Taken back control?

[WTFH]

Is that government or an inept and largely inert Civil Service...?

It can't be the government, the saintly tory right wing government that can do no wrong. Must find someone else to blame.

When our government chose to disconnect us from the systems in the EU, because it was the hard Brexit that the far right and financial institutions wanted, then disconnect is what we got, allegedly it's "the will of the people".

[woody1]

Most of the Brexit woes are either down to EU rules embedded into UK law (like Blair with the Human Rights Act for one major example)

The HRA (ECHR) has got nowt to do with the EU. This is a myth perpetuated by the anti-EU lot.

Lots of non-EU countries are signatories to the ECHR. (We were before we introduced the HRA)

Embedding it in our law just meant that cases could be judged here rather than in Strasbourg.

[northernladuk]

Who's playing games? where's evidence that lack of access is due to "ill will"? and please, oh please don't say it's common sense and I'm blind to not see it.

Everyone knew Brexit would be super hard to implement properly, it was down to the UK to make sure everything works when the UK is out of the block. How that came out...well look around you and stop blaming others.

Yeah, I get that and in many areas we got what the populace wanted and so be it good or bad. I just think in the case of a unified service to track potentially dangerous people across borders that is already in place that benefits the whole continent, in or out. As someone mentioned I'm sure Spain would have been all over it to see who they've got down on the Costa Del Crime so not just us. It get why we've been kicked out of it, but when politics get in the way of a service literally keeping people alive in our region it's just a waste.

I'm absolutely sure it's much more complex than that but would be good if they could get past that, get everyone onboard and continue to use the tool to keep people safe. To not be able to use it and people die just because we got what we voted for just doesn't seem right.

Very simplistic thought and can't argue it.. it's just a feeling.

[vetran]

Yeah, I get that and in many areas we got what the populace wanted and so be it good or bad. I just think in the case of a unified service to track potentially dangerous people across borders that is already in place that benefits the whole continent, in or out. As someone mentioned I'm sure Spain would have been all over it to see who they've got down on the Costa Del Crime so not just us. It get why we've been kicked out of it, but when politics get in the way of a service literally keeping people alive in our region it's just a waste.

I'm absolutely sure it's much more complex than that but would be good if they could get past that, get everyone onboard and continue to use the tool to keep people safe. To not be able to use it and people die just because we got what we voted for just doesn't seem right.

Very simplistic thought and can't argue it.. it's just a feeling.

Maybe follow the example of five eyes where there is international communication without it being tied to membership of a trade organisation.

[dsc]

[...]So the question in not about failures with Brexit, they are actually about failures to create, implement and enact our own laws, regulations, trading arrangements and processes to replace those previously run by the EU.

Is that government or an inept and largely inert Civil Service...?

Well overall gov is responsible for the cock ups as they are at the very top, probably down to specific depts within gov and often including civil service? I remember very well the phase of meetings gov had with farmers on how rules will be implemented, I think it was even supposed to be some form of debate, but with farmers just walking out pissed off about everything as the gov wasn't listening and / or was saying things will be fixed later on (and also being absolutely clueless without being able to answer any questions). Clearly a case of lets not ask the people who've been doing this for a living on how things should be and just do what we normally do ie. wait till the rules change and fix any issues then. Kind of like doing a push to production and fixing all problems in production, later on, after any credibility you've had has been absolutely destroyed due to the tulip show you've just pushed.

[malvolio]

Well overall gov is responsible for the cock ups as they are at the very top, probably down to specific depts within gov and often including civil service? I remember very well the phase of meetings gov had with farmers on how rules will be implemented, I think it was even supposed to be some form of debate, but with farmers just walking out pissed off about everything as the gov wasn't listening and / or was saying things will be fixed later on (and also being absolutely clueless without being able to answer any questions). Clearly a case of lets not ask the people who've been doing this for a living on how things should be and just do what we normally do ie. wait till the rules change and fix any issues then. Kind of like doing a push to production and fixing all problems in production, later on, after any credibility you've had has been absolutely destroyed due to the tulip show you've just pushed.

That is rather my point. If meetings between government and real people are led by ministers who have not idea of the actual problem in question and who are led by civil servants who only have a limited awareness of the problem, who then formulate what they think is the proper response and associated policy then hand it off to another group of under-educated civil servants to implement, then we get the expected results. Proper advisers, who do understand the issue, are several steps away from the people in the room.

It's very easy to see that happening with things that affect us, such as the gestation of IR35 and the nonsense of the Opt Out and the Agency regs in general.

If one of the qualifications for being an MP were to include 20 years in industry (and not a PPE degree and ten years as an advisor like most of them these days) then we might get sensible legislation. It's noticeable that the ministers and shadows who do make sense mostly came in from just such a background. But even they can't break the lack of knowledge of the usual civil servant.

[Paddy]

Most of the Brexit woes are either down to EU rules embedded into UK law (like Blair with the Human Rights Act for one major example) and a constant refusal by Brussels to moderate or negotiate their side of what wee intended to be bilateral agreements (and to be fair, there's no reason why they should). So the question in not about failures with Brexit, they are actually about failures to create, implement and enact our own laws, regulations, trading arrangements and processes to replace those previously run by the EU.

Is that government or an inept and largely inert Civil Service...?

So you won’t have difficulty in naming one law stemming from EU rules that is causing a problem. OK, go ahead.

[dsc]

That is rather my point. If meetings between government and real people are led by ministers who have not idea of the actual problem in question and who are led by civil servants who only have a limited awareness of the problem, who then formulate what they think is the proper response and associated policy then hand it off to another group of under-educated civil servants to implement, then we get the expected results. Proper advisers, who do understand the issue, are several steps away from the people in the room.

It's very easy to see that happening with things that affect us, such as the gestation of IR35 and the nonsense of the Opt Out and the Agency regs in general.

If one of the qualifications for being an MP were to include 20 years in industry (and not a PPE degree and ten years as an advisor like most of them these days) then we might get sensible legislation. It's noticeable that the ministers and shadows who do make sense mostly came in from just such a background. But even they can't break the lack of knowledge of the usual civil servant.

From what I remember from those few years ago is that those debates were actually with ministers and for whatever reason they did not have the relevant advisers with them, or both the ministers and advisers were clueless. Basically they had no answer to real life, proper questions from the crowd and the crowd was full of farmers / exporters / importers who had businesses and clearly knew what they were doing and what needed to be done to carry on or at least know what and how to implement to get ready.

On the other hand, if the task at hand is too large to cope with, one solution is to let it roll "into production" and fix issues as and when the appear. It seems, that for whatever reason (one might guess that it's lack of resources / lack of knowledge on the subject), this is what the gov decided to do. I mean it's not like there's going to be any consequences for them in the long run right? Ah, wait, look at the polls...perhaps there is.

To me Brexit is like a huge old live project which someone decided to "upgrade" with minimal downtime but without paying attention to how many things will need changing or reverse engineering to make it work. I'm sure there's a huge group of people working on fixing tulip and implementing "features" but as it's all "behind the scenes" I doubt anyone even thanks them for all the tulip work that have been dropped in their lap.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Wot? You mean it's a bit like Post Orifice Horizon? Who'd have thunk?