[Politics] Brexit

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think the UK is entirely different. It has gone a long way down the multi-cultural road, quite successfully, but is now questionning how much further they should continue, and at what speed. That is a legitimate discussion in my view

In as much as we don't behave, among 'the cultures' like they do/did in 'Yugoslavia', yes, a ripping success. However. . . .

Multiculturalism is a very strange concept. The 'ism' gives it the gravity of a doctrine, like 'communism' or 'pacificism' or 'nazi-ism'. So what is it about 'multiculture' that is so portentious it constitutes an 'ism'? The only possible answer that it has become a 'doctrine', i.e., something to strive for.

Why on earth should anyone want to strive for multiculture?

To answer that one needs to ask 'what is multiculture'? When I was a naive pale lefty, I assumed it meant that you could cook a curry and wear a sari (or indeed, your girlfriends undies) in the comfort of your own home without fearing that you'd be deported or, at very least, have a brick chucked through your window. Live and let live. I personally hankered to be left in peace despite my strange tase in clobber and music, and I expected someone with black skin to be likewise left in peace. And date or marry someone from a (very slightly, after all) different gene pool. I never thought it meant that the various bonkers doctrines and prejudices that I (were I an immigrant) had left behind when I emigrated to Blighty would be tolerated, and even encouraged. I never thought it meant using British taxpayers' money to fund faith schools (other than C of E ... its traditional, albeit not for me as I am an athiest). I very certainly did not think it meant I shouldn't say 'Christmas' at work in December in case it offended someone (anyone who has mates in the US will know what I'm getting at here; happy Hannaukah, by the way).

So, multiculturalism as a doctrine that promotes the proliferation by taxpayer funding of non-indiginous culture seems to me a bit . . . weird. Why? What for? I like to find out about different cultures, and I deplore racism, but I can't fathom a doctrine of subsidising the proliferation of new stuff just for the merry hell of it.

In the US, for all its faults, the culture dictates that you are American first. I would be very happy if our culture took the same line. Mind you . . . English or British? That is the Elephant in the room as far as I am concerned . . . best address this one first as it is the biggest threat to the unity of the UK (UK? Am I British, English or UKish?). Time for bed. Nighty night.

 

[Steve in Japan]

And yet without dragging Syrian refugees into the argument, we may have had a remain result.

View attachment 79420

And without Frau Merkel deciding EU migrant policy on the hoof in 2015, we may well have done. Who knows.

 

[Steve in Japan]

In as much as we don't behave, among 'the cultures' like they do/did in 'Yugoslavia', yes, a ripping success. However. . . .

Multiculturalism is a very strange concept. The 'ism' gives it the gravity of a doctrine, like 'communism' or 'pacificism' or 'nazi-ism'. So what is it about 'multiculture' that is so portentious it constitutes an 'ism'? The only possible answer that it has become a 'doctrine', i.e., something to strive for.

Why on earth should anyone want to strive for multiculture?

To answer that one needs to ask 'what is multiculture'? When I was a naive pale lefty, I assumed it meant that you could cook a curry and wear a sari (or indeed, your girlfriends undies) in the comfort of your own home without fearing that you'd be deported or, at very least, have a brick chucked through your window. Live and let live. I personally hankered to be left in peace despite my strange tase in clobber and music, and I expected someone with black skin to be likewise left in peace. And date or marry someone from a (very slightly, after all) different gene pool. I never thought it meant that the various bonkers doctrines and prejudices that I (were I an immigrant) had left behind when I emigrated to Blighty would be tolerated, and even encouraged. I never thought it meant using British taxpayers' money to fund faith schools (other than C of E ... its traditional, albeit not for me as I am an athiest). I very certainly did not think it meant I shouldn't say 'Christmas' at work in December in case it offended someone (anyone who has mates in the US will know what I'm getting at here; happy Hannaukah, by the way).

So, multiculturalism as a doctrine that promotes the proliferation by taxpayer funding of non-indiginous culture seems to me a bit . . . weird. Why? What for? I like to find out about different cultures, and I deplore racism, but I can't fathom a doctrine of subsidising the proliferation of new stuff just for the merry hell of it.

In the US, for all its faults, the culture dictates that you are American first. I would be very happy if our culture took the same line. Mind you . . . English or British? That is the Elephant in the room as far as I am concerned . . . best address this one first as it is the biggest threat to the unity of the UK (UK? Am I British, English or UKish?). Time for bed. Nighty night.

That's a very thoughtful post which I shall (metaphorically) take to my bed to ponder.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

And yet without dragging Syrian refugees into the argument, we may have had a remain result.

View attachment 79420

That we will never know. Unfortunately, many politicians and people have refused to discuss the very real concerns many people who are not fascists or racists, have about large scale immigration. Perhaps if there had been open debate, in particular when Blair actively encouraged immigration, we may have avoided the referendum altogether. I think those who blame Cameron from remain are looking in the wrong place. Tony Blair sowed the seeds of referendum back in the late 90's.

 

[alfredmizen]

In as much as we don't behave, among 'the cultures' like they do/did in 'Yugoslavia', yes, a ripping success. However. . . .

Multiculturalism is a very strange concept. The 'ism' gives it the gravity of a doctrine, like 'communism' or 'pacificism' or 'nazi-ism'. So what is it about 'multiculture' that is so portentious it constitutes an 'ism'? The only possible answer that it has become a 'doctrine', i.e., something to strive for.

Why on earth should anyone want to strive for multiculture?

To answer that one needs to ask 'what is multiculture'? When I was a naive pale lefty, I assumed it meant that you could cook a curry and wear a sari (or indeed, your girlfriends undies) in the comfort of your own home without fearing that you'd be deported or, at very least, have a brick chucked through your window. Live and let live. I personally hankered to be left in peace despite my strange tase in clobber and music, and I expected someone with black skin to be likewise left in peace. And date or marry someone from a (very slightly, after all) different gene pool. I never thought it meant that the various bonkers doctrines and prejudices that I (were I an immigrant) had left behind when I emigrated to Blighty would be tolerated, and even encouraged. I never thought it meant using British taxpayers' money to fund faith schools (other than C of E ... its traditional, albeit not for me as I am an athiest). I very certainly did not think it meant I shouldn't say 'Christmas' at work in December in case it offended someone (anyone who has mates in the US will know what I'm getting at here; happy Hannaukah, by the way).

So, multiculturalism as a doctrine that promotes the proliferation by taxpayer funding of non-indiginous culture seems to me a bit . . . weird. Why? What for? I like to find out about different cultures, and I deplore racism, but I can't fathom a doctrine of subsidising the proliferation of new stuff just for the merry hell of it.

In the US, for all its faults, the culture dictates that you are American first. I would be very happy if our culture took the same line. Mind you . . . English or British? That is the Elephant in the room as far as I am concerned . . . best address this one first as it is the biggest threat to the unity of the UK (UK? Am I British, English or UKish?). Time for bed. Nighty night.

Good post

 

[alfredmizen]

Views like that have unfortunately strengthened right wing politics in this country. You are unwilling to contemplate that there may be some pitfalls in mass immigration and therefore resort to showing a poor refugee family in order to reinforce your self righteous attitude and pour contempt upon anyone who doesn't think like you. Those Syrian refugees need help, our help, the rest of the EU's help, the world's help and you do them a disservice by dragging them into an argument about the mass immigration that has happened already in our country which is almost entirely based upon economic betterment.

Well put.

 

[Mental Lental]

Unfortunately, many politicians and people have refused to discuss the very real concerns many people who are not fascists or racists, have about large scale immigration.

What are these concerns of which you speak? If you're talking about immigration affecting jobs that's been proved to be of minimum impact.....

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287287/occ109.pdf

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

Another concern is that that the UK is already overpopulated and that there isn't enough houses. That doesn't wash with me either given that I live in a country that has double the population yet half the arable land mass and still seems to manage to find houses for everyone. As was debated earlier in this thread the perception of overpopulation is more to do with lack of housing rather than there being too many immigrants.

After those two what concerns are there?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Whilst they are in France with a British border force patrolling and checking vehicles, the majority remain in France. If the French adopt a less vigorous approach to the vehicles leaving, there will be many more in Britain, and once here, can make an asylum claim which we are obliged to look into.
Asylum will or won't be granted case by case, but whilst those applications are waiting those people will be our problem, will need to be fed, will need to be housed and have the right to appeal refusal, or the right to remain if there is a genuine threat to life.

This is not a situation I want, although I do believe we are not taking in as many refugees as we could or should. Perhaps when we are refusing EU citizens unqualified entry, we can take in more refugees.

It would be very very irresponsible for the French to start letting people over to the UK. We can all see they are trying to blame Brexit to get rid of their own problems, and cover up the fact that French politicians ratings are at an all time low. We have also taken our fair share of people over the years long before Calais even became an issue, people always forget this. People in this country would probably feel a lot more charitable if it wasn't for the years of uncontrolled migration in the first place.

 

[BadFish]

What are these concerns of which you speak? If you're talking about immigration affecting jobs that's been proved to be of minimum impact.....

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287287/occ109.pdf

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

Another concern is that that the UK is already overpopulated and that there isn't enough houses. That doesn't wash with me either given that I live in a country that has double the population yet half the arable land mass and still seems to manage to find houses for everyone. As was debated earlier in this thread the perception of overpopulation is more to do with lack of housing rather than there being too many immigrants.

After those two what concerns are there?

...an easy scapegoat.

 

[Soulman]

In as much as we don't behave, among 'the cultures' like they do/did in 'Yugoslavia', yes, a ripping success. However. . . .

Multiculturalism is a very strange concept. The 'ism' gives it the gravity of a doctrine, like 'communism' or 'pacificism' or 'nazi-ism'. So what is it about 'multiculture' that is so portentious it constitutes an 'ism'? The only possible answer that it has become a 'doctrine', i.e., something to strive for.

Why on earth should anyone want to strive for multiculture?

To answer that one needs to ask 'what is multiculture'? When I was a naive pale lefty, I assumed it meant that you could cook a curry and wear a sari (or indeed, your girlfriends undies) in the comfort of your own home without fearing that you'd be deported or, at very least, have a brick chucked through your window. Live and let live. I personally hankered to be left in peace despite my strange tase in clobber and music, and I expected someone with black skin to be likewise left in peace. And date or marry someone from a (very slightly, after all) different gene pool. I never thought it meant that the various bonkers doctrines and prejudices that I (were I an immigrant) had left behind when I emigrated to Blighty would be tolerated, and even encouraged. I never thought it meant using British taxpayers' money to fund faith schools (other than C of E ... its traditional, albeit not for me as I am an athiest). I very certainly did not think it meant I shouldn't say 'Christmas' at work in December in case it offended someone (anyone who has mates in the US will know what I'm getting at here; happy Hannaukah, by the way).

So, multiculturalism as a doctrine that promotes the proliferation by taxpayer funding of non-indiginous culture seems to me a bit . . . weird. Why? What for? I like to find out about different cultures, and I deplore racism, but I can't fathom a doctrine of subsidising the proliferation of new stuff just for the merry hell of it.

In the US, for all its faults, the culture dictates that you are American first. I would be very happy if our culture took the same line. Mind you . . . English or British? That is the Elephant in the room as far as I am concerned . . . best address this one first as it is the biggest threat to the unity of the UK (UK? Am I British, English or UKish?). Time for bed. Nighty night.

Very good post which has captured the mood/feelings of many.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

What are these concerns of which you speak? If you're talking about immigration affecting jobs that's been proved to be of minimum impact.....

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287287/occ109.pdf

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

Another concern is that that the UK is already overpopulated and that there isn't enough houses. That doesn't wash with me either given that I live in a country that has double the population yet half the arable land mass and still seems to manage to find houses for everyone. As was debated earlier in this thread the perception of overpopulation is more to do with lack of housing rather than there being too many immigrants.

After those two what concerns are there?

No, 'not after those two' as though you can dismiss them out of hand. I will be brief, as I feel you are so entrenched, that as I said before, your unwillingness to accept that anything relating immigration is problematic, makes this reply pointless and futile. You come across as an extremist, instead of discussing and moving position as you learn, you have such a narrow minded position which I think is unlikely to change at all.

Jobs, lower paid workers often working under the minimum wage. This drives wages down generally.

Space, at some point, the country becomes less viable. Just because the Japanese manage with their homogenous society doesn't compute that it will work elsewhere. Less space means less productivity so economically, it is not desirable as well as environmentally.

Schools, I have personally seen the effects of large numbers of children with English as a second language coming into the school. Schools are often very stretched, teachers already have a difficult job and support for people in these situations is very poor. Primary schools in particular are having to expand at a time when their budgets have been severely curtailed and they are laying off staff.

Culture. For many years, we castigated ourselves as we examined guilty feelings about empire. We shouldn't have imposed our culture around the world but rather have adapted to the native culture. I agree with that. In Britain, we have not done enough to see that work in reversal. This has led to many ghetto areas where the chance of hearing English is minimal. Note, fragmentation of society instead of the cohesion you cite in Japan.

Allowing Sharia law. No other law should operate in Britain. Only British law. Anything else is subversive and again, harms relations with the dominant culture. Imagine if now, a million English went to live in Pakistan and said yes we will obey your laws but we will also run English law alongside it? It would quite rightly not be tolerated.

Unfortunately, due to Blair and Bush's wars, we now have a ripe breeding ground for extremism. A divided society is undesirable and also less safe.

I am not against immigration, but I am against the kind of mass immigration we've seen. I want far more integration with the immigrants we have as this will eventually pay dividends. I know many many immigrants who have adapted and their families share British values. That is the desired effect.

I've just put a few reasons from the top of my head, doubtless there are more, just as there are also great reasons for immigration as well.

 

[Guinness Boy]

In as much as we don't behave, among 'the cultures' like they do/did in 'Yugoslavia', yes, a ripping success. However. . . .

Multiculturalism is a very strange concept. The 'ism' gives it the gravity of a doctrine, like 'communism' or 'pacificism' or 'nazi-ism'. So what is it about 'multiculture' that is so portentious it constitutes an 'ism'? The only possible answer that it has become a 'doctrine', i.e., something to strive for.

Why on earth should anyone want to strive for multiculture?

To answer that one needs to ask 'what is multiculture'? When I was a naive pale lefty, I assumed it meant that you could cook a curry and wear a sari (or indeed, your girlfriends undies) in the comfort of your own home without fearing that you'd be deported or, at very least, have a brick chucked through your window. Live and let live. I personally hankered to be left in peace despite my strange tase in clobber and music, and I expected someone with black skin to be likewise left in peace. And date or marry someone from a (very slightly, after all) different gene pool. I never thought it meant that the various bonkers doctrines and prejudices that I (were I an immigrant) had left behind when I emigrated to Blighty would be tolerated, and even encouraged. I never thought it meant using British taxpayers' money to fund faith schools (other than C of E ... its traditional, albeit not for me as I am an athiest). I very certainly did not think it meant I shouldn't say 'Christmas' at work in December in case it offended someone (anyone who has mates in the US will know what I'm getting at here; happy Hannaukah, by the way).

So, multiculturalism as a doctrine that promotes the proliferation by taxpayer funding of non-indiginous culture seems to me a bit . . . weird. Why? What for? I like to find out about different cultures, and I deplore racism, but I can't fathom a doctrine of subsidising the proliferation of new stuff just for the merry hell of it.

In the US, for all its faults, the culture dictates that you are American first. I would be very happy if our culture took the same line. Mind you . . . English or British? That is the Elephant in the room as far as I am concerned . . . best address this one first as it is the biggest threat to the unity of the UK (UK? Am I British, English or UKish?). Time for bed. Nighty night.

I'm not sure it is a doctrine, or something to strive for in the UK - more of a default position. As a monarchy we do not have a constitution and as a former empire we have a Commonwealth. We have traditionally invited over our Commonwealth citizens when we've needed them. We have provided shelter to Jews during the Nazis' rule in Germany. We have people who are Christian but, due to various wars, civil and ecumenical, are either Protestant or Catholic. You have multiculturalism right there as an unintended consequence. It's just quite diluted since Commonwealth citizens share certain British values and your average white, British Catholic has fairly much exactly the same culture as your average white, British Protestant (but not everywhere, and not all the time, see Northern Ireland).

Contrast this with Republican France which has a constitution and the concept of Laicite or secularism is ingrained in to that constitution. You are supposed to be secular and French if you live there. Now, given the amount of terror attacks there compared to here that's not going so well. Maybe we just have better security services but, to an outsider, it seems that the French have way more angry immigrants than we do.

The issue for me (and immigration IS an issue, even a dyed in the wool Guardian reader like myself recognises this) is that now we have people coming to the UK from all over the world. From cultures that are very different to our own. And also from European countries with similar, but distinct, cultures, in an uncontrolled manner. The unintended consequences of this are Ghettos or, at least, clusterings of types of peoples.

To a degree it was always so. Look at the Afro Caribbean populations in Brixton or St Pauls or Tottenham that caused riots in the 80s or the clusterings of south Asians in Bradford or Leicester or Luton to name but three. Now we are seeing the same sort of thing with Polish shops or groupings of Syrian refugees.

I suppose my two-fold point is around cost-benefit of this. Curry houses, Polski Skelps and Reggae music labels don't just culturally enrich (or not, I like having a wide range of music, food, culture and language to understand but I'm a Guardian reader, it's not for everyone) they contribute positively to GDP. In other words immigrants should be putting money in to government coffers, so that the government can deal with them. But the government then has a choice of what to do with that money. It can provide much stronger British Identity tests and boot our those (non EU currently, EU going forward) people who fail them. It can spend the money on the schools and hospitals and housing to support these people. But it can't afford to do both.

In fact, it has proven difficult to get it to do either. It has chosen to spend money on propping up banks and maintaining Trident instead. It has recently chosen to be austere.

I'm only for multicultralism because the alternatives would be a mass sending back of anyone with a different skin or culture to me (I don't believe that's the right or fair thing to do, again, others will disagree) or to move towards a more republican, secular constitution which I don't think would pass a referendum or general election here. The "third way" is better government policy, properly funded, but it seemed that we all regarded a bitter, divisive, lie-filled (on both sides) referendum as a better way to "deal" with our immigration issues.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

In as much as we don't behave, among 'the cultures' like they do/did in 'Yugoslavia', yes, a ripping success. However. . . .

Multiculturalism is a very strange concept. The 'ism' gives it the gravity of a doctrine, like 'communism' or 'pacificism' or 'nazi-ism'. So what is it about 'multiculture' that is so portentious it constitutes an 'ism'? The only possible answer that it has become a 'doctrine', i.e., something to strive for.

Why on earth should anyone want to strive for multiculture?

To answer that one needs to ask 'what is multiculture'? When I was a naive pale lefty, I assumed it meant that you could cook a curry and wear a sari (or indeed, your girlfriends undies) in the comfort of your own home without fearing that you'd be deported or, at very least, have a brick chucked through your window. Live and let live. I personally hankered to be left in peace despite my strange tase in clobber and music, and I expected someone with black skin to be likewise left in peace. And date or marry someone from a (very slightly, after all) different gene pool. I never thought it meant that the various bonkers doctrines and prejudices that I (were I an immigrant) had left behind when I emigrated to Blighty would be tolerated, and even encouraged. I never thought it meant using British taxpayers' money to fund faith schools (other than C of E ... its traditional, albeit not for me as I am an athiest). I very certainly did not think it meant I shouldn't say 'Christmas' at work in December in case it offended someone (anyone who has mates in the US will know what I'm getting at here; happy Hannaukah, by the way).

So, multiculturalism as a doctrine that promotes the proliferation by taxpayer funding of non-indiginous culture seems to me a bit . . . weird. Why? What for? I like to find out about different cultures, and I deplore racism, but I can't fathom a doctrine of subsidising the proliferation of new stuff just for the merry hell of it.

In the US, for all its faults, the culture dictates that you are American first. I would be very happy if our culture took the same line. Mind you . . . English or British? That is the Elephant in the room as far as I am concerned . . . best address this one first as it is the biggest threat to the unity of the UK (UK? Am I British, English or UKish?). Time for bed. Nighty night.

[emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122]

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I'm not sure it is a doctrine, or something to strive for in the UK - more of a default position. As a monarchy we do not have a constitution and as a former empire we have a Commonwealth. We have traditionally invited over our Commonwealth citizens when we've needed them. We have provided shelter to Jews during the Nazis' rule in Germany. We have people who are Christian but, due to various wars, civil and ecumenical, are either Protestant or Catholic. You have multiculturalism right there as an unintended consequence. It's just quite diluted since Commonwealth citizens share certain British values and your average white, British Catholic has fairly much exactly the same culture as your average white, British Protestant (but not everywhere, and not all the time, see Northern Ireland).

Contrast this with Republican France which has a constitution and the concept of Laicite or secularism is ingrained in to that constitution. You are supposed to be secular and French if you live there. Now, given the amount of terror attacks there compared to here that's not going so well. Maybe we just have better security services but, to an outsider, it seems that the French have way more angry immigrants than we do.

The issue for me (and immigration IS an issue, even a dyed in the wool Guardian reader like myself recognises this) is that now we have people coming to the UK from all over the world. From cultures that are very different to our own. And also from European countries with similar, but distinct, cultures, in an uncontrolled manner. The unintended consequences of this are Ghettos or, at least, clusterings of types of peoples.

To a degree it was always so. Look at the Afro Caribbean populations in Brixton or St Pauls or Tottenham that caused riots in the 80s or the clusterings of south Asians in Bradford or Leicester or Luton to name but three. Now we are seeing the same sort of thing with Polish shops or groupings of Syrian refugees.

I suppose my two-fold point is around cost-benefit of this. Curry houses, Polski Skelps and Reggae music labels don't just culturally enrich (or not, I like having a wide range of music, food, culture and language to understand but I'm a Guardian reader, it's not for everyone) they contribute positively to GDP. In other words immigrants should be putting money in to government coffers, so that the government can deal with them. But the government then has a choice of what to do with that money. It can provide much stronger British Identity tests and boot our those (non EU currently, EU going forward) people who fail them. It can spend the money on the schools and hospitals and housing to support these people. But it can't afford to do both.

In fact, it has proven difficult to get it to do either. It has chosen to spend money on propping up banks and maintaining Trident instead. It has recently chosen to be austere.

I'm only for multicultralism because the alternatives would be a mass sending back of anyone with a different skin or culture to me (I don't believe that's the right or fair thing to do, again, others will disagree) or to move towards a more republican, secular constitution which I don't think would pass a referendum or general election here. The "third way" is better government policy, properly funded, but it seemed that we all regarded a bitter, divisive, lie-filled (on both sides) referendum as a better way to "deal" with our immigration issues.

I think your post is excellent as well. Balanced, clear and able to comprehend that just because others don't share your view, they are not necessarily wrong.

 

[vegster]

Follow the Gourd!!!!

 

[yxee]

Views like that have unfortunately strengthened right wing politics in this country. You are unwilling to contemplate that there may be some pitfalls in mass immigration and therefore resort to showing a poor refugee family in order to reinforce your self righteous attitude and pour contempt upon anyone who doesn't think like you. Those Syrian refugees need help, our help, the rest of the EU's help, the world's help and you do them a disservice by dragging them into an argument about the mass immigration that has happened already in our country which is almost entirely based upon economic betterment.

And yet without dragging Syrian refugees into the argument, we may have had a remain result.

View attachment 79420

I'm not sure your point got through, Green Cross Code Man...

 

[Soulman]

I'm not sure your point got through, Green Cross Code Man...

The point on controlled immigration and the past uncontrolled immigration are points that never seem to get across with some. Though we can see with the last couple of votes and perhaps upcoming results in other countries, that the point has got across with the majority.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I'm not sure your point got through, Green Cross Code Man...

I know. The way to fight extremism is not through extremism of another sort.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Today's papers are carrying a 'leaked report' indicating that (and this might not come as a surprise to many) there is no Brexit plan, the Cabinet is split and the current PM's reflex to micro-manage the process is not sustainable. Meanwhile industry is lobbying like crazy and we need another 30,000 Civil Servants to deliver the plan that we've not yet got. Oh dear.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Cabinet split threatens to derail May’s Brexit talks

Leaked memo reveals Whitehall tensions

Whitehall is working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and could need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants, according to a leaked memo prepared for the Cabinet Office.

Splits within the cabinet also mean that the government may need another six months to decide on its priorities, according to the assessment by a consultant working for the department.

The memo, dated November 7 and titled Brexit Update, says that “major players” in industry are expected to “point a gun at the government’s head” after ministers gave assurances that the carmaker Nissan would not suffer when Britain left the EU.

It is critical of Theresa May’s governing style, saying that her tendency of “drawing in decisions and details to settle matters herself” cannot be sustained, and predicting that senior civil servants may have to intervene.

The prime minister has said that she will trigger the formal start of exit talks by the end of March. However, the memo circulated within Whitehall suggests civil servants are struggling to cope with the workload and timetable.

“Individual departments have been busily developing their projects to implement Brexit, resulting in well over 500 projects, which are beyond the capacity and capability of government to execute quickly,” the memo, seen by The Times, says. One ministry has said that it needs a 40 per cent increase in staff to cope with its Brexit workload, adding: “Every department has developed a ‘bottom-up’ plan of what the impact of Brexit could be — and its plan to cope with the ‘worst case’. Although necessary, this falls considerably short of having a ‘government plan for Brexit’ because it has no prioritisation and no link to the overall negotiation strategy.”

The government could take another six months to agree on its priorities for leaving the EU and on what its negotiating strategy will be, the consultant discloses.

“Despite extended debate among permanent secretaries, no common strategy has emerged,” the memo says.

Division within Mrs May’s cabinet is hampering preparations and the memo identifies a split between the “three Brexiteers” — Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox — on one side and Philip Hammond, the chancellor, and Greg Clark, the business secretary, on the other.

“It is likely that the senior ranks in the civil service will feel compelled to present potential high level plan(s) to avoid further drift,” it says. “Departments are struggling to come up to speed on the potential Brexit effects on industry. This is due to starting from a relatively low base of insight and also due to fragmentation.”

The memo cites as evidence the Treasury view that it “owns” financial services; the business department and the Department of Health both cover the big drug companies; the department for Culture, Media and Sport covers the telecom companies; and the business department is responsible for other industries.

A government source said that the memo had not been commissioned by the government. The Times understands that its author prepared it under his own initiative.

A push for government departments to hire more people to cope with the increased workload — above the present staff level of about 440,000, including trade negotiators — is said to be making slow progress. The consultant blames this on “deliberate control” by the Cabinet Office and on the Treasury for threatening that ministries will have to meet Brexit costs from existing budgets. However, the memo states: “No one is treating that position as sustainable”, adding: “Expectations of increased headcount are in the 10-30,000 range.”

Mr Hammond is not expected to give departments more funds to help with Brexit when he delivers his first autumn statement on November 23. Instead the focus for new government spending will be on infrastructure. “We are more likely to see a further squeeze on departmental operating costs to compensate for new spending,” the note says. Turning to industry, the memo says that the government expects lobbying for company-specific decisions to continue: “Other major players can be expected to, similar to Nissan, point a gun at the government’s head.”

A No 10 spokesman said: “This is not a government report and we don’t recognise the claims made in it. “We are focused on getting on with the job of Brexit and making a success of it.”

THE MEMO

Brexit update as of 7th November 2016
This note summarises the current state of play on Brexit issues in Whitehall in the critical inter-related domains of politics, government and industry.


THE POLITICAL DOMAIN
The Prime Minister’s over-riding objective has been to keep her party from repeating its history of splitting 4 times in the past 200 years over global trade — each time being out of power for 15-30 years. The public stance of Government is orientated primarily to its own supporters, with industry in particular barely being on the radarscreen — yet.

The Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court has to be seen in this light — it is about avoiding any more public debate than necessary because it will expose splits within the predominantly “remain” Conservative MPs and intensify the pressure from predominantly “leave” constituency parties. A General Election is only a last resort for 3 reasons — boundary changes (that favour the Conservatives) will not be effective until 2019; the Fixed Term Parliaments Act obstructs Prime Ministerial freedom to call an election at will; and it may suit major decision makers to slowly shift away from more difficult aspects of Brexit on the grounds that Parliament has forced them to do so.

The divisions within the Cabinet are between the 3 Brexiteers on one side and Philip Hammond/Greg Clark on the other side. The Prime Minister is rapidly acquiring the reputation of drawing in decisions and details to settle matters herself — which is unlikely to be sustainable. Overall, it appears best to judge who is winning the debate by assuming that the noisiest individuals have lost the intra-Government debate and are stirring up external supporters.

The Supreme Court appears likely to delay its ruling until early January and, assuming it sustains the High Court, a short enabling bill will then be submitted to Parliament, permitting the Government to invoke Article 50 in March as planned. The Government will probably be able to face down wrecking amendments, but the debate in Parliament will certainly shift expectations of what will be achieved/sellable in Brexit negotiations. Remain supporters can be expected to reserve their fire until winners and losers emerge from negotiation and the political atmosphere allows more sophisticated assessment of choices.


THE GOVERNMENT DOMAIN
Individual Departments have been busily developing their projects to implement Brexit, resulting in well over 500 projects, which are beyond the capacity and capability of Government to execute quickly. One Department estimates that it needs a 40% increase in staff to cope with its Brexit projects. In other words, every Department has developed a “bottom up” plan of what the impact of Brexit could be — and its plan to cope with the “worst case”. Although necessary, this falls considerably short of having a “Government plan for Brexit” because it has no prioritisation and no link to the overall negotiation strategy.

However, it may be 6 months before there is a view on priorities/negotiation strategy as the political situation in the UK and the EU evolves. Despite extended debate among Permanent Secretaries, no common strategy has emerged, in part because the potential scope and negotiating positions have to be curtailed before realistic planning can happen, in part because of the divisions within the Cabinet. It is likely that the senior ranks in the Civil Service will feel compelled to present potential high level plan(s) to avoid further drift.

Departments are struggling to come up to speed on the potential Brexit effects on industry. This is due to starting from a relatively low base of insight and also due to fragmentation — Treasury “owning” financial services, DH-BEIS both covering life sciences, DCMS for telecoms, BEIS most other industries, DIT building parallel capability focussed on trade etc.

Capability-building is making slow progress, partly through deliberate control by the Cabinet Office and partly from Treasury’s opening negotiating position that Departments will meet Brexit costs from existing settlements — although no one is treating that position as sustainable. Expectations of increased headcount are in the 10-30,000 range. Initiatives to build capability are getting off the ground — the Diplomatic Academy is providing trade training programmes, Cabinet Office is discussing system-wide capability programmes.

The Autumn Statement on 23rd November is expected to provide some headlines in terms of infrastructure investment, making the UK fit for growth and the inclusive economy. It will not provide resources for the Civil Service to grow its Brexit capacity and capability. In fact, we are more likely to see a further squeeze on Departmental operating costs to compensate for new spending.


THE INDUSTRY DOMAIN
Government expects lobbying on 3 levels to continue:
1. Company-specific decisions — the Nissan investment decision is a prime example. These are viewed as major opportunities/threats for Government. Other major players can be expected to, similar to Nissan, point a gun at the Government’s head.
2. Industry insights — the major challenge for industry and Government are “the unknown unknowns” where industry has to educate Government fast on the most important negotiating issues - e.g., they think they know about talent, but know they know little about data.
3. Overall business concerns — the province of CBI and largely dealt with as a PR issue.

Industry has 2 unpleasant realisations — first, that the Government’s priority remains its political survival, not the economy — second, that there will be no clear economic-Brexit strategy any time soon because it is being developed on a case-by-case basis as specific decisions are forced on Government.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...eatens-to-derail-may-s-brexit-talks-hxfwmv2td