One constant throughout the Brexit negotiations amongst the toing and froing of Brexit cabinet members, calls for the sitting Prime Minister to resign and leave has been the men in grey suits, the men (not women) in the background.
The Civil Service has always had an enormous influence over the government of the day; one only has to revisit old classics such as Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister to be educated in the machinations of inner government.
Of course, you must take that analogy with a pinch of salt as it was a classic comedy. But the touches of reality are breathtaking. The Thick of It brought the public up to date with the workings of government behind the scenes. For sure, the big problem with this influence and management of the government is that no one voted for any of these people.
Obviously, they have a job to do; MPs and Government Ministers need aid and help with their decisions and implementation of policy ideas. There is, of course, now in the modern Parliament a whole new industry comprising of “Think Tanks,” but are these simply the old lobby groups in disguise?
They are it seems comprised of a lot of young go-getting highly educated young people. If you look at TV appearances, they also seem to be dominated by young women; this is refreshing too of course. It is worrying though that they also seem to offer a further layer of input into the Government machine.
My worry is that no one has voted for these people. Their thoughts, ethos, and manifestos have never been put to the public test. Their influence on policy and the pathway of the country is not measured with checks and balances, or so it seems.
So, to our Mr Robbins. It has been widely reported about his influence on the process of negotiation to secure our divorce from the EU. The recent programmes looking behind the scenes of those negotiations were very revealing as to his levels of input and influence. At one point, the second EU negotiating cabinet minister Dominic Raab was flexing his muscles a bit and arguing certain points to make his stance known to his opposition. Robbins is clearly heard interjecting saying that those parts of the conversation Raab was arguing had already been agreed and that he, Raab, should not go there.
This totally blew any wind out of his sails and literally stopped him dead from any further opportunity of negotiation. Can you remember the Godfather film when Fredo spoke out against the family to Mo Green in Las Vegas? This was very similar. Who`s side is this fella on?
To interject on behalf of the other side in any negotiation is a serious dereliction of duty and some things are just simply better left unsaid. Is it any wonder that Dominic Raab did not stay in post very long. You cannot go into bat with someone holding your arms down.
The current negotiations between the Tories and Labour to try to find a way through for the withdrawal agreement to return to Parliament and be voted in is worthy of another blog. But they are clearly stalling and will not arrive at anything meaningful.
Why then did Olly Robbins go alone to Brussels to de-brief the chiefs of the EU. Why was it not a senior cabinet minister and someone who has after all been voted into office by the British Public, what checks are in place to monitor what he says or even more so what if anything he agrees?
This is a very worrying trend and a very worrying set of circumstances surely. An unelected civil servant, going to Brussels to discuss a major part of the biggest political decision this country is currently mired in. Even if it is to brief EU ministers and negotiators, it cannot be right that he does this in my opinion and does this alone. Especially when he clearly has an undue influence on the outcome of the withdrawal agreement.
He is to meet Sabine Weyand, the deputy negotiator, and ask her how long it will take to change the 26-page political declaration which is the agreement on the future relationship between GB and the EU. That’s ok you may think to simply ask how long it will take, but that could have surely been done on the phone.
No, it is also widely reported that he is also going to discuss actual changes to that document, bearing in mind no outcome has been achieved from the cross-party talks here in Blighty and discussing changes is as a result of demands for such changes by Jeremy Corbyn I have grave reservations about this.
Who elected this man, who appointed him, who checks and balances what he says, what is his mandate, what changes is he negotiating to an already agreed document on behalf of you and me.?
Too many questions for this to be a safe and correct practice.
Stinks of COMMON PURPOSE to me.
This is obviously an unfounded allegation, but Robbins is clearly a Common Purpose ‘graduate’, well trained in their pernicious methods, and no doubt a master at ‘crossing boundaries’ – in other words going above and beyond his job title/description in order to advance the ‘hidden agenda’.
The civil service is infested with them, as well as the police, NHS, education, judiciary, media, local government as well as other ‘non-governmental organisations’ (NGOs) and supposed ‘think-tanks’.
This is the reason why “nothing works properly” in this country. And why ‘figures in authority’ constantly bombard us with meaningless buzzwords such as ‘vibrant’ and ‘diversity’.
And of course the first rule of Common Purpose is “don’t talk about Common Purpose”.
Olly Robbins is not just a Civil Servant, he is a Common Purpose placeman carrying out the wishes of his masters (who are not the Government).
It used to be the case that the Civil Service carried out the instructions of the Government with regards to implementing policy.
Now it seems it is the other way around.
We’re sadly mistaken if we believe that our own Government is actually making the decisions and running this country.
https://www.cpexposed.com/about-common-purpose
http://stopcp.com/
https://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2017/08/11/common-purpose-resources/
from PMB I particularly agree with the point made above that ‘this is how things are done in the EU.’ It really does seem that our National Government is now mirroring that totally undemocratic bureaucratic monster. The point about ‘think tanks’ is also worrying and I’m concerned how much is decided in committees.
Olly Robbins has been in even the mainstream news before now as being a constant Remain presence at Cabinet meetings. Can it be I wonder, that Remainer May needs him as a constant prop, just in case someone speaks out for the No deal, WTO exit we actually voted for?
I’ve been reminded of Yes Minister too. I agree that of course our government do need a civil service to put it’s decisions into effect. But I’m sure it does not need to be as large as at present AND it MUST be made to be subservient to our Elected Government. Lets hope we get a P.M. that does the job. May clearly has only one strength – Superglue holding on to office.
Robbins is merely the messenger. The ‘deal’ was agreed when May visited Merkel prior to her outrageous Chequers ‘lock-in’ and backstabbing of DexEU.
Robbins visits t Brussels are trips to brief his masters on how May is getting on in ‘forcing; ‘Barnier’s deal’, as Steve Barclay called it yesterday, through.
Isn’t this the way things are done in the EU? Isn’t this another proof of how our relationship with that dictatorship
has poisoned our body politic that Cabinet no longer thinks this sort of bureaucratic dominance unconscionable? After the next election, we shall need a government to instigate a thorough reform of our constitution to make sure these people can never exceed their powers again on pain of prosecution. A revised Bill of Rights 1689?
It strikes me that our politicians are perhaps too ready to listen to their civil servants, allowing them too much power and influence, as it’s too much trouble not to. These career politicians have no experience of the workplace. On the other hand, the Brexit party will at least consist of people many of whom will bring man-management skills to the positions they hold, and will not be so easily manipulated.
Agree entirely, but ir seems many people have forgotten Peter Mendelson and his comments made years ago now about the days of democratically elected government officials being over, technocrats are so much more able apparently, just as the e.u model demonstrates on a daily basis, get a weak indecisive leader and this is the result at a local and national level particularly when common purpose is added to the mix.
Civil Servants are noted for complying with the wishes of the government of the day. So if Mrs May sees herself subservient to to a Civil Servant then she should not be Prime Minister. The responsibility for policy lies solely with the government. The Civil Service is bound to apply the law and failure to do so is a no-no in the Civil Service.
It would appear therefore that Mrs May and her government are unwilling to make or comply with law that allows for Britain to leave the EU.
” Not Noted ” Edward . It’s the job description. ” Servants “.
Many though ” go rogue “, get promoted, get the the love of power, or transfer their allegiance to a politician or someone/anyone else ( EU ). They have broken their oath. [ Sacked themselves ]
Although, come to think of it , the EU may have substituted themselves in place of the Queen. And could, I suppose, Have decided that since all our laws are still made in Brussels, and since they are also law enforcers ( in their role of service, ) blah, blah