The point of delaying (further) A50 was not just to get a consensus here. It was to flush out some form of commitment to a trading relationship with the EU post Brexit.
In essence, this whole shitshow is being done in reverse so that the EU can use “No Deal” as a threat to suborn the UK’s negotiating power.
Are you saying that we should have refused to trigger Article 50 indefinitely, unless the EU (for no reason) agreed to our demands? Because that's the same as saying we should have just refused to enact the result of the referendum.
"Corbyn says Grayling said that the taxpayer would not lose out from the Seaborne Freight contract. But £800,000 was spent on consultants.
May says the SNP asked about this yesterday. The money would have been spent by consultants whoever got the contract."
Wait, what? Is that really May's answer? Is it just me or does that make no sense at all?
They paid someone (presumably a big4) to run the process and do the diligence. It was that assessment not the answer that cost the money
If their due diligence said to award the contract to a company without ships and without any agreements to lease ships then surely the consultants have not done what they were paid for and we should get at least a partial refund?
I don’t want to be that person... Bill Gates didn’t have an operating system when he told IBM he could get one.
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
It's completely ridiculous to claim she rushed it. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake. Together with the transition period her timetable means five years to implement the referendum decision.
The issue wasn't the timing, it was the EU's absolute refusal to start negotiations before Article 50 was triggered, combined with their refusal even then to discuss the long-term relationship until very late in the process. Delaying triggering Article 50 wouldn't have helped - it's as daft to claim it would have done as it is for the ERGers to claim that the whole problem has been civil service treachery and a Remainer being in charge of the negotiations, or that somehow Cameron should have decided what the Leave campaign's exit plan should be.
The main "it was rushed" complaint really comes down to how little preparation was done in the period leading up to A50, particularly getting a rough consensus in cabinet or parliament as to what Brexit should look like. A year of very intense administrative preparation and political consensus-forming might have been enough, three years with less focus might have been insufficient time.
What would have been the point of spending a year getting a consensus on the UK's position, if you trigger Article 50 and the EU just say "no, that breaches our red lines"?
The process of forging that consensus would then tell you how you could bend it to reach an agreement with the EU, but you surely can't do that without forming a consensus first.
Apart from anything else all the sides involved in forming the consensus would have had to abandon, at least partially, their initial position. At the moment May's government and the EU are the only actors who have compromised. Everyone else is still holding out for total victory. Compromise takes practice.
Well, that's a fair point, except that in hindsight we know what would have happened in practice: the ERG would've refused to compromise at all, the Remainers would've therefore also refused to compromise at all, and meanwhile the political pressure to "just get on with it" would've become unbearable.
Also worth noting that when we triggered Article 50, we had a good relationship with the Irish PM, and broad bilateral agreement that the NI border wasn't going to present an unsolvable problem.
Didn’t the Irish PM (can’t spell his title and won’t embarrass myself trying) change after that?
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
They have made a call (rightly or wrongly) that their interpretation of Brexit means that restricting FoM is more important than preserving the trading advantages of the SM.
I don’t see that as a change in their DNA, just a tricky choice with consequences
The Conservatives are at best indifferent to business. Right now they have an impressive variety of business organisations screaming at them as a consequence.
Big business has abused their influence for too long. They threaten to relocate to get private advantages. They deserve a slapping.
"Corbyn says Grayling said that the taxpayer would not lose out from the Seaborne Freight contract. But £800,000 was spent on consultants.
May says the SNP asked about this yesterday. The money would have been spent by consultants whoever got the contract."
Wait, what? Is that really May's answer? Is it just me or does that make no sense at all?
They paid someone (presumably a big4) to run the process and do the diligence. It was that assessment not the answer that cost the money
If their due diligence said to award the contract to a company without ships and without any agreements to lease ships then surely the consultants have not done what they were paid for and we should get at least a partial refund?
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
They have made a call (rightly or wrongly) that their interpretation of Brexit means that restricting FoM is more important than preserving the trading advantages of the SM.
I don’t see that as a change in their DNA, just a tricky choice with consequences
The Conservatives are at best indifferent to business. Right now they have an impressive variety of business organisations screaming at them as a consequence.
Big business has abused their influence for too long. They threaten to relocate to get private advantages. They deserve a slapping.
"Tens of thousands of small firms were also struggling to cope with the uncertainty, said Mike Cherry, the head of the Federation of Small Businesses.
He said: “By asking for a further two weeks to try and renegotiate a deal with the EU, the government has simply called for further business uncertainty and political paralysis. The government needs to recognise the significant harm this is already doing to our small businesses – put simply, it is making it impossible for them to plan, hire and invest.” "
It means that they have made a decision which weighs the perceived interests of business against the perceived interest of the voters and come down on the side of the voters.
Destroying business doesn't help voters
Hence “perceived”
But I’m deliberately not trying to discuss outcomes, just why a specific policy - no matter how significant - doesn’t change a party’s dna
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
They have made a call (rightly or wrongly) that their interpretation of Brexit means that restricting FoM is more important than preserving the trading advantages of the SM.
I don’t see that as a change in their DNA, just a tricky choice with consequences
The Conservatives are at best indifferent to business. Right now they have an impressive variety of business organisations screaming at them as a consequence.
Big business has abused their influence for too long. They threaten to relocate to get private advantages. They deserve a slapping.
They threaten to relocate to get private advantages.
That is a business imperative.
Indeed. Which is why, post-Brexit, the UK will be so much better placed to offer tailor-made rules and tax incentives for business that wants to locate here.
The point of delaying (further) A50 was not just to get a consensus here. It was to flush out some form of commitment to a trading relationship with the EU post Brexit.
In essence, this whole shitshow is being done in reverse so that the EU can use “No Deal” as a threat to suborn the UK’s negotiating power.
Are you saying that we should have refused to trigger Article 50 indefinitely, unless the EU (for no reason) agreed to our demands? Because that's the same as saying we should have just refused to enact the result of the referendum.
And it was this populist logic which goaded May into exercising A50. As we see, like all populism, it doesn’t turn out very well.
We betrayed Gorbachev by promising not to expand NATO to Russian borders and then doing it anyway;
Who, exactly, made such a promise? The only treaty commitment made to Gorbachev was no foreign forces in the former East Germany when the unified Germany was inside NATO. He got nothing beyond that. The 'broken promise' is a myth stoked by Russia. If they didn't want their vassal states to switch sides as soon as they slipped the Soviet yoke then perhaps they should have been a bit less keen on totalitarian oppression, genocide and shoes made of cardboard.
This might be the first time I’ve wholeheartedly agreed with you on something. Well said.
It means that they have made a decision which weighs the perceived interests of business against the perceived interest of the voters and come down on the side of the voters.
Destroying business doesn't help voters
Hence “perceived”
But I’m deliberately not trying to discuss outcomes, just why a specific policy - no matter how significant - doesn’t change a party’s dna
The core Tory voter is now retired. They see helping business as abstract compared to restricting foreigners clogging up the NHS. Businesses unlike the retired are highly mobile. Once they have gone it will be a long time until they come back.
Comments
Are you saying that we should have refused to trigger Article 50 indefinitely, unless the EU (for no reason) agreed to our demands? Because that's the same as saying we should have just refused to enact the result of the referendum.
"Tens of thousands of small firms were also struggling to cope with the uncertainty, said Mike Cherry, the head of the Federation of Small Businesses.
He said: “By asking for a further two weeks to try and renegotiate a deal with the EU, the government has simply called for further business uncertainty and political paralysis. The government needs to recognise the significant harm this is already doing to our small businesses – put simply, it is making it impossible for them to plan, hire and invest.” "
But I’m deliberately not trying to discuss outcomes, just why a specific policy - no matter how significant - doesn’t change a party’s dna
Hardly news, is it?
NEW THREAD
It’s becayse the proponents of shareholder value forgot about their stakeholders
It’s quite funny seeing the People’s Vote campaign get their comeuppance.