Something quite extraordinary has happened. Sir Mark Sedwill, the Chief Mandarin, the May-handler, one of the architects of May’s WA and certainly the defender of it, the Sir Mark Sedwill who earlier this year leaked an assessment of what a no-deal Brexit means – “We Will All Die”- that Sir Mark Sedwill made an extraordinary statement Thursday evening:
“LONDON (Reuters) – Britain’s government is in “pretty good shape” if it needs to leave the European Union without a transition deal on Oct. 31, Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill, the country’s top civil servant, said on Thursday. British officials had done a lot of work to prepare for a no-deal Brexit before the original Brexit deadline of March 29, and work had continued since, though preparedness did vary between industries, Sedwill said at an event hosted by the Institute for Government think tank.” (link)
Does this mean there’s no crashing out catastrophe’? Does this mean that our Mandarins have been lying to us and our representatives? Unbelievable! Only the BBC (here) published a brief note, and only The Sun (here) and the FT (here) published a report.
One would have thought that this would make headlines, that the Tory Beauty contestants would’ve picked it up, but no. Is this a dirty little secret which we plebs don’t need to know about? Is that why our main MSM have kept this under a blanket? Quite extraordinary!
Note that Sir Mark Sedwill is putting the blame for the ‘crashing out catastrophe’ we’ve been told about since apparently forever, firmly on the private sector. Government is innocent. Odd, that. Strangely enough I’ve not found an outcry by the usual suspects (Big Business), rejecting this blame. They did have sufficient time – the statement came Thursday evening.
There’s another interesting piece of news which was reported in The Express (here), the DM (here) and RemainCentral, the paywalled Times. The way this is reported is instructive, see The Express:
“EU diplomats will push another “technical extension” in order to sure up the bloc’s no deal contingency measures if Britain’s next prime minister fails to strike a deal with Brussels. This would see Britain remain an EU member for a “maximum of two months” to allow both sides to get their houses in order before the divorce, according to an EU diplomat.[…] Sources also believe that the next prime minister will have to request a short delay if they can convince MPs in Westminster to support a tweaked version of Theresa May’s Brexit deal. Diplomats have been told by London that the process of ratifying the deal could take as long as three months.” (link)
Note the last sentence which indicates that Remain civil servants are still unwilling to work for Brexit! Here is the DM’s report:
“Britain is unlikely to leave the European Union this year – even in the event of No Deal, Brussels said last night. Eurocrats say they are convinced Boris Johnson will be the next prime minister, but that he will U-turn on his promise to leave on October 31 come what may. Even in the event of a cliff-edge exit, they believe EU leaders would sign off on a short extension for a ‘controlled No Deal’ which would last into the beginning of 2020. However, EU officials are working on the assumption that Mr Johnson will not insist on forcing through No Deal because this would trigger a no confidence vote by MPs and end his premiership. Instead, they expect him to use his ‘charm and charisma’ to sell an amended version of the current deal which Theresa May was not capable of delivering.” (source)
Isn’t it reassuring (not!) to note that the EU officials are confident that they can handle BoJo so as to get Ms May’s abysmal WA ‘delivered’ – in an ‘amended’ version. Excuse me, but doesn’t ‘amended’ mean there would need to be re-negotiations which the EU has categorically refused to even contemplate?
There’s of course a reason for the EU officials’ interesting new attitude: money. Our money. You recall that Ms May had agreed that we keep paying our bit for as long as we stay in, thanks to her extension. That is on top of the fabulous £39 billion ‘divorce’ bill. And lo and behold, we find that the EU is in difficult budget negotiations:
“Ahead of the European Council meeting on 20 and 21 June, the European Commission is calling on leaders to make a push in advancing the negotiations on the EU’s next long-term budget 2021-2027 so that an agreement can be reached by autumn.” (link)
That’s why these EU officials are dangling the carrot of ‘possible re-negotiations’ in front of our noses: have another extension and pay us a bit longer. Every little counts …
I wonder if Sir Mark Sedwill and the EU officials believe that ‘being nice to Boris’, the prospective next PM, might make him more inclined to listen to them – and keep us in. The EU officials have certainly been happy to share their insight with The Times:
“Political planning in Brussels is now based on the assumption that Britain will not leave the EU on the present deadline, itself an extension from the original date of March 29. Senior EU sources, including those in contact with UK officials, believe Mr Johnson is the most likely next prime minister and will “give a serious try to getting a new deal”, as he has pledged. […] Because of the tight timetable it is unlikely that formal negotiations will open until October, only allowing a few weeks to conclude a deal that has so far eluded negotiators for over two years. The EU expects Mr Johnson to perform a U-turn on the October 31 pledge after announcing his strategy and demands for a new deal at the Conservative Party conference, which ends on October 2.” (link, paywalled)
This EU source is very helpful, sketching a scenario which looks strangely familiar:
“His problem will be to show us, ahead of the negotiation, that he has the numbers in the Commons to get what he wants through,” said the source. “In the context of a constitutional row it is difficult to see any possibility for a serious attempt to get a deal. There is an EU summit in Brussels on October 17. Even if a deal is possible at that moment, we are told by the UK side that ratification takes two to three months, meaning an extension until the end of the year at the earliest,” the source said.” (link, paywalled)
It’s the same ‘show us before we do something’ attitude we recognise from their talks with Ms May. However, we know, don’t we, that Parliament can move extremely swiftly indeed when ratifying a Remain piece of legislation, as the Cooper/Letwin Bill showed. Obviously, if one wants or needs to Leave, that cannot be contemplated. More:
“Even if Mr Johnson, or another Tory leader, moved quickly to a no-deal Brexit, the EU would expect a short delay of about three months. “If it is really no-deal by October 31 we would expect to agree a controlled no-deal date rather than a precipitous exit,” said the source. “This is in the UK’s interests probably more than the EU’s. For a controlled no-deal the UK would need to conclude a technical extension.” The margin for a longer extension is, according to sources, “exhausted”, unless a second referendum or general election has been announced. (link, paywalled)
Ah, but didn’t Sir Mark Sedwill say just now that we are prepared? It’s pure speculation, as the EU officials know full well. It is also a lovely exercise in manipulating political decisions in our country, in the hope that Tory MPs and Tory Party members might change their minds, confronted with this scenario, that even BoJo won’t be able to deliver – so why not elect the ‘serious’ Mr Hunt instead?
I do wonder if Boris knew about this EU ‘help’ when he gave a speech yesterday – read about it here, it’s not paywalled. And I do wonder if the EU officials are aware of the latest ‘voter intentions’ poll (see here) which has TBP topping the lot, the LibDems in 2nd place, and LabCon lingering below the 20% mark. They certainly are aware of the increasing possibility of a GE triggered by a no-confidence vote in the Remain Parliament (see above).
Perhaps that’s why they are now softening their stance towards re-negotiation. Perhaps that’s also the reason for Sir Mark Sedwill’s ‘confession’. After all, a little bit of ‘crashing-out-chaos’ or ‘renegotiation’ must be preferable to the horror of a TBP GE victory …
Keep watching, remain sceptical, keep holding your constituency MPs to account, work for Brexit and
KBO!
This is the first paragraph of an article which came to me in an email of 4th April, It is self-explanatory and refers to a meeting in Germany the previous day:
‘Go for Broke (II)
04/04/2019
BERLIN/LONDON (Own report) – Germany’s Minister of the Economy, Peter Altmaier, warns of the consequences a “hard” Brexit would have on Germany, and sees the danger of the loss of “thousands of jobs.” Brussels and London must absolutely “prevent the big crash at the last moment,” declared Altmaier yesterday. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) had already warned that a hard Brexit could cost Germany a half-percentage point in growth – €17 billion this year alone. For months, think tanks have been pointing out that Germany would be the country most affected on the continent, if the United Kingdom makes an unregulated exit. Germany possibly may have to expect double-digit billions in annual losses. Most recently, the Bertelsmann Foundation assumed that the losses could be broken down to €115 per inhabitant of Germany. Those losses are looming at a time, when the German economy is in danger of slipping into a recession. Berlin and Brussels could prevent a hard Brexit by setting a time limit on the “backstop,” however, they are still hoping for a second referendum – and upping the ante’
We now know that London, or Mrs May, did indeed postpone the UK’s departure ‘at the last moment’, 11th April, as Germany’s Minister for the Economy had said ‘absolutely’ must happen. To me, it was further proof, that Germany and not the Commission, is making all the decisions about the UK’s departure. Both Juncker and Barnier have very powerful German deputies, Martin Selmayr and Sabine Weyand respectively and it is they who have been controlling all the players on the stage.
This is the link to the complete article: https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/detail/7907/
Furthermore half the truth can be more damaging than a blatant lie.
If the government is playing third party to the civil service and the EU then ………. what can I say …….. Britain has become a colony of the EU?
The EU’s goal (aside from punishment and discouraging others from attempting to leave) is to lock Britain in to permanent subservience and most importantly, to keep Britain paying.
There is of course a perfectly feasible technical solution to the Irish backstop mirage. My fear is that the EU will treat that as a loss leader and let Boris ‘win’ that battle on condition he loses the war by accepting the rest, which includes the horror of full defence integration and permanent vassalage, as so brilliantly illuminated by Gwythian Prins.
You are dead right. I would bet my bottom dollar that that will be the outcome and was always intended to be. . Bojo voted once for the WA, he is not a brexiteer at all, We’ll be locked in the EU military-security, the all -powerful Politburo aka” joint committee”, skyrocketing taxes to pay for the EU’s follies and totalitarian means to enforce payment. Plus the UN Global Migration Compact will start to kick in, with EU law and thug power to enforce that too.
Our only hope is Robin Tilbrook. Plus did Tilbrook say that the PM merely needs to “concede the rightness of Tilbrook’s case” to make Brexit happen?
There’s also another case challenging the legality of Art 50 extension: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvVQwt-vNJ4
Thanks for posting that valuable link Mary the case was very well presented, I hope Tillbrook did say that the PM – merely needs to “concede the rightness of Tillbrook`s case” to make Brexit happen because I certainly wrote it a while ago somewhere on here, it`s nice to be quoted!
I also liked the second item on the video you posted “Gove`s parliamentary demolition of Corbyn” I had never seen it before, it`s a master class in spirit and vituperation – pity we cannot trust the little horror, as I seem to remember he is a leading advocate of an unamended WA agreement, even when shorn of the backstop – he might have had a chance of PM – heaven forfend we get him.
Mary “Our only hope is Robin Tilbrook….” I too am keeping my fingers crossed for some positive news on this but don’t rule out The Brexit Party effect if Johnson does the dirty.
Meanwhile our country is being ransacked, pillaged and invaded. I see no sensible government policies on our economy, on immigration, on law and order or any issue that would help my family or my community or my country for the foreseeable future. I know government and our politicians have let us down and I’m not alone. There are millions like me watching this pantomime unfold on our tv screens. Whoever wins I think the country loses and, in or out the EU, our government will find ways to continue its scorched earth agenda.
Absolutely Matt,
Can I add to your list. The schemes to transfer to themselves ( and EU ) all assets whether Tangible Like Cadbury’s, Prosperity.. Or other intangible ones such as respect , respect for our ordinary people, our society and institutions and believe it or not, ( listening to our revolutionary guard,),,,, achievements. !
Incidentally Does anybody know what UKIP is doing ?. ( Other than speeches I mean.). Perhaps we should transfer UKIP to the EU.
Perhaps our spokes people could have a slanging match on these pages. Perhaps then we might then have an inkling. of action other than dumb insolance. and brute passivity.
Some serious action like recruiting any old miners or Rail drivers might jerk them upright, I understand Arthur Scargill is still around.
Our general uselessness is alarming.
We also noticed and thought the ceiling had fallen in. Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. AND the bbc wrote it down. This contradiction by one of their masters, flatly denies parliaments holy belief.
Absolutely. Earth shaking denial. Or is he trying to keep his and Civil Service jobs.
Sorry Viv ! , I started writing before reading the rest of your article which is much more informative.
Viv Now i’ve read the rest and you’ve made me gloomey again.HOWEVER. That is another Shibboleth of Project fear ( Best described as a LIE ) blown out of the water. . .
UKIP must Print it To Nail it down.
Sir Humphrey: Oh dear Minister – Prime Minister – this is an impossible crisis; do the opposite of what you were elected to do.
Minister PM : -Sorry Sir Humphrey – I have to do this otherwise I am finished and so are you.
Sir H: Gosh PM – I have resolved the crisis because I am such a clever Civil Servant!
PM : Let’s reward that with a peerage.
Hi Viv,
‘Going Postal’ just did an interesting bit on sorting out ‘real’ news from ‘fake’ news.
You may have seen it? This section –
.
‘Sources say’ implies that certain political forces want you to believe the message and gain political pole climbing advantage. Usually ‘sources say’ news reports are an attempt to frame one individual or party positively and another not.
Top tip: for any reporter or broadcaster, see if there are patterns in who is favoured/damaged by what their ‘sources say’.
.
…seems relevant as there are many uses of the word ‘sources’ in today’s review above.
Yes, I did see this, and it was a great essay indeed.
The truly interesting thing is to note that ‘sources’ usually means anybody, from a cleaning lady to a top diplomat. For example, I am certain that the ‘source’ mentioned in the Times are different people.
However, we must be aware that many people read those online MSM and believe them. Therefore I am trying to use quotes from as many publications as I can find because the different reporters tend to skew what the sources say, keeping in mind that what is said is said for a reason.
It’s a fascinating subject, and surely worthy of some in-depth essay. Sadly, the Remain shenanigans need to be catalogued every day and thus there’s not much time left to delve deeply.
I agree, Viv, and despite the fact that you and I have not discussed the matter, this is the very reason I offer quotes from several different newspapers on the same subject in my news reviews. One man’s compliment is another’s criticism.
And now we have to consider ‘fake news’. Perhaps a ‘source’ is simply made up by the reporter – frightful journalism!
Exactly, Debbie – and while a ‘fact’ is a ‘fact’, the spin and misdirection lies in the way it’s reported, in the choice of expressions. Also of interest is to note how a certain ‘scoop’ reported in one paper is then selectively quoted in the other MSM. A lot is just plain uncritical copy&paste, but variations allow one to notice the spin.
As for ‘fake news’ – ever since the big traditional papers like the NYT and The Times stopped separating factual reporting from ‘opinion’, things have gone down the drain so fast that one can hardly believe what one reads. One needs to check out who the authors are before one starts believing their piece.
And yes, I’m sure some hacks do make up their ‘sources’. The most infamous case is that of Claas Relotius in Germany last year – fascinating stuff!