Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Devius]

The government has not carried out any impact assessments of leaving the EU on the UK economy, Brexit Secretary David Davis has told MPs.

"There's no sort of systematic impact assessment," Mr Davis told the Brexit committee.

He said the government had produced a "sectoral analysis" of different industries but not a "forecast" of what would happen when the UK leaves the EU.

A "very major contingency planning operation" is in place, he added.

The Brexit secretary's comments were seized on in Prime Minister's Questions by Jeremy Corbyn.

"This really is a shambles," the Labour leader said.

Detsils
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42249854

I was going to post this on the "What annoys you most" thread, but David Davis has already earned himself a spot on that thread.

Prime Minister Theresa May should be giving our Brexit Secretary a kick in his bollacks! It's as if the Tories has learned NOTHING since Cameron was caught by surprise with the UK voting Brexit, and decided to hide in his shed instead.

So if I understand this correctly: our government is preparing for Brexit without actually doing ANY groundwork on what impact Brexit will have on various sectors of the economy?

Jesus H Christ! What a farce!



FYI Mr Corbyn, the Labour party is just as split on Brexit as the Tories, so I don't expect any improvement for the UK if (or when) you are in charge...

[gordian_knot]

Originally Posted by Devius

So if I understand this correctly: our government is preparing for Brexit without actually doing ANY groundwork on what impact Brexit will have on various sectors of the economy?

Jesus H Christ! What a farce!

We know nothing about future trading arrangements with the EU and with countries outside the EU, until they're in place. We know nothing of what the regulatory framework will be. We know nothing about the impact on the economy whatever the outcome of negotiations.

There can be no impact assessment that's any different to the crystal ball gazing that everyone's been doing. You can look at all the possible outcomes but which it will be and how it'll effect the economy will still just be a guess that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, because there's no way to test it in advance.

What you can do is put contingency plans in place for certain things happening and according to Davis that's what they've done.

MPs know all this. Demanding answers when you know there can't be any is just a political game.

[Devius]

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

We know nothing about future trading arrangements with the EU and with countries outside the EU, until they're in place. We know nothing of what the regulatory framework will be. We know nothing about the impact on the economy whatever the outcome of negotiations.

There can be no impact assessment that's any different to the crystal ball gazing that everyone's been doing. You can look at all the possible outcomes but which it will be and how it'll effect the economy will still just be a guess that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, because there's no way to test it in advance.

What you can do is put contingency plans in place for certain things happening and according to Davis that's what they've done.

MPs know all this. Demanding answers when you know there can't be any is just a political game.

I'm not looking for a Soviet-style five-year plan.
But this Brexit Secretary has been so hapless of late, I'd bet his "contingency plans" would be the equivalent of sticking a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
As you stated in your last sentence, it IS just a political game to those in Pestminster - meanwhile the rest of the UK has to pick up the pieces when the game goes awry...

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

We know nothing about future trading arrangements with the EU and with countries outside the EU, until they're in place. We know nothing of what the regulatory framework will be. We know nothing about the impact on the economy whatever the outcome of negotiations.

There can be no impact assessment that's any different to the crystal ball gazing that everyone's been doing. You can look at all the possible outcomes but which it will be and how it'll effect the economy will still just be a guess that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, because there's no way to test it in advance.

What you can do is put contingency plans in place for certain things happening and according to Davis that's what they've done.

MPs know all this. Demanding answers when you know there can't be any is just a political game.

If there's no point to them why did he tell them last December that his department was "in the midst of carrying out about 57 sets of analyses" on different parts of the economy. And in October, he told the Brexit committee that Prime Minister Theresa May had read "summary outcomes" of "impact assessments", which he said went into "excruciating detail".

But on Wednesday he told the committee that no systematic impact assessments had been carried out.

His previous excuse for not revealing them was that they would give an advantage to the EU in negotiations. The real reason is that they don't actually exist.

The UK Govt's strategy seems to be just bluff and wing it (then cave in).

[gordian_knot]

I tend to think that Davis has been neutered by May and is on a very short leash. From what I read he didn't know about May's intended concessions to the EU beforehand and was desperately altering his last Commons speech a few minutes before delivering it.

He must feel like some of the Trump administration, trying to manage his brief and manage a bad leader at the same time.

It has become a shambles but I think that it's more May's fault than his.

[vinceprince]

Even the Pro-Brexit Torygraph is taking the piss. (I've pasted it as most is hidden)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...tweeners-suit/

Inbetweener in a suit?



My favourite character in The Inbetweeners – Channel 4’s sitcom about male adolescence – is Jay: the teenage schoolboy who is forever issuing blithe, if not wholly convincing, boasts about how manly he is. "On holiday in Spain," he declares casually, "me and my mate took a pedalo out and went to Africa."
Nothing can shake Jay’s self-confidence. When his date fails to show up to a party, he tells his friends that she’s had to fly to Paris for a modelling job. Asked why he isn’t preparing for his exams, he explains that his teachers have banned him from revising, because it "wouldn’t be fair on the other kids".
I was reminded of Jay this morning, as I watched David Davis being interrogated over Brexit.
Ever since his appointment as Brexit Secretary, Mr Davis has been giving airy assurances about the fanatical diligence of his efforts. Last December, he told MPs that he was "in the midst of carrying out about 57 sets of analysis" on the impact of Brexit on sectors of the economy. In June, he bragged that "nearly 60" were "already done". In October, he boasted that the analyses were written "in excruciating detail".
Yet last month, after MPs voted to see these excruciatingly detailed analyses, Mr Davis calmly announced that they’d misunderstood, no such analyses existed, and he’d never said they did.
Today he was summoned by the Brexit select committee to explain himself.
"So," said Hilary Benn, the committee’s chairman, "the Government hasn’t undertaken any impact assessments on the implications of leaving the EU on different sectors of the economy?"
Patiently Mr Davis shook his head.
"So there isn’t one," said Mr Benn, "on, for example, the automotive sector?"
"Not that I’m aware of," replied Mr Davis, thoughtfully allowing for the possibility that an intern or rogue civil servant might have compiled one without his knowledge.
"Is there one on aerospace?"
"Not that I’m aware of."
"Financial services?"
"I think the answer’s going to be no to all of them!" said Mr Davis with a chuckle, as if he couldn’t believe he was having to deal with someone so slow on the uptake.
"No to all of them," repeated Mr Benn thinly. "Right."
It was all very simple, explained Mr Davis. He hadn’t done impact assessments because there was no point: after all, "economic models" were "always wrong". Anyway, he’d never said "impact assessments"; he’d said "sectoral analyses", which was quite different. Admittedly in the past when MPs had asked him about his "impact assessments", he’d neglected to correct them; he may, he acknowledged graciously, "be at fault" for that.
But, said Mr Benn, Lord Bridges – a former Brexit minister – had expressly told Parliament that he was analysing the economic "impact" of Brexit.
Mr Davis waved him away. "Do not draw the conclusion that because you use the word ‘impact’, you’ve written an impact assessment!" he chortled.

Jay would have been proud.

[scoundrel]

I do sense that the British government is in a hole of its own digging.

1. It has failed to bring its partners in the DUP along for the ride. There are several pro-Unionist Tory backbenchers siding with the DUP as well. For the record, I personally agree with much of what the DUP has had to say. Northern Ireland has a fair claim to be treated on the same basis as the rest of the UK. It was naive of the Republic politicians to prattle about " no regulatory divergence" but it was extremely naive of Mrs May not to directly include the DUP in the talks when the Northern Ireland question was centre-stage.
2. There has been a serious failure to manage expectations.. What Gordian Knot says about the impossibility of worthwhile impact assessments is true, but this is what David Davis needed to be saying months ago. Instead, we have been led to believe that detailed analysis of the impact of Brexit has been going on, when clearly (for good practical reasons) this detailed analysis was not going on.

Any flak the UK government is collecting right now is well deserved.

[Eightball69]

Going well isn't it? Well done everyone

[judy84]

It is pretty obvious what the UK want. A free-trade deal and customs union, maybe using different terms such as customs equivalence, but not free movement of people.
This would be satisfactory to Ireland and DUP and EU but raise some problems.
The EU wants free movement...why? I don't know....Is it eastern EU countries that want their workers in the UK to send back money? Maybe to unload refugees and economic migrants invading the rest of Europe?
The EU would also want involvement of the ECJ and other overblown EU regulatory agencies, for which they would want payment of several billion euros per year. The UK would want ECJ EU agencies involvement only in trade.
If UK had such a deal, which is more like the EEC deal signed up for, then other EU countries would want such a deal. This would end the EU's idea of a united states of Europe project.

[gordian_knot]

According to the Independent, the EU is about to make another demand if it's to agree a trade deal - that the UK stay in the ECHR with its decisions being dominant over UK law. (No sending back foreign criminals then).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8096546.html

Whether you think the ECHR is a good thing or not, it's yet another indication that the EU will never offer the UK a fair trading deal while it negotiates from what it sees as a position of strength. What will it demand next - ongoing access to our fisheries for EU members? And lots more besides.

When this process started I thought that people would negotiate in good faith because a fair and sensible deal would benefit everybody. But the idealogues are determined that politics will trump economics. Humiliating the UK is part of that and at the moment we're looking like beggars, prepared to give the shirt off our backs for the dubious privilege of a stool at the back of the hall.

If we are to emerge from this as a nation with even a shred of dignity I now believe we need to break off all negotiations and leave on WTO rules and then, if the EU wants a fair deal in the future - when the economic pain of all concerned has concentrated minds - we can come back to the table and negotiate from a position of equality and respect.