Donald Tusk being special

[Zak33]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKCN1PV189

“I’ve been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely,”

bit strong there Donald me old mucker.

[peterb]

The special place in hell will contain Donald Tusk and the European Commision.

[Ttaskmaster]

bit strong there Donald me old mucker.

He's not wrong, though - It was all a focus on just leaving and how we're such victims in all this... never what we'd actually do with ourselves once we've left.

[Corky34]

He's not wrong though IMO, promoting something that's going to effect everyone's lives for better or worse without a detailed proposal for doing or achieving that something in a way that gives protection from the dangers or risks arising from what you actively encouraged is perhaps a little irresponsible.

That's not me making a judgment on Brexit BTW, it's me saying that perhaps it would've been a good idea to have some sort of proposal or plan in place before the referendum or before triggering A50, at least that way parliament wouldn't still be squabbling over what Brexit actually means some two years later.

[shaithis]

Have to agree with him, there should be accountability for the way this was handled prior to the vote.

[scaryjim]

... bit strong there Donald me old mucker.

I suspect there's a lot of people in the European Parliament, Council and Comission who'd be a lot stronger in private.

Twitter is, unsurprisingly, having a field day. IMO his sentiment is absolutely right; lots of people have been saying exactly the same thing repeatedly for a couple of years now. The question is whether he should have said it, where there's much more room for debate ... although the fact that we're in a position where he felt comfortable saying it tells you a lot about how bad a place we're already in. Tusk isn't some naive n00b; he isn't a young upstart looking for some limelight; he's canny enough to know that this will cause waves, and that a lot of people will slate him for saying it in public, and that it may damage his political reputation long term. He still decided he needed to say it.

[Zak33]

I agree with you all...

but it's not what Diplomacy is about, is it?

If we're at the end of the path... lets just shoot the dog in the barn and crack on, please.

[Ttaskmaster]

it's me saying that perhaps it would've been a good idea to have some sort of proposal or plan in place before the referendum or before triggering A50

That's exactly what people were saying even before the vote, but it got blown into a media and popularity contest instead.

[cptwhite_uk]

I will be supremely disappointed if we've waited close to 3 years to come away without a deal, something we likely could have done with 12 months preparation.

[scaryjim]

... but it's not what Diplomacy is about, is it? ...

Neither is agreeing a deal with one group of people, changing it unilaterally to keep a different group of people happy, then going back to first group and telling them they'll have to change the deal they agreed to because someone else doesn't like it.

That's kind of the point I was making. Tusk hasn't done this lightly. It's note a careless, off-the-cuff remark.

And like I say, it isn't a new sentiment. In terms of party line Westminster in now majority leave, but there's no plan for how to make it happen, and the whole debacle is highlighting just how ridiculous the "take back control" line was in the first place! If this is taking back control, I'd rather have chaos with Ed Milliband.

In fact, I think my favourite take on the whole sorry business is this one from Richard Herring:

Is it possible to go even more into the EU so we actually have no UK government at all? Cos I’m voting for that. #hardremain

At least seem to know what their plan for us leaving is...

[Corky34]

Twitter is, unsurprisingly, having a field day. IMO his sentiment is absolutely right; lots of people have been saying exactly the same thing repeatedly for a couple of years now. The question is whether he should have said it, where there's much more room for debate ... although the fact that we're in a position where he felt comfortable saying it tells you a lot about how bad a place we're already in. Tusk isn't some naive n00b; he isn't a young upstart looking for some limelight; he's canny enough to know that this will cause waves, and that a lot of people will slate him for saying it in public, and that it may damage his political reputation long term. He still decided he needed to say it.

Like you say he's probably an intelligent person, IDK enough about him to judge, and having a quick think about the question of whether he should have said it, i suspect, if he's intelligent like you say, that he's done it on purpose and with a specific goal in mind. If i was a betting man I'd say it was a signal to the MPs who voted down Mrs May's deal, a sort of sly way of saying at least she has a plan, it's probably as close as he can get to commenting directly on the internal politics of a member state without actually doing so.

Should he have said it? I'd say yes as the chance of changing Mrs May 'deal' are probably very low so putting pressure on the hard-line eurosceptics who seem to almost relish the idea of leaving without a WA is perhaps a good thing, like you say he decided to say it and if he's intelligent he's probably aware what the effect of the waves it would cause.

[kompukare]

...a good idea to have some sort of proposal or plan in place before the referendum or before triggering A50, at least that way parliament wouldn't still be squabbling over what Brexit actually means some two years later.

The obvious problem with stating anything concrete before the referendum is they needed very single vote since the end margin was under 2%, and for that Brexit had to be dressed up as a fantastic chimera which could mean almost anything to each spectator / voter.
So long as an actual plan could alienate the fantasies of even 2% of those voters, it was better to say nothing.

[Galant]

There's no defending this.

1. He's using extremely strong language. Whether or not one believes in hell or damnation the concept is about as strong a condemnation as one can muster. It's the sort of statement usually reserved for child rapists, mass murderers etc. Crimes that go beyond politics or law, damnable universally. Something that everyone knows is wrong and from which they should distance themselves.

This might seem pedantic semantics but it's very relevant because...

2. He's being completely hypocritical.

If he believes that it is an obvious, damnable sin to lead an undirected Brexit - presumably because of the damage it will do to people's lives - then how much more to be one who claims to see this but then obstruct a path to a smooth Brexit? A path that could help those very same people and ensure the most prosperous dealings possible going forward.

I actually reject his premise. However, on the merit of his own words he falls.

You can't condemn an immoral failure while you're complicit in it.

He may as well be Genghis Khan condemning the weakness of foreign generals right before massacring their people.

[walibe]

He and many only fear the weakening or collapse of the European Union in its current form. To many however, that would be no bad thing.

[Saracen999]

He's not wrong though IMO, promoting something that's going to effect everyone's lives for better or worse without a detailed proposal for doing or achieving that something in a way that gives protection from the dangers or risks arising from what you actively encouraged is perhaps a little irresponsible.

That's not me making a judgment on Brexit BTW, it's me saying that perhaps it would've been a good idea to have some sort of proposal or plan in place before the referendum or before triggering A50, at least that way parliament wouldn't still be squabbling over what Brexit actually means some two years later.

There were proposals and plans though. One was to conduct the "leave" phase (withdrawal agreement) and "future relationship" (trade desl, etc) in parallel. i.e. start straight away.

But that was vetoed, categorically, by .... who? Oh yes, the EU. Why? They wanted to get the bits they wanted (exit fee, EU citizen's rights, etc) locked down first, and only once "satisfactory progress" (as defined by them) was achieved would they even begin to discuss the future relationship. Which meant we were roughly hslf way through the two yeears. And .... where does the bit about customs and borders come? Right, in the future relationship bit. and if that had been discussed straight away, just maybe we'd be past needing a "backstop" already.

And, of course there hsve been all sits of proposals for avoiding a hard border, from giving companies "registered trader" status and pre-declarastons to technical measures, all of which have been summarily dismissed by .... the EU.

Now, it's fair enough for any side in a negotiation to use whatever (legal) means it wants to get the best deal for itself. Which they did. It's certainly not "friendly" but nor is it surprising.

But it isn't fair to then turn around and moan there was no plan, having dismissed outright anything that didn't suit their agenda.

And by the way, they're still doing it now.

The UK Parliament having dismissed the current deal (which, by the way, it isn't because May does not gave the authority to agree it, merely to sign off on a DRAFT to go to Parliament) the EU's position is "no negotiating". As that so-called deal was rejected by a majority unprecedented in British history, and they're not willing to even discuss it, the only conclusions possible from that are :-

a) no deal is possible. Which, of course, results in exactly the same border problems they orofess to be desparate to prevent, or

b) they're trying to bully Parliament, despite that unpecedented vote, into reversing it.



Of course, some fault resides here too. Having had Cameron resign, we should never have allowed w Remain-supporting, tin-eared technocrat like May to he PM, and for that, we have the in-fighting with BJ, Gove, etc, to blame.

Having decided, by public vote, to Leave, we should have had someone that at least believed in Leaving running it, yet we had a Remainer PM who appoinred a Leaver to run talks, but who promptly side-lined him (twice) to let her own unelected flunky do it. I'm still not sure if this was sabotage or merely rank incompetence. She's a ..... manager, an appeaser, trying to satisfy everyone and ending up pkeasing nobody. A bit of a Chsmberlain, really, whichvis somehow ironically apt.

So, Mr. Tusk, by all means blame May for utter incompetence, both in dealing with the EU and her own party, but don't say tnere was no plan, when you yourself were instrumental in sinking anything and everything but what happened.

[Saracen999]

Like you say he's probably an intelligent person, IDK enough about him to judge, and having a quick think about the question of whether he should have said it, i suspect, if he's intelligent like you say, that he's done it on purpose and with a specific goal in mind. If i was a betting man I'd say it was a signal to the MPs who voted down Mrs May's deal, a sort of sly way of saying at least she has a plan, it's probably as close as he can get to commenting directly on the internal politics of a member state without actually doing so.

Should he have said it? I'd say yes as the chance of changing Mrs May 'deal' are probably very low so putting pressure on the hard-line eurosceptics who seem to almost relish the idea of leaving without a WA is perhaps a good thing, like you say he decided to say it and if he's intelligent he's probably aware what the effect of the waves it would cause.

I agree he knew what he was saying, not least because he apparently (news reports) tweted it again several minutes later.

As for the attitude of eurosceptics, there might be some that would reject any WA, most most, even in the ERG, have been explicit that they support a withdrawal agreement, but not that one, as it stands.

The problem is that it locks us in to EU rules, indefinitely, until a suitable trade deal is arranged. If there was any evidence that the EU would approach that reasonably, the .... maybe. But it requires goodwill and there's been naff-all so far.

And absent that, the EU can use the non-binding bit to either lock us into their rules, even ones they haven't invented yet, or as a gun to hold to our heads to get exactly what they want ftom a trade deal, no matter how bad is it for the UK.

That is the very epitome of "no deal is better than a bad deal".

What we have now, in Brexit negotiations, is the equivalent of the discussion between the frog (not the French variety) and the scorpion that wanted to cross the river. We're the frog, and I remember what the svorpion did, and why he said he did it. There's no trusting the EU precisely because they're a scorpion, I mean the EU, and, well they are what they are, and csn be relied upon to act accordingly.