BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Jez mon

The reality is that only wanting a FTA doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, we still want access to a whole bunch of pan European bodiess

And just because we get an FTA, it doesn't necessarily follow that we will have frictionless trade, which is what our auto industry would want.

But beyond that, any kind of bilateral agreement will introduce some degree of giving up sole control of our destiny as a country, a concept that no one on the 'winning' side seems to really grasp.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that a large part of an ambassadors job is to deal with senior figures in the government of the country where he is located, it is a bit difficult to see how he can do that job if that government refuses to deal with him for whatever reason.

Trump says all sorts of stuff. He has form for loudly and publicly slagging someone off and then later letting them know in private that he doesn't really mean it. It would have been worth at least testing out whether he meant it, but too late now. We managed to get through the novichok incident and keep our Russian ambassador in place, but a handful of tweets - tweets FFS! - and we're swapping our US ambassador on request.

Even Darroch himself has said that it's not possible for him to do his job in the circumstances. Its likely that he knows more that you about this...

Sure, after BoJo refused to back him.

Big deal. BoJo has been elected to nothing yet.

My original point still stands.

bobmcstuff

Coopster the 1st wrote:

There attitude and approach has been to stop Brexit and undermine democracy ever since the results were announced on 24th June 2016.

You have zero evidence for that and I doubt it is true. It certainly doesn't match up with the attitude of anyone I know.

However there's plenty of evidence for the leavers moving towards a harder and harder Brexit as the process has gone on, which does make you wonder if a no deal was the ultimate goal for more of them than initially admitted.

antonyfromoz

bobmcstuff wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

There attitude and approach has been to stop Brexit and undermine democracy ever since the results were announced on 24th June 2016.

You have zero evidence for that and I doubt it is true. It certainly doesn't match up with the attitude of anyone I know.

However there's plenty of evidence for the leavers moving towards a harder and harder Brexit as the process has gone on, which does make you wonder if a no deal was the ultimate goal for more of them than initially admitted.

Interesting tweet of Nigel expounding on the desirability of the UK being a member of the EEA like Norway - funny how he denies pushing for this when questioned now (what is it with these hard right BSAs who think they can just make things up, deny anything they have said or done and that is fine? Still worse are those who ignore this or buy in to the BS though): https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1 ... frame.html

antonyfromoz

antonyfromoz wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

There attitude and approach has been to stop Brexit and undermine democracy ever since the results were announced on 24th June 2016.

You have zero evidence for that and I doubt it is true. It certainly doesn't match up with the attitude of anyone I know.

However there's plenty of evidence for the leavers moving towards a harder and harder Brexit as the process has gone on, which does make you wonder if a no deal was the ultimate goal for more of them than initially admitted.

Interesting tweet of Nigel expounding on the desirability of the UK being a member of the EEA like Norway - funny how he denies pushing for this when questioned now (what is it with these hard right BSAs who think they can just make things up, deny anything they have said or done and that is fine? Still worse are those who ignore this or buy in to the BS though): https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1 ... frame.html

But this is the ultimate irony really and it just shows the stunning hypocracy of Farage et al: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681

pblakeney

antonyfromoz wrote:

But this is the ultimate irony really and it just shows the stunning hypocracy of Farage et al: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681

That, and the campaign for a second referendum in 2016 was started by a Brexiteer who thought the result wasn't going to go his way.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that a large part of an ambassadors job is to deal with senior figures in the government of the country where he is located, it is a bit difficult to see how he can do that job if that government refuses to deal with him for whatever reason.

Trump says all sorts of stuff. He has form for loudly and publicly slagging someone off and then later letting them know in private that he doesn't really mean it. It would have been worth at least testing out whether he meant it, but too late now. We managed to get through the novichok incident and keep our Russian ambassador in place, but a handful of tweets - tweets FFS! - and we're swapping our US ambassador on request.

Even Darroch himself has said that it's not possible for him to do his job in the circumstances. Its likely that he knows more that you about this...

Sure, after BoJo refused to back him.

Big deal. BoJo has been elected to nothing yet.

My original point still stands.

Oh come off it. It would be a major upset if Hunt won. Johnson was briefly Foreign Secretary. I know he's famous for not bothering with detail but he can't argue he didn't understand the implication of the question he was asked. If someone asks your future boss if you have their confidence and they equivocate, you're going to at least get your CV up to date.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that a large part of an ambassadors job is to deal with senior figures in the government of the country where he is located, it is a bit difficult to see how he can do that job if that government refuses to deal with him for whatever reason.

Trump says all sorts of stuff. He has form for loudly and publicly slagging someone off and then later letting them know in private that he doesn't really mean it. It would have been worth at least testing out whether he meant it, but too late now. We managed to get through the novichok incident and keep our Russian ambassador in place, but a handful of tweets - tweets FFS! - and we're swapping our US ambassador on request.

Even Darroch himself has said that it's not possible for him to do his job in the circumstances. Its likely that he knows more that you about this...

Sure, after BoJo refused to back him.

Big deal. BoJo has been elected to nothing yet.

My original point still stands.

Oh come off it. It would be a major upset if Hunt won. Johnson was briefly Foreign Secretary. I know he's famous for not bothering with detail but he can't argue he didn't understand the implication of the question he was asked. If someone asks your future boss if you have their confidence and they equivocate, you're going to at least get your CV up to date.

If as you claim it's just a few tweets then it will all blow over then why worry about what might happen a few weeks down the line.

As mentioned, Darroch knows more than you on this and would not resign a job like that if he could still do it effectively.

tailwindhome

It would have amused me greatly had this thread landed on 1690 pages for the Twelth of July.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that a large part of an ambassadors job is to deal with senior figures in the government of the country where he is located, it is a bit difficult to see how he can do that job if that government refuses to deal with him for whatever reason.

Trump says all sorts of stuff. He has form for loudly and publicly slagging someone off and then later letting them know in private that he doesn't really mean it. It would have been worth at least testing out whether he meant it, but too late now. We managed to get through the novichok incident and keep our Russian ambassador in place, but a handful of tweets - tweets FFS! - and we're swapping our US ambassador on request.

Even Darroch himself has said that it's not possible for him to do his job in the circumstances. Its likely that he knows more that you about this...

Sure, after BoJo refused to back him.

Big deal. BoJo has been elected to nothing yet.

My original point still stands.

Oh come off it. It would be a major upset if Hunt won. Johnson was briefly Foreign Secretary. I know he's famous for not bothering with detail but he can't argue he didn't understand the implication of the question he was asked. If someone asks your future boss if you have their confidence and they equivocate, you're going to at least get your CV up to date.

If as you claim it's just a few tweets then it will all blow over then why worry about what might happen a few weeks down the line.

As mentioned, Darroch knows more than you on this and would not resign a job like that if he could still do it effectively.

Why did BoJo hesitate to back his own ambassador?
After all, since the resignation he’s heaped nothing but praise on the man.

Is BoJo so desperate to please Trump he’ll throw his own civil servants under the bus?

rick_chasey

Fwiw, the first topic on Wednesday night on the Dutch NOS political discussion programme was this same topic and they all were very bemused why he had to go then.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that a large part of an ambassadors job is to deal with senior figures in the government of the country where he is located, it is a bit difficult to see how he can do that job if that government refuses to deal with him for whatever reason.

Trump says all sorts of stuff. He has form for loudly and publicly slagging someone off and then later letting them know in private that he doesn't really mean it. It would have been worth at least testing out whether he meant it, but too late now. We managed to get through the novichok incident and keep our Russian ambassador in place, but a handful of tweets - tweets FFS! - and we're swapping our US ambassador on request.

Even Darroch himself has said that it's not possible for him to do his job in the circumstances. Its likely that he knows more that you about this...

Sure, after BoJo refused to back him.

Big deal. BoJo has been elected to nothing yet.

My original point still stands.

Oh come off it. It would be a major upset if Hunt won. Johnson was briefly Foreign Secretary. I know he's famous for not bothering with detail but he can't argue he didn't understand the implication of the question he was asked. If someone asks your future boss if you have their confidence and they equivocate, you're going to at least get your CV up to date.

If as you claim it's just a few tweets then it will all blow over then why worry about what might happen a few weeks down the line.

As mentioned, Darroch knows more than you on this and would not resign a job like that if he could still do it effectively.

Why did BoJo hesitate to back his own ambassador?
After all, since the resignation he’s heaped nothing but praise on the man.

Is BoJo so desperate to please Trump he’ll throw his own civil servants under the bus?

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that a large part of an ambassadors job is to deal with senior figures in the government of the country where he is located, it is a bit difficult to see how he can do that job if that government refuses to deal with him for whatever reason.

Trump says all sorts of stuff. He has form for loudly and publicly slagging someone off and then later letting them know in private that he doesn't really mean it. It would have been worth at least testing out whether he meant it, but too late now. We managed to get through the novichok incident and keep our Russian ambassador in place, but a handful of tweets - tweets FFS! - and we're swapping our US ambassador on request.

Even Darroch himself has said that it's not possible for him to do his job in the circumstances. Its likely that he knows more that you about this...

Sure, after BoJo refused to back him.

Big deal. BoJo has been elected to nothing yet.

My original point still stands.

Oh come off it. It would be a major upset if Hunt won. Johnson was briefly Foreign Secretary. I know he's famous for not bothering with detail but he can't argue he didn't understand the implication of the question he was asked. If someone asks your future boss if you have their confidence and they equivocate, you're going to at least get your CV up to date.

If as you claim it's just a few tweets then it will all blow over then why worry about what might happen a few weeks down the line.

As mentioned, Darroch knows more than you on this and would not resign a job like that if he could still do it effectively.

Why did BoJo hesitate to back his own ambassador?
After all, since the resignation he’s heaped nothing but praise on the man.

Is BoJo so desperate to please Trump he’ll throw his own civil servants under the bus?

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

I'd hope ambassadors are thicker skinned than you suggest in that regard.

The issue he had to face was that quite literally there was a spy in the works and that his own country was remarkably ambivalent about the problem. Had he enjoyed the whole-hearted support of the nasty Tories then pas de probleme but I don't think the Tories can muster a whole heart between the lot of them right now.

We have become a remarkably ambivalent nation, and that's just England, never mind the gulf opening up in other parts of the alleged Union. Same in Trump's USA of course.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

I guess this is a good point to remind you of what the Dutch think of the US ambassador to the Netherlands, who campaigned on stories that Dutch politicians were being burned in Dutch no-go-zones.

Funnily enough, the Dutch don't want to work with him either, but since Trump is backing him, there's not much they can do.

These are short videos but very entertaining (honestly, it's the best gotcha interview I've ever seen).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8AwFc9hlf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

"Is it because I is a Tory?" No. It's largely senior Conservative MPs who are leading the criticism of Johnson. Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Tom Tugendhat, Junior Foreign Minister Sir Alan Duncan and several others. I think it was only Peter Bone that defended him in Parliament yesterday.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

I guess this is a good point to remind you of what the Dutch think of the US ambassador to the Netherlands, who campaigned on stories that Dutch politicians were being burned in Dutch no-go-zones.

Funnily enough, the Dutch don't want to work with him either, but since Trump is backing him, there's not much they can do.

These are short videos but very entertaining (honestly, it's the best gotcha interview I've ever seen).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8AwFc9hlf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY

Also a good illustration of what happens when diplomatic positions are handed out to unqualified mates as a reward for political support back home.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

I guess this is a good point to remind you of what the Dutch think of the US ambassador to the Netherlands, who campaigned on stories that Dutch politicians were being burned in Dutch no-go-zones.

Funnily enough, the Dutch don't want to work with him either, but since Trump is backing him, there's not much they can do.

These are short videos but very entertaining (honestly, it's the best gotcha interview I've ever seen).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8AwFc9hlf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY

Do you think the US is currently engaged in good diplomacy with the Netherlands? Could it be improved in any way?

Justifying the UK's approach based on it not being the same as Trump's is particularly unpersuasive.

drhaggis

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

But has the White House refused to work with Darroch? Yes, Trump has attacked him as well as HMG over twitter, but that does not mean the White House was not working with him, or that they would refuse to engage in the future. If the US want, they can certainly expel him, but that would be a major diplomatic event during peacetime, especially an ally's ambassador ("special relationship" yada yada yada)

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

I guess this is a good point to remind you of what the Dutch think of the US ambassador to the Netherlands, who campaigned on stories that Dutch politicians were being burned in Dutch no-go-zones.

Funnily enough, the Dutch don't want to work with him either, but since Trump is backing him, there's not much they can do.

These are short videos but very entertaining (honestly, it's the best gotcha interview I've ever seen).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8AwFc9hlf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY

Do you think the US is currently engaged in good diplomacy with the Netherlands? Could it be improved in any way?

Justifying the UK's approach based on it not being the same as Trump's is particularly unpersuasive.

Not sure you've understood the point I'm making.

What the host nation thinks of the representative's ambassador shouldn't be the be all and end all. Especially when what's caused it is a leak of someone doing their job.

bompington

TailWindHome wrote:

It would have amused me greatly had this thread landed on 1690 pages for the Twelth of July.

Gloriously wasted on most here I suspect

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

It would have amused me greatly had this thread landed on 1690 pages for the Twelth of July.

Gloriously wasted on most here I suspect

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

I guess this is a good point to remind you of what the Dutch think of the US ambassador to the Netherlands, who campaigned on stories that Dutch politicians were being burned in Dutch no-go-zones.

Funnily enough, the Dutch don't want to work with him either, but since Trump is backing him, there's not much they can do.

These are short videos but very entertaining (honestly, it's the best gotcha interview I've ever seen).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8AwFc9hlf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY

Do you think the US is currently engaged in good diplomacy with the Netherlands? Could it be improved in any way?

Justifying the UK's approach based on it not being the same as Trump's is particularly unpersuasive.

Not sure you've understood the point I'm making.

What the host nation thinks of the representative's ambassador shouldn't be the be all and end all. Especially when what's caused it is a leak of someone doing their job.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but you are suggesting that the UK should act in the way Trump does i.e. ignore the views of the host country. The UK could do this, but it is far more productive and better for diplomacy to consider the effectiveness of an ambassador in that position. On balance, doing the opposite of what Trump does is usually the best course of action.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seem to be distracted by the need to stick it to those nasty Tories/BoJo rather than answering the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

I guess this is a good point to remind you of what the Dutch think of the US ambassador to the Netherlands, who campaigned on stories that Dutch politicians were being burned in Dutch no-go-zones.

Funnily enough, the Dutch don't want to work with him either, but since Trump is backing him, there's not much they can do.

These are short videos but very entertaining (honestly, it's the best gotcha interview I've ever seen).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8AwFc9hlf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY

Do you think the US is currently engaged in good diplomacy with the Netherlands? Could it be improved in any way?

Justifying the UK's approach based on it not being the same as Trump's is particularly unpersuasive.

Not sure you've understood the point I'm making.

What the host nation thinks of the representative's ambassador shouldn't be the be all and end all. Especially when what's caused it is a leak of someone doing their job.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but you are suggesting that the UK should act in the way Trump does i.e. ignore the views of the host country. The UK could do this, but it is far more productive and better for diplomacy to consider the effectiveness of an ambassador in that position. On balance, doing the opposite of what Trump does is usually the best course of action.

I think backing your own staff when leaders are hostile to you is absolutely correct, especially when they have done nothing wrong to justify their behaviour.

Trump wanted this ambassador gone so by your behaviour guide they should have done the opposite.

pblakeney

bompington wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

It would have amused me greatly had this thread landed on 1690 pages for the Twelth of July.

Gloriously wasted on most here I suspect

This, I think is a good thing.
Progress will be made when it is forgotten.

tailwindhome

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... reland-dup

rjsterry

Johnson now admits that Darroch told him that his comments were a factor in Darroch's resignation.






But Johnson insists his comments were misrepresented to Darroch. Obviously not Johnson's fault, of course.

sungod

Stevo 666 wrote:

... the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

trump's cowardly tantrum makes little difference

compared to pre-trump times, darroch had no effective engagement anyway, the uk is not one of the favoured states (israel, uae etc.), so he wasn't alone in this - trump and his cronies have no interest in diplomatic norms let alone the usa's long established relationships with the europeans

all it's really done is give another example of johnson's miserable character

rjsterry

sungod wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

... the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

trump's cowardly tantrum makes little difference

compared to pre-trump times, darroch had no effective engagement anyway, the uk is not one of the favoured states (israel, uae etc.), so he wasn't alone in this - trump and his cronies have no interest in diplomatic norms let alone the usa's long established relationships with the europeans

all it's really done is give another example of johnson's miserable character

Not so, apparently. Also in the leaked diptels were ways to get what you wanted from Trump.

https://www.politico.eu/article/kim-dar ... ald-trump/

tailwindhome

Stevo 666 wrote:

... the more fundamental point of whether an ambassador can function properly when the host country refuses to engage with him - for whatever reason.

This isn't the issue. IMO

If the ambassador stayed in place the UK would be publicly endorsing his opinion of Trump.

He couldnt be kept.
He couldnt be sacked.
He had to resign.