Strong stuff here from David, and it is all fully merited.
The 'sign then renege' manoeuvre is (unsurprisingly) corrosive of trust. And things don't look good for 'global Britain' if the rest of the world doesn't trust the UK.
The bits on governance (66-72) and on standstill periods and a freeze on legal actions and processes (77) make it very clear that this is not an attempt to reach agreement.
Para 77 is a thing of beauty.
It says: we believe we and the EU should agree a ‘standstill’ on existing arrangements, including the operation of grace periods in force, and a freeze on existing legal actions and processes...
... to ensure there is room to negotiate without further cliff edges, and to provide a genuine signal of good intent to find ways forward.
There are SO many instances of the UK acting and arguing in exactly the opposite direction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One thing struck me - from a news management perspective - about today's briefing.
On 'freedom day', much of the media focus is on the announcement that the Govt will, in September, introduce a vaccine passport scheme for clubs and mass events. 1/5
On the face of it, this looks like an own-goal by an incompetent Govt. On 'freedom day', it has managed to alienate many businesses and many of its own MPs.
You can add their critical voices to those opposed to the 'reckless' easing of restrictions. 2/5
There may, though, be method in the madness. Here's my theory.
The critical voices of those opposed to the 'reckless' easing of restrictions have, literally, been marginalised. *Instead* we hear the voices of those urging a return to pre-COVID normal. 3/5
But first, two 'corrections'.
In the tweets on the attempts to shore up power, I omitted to refer to the 'anti-protest' law, described here by @IanDunt. It merits a place.
And there (obviously) shouldn't be an apostrophe in 'its' in tweet 6. 2/ politics.co.uk/comment/2021/0…
So... how should we respond? The first key thing is to accept the inevitability that many of us, who all see the Johnson govt as a danger, will disagree (perhaps profoundly) about the best way forward. The disagreements are here to stay. 3/
The debate about 'levelling up' prompts this 10-tweet summary of the Johnson Govt. 1/10
The Johnson Govt excels at 'sloganeering populism'. 'Get Brexit Done', 'Global Britain', 'Freedom Day'... and now 'Levelling up'.
The rhetoric projects energy and is meant to show a Govt devoted to 'the people's priorities'. 2/10
Behind the rhetoric, one might hope for some substance, and for at least the beginnings of a coherent policy agenda. And yet - be it the relationship with the EU or the wider world, COVID or tackling inequality - there is *nothing*. 3/10
It strikes me that there has been a disjuncture - which has abruptly ended - between why people vote as they do; and the appeals which political parties make to people. 1/8
We know that most people vote on the basis that the promises of the party they vote for best match *their* interests and preferences. They vote, in other words, for their selfish interests. 2/
Of course, different people define their interests in different ways. They are also more or less rooted in their community, society etc.
The party which succeeds in best appealing to more people's interests tends to win elections. 3/
The more COVID hospitalisations there are, the less capacity the NHS has to deal with other conditions.
That's right, isn't it? 1/4
The more cases there are, the more hospitalisations there will be. Not at the rate of the second wave, but still.
And the more we lift restrictions, the more cases there will be. 2/4
So... why do SO MANY people argue that we need to lift restrictions now so as to enable the NHS to focus on the huge backlog in relation to other diseases? 3/4