Dairy and meat exports down 96% due to Brexit

Lefty

Well-known member
If it is in your interest as a PM to deliver on a campaign promise, but you don't, why is it most likely to be incompetence?

If something is difficult to deliver and it is not delivered then is that incompetence?

Conversely, if you claim something is easy to deliver and it is in your interest to deliver it, but you don't, does that mean the most likely reason for that is incompetence?
 

Adi_Dem

Well-known member
Because Lefty, when the referendum was held, Cameron was the pm. Then there was may. Neither one would have gone for the hardest of brexit. Brexit, unfortunately pushed Johnson to the front of the pm queue.

I find this sort of revision of history quite disingenuous actually. May's red lines and subsequent deal *was* a hard Brexit. It differed very little to that which ended up being delivered by Johnson, save that instead of the backstop we ended up with a four-year alignment between Northern Ireland and the EU. The key features are all the same.

There were softer versions of Brexit that could have been negotiated but none that would have fulfilled any of the lies, sorry, promises that were made to the electorate and/or the hard red lines put in place by the ERG or this extreme Vote Leave government. There was never any serious attempt to soften Brexit. To argue that a hard Brexit was forced upon us by the election of Johnson as leader and could not have been foreseen in June 2016 is frankly an incredible claim.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
If it is in your interest as a PM to deliver on a campaign promise, but you don't, why is it most likely to be incompetence?

If something is difficult to deliver and it is not delivered then is that incompetence?

Conversely, if you claim something is easy to deliver and it is in your interest to deliver it, but you don't, does that mean the most likely reason for that is incompetence?
Lots of questions. Generally I would agree with the maxim "do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity". are Johnson and the tory party generally stupid? It would appear not. I think Johnson is an idiot, and furthermore he is inept either through idiocy, laziness or allowing himself to be manipulated.

Johnson will deliver on his campaign promises where they benefit, firstly him, secondly the conservative party. I remain convinced that the conservative party are a self serving bunch, who enrich their donors to keep the donations coming in and so keep them in power. Donors set the conservative agenda.

Brexit specifically, was a route for Johnson to fulfil his political ambition, nothing more, nothing less.

Not sure if that answers your questions lefty, they confused me a bit.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
The mistake is to think that not delivering on trade negotiations is all, mainly or indeed anything to do with the UK. That is British exceptionalism baked in right there.

Not being able to have our cake and still eat it has nothing to do with the ineptness of our negotiator.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
The mistake is to think that not delivering on trade negotiations is all, mainly or indeed anything to do with the UK. That is British exceptionalism baked in right there.

Not being able to have our cake and still eat it has nothing to do with the ineptness of our negotiator.
Partly true Lefty. For example we could have stayed in the single market and customs union. The Eu would have welcomed that and only asked for freeedom of movement of people in return.

Other negotiations are just that negotiations, you get something and you give something. The reason I chalk the negotiations down to ineptitude is because of a couple of reasons:
a) the manner in which they were conducted from the UK side. The EU offered an extension and Johnson said no, why? You would assume so he could trumpet he got brexit done.
b) How late the deal was agreed
c) How 2 minutes after signing the co-operration agreement, Johnson suddenly didn't like it
d) For the withdrawal agreement see c above

The whole thing smacked of incompetence.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Partly true Lefty. For example we could have stayed in the single market and customs union. The Eu would have welcomed that and only asked for freeedom of movement of people in return.

Other negotiations are just that negotiations, you get something and you give something. The reason I chalk the negotiations down to ineptitude is because of a couple of reasons:
a) the manner in which they were conducted from the UK side. The EU offered an extension and Johnson said no, why? You would assume so he could trumpet he got brexit done.
b) How late the deal was agreed
c) How 2 minutes after signing the co-operration agreement, Johnson suddenly didn't like it
d) For the withdrawal agreement see c above

The whole thing smacked of incompetence.

I'm quite sure incompetence has played a part, mainly through driving off most of our better, experienced and respected civil servants for being too 'remainy' or reality based, but the main reason Johnson hasn't been able to deliver on fishing is because it was far more complicated than he told himself and others, who chose to believe him in 2016 and 2019 and that when you are negotiating a deal, the other party have a say and might hold a better hand.

If you're up against a poker player with a better hand and you suddenly have much less in your pot to bet with, then regardless of whether you are a great poker player or an incompetent one, regardless of whether your opponent is skilled or a novice, the most likely outcome is you won't win. Incompetence might play a part in the speed or extent of the defeat, but it's not the real reason, is it?
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I'm quite sure incompetence has played a part, mainly through driving off most of our better, experienced and respected civil servants for being too 'remainy' or reality based, but the main reason Johnson hasn't been able to deliver on fishing is because it was far more complicated than he told himself and others, who chose to believe him in 2016 and 2019 and that when you are negotiating a deal, the other party have a say and might hold a better hand.

If you're up against a poker player with a better hand and you suddenly have much less in your pot to bet with, then regardless of whether you are a great poker player or an incompetent one, regardless of whether your opponent is skilled or a novice, the most likely outcome is you won't win. Incompetence might play a part in the speed or extent of the defeat, but it's not the real reason, is it?
Not sure the poker analogy stands up though Lefty. It's more like noel Edmunds swap shop.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Not sure the poker analogy stands up though Lefty. It's more like noel Edmunds swap shop.

I have followed and engaged with a couple of former and current EU trade negotiators as well as a number of Trade experts and negotiators who have been on the same and opposite sides of the EU in trade negotiations. The better analogy would be taking over a chessboard, in a losing position, with a Grandmaster as your opponent.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I have followed and engaged with a couple of former and current EU trade negotiators as well as a number of Trade experts and negotiators who have been on the same and opposite sides of the EU in trade negotiations. The better analogy would be taking over a chessboard, in a losing position, with a Grandmaster as your opponent.
I can get behind that analogy. The one thing I am bit sure I agree with is the one winner one looser aspect of both chess and poker. There was a deal to be done that probably suited all parties what the uk negotiators seemed to fail to realise was that the EU would never compromise their single market. They couldn't members wouldn't allow that.
 

Adi_Dem

Well-known member
Are folk still labouring under the misapprehension that there was ever any intention to stay in the customers union and single market? That they would have agreed to freedom of movement of people in return? The Brexit vote was won on immigration. It’s cloud cuckoo land.
 
Top
X