Obsession With Weather Forecast..
Jokes0 min ago
Does The Brexit Dept Need A Safe Space?
44 Answers
https:/
Upon being urged by MPs to publish a report on the impact of Brexit across 58 key industries, the Department for Exiting the EU has refused, claiming it needs a "safe space" to conduct policy in private.
//"There is a strong public interest in policy-making associated with our exit from the EU being of the highest quality and conducted in a safe space to allow for design and deliberation to be done in private,” the Department for Exiting the EU (DExEU) said.
“In this case, releasing the commissioning document for this exercise, which is still a live policy issue, may undermine the effective formulation or development of policies which are key to our negotiating strategy."//
Why on earth would they think publishing this research would undermine their policymaking? Is govt use of "safe spaces" to deny information a healthy precedent?
Upon being urged by MPs to publish a report on the impact of Brexit across 58 key industries, the Department for Exiting the EU has refused, claiming it needs a "safe space" to conduct policy in private.
//"There is a strong public interest in policy-making associated with our exit from the EU being of the highest quality and conducted in a safe space to allow for design and deliberation to be done in private,” the Department for Exiting the EU (DExEU) said.
“In this case, releasing the commissioning document for this exercise, which is still a live policy issue, may undermine the effective formulation or development of policies which are key to our negotiating strategy."//
Why on earth would they think publishing this research would undermine their policymaking? Is govt use of "safe spaces" to deny information a healthy precedent?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No it's not just about who spins what information to their perceived advantage. But it's part of it.
It's not in the best interests of the country to divulge every detail, even broad generalisations sometimes.
But the clamour nay demand, especially from the Remainers, for detailed information is telling.
Why have you not figured out we will NOT get the best deal possible if Remainers continue to undermine what is going on?
It isn't rocket science to see that the EU is playing a dirty game under the guise of procedure. And our Remainers are aiding and abetting that.
There is nothing wrong with having accountability and being watched and braught to task but there is another entirely when the intent is to grandstand for political ends.
It's not in the best interests of the country to divulge every detail, even broad generalisations sometimes.
But the clamour nay demand, especially from the Remainers, for detailed information is telling.
Why have you not figured out we will NOT get the best deal possible if Remainers continue to undermine what is going on?
It isn't rocket science to see that the EU is playing a dirty game under the guise of procedure. And our Remainers are aiding and abetting that.
There is nothing wrong with having accountability and being watched and braught to task but there is another entirely when the intent is to grandstand for political ends.
"The scandal is that this information was only collected AFTER the vote, when it was too late for people to make a choice based on actual data, rather than euroskeptics soundbites."
Voters did not need "actual data" (whatever that might show or not show) in order to decide which way to vote. All they needed to ask themselves was whether they wanted the UK to regain its status as an independent sovereign nation or whether they were happy to see it become increasingly subservient to the "European Project" and have their laws, conventions, customs, procedures and finances determined by unelected foreign civil servants. No "actual data" was required to answer that question.
Voters did not need "actual data" (whatever that might show or not show) in order to decide which way to vote. All they needed to ask themselves was whether they wanted the UK to regain its status as an independent sovereign nation or whether they were happy to see it become increasingly subservient to the "European Project" and have their laws, conventions, customs, procedures and finances determined by unelected foreign civil servants. No "actual data" was required to answer that question.
//It's not in the best interests of the country to divulge every detail, even broad generalisations sometimes. //
Says who? Who gets to decide what information is in the "national interest" and what isn't? People are entitled to know what the government's estimates on the impact of Brexit are - especially businesses.
//Why have you not figured out we will NOT get the best deal possible if Remainers continue to undermine what is going on?//
It's overwhelmingly Remainers who have been tasked with implementing Brexit. All the leaders of the Leave campaign heroically ducked out when it was time to take responsibility. The only serious Brexiteer with any influence is Davis, and he's visibly out of his depth.
//It isn't rocket science to see that the EU is playing a dirty game under the guise of procedure//
What, you mean it's doing politics and advancing its own goals now that we are a third country?
Could it perhaps be that a policy so easily damaged by basic, oldest-trick-in-the-book political maneuvering by the other side was perhaps not a terribly good idea in the first place?
No, Cassa, I do not see how permitting people to criticise government policy is "damaging" or "weakening our hand" and I find it concerning and weird that this is now a mainstream attitude in the UK. That is magical thinking and frankly it smacks of desperation. We've been in a crap political position from the start - and calling a spade a spade is not going to make anything worse. And it would not be worth sacrificing if it did.
Says who? Who gets to decide what information is in the "national interest" and what isn't? People are entitled to know what the government's estimates on the impact of Brexit are - especially businesses.
//Why have you not figured out we will NOT get the best deal possible if Remainers continue to undermine what is going on?//
It's overwhelmingly Remainers who have been tasked with implementing Brexit. All the leaders of the Leave campaign heroically ducked out when it was time to take responsibility. The only serious Brexiteer with any influence is Davis, and he's visibly out of his depth.
//It isn't rocket science to see that the EU is playing a dirty game under the guise of procedure//
What, you mean it's doing politics and advancing its own goals now that we are a third country?
Could it perhaps be that a policy so easily damaged by basic, oldest-trick-in-the-book political maneuvering by the other side was perhaps not a terribly good idea in the first place?
No, Cassa, I do not see how permitting people to criticise government policy is "damaging" or "weakening our hand" and I find it concerning and weird that this is now a mainstream attitude in the UK. That is magical thinking and frankly it smacks of desperation. We've been in a crap political position from the start - and calling a spade a spade is not going to make anything worse. And it would not be worth sacrificing if it did.
"We've been in a crap political position from the start..."
No we haven't. It's been turned into a crap position by the UK trying to retain some of the benefits of EU membership. There is absolutely no need for this. The best position to have adopted (on June 24th 2016) would have been to have said "We're leaving. Here's the required two years' notice and we'll be leaving on June 24th 2018. We'd love to trade and interact with you on decent terms if we can reach an agreement by then. If not we'll simply revert to WTO arrangements."
The confusion and uncertainty has been created by trying, quite unjustifiably, to get the EU to grant us privileged conditions.
No we haven't. It's been turned into a crap position by the UK trying to retain some of the benefits of EU membership. There is absolutely no need for this. The best position to have adopted (on June 24th 2016) would have been to have said "We're leaving. Here's the required two years' notice and we'll be leaving on June 24th 2018. We'd love to trade and interact with you on decent terms if we can reach an agreement by then. If not we'll simply revert to WTO arrangements."
The confusion and uncertainty has been created by trying, quite unjustifiably, to get the EU to grant us privileged conditions.
The research isn't the problem. Letting the world know how we speculate things are\will be, and allowing Project Fear to run down the country further boosting other nations morale and hitting our own is what hurts. I suspect that you know that.
You have the right to criticise when appropriate and a duty not to abuse the right.
You have the right to criticise when appropriate and a duty not to abuse the right.
// I'm not saying one can not question their decision, but obviously not where the decision is correct. //
Brilliant.
And how are we supposed to do that when they won't let anyone see the relevant information? How do we know the decision is correct? This isn't sensitive intelligence information, it's government forecasts about the impact of Brexit - which is something we should know.
//You wish to go around punishing people ?
Well leave me out. //
Well there hardly seems any point in asserting that criticising the government must be subject to time and "appropriateness" if you're not going to enforce it, does there? Otherwise what's the point. You're just going to frown at people when their opinions annoy you. We've seen plenty of people on this site arguing for prosecution of anti-Brexit people.
Brilliant.
And how are we supposed to do that when they won't let anyone see the relevant information? How do we know the decision is correct? This isn't sensitive intelligence information, it's government forecasts about the impact of Brexit - which is something we should know.
//You wish to go around punishing people ?
Well leave me out. //
Well there hardly seems any point in asserting that criticising the government must be subject to time and "appropriateness" if you're not going to enforce it, does there? Otherwise what's the point. You're just going to frown at people when their opinions annoy you. We've seen plenty of people on this site arguing for prosecution of anti-Brexit people.
The fundamental problem here seems to be that, once again, Brexiters are busy confusing accepting the result of June 23rd with embracing it. I get that we are leaving, and I accept the result in that sense. I don't get that I have to abandon every position I held prior to the referendum -- so I don't embrace the result, and make arguments I feel were flawed, or at least unconvincing, my own.
Obviously now that Brexit is going to happen then it's in everyone's interests to make it work, but that includes understanding how it can go wrong -- and it certainly can go very wrong. Brexit supporters will do far more damage to the country by denying the risks than Remainers can ever do by overstating them.
Obviously now that Brexit is going to happen then it's in everyone's interests to make it work, but that includes understanding how it can go wrong -- and it certainly can go very wrong. Brexit supporters will do far more damage to the country by denying the risks than Remainers can ever do by overstating them.
We just keep going round in circles with this.
If you simply can't see that constant moaning and demanding and siding with the EU IS detrimental to 'negotiations' then we are in a sorry position.
Remainers seem to think that Brexiters don't know or realise there maybe an economic dip. Well news flash we do. We also know that sometimes there is a bitter pill to swallow to get better. But as long as the medicine and treatment is in place recovery will happen.
The EU stance is understandable and expected. But that doesn't mean our Remainers 'in power' have to get behind the EU at every opportunity. Just because the EU says 'no not enough' doesn't mean Remainers have to agree. What is the problem with getting behind the UK and saying 'actually it is enough' rather than jumping up and down spitting out the dummy and saying 'see, see, they've said so we can't do it' every time the EU doesn't agree with us?
Accepting the Brexit result is only the first step.
What is the problem with pushing for our best interests? It's what the EU is doing.
The best 'deal' after our proper legal obligations have been agreed is free trade agreement and inclusion to all the 'sections' that are in our best interests to be in. But that isn't at any cost. It has to be economically neutral cost or advantageous cost. If we are out of pocket simply to be in then we are better off outside.
We know from experience that the EU don't negotiate. They have a tick list and if you don't get the boxes ticked you don't get.
If you simply can't see that constant moaning and demanding and siding with the EU IS detrimental to 'negotiations' then we are in a sorry position.
Remainers seem to think that Brexiters don't know or realise there maybe an economic dip. Well news flash we do. We also know that sometimes there is a bitter pill to swallow to get better. But as long as the medicine and treatment is in place recovery will happen.
The EU stance is understandable and expected. But that doesn't mean our Remainers 'in power' have to get behind the EU at every opportunity. Just because the EU says 'no not enough' doesn't mean Remainers have to agree. What is the problem with getting behind the UK and saying 'actually it is enough' rather than jumping up and down spitting out the dummy and saying 'see, see, they've said so we can't do it' every time the EU doesn't agree with us?
Accepting the Brexit result is only the first step.
What is the problem with pushing for our best interests? It's what the EU is doing.
The best 'deal' after our proper legal obligations have been agreed is free trade agreement and inclusion to all the 'sections' that are in our best interests to be in. But that isn't at any cost. It has to be economically neutral cost or advantageous cost. If we are out of pocket simply to be in then we are better off outside.
We know from experience that the EU don't negotiate. They have a tick list and if you don't get the boxes ticked you don't get.
“…but what if we’re out of pocket to be out?”
There seems to be a widespread belief that money is everything in the Brexit "negotiations". It’s not. Many people voted to leave the EU regardless of any effect it might have on the economy. Sometimes the end justifies the means and the end result (of freeing the UK of the pernicious and ever-increasing influence of the EU) is worth almost any realistically envisaged downside.
There seems to be a widespread belief that money is everything in the Brexit "negotiations". It’s not. Many people voted to leave the EU regardless of any effect it might have on the economy. Sometimes the end justifies the means and the end result (of freeing the UK of the pernicious and ever-increasing influence of the EU) is worth almost any realistically envisaged downside.
Yes cheers for that, Zacs.
I suppose it depends how much you value your nation's sovereignty. If you are prepared to sacrifice it come what may then the EU is for you. You may (or probably may not) be a few bob better off but you can kiss goodbye to having a government which has any control over the things that matter. If, on the other hand, you don't particularly fancy the idea of having your nation's laws made elsewhere by unelected bureaucrats, don't fancy having your armed forces controlled by a foreign power and don't relish the idea of having your taxes and public spending set by foreign civil servants then leaving the EU is the only option.
You will note that I said that leaving is is "...worth almost any realistically envisaged downside." Nobody, even the most pessimistic of Remainers, suggests that the UK will be reduced to a basket case following Brexit. Some businesses will need to change their models to accommodate the new circumstances in which they find themselves and there may be short-term pain. But the question above is really the one that is most applicable. If that makes me a "feckwit" then I'll live with it.
I suppose it depends how much you value your nation's sovereignty. If you are prepared to sacrifice it come what may then the EU is for you. You may (or probably may not) be a few bob better off but you can kiss goodbye to having a government which has any control over the things that matter. If, on the other hand, you don't particularly fancy the idea of having your nation's laws made elsewhere by unelected bureaucrats, don't fancy having your armed forces controlled by a foreign power and don't relish the idea of having your taxes and public spending set by foreign civil servants then leaving the EU is the only option.
You will note that I said that leaving is is "...worth almost any realistically envisaged downside." Nobody, even the most pessimistic of Remainers, suggests that the UK will be reduced to a basket case following Brexit. Some businesses will need to change their models to accommodate the new circumstances in which they find themselves and there may be short-term pain. But the question above is really the one that is most applicable. If that makes me a "feckwit" then I'll live with it.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Leap In Unemployment Rate Raises...
News18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.