Brexit Thread VIII: Taking a penalty kick-ing

[EnglishEdward]

By end 2020 trading organisations will have had 4 years 6 months and 1 week to prepare for UK exit from the EU.

The main thing that has delayed them making preparations is that governments keep talking about a deal.

Continuing to promise a deal is therefore sabotaging them implementing their planning, and ought to stop as soon as possible.

 

[Gorbles]

By end 2020 trading organisations will have had 4 years 6 months and 1 week to prepare for UK exit from the EU.

The main thing that has delayed them making preparations is that governments keep talking about a deal.

In your opinion.

Continuing to promise a deal is therefore sabotaging them implementing their planning, and ought to stop as soon as possible.

I fully believe the UK government has the resource to handle more than one thing at once, in terms of logistics at least.

 

[Traitorfish]

I fully believe the UK government has the resource to handle more than one thing at once, in terms of logistics at least.

I certainly agree that the British government has about the same capacity to deal with two things as it has to deal with one thing.

 

[EnglishEdward]

In your opinion.

I fully believe the UK government has the resource to handle more than one thing at once, in terms of logistics at least.

I certainly agree that the British government has about the same capacity to deal with two things as it has to deal with one thing.

Your cynicism is noted and largely shared.

There is in my opinion no good reason now for the UK government to require trading organisations
to plan for two things (a) no deal and (b) some sort of deal; in addition to them planning re Covid-19.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it when I say: contingency plans are good, and should even be expected. Abandoning any talks of a deal just so they can narrow down their options is what you would prefer. They could just as easily (for a definition of "easily") abandon the tantrum of an intentional no-deal and focus on the narrowed options having to negotiate deal-related talks instead.

But they don't want to do that. They want to use "no deal" as a threat, in my opinion. Both against the EU to the British public ("look, they forced us!") and against anybody in Parliament who voices dissent. It's a very easy way to brand people "traitors", which isn't even hyperbolic language in government in the past year or so.

 

[Takhisis]

By end 2020 trading organisations will have had 4 years 6 months and 1 week to prepare for UK exit from the EU.

How? The 1 year/2 years/etc. period has been meant to be a period of time in which to at least significantly advance negotiations rather than just crash out of the EU, the only response to which is simply to buy stocks of materials and build a fortified bunker in which to hoard them.

 

[Hrothbern]

Governments and their leaders sending public letters to the people or governments of other countries.

The discretion of negotiating tables disappearing... solutions only valuable when pre-loaded with public polarisations.... the newnew of our socialmedia era ?

Barnier’s letter to UK: Let’s stop sending letters about Brexit
EU Brexit negotiator responds to his British counterpart.

The EU wants the U.K. to discuss their points of difference in Brexit talks at the negotiating table rather than via letters — and made that point in a letter.

https://www.politico.eu/article/barniers-letter-to-uk-lets-stop-sending-letters-about-brexit/

 

[EnglishEdward]

Governments and their leaders sending public letters to the people or governments of other countries.

The discretion of negotiating tables disappearing... solutions only valuable when pre-loaded with public polarisations.... the newnew of our socialmedia era ?

If it was up to me, having watched the disastrous shuttle diplomacy of three successive UK Prime Ministers:
Cameron, May and Johnson; I wouldn't let a UK PM touch a negotiating table with a proverbial barge pole.

 

[Hrothbern]

If it was up to me, having watched the disastrous shuttle diplomacy of three successive UK Prime Ministers:
Cameron, May and Johnson; I wouldn't let a UK PM touch a negotiating table with a proverbial barge pole.

What's the point of electing leaders who are not capable to bargain for the interests of their voters ?

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am aware that under PR continental party leaders negotiate with each other.

However the UK tradition with FPTP is different. As UK party leaders are not appointed on
the basis of proven negotiating skills, they are not qualified and should be kept out of it.

As far as I am concerned UK PMs should sit above and not descend to the floor of the bazaar.

 

[innonimatu]

What's the point of electing leaders who are not capable to bargain for the interests of their voters ?

Come on, does anyone still trust leaders?

I'd rather have international negotiations done via public letters, and over a table with live streaming to be seen by any citizen interested. Secret treaties were the stuff that gave us World War 1. And secret negotiations the stuff that gave us this EU.

 

[Hrothbern]

Come on, does anyone still trust leaders?

I'd rather have international negotiations done via public letters, and over a table with live streaming to be seen by any citizen interested. Secret treaties were the stuff that gave us World War 1. And secret negotiations the stuff that gave us this EU.

Trust is seldom digital a 0 or 1, and mostly a "good enough for purpose considering the circumstances".
and similar: secret negotiations as process to get "public treaties" is completely normal in all aspects of life.

If you skip these two as tools to get meaningful public results, you will not be able to grow much further than one tribal village in some relation with neigboring tribal villages.
And we know that even at that scale war was quite usual.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Trust is seldom digital a 0 or 1, and mostly a "good enough for purpose considering the circumstances".

How much would you trust Boris Johnson to negotiate a treaty on your behalf?

I am a simple person and my answer is zero, but you need not confine yourself to integral numbers.

Where would you score Boris on your infinitely divisible scale of 0 to 1?

 

[innonimatu]

Usually there are only two audiences possible for a government hiding negotiations from: its own population, or the population of the other party. What public good is served by reaching an agreement against the will of a government's own population? What will be the consequences when the deal has to be implemented? The strategy of what will be offered in each phase of the negotiations, what one offers versus what one is willing to take, should be managed privately, sure. But the offers themselves and the counteroffers made at the table, why should they not be disclosed to the whole public? If they're accepted they will have to be disclosed, in order to be implemented.
Government knows best and possibly keeping even the agreement secret (by making it "too complicated" for "non-experts" to understand) is not compatible with democracy. That is technocratic government, sure it might avoid those pesky referendums where the population votes wrong, opposite to the experts... but it's not democracy. This is actually a good issue to discuss on a brexit thread!

 

[Hrothbern]

How much would you trust Boris Johnson to negotiate a treaty on your behalf?

I am a simple person and my answer is zero, but you need not confine yourself to integral numbers.

Where would you score Boris on your infinitely divisible scale of 0 to 1?

There is, if I would be an UK citizen, not much overlap between me and a Boris Johnson as PM of my country.
So close to zero on my behalf for intentions. And also pretty low in terms of his governing responsibility for the whole of the UK. Simply because the interests of the whole of the UK has imo little overlap with the personal interests of mr Johnson.

Usually there are only two audiences possible for a government hiding negotiations from: its own population, or the population of the other party. What public good is served by reaching an agreement against the will of a government's own population? What will be the consequences when the deal has to be implemented? The strategy of what will be offered in each phase of the negotiations, what one offers versus what one is willing to take, should be managed privately, sure. But the offers themselves and the counteroffers made at the table, why should they not be disclosed to the whole public? If they're accepted they will have to be disclosed, in order to be implemented.
Government knows best and possibly keeping even the agreement secret (by making it "too complicated" for "non-experts" to understand) is not compatible with democracy. That is technocratic government, sure it might avoid those pesky referendums where the population votes wrong, opposite to the experts... but it's not democracy. This is actually a good issue to discuss on a brexit thread!

Getting your mandate from your people and negotiate a round and come back to your people is sound. Rinse and repeat.
That still leaves open who are "your people" and do you disclose "everything" that was on the table.
If "your people" is always the whole population... we are back at tribal village level.... or a workers council level.
If you disclose "everything" including probing solutions, you better have as tribal village or council not too many other tasks. Getting everything explained in the right context of your own group and the perception of the "others".... lots of time needed.

For negotiations... Trust, not absolute, but a workable amount for the topic needed, is a pragmatical tool, just like a screwdriver.

Pyramids of representatives are trust constructs

 

[EnglishEdward]

It need merely be too complicated for the House of Commons to understand,
with the skills that thay have and in the time they have, to defeat democracy.

I don''t believe that many there understood the so called Withdrawal Agreement.

 

[Hrothbern]

It need merely be too complicated for the House of Commons to understand,
with the skills that thay have and in the time they have, to defeat democracy.

I don''t believe that many there understood the so called Withdrawal Agreement.

Today was another Covid briefing to our MP's by our RIVM, a powerpoint presentation, time enough to give at least me a solid update and outlook on coming direction (so far always happended the day after the PM briefing to the people).
After that the Parliament debate on Covid.

Some of the questions asked to the responsible expert were mindblowing stupid. Some just scoring for their voters. One MP only looked at his I-Phone and with even more attention just after he posed his questions
The other 50% questions sensible and in line with their general political program and angle to society.

Yeah
50% kindergarten.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Are your representatives still meeting in person?

Most of our MPs are remotely videoing in or, to be cynical,
pretending to video in, while actually doing something else.

There is a funny mood about; teachers saying that they will
restart schools after Parliament properly reconvenes itself.

There used to be a time when the predominant occupation
of our MPs was lawyer; and laws and treaties were shorter.
Now their main occupation is socially connected business person,
and the word processor has facilitated much lengthier laws.

 

[Hrothbern]

Are your representatives still meeting in person?

yes
why not ?
Within ofc the 1.5 meter rule and max 100 of the constitutional 150 MP members at the same time in the big meeting room. With voting a bit of a hassle
here the 4 hour discussion on Covid today:

So in this case the PM with the relevant Ministers on the topic and from the (many) political parties for this sensitive Covid topic mostly the political leader with a specialist MP when convenient.
This saves us at least the burning of time of every MP of the same political party trying to score for the voters of his region with his own stories and questions.
And yes, before Parliament discussions, MPs of all political parties do agree among each other in their (sometimes tumultuous) meeting before that parliament session what their party position is on the topic.
Whereby this is mostly taking over the opinion of the specialist MP for a topic after holding that to the test of the general party program and values (the latter if sensitive mostly discussed upfront with the political leader). Every MP covers a set of specialties. Some important ones doubled up in big parties.

There is a funny mood about; teachers saying that they will
restart schools after Parliament properly reconvenes itself.

Well... those schools... Denmark has meanwhile their primary schools open for 5 weeks.
If you look at the death curve of Denmark... perhaps you can find back a sudden increase in deaths because of opening schoold mid April... I cannot... I just see a continuous curve slowly going to horizontal at a low death rate below 100 per million people. That increase should start 3 weeks after that opening of schools, so around May 7.
I added the curve of Belgium who has a very restricted lock down including closed schools. Belgium at a death rate of almost 800 per million.
Are Danish children a special breed ? Is science different in Denmark ? Is politics different in Denmark ? .... or just a country wide trial defying theoretics or politics of other countries ?

There used to be a time when the predominant occupation
of our MPs was lawyer; and laws and treaties were shorter.
Now their main occupation is socially connected business person,
and the word processor has facilitated much lengthier laws.

I prefer very much a higher percentage of MPs with the background of Law and teaching.
Not only better worded laws and regulations, more internally consistent... but also more respect for the existing laws and regulations from hard effort from lawmakers (and their voters) of the past.
Studying Law is a perfect multi-purpose step for your life.

 

[really]

The Union shall notify the United Kingdom of any request for accession of a third country to
the Union.
2. During the negotiations between the Union and a third country referred to in paragraph 1, the
Union shall:
(a) on request of the United Kingdom and, to the extent possible, provide any information
regarding any matter covered by this Agreement; and
(b) take into account any concerns expressed by the United Kingdom.
3. The Joint Committee shall examine any effects of accession of a third country to the Union on
this Agreement sufficiently in advance of the date of such accession.
4. To the extent necessary, the United Kingdom and the Union shall, before the entry into force
of the agreement on the accession of a third country to the Union:
(a) amend this Agreement in accordance with Article 34.2; or
(b) put in place by decision of the Joint Committee any other necessary adjustments or
transitional arrangements regarding this Agreement.

Some more nonsense from the UK documents.
The UK wants a say in the accession of new members into the EU.