Referendum campaigns on both sides were simply about getting people to vote their way, not efforts to set out settled plans of What Comes Next
"Vote for us and everything will be dandy" is not a plan
4/
That might have been alright if post-vote there had been a national discussion on how to proceed in an inclusive manner, but instead the political logic pointed to trying to capture the meaning of it all to serve particular agendas
All very majoritarian, as per
5/
However, absent robust parliamentary majorities, May couldn't own the narrative, but nor could any one else
Cue fudging and obfuscation. And battles over dominance that were (again) more about being top dog than any sense of where the UK might be going
6/
And so it went until 2019, when someone finally had a solid majority in the Commons to do what they wanted
However, that someone was Johnson, someone not given to strategic vision, but instead to rolling with the good times
7/
Unfortunately for him, we are already in a situation where good times cannot be built from the objective geopolitical or economic facts.
And maybe not even from the subjective tropes of 'taking back control'
It's a choice from various problematic options
8/
Hence the indecision
Which only makes things more difficult down the line
9/
And behind all this, we still don't know what Brexit is for, in the sense of having anything like a national consensus, or even just a meaningful government policy.
Crisis management isn't it
10/
So however the next week and month plays out, I'm confident that we'll still be in the same position we have been since 2016: disappointed and frustrated
11/
That's not good for the UK, for the obvious reason that were going to have a lot more of All This [expansive hand gesture]
But also for a less obvious reason
12/
All this is very tiring and annoying, not to mention unstable
So it's still there for the picking
And you might not like who is doing that picking
13/
So if you want to avoid a future that you really won't like, then you need need to try to shape the debate, to find common ground, to build something that includes
14/
Because if you don't, then someone else will, and other people might not be as good about those things as you are
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What better way to tie up the week than with a run-through of pacta sunt servanda?
A short thread, with pictures
Thanks to @Cardwell_PJ & Therese O'Donnell @UniStrathclyde for their help on this (any errors will be mine)
1/
As a bit of context, PSS is a basis of customary international law, and a cornerstone of the Vienna Convention: without it, the whole treaty-making business really has no point at all
2/
It's important to highlight that PSS carries implications, not least that states are free to enter treaties and to act freely elsewhere, but it's on them to only enter into commitments they can keep
Several points to note:
- The problem areas are the same they've always been (LPF, fish, governance and law enforcement)
- Round 6 was the first of the accelerated programme, so reason to make +ve sounds
- intermittent +ve sounds away from the big problems
3/
So we're back to the basic conundrum of the UK position in the Future Relationship talks: what are they trying to achieve?
1/
The economics would seem to point to securing as much preservation of existing ties with the EU, but the politics pulls in the other direction (certainly for this government)
2/
HMG has always talked about wanting a deal, and as Barnier noted again today, it was the UK that made a lot back in June about accelerating and intensifying talks to help secure that
3/
So yesterday I got canned for an interview because the presenter felt the Dublin Regulation was too complicated to get their head around (no names, no pack drill)
Let's see if we can cover the main points in the simplest form known to man: a short Twitter thread
1/
Key point 1: Dublin is about which state decides on asylum claims, not the standards for those claims. UK (like almost every state in world) accepts standards in the UN Refugee Convention. That has been constant (and will be so, even after transition ends)
2/
Key point 2: Dublin exists because asylum-seekers were bouncing around the EU: not good for anyone. Hence the notion that a decision by one EU member on your application would be a decision for all members
3/
A quick thread on why Brexit's much more involved for the UK than the EU
Includes world-beating graphics
1/
Imagine we've got a bunch of states (A to D) that have been doing their own thing
They look pretty similar, although you'll notice they have developed policies a bit differently (state A's policy A isn't quite like state D's; state B has pushed ahead with a policy on E)
2/
Now imagine that A, B and C decide to set up a grouping, to work together on things.
State D isn't involved and so trundles along on the outside of this
We're back into diminishing returns here: UK warnings about walking away become ever less credible with each time they are made and not followed through
Of course, also raises risk of it accidentally happening
Key point here is that if you are trying to change your practice (here, actually walking off when you say you will), then you have to make sure that the other party knows this is meant, otherwise they'll not respond to the signal (here, to move quickly to compromise)
Again, remember the point of threatening to walk away (and it's a poor practice, generally speaking) is to motivate the other party to move positions, so you get to a deal