free countries, with the assumption that freedom alone was enough and that in freedom, economic difficulties would right themselves.
We found out the hard way that this wasn't so.".
I'm enough of a cynic to believe that not many will pay much attention to what he said, but I do think that there is an important lesson to be learned from the Irish lesson (of completely f**king up the economy in the 1930s and beyond) for those who blithely assume that leaving the EU, and restoring the sovereignty that had, apparently, always been there, will be some sort of panacea.
And, in relation to the benefits to a State of actually knowing what the f**k you're up to, he also said, in what I can only describe as a criticism from beyond the grave of Cameron, Fox, Johnson, Gove, the EU Referendum process in 2016, HMG since, et al:
"I have no faith in the conception of "Government by hunch" and believe that important decisions which can affect the pace and direction of national development, should be made only when all aspects of a question have been fully examined, all the options noted and evoked, and the material for decisions have been fully collated. This is properly the work of Civil Servants."
I've always liked Lemass as a moderniser in Irish political history and much, if not all, of Ireland's social, political and economic development since the Emergency (or the Second World War, if you prefer) can be traced to policies that he instituted or encouraged.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Just another in a long line of pompous prats who have overestimated just how big we are and how much the rest of the world needs us. Can’t buy any of this bullshit about the EU scuppering a deal. As Nadou points out above. They’re protecting their interests. Of course one or two of the larger nations like Germany use the EU to work in their National interest. May not be fair and I’ve always believed the EU needs reform, but we knew how it worked from being part of it. We should have had the understanding to know how it would work should we choose to leave. Yet here we are just making vague demands on the basis that we should a get a bespoke deal. Not if the bespoke deal compromises the 4 pillars, which most of what we’ve come up with does
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties
Davies was negotiating on behalf of Theresa May, so was working to her ambitions. Chequers has revealed what they are, FA.
Why did she bin the proposal his team had been working on? Of course I haven't seen the detail but he said that it was based on free trade and would be nothing that the EU hadn't agreed to with other parties already
Like I said, I clearly don't know the details but that approach seems sensible on the face of it. May could never be described as sensible so perhaps no surprise that she ignored it.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Just another in a long line of pompous prats who have overestimated just how big we are and how much the rest of the world needs us. Can’t buy any of this bullshit about the EU scuppering a deal. As Nadou points out above. They’re protecting their interests. Of course one or two of the larger nations like Germany use the EU to work in their National interest. May not be fair and I’ve always believed the EU needs reform, but we knew how it worked from being part of it. We should have had the understanding to know how it would work should we choose to leave. Yet here we are just making vague demands on the basis that we should a get a bespoke deal. Not if the bespoke deal compromises the 4 pillars, which most of what we’ve come up with does
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties
Davies was negotiating on behalf of Theresa May, so was working to her ambitions. Chequers has revealed what they are, FA.
Why did she bin the proposal his team had been working on? Of course I haven't seen the detail but he said that it was based on free trade and would be nothing that the EU hadn't agreed to with other parties already
Like I said, I clearly don't know the details but that approach seems sensible on the face of it. May could never be described as sensible so perhaps no surprise that she ignored it.
I don't blame Davies for the situation we are in.
Don't tell anyone, but David Davies is a different Conservative MP, representing Monmouth.
My understanding of the Davis/DExEU proposal being developed was a form of Canada +/Canada + +/Canada + + +, but this would, almost by definition, be a more limited relationship than that which the UK seems to be seeking.
As you say, it should be reasonably straightforward to agree a new Free Trade Agreement based upon an existing Free Trade Agreement, the Devil would be in the detail, and particularly how the red lines laid down by the Prime Minister would affect the offer that the EU27 would be prepared to make (as Michel Barnier's table of possible relationships of some months ago indicated).
I have a sneaking suspicion that the number of +s that would have been available would have been dependent on the degree to which the UK would be prepared to move on its red lines, if at all. I think that Mrs May is trying to generate an outcome that means that the red lines she has committed to can be honoured (despite all indications to the contrary), I can see more futile contortions ahead.
However, at the moment, what is under consideration is an outline political consideration of a deal, not a negotiation on that deal.
The problem right now is that the UK and EU27 have to negotiate the terms of departure, unless there is agreement on these terms (and the legally operable Irish backstop, to say nothing of the periodic comments that the UK will not pay the agreed settlement "without a deal" - despite the two not being linked, other than that, without verifiably committing to paying the settlement) there would be no future trade deal.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Just another in a long line of pompous prats who have overestimated just how big we are and how much the rest of the world needs us. Can’t buy any of this bullshit about the EU scuppering a deal. As Nadou points out above. They’re protecting their interests. Of course one or two of the larger nations like Germany use the EU to work in their National interest. May not be fair and I’ve always believed the EU needs reform, but we knew how it worked from being part of it. We should have had the understanding to know how it would work should we choose to leave. Yet here we are just making vague demands on the basis that we should a get a bespoke deal. Not if the bespoke deal compromises the 4 pillars, which most of what we’ve come up with does
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties
Davies was negotiating on behalf of Theresa May, so was working to her ambitions. Chequers has revealed what they are, FA.
Why did she bin the proposal his team had been working on? Of course I haven't seen the detail but he said that it was based on free trade and would be nothing that the EU hadn't agreed to with other parties already
Like I said, I clearly don't know the details but that approach seems sensible on the face of it. May could never be described as sensible so perhaps no surprise that she ignored it.
I don't blame Davies for the situation we are in.
I think a major part of the problem is that Davies ended up being completely subverted out of the process by May and her Cabinet Office gaggle of Brexit advisors led by the desperately pro-EU Ollie Robbins. They're the ones who came up with the Chequers plan. May is as dull and unimaginative political leader as I can ever remember and she has a pathetic dependence on personal advisors. The same sort of silly sods who convinced her a general election would be a good idea.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Just another in a long line of pompous prats who have overestimated just how big we are and how much the rest of the world needs us. Can’t buy any of this bullshit about the EU scuppering a deal. As Nadou points out above. They’re protecting their interests. Of course one or two of the larger nations like Germany use the EU to work in their National interest. May not be fair and I’ve always believed the EU needs reform, but we knew how it worked from being part of it. We should have had the understanding to know how it would work should we choose to leave. Yet here we are just making vague demands on the basis that we should a get a bespoke deal. Not if the bespoke deal compromises the 4 pillars, which most of what we’ve come up with does
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties
Davies was negotiating on behalf of Theresa May, so was working to her ambitions. Chequers has revealed what they are, FA.
Why did she bin the proposal his team had been working on? Of course I haven't seen the detail but he said that it was based on free trade and would be nothing that the EU hadn't agreed to with other parties already
Like I said, I clearly don't know the details but that approach seems sensible on the face of it. May could never be described as sensible so perhaps no surprise that she ignored it.
I don't blame Davies for the situation we are in.
I think a major part of the problem is that Davies ended up being completely subverted out of the process by May and her Cabinet Office gaggle of Brexit advisors led by the desperately pro-EU Ollie Robbins. They're the ones who came up with the Chequers plan. May is as dull and unimaginative political leader as I can ever remember and she has a pathetic dependence on personal advisors. The same sort of silly sods who convinced her a general election would be a good idea.
This is a constant theme now. Brexiteers blaming the politicians charged with delivering Brexit for the mess we are in. This is disingenuous. The truth of the matter is that Brexit is the most stupid decision ever made by a modern nation state. It is naive to think a good Brexit is even possible. Not even the most universally respected politician or group of politicians from history could deliver a good Brexit. Hard, soft or no deal Brexit will all be a complete disaster for the UK and 99% of its citizens.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Just another in a long line of pompous prats who have overestimated just how big we are and how much the rest of the world needs us. Can’t buy any of this bullshit about the EU scuppering a deal. As Nadou points out above. They’re protecting their interests. Of course one or two of the larger nations like Germany use the EU to work in their National interest. May not be fair and I’ve always believed the EU needs reform, but we knew how it worked from being part of it. We should have had the understanding to know how it would work should we choose to leave. Yet here we are just making vague demands on the basis that we should a get a bespoke deal. Not if the bespoke deal compromises the 4 pillars, which most of what we’ve come up with does
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties
Davies was negotiating on behalf of Theresa May, so was working to her ambitions. Chequers has revealed what they are, FA.
Why did she bin the proposal his team had been working on? Of course I haven't seen the detail but he said that it was based on free trade and would be nothing that the EU hadn't agreed to with other parties already
Like I said, I clearly don't know the details but that approach seems sensible on the face of it. May could never be described as sensible so perhaps no surprise that she ignored it.
I don't blame Davies for the situation we are in.
I think a major part of the problem is that Davies ended up being completely subverted out of the process by May and her Cabinet Office gaggle of Brexit advisors led by the desperately pro-EU Ollie Robbins. They're the ones who came up with the Chequers plan. May is as dull and unimaginative political leader as I can ever remember and she has a pathetic dependence on personal advisors. The same sort of silly sods who convinced her a general election would be a good idea.
This is a constant theme now. Brexiteers blaming the politicians charged with delivering Brexit for the mess we are in. This is disingenuous. The truth of the matter is that Brexit is the most stupid decision ever made by a modern nation state. It is naive to think a good Brexit is even possible. Not even the most universally respected politician or group of politicians from history could deliver a good Brexit. Hard, soft or no deal Brexit will all be a complete disaster for the UK and 99% of its citizens.
Yeah and only 37 percent voted for brexit. They didn't even know what they were voting for.
Actually the second part has a semblance of truth after the promises made by Cameron pre referendum and where we might end up.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Just another in a long line of pompous prats who have overestimated just how big we are and how much the rest of the world needs us. Can’t buy any of this bullshit about the EU scuppering a deal. As Nadou points out above. They’re protecting their interests. Of course one or two of the larger nations like Germany use the EU to work in their National interest. May not be fair and I’ve always believed the EU needs reform, but we knew how it worked from being part of it. We should have had the understanding to know how it would work should we choose to leave. Yet here we are just making vague demands on the basis that we should a get a bespoke deal. Not if the bespoke deal compromises the 4 pillars, which most of what we’ve come up with does
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties
Davies was negotiating on behalf of Theresa May, so was working to her ambitions. Chequers has revealed what they are, FA.
Why did she bin the proposal his team had been working on? Of course I haven't seen the detail but he said that it was based on free trade and would be nothing that the EU hadn't agreed to with other parties already
Like I said, I clearly don't know the details but that approach seems sensible on the face of it. May could never be described as sensible so perhaps no surprise that she ignored it.
I don't blame Davies for the situation we are in.
I think a major part of the problem is that Davies ended up being completely subverted out of the process by May and her Cabinet Office gaggle of Brexit advisors led by the desperately pro-EU Ollie Robbins. They're the ones who came up with the Chequers plan. May is as dull and unimaginative political leader as I can ever remember and she has a pathetic dependence on personal advisors. The same sort of silly sods who convinced her a general election would be a good idea.
David Davis was at Chequers participating in making the plan. Then he resigned two days later. Boris was a participant too, he lasted three days. I have not heard reports of their fierce opposition at Chequers, however I did hear that chequers resignees would have had to arrange their own transport.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Just another in a long line of pompous prats who have overestimated just how big we are and how much the rest of the world needs us. Can’t buy any of this bullshit about the EU scuppering a deal. As Nadou points out above. They’re protecting their interests. Of course one or two of the larger nations like Germany use the EU to work in their National interest. May not be fair and I’ve always believed the EU needs reform, but we knew how it worked from being part of it. We should have had the understanding to know how it would work should we choose to leave. Yet here we are just making vague demands on the basis that we should a get a bespoke deal. Not if the bespoke deal compromises the 4 pillars, which most of what we’ve come up with does
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties
Davies was negotiating on behalf of Theresa May, so was working to her ambitions. Chequers has revealed what they are, FA.
Why did she bin the proposal his team had been working on? Of course I haven't seen the detail but he said that it was based on free trade and would be nothing that the EU hadn't agreed to with other parties already
Like I said, I clearly don't know the details but that approach seems sensible on the face of it. May could never be described as sensible so perhaps no surprise that she ignored it.
I don't blame Davies for the situation we are in.
I think a major part of the problem is that Davies ended up being completely subverted out of the process by May and her Cabinet Office gaggle of Brexit advisors led by the desperately pro-EU Ollie Robbins. They're the ones who came up with the Chequers plan. May is as dull and unimaginative political leader as I can ever remember and she has a pathetic dependence on personal advisors. The same sort of silly sods who convinced her a general election would be a good idea.
This is a constant theme now. Brexiteers blaming the politicians charged with delivering Brexit for the mess we are in. This is disingenuous. The truth of the matter is that Brexit is the most stupid decision ever made by a modern nation state. It is naive to think a good Brexit is even possible. Not even the most universally respected politician or group of politicians from history could deliver a good Brexit. Hard, soft or no deal Brexit will all be a complete disaster for the UK and 99% of its citizens.
Yeah and only 37 percent voted for brexit. They didn't even know what they were voting for.
Actually the second part has a semblance of truth after the promises made by Cameron pre referendum and where we might end up.
I'm not sure what Cameron promises you are referring to but if there is any excuse to be had for voting Brexit, I guess it's that Brexit had a false legitimacy as a direct result of there being a referendum. That is definitely Cameron's fault. I can understand people thinking, 'we'll it can't be all that bad or we wouldn't be allowed to vote on it'. Wrong! Of course, that's not a get out of jail free card though, because we're all going to pay the price unless something sensible can be found to end the madness.
To be fair, I think the government would have been confident they could get it past the EU largely intact.
I think that confidence was grossly misplaced if that were the case. The EU have been remarkable consistent in their approach throughout. How many times do we have to be told we cannot cherry pick? How many times do we have to be told the "solutions" suggested are impractical, based on technology/infrastructure that doesn't exist and that they undermine the fundamental principles of the EU?
Rebranding Single Market membership as a "common rule book" might satisfy a few Leavers who can't see it for what it is, and save the Tories some face, but it was never going to fly in Brussels.
Which is why David Davis left. Whatever you might think of the man he was in fact heading the dept to leave & therefore must have known their red lines too. If TM couldn't get him onside then it must have been a non starter from the word go.
What this David Davis?
Yes, he seems like he has a good grasp of what Brexit means...
He was of course famously, described by someone on his side as being as "thick as mince".
That said, I agree he would have known the EU's red lines. We all do. They've been upfront about them since before the referendum. It's just that our government seems to have a negotiating strategy that pretends they don't exist and the only non-negotiable issues are those we've decided on.
I think you're being very generous indeed to David Davis to suggest he would have known the EU's red lines. He seems to me to be utterly incapable of understanding anything of importance at all, with regards to the EU.
Less than a month before the referendum, he said this: “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said on 26 May this year.
“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3 billion of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1 billion fashion exports. Poland its £3 billion manufacturing exports.”
This is a man who was Europe Minister in his 30s. Yet, in the last weeks of the EU referendum, he was arguing that we would be able to do deals with Germany, France, Italy and Poland.
This level of incompetence is extraordinary. The only thing more surprising is that he was given the top job to negotiate brexit. That he failed, and that subsequently he is trying to distance himself from culpability for that failure, is utterly unsurprising.
Despicable man.
Just another in a long line of pompous prats who have overestimated just how big we are and how much the rest of the world needs us. Can’t buy any of this bullshit about the EU scuppering a deal. As Nadou points out above. They’re protecting their interests. Of course one or two of the larger nations like Germany use the EU to work in their National interest. May not be fair and I’ve always believed the EU needs reform, but we knew how it worked from being part of it. We should have had the understanding to know how it would work should we choose to leave. Yet here we are just making vague demands on the basis that we should a get a bespoke deal. Not if the bespoke deal compromises the 4 pillars, which most of what we’ve come up with does
Arrogance, incompetence and continued lemming like behaviour that’s the last 18 months in a nutshell
Until people start seeing a detrimental effect on their daily lives, we’ll just go back and forth with all this nonsense. Rabb, Davis, Fox whoever. Utter numpties
Davies was negotiating on behalf of Theresa May, so was working to her ambitions. Chequers has revealed what they are, FA.
Why did she bin the proposal his team had been working on? Of course I haven't seen the detail but he said that it was based on free trade and would be nothing that the EU hadn't agreed to with other parties already
Like I said, I clearly don't know the details but that approach seems sensible on the face of it. May could never be described as sensible so perhaps no surprise that she ignored it.
I don't blame Davies for the situation we are in.
I think a major part of the problem is that Davies ended up being completely subverted out of the process by May and her Cabinet Office gaggle of Brexit advisors led by the desperately pro-EU Ollie Robbins. They're the ones who came up with the Chequers plan. May is as dull and unimaginative political leader as I can ever remember and she has a pathetic dependence on personal advisors. The same sort of silly sods who convinced her a general election would be a good idea.
David Davis was at Chequers participating in making the plan. Then he resigned two days later. Boris was a participant too, he lasted three days. I have not heard reports of their fierce opposition at Chequers, however I did hear that chequers resignees would have had to arrange their own transport.
Are you close to the Cabinet then ??? I reckon I have heard just as much as you with regard to what happened that weekend.
It wasn't a mistake. No benefit in your lifetime, so who were you making this decision for? For my family including my children, for future generations and for late family who would have been saddened to see what this country has become.
Hold me account all you like. I appreciate people vote differently to me (see below) The key point, we all share the cost of your choice but there is no mechanism for any recompense.
I have been at the butt end of other people's choices pretty much all my life.
Don't understand the much maligned bit See above
No bunker. I have consistently stated and restated my position on here since the vote was cast. The bunker is the metaphorical one constructed around the leave voter. In which they manufacture justifications for their choice in spite of the weakness of their case which is more apparent as time moves on. Where they feel protected from the realisation that they've made a mistake and that many ordinary working people will suffer as will younger generations, who fundamentally reject what they've been saddled with.
I think you are in the bunker where access is only allowed by you if they agree with your point of view.
I am not blaming anyone in a smug way. Except Maybe Cameron and Osborne. The conceit that somehow you are striking a blow against a political class for the ordinary citizen, see your regular attempts to associate remain vote with Blair. Thatcher etc. You're about the smuggest, most self satisfied poster on here.
Glad you have read some of the few posts I have made. You may see the post below which is aiming to reconcile remain and leave posters and ask interesting questions rather than posting insults as you have done.
Nothing defensive and no blame attaching. Stock defence is you exercised a democratic right, been handled badly by politicians who are not up to the job because they are intellectual pygmies compared to those like yourself that "get it", if only everybody else was a smart as you.
I think everything about the referendum has been poorly handled before and since. It doesn't change my view that I would prefer this country was not a member of the EU.
Never voted for Thatcher. Saw her in Lord North Street the day she became Prime Minister and didn't like her then. So I am not part of this legacy that " fucked this country over" . She of course was "relatively" pro EU particularly compared to say Corbyn!!. This cannot be so hard to understand can it? You voted for self over any wider sense of community. You are one amongst many who have enabled anti democratic disaster capitalists to make their play for power. You have, with others thrown what is left of our societal safety nets to the corporate wolves. You amongst others of your ilk have ultimately decided that the haves will have more. You didn't need to vote for her to embrace the reality she unleashed, she was the facilitator of the privatisation basket case we have become. She was an ideologue with no awareness of the broader consequences of her position, Gove is her closest relation currently. As for Corbyn reference? He's just like you isn't he? Unable to say you were wrong.
If you have read some of my earliest posts you would know that of all the politicians I would align myself to on the EU it would be Frank Field. Doesn't quite tie in with your perception of me does it?
Posted from Austria where I am setting up a right wing alliance close to the Eagles nest. Or maybe not... Nazi reference???? Something on your mind?
Yes. I am fed up with dealing with bollocks posts like your one. Hence like many before me and more to come I have asked AFKA to close my account.
Christ there are some idiots on here. Closing my account as just not got the time to cope with it!
I might pop back when the euro collapses for a good old gloat. But all the best till then!
Bloody he'll. ..another one gone. .only me left.
I'm still lurking mate. But when you are outnumbered about 50 to 1 it becomes rather pointless to continue.
Sorry me too. The next few months is going to be a fascinating period in our political history. Shame the quality of politicians in the Uk is so piss poor across all parties.
The Chequers agreement was an attempt to produce something the Conservative party could get behind and then all focus on selling to Europe. Not being a Conservative, I can, without bias, see that trying to do this was sensible. How are you supposed to negotiate with Europe when you can't agree amongst yourselves? It has clearly failed, but failed for the reason why it was attempted. The two sides within the Conservative party, much like the country simply can't be reconciled.
The solution has to be around having a clear position that can't be sabotaged by either side of the argument. For me, that can only be resolved by having another well thought out referendum which gives a clear position on the type of Brexit people want, if they still want it or possibly an election, but the latter may still be too ambiguous. Of course whatever comes out of it won't please everybody, but at least there would be clarity and I think it would be a first step in healing the divisions within the country. Something we all need, whether you are a Brexiter or Remainer at heart.
It's almost as if someone who was a vociferous supporter of Brexit has decided that he would prefer to point the finger at other people for failing to deliver the unicorn for which he voted, rather than carefully assimilate the growing evidence that Brexit, however well it's delivered, is, actually, harmful.
I am sure he's a decent chap. And I usually try to avoid pigeonholing people as a means of gainsaying their political view, but, in his case, I can't help thinking his background diminishes his views somewhat.
So, Mervyn, I hope you don't mind if I note that - you studied abroad but your position is that it's better to make it harder for people to study abroad - you are an unelected politician but your position is that the EU is less democratic that a post-Brexit UK - your title, "Lord King" dissuades me from thinking we are all in it together - you were the Governor of the Bank of England before and during the economic crash, but apparently we should trust your economic instinct
You couldn’t make it up. As if the fecking Premier League has any right or grace over any other industry in this country. I would imagine the issues concerning overseas doctors and nurses is a touch more concerning.
You couldn’t make it up. As if the fecking Premier League has any right or grace over any other industry in this country. I would imagine the issues concerning overseas doctors and nurses is a touch more concerning.
yes it is, but it's also one of the biggest exports we've got of soft power, so it's certainly something that will be considered
You couldn’t make it up. As if the fecking Premier League has any right or grace over any other industry in this country. I would imagine the issues concerning overseas doctors and nurses is a touch more concerning.
yes it is, but it's also one of the biggest exports we've got of soft power, so it's certainly something that will be considered
No it won’t. It would be roundly and quite rightly condemned. There are far more important issues than the Premier League. How much does the Premier League earn this country ? How important is it really ? Are there other industries with more pressing concerns. It’s just a greedy football cartel.
It could be argued it would provide more opportunities for English players.
That would be a good thing, but i think the premier league sold young english talent down the river a long time ago.
How does that square with the fact that England were ranked 11th, 18th and 21st in the first three years of the Premier League and are now 6th, two places away from their highest ever position, while Germany (1st to 15th), Spain (5th to 9th) and Italy (2nd to 21st) have declined over the same period?
You couldn’t make it up. As if the fecking Premier League has any right or grace over any other industry in this country. I would imagine the issues concerning overseas doctors and nurses is a touch more concerning.
yes it is, but it's also one of the biggest exports we've got of soft power, so it's certainly something that will be considered
That opinion would have more merit if "we", meaning presumably British citizens or their elected representatives, controlled the effing thing.
To remind you, it is controlled by a load of foreigners who own the private companies which make up and control the FAPL. They are free to do exactly as they please with the money they earn and there is sod all you, I, or the British government can do about it.
It could be argued it would provide more opportunities for English players.
That would be a good thing, but i think the premier league sold young english talent down the river a long time ago.
How does that square with the fact that England were ranked 11th, 18th and 21st in the first three years of the Premier League and are now 6th, two places away from their highest ever position, while Germany (1st to 15th), Spain (5th to 9th) and Italy (2nd to 21st) have declined over the same period?
I think you know the answer to that one, FIFA rankings are about as true as CL post match player scores.
I like the first part of Alastair Campbell's blog here. If the Brexiteers wilfully send the country over the cliff and the economy tanks for a generation and people literally die because of interruption of drug supplies as a result, then the liars and criminals responsible should be held to account by a public enquiry and the courts of law.
Comments
Oh yeah?
Go on.
"started off like all the other newly free countries, with the assumption that freedom alone was enough and that in freedom, economic difficulties would right themselves.
We found out the hard way that this wasn't so.".
I'm enough of a cynic to believe that not many will pay much attention to what he said, but I do think that there is an important lesson to be learned from the Irish lesson (of completely f**king up the economy in the 1930s and beyond) for those who blithely assume that leaving the EU, and restoring the sovereignty that had, apparently, always been there, will be some sort of panacea.
And, in relation to the benefits to a State of actually knowing what the f**k you're up to, he also said, in what I can only describe as a criticism from beyond the grave of Cameron, Fox, Johnson, Gove, the EU Referendum process in 2016, HMG since, et al:
"I have no faith in the conception of "Government by hunch" and believe that important decisions which can affect the pace and direction of national development, should be made only when all aspects of a question have been fully examined, all the options noted and evoked, and the material for decisions have been fully collated. This is properly the work of Civil Servants."
I've always liked Lemass as a moderniser in Irish political history and much, if not all, of Ireland's social, political and economic development since the Emergency (or the Second World War, if you prefer) can be traced to policies that he instituted or encouraged.
As a pro-EU person, I also like him because he began the process of Ireland joining, and from the outset was entirely clear that the EEC/EC/EU was not considered solely an economic project: https://cvce.eu/content/publication/2005/1/20/0187eb1a-39f6-4268-9f0e-e527f2e8b088/publishable_en.pdf.
Why did she bin the proposal his team had been working on? Of course I haven't seen the detail but he said that it was based on free trade and would be nothing that the EU hadn't agreed to with other parties already
Like I said, I clearly don't know the details but that approach seems sensible on the face of it. May could never be described as sensible so perhaps no surprise that she ignored it.
I don't blame Davies for the situation we are in.
My understanding of the Davis/DExEU proposal being developed was a form of Canada +/Canada + +/Canada + + +, but this would, almost by definition, be a more limited relationship than that which the UK seems to be seeking.
As you say, it should be reasonably straightforward to agree a new Free Trade Agreement based upon an existing Free Trade Agreement, the Devil would be in the detail, and particularly how the red lines laid down by the Prime Minister would affect the offer that the EU27 would be prepared to make (as Michel Barnier's table of possible relationships of some months ago indicated).
I have a sneaking suspicion that the number of +s that would have been available would have been dependent on the degree to which the UK would be prepared to move on its red lines, if at all. I think that Mrs May is trying to generate an outcome that means that the red lines she has committed to can be honoured (despite all indications to the contrary), I can see more futile contortions ahead.
However, at the moment, what is under consideration is an outline political consideration of a deal, not a negotiation on that deal.
The problem right now is that the UK and EU27 have to negotiate the terms of departure, unless there is agreement on these terms (and the legally operable Irish backstop, to say nothing of the periodic comments that the UK will not pay the agreed settlement "without a deal" - despite the two not being linked, other than that, without verifiably committing to paying the settlement) there would be no future trade deal.
Actually the second part has a semblance of truth after the promises made by Cameron pre referendum and where we might end up.
Then he resigned two days later.
Boris was a participant too, he lasted three days.
I have not heard reports of their fierce opposition at Chequers, however I did hear that chequers resignees would have had to arrange their own transport.
"Former Bank of England governor Lord King has blasted Brexit preparations as "incompetent"..."
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-45400994
The solution has to be around having a clear position that can't be sabotaged by either side of the argument. For me, that can only be resolved by having another well thought out referendum which gives a clear position on the type of Brexit people want, if they still want it or possibly an election, but the latter may still be too ambiguous. Of course whatever comes out of it won't please everybody, but at least there would be clarity and I think it would be a first step in healing the divisions within the country. Something we all need, whether you are a Brexiter or Remainer at heart.
I am sure he's a decent chap. And I usually try to avoid pigeonholing people as a means of gainsaying their political view, but, in his case, I can't help thinking his background diminishes his views somewhat.
So, Mervyn, I hope you don't mind if I note that
- you studied abroad but your position is that it's better to make it harder for people to study abroad
- you are an unelected politician but your position is that the EU is less democratic that a post-Brexit UK
- your title, "Lord King" dissuades me from thinking we are all in it together
- you were the Governor of the Bank of England before and during the economic crash, but apparently we should trust your economic instinct
To remind you, it is controlled by a load of foreigners who own the private companies which make up and control the FAPL. They are free to do exactly as they please with the money they earn and there is sod all you, I, or the British government can do about it.
Right? Or not? If not, please enlighten me.
https://alastaircampbell.org/2018/09/the-more-sensible-cabinet-ministers-are-looking-towards-the-inevitable-public-inquiry-if-brexit-happens/