Read on Twitter
A bit of a thread on some thoughts about this week in politics.
There are some significant cultural and political/practical reasons as to why Johnson has so badly misjudged negotiations.
First, as a confederation the EU has to have rules about the way things are done
There are some significant cultural and political/practical reasons as to why Johnson has so badly misjudged negotiations.
First, as a confederation the EU has to have rules about the way things are done
This is just a practicality of keeping 27 nation states on board and pulling in the same direction.
Culturally, the UK does not sit comfortably with that. FPTP is predicated on once a Govt is in place it can largely get on with things in the way it sees fit.
Culturally, the UK does not sit comfortably with that. FPTP is predicated on once a Govt is in place it can largely get on with things in the way it sees fit.
So, immediately you have two sides coming at a negotiation from different view points. The EU is used to consensus and compromise to achieve results. The UK more used to a 'my way,' winner takes all approach.
Second, the UK is, generally speaking, more in thrall to MSM and much more used to playing politics out in the press. Look at how Marcus Rashford was able to gain support in MSM and SM.
EU likes to keep things relatively speaking behind closed doors
Another clash in approach
EU likes to keep things relatively speaking behind closed doors
Another clash in approach
Third, the EU has to agree strategy in advance to ensure that all 27 are key on board.
UK is not very good at strategy in a political sense. Manifestos are usually more about short termism as that wins votes under FPTP.
This Govt has no clear stated strategy on Brexit
UK is not very good at strategy in a political sense. Manifestos are usually more about short termism as that wins votes under FPTP.
This Govt has no clear stated strategy on Brexit
Fourth, certain words mean completely different things to the EU and UK. The best example atm is 'sovereignty'
UK uses it in a very ancien regime approach more suited to the 18thC whereas EU is using it in a 21stC approach where you have sovereignty but know it's not absolute
UK uses it in a very ancien regime approach more suited to the 18thC whereas EU is using it in a 21stC approach where you have sovereignty but know it's not absolute
Now, I think the EU understood all of these points (and plenty more that I am sure others could add). They agreed their mandate amongst the 27 and have stuck to it
The UK just kept on plugging away with their, they will give in approach which was always going to hit a brick wall
The UK just kept on plugging away with their, they will give in approach which was always going to hit a brick wall
If you now add in the Johnson factor. A personality that works at home in the UK but goes down poorly in a system built on order, integrity and compromise you can see how we have arrived where we have. I still think Johnson wanted a deal. He just couldn't deliver it.
So, what about the future? There is now a majority wanting to return to the EU in the UK, but that simply won't happen soon.
We need to rebuild trust. Our present electoral system is unlikely to bring that trust back. It's too volatile and doesn't see compromise as positive
We need to rebuild trust. Our present electoral system is unlikely to bring that trust back. It's too volatile and doesn't see compromise as positive
The opposition parties in the UK need to take a long hard look at what the future could and should be. It needs a collective view (a strategy) that says we need change to our politics using electoral change as a mechanism to do that
It needs vision that transcends party politics
It needs vision that transcends party politics
