More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[nil_desperandum]

It's truly mind-boggling,but this was bound to come out at some point.
The cynic in me makes me think that Davis realised that he might get away with his revelations of duplicity/ incompetence today because he has been overshadowed by Trump and the ongoing DUP saga.
On a slower news day the media would have been all over this. It's truly incredible that he seems to be getting away with it.
Davis is in charge of steering us through these difficult negotiations and even the most rabid "brexiteer" should be alarmed after today's news.

[Paul Waine]

What am I missing? I'm genuinely confused.

On Nov 2 Labour successfully compelled the release of 58 assessments, unredacted: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-handover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Then we are suddenly told: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42249854" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am I confusing 2 separate issues? How on earth did we know the exact number if none existed? As it stands I'm not at all certain what has just happened.

Hi iibyw, good post and good to be reminded what we all took as fact a few weeks ago. So, the Guardian and other media reported that there were 48 "impact assessments." Such a precise number suggests there was some truth to these reports. The media also reported that the gov't was considering how to disclose them without revealing anything that would hinder the brexit negotiations. So, the answer, let's make the "impact assessments" disappear and tell everyone that they didn't exist in the first place. Job done.... Or, of course, it's not done if anything ever gets leaked.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how any meaningful "impact assessments" could be produced when there is no certainty about the outcome of negotiations. I guess there could be a "base case" - but that would necessarily have to be a "no deal" and "WTO rules only" between the UK and EU27 - and then, perhaps "no change/no new trade deals" with ROW. So, what would happen if a "base case" was prepared? Would the media report is as "bad news?" or "biased news?" I'm sure the reports have been written many times that "no deal" would be "bad news." Would it make any difference if the gov't had prepared impact assessments that had this as the "base case?" And, if the "impact assessment" suggested that the "base case" wasn't so bad after all, would the gov't be accused of preparing unrealistic assessments, i.e. "biased news?"

Then we should remember George Osborne's "emergency budget" and (was it) "£4,500 worse off" (in 2030) "impact assessment" that was published before the referendum.

So, where do we end up after all that? It sounds like it would have been best to say "we aren't preparing any impact assessments, because there are too many variables and the biggest variable is getting the EU27 to agree to a deal that would assist a meaningful impact assessment...."

Or, something like that.

Let's offer the "hand of friendship" to all.

[If it be your will]

They didn't exist according to Davis IIBYW

He said that today, after telling everyone that they were "extensive"

F**k knows what is going on, but its actually getting to the stage where ignoring the referendum result might not be as damaging to our democracy as what is going on at the moment.

In a way that's a relief, Lancaster, because for a moment I thought these were two separate stories I'd erroneously lumped together. Basically, then, Keir Starmer used a 'humble address' to force the government to release an exact number of documents. Several well known names including Rees-Mogg, Leadsom, Bercow, Soubry etc debated the implications of the motion (that had just passed unanimously), and they were all referring to something that did not exist?

Right, so we're all agreed then, we've finally reached the point where the only way to make sense of anything relating to Brexit requires the use of hallucinogenic drugs.

[nil_desperandum]

On the other hand, I'm not sure how any meaningful "impact assessments" could be produced when there is no certainty about the outcome of negotiations. .

Hi Paul,
If there was certainty about the outcome then we wouldn't need "impact assessments". You assess the impact of options, a.b,c and d, in scenarios x, y and z, and this should inform the way you go about negotiating, and help you come up with realistic and achievable goals.

[nil_desperandum]

Right, so we're all agreed then, we've finally reached the point where the only way to make sense of anything relating to Brexit requires the use of hallucinogenic drugs.

I think we need something a bit stronger than that in order to ease the pain.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul,
If there was certainty about the outcome then we wouldn't need "impact assessments". You assess the impact of options, a.b,c and d, in scenarios x, y and z, and this should inform the way you go about negotiating, and help you come up with realistic and achievable goals.

Hi nil_d, yes, maybe - but how do you choose "a,b,c and d, in scenarios x, y and z?" And, my point is that "base case" can only be "no deal/wto" as I described - and in the same way as the media (and I think GO) focused on the worst case numbers from the Treasury's "impact assessment" in June-2016 that's all we'd hear this time.

And, I think we know what is being negotiated:

1) UK pays all it's obligations when they become due - although there may be a few areas where there needs to be a little "give and take" on exactly what the obligations are;
2) EU citizens in UK can remain in UK - and we'd like the same treatment for UK citizens in EU countries:
3) N.Ireland/ROI border - we'd like to retain the current "un-manned" border - and we want to preserve GF peace agreement.
4) Trade - we like free trade - we've said we are aiming for FTAs with several non-EU countries - and we'd like to offer the EU FTAs with UK.
5) Most important, we want and intend to be a great friend and ally of all the 27 EU member states - and a big supporter of the EU27's aims.

I'm not sure where the "Impact assessments" are required with those aims.

When I've been negotiating I've always aimed for "win-win" deals. Yes, I put a lot of my efforts into thinking about what the other side would like, but also into what the other side actually needs from my side. It's generally worked out very well. It's surprising how many times the other side have not expected me to start with "what do you want/need?" And, as I've posted a number of times, "the hand of friendship" is the best way of achieving a "win-win" deal.

[nil_desperandum]

Hi nil_d, yes, maybe - but how do you choose "a,b,c and d, in scenarios x, y and z?" And, my point is that "base case" can only be "no deal/wto" as I described - and in the same way as the media (and I think GO) focused on the worst case numbers from the Treasury's "impact assessment" in June-2016 that's all we'd hear this time.

And, I think we know what is being negotiated:

1) UK pays all it's obligations when they become due - although there may be a few areas where there needs to be a little "give and take" on exactly what the obligations are;
2) EU citizens in UK can remain in UK - and we'd like the same treatment for UK citizens in EU countries:
3) N.Ireland/ROI border - we'd like to retain the current "un-manned" border - and we want to preserve GF peace agreement.
4) Trade - we like free trade - we've said we are aiming for FTAs with several non-EU countries - and we'd like to offer the EU FTAs with UK.
5) Most important, we want and intend to be a great friend and ally of all the 27 EU member states - and a big supporter of the EU27's aims.

I'm not sure where the "Impact assessments" are required with those aims.

When I've been negotiating I've always aimed for "win-win" deals. Yes, I put a lot of my efforts into thinking about what the other side would like, but also into what the other side actually needs from my side. It's generally worked out very well. It's surprising how many times the other side have not expected me to start with "what do you want/need?" And, as I've posted a number of times, "the hand of friendship" is the best way of achieving a "win-win" deal.

Just to take one of your examples, No. 3.

3) N.Ireland/ROI border - we'd like to retain the current "un-manned" border - and we want to preserve GF peace agreement.

Indeed we do, but this is totally incompatible with the red-lines that May has drawn, i.e. leaving the single market and customs union, and - arguably - with no border control it is impossible to end "free movement" (another red-line).
So you need to assess the potential outcomes of various options and scenarios.
e.g. "a blind man on a galloping horse" would have foreseen that the DUP would have scuppered yesterday's initiative, and equally any informed assessment of that initiative would have led them to conclude that if they proposed regulatory alignment for N Ireland, then other regions would want it as well.
But it appears that this government and Davis' team don't prepare in advance for anything. Presumably they believe that a shambolic approach will so confuse the other 27 states that they end up giving us unexpected concessions. (That strategy is failing dismally).

[Damo]

We had an impact assessment.
George Osborne warned us about an emergency budget, and the economy being on its knees within days if we voted leave.

[Lancasterclaret]

Again - The Brexit promised by Leave before the referendum is impossible to implement. Because enough of you still believe it is and shout it from the roof tops at every available opportunity, this weak and unstable government can't make any decisions on Brexit. At all.

I agree with Damo up to a point, the country got told it would be an utter disaster if we left the EU but he hasn't mentioned that the counter balance to that was that we'd be fine and dandy outside the EU and better off.

Its a clusterfuck, and its getting worse.

[aggi]

What am I missing? I'm genuinely confused.

On Nov 2 Labour successfully compelled the release of 58 assessments, unredacted: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-handover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Then we are suddenly told: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42249854" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am I confusing 2 separate issues? How on earth did we know the exact number if none existed? As it stands I'm not at all certain what has just happened.

David David said there were 58, that's why the number is so specific. Why there are no longer 58, no one seems quite sure.

[dsr]

Just to take one of your examples, No. 3.

Indeed we do, but this is totally incompatible with the red-lines that May has drawn, i.e. leaving the single market and customs union, and - arguably - with no border control it is impossible to end "free movement" (another red-line).
So you need to assess the potential outcomes of various options and scenarios.
e.g. "a blind man on a galloping horse" would have foreseen that the DUP would have scuppered yesterday's initiative, and equally any informed assessment of that initiative would have led them to conclude that if they proposed regulatory alignment for N Ireland, then other regions would want it as well.
But it appears that this government and Davis' team don't prepare in advance for anything. Presumably they believe that a shambolic approach will so confuse the other 27 states that they end up giving us unexpected concessions. (That strategy is failing dismally).

It isn't impossible to end free movement without a hard border - there never has been a physical border between the UK and the Republic if Ireland (except specifically for security reasons, not for political, trade or immigration), and that didn't mean that there was "free movement" into Britain before the EEC or before the EU were formed. What it meant was that British and Irish citizens have free movement between each others' countries; this didn't apply to the rest of the world, and I don't think even the EU has rules that would stop the Republic from continuing with those rules. And if they do, that's not something the UK can do much about.

If the Republic joined Schengen, it might make a difference. As long as they aren't in Schengen, there's no reason to make it an issue - not for immigration/free movement purposes, anyway.

The UK and the Republic of Ireland are on the same side for this one - the UK wants an open border and free trade between Ireland and Britain.

[nil_desperandum]

DSR - we've been down this route before.
The issue of Schengen is irrelevent. EU citizens will still be legitimately in the ROI, and can simply walk over the border, but in any case - AS YOU KNOW - this is not really about this issue, it's about trade / customs union / harmonisation etc., and you are now deflecting from my original point which is that Davis said there were 58 impact assessments and yesterday he said they didn't exist.
He's either incompetent or a liar, and this is the man that Theresa May trusts to lead us through these difficult negotiations.

[Lancasterclaret]

There are 145 issues about the NI-Eire border post-Brexit . Three of them are about that actual "border".

I wish people would understand that bit, it would save a hell of a lot time.

[Lancasterclaret]

Anyone interested in our Brexshit performance needs to follow @davidallengreen on twitter.

Knows his stuff, and though its thoroughly depressing, you at least know a lot more about stuff than you would if you just watched the news.

[JohnMcGreal]

The UK and the Republic of Ireland are on the same side for this one - the UK wants an open border and free trade between Ireland and Britain.

We've already got it.

[dsr]

DSR - we've been down this route before.
The issue of Schengen is irrelevent. EU citizens will still be legitimately in the ROI, and can simply walk over the border, but in any case - AS YOU KNOW - this is not really about this issue, it's about trade / customs union / harmonisation etc., and you are now deflecting from my original point which is that Davis said there were 58 impact assessments and yesterday he said they didn't exist.
He's either incompetent or a liar, and this is the man that Theresa May trusts to lead us through these difficult negotiations.

I'm not denying that the government is incompetent.

But abolishing freedom of movement was never about making it impossible for EU citizens to get in. There is and will be absolutely no restriction on EU citizens walking across the borders of the UK, and unless they're Irish, they do need and will continue to need to show a passport (either here or in Ireland) to get here. There is no reason for that to change.

The freedom of movement thing is that the UK government will legitimately be able to exclude EU citizens and be able to treat them as foreigners if they want to. EU citizens' rights, just like citizens of the rest of the world, will be determined by the UK not by the EU. If the UK decides to impose physical restrictions on EU citizens' travel, they will have to introduce visas and a physical border in Northern Ireland; but the UK isn't going to do that.

[nil_desperandum]

The freedom of movement thing is that the UK government will legitimately be able to exclude EU citizens and be able to treat them as foreigners if they want to. EU citizens' rights, just like citizens of the rest of the world, will be determined by the UK not by the EU. If the UK decides to impose physical restrictions on EU citizens' travel, they will have to introduce visas and a physical border in Northern Ireland; but the UK isn't going to do that.

So basically all those people who voted for Brexit expecting that this would enable us to control who comes in and out of the country, (and I'm not saying you were one of them), were misled?
If people can travel to Dublin and then walk into the UK unchecked, then how can we have the slightest idea who's here?, (unless of course they are stupid enough to try to register to pay tax or receive benefits).
I actually agree with your point in general, but there were people interviewed immediately after the vote, who not only expected that brexit would lead to us closing our borders and having stringent checks, but also anticipated that EU migrants already here would get sent back!!!
(Indeed there were some who expected it would have an impact on immigration from Pakistan and other parts of Asia. It probably will, in that we are likely to see more people coming here from those areas and less from the EU.)

unless they're Irish, they do need and will continue to need to show a passport (either here or in Ireland) to get here. There is no reason for that to change.
That's exactly my point. Schengen is irrelevant. An EU passport gives an EU citizen the automatic right to use the EU lanes at passport control at Dublin, and without any further checks at the NI border they are then effectively in the UK.

[Paul Waine]

Just to take one of your examples, No. 3. [NI/ROI border.]

Indeed we do, but this is totally incompatible with the red-lines that May has drawn, i.e. leaving the single market and customs union, and - arguably - with no border control it is impossible to end "free movement" (another red-line).
So you need to assess the potential outcomes of various options and scenarios.

Agree, nil_d, compromises need to be made to progress with any negotiation. However, it's not impossible that free movement of ROI and UK citizens can be preserved across the border of their respective nations, while other arrangements are made for trade of goods. All we need is the will to negotiate together in friendship and a solution can be agreed.

EDIT: Having read the posts above - which I hadn't read before I responded to nil_d, I thought I'd add a quick thought on a possible "compromises:"

UK introduces ID cards, ID cards establishes the right to live/work in UK, the right to use NHS services w/out payment (or EHIC, if it continues), the right to claim benefits.

The UK would still be open to visitors, whether tourists or business or other reasons.

Re ID cards - they are common in a number European countries - and can be used to cross some borders, just as a passport is used. My Italian friends, who work in London, are always surprised why the UK doesn't have ID cards.

Yes, I know that some people do not support ID cards, but that might be the compromise that enables a number of things to work.

[If it be your will]

David David said there were 58, that's why the number is so specific. Why there are no longer 58, no one seems quite sure.

Ah. So that's where the 58 came from. Thanks.

Seems a bit odd all this. Odd that there are no assessments, and even more odd that David Davis would accidentally say 'fifty-eight' when he actually meant to say 'nought'.

[Paul Waine]

Ah. So that's where the 58 came from. Thanks.

Seems a bit odd all this. Odd that there are no assessments, and even more odd that David Davis would accidentally say 'fifty-eight' when he actually meant to say 'nought'.

Who knows, perhaps he'd just had a tin of "57 varieties" for lunch, and so quoted the next number in sequence...

[aggi]

He repeatedly made reference to over 50 and then narrowed it down to 58. When you read all of the quotes it sounds like they were doing a lot of work
http://jackofkent.com/2017/11/the-early ... -analyses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[UpTheBeehole]

You call a defenceless lone woman, that was viciously attacked in the early hours of the morning

Ringo, where was your indignation at this attack, undoubtedly more vicious than the 'attack' in Batley?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-42227822

Or were you not aware of it because it wasn't brought to your attention by Tommy Robinson?

[Damo]

Whenever I read about how badly the Brexit talks are going, I always remember the alternative

IMG_20171207_132934.jpg (443.18 KiB) Viewed 2436 times

[UpTheBeehole]

Are you a fan of Schulz Damo?

Do you like this quote of his?

"The right to asylum knows no upper limit," says Schulz, causing the delegates to cheer.

[dsr]

So basically all those people who voted for Brexit expecting that this would enable us to control who comes in and out of the country, (and I'm not saying you were one of them), were misled?
If people can travel to Dublin and then walk into the UK unchecked, then how can we have the slightest idea who's here?, (unless of course they are stupid enough to try to register to pay tax or receive benefits).
I actually agree with your point in general, but there were people interviewed immediately after the vote, who not only expected that brexit would lead to us closing our borders and having stringent checks, but also anticipated that EU migrants already here would get sent back!!!
(Indeed there were some who expected it would have an impact on immigration from Pakistan and other parts of Asia. It probably will, in that we are likely to see more people coming here from those areas and less from the EU.)

unless they're Irish, they do need and will continue to need to show a passport (either here or in Ireland) to get here. There is no reason for that to change.
That's exactly my point. Schengen is irrelevant. An EU passport gives an EU citizen the automatic right to use the EU lanes at passport control at Dublin, and without any further checks at the NI border they are then effectively in the UK.

Basically, the physical borders will be in the same shape as they are now. Anyone coming into the UK will need to show a passport unless they come through the Republic of Ireland. That is how it is now, has been as far as I know since 1921, and there is no reason to change it.

Certainly anyone who thought foreigners wouldn't be able to get into the country was misled - or misled themselves. The difference under Brexit means that EU citizens (apart from the Irish) won't have the right to come here and get a job; there was never any suggestion (by anyone remotely reputable) that they wouldn't be able to come for a visit.

[UpTheBeehole]

unless they come through the Republic of Ireland.

THIS IS THE ENTIRE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION

[Lancasterclaret]

So a junior coalition partner in Angela Merkels cabinet, one of the 28 countries in the EU, says we must become an EU Superstate by 2025?

In the nicest possible way Damo, thats not exactly news, as the EU is a democratic organisation with lots of differing views, going from full on integration all the way to going all the way out.

[aggi]

It definitely isn't new, the same party has been saying the same for about the past hundred years.

[claretandy]

In other news the EU has taken 3 EU countries to court for not taking enough refugees.

https://t.co/HJ9V1y87pV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Darthlaw]

I don't think UTB had the attention span to read all of DSR's post.

Free movement of labour is the topic, in case there was still any doubt.

[Damo]

In the nicest possible way Damo, thats not exactly news,

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.poli ... -2025/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.ft.com/content/ec2a8982-db4 ... 4b1c09b482" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... rope-2025/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/wor ... in-schulz/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 97356.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://francais.rt.com/international/4 ... nis-europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is what various news outlets from around Europe have reported in the last 4 hours.
It quite literally is news

[Lancasterclaret]

But in the context of the whole debate on Europe it is not.

Its not like you were unaware that some people in the EU want federalism is it?

[Damo]

But in the context of the whole debate on Europe it is not.

Its not like you were unaware that some people in the EU want federalism is it?

Probably as unaware as you that there would be difficulties trying to agree border arrangements in Eire.

[nil_desperandum]

I don't think UTB had the attention span to read all of DSR's post.

Free movement of labour is the topic, in case there was still any doubt.

I don't think it is, or at least it isn't so far as I'm concerned or read it. It's about free movement of people (in and out of the UK via the ROI). Free movement of labour is an entirely different topic.

[claretandy]

Verhofstadt as well.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I’m struggling to understand what the calamity is that has befallen the original person in the street this week?

The government aren’t doing thorough planning for Brexit - doesn’t make the outcome good or bad to the normal person.
Davis is doing sector analyses, not full impact statements - no big deal, we know what the big issues are.
The EU (via the Irish) are being stubborn about the border. Ditto above.
The Tories and DIP are infighting. Ditto again.

In fact, on the face of it the week has been good - Juncker seemed on the point of accepting us into Stage 2, I didn’t expect that.

Let’s judge it when we are out. If it is a disaster, deal with it. If it is brilliant, enjoy it. Following every nuance of a massively complex negotiation can make our heads spin.

[Lancasterclaret]

Probably as unaware as you that there would be difficulties trying to agree border arrangements in Eire.

Yeah, like I was unaware of that.

I only worked for two firms along it for eleven years

[Lancasterclaret]

Now we have "Project its too complex for the man in street, just let it happen"

You lot certainly are consistent, i'll give you that.

Nothing can be allowed to derail our Brexit. Nothing.

[Lancasterclaret]

Tonight really is an eye opener.

Apparently Guy Verhofstadt is a massive Euro federalist?

Who knew eh? Who knew?

[Bacchus]

I’m struggling to understand what the calamity is that has befallen the original person in the street this week?

The government aren’t doing thorough planning for Brexit - doesn’t make the outcome good or bad to the normal person.
Davis is doing sector analyses, not full impact statements - no big deal, we know what the big issues are.
The EU (via the Irish) are being stubborn about the border. Ditto above.
The Tories and DIP are infighting. Ditto again.

In fact, on the face of it the week has been good - Juncker seemed on the point of accepting us into Stage 2, I didn’t expect that.

Let’s judge it when we are out. If it is a disaster, deal with it. If it is brilliant, enjoy it. Following every nuance of a massively complex negotiation can make our heads spin.

Your contributions are becoming increasingly desperate, Crosspool. It's as though you know it's a complete **** show but can't bring yourself to admit it.

1- Of course we know what the sticking points are. We always did. It's pretty important to understand how the various scenarios might play out though or you can't begin to inform your negotiating position. You're basically advocating just winging it.
2- The EU are being stubborn about the border? I'd question whether that's a fair assessment but don't you think it's troubling that 18 months on there still isn't a viable solution? Even in a no deal scenario this issue doesn't go away because of WTO rules.
3 - Let's just go for the ride and judge it when we're out? Are you for real? You don't think this warrants an actual strategy, a managed exit, a clear idea of what we want from the whole process? After 18 months we don't even know what we want let alone how to get it.

I get that you're in favour of Brexit but surely you want to see it done properly? Can you honestly see this government delivering whatever it is you're hoping for from Brexit?

[Walton]

Crosspool is getting less credible as the days go on.

[Damo]

Yeah, like I was unaware of that.

I only worked for two firms along it for eleven years

My sarcasm was that good was It?

[evensteadiereddie]

Ah, yes, the old sarcasm line...

[keith1879]

I find it surprising that there have been 1242 replies to topic which is almost by definition non-existent. All post brexit referendum news is bad.

[claretandy]

Rumours on Twitter that the deal is back on ...

[Lancasterclaret]

Which is good, as the alternative is no deal which would be a disaster (or no Brexit, but that would require six months more of this incompetence*)

*still possible with this lot in charge

[CrosspoolClarets]

I try very hard not to fall into the trap of using the term Remoaner but this week has begun to despair me. The Remain side are growing evermore shrill and hysterical.

From messageboards, to tweets, to newspapers to MPs like Soubry and Morgan. It’s starting to get tiresome.

I read a great letter in the FT today from a chap who runs a big manufacturing company. He got it spot in. We make goods, he said. We have to appeal to buyers, wherever they are (in his case, part EU, part US). That’s the challenge. All this talk of tariffs, currencies etc are minor issues in the grand scheme of making things that people want. Supply chain stuff is a bigger challenge for some but still not the biggest for these firms.

Britain will be fine after Brexit, hard or soft, just the same as it would have been fine staying in the EU too. Whether one is slightly less fine than the other is worth planning for, but not worth stressing over. The hysterics at times make us forget that.

[piston broke]

So a referendum is decided 51%-49%.
Of the 51% possibly 40% want a hard brexit, 30% want a soft brexit and 30% have no idea what they voted for but just wanted out.
So May is being held to ransom by 15% of the electorate but in fact by her extreme right wingers who hold power over her position. She should screw them and call an election.
I thought she was a very clever politician being a soft remainer. She kept her head down and grabbed the top job. The more I see of her she is not up to it. I don't see her being around for long so it's time to slap the dinosaurs down.

[Damo]

Ah, yes, the old sarcasm line...

You should get involved in the conversation more often Eddie.

You could start by reading it.

I will explain just for you though seems as though you had a whoosh moment.

Of course I knew that certain people want a united states of Europe. Just as I know Lancaster was fully aware of the issues in Eire.
The image I posted (the Martin Schulz tweet) was as newsworthy as the issues re the irish border.
Maybe my point was a tad subtle

[martin_p]

I read a great letter in the FT today from a chap who runs a big manufacturing company. He got it spot in. We make goods, he said. We have to appeal to buyers, wherever they are (in his case, part EU, part US). That’s the challenge. All this talk of tariffs, currencies etc are minor issues in the grand scheme of making things that people want. Supply chain stuff is a bigger challenge for some but still not the biggest for these firms.

That’s all fine, but the problem is the governments thinking seems to be less mature that a letter in the FT at the moment. Surely that’s got to be a worry?