Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
There was. The CEO resigned immediately. The CFO was fired. Problem was the chief of security took control without having any personality or clue on what to do next.
I think it's highly debatable that there was enough change in leadership, we have been governed by people unprepared for Leave winning, and are now governed by many of the same people who are unprepared for No Deal. Collectively their ability to assess risk seems to be quite useless.
Yes the leader should have been one of the Leave campaigners, someone who knew and understood what they wanted and how they were going to [try to] get there.
Andrea Leadsome?
I reckon she would have beaten May in the members vote.
Yes I think she would have. But she would not have been any better than May at conjuring up the Brexit unicorns.
Yes, but she would have believed harder. Which mattered. Apparently.
Cameron and Osborne were living in a bubble where Remain couldn't possibly lose.
No, Cameron was living in a bubble where HE couldn't possibly lose. He had thwarted the SNP's push for independence in 2014 and had won a GE majority against all the odds in 2015. He must have thought he had the people behind him and they would trust and support him no matter what.
Had he come back from his re-negotiation with any kind of sell-able deal (and if we'd remembered that we'd have had a clue as to what was waiting for May) he'd likely have walked the referendum but he didn't because the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him a deal which he could sell because that mean exiting the SM and probably the CU as well.
So, in the absence of anything else, all Cameron had was his own persuasive powers and he must have thought after 2014 and 2015, he could do it again just as Clegg must have thought he could get AV passed in 2011.
But he promised the EU referendum before either the 2015 election or the Scottish indyref.
Yes - he promised the EU Referendum on two contradictory bases - one, it stopped the seepage of Conservative votes to UKIP but second, I don't think he believed the Conservatives could or would win a majority in 2015 and if they had, for example, been largest party without a majority, he wouldn't have had to call the Referendum.
The Referendum was put forward on the basis of the Conservatives winning an overall majority which looked unlikely in 2013 - however, in putting that pledge forward Cameron ironically made the prospect of a majority more likely so he finished up having to implement a pledge he probably hoped he wouldn't have to implement.
He then must have been advised that having won the 2015 GE, his personal popularity would have bee enough to get a re-negotiated membership package passed which is what it was all about at the time - it was never going to be an IN-OUT vote when originally put forward but a vote on a renegotiated membership.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
That wouldn't be news, we've known that all along and even the Supreme Court has ruled on that. This new legal advice is meant to be about the legal implications of the backstop etc isn't it?
Who knows? They will not say but I suspect that the legal advice is telling them what they do not want to hear, because if it said exactly what they wanted it would be published with fanfares.
I think there’s a principle that this sort of thing stays private.
Maybe they shouldn't have agreed to do the opposite.
Still, there's a general principle, and there's the "do whatever you need to not make your catastrophic situation any worse".
Going back on your word and trying to suppress evidence that your deal is catastrophic is *going to make things worse*.
Weren’t they talking about releasing a top-level summary and not the nitty-gritty?
Yes, but they also have not done that. What they have released is a personal political opinion from Cox, when the government is committed to delivering a professional, legal one.
The government is absolutely trying to pull a fast one here.
The most stupid thing about it is we already know (via cabinet leaks and context from minutes) that the advice was catastrophic.
Hiding it achieves nothing except making things worse for May.
If the deal is voted down, or when, all the lets re-negotiate people should think about the EU side. They have had Cameron tell them he would win the ref. They have had May (assumption here) tell them this deal will get approved, they even had a big summit with the press there and expended political capital to bang some heads together. So if another Brit PM rocks up and says "Ah if you give me this then I can get that through." they have every right to be very sceptical. We are currently making them look foolish as well as ourselves. The only way I can see them approving any new deal or terms is if MAy and Corbyn rock up together and say both their parties or the bulk of will vote for the deal. If not they will provide only a bare minimum deal to keep their interests moving and that is transport, what ever is required to keep their trade surplus, residents rights, CFP and a couple more.
Cameron and Osborne were living in a bubble where Remain couldn't possibly lose.
No, Cameron was living in a bubble where HE couldn't possibly lose. He had thwarted the SNP's push for independence in 2014 and had won a GE majority against all the odds in 2015. He must have thought he had the people behind him and they would trust and support him no matter what.
Had he come back from his re-negotiation with any kind of sell-able deal (and if we'd remembered that we'd have had a clue as to what was waiting for May) he'd likely have walked the referendum but he didn't because the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him a deal which he could sell because that mean exiting the SM and probably the CU as well.
So, in the absence of anything else, all Cameron had was his own persuasive powers and he must have thought after 2014 and 2015, he could do it again just as Clegg must have thought he could get AV passed in 2011.
But he promised the EU referendum before either the 2015 election or the Scottish indyref.
Yes - he promised the EU Referendum on two contradictory bases - one, it stopped the seepage of Conservative votes to UKIP but second, I don't think he believed the Conservatives could or would win a majority in 2015 and if they had, for example, been largest party without a majority, he wouldn't have had to call the Referendum.
The Referendum was put forward on the basis of the Conservatives winning an overall majority which looked unlikely in 2013 - however, in putting that pledge forward Cameron ironically made the prospect of a majority more likely so he finished up having to implement a pledge he probably hoped he wouldn't have to implement.
He then must have been advised that having won the 2015 GE, his personal popularity would have bee enough to get a re-negotiated membership package passed which is what it was all about at the time - it was never going to be an IN-OUT vote when originally put forward but a vote on a renegotiated membership.
There's also another possibility: that he realised a referendum was inevitable.
A common thread on here (especially amongst Brexiteers) is that if a referendum had been held earlier, leave would have lost. For instance, not many Brexiteers seem to think, with hindsight, they would have won one on the Lisbon Treaty (which is odd given how pathetically they screeched for just such a referendum).
If this is the case, then it's perfectly possible to take a view on it such as: "I'm a Eurosceptic, but the EU also gives us many advantages. Let's try for a renegotiation that gives us the best of both worlds, and have a referendum on it as soon as possible before the Brexiteers get even more organised."
Talking of Boris, have we noticed this little bomblet?
It can now be revealed that UAE claims Hedges’ release could have been secured in the summer but was prolonged partly due to insufficient high-level assurances by the Foreign Office that he was not a spy.
It has been suggested that Boris Johnson, who was foreign secretary until 9 July, was not seen as a reliable pair of hands after he bungled aspects of the Foreign Office efforts to release Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
Tejada has said she was “very cautious” about Johnson and concerned his “flippant comments would hurt Matt’s case”.
One Emirati source said: “This is a very peculiar case that has left scars on both sides. People feel genuinely hurt and do not understand why it was not resolved back in July.”
If he was MI6 I'm sure he'd have been put on the next plane to London & told never to come back.
It looks like his private consultancy work may have strayed into areas the Emiratis took exception to - then because the FCO (yes, Boris, you) had recently mucked up the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case officials may have been reluctant to involve Boris in this case ("What's a little spying between friends?").....so instead of it being quickly sorted out at high level it ended up in the hands of the Dubai Court system and had to grind on....
If the deal is voted down, or when, all the lets re-negotiate people should think about the EU side. They have had Cameron tell them he would win the ref. They have had May (assumption here) tell them this deal will get approved, they even had a big summit with the press there and expended political capital to bang some heads together. So if another Brit PM rocks up and says "Ah if you give me this then I can get that through." they have every right to be very sceptical. We are currently making them look foolish as well as ourselves. The only way I can see them approving any new deal or terms is if MAy and Corbyn rock up together and say both their parties or the bulk of will vote for the deal. If not they will provide only a bare minimum deal to keep their interests moving and that is transport, what ever is required to keep their trade surplus, residents rights, CFP and a couple more.
I must admit at some points I thought they were being unreasonable in the negotiations, but actually they were simply pushing a strong hand. A strong hand but definitely a rigid one given they are negotiating for 27 countries. They ceeded on an NI only backstop, ultimately it is not their fault our elected representatives are completely incompetent.
If the deal is voted down, or when, all the lets re-negotiate people should think about the EU side. They have had Cameron tell them he would win the ref. They have had May (assumption here) tell them this deal will get approved, they even had a big summit with the press there and expended political capital to bang some heads together. So if another Brit PM rocks up and says "Ah if you give me this then I can get that through." they have every right to be very sceptical. We are currently making them look foolish as well as ourselves. The only way I can see them approving any new deal or terms is if MAy and Corbyn rock up together and say both their parties or the bulk of will vote for the deal. If not they will provide only a bare minimum deal to keep their interests moving and that is transport, what ever is required to keep their trade surplus, residents rights, CFP and a couple more.
I think that’s a pretty big assumption. She would undoubtedly have told them that a permanent backstop would be a very hard sell.
Comments
The Referendum was put forward on the basis of the Conservatives winning an overall majority which looked unlikely in 2013 - however, in putting that pledge forward Cameron ironically made the prospect of a majority more likely so he finished up having to implement a pledge he probably hoped he wouldn't have to implement.
He then must have been advised that having won the 2015 GE, his personal popularity would have bee enough to get a re-negotiated membership package passed which is what it was all about at the time - it was never going to be an IN-OUT vote when originally put forward but a vote on a renegotiated membership.
The government is absolutely trying to pull a fast one here.
The most stupid thing about it is we already know (via cabinet leaks and context from minutes) that the advice was catastrophic.
Hiding it achieves nothing except making things worse for May.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46358969
So if another Brit PM rocks up and says "Ah if you give me this then I can get that through." they have every right to be very sceptical. We are currently making them look foolish as well as ourselves.
The only way I can see them approving any new deal or terms is if MAy and Corbyn rock up together and say both their parties or the bulk of will vote for the deal. If not they will provide only a bare minimum deal to keep their interests moving and that is transport, what ever is required to keep their trade surplus, residents rights, CFP and a couple more.
A common thread on here (especially amongst Brexiteers) is that if a referendum had been held earlier, leave would have lost. For instance, not many Brexiteers seem to think, with hindsight, they would have won one on the Lisbon Treaty (which is odd given how pathetically they screeched for just such a referendum).
If this is the case, then it's perfectly possible to take a view on it such as: "I'm a Eurosceptic, but the EU also gives us many advantages. Let's try for a renegotiation that gives us the best of both worlds, and have a referendum on it as soon as possible before the Brexiteers get even more organised."
It looks like his private consultancy work may have strayed into areas the Emiratis took exception to - then because the FCO (yes, Boris, you) had recently mucked up the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case officials may have been reluctant to involve Boris in this case ("What's a little spying between friends?").....so instead of it being quickly sorted out at high level it ended up in the hands of the Dubai Court system and had to grind on....
They ceeded on an NI only backstop, ultimately it is not their fault our elected representatives are completely incompetent.