You’d never really know that Sir Ivan Rogers, EU ambassador, was anything more than just a civil servant doing his duty, if you listened to the BBC as it reports, trumpets loudly, that he has said Brexit will take 10 years to negotiate and may fail anyway. No suggestion from the BBC that this is yet another ‘Remain’ piece of misinformation designed to scaremonger and intended to make voters reconsider their Leave vote or at least soften them up for a massive compromise on Brexit.
Rogers is after all an ardent Europhile who has been at the heart of the EU machine for decades….
For Eurosceptic Conservative MPs, David Cameron could barely have made a more provocative choice.
The Prime Minister has chosen Ivan Rogers – the former chief adviser to their pro-EU hate figure, Kenneth Clarke – to be the UK’s next ambassador to the EU in Brussels, with the task of renegotiating Britain’s place within the organisation.
Mr Rogers, currently the Prime Minister’s adviser on Europe, is expected to see his appointment confirmed within weeks. But some Tories will be alarmed by his apparently Europhile background.
Curiously no mention either, considering all the controversy about May not guaranteeing that EU nationals can stay in the UK, that it was Rogers who suggested that line for her…that EU nationals be used as ‘bargaining chips’…..
The biggest puzzle of Theresa May’s premiership so far is why someone who pioneered laws against modern slavery and was so tough on stop-and-search should take such an extreme and heartless position on EU migrants. Her declaration – that she’d use them as bargaining chips in Brexit talks – struck many who would otherwise support her as bizarre and repugnant. The Times reveals today that this idea was dummed up, as you’d expect, by the Whitehall machine.
Sir Ivan Rogers, Britain’s ambassador to the EU, advised all candidates for the Tory leadership to use Britain’s three million EU nationals as bargaining chips in Brexit talks because he thought it would be the only bargaining chip Britain had.
Rogers is spreading the EU’s black propaganda designed to undermine Brexit but the BBC analysis makes no mention of that and accepts his words as ‘fact’. They know it is bunkum but pump it out in the hope that a repetitious drum-beat of lies, big and small, intended to sow doubt, confusion and fear about Brexit, will make voters demand a re-vote and turn them into Remainers.
Why would it take 10 years to negotiate Brexit when trade deals are already in place and exporters to the EU already comply with all EU regulations? What’s to negotiate really? We’re not starting from scratch as with countries outside the EU like Canada. The ground work is already in place…it’s just a matter of tweaking it.
The BBC knows his comments are deliberately misleading and designed to deceive and yet reports them at face value…the BBC’s own analysis?…
The government is intent on persuading us Brexit can be done smoothly, and to time. So the suggestion that the UK’s most senior diplomat in Brussels has privately told the government that a final trade deal with the rest of the EU might not be done for 10 years, and might ultimately fail, may give rise to more nerves…. this is perhaps a reality check of just how hard these negotiations might prove.
A ‘reality check’? Only on planet BBC. Fake News on tap.
If the BBC and others got out of their bubble,they would realise anger is rising .They have learned nothing.
Brexit had better happen in full, and quickly.No negotiations to pay off vested interests.
People are not going to forget and allow it to be kicked into the long grass.
Mr Farage met Trump in NY again yesterday.A winning team.
Mrs May is no Thatcher unfortunately.
In 1947 it was decided by the then British Government that India’s demands for independence should be met. At the time India had a population of around half a billion people, far larger than that of the EU despite it’s boasting about how big it is, and had been part of the British Empire for two centuries, not a few decades like our membership of the Brussels Empire. Never the less the whole deal was done, dusted, signed, sealed and delivered within two years. Of course, both sides behaved like adults and negotiated with dignity, unlike the bullying behaviour of the EU Elite who have done little except throw tantrums and make constant threats of ensuring doom, gloom and disaster unless we kow tow to their every demand.
Brexit to take ten years was the headline used and was front page news yesterday on the Beeb website. Curiously enough many other news websites were reporting that the EUs position is cracking with in fighting already breaking out between the European Parliament, Counsel and Commission. The UK has a very strong negotiating position if only someone in government would grow a pair.
Interestingly enough in the Beeb article it says
“It is also understood he suggested that the expectation among European leaders was that a free trade deal, rather than continued membership of the single market, was the likely option for the UK after Brexit.”
Isn’t this exactly what we want!
There may be a little confusion here. There is no reason why a transitional deal cannot be done within the 2 year period (EEA/EFTA/Liechstenstein solution) but after 40+ years of membership, it will indeed take many years to completely untangle ourselves.
Do visit richard north and eureferendum.com for confirmation of what I say.
I recommend that you read him every day in order to get the true facts.
I used to. And I have to say he’s usually right.
Unfortunately his attitude of “I know I’m smarter than you stupid people and I’m not going to explain it again because you’re an idiot” caused too many arguments and poisoned the atmosphere, so I left.
Richard North is an excellent source of information on the facts, and the technicalities of the treaties and regulations. However, I have grave doubts about his reading of the politics involved – for example, he was convinced that Cameron wouldn’t call the referendum in June and then that the Leave campaign’s message meant that Remain would win.
If you look at the problems raised by the article 50 negotiations in economic terms the advantagres of an interim EEA solution are obvious. If you look at them in political terms, and factor in the determined efforts of the Remainiacs and the media to sabotage Brexit, then there is a very high risk (I would say an almost certainty) that the “interim” solution will become the “final” agreement. The political establishment, big business, the city and the media will pretend that Brexit has been accomplished and will distract us with other problems. From Day One the BBC will be manipulating us to support rejoining as a solution to all these other problems.
If you think that economics trumps all then an interim EEA agreement is the way to go. If you think that escaping from the political construct of the EU is vital, then an interim EEA agreement is a trap.
Roland, you’re right about his superior attitude. However, I still read him to get the up to date correct facts.
And RJ is also right about the politics/economics interface.
However, I don’t believe that a transitional deal will become the end.
There are too many leavers to let that happen.
I fully agree that Rogers is tainted and was the worst man possible to be advising Cameron on the insipid EU negotiations he conducted in 2015 and early 2016. These negotiations needed tough characters who were prepared to take the EU full on. That assumes of course that Cameron really wanted to be tough, which it’s fairly clear now, he didn’t .
Equally, Rogers is the worst man to be used now to send tough messages back to tne EU. If his Ambassadorial role is just to convey back to us, the ‘hard man ‘ posturing of the EU Commusion, it’s drunken President and it’s Anglophobic Chief Negotiator Barnier, then so be it . Any wimp can be used for that. But as usual the BBC are misusing the information from this messenger boy to support their anti Brexit obsessions.
It’s quite possible that in the negotiations , the EU will be vengeful rather than reasonable with Britain. One exams of this would be to only offer exit terms and no post-exit trade deal during the 2 year period. I think we should just accept this manfully and respond in
kind rather than perpetually winge like the BBC will doubtless do. Rogers will be of no use in this environment and will either have to be sidelined by Davis and his team or replaced.
It is all tiresome. Surely the House of Commons could debate a bill to the effect that Parliament reflecting the sovereignty of the people is the sole authority in the land in all matters and that all treaties that countermanded this were henceforth revoked as illegitimate from the beginning. Thus all treaties relating to the EU were now repealed..
We could discuss things with the EU apparatchniks later if so minded. Could be signed sealed and assented to by the Queen in 48 hours.
Unfortunately, that is not what Parliament does these days, it merely acts in its own interests and we are not involved in any way. All 640 of the layabouts are playing about with our non democracy. We have no form of democracy at all, parliament just does as the leader says because they do not understand that Brexit was aimed at them as well as the EU. Dr. North’s Flexit deals with precisely this matter in section 6, “The Harrogate Agenda”. Worth a read.
The ex commie bloc countries have a dread of (re) invasion by Russia . More than the BBC will ever say
We are sending our troops and equipment to the ex commie bloc countries to dissuade Putin from attacking them .
That costs money . And lives if it goes hot , but for now just think of the money .
We guarantee their independence through NATO . At great expense .
If we are unable to pay for those troops and NATO promise , then why (or how ) can we be a foil to Russia .?
If they , the ex commie bloc countries don’t support our Brexit , if they impoverish us , how and why should we pay for their security ?
Let’s put our NATO membership amongst the Brexit negotiations . Trump would agree .
One problem with that, as I recall the EU spent a small fortune on changing the government of the Ukraine. The pro Russian leader was removed and an EU supporter replaced him. That was a direct challenge to Russia. So put the blame in the correct place, the EU went outside it’s own laws to do this.
If Clinton had been President-Elect I would have wanted the UK to come out of NATO ASAP as Clinton was appearing to be heading for nuclear war. And we should not be part of NATO and be at war against Russia just for her to avoid prison. NATO should be a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. Now we have Trump as next POTUS then we should stay in NATO.
However, the people voted for Brexit – full Brexit. There is absolutely no reason why we can’t leave immediately and only then begin negotiations for some kind of a trade deal. A trade deal does not have to be free trade, but something mutually beneficial to both sides.
Part of the elite’s plan is to make Russia the bad guy over just about everything. Owning the media makes it possible that the elite will succeed.
I suspect that the truth is somewhat different and seen from Russia it looks as if Nato is adopting an aggressive stance.
That is not the function of Nato and never was. It is a defensive alliance.
Russia will not accept possibly hostile forces on her borders and after the 20th century who can blame her.
I am certain Mr Trump is well aware of this and will act on it. No wonder the elite is so upset.
The only logical way forward is a treaty between the US and Russia that cuts out the Europeans .This treaty should guarantee Poland, Hungary etc as independent states but also remove them from Nato.
AS in the cold war the balance of nuclear power between Russia and the US is the final arbiter of peace.
By the way he shouldn’t be called Ivan ‘Idea’ as he’s clueless, but Ivan ‘EU Pension’ as that is clearly his motivation.
There was the Deloitte letter, then there was “the most senior diplomat” to the EU saying it would take 10 years if ever, this morning it’s the House Of Lords making claims about fishing, and numerous others. The main distributor of these “stories” is the BBC.
The aim is to convince everybody that leaving the EU is difficult, impossible even. It’s fake news writ large. The reality is that leaving is simple. The difficulties of getting 27 members agree on anything is a problem for the EU not the UK.
What we have is a state broadcaster, funded by the people, acting in a manner that compromises the interests of the state and its people.
AS New Gingrich says.
“These people were more than just wrong-they turn out to be wrong about even BEING wrong”.
The WHOLE of the political elite have proved themselves to be wrong about EVERYTHING since the Edstone Omnishambles here in 2015.
Yet not ONE pollster, one media talking head, one analyst or politico had either lost their job or been laughed out of their continuing presumption to critique ANYTHING correctly.
Just saw a bunch of goons on “Any Questions”-if they were wrong on Brexit and Trump, then what the hell is the point of asking them to speak on ANYTHING political?
Why waste breath on Dimblebys old retainer of a nag?…after all HE`S as clueless , as out-of-touch as his talking heads?
So when an EU trustie tells a BBC luvvie that the EU aren`t happy and might stop us getting fish fingers next year-why listen?
Just laugh-they`re wrong about EVERYTHING.
Been nibbling John Gummers Beefburgers I suspect.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/744503/Gary-Lineker-Brexit-joke-elderly-dead-before-leave-Remainers-BBC-Theresa-May Courtesy of leave.eu. Is this what the BBC has come to? Being a mouthpiece for liberal luvvies to promote anti-Brexit propaganda and mock the elderly?
But he showed he was brain-dead by opening his mouth.
There is no way that Brexit can ‘fail’. Only the British government could fail, by reneging on its commitment to pull out of the EU.
We invoke Article 50, and two years later, we are free to leave; no more EU payments, no more EU laws. There are difficult and detailed negotiations needed, but that doesn’t stop us leaving first and continuing to hammer out details later.
If we have failed to achieve a trade agreement with the EU, so be it. We don’t need agreements on migrants, we make our own laws and police our own borders.
We graciously tell the EU that we leave it to them to have their culture enriched by millions of migrants, just as Sweden, France. Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are enjoying having their culture enriched right now. We decide to forgo this pleasure.