UKC

After Sir Ivan Roger's resignation and parting words, Sir Tim Barrow has been appointed the UK ambassador to the EU.

Best of luck with that Sir Tim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38512901

In reply to Hugh J:

I am looking forward to seeing which bank/financial institution sir Ivan roger ends up working as a consultant for in about 6 months / 1 years time on a very healthy salary.

I am always wary of people like this who are set up as knowledgeable , nobody is that indespensible in my experience.

He should have known better and gone quietly , far more professional .

In reply to neilh:


nice smear there.


I dont recall him making any speeches? Just telling those he used to be in charge of what he did. Even then it seems fairly restrained.
The noise seems to being made by others such as IDS.

In reply to neilh:

I think Rogers resigned because he was going anyway, but maybe also because he'd had enough. I also think that sometimes you just have to say something, as unpalatable as it is, to get people to see the seriousness of a situation.

In reply to neilh:


Seems pretty honourable to me, having been asked to do something badly that he probably didn't believe in anyway.

In reply to Hugh J:
I would agree. By the way I voted remain . Just seems sensible for him to move on as his heart was clearly not in it, and I am slightly cynical about how all these top civil servants end up working in the private sector.

I am sure the whole process is not going to break down/ collapse because 1 person has left.

In reply to neilh:

I also voted remain and also think that the process won't collapse because of Rogers resigning. He has however let it be known that if we (as in the government) don't get our act together on this it's not going to end well and in my opinion that isn't a bad thing. Now, we can blame May, Johnson, Gove, IDS, Davis, Cameron, Osbourne or the whole lot, but that doesn't negate the fact that we are woefully underprepared for this. We have no multilateral negotiators, unlike the EU and we don't really appear to even know what we want or have any idea as to the full complexities of the process.

But, there's no turning back now and I truly meant best of luck to Tim Barrow.

In reply to Hugh J:
I have been trying to find out if he is any relation to John Barrow who was Second Secretary to the Admiralty in the c18th and pioneered the search for the North West Passage. So far no info.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Well, the steering of HMS Brexit will be a job that is just as difficult.

In reply to Hugh J:

What he has done cannot help us in future negotiations.
He had told the ministers what his views are, it as done the country no good for him to make his views public.
( and have no doubt that he knew his email was going to be made public) I agree that his is unprofessional behaviour, some might say unpatriotic.

It seems that the main strategy of the remainders is to try and get themselves the final vote on the 'deal' and then, in collusion with the EU , ensure that the deal we get is so bad that they can then justify voting against it.
If that is the case ( and hard to listen to Clegg without coming to that conclusion) then they are not acting democratically.

No matter what way we voted ( I voted out) we now need everyone to focus on getting the best possible deal, his actions will not help that goal.

In reply to Jim C:


nice wording there. Why not come out and admit it. Stand up for your unpleasant beliefs instead of just implying it. Perhaps he is an enemy of the people as well.
Have you actually read what he has written? Most of it is a prep talk for the people who are being left behind. With only a small section on the fact that there isnt a plan. Perhaps the patriots such as IDS such stop talking shit and actually come up with a plan.


bollocks. What doesnt help is the lunatics accusing anyone dares doubt the propaganda statements are unpatriotic and enemies of the people and other bollocks.

In reply to Jim C:





and it seems that the main strategy of the brexiteers is to accuse anyone that queries the approach being taken to negotiations, or the process that needs to be followed, of being a quisling, or an enemy of the people.

this is toxic. it is damaging the fabric of our democracy. and silencing voices that raise concerns will not lead to a better outcome for this country.

In reply to KevinD:

To be publicly quoted as saying it could take 10 years to negotiate a trade deal with the EU is equally bullocks and he should have had the decency to resign from his post before coming out with such a rash unqualified statement.
He was supposed to be representing the interests of the UK, not pursuing his own personal agenda and to be frank should have resigned last June if that's how he felt about Brexit.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

this is toxic. it is damaging the fabric of our democracy. and silencing voices that raise concerns will not lead to a better outcome for this country.

grow up.

In reply to Gone for good:


Dont suppose you have the quote from him do you?
I am going to go with no since as far as I am aware his exact words, which were a report to May have not been published. What they appear to have been were earlier to mid 2020s eg 3-10 or so years.
Which I dont think anyone intelligent (with the possible exceptions of some who are just deluded) would disagree with.

In reply to KevinD:

From the BBC news website

'Sour grapes'
Sir Ivan had previously warned ministers that EU-UK trade talks could take a decade to complete, advice revealed by the BBC last month.

In reply to Gone for good:


ermm. Thats not a public quote from him. Try again.

In reply to Jim C:




a measured and insightful contribution, thanks Jim.

In reply to KevinD:

Brexiteers now have the judiciary, civil service and half the population down as treacherous. I wonder where it will stop!?

In reply to KevinD:

OK so it was a leak to the BBC from the PMs office. Even he doesn't deny saying it.

It shouldn't detract from the point that he was at best half hearted about his job, was fundamentally pro EU and should have resigned long before now.

In reply to MG:


Surely only 48% of the population?

In reply to Gone for good:



So every pro EU civil servant should resign? It'll help cut costs I suppose.

In reply to Gone for good:

So anyone pro EU working in or for the govt. should resign and make way for someone who is anti-EU?

In reply to Gone for good:

Why would he? Whilst exactly what he said hasnt been revealed I dont think anyone sensible would disagree that a three year figure is unlikely and up to 10 or so in the realms of probability.

I know the retards believe that we will command and Europe will sign the paper kissing our feet in gratitude but since I havent seen a good explanation of why the EU would do that now as opposed to in the past I would have to be sceptical.


Evidence for your claims about him being half hearted about doing the best for the UK. I cant say I hold out much hope considering your current track record.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No. But would you not agree that the people who are in charge of negotiating the very best possible deal for the UK should have the passion and conviction that they are doing the right thing.

In reply to Tyler:


yup because remember anyone who is pro EU is unpatriotic and probably an enemy of the people and cant be trusted to serve UK interests.

In reply to Gone for good:


So now you don't think he should have resigned?
But no, it's a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of how the civil service works, unless you think all government employees magically change passion and conviction every time the colour of government changes.

In reply to KevinD:
I have no idea if Sir Ivan is patriotic or not but if the 'deal' brought back by Mr Cameron before the referendum is an example of Sir Ivan's negotiating skills then maybe his resignation is a good thing.

In reply to KevinD:

I thought better of you than calling people retards. I suppose you think I am a baby killing racist as well.
This piece manages to say what I mean more eloquently than I have managed up to now.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/04/sir-ivan-r...

In reply to Sir Chasm:
You asked if I thought all pro EU civil servant should resign. I said no. Not all pro EU civil servants, only those who are responsible for negotiating the best possible deal for the UK.

In reply to Gone for good:

Like every other brexiteer, you're living in cloud cuckoo land. Wake up and smell the coffee.

There IS no deal to negotiate. What is going to happen is that we will be given a legally binding bill for £60 billion as a minimum to exit (if we're lucky) for commitments we have entered, and then be unceremoniously be dumped and be left by the side of the road. The 40 years of accumulated agreements and deals will be botched, patched, and compromised to maintain some semblance of order, always with us on the losing side, (1 vs 27), and our economy and influence will steadily and inexorably decline.

But hey, that's what we voted for, and what do experts know anyway?

In reply to Gone for good:


If by 'conviction they are doing the right thing' you mean they should think Brexit was the correct choice then surely you should have answered yes? If by 'doing the right thing' you mean they should negotiate the best deal then why wouldn't they?

In reply to Gone for good:


Anyone who does believe we will get everything we want are retards.


If I thought that I would say it.


Really. It comes across as a wandering grudge piece which is still harking to the good old days when new labour could f*ck everything up at will follow the dream of private is best.

In reply to Rob Exile

Actually I voted Remain but take the view that it's time to move on and get on with the job of making the best possible deal for the UK. It's Taylors Italian Blend No 4 all the way for me!
You can prophesise doom and gloom as much as you like but I prefer a more positive outlook and expect a balanced mutually rewarding outcome.
As in all things time will tell.

In reply to Gone for good:


Perhaps you can have an inquisition to find out what their passions and convictions really are.

In reply to Gone for good:

There is a total misunderstanding here, propagated by the brexiteers. WTF is there to negotiate? There are the technical issues of extricating ourselves from 40 years of agreements, but there IS NO DEAL TO NEGOTIATE. Article 50 is simply about exiting the EU. All this talk of trade deals, joining customs unions and all the rest only start once we are out.

In reply to Jim C:


It's like watching Lemmings walking towards a cliff hoping they can make a deal with gravity.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You are stating the obvious. I think most people understand that the negotiations start after invoking article 50. After that there will be plenty to negotiate.

In reply to Jim C:



Sorry Jim - "we" voted 52 to 48 on an IN/OUT question after some seriously simplistic and sometimes dishonest propaganda from the Leave campaign. It's entirely proper for those like Sir Ivan, with hugely more experience than any of us on this forum, to continue to warn about the difficulties that lie ahead.

A second vote (referendum or election) on the full deal when the full consequences are clearer is entirely appropriate. If it goes the Leave way then so be it. If it reverses that decision then that will be because a proportion of the electorate (no more than 2% required) have changed their minds having given consideration to the full implications. Try telling them that's undemocratic.

Martin

In reply to Gone for good:
'I think most people understand that the negotiations start after invoking article 50.' No I don't think they do, least of all our beloved PM. And yes, there certainly will be plenty to negotiate - with 168 separate countries.

Maybe we could join a club of like-minded nations and so pool resources, so we don't each have to negotiate a separate agreement.?

Just sayin'

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Great idea, in fact isn't there one really close by with experts in multilateral negotiating?

Oh no, sorry, I've gone and mentioned those damned experts again!

Thank God we don't have any.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Under what legal system will they levy this binding bill? Certainly not the EU system, since there's no mechanism that allows for it. Not under our system either, which is the only one that matters.

The civil service is supposed to be independent, those who work in it are supposed to act as the government wishes regardless of their personal beliefs. Not unlikely that there will be those who work for the civil service who can't adjust, and if they can't they should leave or move to an unrelated department. No point sending anyone with your attitude to the EU to negotiate on our behalf, you'd just give in on every point under the misguided belief that you have no choice.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Sadly that hits the nail right on its head.
Jk

In reply to Gone for good:


Do I have to remind you which side the current PM was on prior to 23rd June? By your standards shouldn't she also resign?

In reply to Jim C:

Not really. The positive spin put on this is it's far better he leave now than at the end of his contract which would be once negotiations have already started. Certainly there exists no reason why he should not have given his opinion, though in cloud-Brexit-land, where we don't like experts, I can see why some might disagree.


I don't believe he made his views public.


Alternatively, Brexit is in itself a bad deal, no matter what form it takes. With no possible advantages to be gained, why should anyone "get behind" it?

If I've been told I am to have my legs broken, far from asking if we can please do so near a hospital, I'm going to do my utmost best to avoid/sabotage the leg breaking experience. Being told I must simply go along with it because it's been decided is absurd.

The referendum was not an election, was advisory only, there is no requirement for Brexit to happen, and it is almost certain that the form of Brexit eventually agreed upon (no matter how "favourable") would certainly not meet with the approval of the majority of the electorate if it were (or had been) put to a referendum.

We don't hold elections by simply asking if we want the incumbents out, then if the majority say "Yes!" leaving it to some officials to decide if the resulting parliament is going to be composed of BNP, UKIP, Lib Dem, Green or Labour!

In reply to David Martin:


David, I totally agree with you on everything you say with a slight proviso about this paragraph.

Personally, I think it is now an absolute requirement for the Conservative Party to ensure Brexit happens. I am not even sure it wasn't their ultimate goal anyway and by that I mean Cameron et al. Besides not losing credibility with their core voter base and keeping their party united, they have also punted UKIP into the long grass, as they did with the Lib Dems and as Labour have done to themselves. They are now in the clear to ensure a majority government for the forseeable future and can now fulfil more of their ideological policies. I'm also sure they will see that Dave, Georgie and all their other buddies do just fine too.

In reply to Hugh J:

I'd be a touch more pragmatic. It is essential for the Tories to get through their innings having made all the right noises towards Brexit. But I think they'd far rather there was still a possibility of us avoiding Brexit, especially when the full horror of where it's leading becomes more concrete. While they won't put the breaks on themselves, an alternative party being voted in at the next election who does would let them off the hook nicely. Meaning for the remainder of their term, they can pursue policies as pro-Tory and alienating to rest of the electorate as possible, comfortable they will cause wide ranging change in they want, yet not have to carry through Brexit to its conclusion.

Brexiteers are understandably upbeat about no longer being under the thumb of those pesky Europeans. They are substantially less convincing with their imagined positive political and economic implications that accompany this. But when it comes to attaching their entire brand to an event that could eclipse the Suez Crisis as a negative turning point in the country's fortunes and standing, I think the Tories may be more circumspect.

In reply to David Martin:
Now there something I hadn't thought about. You could be right.

I think one of us could be right. Either that or we're just a couple of old cynics!

In reply to neilh:



So where are they supposed to work?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

They usually end up at somewhere like Deloitte's, KPMG , PWC or one of the large banks. Met enough of them and heard from them.Usually on the board /partmership as say " head of practise " or adviser on European affairs.Their salary will double/treble.....

Having said all this in the top echelons of the civil service its practise for these people to rotate around jobs. There were probably a list of about 5-10 people who could have been switched from the other major embassies in the world ( USA, China, Japan etc) to take on this role.They selected the guy from Moscow ( I bet he is made up, Moscow to Brussels is a cracking upgrade)

And for all this spin about Evans' expertise. They have people supporting them who are equally as knowledgeable.You know the people who actually do the work, the graft.

I am not saying its all a bed of rose's.But a bit of balance helps.

In reply to Gone for good:



That article follows a fundamentally flawed argument.

1. As a career civil servant with no business experience (the "clever generalist of whitehall at its worst") Ivan Rogers was ill-equipped to represent the UK in trade negotiations with the EU
2. What we really need is more corporate lobbyists to represent Britain in the EU

The flaw in the argument is that Rogers spent 6 years as head of the public sector group at Citi and then Barclays, presumably lobbying government for finance contracts.


, "Sir Ivan goes on to praise the “unique combination of policy depth, expertise and coherence, message co-ordination and discipline, and the ability to negotiate with skill and determination” of the UK's permanent representation to the EU, despite seemingly having zero career experience working in an actual business himself."

This i

In reply to Gone for good:

How do you know he was half-hearted at his job. Sounds to me that he was just doing it quite diligently.

In reply to neilh:
He worked for Citi and Barclays for 6 years already. I don't really know how to feel about this. On the one hand you can see how revolving doors set up incentives for less-well-paid politicians or civil servants to not act in the interest of the country in the hopes of greasing their way into a highly-paid consultancy role. On the other hand there is so much criticism of career politicians with no experience of business and outside of politics and the civil service, it is a totally normal career path to switch between client and provider so in a sense, why not government?

Having said all that, the probability that he'll slide into a private sector position on three times the salary does take the shine off the gallantry of his resignation.