Lack of thought on the details from the leave side ? Surely not.
"Its all going to be fine remoaners, leave won haha deal with it"
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Lack of thought on the details from the leave side ? Surely not.
"Its all going to be fine remoaners, leave won haha deal with it"
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
Do you really think NOTHING will be going on?
And if you bothered to read my previous post concerning the matter, I worked in a Government Department Headquarters for a time. I know how things move in those areas.
Sheesh...
I didn't see it. Don't have the time to read every post that gets made on this forum.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
Post #19851, previous page:
"...What will be going on now constantly is that the Heads of Departments will have teams of civil servants going through everything pertinent to their Department, and working through what needs to be done. None of what is going on will be made public, despite all the noises being made by the media that nothing is happening. One might say that matters are at the stage of being 'commercial-in confidence' (for want of a better phrase to describe the process), i.e. we will not show our hand in public at present, and neither will the EU..."
Not exactly hard to find if you read any of the last pages...
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
WHAT! The previous page......ffs people don't have the time to go back that far before making earth shattering pronouncements...........
From my own insights into various departments here and now, they are working to give us a benchmark as to what we currently enjoy from EU membership, and what we will stand to lose upon our leaving. They will be trying to document the laws that will need to be shifted across, and so on. What they won't be doing is deciding on the direction of travel from 2019 onwards, as they will need political input for that. The civil service deliver on instructions, not make up the instructions themselves.
For instance, I'm sure HEFCE and the Research Councils (I think they've been merged into a new body but can't remember the acronym) will have a lot to say about Horizon 2020, student visas and so on, but they can't decide what our academic relationship will be with the EU > 2019, that is down to Jo Johnson as the higher education minister.
I don't suppose anyone is doubting the civil service in this debate at all. Who they are doubting is the cabinet charged with providing a direction for this matter.
There are shedloads of things to be decided upon, whether it's what happens to the dozens of EU agencies of which we're a part and which play a crucial part of our relations with Europe, or the rights of nationals in the UK/EU, or future migration plans, or what kind of trading relationship we want with the EU or one of a whole bunch of other things. I'll ask again, do you think we're any clearer on any of these things in the 16 months since the vote ended?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
I think you've answered your question yourself Bruce. We have had these months to prepare an answer or at least identify the problems, and as you say our civil service will have been working on this. So yes, we will be clearer, and no we probably don't as yet have the final vision..........
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
First para I have set in bold. From what I knew, that is correct. However, in terms of the drafting of new laws/Regulations, that was normally done by civil servants following the steer from the politicians as to exactly what needed to be included in a Bill, and its intent. The individual who led the work was called the 'Bill Principal', Priincipal being the grade of the individual - Grade 7. The Bills presented in Parliament are the fruits of the incredible behind-the-scenes work that goes on to get it in the correct form, with the correct detail, in order to correctly set down the political intent. Even then, through the appellate process, the wording of Acts/Regulations can be changed through a successful appeal. The construction placed upon single words like 'should', 'will', 'can' and so on can be interpreted differently and legislated uopn, by the independent legal process (this usally means they go beyond the 'Tribunal' scenario and up into the law courts), as you probably already know, Bruce.
Last para I have set in bold. As I have said peviously and recently, neither I nor anyone else at present are cogniscent of where things are because of confidentiality aspects. I do not believe we would show our views/approach and negotiating stance in public prior to entering talks/discussions/agreements with opposite numbers in the EU. That would simply not be professional.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Gina Miller afraid to leave her home after threats of acid attacks
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ttacks?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ttacks?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
I disagree with this last part enormously. This isn't a negotiation or a process that is confined and limited in its impact to the government. It has huge implications for organisations and individuals. Both you and Pete have been around the bush long enough to know that planning for the future requires a degree of certainty or confidence that cannot exist so long as the intentions of the government are kept hidden from everyone. Lets consider this.
From an organisational perspective, there are a wide range of industries that through trading in Europe are heavily invested in the processes involved in doing so. We easily conflate trade arrangements with tariffs, but far more important are the non-tariff 'rules of the game' that allow everyone to function effectively across borders, and play by the same rules. Now you might say the government are working behind the scenes, have all this figured out, and are perhaps telling industries and/or companies their plans in private, but industry after industry is coming out in public saying they have absolutely no idea what post-Brexit will look like. Whether it's the nuclear industry, the air industry, the finance industry, agriculture or academia, none appear to have the first idea what the government's intentions are on things that are fundamentally important to them and their operations. That lack of certainty is already resulting in falling investment (in the best case) and hedging bets by moving abroad (in the worst case). Frankly, the 'keeping knowledge to yourself' line of negotiating relies on a zero sum mindset where the UK/EU are trying to defeat each other rather than work together, and it's frankly absurd.
From an individual perspective, you've got millions of people in both the UK and across Europe who equally, have no idea what on earth is going on. My other half hasn't had any secret memo saying "yeah, you'll be alright, just don't tell Junker", yet this has a real impact on the ability to plan for the future. How can you buy a house if you're not sure if you have the right to remain in the place you're buying in? How can you start a family if your child will have a different nationality to you and the state may split you up? How can you even apply for a new job when your prospective employers have no confidence that you will legally be able to stay in the country? The government could answer all of these questions and give some peace of mind to people that contribute enormously to our society, yet they choose not to. I don't like using the word as it's overused, but that is a disgrace.
So yes, we maybe aren't privy to what the government is doing, but all the evidence we do have suggests they're making a right royal hash of it.
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
We all could have been French.
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...inkname=bbcnews_merger_newsuk_merger&ns_fee=0
When Britain and France Almost Merged Into One Country
Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to The Atlantic Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.
On June 16, 1940, with Nazi Germany on the brink of crushing France, British prime minister Winston Churchill and French undersecretary of defense Charles de Gaulle met for lunch at the Carlton Club in London. These two great symbols of patriotism and national independence made an incredible agreement: Britain and France should be united into a single country called the “Franco-British Union.”
This was just two weeks after British and French troops were rescued from the beaches of Dunkirk, where they had become surrounded by German troops—a story captured in the new Christopher Nolan film Dunkirk. Although that battle story is fairly well known, the accompanying political drama that almost saw Britain and France merge is now largely forgotten. But the drama of that near-fusion can help explain the origins of European integration—and the reasons why Britain ultimately pulled away from the European Union in the decision we know as Brexit.
The scheme was born of crisis. On May 10, 1940, Germany had begun a relentless Blitzkrieg assault on France, and within a month, French resistance had largely collapsed. Defeatism was rife in France, and a dramatic step was needed to encourage the country to keep fighting from its colonies, and to stop the French fleet from falling into German hands.
A European Union flag is waved in front of Big Ben outside the Parliament in London on March 28, 2017.
The plan that emerged—to unify Britain and France into a single state—was not entirely new: The idea of integrating the European countries had floated around political circles for a few years, but always seemed fantastical. Catastrophe was about to turn impossibility into official policy.
On June 14, German troops entered Paris. During the next 48 hours, British and French civil servants drafted a proposal for a “Declaration on Franco-British Union.” This was no beefed-up wartime alliance, or a plan for partial integration similar to today’s European Union. The goal was to effectively create one country. The document stated: “At this most fateful moment in the history of the modern world, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the French Republic make this declaration of indissoluble union and unyielding resolution in their common defense of justice and freedom against subjection to a system which reduces mankind to a life of robots and slaves.” This meant: “France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union.”
At a stroke, hundreds of years of constitutional history would be swept away. There would be joint control of defense, foreign policy, finance, and economic policy. The two parliaments would be united, presumably with French representatives sitting in the House of Commons in London. Churchill’s private secretary said, “We had before us the bridge to a new world, the first elements of European or even World Federation.”
Events moved fast. On June 16, Churchill was personally skeptical but presented the idea to the all-party British Cabinet. He was swept along by a wave of enthusiasm. “I was somewhat surprised,” wrote Churchill, “to see the staid, solid, experienced politicians of all parties engage themselves so passionately in an immense design whose implications and consequences were not in any way thought out.” Churchill put his doubts aside and told the Cabinet, “In this crisis we must not let ourselves be accused of lack of imagination.”
Charles de Gaulle, who had arrived that morning in London, also had qualms about ending the country of France as he knew it. But de Gaulle embraced the plan as a grand move to change the course of history: “The gesture must be immediate.”
At 4:30 pm, de Gaulle telephoned Paul Reynaud, the French prime minister, who had fled the advancing Germans, going from Paris to Tours and then Bordeaux. Reynaud listened to the proposal for a Franco-British Union with mounting excitement, as he scribbled down the details. Here lay possible salvation for France. According to one eyewitness, “His eyebrows went up so far they became indistinguishable from his neatly brushed hair.” Reynaud suddenly interrupted de Gaulle. “Does he agree to this? Did Churchill give you this personally?” De Gaulle handed the receiver to Churchill, who assured Reynaud that he approved. Reynaud was “transfigured with joy.”
In London, Churchill boarded a train along with leaders of the major parties, ready for a rendezvous with destiny. The train would travel to the coast, and then the party would sail by ship to meet the French government and sign the Act of Union.
The train never left the station. The scheme collapsed as quickly as it arose. In the days prior to June 16, the French government had become consumed by defeatism, as well as anger at Britain for the perceived abandonment at Dunkirk (over 100,000 French troops had been rescued but thousands more were left behind on the beach, where they were forced to surrender to the Germans). Reynaud presented the proposal to the French Council of Ministers, but it was rejected as a British plot to seize the French empire. Marshal Pétain, 84 years old and the great hero of World War I, believed it was his duty to save France from total destruction and accept an armistice with Germany. Britain was doomed, he said, and union would be “fusion with a corpse.” Another minister concluded: “Better be a Nazi province. At least we know what that means.” Reynaud later wrote in his memoirs, “Those who rose in indignation at the idea of union with our ally were the same individuals who were getting ready to bow and scrape to Hitler.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...inkname=bbcnews_merger_newsuk_merger&ns_fee=0
When Britain and France Almost Merged Into One Country
Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to The Atlantic Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.
On June 16, 1940, with Nazi Germany on the brink of crushing France, British prime minister Winston Churchill and French undersecretary of defense Charles de Gaulle met for lunch at the Carlton Club in London. These two great symbols of patriotism and national independence made an incredible agreement: Britain and France should be united into a single country called the “Franco-British Union.”
This was just two weeks after British and French troops were rescued from the beaches of Dunkirk, where they had become surrounded by German troops—a story captured in the new Christopher Nolan film Dunkirk. Although that battle story is fairly well known, the accompanying political drama that almost saw Britain and France merge is now largely forgotten. But the drama of that near-fusion can help explain the origins of European integration—and the reasons why Britain ultimately pulled away from the European Union in the decision we know as Brexit.
The scheme was born of crisis. On May 10, 1940, Germany had begun a relentless Blitzkrieg assault on France, and within a month, French resistance had largely collapsed. Defeatism was rife in France, and a dramatic step was needed to encourage the country to keep fighting from its colonies, and to stop the French fleet from falling into German hands.
A European Union flag is waved in front of Big Ben outside the Parliament in London on March 28, 2017.
The plan that emerged—to unify Britain and France into a single state—was not entirely new: The idea of integrating the European countries had floated around political circles for a few years, but always seemed fantastical. Catastrophe was about to turn impossibility into official policy.
On June 14, German troops entered Paris. During the next 48 hours, British and French civil servants drafted a proposal for a “Declaration on Franco-British Union.” This was no beefed-up wartime alliance, or a plan for partial integration similar to today’s European Union. The goal was to effectively create one country. The document stated: “At this most fateful moment in the history of the modern world, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the French Republic make this declaration of indissoluble union and unyielding resolution in their common defense of justice and freedom against subjection to a system which reduces mankind to a life of robots and slaves.” This meant: “France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union.”
At a stroke, hundreds of years of constitutional history would be swept away. There would be joint control of defense, foreign policy, finance, and economic policy. The two parliaments would be united, presumably with French representatives sitting in the House of Commons in London. Churchill’s private secretary said, “We had before us the bridge to a new world, the first elements of European or even World Federation.”
Events moved fast. On June 16, Churchill was personally skeptical but presented the idea to the all-party British Cabinet. He was swept along by a wave of enthusiasm. “I was somewhat surprised,” wrote Churchill, “to see the staid, solid, experienced politicians of all parties engage themselves so passionately in an immense design whose implications and consequences were not in any way thought out.” Churchill put his doubts aside and told the Cabinet, “In this crisis we must not let ourselves be accused of lack of imagination.”
Charles de Gaulle, who had arrived that morning in London, also had qualms about ending the country of France as he knew it. But de Gaulle embraced the plan as a grand move to change the course of history: “The gesture must be immediate.”
At 4:30 pm, de Gaulle telephoned Paul Reynaud, the French prime minister, who had fled the advancing Germans, going from Paris to Tours and then Bordeaux. Reynaud listened to the proposal for a Franco-British Union with mounting excitement, as he scribbled down the details. Here lay possible salvation for France. According to one eyewitness, “His eyebrows went up so far they became indistinguishable from his neatly brushed hair.” Reynaud suddenly interrupted de Gaulle. “Does he agree to this? Did Churchill give you this personally?” De Gaulle handed the receiver to Churchill, who assured Reynaud that he approved. Reynaud was “transfigured with joy.”
In London, Churchill boarded a train along with leaders of the major parties, ready for a rendezvous with destiny. The train would travel to the coast, and then the party would sail by ship to meet the French government and sign the Act of Union.
The train never left the station. The scheme collapsed as quickly as it arose. In the days prior to June 16, the French government had become consumed by defeatism, as well as anger at Britain for the perceived abandonment at Dunkirk (over 100,000 French troops had been rescued but thousands more were left behind on the beach, where they were forced to surrender to the Germans). Reynaud presented the proposal to the French Council of Ministers, but it was rejected as a British plot to seize the French empire. Marshal Pétain, 84 years old and the great hero of World War I, believed it was his duty to save France from total destruction and accept an armistice with Germany. Britain was doomed, he said, and union would be “fusion with a corpse.” Another minister concluded: “Better be a Nazi province. At least we know what that means.” Reynaud later wrote in his memoirs, “Those who rose in indignation at the idea of union with our ally were the same individuals who were getting ready to bow and scrape to Hitler.”
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
No point, Bruce.
You show with your last post that you simply want to be argumentative, and are not willing to accept that there are protocols to go by.
God help the organisation you work for, because you obfuscate so much it really is not funny...
You show with your last post that you simply want to be argumentative, and are not willing to accept that there are protocols to go by.
God help the organisation you work for, because you obfuscate so much it really is not funny...
You worked for the civil service. That's their raison d'etre. Don't explain anything if it can't be done in flow-chart form
To be honest though, it's rather disappointing that I gave you the respect of providing a thought out reply, and you shrug your shoulders and say you can't be bothered.
I posted this yonks ago in one of these threads, but there have been a number of studies looking at the values etc. of people from around the world, and it's quite telling that in Europe, there is more division nationally than there is internationally. In other words, a resident of London (or Liverpool) has more in common with residents in Paris or Prague than they do with residents in Boston or Lincoln. That held across nations.
In a global world, the very idea of nationhood seems a bit of an anachronism to be honest.
- Status