They are disaster capitalists. They want to create maximum chaos so they can profit from the reordering while everyone is too bewildered to know what’s going on. Most of the political class these days don’t see politics as a duty or a calling - it’s something you do for a few years to create yourself the opportunities to make the big money afterwards.
This is why I got so frustrated with Brexit supporters, even when I had some sympathy with their core beliefs. Yeah, you might have your misgivings about Europe and prefer an EFTA style trade agreement that’s gives the ability to trade with Europe while having a bit more freedom to set our own legislative agenda. That’s cool. But to trust these fuckers to deliver it is criminally naive. You can’t look at the theoretical outcomes you hope will be achieved. You’ve got to look at what you are more likely to get.
I’ll try a summary later but there are so many my responses to each one are likely to be brief and perhaps not entirely satisfactory but hopefully it will provide some semblance of balance or enough information for you (or others) to check out for yourselves.
Just off the bat, no.1 is an outright lie.
It is plainly not true to say that May couldn’t reach an agreement with the EU.
May agreed a deal with the EU. She tried to get it through Parliament three times but it was blocked by Remain politicians and the ERG.
Now, of course, the list is being described as satire and not meant to be taken seriously. But, you know, it’s all true though.
May couldn’t get a deal that didn’t include acquiescing to the EU’s rules. That’s was the problem - the ERG wanted an impossible deal (or rather they want a hard Brexit, and the impossible deal is a way of getting it)
I read it as May not being able to get an agreement with her own party/government. Not an inability to get a deal full stop.
@Mascot and @Noo_Noo Well, the principle assertion is that “Theresa May couldn’t agree a Withdrawal Agreement” that’s not true. She got an agreement with the EU.
It then claims that the reason why she couldn’t agree a Withdrawal Agreement, despite the fact that she did, was because “it’s impossible to do so without accepting EU rules, or harming NI, or breaking up the UK, or crippling the economy, or all of the above”.
Well, the WA agreed by May did accept EU rule equivalence, did protect the integrity of the UK and actually placed NI in an uniquely advantageous position. It also wouldn’t have crippled the economy. Which reminds me that another reason she couldn’t get the deal through Parliament was due to the pricks in the DUP.
So not only is the main factual assertion entirely false but so is its premise.
Correct but I suppose it’s missing a few words along the lines of “with the EU” or "with the UK parliament. "
As a side note even though it wasn’t a palatable deal at the time, compared to what we are facing now I’d probably grab it in a heartbeat in the absence of anything else.
Yep. I had my misgivings but I did support it as it was a reasonable footing from which to move forward. It was never going to be possible to satisfy everyone nor was it going to be the finished article.
Not sure I did support it to be honest but looking back I doubt there was any real alternative if we were absolutely fixed on the that path that we were.
That said, I also found the whole parliamentary side of Brexit enormously frustrating, even now. You basically got all the parliamentary parties behaving like a bunch of children. Even the construction industry recognised this adversarial approach as a problem years ago. As you rightly point out there was never going to be a one solution fits all deal. The whole party thing needed to be binned but everyone just became more entrenched. May was a big part of that problem but was probably trying to keep the Tory party together.
For me May had no withdrawal agreement. She had a draft agreement that failed to get ratified (both UK and EU parliaments). But that’s debating semantics
The intent of point one for me is the reason she failed to get a WA was because it would require compromise. Many argued no compromise was needed with tracking technology (Argument of Johnson and Gove at the time). This has since been forgotten.
When it was determined tracking actually was not viable. Johnson had to negotiate his own deal, with his own compromises. I would argue both May and Johnson agreements threatened NI/The Union in different ways.
Mays deal also kept the UK tied to the EU rules due to backstop and inability to unilaterally leave, Johnson deal will likely financially cripple UK as I really do expect miles of lorries come 2021.
Whilst there is all the deflection about failure of the EU to negotiate in faith. There is a reality that the flaws of Johnson’s deal were apparent from day 1. Pretty certain I remember May standing up in parliament highlighting some of these when Johnson pushed his deal at the time.
Which for me is intent of first few points. That a deal required compromise, issues have always been apparent (May or Johnson deals), all solutions damage the Union/ NI, there has been a lack of scrutiny and purging of dissenters.
In the context of a goverment saying it’s oven ready, one of the easiest deals in history, that it was viable to agree a deal quicker than the EU has ever negotiated one. I think points to the other point being made. The failure of the UK government to act in good faith with its own people. There is a certain level of absurdity hearing Tory MPs today use the same arguments used by opponents not even a year ago.
Theresa May couldn’t agree a Withdrawal Agreement (WI) because – in news that will shock the millions who warned about this – it’s impossible due do without accepting EU rules, or harming NI, or breaking up the UK, or crippling the economy, or all of the above
Not true. May agreed a Withdrawal Agreement. It’s also possible to achieve without harming NI, breaking up the UK or crippling the economy
Nevertheless, Boris Johnson agreed a WI from the EUNot sure why it is a WI rather than a WA? Anyway…agreed, he did reach agreement with the EU on the terms of Withdrawal
Then Tories voted to accelerate the Withdrawal Agreement through parliament, specifically so it wouldn’t have to face scrutinyNot true. It was accelerated through parliament because of the deadline imposed by the EU that Johnson had said he wouldn’t seek to extend (there were mixed messages about whether the EU would have given another extension in any event, certainly France were digging in). It wasn’t done specifically to avoid scrutiny although the speed at which it needed to pass meant that it was rushed through
And Boris Johnson withdrew the whip – sacked – 21 Tories who didn’t support the delayI actually think this was done to force an election - it pretty much created an issue that stymied Parliamentary business
Then he won an election by promising the WI was “oven-ready” and “brilliant”That’s not the only reason he won the election, not by a long shot. I would say that this was the closest point to when the result of the EU referendum could have been overturned and there were vast numbers of Labour Leave voters that felt the Labour’s position on a 2nd referendum, for example, was a betrayal of their vote in 2016
Later, in a massive shock, it was discovered the WI contains all the problems that prevented May from agreeing it Now we’re talking about different Withdrawal Agreements. This is nonsensical. May voted for both deals. Her deal didn’t get passed Parliament but Johnson’s did
So the govt announced it would just break the law and ignore its own treaty Not quite true. The government announced that it needed the ability to depart from the terms of the Treaty in order to maintain the integrity of the UK…if necessary. What the government has sought to do is give itself the ability to depart/breach (if you like) the terms of the Treaty if the intergrity of the UK was threatened, it hasn’t actually breached it at this time
Each MP’s Oath of Allegiance includes “I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom… uphold its democratic values … and observe laws faithfully”this is correct but if it is recited to suggest that MPs are currently in breach of this oath that’s not the case
All 5 living ex-PM’s oppose this plan not true - Cameron is sympathetic to the government potentially needing the ability to depart from the terms of a treaty if not doing so threatened the integrity of the Union. I don’t know the position of the others but I think May has indicated she will vote against the IMB?
Every living ex-Tory leader opposes it (except IDS, but c’mon, it’s IDS)see above,
not true
So now the govt which sacked 21 MPs for opposing the WI is threatening to sack any MPs who support the same WI has the government threatened to withdraw the whip? I haven’t seen that stated anywhere. Also, this move by the government has come about because of a disagreement with the EU about the interpretation of the agreement. If the agreement is to be interpreted in a way that wasn’t anticipated earlier this year then it’s not the same instrument
The actual Police Minister said it’s OK to break the law Who? Quote? Context?
The Lord Chancellor, Britain’s highest law officer, said it’s OK to break the law Quote? Context?
The Attorney General, responsible for advising the govt on legal matters, said it’s OK to break the law Quote? Context?
The Lord Chancellor and Attorney General are barristers, and the Bar Council guidelines say you will be struck-off if you “knowingly advise a client to break the law” And you can be sure that they will both deny having done so. Again, quote, context?
Same day, Foreign Secretary and irony no-fly-zone Dominic Raab said Iran “must comply with its legal commitments and treaties”Should he have suggested otherwise?
Gavin Williamson and Mark Francois were nominated for the MP Of The Year AwardBaffling, I agree - but nominated by who/what organisation? Context?
This was the last known sighting of Mark FrancoisAnd? That’s probably a good thing isn’t it?
Michael Gove said in a July speech “failures of policy and judgement”, are generating a “crisis of authority” and “Politicians like me must take responsibility for the effect of their actions”Good. I agree.
Gavin Williamson is still in his jobHe is…why should he resign?
But the head of Ofqual was sacked Sally Collier was responsible for the algorithm, seems fair enough
And the most senior education civil servant had to stand downPerhaps Jonathan Slater was culpable? Not sure we know enough to say at this point
In fact, resignations by senior civil servants are up 14% in a year Context? Source?
But 44% of new senior appointments are personal friends of Michael Gove, in one of those amazing coincidence things Source? Senior appointments to where? How many? Gove’s not allowed to know anyone now?
Other amazing coincidences, a sub-thread:these are the issues I have most time for
a. Public First, a company led by Govt and Cummings associates, was handed a contract to help Ofqual with the exams fiasco. The contract wasn’t put out to tender should be the subject of judicial review/public enquiry
b. Gove appointed ex-girlfriend Simone Finn as adviser to Cabinet Office. Finn immediately paid her own company to “shake up the Cabinet Office”should be the subject of judicial review/public enquiry
c. Gove handed a contract (without tender) to PWC, a company that pays him £5000 per hour to give speechesshould be the subject of judicial review/public enquiry
d. Gove gave £21k to Signal AI, a company associated with Gove and Cummings, to ask Tunisians what they think about Covidshould be the subject of judicial review/public enquiry
e. Faculty AI, associated with Gove and Cummings, got £400k to analyse tweets by UK citizens. So if I vanish one dark night, tell my family I tolerated themshould be the subject of judicial review/public enquiry
f. And another contract went to the cousin of Tory MP Tom Tugendhat to “analyse the awarding of govt contracts”, which is like a spiral, wrapped inside a Möbius strip, encased in a corkscrew, and tethered to a twatshould be the subject of judicial review/public enquiry
Anyway, back to the fun: Home Secretary and Nurse Ratched cosplayer Priti Patel authorised “more painful” Taser guns, clearly anticipating more determined riotersor maybe they have been specifically requested by the police? [they have]
She then abandoned a deportation flight after it was found every passenger had leave to stay in the UKnot true - the flight had to be stopped because their status was subject to legal challenge, whether they have leave to remain in the uk has not yet been determined
Matt Hancock said we should get back to work as there is “little evidence” coronavirus is passed on in offices, having seen Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings catch coronavirus in their office did Johnson and Cummings catch coronavirus in the office? Proof?
Then he voted for himself to continue to work remotely for 11 more weeks no idea what this refers to - source? context?
Tories told us to lose weightoh no, how terrible
Then they paid us to go and eat outto help struggling businesses, not forcing food down people’s mouths
Then they told us face-masks were essentialPretty sure it was more nuanced than that
But not in schoolsoh right, it was more nuanced
Then they were essential in schoolsonly in specific circumstances…see, nuance
Then they told us to keep social distancing sounds sensible
Then they held a meeting of 50 PMs in a room with a capacity for 29did they? source?
Then only 8 minutes later, they tweeted that the were updating advice to ban meeting in groups of 30right…you mean after the meeting?
Then they banned you from meeting more than 6 people did they? what, straight after or perhaps the government have been amending the rules as circumstances change?
But you can still go to the pub yes…just not in groups of more than 6, this isn’t hard, 30 of you can attend a wedding i actually think it’s 15 but do go on or (more likely) a funeral yes, less people are getting married these days, 30 of you get in a rugby scrum not sure this person’s played rugby, and you can sit on a packed train carriage with 80 other people whilst wearing masks and socially distancing
Oh, and obviously, grouse-shooting is exempt. After all, what are we: French!? a lot has been made of that but if you’re going to exempt outdoor sports that pose the least risk of community transmission these activities are going to be included in that
And the new ban didn’t start for a week, and excluded the St Leger horse racing meet, where 3640 people crowded together making money for The Jockey Club; and isn’t it amazing that Matt Hancock is MP for Newmarket, where his major donors The Jockey Club are based?you can’t introduce measures like this immediately so they have to start at some point with sufficient notice - is the suggestion being made that it was deliberately delayed due to a personal interest of Hancock? Sounds libelous - proof?
So now the R number (which Boris Johnson was “absolutely committed to keeping below 1”) is at 1.7 yep, it’s not looking good - lockdown should probably have come earlier and been more draconian
Matt Hancock made a big deal of £60k compensation for families of NHS workers who died fighting Covid. The govt simultaneously stopped all their benefits no they didn’t
Hancock then started a scheme to financially support those forced to self-isolate, paying them up to (that’s “up to”) £13 a day source? link? I can’t find evidence to support this
In preparation for the forthcoming homelessness epidemic, Tory councils voted to fine people £1000 for being too poor have anywhere to sleep not true
The govt said it was “ramping up to 150k tests a fortnight” 3 months after they claimed they were doing “over 100k tests a week” source? link? I can’t find evidence to support this
Matt Hancock said he was changing the law to allow nurses to give flu vaccinations, unaware nurses already give over 93% of flu vaccinations source? link? it wouldn’t surprise me because Hancock is a bit shit - but I can’t find evidence to support this
Then he launched a campaign to fight obesity, and immediately closed the agency responsible for delivering it did he? did he not amalgamate it or replace it with something that is hoped to be more effective?
And then he advertised for a person to replace the head of Public Health England. The advert said no experience in health is required. In a pandemic. so? this person clearly doesn’t understand what is required from such positions
The govt announced Operation Moonshot!, an exciting-sounding £100bn plan to test 10m people a day using technology that doesn’t exist, delivered by the people behind the PPE crisis, Brexit, Gavin Williamson, and Chris Grayling literally failing his own intelligence testisn’t the funding partly to develop the necessary technology? Is Chris Grayling involved? Really? If he is, it’s bound to be a fuck up
Meanwhile, we ran out of home testing kits yes, there’s a bit of a rush on at the moment
Then more shortages led us sending people on 500-mile round trips for a Covid test, in what experts have dubbed “the full Cummings Experience” actually, these aren’t shortages but a logistical fuck up of obscene proportions. whoever is responsible for it is a fucking moron
Six months after the first case in the UK, despite having diligently spent over £1bn on contracts with sweet suppliers and dormant companies with no employees, the UK still is not capable of producing a single piece of hospital-standard PPE - well, that’s not true is it? 3M are producing as are many other PPE supply companies. They don’t appear to be producing enough though, that’s true and the awarding of contracts to who knows who needs to be properly looked into
Researchers from King’s College London found Tories “employed overt disinformation” with “new levels of impunity” in the 2019 General Election source? impunity? has the electoral commission looked into it? what were the findings?
The govt was “formally warned for threatening press freedom” (putting us in the same classification as Russia) by the Council of Europe, which the UK co-founded in 1949 to protect human rights source? when did this happen? why?
It was then reported Boris Johnson plans to opt out of human rights lawsreported by who? it’s been denied by the government. domestic human rights legislation does need careful review though
Meanwhile, a cross-party group of MPs is threatening to sue Boris Johnson if he continues to ignore calls for an enquiry into Russian interference in UK politics. People connected to the Putin regime paid £160k to play tennis with Boris Johnsondid they? when? was he PM at the time? by all means lets have an enquiry but I thought we already had one? I thought it had already reported and found little evidence of interference?
The leader of Scottish Tories tweeted “I would have no hesitation in voting against any legislation which would allow chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef. That’s a categorical assurance.” ok
He then voted to allow chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef no he didn’t
The govt voted not to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower enquiry context? haven’t had the time to look at this one
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was quoted as saying “it is not my job to worry about people starving to death in the UK” this sounds outrageous. source? link?
The govt announced new Covid restrictions with a densely worded 10-page legal document, released at 11.38pm on Sunday night, just 22 minutes before police, hospitals, health officials, local councils, schools and businesses had to implement them yeh, this is absurd but then the author was complaining about delays in implementing restrictions earlier
The document ends: “no impact assessment has been done”, surprising nobody familiar with Brexit yeh, it does seem rushed - almost as if the government are trying to respond to a rapidly changing environment
Environment news, and as a liveable world slips relentlessly from our grasp, the UK spent just £2000 – not a typo - tackling environmental damage to the British countryside this is just bullshit nonsense - i can’t find anything to support this absurd claim
They spent £46m (2300 times as much) telling us to get ready for a Brexit that didn’t happen so you’d prefer the government didn’t provide information to prepare the country? that sounds like madness
And the Tory-appointed head of the Environment Agency endorsed proposals to weaken laws on the cleanliness of rivers, lakes and coastlines yes, the tories are making the appointments, they’re in government - it’s one of the perks. They didn’t endorse proposals to weaken laws on the cleanliness of rivers, lakes and coastlines though did they?
Meanwhile the Fisheries Minister posed “catching mackerel” with a rod that had no line in a sea that has no mackerel, and I had to order a fresh barrel of satire is this another red herring?
Nine months into Boris Johnson’s “levelling up” agenda, the gap between rich and poor pupils has grown 46%no it hasn’t - no wonder there’s no link or source for this ridiculous assertion
And finally, because no list of abject failure is complete without him, Chris Grayling literally resigned from Intelligence this sounds like…a good thing?
Seems to be something of an exercise in semantics to say May was able to agree to a WA but could not then deliver on her side of it - she was unable to agree to a deal that satisfied both the set of constraints from the counterparty, and her own requirements. The procedural fact that she was inept enough to have her own requirements tested at the end of the process is merely that, procedure. She was unable to agree on a viable Withdrawal Agreement.
Fair play for undertaking that gargantuan task. Some doing
I actually agree with a lot of your points but jus a couple of items.
Mark Francois - out of site - agreed. I would also add out of earshot but there’s also the entertainment value of every time he opens his trap.
On a more serious note. Gavin Williamson should not be in his job. Simple as. The decision on how to deal with COVID affected exams was a government one. It was his job to manage that process, or at least oversee it. It was up to him to ensure that it worked and delivered a fair scope of results. I’m also pretty sure he knew a week or two before the results were released and did nothing. This is all before he indirectly threatened MP’s with that picture he released of him at his desk with a whip.
I’d even go as far as suspecting that Cummings played a part in the algorithm (that kind of thing seems up his street) but that would be pure speculation on my part.
testing. That is a well know government sham that I honestly still cant get my head around. They quote capacity, dont do the number of tests anywhere near that value and yet people still cant get a test.
The enquiry you speak of is right and I hope it happens but I suspect it wont. There’s a lot that’s happened that needs to be opened out to a wider audience. There’s also a huge number of decisions that need to be questioned.
RE the COVID advice I think all together they illustrate how disjointed they are. Many would argue confusing.
I accept that although the claim is in two parts. It’s not impossible for the UK and EU to agree to a Withdrawal Agreement. They’ve agreed one. It’s also possible that a Withdrawal Agreement does not harm NI, break up the UK or cripple the economy. Would rules equivalence be a condition? Depends what’s agreed but most likely if you want to avoid the crippling the economy part.
Yes, the second part is clearly an assertion rather than a statement of fact - there may be such a withdrawal agreement in the realm of the possible. But it is looking fairly clear at this stage that the UK and EU don’t have one.
As before, I think the point is that whatever deal May agreed with the EU is just an theoretical paper exercise until it’s ratified by parliament. Which it wasn’t.
This is a matter of opinion. I believe that Johnson, in character with much of the way he conducts himself as a public figure, sought to avoid scrutiny. What I remember about it was that the EU were at least amenable to a short delay to allow parliamentary scrutiny.
I think this is where I disagree with you the most.
Johnson’s main message to the electorate was to ‘Get Brexit Done’ backing this up with his promise that he had an oven ready deal ready to go.
The point about Labour voters is true, but while Labour’s position on the deal (a confirmatory vote) didn’t appeal to the voters, the Conservative Party aggressively targeted Labour Brexit voting constituencies with their message, which I know only too well from my own campaigning.
I admit I’ve lost the plot a bit of late, but isn’t the issue here that Mays deal was criticised and rejected over the NI Backstop, which it turns out is also a problem in Johnson’s agreement. Hence the UK declaring it’s intention to break the terms of the treaty to allow free trade between NI and the rest of the UK?
I this this is being a bit semantic. Still setting out your intention, through an act of parliament, to break the law if necessary is a very egregious act of pre-emotive bad faith.
Your argument is like saying ‘well to be fair to the government they’ve only given themselves the right to shoot ginger people if the need arises. They haven’t actually shot any gingers just yet.’
Kit Malthouse is the Minister for Policing, and you can read is squirmingly bollock justification for the Government breaking international law here.
No, but you have missed the point of interest which is a minister lecturing another country on the importance of adhering to its treaty obligations while voting to give itself the power to do exactly the opposite.
The minister is ultimately responsible, and ministers have lost their jobs for far, far less.
I can’t back up the figure as I don’t know the context, and this is the first time I’ve seen it. However your comment about Gove not being allowed to know people is ridiculous. Of course it would be scandalous if 44% of senior civil service appoints were his personal friends.
Just because the police have asked for something does not mean they should get it, and it’s the job of the Home Secretary to assess whether that’s a reasonable request. Tasers are a weapon that are demonstrably disproportionate to the situation they are used in, and as with all police powers and tools, get used against people in non-threatening situations. She should be saying no. But Priti Patel is a scary fucker.
The point is that the Goverment and the home office have not learned anything from the Windrush Scandal. They are still in deport first, ask questions later mode. Whether those passengers had leave to remain or still have legal recourse to challenge their deportation is immaterial. The government should not have been trying to deport them.
It’s pretty likely that they caught C19 from close contact with others in an indoor setting. Either way, Hancock is well out of his depth saying their was little evidence of it being passed in office, which by the way, makes a contradiction with the Governments most recent direction to work at home if you can. Why, if there is little risk of transmission?
The point here is that Hancock, as is true of many minister, have a habit of saying the first thing that comes into their head and hoping it’s true, rather than doing their homework.
And it’s strange that you have very high standards of an internet blogger producing a clearly left leaning critique of Government, but seem to have different standards when government ministers blatantly make shit up.
This has been widely reported. To be honest I haven’t got a fucking clue what the current government claim of testing is. They’ve clearly lost control of the situation and are transparently making up whatever shit they need to to get through the day.
Didn’t he? Again it was widely reported at the time.
I’ve every sympathy with the government rushing things through right now, but if they didn’t clearly treat impact assessments with utter disdain when not coping with a national emergency, people like me might be a bit less cynical about their motives.
