Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I wonder how universal this is. As I'm sure up here the rule is quite the opposite, you can't be in the police in your local area in case personal links get in the way of being fair.
No expert of course, just what I heard from guys looking into joining the police back when  I was at school.

Not sure. I'm sort of surprised it wasn't the rule already and I imagine you wouldn't be policing your area/borough.

So because it reached a level that was still quite lower than new target perhaps the new target is attainable?

Exactly

27% was higher than I expected, so 40% doesn't seem unattainable any more. Maybe my expectations were too low.

Yeah, I don't see how that's a relevant recruitment comparison given that law firms are not generally seen as direct oppressors of minorities/not seen to be saddled with institutional racism and head of organisation (Cressida Dick) who says they've already solved the issue of institutional racism.

I take the point on Dick - it's not directly related but I still can't believe the way she's failed upwards given that she was in charge of the operation were they shot de Menezes. I have been angry that she is the Met Commissioner since she was appointed, I think it's an absolute disgrace.

Not making a direct comparison, but there's been a lot in the legal press - especially for students - about institutional racism in law firms and other City institutions and why they fail. But I think the basic point is relevant - recruitment can be fixed but it doesn't mean much if there's no culture change once people are in the door and looking at promotions and opportunities etc.

[Tamas]

Sheilbh, extending your definition of sovereignty to individuals would mean most of us are slaves because we have employment contracts and we keep to laws made by others :p

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, extending your definition of sovereignty to individuals would mean most of us are slaves because we have employment contracts and we keep to laws made by others :p

Not at all. That's far too binary - but the most free, most sovereign individual is a warlord in the DRC and it's not something we'd envy. There's a reason sovereign citizens are a joke

We enter into agreements that limit our sovereignty all the time - employment, banking, renting, mortgages etc. And we follow laws made by others. We could at any point break all of those - we could kill each other or just get what's ours. But we don't because there are consequences (and for individuals a bigger sovereign - the state - to punish us).

It's the same with states - I think people are focusing too much on the possibility of what states can theoretically do and not enough on what, in practice, they do and who in reality is able to make decisions.

[crazy canuck]

Sheilbh, extending your definition of sovereignty to individuals would mean most of us are slaves because we have employment contracts and we keep to laws made by others :p

Not at all. That's far too binary - but the most free, most sovereign individual is a warlord in the DRC and it's not something we'd envy. There's a reason sovereign citizens are a joke

We enter into agreements that limit our sovereignty all the time - employment, banking, renting, mortgages etc. And we follow laws made by others. We could at any point break all of those - we could kill each other or just get what's ours. But we don't because there are consequences (and for individuals a bigger sovereign - the state - to punish us).

It's the same with states - I think people are focusing too much on the possibility of what states can theoretically do and not enough on what, in practice, they do and who in reality is able to make decisions.

I find this argument confusing.  It is not just that the "most sovereign individual is a warlord in the DRC", I would argue the only time an individual can have sovereignty is in the absence of a state.  Within a functioning state, an individual does not give up part of their sovereignty when they contract.  They didn't have any to give away in the first place.  An individual may bind their future actions in a contract.  But freedom of action (which itself is constrained by whatever restrictions the state may impose on an individual) is not the same thing as sovereignty.

[Sheilbh]

I find this argument confusing.  It is not just that the "most sovereign individual is a warlord in the DRC", I would argue the only time an individual can have sovereignty is in the absence of a state.  Within a functioning state, an individual does not give up part of their sovereignty when they contract.  They didn't have any to give away in the first place.  An individual may bind their future actions in a contract.  But freedom of action (which itself is constrained by whatever restrictions the state may impose on an individual) is not the same thing as sovereignty.

Agreed on the point about a state.

It's not a perfect analogy with states which is what I really mean. But there are agreements that limit your freedom and ability to act voluntarily, such as international treaties (like contracts - again it's imperfect). The EU is more than just treaties between states because it's pooling your sovereignty with other, sacrificing a bit of that with others and giving it to another authority that has the power to make and enforce laws (like operating within a state - again imperfect).

As I say I'm surprised this view of the EU is that controversial. Just today I saw Alexander Clarkson on Twitter (a German KCL Professor of German and European Studies) - I don't always agree to him but this makes sense to me and is how I'd view the EU as someone who supports the European project:

Alexander Clarkson
@APHClarkson
8h
At some point a lot of British commentators and analysts need to come to terms with the fact there is no such thing as an unconditional alliance. This kind of special pleading does not work with the EU or US when it comes to their constitutional red lines

No-deal Brexit would be bad for the West
If Brexit talks fail, the geopolitical consequences would dwarf the economic ones. Years of negotiations would have ended in the most acrimonious way. Except, of course, they would not have ended: the
thetimes.co.uk

The Maastricht treaty is the constitutional foundations of emerging EU statehood. Their core constitutional structures around the four freedoms provide the basis for the EU state. The UK needs to face a reality where it cannot dictate terms on such a level to a stronger state
The faster the UK faces the realities of the asymmetry of power it needs to manage with what is a state that surrounds it the more likely the UK can build a stable position for itself within the transatlantic alliance system.
In effect, many of the same arguments Forsyth uses as special pleading for the UK were regularly used by those who claimed the EU needs to bend over backwards to keep Turkey happy.

These arguments are not going to wash with the EU in either case.
Such special pleading by pundits signalling the level of panic within UK leadership factions looks particularly desperate at a moment where the risks of Scottish separation generated by a project celebrated such pundits risks rapidly collapsing the military usefulness of the UK

[Zanza]

Cummings was fired with immediate effect.

[Sheilbh]

"Make myself redundant by the end of the year"

[The Brain]

So the UK is leaderless and the US has a lame, blind, stupid, insane, evil duck. Will Putin try something?

[Josquius]

Cummings was fired with immediate effect.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Off to Barnard Castle 

[Syt]

Guess he had it .... cummings 

[Richard Hakluyt]

I presume it is something to do with the negotiations with the EU. Johnson U-turn incoming?

[Sheilbh]

I presume it is something to do with the negotiations with the EU. Johnson U-turn incoming?

Maybe. Though the noises on that have been positive for a while - I've seen Brussels journalists for the last week or two saying that if there's not a deal it's because of a political choice now not because the parties' positions are technically irreconcilable.

The row around Cain and Stratton and Cummings has been brewing for a while. I am shocked, shocked to discover that Cummings (as Cameron described him: "a career psychopath") doesn't work well with others - especially someone who's come in on the condition that she has total access to the PM. It's also striking that she will be the one giving daily briefings on camera so the face of this government to an extent and apparently she wants a less confrontational, aggressive approach - which is not the Cummings style.

Sam Freedman is really interesting on Twitter because he was the Lib Dem SpAd in the education department with Cummings. This was his summary of his strengths and weaknesses:

Sam Freedman
@Samfr
Sep 2, 2019
Cummings isn't the omniscient ubermensch that some of the Tory spin is making him out to be. He does however have an intuitive understanding of true populism which is very rare in Westminster. I fear some of his opponents are underestimating him again.
He understands that most people

A) don't care at all about process
B) don't care about logical consistency
C) care a lot about the things that directly impact their life (NHS, crime)
D) hate being told how to behave
He also understands the importance of message discipline better than anyone since Campbell. Repetition looks absurd to those of us who pay attention to politics but cuts through to the majority that don't.
What's he bad at?

A) analysing his own failings (ironically given his love of Tetlock etc)
B) the boring work of detailed policy development
C) avoiding petty and distracting battles with his enemies.
(I worked with him for four years by the way it any more recent followers are wondering why I'm tweeting this. Personally I liked him him a lot most of the time. He's funny, charismatic and inspires loyalty. He also royally pissed me off sometimes through sheer unreasonableness)
I think I'm probably the only person whose worked closely with him who didn't support leave. I haven't spoken to him since the referendum was called. So he may have a changed a lot in the last five years....but I doubt it.

And it's interesting that Freedman said everyone he's spoken to in Westminster about covid mentioned Lee Cain (Dom consigliere) as a problem - because his approach with everyone all the time is absolute aggression.

My own read is MPs and cabinet ministers will put up with being abused and being shouted at and treated with disdain by a Number 10 team that's successful and carrying all before it. Johnson now looks like an election loser and I think MPs and cabinet ministers have possibly put Johnson on notice a bit - that he needs to change/get a grip and his team can't behave in the same way. Political power has shifted a lot in the last year, I think mainly because of covid, so Johnson needs his MPs and cabinet ministers more than they need him.

[Richard Hakluyt]

May's advisors were horrible as well; perhaps it is a job requirement.

[Razgovory]

Dom will now go back to his home planet and report his findings to the hive.