Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Frank Bullitt · 08-07-2019 11:45PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148298496140820480

This whole thing just keeps on getting weirder and weirder...that post-brexit trade deal will be a slaughter.

WomanSkirtFan8 · 08-07-2019 11:49PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Ah so according to a Tory MP the eu will be making Ireland suffer. The UK don’t want to impose a border and the EU will be the ones to impose the border. This documentary isn’t helping the UK look any better.

The UK's reputation was already destroyed long ago but yeah, I agree completely with you. It's a little bit too late for the UK now. You reap what you sow. :cool:

maynooth_rules · 09-07-2019 12:43AM

Watching Panorama on BBC tonight, they were discussing of UK was ready for a no deal brexit. Spoke to a dairy farmer in Fermanagh who sends all his milk to the Republic. He was saying his livelihood is gone if a no deal happens. The fool voted to Leave :rolleyes:. There is a part of me that thinks the UK needs a hard Brexit, it needs a reality check for the daily mail, daily telegraph and bigoted baby boomers. Brexit has become a cult, a religion, in which most leave voters will refuse to accept reality even when it's in front of their face. Michael Gives words from a few years back are proving through, the British are tired of listening to experts.

joeysoap · 09-07-2019 01:47AM

News on ITV earlier tonight said all foreign office emails were deleted after 3 months. That somebody must have had access and recorded them. Said ambassador was leaving the job later this year anyway and new prime minister would get to appoint his choice anyway.

Peston wouldn’t be surprised if the Russians were behind this, well within their capabilities.

09-07-2019 02:44AM

You'd think that in 2019, personal criticism of the government and president in the country you're an ambassador in could be left to secure phonecalls instead of being put in writing. It's not like he was saying anything no one knew already.

The West could do with some lessons on Saving Face and Losing Face.

Peregrinus · 09-07-2019 02:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd think that in 2019, personal criticism of the government and president in the country you're an ambassador in could be left to secure phonecalls instead of being put in writing. It's not like he was saying anything no one knew already.

The West could do with some lessons on Saving Face and Losing Face.

What, is the ambassador supposed to have a separate phone call with everbody who might have an interest in his assessment of the host government? Or is everybody involved supposed to clear their diaries for a grand conference call? And do the same for a conference call with every other country to which the UK has accredited an ambassador?

A key part of managing information flows is making sure the information is available to those who need it, when they need it. That's why this stuff is put in writing.

The problem here is not that the ambassador held the views he did - they are absolutely mainstream views. Nor is it a problem that he communicated his views to his government - that's his job. Nor is it a problem that the ambassador's reports to his government are recorded, and are available for subsequent consultation - they wouldn't be much use if they weren't. The problem is that the reports were leaked. That's it.

09-07-2019 03:29AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

What, is the ambassador supposed to have a separate phone call with everbody who might have an interest in his assessment of the host government? Or is everybody involved supposed to clear their diaries for a grand conference call? And do the same for a conference call with every other country to which the UK has accredited an ambassador?

A key part of managing information flows is making sure the information is available to those who need it, when they need it. That's why this stuff is put in writing.

The problem here is not that the ambassador held the views he did - they are absolutely mainstream views. Nor is it a problem that he communicated his views to his government - that's his job. Nor is it a problem that the ambassador's reports to his government are recorded, and are available for subsequent consultation - they wouldn't be much use if they weren't. The problem is that the reports were leaked. That's it.

Fair enough, but it was hardly an unforeseen problem. I wonder if he were replaced, would the next person be told to be less candid in communications with their personal assessments of commonly held mainstream views that could lead to embarrassments and diplomatic incidents.

Peregrinus · 09-07-2019 03:49AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough, but it was hardly an unforeseen problem. I wonder if he were replaced, would the next person be told to be less candid in communications with their personal assessments of commonly held mainstream views that could lead to embarrassments and diplomatic incidents.

No, absolutely not. You want your ambassadors to give you their frank assessment of what they observe in their host country; that's a key part of the job. You can take it for granted that other ambassadors in Washington are sending back similarly ripe reports to their governments, and you can also take it for granted that ambassadors accredited to in London are being frank and unvarnished about the catastrotrainwreck that is the implementation of Brexit by HMG.

The leak of reports like this is obviusly problematic. But I don't think the problem is solved by telling your ambassadors not to send you reports like this. If you really don't want the ambassador to do his job, you could save an awful lot of money by just not sending him out there in the first place.

Call me Al · 09-07-2019 07:56AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fair enough, but it was hardly an unforeseen problem. I wonder if he were replaced, would the next person be told to be less candid in communications with their personal assessments of commonly held mainstream views that could lead to embarrassments and diplomatic incidents.

This type of communication is the personal view and opinion of an ambassador and for that reason it's for the eyes of maybe only a half dozen individuals, so I disagree when you say it was hardly unforeseen.

Peregrinus · 09-07-2019 08:11AM

Diplomatic cables have been around for a long time, and the protocols around handling them and ensuring their security are very well established. In this instance the immediate impact on the UK/US relationship is of course unfortunate, and the grandstanding opportunity it gives to that wing of the Brexit movement that seeks to prostitute UK sovereignty to the US right wing is to be regretted. But the Foreign Office will be far, far more concerned about the long-term implications of a security breach affecting the confidentiality of diplomatic reports. They'll be asking themselves what other UK diplomatic cables have been read and by whom, and what they can do to assure the future confidentiality of diplomatic reports if they can't trace and plug the lead that occurred on this occasion.

BobbyBobberson · 09-07-2019 08:15AM

Maynooth Rules has made a point I was just about to make. I was at a conference last week and one person remarked 'Once British politics returns to normal" and they felt things would eventually turn out OK. I just cannot see how anyone can have this viewpoint. Things have been crazy for years and show no sign of improving. In fact in the space of 3 years Brexit has gone from a deal to "The British people gave a mandate for no deal".

This normality is just not going to happen, the only thing that (in my opinion) will set British politics back to relative normality is a hard Brexit. The whole country needs a massive reset and a massive reality check.

Revoke Article 50 and remain = More of what we have had the past few years but even angrier
Soft Brexit = "We were betrayed" and still the circus will go on
EU blinks first = Only adds fuel to the people pushing this mess (I don't think this will happen obviously, just another scenario)

It is only once there is no food on the shelves in Tesco, that the pound has dropped even further, that there are insulin shortages, that food is rotting in the fields and that there are huge job losses across sectors will the 52% wake up and grasp reality.

johnnyskeleton · 09-07-2019 08:29AM

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

It is only once there is no food on the shelves in Tesco, that the pound has dropped even further, that there are insulin shortages, that food is rotting in the fields and that there are huge job losses across sectors will the 52% wake up and grasp reality.

Im not sure they will. These are the people who vote Brexit Party candidates to the "undemocratic" EU parliament but not to Westminster and complain that the will of the people is not being represented. They also complain about the EU Council (i.e. democratically elected heads of state for each EU Country) undemocratically selecting position holders in EU institutions but dont seem to mind their next Prime Minister for 60m people being chosen by 160,000 odd party members. They like the idea of suspending parliament to secure Brexit, a perfectly democratic way to do things in their eyes, but are staunchly opposed to a further public vote on Brexit as being undemocratic.

When you see all of this, its reasonable to presume that post Brexit, any ills that befall them will be due to the EUs bullying or their own politicians betrayal, or likely both. Bexit is only responsible for good things; bad things are caused by other factors.

Also, I would expect that the immediate consequences will not be as pronounced as that, unless the EU act deliberately to cause such an outcome, whivh I doubt theyd do. It is the medium to long term damage that will be worse, but they wont attribute that to Brexit, for the exact same reasons.

Call me Al · 09-07-2019 08:30AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Diplomatic cables have been around for a long time, and the protocols around handling them and ensuring their security are very well established. In this instance the immediate impact on the UK/US relationship is of course unfortunate, and the grandstanding opportunity it gives to that wing of the Brexit movement that seeks to prostitute UK sovereignty to the US right wing is to be regretted. But the Foreign Office will be far, far more concerned about the long-term implications of a security breach affecting the confidentiality of diplomatic reports. They'll be asking themselves what other UK diplomatic cables have been read and by whom, and what they can do to assure the future confidentiality of diplomatic reports if they can't trace and plug the lead that occurred on this occasion.

A British ex-ambassador was on Newsnight last night and explained that this was not a "mere" cable. The type of communication which has been leaked was a handwritten (I think he said) private letter, to a named individual. It is a letter detailing the private personal opinions of an ambassador. As such these thoughts are not communicated as a diplomatic cable because cables pass through many hands and are seen by many pairs of eyes.
It is a letter specifically for the eyes of maximum 6/10 people. It is an extremely sensitive document and he went on to say that it needs to be secure means of communication or ambassadors will simply not trust their views and opinions with anyone no matter how senior their post.
It was a good interview towards the end of the show.

Beechwoodspark · 09-07-2019 08:30AM

Listened to some of the today show on bbc 4

Hague on making pathetic excuses regarding trumps insults. Lots of hand wringing and oh wells...

He says the UK should be firm but calm in response but definitely not escalate the row

The UK have really humiliated themselves at this stage and I have a feeling things are going to get even worse.

Peregrinus · 09-07-2019 08:32AM

I don't see any reason to assume that even a hard Brexit will return things to "normal". The hardship, dislocation, etc is likely to disrupt things further, not settle them down. And people will be very slow to accept that they made a colossal mistake and that those saying "I told you so' did, in fact, tell them so. They are far more likely to buy into the view that Brexit has gone badly because of the machinations of the domestic and foreign enemies of Brexit.

lawred2 · 09-07-2019 08:34AM

I'm sorry... I've been slow to the game here - what's this diplomatic row about? What was leaked?

Peregrinus · 09-07-2019 08:43AM

lawred2 wrote: »

I'm sorry... I've been slow to the game here - what's this diplomatic row about? What was leaked?

A diplomatic report which the UK ambassador to Washington sent back to a few top-level people in London, in which he spoke frankly and freely about the sh!tshow that is the current White House. While nobody is in the least surprised that he held these views or that he expressed them to London, the revelation has annoyed the White House and Trump has reacted with his characteristic maturity and measured balance.

The report was sent some time ago, I think about mid-2017, but it has only recently leaked. The leak is worrying because so few people are supposed to have had access to the report.

Borderhopper · 09-07-2019 08:45AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see any reason to assume that even a hard Brexit will return things to "normal". The hardship, dislocation, etc is likely to disrupt things further, not settle them down. And people will be very slow to accept that they made a colossal mistake and that those saying "I told you so' did, in fact, tell them so. They are far more likely to buy into the view that Brexit has gone badly because of the machinations of the domestic and foreign enemies of Brexit.

I agree. People as a group don’t like to here that the decision they made in haste, without considering all the consequences, was wrong, because that would make them an idiot, and they’re definitely not idiots, are they?

This happens in all sections of society, even with highly trained, intelligent individuals in the medical sector. It’s hard to admit a mistake, so it’s rationalised, the mistakes are compounded, until eventually the position someone is finally at is far removed from one they’d originally taken

Russman · 09-07-2019 08:58AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

A diplomatic report which the UK ambassador to Washington sent back to a few top-level people in London, in which he spoke frankly and freely about the sh!tshow that is the current White House. While nobody is in the least surprised that he held these views or that he expressed them to London, the revelation has annoyed the White House and Trump has reacted with his characteristic maturity and measured balance.

The report was sent some time ago, I think about mid-2017, but it has only recently leaked. The leak is worrying because so few people are supposed to have had access to the report.

You would think that fact in itself would make it slightly easier to trace the leak though, no ?

This whole Brexit thing is all getting a bit mad(er) Ted. I'd love to know what Trump's advice to May actually was, one can only imagine.

Cryptopagan · 09-07-2019 08:59AM

Borderhopper wrote: »

I agree. People as a group don’t like to here that the decision they made in haste, without considering all the consequences, was wrong, because that would make them an idiot, and they’re definitely not idiots, are they?

This happens in all sections of society, even with highly trained, intelligent individuals in the medical sector. It’s hard to admit a mistake, so it’s rationalised, the mistakes are compounded, until eventually the position someone is finally at is far removed from one they’d originally taken

Though if the disruption is as bad as expected, they are going to be highly motivated to rationalize an about-face on making a deal.

Russman · 09-07-2019 09:00AM

Borderhopper wrote: »

I agree. People as a group don’t like to here that the decision they made in haste, without considering all the consequences, was wrong, because that would make them an idiot, and they’re definitely not idiots, are they?

This happens in all sections of society, even with highly trained, intelligent individuals in the medical sector. It’s hard to admit a mistake, so it’s rationalised, the mistakes are compounded, until eventually the position someone is finally at is far removed from one they’d originally taken

Similar to the narrative now being that 17.4m people voted for a no-deal crash out I guess. Reeling in the Years should be interesting in about 10 years time when they look back on this.

Peregrinus · 09-07-2019 09:01AM

There's a "seven-year rule" in politics, which holds that all mistakes have receded into the past within approximately seven years. So, for example, the Liberal Democrats revival this year marks the end of the period where the electorate punishes them for their assent to Tory proposals to sharply increase tuition fees in English and Welsh universities.

By this rule, about seven years after Brexit it will be possible for public opinion in the UK to consider whether the UK should rejoin, or seek a closer association with, the EU without that being a conversation about whether the original Brexit decision was right and, if not, who is to blame for it. After that lapse of time people will be able to tell themselves "well, it hasn't worked out very well, but that doesn't mean the original decision was wrong and should not have been taken. In the light of developments that have happened since them, it's time to reconsider the decision".

Peregrinus · 09-07-2019 09:02AM

Russman wrote: »

You would think that fact in itself would make it slightly easier to trace the leak though, no ?

This whole Brexit thing is all getting a bit mad(er) Ted. I'd love to know what Trump's advice to May actually was, one can only imagine.

You don't have to imagine; you can read it in his Twitter timeline. It was "sue the EU!".

Christy42 · 09-07-2019 09:06AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You don't have to imagine; you can read it in his Twitter timeline. It was "sue the EU!".

Ah yes but he is leaving the door open to assume more was said to her in private and whatever that was was definitely whatever I believe.

And you are not allowed counter it as you don't what it was. But it was definitely right and would have given the UK complete command of Europe.

Cryptopagan · 09-07-2019 09:11AM

Russman wrote: »

Similar to the narrative now being that 17.4m people voted for a no-deal crash out I guess. Reeling in the Years should be interesting in about 10 years time when they look back on this.

Reeling in the Years’s linear format will never adequately narrate Brexit. Brexit doesn’t unfold in the way typical of news stories; it folds back in on itself, each time shedding meaning and further confounding scrutiny. One day we will wander into art installations filled with banks of TV monitors, and the accrued news footage that represents “Brexit” will play on simultaneous loops all around us, slowly driving the spectator mad.

Peregrinus · 09-07-2019 09:12AM

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Reeling in the Years’s linear format will never adequately narrate Brexit. Brexit doesn’t unfold in the way typical of news stories; it folds back in on itself. One day we will wander into art installations filled with banks of TV monitors, and the accrued news footage that represents “Brexit” will play on simultaneous loops all around us, slowly driving the spectator mad.

"Slowly"?

CelticRambler · 09-07-2019 09:19AM

Cryptopagan wrote: »

One day we will wander into art installations filled with banks of TV monitors, and the accrued news footage that represents “Brexit” will play on simultaneous loops all around us, slowly driving the spectator mad.

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Slowly"?

Slowly being the best way to boil a frog. :pac: That'll be the point of the installation: the spectator won't realise how mad they've become till they leave the gallery (if they ever manage to do so)

BonnieSituation · 09-07-2019 09:22AM

Russman wrote: »

Similar to the narrative now being that 17.4m people voted for a no-deal crash out I guess. Reeling in the Years should be interesting in about 10 years time when they look back on this.

I do love the Irish way of refering back to "Reeling in the Years" for all this stuff. It truly will be something though.

The 1985, 1994 and 1998 ones being particular gems for political machinations with Britannia.

Re the Trump/Ambassador row, it is quite something, regardless of who is in the WH, rthat Ambassadors are not being defended to the hilt, regardless of what was stated. Ambassadors and Embassies need the full support and backing of the home Govt otherwise what are they doing there!

Just look at the furore over the US State Dept recommendation that US citizens avoid Longitude. That would have emanated from Ballsbridge to begin with. And despite the obvious ridiculousness of it (to our mind), the USSD would have backed the recommendation given the local "knowledge" that came to the conclusion.

Peregrinus · 09-07-2019 09:35AM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Re the Trump/Ambassador row, it is quite something, regardless of who is in the WH, rthat Ambassadors are not being defended to the hilt, regardless of what was stated. Ambassadors and Embassies need the full support and backing of the home Govt otherwise what are they doing there!

SFAIK Downing Street has expressed full confidence in Kim Darroch.

Four to five years is a normal rotation in a senior UK diplomatic post. Darroch's appointment to Washington was announced in 2015 and took effect in January 2016, so he would be due for rotation next year anyway. Plus, he turned 65 in April, and so can retire.

It's possible that the leak of these cables (some of which are 2 years old) has been timed so that, when Darroch is moved or retired in the ordinary course, it can be claimed that this is evidence of the influence of the Brexit movement, and of the UK diplomatic establishment accepting Brexiter views on how the UK's relationship with the US should be conducted.

LeinsterDub · 09-07-2019 09:36AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a "seven-year rule" in politics, which holds that all mistakes have receded into the past within approximately seven years. So, for example, the Liberal Democrats revival this year marks the end of the period where the electorate punishes them for their assent to Tory proposals to sharply increase tuition fees in English and Welsh universities.

By this rule, about seven years after Brexit it will be possible for public opinion in the UK to consider whether the UK should rejoin, or seek a closer association with, the EU without that being a conversation about whether the original Brexit decision was right and, if not, who is to blame for it. After that lapse of time people will be able to tell themselves "well, it hasn't worked out very well, but that doesn't mean the original decision was wrong and should not have been taken. In the light of developments that have happened since them, it's time to reconsider the decision".

"Minor" issues such as taxes are forgiven much quicker than "Major" issues such as constitutional change are often considered unforgivable especially when the losing side feels cheated . Civil War politics are still a factor of Irish politics and effected American politics up to the 60`s

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments