My Friday provocation - which I know is not widely shared in Brexit twitter circles - is that the UK government has been structured wrongly on Brexit since 2016 and the appointment of Lord Frost compounds the error. Not about personalities but balance of roles... 1/
So in the usual UK government system departments set policy and implement it, and the centre of government (Cabinet Office, Number 10) coordinates, arbitrates, sets overall strategy, and all the other things you'd expect from a centre. Though without much resource tbf... 2/
For international policy there was always a Prime Minister's 'sherpa' who was also the head of a Cabinet Office secretariat, their role to represent the PM at various international meetings, drawing on all different departmental interests. A specific and limited role perhaps. 3/
Now we come to Brexit and how to handle this. The May government does two things - sets up the Department for Exiting the EU, and appoints Olly Robbins as sherpa. But steadily Robbins becomes the chief negotiator, leaving DexEU as a sort of coordinating department 4/
Essentially with Robbins the centre of government becomes the implementer of Brexit. That means there is no separate arbiter between different interests, for although cross government consultation is done, ultimately all the power comes to one person. 5/
In many ways the original UK negotiating structure does not work, not least as there is never internal harmony on the UK side as to the negotiating objectives. Exactly the sort of thing an arbiter function like the traditional Cabinet Office would have done. 6/
Under Johnson we have David Frost appointed as the negotiator / sherpa and clear centre of power, with his own task force, reporting directly to the PM. Again it means he is the implementer, and there is no real arbiter or attempt to assemble all interests. 7/
Net effect - UK negotiating approach is one dimensional - not considering all our interests. Nobody can speak up against Frost, except in limited circumstances, Michael Gove. Two negotiations in which we fail to get a good deal follow. As is now clear. 8/
A new opportunity emerges after Brexit negotiations are complete, to go back to the normal UK government structure of a lead department and central coordination. But instead we go the other way, and give the centre even stronger power. Doubling down. 9/
But we already see the tensions. Frost wants to stick to the letter of the text, while departments are under pressure from their stakeholders e.g. farmers in Defra, performers DCMS. Meanwhile FCDO run EU Member State embassies, but the centre has overall EU policy. 10/
The centre of government does not have the resources of departments to deliver major policies. And the tendency is to shortcut that work and just say what goes. Which is what has happened. And it hasn't delivered a good result for the UK on Brexit issues. 11/
EU negotiations are tough and need cross government effort. But so are US negotiations. International talks are a contact sport as a wise man once said. They need the best government structures, not some central diktat led hybrid. Shouting in the wind, but all said now... 12/ end
PS on UK structure for EU relations, @jillongovt has some questions. ukandeu.ac.uk/the-uk-sets-up…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Henig

David Henig Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DavidHenigUK

20 Feb
I'm afraid that trying to reconcile hard Brexit and no barriers between GB and NI unionism through inventing new forms of borders has been, is, and will be a doomed enterprise. The report on which this article is based is no solution. irishtimes.com/opinion/david-…
I have been sympathetic to unionist concerns about Brexit and Northern Ireland throughout the process. I opposed the original Northern Ireland backstop for this reason. I thought an all-UK backstop was better. But the DUP joined Conservatives in thinking this not Brexit enough.
My sympathy is lessened by language about annexation by the EU, and also the failure to recognise that the post-Brexit settlement affects both communities, both East-West and North-South trade. It makes me think the author's hatred for the EU is dominating his approach. Image
Read 7 tweets
20 Feb
Thread, particularly this. In time our two agreements with the EU will come to be seen very badly, and blame will be apportioned. Right now Brexiteers try to blame PM May for the NI Protocol. Not convincingly.
Reason for problems of both NI Protocol and EU FTA are fundamentally the same. Unrealistic negotiating position not compromised until too late, by which time it was take EU deal or not. And the PM preferred to take deal, claim victory, defer consequences.
Government is very lucky that a sympathetic press and commentariat is not yet calling out problems with the EU deal. But the management of substandard deals and public opinion, along with international relations, is going to be very difficult.
Read 4 tweets
19 Feb
Strangely not mentioned in this story - the fact that the US, EU and Japan agreed to sytrengthen rules to tackle Chinese subsidies in January 2020. So we appear to be urging the EU to join something they joined and we didn't over a year ago. thesun.co.uk/news/14089864/…
Does it matter that there is a media story about trade briefed by the government that is almost completely inaccurate? Because these four paragraphs are complete fantasy. The UK are trying to divide the EU and US on trade, and we were the ones putting up barriers to trade.
I had quite a shock recently when a mainstream US think-tanker described the UK in the same camp as Poland and Hungary as having been taken over in part by populist nationalism. Of course the UK government would deny this, but do they care that this is being suggested?
Read 4 tweets
18 Feb
The latest on UK-New Zealand according to what passes as UK government transparency. Tells us nothing of use whatsoever. gov.uk/government/new…
Fortunately we can tell you a little more about what is happening in UK-New Zealand trade talks courtesy of the New Zealand government, who take consultation seriously. mfat.govt.nz/assets/Trade-a…
Let us compare a little shall we. Here is what the UK government says about tariff negotiations with New Zealand. All under control.
Read 8 tweets
18 Feb
This is I think one of the better articles on the subject of UK-EU relations published from a Brexit-leaning point of view. Quite a lot in here that is worth considering.

Start with the the fact there are those in both EU and UK who want the other to fail. True. Rarely said.
We then go on to the EU treating the UK as a third country. Still I think some denial here of what this means. It means the EU will behave badly towards us. That's not our special privilege. That's the reality of modern trade and regulations. You'll find it in the US as well.
So we come to a risk point. The UK government argues that the EU is behaving badly towards us because of Brexit. They want to avoid accusations that they should have seen it coming, and chose this path. The article is right we need to cool it. But again, can we accept realities?
Read 5 tweets
18 Feb
Cuts right to the heart of possibly the most significant Brexit myth in the Conservative Party, that the EU is a uniquely heavy regulator holding back business.

When actually regulation, whether of bananas or buildings, is a developed country norm, including the US.
The Brussels regulatory myth also sits heavily on one former journalist. Boris Johnson was mocking EU regulations in the late 90s but nobody was bothering to check whether the rest of the world were also regulating. They were. Of course there were mistakes. But universal action.
We tend to forget that the growth of regulations in the 1980s and particularly 90s was largely a centre-right initiative, a corollary to privatisation. So the state would no longer be extensively involved in providing services, but would regulate instead.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!