,
12 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This is (as I suppose you’d expect) an earth-shakingly bad diagnosis of what led us to our current state.
See this passage, where Davis explains how he thinks the next stage could be done better. 
1. The reason why we are where we are is that the PM and Nick Timothy set her red lines without discussion with anyone. Those red lines, combined with the reality of the Irish Border, led ineluctably to the WA and current PD.
Further, because those red lines were set without reference to Parliament, the devolved governments, business, or wider society, there was (unsurprisingly) wide hostility to the final result.
Any serious attempt to do better next time would start by acknowledging the need to get as wide a consensus as possible (going well beyond the Conservative Party) behind the objectives for the next stage, before negotiations begin.
I keep banging on about this: but that approach is not wishy-washy centrism - it was urged on the U.K. by that least wishy-washy centrist of Canada’s recent PMs, Stephen Harper. telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/0…
It acknowledges reality. And the reality of having no majority (a basic political fact that appears to elude Davis).
2. The claim that having more experienced trade negotiators handling the negotiations would have changed anything is fantasy. First, expertise in dealing with the EU (esp EU law and decision-making) is rather important when negotiating with the EU. You can’t import that from Aus.
Second, finding 22 experienced trade experts who’d agree with Davis’ preferred approach (Canada +++ + unicorn solutions to the Irish Border) wouldn’t be plain sailing. Cloning your favoured guru 21 times isn’t yet technologically possible.
And (forgive me for repeating the point) the critical expertise here is understanding and working within the political and legal constraints and realities on both sides - a skill Davis’ favoured gurus have shown a rather spectacular inability to do.
3. As to putting the negotiations under the control of relevant Cabinet Ministers: great. But that requires Ministers who agree with each other on the main objectives; are ready to listen to and consult with Parliament and wider society; and are competent.
The first two conditions have certainly not been fulfilled to date. /ends.
