Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 16/1 tip to start off your Sunday morning

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited July 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 16/1 tip to start off your Sunday morning

Graphics: top one is from Paddy Power, the bottom one is from Ladbrokes

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777
    Good Morning Campers .... :smiley:
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,052
    16-1 is probably a bit too skinny. I'd want about 33-1 to be tempted.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    Too much of a long shot. If there is an error my instinct is that it will be toward Boris, given that his supporters are vocal and online.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,284
    Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.

    What's to like?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,579

    Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.

    What's to like?

    Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that. :)

    The rest not so much. :(
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,371


    It won't devastate us. If some of those 44% of exports have to pay tariffs or deal with non-tariff barriers then so be it. Its a shame, but it isn't the end of the world.

    More reassuring words from a No-Dealer.

    Shouldn't we be aiming for something a bit higher than "It won't devastate us"?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,371
    HYUFD said:


    56% of our exports go outside the EU now as your figures confirm, it would be difficult but not devastating if we trade with the EU on WTO terms as we do with most of the rest of the world

    We do not currently trade with most of the rest of the world on WTO terms. We trade on terms negotiated by the EU. No Deal Brexit would nullify all those EU trade deals meaning we would suddenly jump to WTO (ie worse) on a lot more than the 44% of the export market being claimed.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,208
    If it were a Jonestown Brexit (where the Brexiteers drink the Kool Aid and the rest of us are unaffected) I could get on board with it. In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself. Sadly, we are all going to be in the compound when it goes up in flames.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,956
    The most interesting question is how long Boris will last after becoming PM (If indeed he wins)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself.

    Why Guyana? What did it ever do to you?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,208
    ydoethur said:

    In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself.

    Why Guyana? What did it ever do to you?
    It was the location of Jonestown. But I'm happy to go with anywhere far away from here, preferably malarial.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,284
    Cyclefree said:

    Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.

    What's to like?

    Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that. :)

    The rest not so much. :(
    We're off to Cumbria for a family do at the end of the week. So I'd be grateful if any rain could be sorted by then!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    Cyclefree said:

    Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.

    What's to like?

    Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that. :)

    The rest not so much. :(
    We're off to Cumbria for a family do at the end of the week. So I'd be grateful if any rain could be sorted by then!
    It rained very hard here yesterday. Nice and sunny now.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,416
    This doesn't appear to be one of TSE's better suggestions (and they are generally pretty good, regardless of his modest claims for them.)

    There's a debate to come, isn't there? That's a major hazard. And I see no reason why he should exceed YouGov's estimate.

    He'll win easilt enough, but 80% is a very high bar.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,284
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.

    What's to like?

    Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that. :)

    The rest not so much. :(
    We're off to Cumbria for a family do at the end of the week. So I'd be grateful if any rain could be sorted by then!
    It rained very hard here yesterday. Nice and sunny now.
    A little rain here in Essex last night, just enough to dampen the grass, Now it's thick grey, November-is cloud. And my plan was to go to Chelmsford and watch Essex cricket.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,689
    Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.

    Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,144
    He's clearly going to win, but I think any surprise will be on the downside of the winning margin. Even though I realise it's a bet, not a prediction, it looks too short.

    It's interesting, though, to note how he's dominated the contest. What he's done is offer a series of minor gaffes - the bus-making hobby is a classic example - which journalsits have seized on, making him the story without really doing him any harm with his supporters. That is a Trump technique and it exploits the story-hungry media very effectively. Hunt quietly plodding on with that and that policy statement doesn't compete.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011

    The most interesting question is how long Boris will last after becoming PM (If indeed he wins)

    Say what you like about Boris, he can always be relied upon to let you down.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,271

    Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.

    Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....

    When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt....

    There's a hell of an assumption there.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,293

    we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....

    This bit "Boris choosing his team" precludes this bit "properly functioning Govt"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732
    nichomar said:

    Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.

    Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....

    When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?
    2002?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,689
    edited July 7

    This doesn't appear to be one of TSE's better suggestions (and they are generally pretty good, regardless of his modest claims for them.)

    There's a debate to come, isn't there? That's a major hazard. And I see no reason why he should exceed YouGov's estimate.

    He'll win easilt enough, but 80% is a very high bar.

    Who cares about the debate? The great bulk of the votes are in before then....the only people waiting their outome of the debate are those deciding on precisely how to spoil their ballot paper.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,811
    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,418
    6/4 for the band which two opinion polls have marked as the winning result seems very fair. However, I’m not able to take advantage because I’m in Hungary at the moment without a VPN and Ladbrokes don’t extend that far.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    edited July 7
    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    Not really. It's the usual Brexiter obsession with goods and tariffs, ignoring the more wide-ranging issues with services and non-tariff barriers. Little more than wishful thinking and "let's hope for the best".
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596
    edited July 7
    One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.

    One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.

    Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....

    When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?
    2002?
    Actually I would say 2014
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,418
    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,689
    alex. said:

    One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.

    One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.

    But it also allows a huge number of ambitious MPs to be given a leg up in thoseambitions, as a whole tranche of those who have proved useless for 3 years get culled.

    The supply of ambitious MPs always exceeds demand.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596
    edited July 7
    IanB2 said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    Not really. It's the usual Brexiter obsession with goods and tariffs, ignoring the more wide-ranging issues with services and non-tariff barriers. Little more than wishful thinking and "let's hope for the best".
    Also astonishing that May's deal has now become to be represented as "Brexit in Name Only". It's as if any thing that retains any sensible relationship with the EU is not Brexit. Shows how far down the rabbit hole these Brexiteers have gone.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,788
    alex. said:

    One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.

    One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.

    BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143

    6/4 for the band which two opinion polls have marked as the winning result seems very fair. However, I’m not able to take advantage because I’m in Hungary at the moment without a VPN and Ladbrokes don’t extend that far.

    A sad limitation on the Single Market, and not one that we can easilynegotiate post Brexit.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143
    nichomar said:

    Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.

    Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....

    When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?
    2010-15
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,811

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732
    alex. said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.

    Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....

    When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?
    2002?
    Actually I would say 2014
    I work in education. I'm sticking with 2002.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,408
    Mr. Alex, it's simultaneously departing in name only *and* so extreme that Remain MPs can't support it.

    (The deal has significant flaws, most obviously the backstop, although the political class collectively opposing every option is not to their credit).

    To turn back the clock, I was very surprised when, after the first defeat, May didn't propose a new vote which was her deal or another referendum. It would've, I think, almost certainly have passed.

    And if it didn't, it would at least have moved things forward towards an actual decision.

    That's the greatest criticism of our politicians right now. They're not making a decision of any kind, merely prolonging uncertainty.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596
    edited July 7
    tlg86 said:

    alex. said:

    One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.

    One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.

    BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.
    We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,408
    Meanwhile, in world peace news:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48899243

    Iran's breaching the uranium enrichment limit.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,956
    ydoethur said:

    alex. said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.

    Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....

    When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?
    2002?
    Actually I would say 2014
    I work in education. I'm sticking with 2002.
    I'd say 2000 after which Blair gave up on fiscal rectitude and it all went tits up after that, especially when Brown became PM.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,418
    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    As I said, unhinged nonsense. It’s sad to see an eminent historian reduced to such babble.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060

    Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.

    Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....

    The campaign is deliberately strung out in order to give us a new prime minister immediately before the recess starts, thus giving Boris (or Hunt) eight weeks or so to get his feet under the Cabinet table without having to answer to parliament, and to shore up DUP support before any confidence vote.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596

    Mr. Alex, it's simultaneously departing in name only *and* so extreme that Remain MPs can't support it.

    (The deal has significant flaws, most obviously the backstop, although the political class collectively opposing every option is not to their credit).

    To turn back the clock, I was very surprised when, after the first defeat, May didn't propose a new vote which was her deal or another referendum. It would've, I think, almost certainly have passed.

    And if it didn't, it would at least have moved things forward towards an actual decision.

    That's the greatest criticism of our politicians right now. They're not making a decision of any kind, merely prolonging uncertainty.

    Who knows, she might have done that if the ERG had managed to be successful in calling a VONC 3 months earlier. As it was she would have probably had one called and lost.

    Totally agree about uncertainty. That's part of the problem with the extension and the potential prospect of another and/or several more. Businesses won't invest (at all, or in this country - depending on their nature) until they know the trading environment that they will be dealing in. And where they really need to invest and have the option between the UK and elsewhere, they have no option but to go elsewhere. By the time someone actually moves us on to the next stage, that investment will be gone forever. Of course if they can get over the frustration of the constant melodrama, the EU no doubt realise that rolling extensions have many advantages for themselves.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732
    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,271
    alex. said:

    tlg86 said:

    alex. said:

    One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.

    One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.

    BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.
    We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
    Doesn’t Johnson want to reduce the number of cabinet positions? I see two problems first he reduces the number of people he can reward and secondly it gives the incompetent ones double the chance to fuck up
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,418
    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
    There are two options.

    1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.

    2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.

    I’m not sure which is worse.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596
    edited July 7
    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
    No doubt he's doing the usual thing of conflating the transition period with the what happens after. And rather undermines himself further by referencing the political declaration which, as has been made clear repeatedly is non-legally binding.

    And even the rest is just ultimately a treaty, which we could, if we wished, abrogate from.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,579

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
    There are two options.

    1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.

    2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.

    I’m not sure which is worse.
    Didn't he also sign that letter about GATT rules which Cash described as the definitive legal ruling on the topic when even a cursory reading of it showed that it was twaddle from start to finish?

    Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.

    Still, writing rubbish for money is very on trend these days. One of its finest proponents is about to become PM. So one can hardly blame Tombs for wanting to join in.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    nichomar said:

    alex. said:

    tlg86 said:

    alex. said:

    One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.

    One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.

    BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.
    We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
    Doesn’t Johnson want to reduce the number of cabinet positions? I see two problems first he reduces the number of people he can reward and secondly it gives the incompetent ones double the chance to fuck up
    Halving the size of the Cabinet was a kite flown by some of Boris's supporters, not the man himself. This seems to be a characteristic of Boris's campaign. As you say, it was never likely to fly.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 23,045

    Mr. Alex, it's simultaneously departing in name only *and* so extreme that Remain MPs can't support it.

    (The deal has significant flaws, most obviously the backstop, although the political class collectively opposing every option is not to their credit).

    To turn back the clock, I was very surprised when, after the first defeat, May didn't propose a new vote which was her deal or another referendum. It would've, I think, almost certainly have passed.

    And if it didn't, it would at least have moved things forward towards an actual decision.

    That's the greatest criticism of our politicians right now. They're not making a decision of any kind, merely prolonging uncertainty.

    One of the biggest reasons for the mess is that Parliamentary votes are only allowed on a yes/no basis, not on an either/or basis. Which is why every option has been voted down.

    Whichever option is eventually chosen by a single yes/no vote, then needs implementing in primary legislation, which needs to go through both Houses and is amendable in the usual manner.

    It’s a recipe for stalemate.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596

    nichomar said:

    alex. said:

    tlg86 said:

    alex. said:

    One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.

    One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.

    BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.
    We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
    Doesn’t Johnson want to reduce the number of cabinet positions? I see two problems first he reduces the number of people he can reward and secondly it gives the incompetent ones double the chance to fuck up
    Halving the size of the Cabinet was a kite flown by some of Boris's supporters, not the man himself. This seems to be a characteristic of Boris's campaign. As you say, it was never likely to fly.
    They should organise an actual kite flying contest amongst Tory MPs. Winners get to run the government. Might be informative.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
    There are two options.

    1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.

    2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.

    I’m not sure which is worse.
    Would TSE perhaps be able to answer? He did History at Cambridge and therefore may have known him?

    I will admit I find Tombs' work quite heavy going, compared to that of say Price or Doyle.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,418
    The Robert Tombs article is another sign that the Spectator is mutating into a supermarket tabloid for golf club bores. Regrettably this seems to be a growth market.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732
    edited July 7
    Cyclefree said:

    Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.

    Post-revolutionary France, especially the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Third Republic before WW1.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    nichomar said:

    alex. said:

    tlg86 said:

    alex. said:

    One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.

    One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.

    BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.
    We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
    Doesn’t Johnson want to reduce the number of cabinet positions? I see two problems first he reduces the number of people he can reward and secondly it gives the incompetent ones double the chance to fuck up
    Halving the size of the Cabinet was a kite flown by some of Boris's supporters, not the man himself. This seems to be a characteristic of Boris's campaign. As you say, it was never likely to fly.
    They're going to have to halve the size of the Cabinet. How else will they find space in the cabinet room for Boris' colossal swollen head?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,689
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
    There are two options.

    1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.

    2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.

    I’m not sure which is worse.
    Didn't he also sign that letter about GATT rules which Cash described as the definitive legal ruling on the topic when even a cursory reading of it showed that it was twaddle from start to finish?

    Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.

    Still, writing rubbish for money is very on trend these days. One of its finest proponents is about to become PM. So one can hardly blame Tombs for wanting to join in.
    No tinge of bitterness there that your wonderful pieces for pb.com are pro bono..... :)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,284

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
    There are two options.

    1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.

    2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.

    I’m not sure which is worse.
    Boris would say that 2) is a perfectly reasonable course of action.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329
    alex. said:

    IanB2 said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    Not really. It's the usual Brexiter obsession with goods and tariffs, ignoring the more wide-ranging issues with services and non-tariff barriers. Little more than wishful thinking and "let's hope for the best".
    Also astonishing that May's deal has now become to be represented as "Brexit in Name Only". It's as if any thing that retains any sensible relationship with the EU is not Brexit. Shows how far down the rabbit hole these Brexiteers have gone.
    Indeed. I know they didn't like it, but Boris and JRM voted for BINO? Give me a break.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
    There are two options.

    1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.

    2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.

    I’m not sure which is worse.
    Didn't he also sign that letter about GATT rules which Cash described as the definitive legal ruling on the topic when even a cursory reading of it showed that it was twaddle from start to finish?

    Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.

    Still, writing rubbish for money is very on trend these days. One of its finest proponents is about to become PM. So one can hardly blame Tombs for wanting to join in.
    The Spectator seems to be a complete mess these days (or at least the online version). Fraser Nelson seems to be operating a regime which allows the publication of virtually anything, without requiring any basic editorial standards to be applied in advance. And always justifies it on the grounds of 'freedom of expression' and 'letting all viewpoints be heard'.

    It was the Spectator blog which caused arguably killed off the Withdrawal agreement at source with that ridiculous hatchet job with took enormous chunks of the rules surrounding the transition period (which of course in effect largely replicated current EU arrangements) and determined that they bound the UK to them for ever more. So many ERG members tied themselves to publicly rubbishing and opposing the WA on the back of it that by the time some of them realised the error of their ways and finally came round to voting for it, it was too late to save it.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,811
    edited July 7
    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
    Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summary
    The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:

    (1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.

    (2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.

    (3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143

    Meanwhile, in world peace news:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48899243

    Iran's breaching the uranium enrichment limit.

    Once the US tore up its side of the treaty, why should Iran stick to their side of it?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832

    The Robert Tombs article is another sign that the Spectator is mutating into a supermarket tabloid for golf club bores. Regrettably this seems to be a growth market.

    The Spectator has cornered the market for nostalgic xenophobes who are not that interested in reality. It does pretty well as a result, but it’s not a serious publication.

  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,623
    Too late to comment on the story FPT and apologies if already mentioned, but it does emphasise the uncertainty when you consider that the Johnson majority of 140 from the Comres hypothetical poll fed into Electoral Calculus is 44 seats worse than the Comres poll immediately before May called the snap election (Con 46, Lab 25, LD 11, UKIP 9) fed into Electoral Calculus set on 2015 GE outcome.

    (Con 417, Lab 147, SNP 56, LD 8; the latter masking 3 losses and 3 gains)

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,372
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.

    Post-revolutionary France, especially the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Third Republic before WW1.
    Ideal grounding for commentary on our current predicament, then.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252
    @williamglenn FPT

    You said that “once we are in a single currency there will be plenty of time to adjust to any relative value disparities”

    We’ll have all the time in the world

    But there are only 2 ways to do it:

    1) mass unemployment and population drain from the over valued region/country

    2) fiscal transfers

    I suggest that both of these are politically impossible.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,144
    alex. said:



    We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.

    The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.

    A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.

    As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252

    If it were a Jonestown Brexit (where the Brexiteers drink the Kool Aid and the rest of us are unaffected) I could get on board with it. In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself. Sadly, we are all going to be in the compound when it goes up in flames.

    Why is it that Remainers fall back on analogies involving death and violence?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,811

    The Robert Tombs article is another sign that the Spectator is mutating into a supermarket tabloid for golf club bores. Regrettably this seems to be a growth market.

    The Spectator has cornered the market for nostalgic xenophobes who are not that interested in reality. It does pretty well as a result, but it’s not a serious publication.

    Unlike what? Give us the benefit of your knowledge of serious publications o wiseacre.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,418
    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.

    Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summary
    The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:

    (1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.

    (2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.

    (3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
    Britain would be leaving the single market and able to control immigration from the EU. Those are two highly meaningful steps by any measure and thus any suggestion that Theresa May’s deal was Brexit In Name Only is just unhinged nonsense. Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,372
    Charles said:

    If it were a Jonestown Brexit (where the Brexiteers drink the Kool Aid and the rest of us are unaffected) I could get on board with it. In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself. Sadly, we are all going to be in the compound when it goes up in flames.

    Why is it that Remainers fall back on analogies involving death and violence?
    A metaphor about extreme self-harm driven by cultism is perhaps not entirely inappropriate.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,811

    Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.

    Great insight, coming from you.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,520
    edited July 7
    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
    The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.

    Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.

    Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summary
    The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:

    (1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.

    (2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.

    (3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
    Britain would be leaving the single market and able to control immigration from the EU. Those are two highly meaningful steps by any measure and thus any suggestion that Theresa May’s deal was Brexit In Name Only is just unhinged nonsense. Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.

    If it were Brexit in name only it would almost certainly command majority support in the Commons and the country.

  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596

    alex. said:



    With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.

    The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.

    A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.

    As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
    And hopefully asking pertinent questions in the right places? ;)

    Fundamentally I agree totally - which is where this thread started. The danger that a "no deal Brexit" Government won't end up with subordinates competent enough to take decisions without serious risk. Because the most competent ones will be excluded either by their personal choice, or by the elevation of Brexiteer ideologues to deliver the main Government policy.

    In some ways it's the same problem Labour have for entirely different reasons (and obviously from a different angle - they don't take decisions!). The Labour front bench is a joke (you can disagree if you wish) but I have no doubt that with a different leadership it could be miles ahead in the polls in very short time, not least because there is serious heavyweight talent and ability on their backbenches that could be rapidly brought back from the cold.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,418
    geoffw said:

    Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.

    Great insight, coming from you.
    Now address the bits you didn’t quote.
  • ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.

    I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons

    1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?

    2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832
    Charles said:

    If it were a Jonestown Brexit (where the Brexiteers drink the Kool Aid and the rest of us are unaffected) I could get on board with it. In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself. Sadly, we are all going to be in the compound when it goes up in flames.

    Why is it that Remainers fall back on analogies involving death and violence?

    Is it because they’re traitors?

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,811
    FF43 said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/

    I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
    He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
    The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
    The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.

    Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
    No such mistake is made. Satellite status is undesirable and it will happen under the WDA.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060

    alex. said:



    We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.

    The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.

    A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.

    As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
    The recent book on PMQs, Punch and Judy Politics, asserts that Mrs Thatcher's change to answering any questions marked a massive power grab by Number 10, because it meant all departments having to keep the prime minister in the loop for all major and most minor decisions. This practice has been continued by all her successors. Before Thatcher, the prime minister would refer any departmental questions to the appropriate secretary of state.

    https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.

    Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summary
    The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:

    (1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.

    (2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.

    (3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
    Britain would be leaving the single market and able to control immigration from the EU. Those are two highly meaningful steps by any measure and thus any suggestion that Theresa May’s deal was Brexit In Name Only is just unhinged nonsense. Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.
    It would also completely remove us from the political aspects of the European project. Remember how there were howls of complaint from the Leave side when people argued that Remain was the "status quo" option, because the EU never stood still and was on an inexorable journey towards a Trans-national superstate?

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732
    geoffw said:

    Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either?

    Clearly not - or at least, if they have they haven't understood it. Articles 87:5 and 89:1:

    If the United Kingdom does not comply with a decision referred to in Article 95(1) of this Agreement, or fails to give legal effect in the United Kingdom's legal order to a decision, as referred to in that provision, that was addressed to a natural or legal person residing or established in the United Kingdom, the European Commission may, within 4 years from the date of the decision concerned, bring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the procedural requirements laid down in Article 258 TFEU or the second subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU, as the case may be...Judgments and orders of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period, as well as such judgments and orders handed down after the end of the transition period in proceedings referred to in Articles 86 and 87, shall have binding force in their entirety on and in the United Kingdom...

    So, they are binding during the transition period, and cases arising from the TP have a limitation of four years to be brought.

    And after that, nothing. Instead, if you look lower down, a special Arbitration Commission would be established. It could refer to the CJEU to make rulings on EU law, but although it could not set aside those rulings they would not apply directly in Britain.

    Incidentally, I've never heard of those three people. Are they meant to be somehow impressive?
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 1,317

    Mr. Alex, it's simultaneously departing in name only *and* so extreme that Remain MPs can't support it.

    (The deal has significant flaws, most obviously the backstop, although the political class collectively opposing every option is not to their credit).

    To turn back the clock, I was very surprised when, after the first defeat, May didn't propose a new vote which was her deal or another referendum. It would've, I think, almost certainly have passed.

    And if it didn't, it would at least have moved things forward towards an actual decision.

    That's the greatest criticism of our politicians right now. They're not making a decision of any kind, merely prolonging uncertainty.

    You can't do either/or votes in Westminster. MPs have voted against both her deal and a new referendum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,372
    edited July 7
    alex. said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.

    So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.

    Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summary
    The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:

    (1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.

    (2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.

    (3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
    Britain would be leaving the single market and able to control immigration from the EU. Those are two highly meaningful steps by any measure and thus any suggestion that Theresa May’s deal was Brexit In Name Only is just unhinged nonsense. Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.
    It would also completely remove us from the political aspects of the European project. Remember how there were howls of complaint from the Leave side when people argued that Remain was the "status quo" option, because the EU never stood still and was on an inexorable journey towards a Trans-national superstate?

    Leaving the EU, in whatever manner, satisfies the referendum mandate. All the rest is arguing after the fact.

  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596
    Zephyr said:

    I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.

    I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons

    1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?

    2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.

    3. There was something very iffy about the poll and its origins (The Daily Telegraph). ComRes may themselves be respectable as a pollster, but it is well know that the commissioners of polls can go a long way towards influencing their outcomes if they so wish (especially outside of the standard VI polling where the pollsters have a lot more control over the basic methodology). Oh and the fact that no other poll on the subject has come close to replicating its results.

    I've no doubt that OGH doesn't give much credence to the poll (and will have said so previously on here), and agree that he was probably being mischievous in doing a thread about it (especially several weeks after it was published!), for other reasons.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,372
    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either?

    Clearly not - or at least, if they have they haven't understood it. Articles 87:5 and 89:1:

    If the United Kingdom does not comply with a decision referred to in Article 95(1) of this Agreement, or fails to give legal effect in the United Kingdom's legal order to a decision, as referred to in that provision, that was addressed to a natural or legal person residing or established in the United Kingdom, the European Commission may, within 4 years from the date of the decision concerned, bring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the procedural requirements laid down in Article 258 TFEU or the second subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU, as the case may be...Judgments and orders of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period, as well as such judgments and orders handed down after the end of the transition period in proceedings referred to in Articles 86 and 87, shall have binding force in their entirety on and in the United Kingdom...

    So, they are binding during the transition period, and cases arising from the TP have a limitation of four years to be brought.

    And after that, nothing. Instead, if you look lower down, a special Arbitration Commission would be established. It could refer to the CJEU to make rulings on EU law, but although it could not set aside those rulings they would not apply directly in Britain.

    Incidentally, I've never heard of those three people. Are they meant to be somehow impressive?
    Argumentum ab auctoritate is unconvincing at the best of times. It does at least require the existence of auctoritas...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,815
    eristdoof said:


    It won't devastate us. If some of those 44% of exports have to pay tariffs or deal with non-tariff barriers then so be it. Its a shame, but it isn't the end of the world.

    More reassuring words from a No-Dealer.

    Shouldn't we be aiming for something a bit higher than "It won't devastate us"?
    We should though you took my words out of context. I was replying to a ludicrously OTT claim that a no deal Brexit would devastate us. I'm not a no dealer, but it wouldn't devastate us. It would be a minor inconvenience and we can do better than that but we may need to go through no deal as a stop gap before we can get a better deal.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596

    The recent book on PMQs, Punch and Judy Politics, asserts that Mrs Thatcher's change to answering any questions marked a massive power grab by Number 10, because it meant all departments having to keep the prime minister in the loop for all major and most minor decisions. This practice has been continued by all her successors. Before Thatcher, the prime minister would refer any departmental questions to the appropriate secretary of state.

    https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics

    Interesting. Wonder if Johnson has read the book, and might seek to return to the previous situation?

    Although actually - wasn't there always a way around it? - there used to be this farce at PMQs where dozens of MPs questions (which all had to be pre-submitted) were "asking about the PM's engagements for the day" - which would then lead (after the PM "referred to the answer they gave a few moments ago") to a basically open question that would hardly ever be ruled out of order.

    Did that not pre-date Thatcher?

    And of course the LOTO could always ask whatever they wished.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,372

    eristdoof said:


    It won't devastate us. If some of those 44% of exports have to pay tariffs or deal with non-tariff barriers then so be it. Its a shame, but it isn't the end of the world.

    More reassuring words from a No-Dealer.

    Shouldn't we be aiming for something a bit higher than "It won't devastate us"?
    We should though you took my words out of context. I was replying to a ludicrously OTT claim that a no deal Brexit would devastate us. I'm not a no dealer, but it wouldn't devastate us. It would be a minor inconvenience and we can do better than that but we may need to go through no deal as a stop gap before we can get a better deal.
    ‘‘Tis but a scratch....

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 24,525
    Cyclefree said:

    Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.

    What's to like?

    Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that. :)

    The rest not so much. :(
    Sun shining on God's country, Ayrshire at least.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 27,137
    Barry Gardiner on Sophy making an utter fool of himself

    I am coming round to the idea that the Lib Dems will annihilate labour in London and the South and Boris will do the same in leave seats with the SNP running riot in Scotland

    I see little prospect of a Corbyn led labour government, indeed I would not be surprised to see the Lib Dems being in a very strong position post any GE
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,811
    ydoethur said:



    Incidentally, I've never heard of those three people. Are they meant to be somehow impressive?

    So what? Am I meant to be overawed by a self-styled welsh doctor not having heard of them?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143

    alex. said:



    We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.

    The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.

    A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.

    As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
    I don't know if you have read Stephen Bungays interesting book on strategy and delegation, modelled on the Imperial German Army and why it was an effective organisation through encouraging junior initiative:

    The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps Between Plans, Actions and Results https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1857885597/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_DMAiDbYZFM1TQ

    The failure of the Brexiteers is the failure to have a strategy, the failure to know what they are trying to achieve and the failure to convince others that it is a worthwhile objective.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 23,045
    edited July 7
    alex. said:



    A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.

    As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.

    The recent book on PMQs, Punch and Judy Politics, asserts that Mrs Thatcher's change to answering any questions marked a massive power grab by Number 10, because it meant all departments having to keep the prime minister in the loop for all major and most minor decisions. This practice has been continued by all her successors. Before Thatcher, the prime minister would refer any departmental questions to the appropriate secretary of state.

    https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
    Interesting. Wonder if Johnson has read the book, and might seek to return to the previous situation?

    Although actually - wasn't there always a way around it? - there used to be this farce at PMQs where dozens of MPs questions (which all had to be pre-submitted) were "asking about the PM's engagements for the day" - which would then lead (after the PM "referred to the answer they gave a few moments ago") to a basically open question that would hardly ever be ruled out of order.

    Did that not pre-date Thatcher?

    And of course the LOTO could always ask whatever they wished.
    Interesting, and I guess that’s the origin of “Question number one” which now traditionally opens PMQs with the PM commenting on their engagements of the day.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 24,525
    alex. said:

    alex. said:



    With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.

    The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.

    A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.

    As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
    And hopefully asking pertinent questions in the right places? ;)

    Fundamentally I agree totally - which is where this thread started. The danger that a "no deal Brexit" Government won't end up with subordinates competent enough to take decisions without serious risk. Because the most competent ones will be excluded either by their personal choice, or by the elevation of Brexiteer ideologues to deliver the main Government policy.

    In some ways it's the same problem Labour have for entirely different reasons (and obviously from a different angle - they don't take decisions!). The Labour front bench is a joke (you can disagree if you wish) but I have no doubt that with a different leadership it could be miles ahead in the polls in very short time, not least because there is serious heavyweight talent and ability on their backbenches that could be rapidly brought back from the cold.

    Can you name any of this supposed heavyweight talent , I need a laugh.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 27,137
    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:



    Incidentally, I've never heard of those three people. Are they meant to be somehow impressive?

    So what? Am I meant to be overawed by a self-styled welsh doctor not having heard of them?
    Thats not a very pleasant comment on a sunday morning
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143

    eristdoof said:


    It won't devastate us. If some of those 44% of exports have to pay tariffs or deal with non-tariff barriers then so be it. Its a shame, but it isn't the end of the world.

    More reassuring words from a No-Dealer.

    Shouldn't we be aiming for something a bit higher than "It won't devastate us"?
    We should though you took my words out of context. I was replying to a ludicrously OTT claim that a no deal Brexit would devastate us. I'm not a no dealer, but it wouldn't devastate us. It would be a minor inconvenience and we can do better than that but we may need to go through no deal as a stop gap before we can get a better deal.
    Not every Remainer is convinced that No Deal would be devastating in the short term. A number of us see it as Brexit dying with a whimper rather than a bang. I do see a gradual deteriation in business environment and economics as well as a corrosion of Britains social structure. Pointless self harm, but not fatal.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 3,697
    "Jonestown Brexit at all costs wing" *giggles*

    It's as bad in Labour. We have the Jonestown Jeremy at all costs wing. Unlike the Tory Kool-aid drinkers who don't know it will kill them, the fanatical Jezbollah worshippers DO know it will kill them and don't care, better dead than "Tory-lite"
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596
    edited July 7
    malcolmg said:

    alex. said:





    And hopefully asking pertinent questions in the right places? ;)

    Fundamentally I agree totally - which is where this thread started. The danger that a "no deal Brexit" Government won't end up with subordinates competent enough to take decisions without serious risk. Because the most competent ones will be excluded either by their personal choice, or by the elevation of Brexiteer ideologues to deliver the main Government policy.

    In some ways it's the same problem Labour have for entirely different reasons (and obviously from a different angle - they don't take decisions!). The Labour front bench is a joke (you can disagree if you wish) but I have no doubt that with a different leadership it could be miles ahead in the polls in very short time, not least because there is serious heavyweight talent and ability on their backbenches that could be rapidly brought back from the cold.

    Can you name any of this supposed heavyweight talent , I need a laugh.
    Perhaps I should just settle for "greater level of talent than is currently present in situ", some of whom weigh a lot.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    edited July 7
    Sandpit said:

    alex. said:



    A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.

    As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.

    The recent book on PMQs, Punch and Judy Politics, asserts that Mrs Thatcher's change to answering any questions marked a massive power grab by Number 10, because it meant all departments having to keep the prime minister in the loop for all major and most minor decisions. This practice has been continued by all her successors. Before Thatcher, the prime minister would refer any departmental questions to the appropriate secretary of state.

    https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
    Interesting. Wonder if Johnson has read the book, and might seek to return to the previous situation?

    Although actually - wasn't there always a way around it? - there used to be this farce at PMQs where dozens of MPs questions (which all had to be pre-submitted) were "asking about the PM's engagements for the day" - which would then lead (after the PM "referred to the answer they gave a few moments ago") to a basically open question that would hardly ever be ruled out of order.

    Did that not pre-date Thatcher?

    And of course the LOTO could always ask whatever they wished.
    Interesting, and I guess that’s the origin of “Question number one” which now traditionally opens PMQs with the PM commenting on their engagements of the day.
    The open, engagements of the day question, is credited (with a lot of reservations) to Labour's John Golding MP in 1975. In 1997, it was agreed to take it as read so prime ministers from Blair on have not had to refer the honourable lady or gentleman to the reply I made some moments ago half a dozen times each day.
This discussion has been closed.