Liz Truss replaces Lord Frost as chief negotiator with the EU

Erm ... I think it’s just ‘hoist’ but I’m willing (as always) to be corrected.

From the Edinburgh News:

This is of course not the only problem associated with Brexit coming to pass? Cost of living increases; added export and import bureaucracy and delays; businesses struggling to survive as European workforce leaves for more friendly homes on the continent. We all knew this was coming. These exact predictions were given countless times by a range of politicians, policy experts, journalists and beyond.

In fact, even Lord Frost himself warned of this very scenario. In 2016 in his capacity as head of the Scotch Whisky Association, he gave an interview in which he outlined the dangers of Brexit. To quote exactly, Lord Frost said: “About 40 per cent of what we export goes to Europe. If we leave the European Union then we are going to see administrative barriers brought up. If there is a Brexit, we will lose access to the European Union Free Trade Agreements, that is clear.

“If the UK then will need to renegotiate its own agreements, clearly that is going to take time. Our interest is to be part of the biggest possible market with the fewest possible barriers. The European single market gives us that. The European free trade agreements gives us that. Why would we want to depart from that?”

Lord Frost has known all this time that Brexit was doomed. Having taken a high-profile ministerial job perhaps the former diplomat thought he could at least establish himself as a key political figure. Hoisted by his own petard is a phrase that springs to mind.

Mamie

And yes, I think Keir Starmer is fiercely intelligent. He came from a working class background, went to grammar school and Leeds University before becoming a barrister, QC and DPP. That is impressive however you look at it.
I don't know how many people on here actually listen to his speeches, read what he says, follow him on Twitter etc, but I get the impression some people judge him without listening to what he actually says.

Yes, he is quietly impressive.
Perhaps he needs more spark.

It's a term I learnt on here and it is apparent on this thread, MaizieD, sadly

Very unpleasant and there is no defence, sorry.

There are ways of disagreeing without the unkind comments, all agreeing with each other.

It's possible to do that without sneering derision and personal remarks by one poster after another piling in.

Sneering derision isn't the province of one 'side' only, Calistemon

And 'pile in' implies orchestration. That's not a good accusation and it has no basis in truth.

This is a political thread and people will have widely different views. However, if you come up with unfounded comments then you should expect to be queried.

Yes, absolutely, fair enough Dinahmo

It's possible to do that without sneering derision and personal remarks by one poster after another piling in.

Fair enough.

If I wasn't prepared to, I'd stick to other topics and threads on GN- there is plenty of choice.

Watch out Kali you might need to explain the problems with triggering Art 16.

Maudi

16:42MerylStreep

Thank you MerylStreep glad someone shares my point that trying to belittle another poster who has a different political view to you is not on. GN in my opinion is just a grans forum it's not an Eton or Oxford political debating forum. Surely we can post whatever we like within the GN guidelines whether it's frivolous or fact checked.

Of course you can- but of course others can point our that this is not correct, or that it is even dangerous. Be it about Covid, or about Brexit, or Johnson and his Governement, etc. it has to go both ways.

And again, there is a huge difference between 'opinion and point of view' and 'fact'.

Triggering Art 16 and go on WTO rules would have devastating effects for the UK- fact.

This is a political thread and people will have widely different views. However, if you come up with unfounded comments then you should expect to be queried.

There's an old saying - if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I think that some people think that arguing with something is rude, or impolite. It is neither, unless the comments are personally unkind. I can't say that I've seen unkind comments on here.

??

I might not always agree with you Urmstongran but I look on GN as having a chat in the coffee shop (or the pub).
I don't agree with some friends sometimes but I wouldn't be rude to them.

Just to say thank you ladies (3) for your kind words. Much appreciated. Your comment about these threads not being the HoC really made me chuckle Cali!

Maudi

16:42MerylStreep

Thank you MerylStreep glad someone shares my point that trying to belittle another poster who has a different political view to you is not on. GN in my opinion is just a grans forum it's not an Eton or Oxford political debating forum. Surely we can post whatever we like within the GN guidelines whether it's frivolous or fact checked.

Gransnet Guidelines:

We'd appreciate it if you'd use the same courtesy when posting messages on forums as you would use when speaking to someone face-to-face. Please do bear in mind that life can be horrible sometimes, and it can really help if you have access to some moral support. We take a dim view of mean-spiritedness, ganging-up behaviour and rehashing old arguments.

I think the term is 'a pile-on', Maudi and MerylStreep

It's a chat forum, not the H of C.

growstuff

Calistemon

I think that, in the main, ministers don't usually have qualifications or experience in their areas, they rely on civil servants to brief them. At least they did, before the rise of the SPADS, so many of whom do not seem impartial.

They're supposed to pick up their brief quickly and listen to expert advice!

In an ideal world ?

There have to be exceptions eg Attorney General who is a lawyer.

It's not surprising SpADs aren't impartial, as they're employed directly by ministers to support the promotion of certain agendas. The number of SpADs being employed to do "civil service" jobs is one reason why the objectivity of decision-making is being undermined.

Yes, it's been the practice for years now

No more Yes Minister, it's more Yes, SPAD.

16:42MerylStreep

Thank you MerylStreep glad someone shares my point that trying to belittle another poster who has a different political view to you is not on. GN in my opinion is just a grans forum it's not an Eton or Oxford political debating forum. Surely we can post whatever we like within the GN guidelines whether it's frivolous or fact checked.

And yes, I think Keir Starmer is fiercely intelligent. He came from a working class background, went to grammar school and Leeds University before becoming a barrister, QC and DPP. That is impressive however you look at it.
I don't know how many people on here actually listen to his speeches, read what he says, follow him on Twitter etc, but I get the impression some people judge him without listening to what he actually says.

MerylStreep

Maudi
You couldn’t be more right. Particularly when Urmstongran has extended the hand of friendship to posters on this very thread who have had their difficulties.
But hey ho, I know who’s the better person.

What's that got to do with being factually wrong?

Calistemon

I think that, in the main, ministers don't usually have qualifications or experience in their areas, they rely on civil servants to brief them. At least they did, before the rise of the SPADS, so many of whom do not seem impartial.

They're supposed to pick up their brief quickly and listen to expert advice!

In an ideal world ?

There have to be exceptions eg Attorney General who is a lawyer.

It's not surprising SpADs aren't impartial, as they're employed directly by ministers to support the promotion of certain agendas. The number of SpADs being employed to do "civil service" jobs is one reason why the objectivity of decision-making is being undermined.

Mamie

Our Health Minister in France is a doctor (neurologist). He has done an excellent job and has a very measured, informed way of communication.

Yes Mamie and to be sure that makes for a pure, unmuddied way of thinking too.

I think that, in the main, ministers don't usually have qualifications or experience in their areas, they rely on civil servants to brief them. At least they did, before the rise of the SPADS, so many of whom do not seem impartial.

They're supposed to pick up their brief quickly and listen to expert advice!

In an ideal world ?

There have to be exceptions eg Attorney General who is a lawyer.

Our Health Minister in France is a doctor (neurologist). He has done an excellent job and has a very measured, informed way of communication.

Maudi
You couldn’t be more right. Particularly when Urmstongran has extended the hand of friendship to posters on this very thread who have had their difficulties.
But hey ho, I know who’s the better person.

Why shouldn’t the health secretary be a medic? Definitely that, vegansrock, my uncle a FRCP held that office. His brain was and still is razor sharp precisely because he understood the problems and was passionate. He still raises his concerns about proposed NHS reforms today but the current politicians seem to arrogant to listen. Such a wishy washy lot, they could be in pantomime this year rather than in government!

Few politicians in this current crop have any hands on experience in the areas they are supposed to oversee - they all seem to be bankers, lawyers or journalists - politics is a bit of a sideline for many of them - where are the scientists, medics, academic economists, teachers? and those who’ve worked in retail, transport or the arts? Granted there are one or two in the HoC, but in the current cabinet? They seem to be a bunch of part timers. Why shouldn’t the health secretary be a medic? Other countries have politicians who have more credible experience - I’m thinking Angela Merkel , Mario Draghi - why not the U.K. now?