BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status ... 25569?s=19

rick_chasey

TailWindHome 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.

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.

It’s not so much opinion as fairly factual.

Stevo_666

TailWindHome 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.

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.

Fair point but the two are linked. As endorsing the view would entrench the US attitude towards Darroch as the representative of the UK in the States and make it impossible for him to do his job properly.

Also explains what some on here have been questioning; namely that he was not given unequivocal support as it puts the UK in an awkward situation.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome 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.

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.

Fair point but the two are linked. As endorsing the view would entrench the US attitude towards Darroch as the representative of the UK in the States and make it impossible for him to do his job properly.

Also explains what some on here have been questioning; namely that he was not given unequivocal support as it puts the UK in an awkward situation.

We've managed to cope with far more awkward situations without any resignations. The Prime Minister has publicly criticised Trump on a number of occasions, albeit in less blunt terms and no diplomatic staff were expelled or summoned for a dressing down in Washington. We even had a full state visit. And the foreign secretary and PM did back Darroch unequivocally. It was only one of the prospective leaders that wavered on this, and he has now conceded that Darroch told him his lack of support was a factor in the resignation.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome 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.

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.

Fair point but the two are linked. As endorsing the view would entrench the US attitude towards Darroch as the representative of the UK in the States and make it impossible for him to do his job properly.

Also explains what some on here have been questioning; namely that he was not given unequivocal support as it puts the UK in an awkward situation.

We've managed to cope with far more awkward situations without any resignations. The Prime Minister has publicly criticised Trump on a number of occasions, albeit in less blunt terms and no diplomatic staff were expelled or summoned for a dressing down in Washington. We even had a full state visit. And the foreign secretary and PM did back Darroch unequivocally. It was only one of the prospective leaders that wavered on this, and he has now conceded that Darroch told him his lack of support was a factor in the resignation.

One head of government criticising another one is not the same as an ambassador to a country criticising their host administration. PMs/Presidents have many roles whereas the ambassador's role is much narrower and focussed on dealing with their host administration. Nor is the public vs private/leaked nature of the two scenarios the same, clearly.

I notice you said 'a factor' rather than 'the factor'. He probably would have gone regardless of Boris' position in my view. But as mentioned above, some people are trying to make it more about Boris than the wider situation here.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome 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.

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.

Fair point but the two are linked. As endorsing the view would entrench the US attitude towards Darroch as the representative of the UK in the States and make it impossible for him to do his job properly.

Also explains what some on here have been questioning; namely that he was not given unequivocal support as it puts the UK in an awkward situation.

We've managed to cope with far more awkward situations without any resignations. The Prime Minister has publicly criticised Trump on a number of occasions, albeit in less blunt terms and no diplomatic staff were expelled or summoned for a dressing down in Washington. We even had a full state visit. And the foreign secretary and PM did back Darroch unequivocally. It was only one of the prospective leaders that wavered on this, and he has now conceded that Darroch told him his lack of support was a factor in the resignation.

One head of government criticising another one is not the same as an ambassador to a country criticising their host administration. PMs/Presidents have many roles whereas the ambassador's role is much narrower and focussed on dealing with their host administration. Nor is the public vs private/leaked nature of the two scenarios the same, clearly.

I notice you said 'a factor' rather than 'the factor'. He probably would have gone regardless of Boris' position in my view. But as mentioned above, some people are trying to make it more about Boris than the wider situation here.

Clearly the leak and the way it was so targeted at getting rid of Darroch is the biggest problem. Ambassadors can't do their job if they have to assume private briefings could become public at any point and Darroch's successor will have the same problem until that investigation is concluded (I think we can safely assume he/she will feel the need to say something unflattering about his host at some point). We'll have to wait 30 years or for Darroch's memoires to find out how he ranked the different factors.

Anyway, I'm sure you approve of the heckler in Cheltenham

Stevo_666

Some of this may be simply down to a greater awareness of electronic media and how easy it is to distribute. I'm sure that in years gone past, comments like these would be done as a private conversation or a phone call.

I mean, even letters can get leaked as this bloke who was an ambassador back in WW2 found out

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Some of this may be simply down to a greater awareness of electronic media and how easy it is to distribute. I'm sure that in years gone past, comments like these would be done as a private conversation or a phone call.

I mean, even letters can get leaked as this bloke who was an ambassador back in WW2 found out

I don't think he did find out. He was was dead 27 years before the letter was leaked.

When he asked Churchill for instructions he was told:

"I don't mind kissing Stalin's bum, but I'm damned if I'll lick his arse!"

Johnson should bear that in mind vis-à-vis Trump should he be selected to follow Winston Churchill as PM.

awavey

rjsterry wrote:

Clearly the leak and the way it was so targeted at getting rid of Darroch is the biggest problem. Ambassadors can't do their job if they have to assume private briefings could become public at any point and Darroch's successor will have the same problem until that investigation is concluded (I think we can safely assume he/she will feel the need to say something unflattering about his host at some point). We'll have to wait 30 years or for Darroch's memoires to find out how he ranked the different factors.

why was the leak clearly targeted to get rid of Darroch ? the guy was retiring in 6months anyway whoever ends up as PM has got far more pressing matters to deal with than worrying about the US, theyve just had a state visit,and the new PM gets to choose a successor more to their liking, so I dont see whats been gained by the leaker for dumping Darroch, except its allowed lots of the anyone but Boris team of MPs to pile in on him in the media,

rick_chasey

awavey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Clearly the leak and the way it was so targeted at getting rid of Darroch is the biggest problem. Ambassadors can't do their job if they have to assume private briefings could become public at any point and Darroch's successor will have the same problem until that investigation is concluded (I think we can safely assume he/she will feel the need to say something unflattering about his host at some point). We'll have to wait 30 years or for Darroch's memoires to find out how he ranked the different factors.

why was the leak clearly targeted to get rid of Darroch ? the guy was retiring in 6months anyway whoever ends up as PM has got far more pressing matters to deal with than worrying about the US, theyve just had a state visit,and the new PM gets to choose a successor more to their liking, so I dont see whats been gained by the leaker for dumping Darroch, except its allowed lots of the anyone but Boris team of MPs to pile in on him in the media,

Look at who reported the leak and work back from there

rjsterry

awavey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Clearly the leak and the way it was so targeted at getting rid of Darroch is the biggest problem. Ambassadors can't do their job if they have to assume private briefings could become public at any point and Darroch's successor will have the same problem until that investigation is concluded (I think we can safely assume he/she will feel the need to say something unflattering about his host at some point). We'll have to wait 30 years or for Darroch's memoires to find out how he ranked the different factors.

why was the leak clearly targeted to get rid of Darroch ? the guy was retiring in 6months anyway whoever ends up as PM has got far more pressing matters to deal with than worrying about the US, theyve just had a state visit,and the new PM gets to choose a successor more to their liking, so I dont see whats been gained by the leaker for dumping Darroch, except its allowed lots of the anyone but Boris team of MPs to pile in on him in the media,

The leaks were published by Isabel Oakeshott, Brexit cheerleader and partner of Richard Tice, Brexit Party Chairman, who has called for the ambassador to be replaced by a pro-Brexit businessman. It's not much of a whodunit.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

awavey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Clearly the leak and the way it was so targeted at getting rid of Darroch is the biggest problem. Ambassadors can't do their job if they have to assume private briefings could become public at any point and Darroch's successor will have the same problem until that investigation is concluded (I think we can safely assume he/she will feel the need to say something unflattering about his host at some point). We'll have to wait 30 years or for Darroch's memoires to find out how he ranked the different factors.

why was the leak clearly targeted to get rid of Darroch ? the guy was retiring in 6months anyway whoever ends up as PM has got far more pressing matters to deal with than worrying about the US, theyve just had a state visit,and the new PM gets to choose a successor more to their liking, so I dont see whats been gained by the leaker for dumping Darroch, except its allowed lots of the anyone but Boris team of MPs to pile in on him in the media,

The leaks were published by Isabel Oakeshott, Brexit cheerleader and partner of Richard Tice, Brexit Party Chairman, who has called for the ambassador to be replaced by a pro-Brexit businessman. It's not much of a whodunit.

Except that Isabel 'Dead Pig's Head' Oakeshott isn't likely to split on the insider who split on Darroch.

It is interesting to read up on her modus operandi, for examplewhen persuading Vicky Price to do the dirty on her ex, Chris Huhne.

I guess her trick is to find someone rather stupid with a big enough gripe to give her leverage.

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

awavey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Clearly the leak and the way it was so targeted at getting rid of Darroch is the biggest problem. Ambassadors can't do their job if they have to assume private briefings could become public at any point and Darroch's successor will have the same problem until that investigation is concluded (I think we can safely assume he/she will feel the need to say something unflattering about his host at some point). We'll have to wait 30 years or for Darroch's memoires to find out how he ranked the different factors.

why was the leak clearly targeted to get rid of Darroch ? the guy was retiring in 6months anyway whoever ends up as PM has got far more pressing matters to deal with than worrying about the US, theyve just had a state visit,and the new PM gets to choose a successor more to their liking, so I dont see whats been gained by the leaker for dumping Darroch, except its allowed lots of the anyone but Boris team of MPs to pile in on him in the media,

The leaks were published by Isabel Oakeshott, Brexit cheerleader and partner of Richard Tice, Brexit Party Chairman, who has called for the ambassador to be replaced by a pro-Brexit businessman. It's not much of a whodunit.

Except that Isabel 'Dead Pig's Head' Oakeshott isn't likely to split on the insider who split on Darroch.

It is interesting to read up on her modus operandi, for examplewhen persuading Vicky Price to do the dirty on her ex, Chris Huhne.

I guess her trick is to find someone rather stupid with a big enough gripe to give her leverage.

If the reports are correct then the investigation has already identified the leaker.

robert88

Were they official reports, leaked official reports or officially leaked official reports?

cycleclinic

What's the public I test in publishing the leaked documents from our former is amabassodor. What he thinks about trump is what many think about trump and has been published and discussed many times before. So the publishing of these cables is simply to damage u.k national I interests and sabotage the ambassador so a new one can be installed. If these documents are classed as state secrets which they should be the leaker and the publisher should be prosecuted fro breach of the official secrets act.

If the press publish leaks documents that show illegal activity then they have there get out of jail free card. They dont in this case and isabel oakeshott, the editor of the mail and the leaker should ho down. With all freedoms comes responsibility. There are too many that are playing fast and loose with our national interest for narrow political advantage. These people are the real traitors in my book. That's about as extreme as I get. But queue the politicians falling over themselves to say press freedom means they can publish government secrets with impunity. We all know why and that's bare faced corruption.

tailwindhome

Not keen on the thread title edit.

imposter2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Not keen on the thread title edit.

Me neither..

darkhairedlord

Imposter wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Not keen on the thread title edit.

Me neither..

If it said Ann widdecombe?

surrey_commuter

darkhairedlord wrote:

Imposter wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Not keen on the thread title edit.

Me neither..

If it said Ann widdecombe?

Do any of them make any sense? Sometimes I wish the idiot would explain himself but then quickly realise my expectations are way too high.

slowmart

I would have said the Ms Miller has a rather appealing head.

Although it sounds there might be a queue to hold Boris’s feet to the fire regarding perouging Parliament.

darkhairedlord

Surrey Commuter wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Imposter wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Not keen on the thread title edit.

Me neither..

If it said Ann widdecombe?

Do any of them make any sense? Sometimes I wish the idiot would explain himself but then quickly realise my expectations are way too high.

Well, none of the protagonists explain themselves so I'm not why you expect any of the posters to.

darkhairedlord

Slowmart wrote:

I would have said the Ms Miller has a rather appealing head.

Although it sounds there might be a queue to hold Boris’s feet to the fire regarding perouging Parliament.

While boris is always comparing himself against Cameron, I'm not sure where you're going with this.

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Imposter wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Not keen on the thread title edit.

Me neither..

If it said Ann widdecombe?

Do any of them make any sense? Sometimes I wish the idiot would explain himself but then quickly realise my expectations are way too high.

Cheers for that.

Stevo_666

Goo, I think your thread title changes are quite amusing.

Although as you're the OP you can do what the **** you want with the thread title and all everyone else can do is moan about it. Which is kind of in keeping with the nature of this thread

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Goo, I think your thread title chang are quite amusing.

Although as you're the OP you can do what the **** you want with the thread title and all everyone else can do is moan about it. Which is kind of in keeping with the nature of this thread

It is the national culture, moaning. No use moaning about it.

It's why we need immigrants. They arrive and they just get on with things. Sometimes their can-do attitude lasts at least a new generation. Then they assimilate and learn to just moan. At that point they can proudly claim to be true Brits and we need a fresh batch of immigrants.

slowmart

darkhairedlord wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

I would have said the Ms Miller has a rather appealing head.

Although it sounds there might be a queue to hold Boris’s feet to the fire regarding perouging Parliament.

While boris is always comparing himself against Cameron, I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I thought Churchill was Boris’s go to masturbation material or looking at himself while he beats off to a Maggie T speech.

darkhairedlord

Slowmart wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

I would have said the Ms Miller has a rather appealing head.

Although it sounds there might be a queue to hold Boris’s feet to the fire regarding perouging Parliament.

While boris is always comparing himself against Cameron, I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I thought Churchill was Boris’s go to masturbation material or looking at himself while he beats off to a Maggie T speech.

There has always been rivalry between the two with Boris outdoing Cameron, house captain, tennis etc. Boris wouldn't be that bothered but knows it winds up Cameron, hence he would would stick his thingy in gm's mouth to outdo Cameron with the pig.

surrey_commuter

darkhairedlord wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

I would have said the Ms Miller has a rather appealing head.

Although it sounds there might be a queue to hold Boris’s feet to the fire regarding perouging Parliament.

While boris is always comparing himself against Cameron, I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I thought Churchill was Boris’s go to masturbation material or looking at himself while he beats off to a Maggie T speech.

There has always been rivalry between the two with Boris outdoing Cameron, house captain, tennis etc. Boris wouldn't be that bothered but knows it winds up Cameron, hence he would would stick his thingy in gm's mouth to outdo Cameron with the pig.

I think it is the other way round with Boris being outshone by his junior

imposter2.0

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Goo, I think your thread title chang are quite amusing.

Although as you're the OP you can do what the **** you want with the thread title and all everyone else can do is moan about it. Which is kind of in keeping with the nature of this thread

It is the national culture, moaning. No use moaning about it.

It's why we need immigrants. They arrive and they just get on with things. Sometimes their can-do attitude lasts at least a new generation. Then they assimilate and learn to just moan. At that point they can proudly claim to be true Brits and we need a fresh batch of immigrants.

So commenting on a disrespectful (in my opinion) thread title = 'moaning'..?? As they say in football: "play the ball - not the player"

darkhairedlord

Surrey Commuter wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

I would have said the Ms Miller has a rather appealing head.

Although it sounds there might be a queue to hold Boris’s feet to the fire regarding perouging Parliament.

While boris is always comparing himself against Cameron, I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I thought Churchill was Boris’s go to masturbation material or looking at himself while he beats off to a Maggie T speech.

There has always been rivalry between the two with Boris outdoing Cameron, house captain, tennis etc. Boris wouldn't be that bothered but knows it winds up Cameron, hence he would would stick his thingy in gm's mouth to outdo Cameron with the pig.

I think it is the other way round with Boris being outshone by his junior

he may have out-shone him to us plebs, but he was house captain and beat him at tennis. That is much more important in "real" circle of power.