Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

The connection is that Boris, the most likely next PM and a strong advocate of taking back control etc etc etc, has refused to back our ambassador. Any clearer now? I guess there is nothing like becoming the 51st state to ensure a good trade deal.

Also, the ambassador didn't make "disparaging remarks"; he didn't post offensive tweets etc. He said harsh (but arguably true and shared by a significant part of the rest of the world) things about Trump in messages which should have remained secret but were leaked to the press. Last I checked, part of an ambassador's job is to provide honest feedback on the host country, even if such feedback may cause offense.

It would be indeed interesting to see what foreign diplomats in the UK have been telling their own governments about Brexit and the wave of populism in the UK!

You're right, the sort of remarks Darroch made are nothing when it comes to the supposedly confidential dispatches that diplomats send home.
I sense there is the suspicion among Tory remainers that Darroch (an avowed Remainer) has been the victim of a Brexiteer plot to oust him as part of wider campaign against civil servants who they perceive as being anti-Brexit. More revelations about Darroch in this weekends sunday papers apparently.
Make no bones about it though, there is now an internecine battle at the top of the Tory party.

lisyloo

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

And I pointed out the contradiction between Boris' taking back control mantra , and the fact that this lack of support for the ambassador led to the ambassador's resignation.

I don’t agree with that.
The ambassadors position was untenable because the US (trump tantrum if you like) refused to work with him.
What Boris said as a back bench MP (or even a candidate) is irrelevant to that.

This does not seem to me like the best example of taking back control, standing up for your country, etc. In another words, I was pointing out, surprise surprise, a huge inconsistency between Boris' words and his actions

We don’t have unilateral control of the US relationship.
We can stand up if we want to be isolated, otherwise we have to work with others and making disparaging and hugely offensive remarks is not the way to do it.

Should we cow tow to his tantrums.
Well if we leave the EU then this is exactly what we need to deal with and there is a huge risk with trump that he’ll throw his toys out the pram.

SouthLondonUser

It is all extremely worrying:

• this is not a sign that Boris is the kind of politician ready to stand up to American demands; how will this play out in trade negotiations? There's a chance the Ambassador should have probably resigned anyway in the interest of the country, but Boris should still have at least paid lip service to defending him.
• The suspicion that this is part of a plot against pro-Remain civil servants is hard to dismiss; the role of the civil service is to provide honest feedback, even when unwelcome. This is being undermined. Politicians who surround themselves with yes men are unlikely to rule well.
• Once again, the Tories are not standing up for the institutions of this country, just like they didn't defend the judiciary after the daily fail labelled them enemy of the people. Not to mention that the whole Brexit saga is about putting party before country.

SouthLondonUser

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t agree with that.
The ambassadors position was untenable because the US (trump tantrum if you like) refused to work with him.

True. I am not saying the ambassador should have stayed. I am saying Boris should have defended him; the ambassador would have probably resigned anyway, but Boris defending him would have sent a strong signal and would have been the right thing to do.

lisyloo wrote: »

What Boris said as a back bench MP (or even a candidate) is irrelevant to that.

The position of the most likely next PM is irrelevant?????? How can you possibly say that??

movilogo

the role of the civil service is to provide honest feedback

The role of civil servants is to follow order and provide factual comment. They must no express their own opinion in public capacity.

Saying "UK trade negotiation can suffer due to Trump administration's xyz policy etc." => is a factual conclusion based on evidence.

Saying "Trump is inept" is an insult to host country as it damages the relation and personal opinion. In a relation it does not matter who is right but how people felt.

This is where the ambassador failed.

SouthLondonUser

movilogo wrote: »

The role of civil servants is to follow order and provide factual comment. They must no express their own opinion in public capacity.

He didn't. He expressed his opinion in missives which should have remained secret. I am no legal expert, but this sounds to me like a criminal matter and probably a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

Do you remember wikileaks? These kind of offensive remarks by diplomatic personnel was not rare.

Would ambassadors be doing their jobs if their missives back home were such that they'd never cause offense in the host country?

movilogo

a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

It is, hence it will be investigated.

lisyloo

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

T
The position of the most likely next PM is irrelevant?????? How can you possibly say that??

It’s irrelevant to “that” means it’s irrelevant to the resignation.
The ambassador didn’t resign because of Boris he resigned because of Trump.

I don’t think anything Boris says or does will be relevant to whether he wins either(unfortunately).

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

[*]Once again, the Tories are not standing up for the institutions of this country, just like they didn't defend the judiciary after the daily fail labelled them enemy of the people. Not to mention that the whole Brexit saga is about putting party before country.
[/LIST]

There is a perception by Tories in favour of Brexit that the 'institutions' you talk are of are engaged in an effort to thwart or water down Brexit. I think there is some merit in that perception, no doubt you'll disagree. I think the accusation made against the civil service that they view Brexit as a damage limitation exercise rather than an opportunity also has some validity, although you could argue that they are picking up the mood of a reluctant remainer PM rather than it being a malicious intent on their part.
If Boris does become PM he needs to change the dynamic from one of miserable reluctance to leave the EU to one of unabashed confidence in the UK's chosen new path.

SouthLondonUser

The ambassador would have probably EVENTUALLY resigned anyway.
The fact that Boris refused to back him contributed, in my view (I could be wrong of course) to him resigning NOW; had Boris backed him, the ambassador might have tried to wait it out a bit. After all, The Donald hasn't exactly been the most consistent person