Westministenders: Hey Hey we're the Monkies.

[RedToothBrush]

Welcome to the Listening Parliament.

Have you noticed it yet?

The Three Monkeys of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil have been in a bit of a fight with didn’t fair well. Its funny how politicians of all shades and levels are desperate to prove just how good they at listening and how they see the problems.

Its quite incredible to think that officials elected to serve the public are even in this position where they are having suddenly think about how they show they are listening. It rather shows up that they have been accustomed to telling the public what to think and what to believe.

What they are still to work out, is that in saying they are listening, they also have to demonstrate they are listening and be credible.

The trouble is, that even though some of the monkeys have been killed off, we still have a lot of monkeys in parliament. 'Monkey say, Monkey do' actions still lurk. Politicians who imitate others without understanding the consequences.

There is no point in listening if you are only listening to one group and don’t understand the consequences of simply repeating the words of others.

Politicians saying they are listening when you can find dozens of incidents where they have said completely the opposition, without having the gumption to explain they have changed their position and without having the grace to explain the evidence that has lead them to change that position rather undermines the idea they are listening.

U-Turns are not a bad thing. U-Turns can show that you were making an error but were wise enough to admit that and why you were wrong. U-Turns are bad when you fail to acknowledge your failings and only do it to chase votes. This is where cynicism creeps in and lack of trust in politicians occurs.

Listening also requires actions to reflect words. There is no good in saying one thing, if your actions don’t reflect that. This is where the Listening Parliament is already failing. And I’m sure we will see it more.

Above all, listening is only part of a conversation. A politician is supposed to be accountable. They are supposed to have their eyes open to evil, not deaf to it and not unwilling to speak inconvenient truths where they recognise the evil.

Any politician who tells you they listen needs to back it up somehow. They need to demonstrate and justify their positions accurately. If they don’t they aren’t listening properly.

Isn’t it funny how it was in Hartlepool that the monkey got hung for being a Frenchman? No one was there to explain differently.

Divided not sure what the source is for your definitive statements but the Guardian, the BBC, the NY Times and a plethora of others beg to differ. He paid his tax bill and renounced his US citizenship and it is a matter of public record.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/08/boris-johnson-renounces-us-citizenship-record-2016-uk-foreign-secretary

www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2017/02/09/brit-boris-johnson-renounces-america-why-we-should-care/#7b06a8325341

I was following this story because DD1 is in a similar position.

FWIW she was comparing her UK and US passport guidance notes last week. Apparently holding public office in another country can preclude you from the Presidency anyway.

Her other observations were on NI numbers and US social security numbers. The US issue them at birth to make sure everyone is in the tax system. The UK only issues them on turning 16. DD1's question was why would EU Nationals exercising FoM to work not already be in the system because to work they would need an NI number? - just picking up on GV's comments re diminution of rights or otherwise of EU citizens.

Apparently holding public office in another country can preclude you from the Presidency anyway.

Until or unless the constitution is changed, the President has to be natural born (like BoJo).

Naturalised citizens are ineligible.

We need to be careful with NI numbers, by the way. The NI system is pretty fucked up - it's hardly fit for purpose for collecting NI. Trying to use it to solve problems of nationality and eligibility for benefits would be insane.

Yep LH. DD1 is US born, but weirdly she has some very American character traits, to the extent that I am beginning to think place of birth may be more relevant than nature or nurture. :D

To be President you also have to satisfy the 14 years US residency test and be at least 35. DD1 planning her route to the top with rather more precision than Hillary or Macron.

Agreed on NI LH. Just double checked my understanding that NI numbers are linked to Child Benefit claims. There is an emerging issue of people not bothering to register if they have household earnings above the CB limit.

Thank you very much howabout I am happy to stand corrected. It's a measure of the man through to note his initial shoutings of renouncement came in 2014. He wasn't on the UK list of renouncements-in-waiting on the referendum date 2 years later..happy that he finally got it resolved this February.

And he may well have paid up his taxes in the end but he had to be caught and chased by the IRS first whilst he would have most definitely known he was liable. He's a slippery one, for sure.

Can't stand the man and I wish he's renounced British citizenship instead

Theoretically, I should have US blood. My grandmother was a US citizen, but managed to forget to mention that to DF when he could have cashed in his US citizenship (although presumably he still could) - at which point I would become one. But three nationalities is just greedy - I'll settle for two.

That said, another grandparent was born in Darjeeling, and always saw himself as Indian before British. I wonder if there's a passport to be had there. (I'm too young to remember, but apparently he taught me to count to 5 in Hindi)

Generally, from the National Front through UKIP to the EDL, I'm not very popular . Just the sort of rainbow heritage they want to eliminate.

I'm scots/irish/French

Most inconsiderately on the part of my parents , the only dual citizenship that I can claim is my original South African citizenship

My dad is considering putting himself on to the Irish foreign births register (as is his sister in South Africa) so that he can get an Irish passport but unfortunately, for me to have a claim to Irish citizenship, he needed to have done that before I was born

Similarly, my German ancestry is one generation too far for a passport

Ooh I can help with that LH!

Ek
Dho
Tee
Char
Panch

That's all I remember (and tbh I might have got it wrong)

Lord Digby Jones‏
@Digbylj
So that's trade deals with both the US & Oz in the bag. Remoaners must be hating this.

Anyone know what he is referring to?

PainInTheEar

thanks for that . I did re-learn (along with some other bits and pieces) when I used to work with people from India. It was invaluable when I was managing an offshore team (although I did get a reprimand for it).

You were reprimanded for learning a language that your colleagues spoke?

I can't find any news about Digby Jones and Trade deals with the US and Australia, but I am not inclined to take him seriously. Back in March he was telling us that the EU was desperate to do deals with us. So far, he's been wrong.

"Trade deals in the bag"

....just who does he think that trade deals struck in haste will benefit most

Is he really that naive?

You were reprimanded for learning a language that your colleagues spoke?

Yup.

I'm sure you can imagine how bosses love to go on a jolly ? So the bosses jollied off to India to "go through the finer details". Of course they arrive at the airport, and the greeting party were expecting that since I had been trying to converse in Hindi (it was never going to replace English, but they really appreciated it) then the management would be the same. Cue a lot of embarrassment on the senior management side, and a rocket for me on return for "causing complications". As the Indian managers asked ... "Why did you not bring the technical contact who's been liaising with our guys ?".

They also asked me, to which I could only reply "that's how the British do business.". By Skype .

So when I hear that the UKs new saviour in trade will be India, I do wonder.

(And much as I despise BoJo, he's not language-shy).

Re Australian trade deals, I assume he's referring to Malcolm Turnbull's speech stating he wants to do free trade deal once UK has left the EU.

At the same time:

1. He's said he wants to do a free trade deal with EU prior to Brexit date;
2. Julie Bishop (BoJo's counterpart as Minister for Foreign Affairs) has advised Australian companies located in UK to serve EU market to move asap to e.g. Dublin;
3. For about 5 months, Australia has been stating a foundation of free trade deal will be relaxed FoM...where that chat's at, I know not.

So there's definite potential for a trade deal there, as there is pretty much everywhere . It just comes down to the skill of negotiators and what they're a willing to compromise on.

So there's definite potential for a trade deal there, as there is pretty much everywhere smile. It just comes down to the skill of negotiators and what they're a willing to compromise on.

Generally you have to give at least as much as you get though.

What will an EU-free UK have to offer ? Green shield stamps ?

My ancestors were very inconsiderate and I am English on both sides a long way back, not even an Irish grandparent in there

I wish I could believe that there was some Plan B mastermind at work... But remember: it's nearly always cock-up not conspiracy

It can offer visa waivers and jam.
Stop talking Brexit down under

My ancestors were very inconsiderate and I am English on both sides a long way back,

"Pure English" is of course, an oxymoron.

Every ethnic grouping (and their grandmother) has had an input in to the "English" gene pool.

Except, for some reason, the Fens ... and I have a vague memory that there really is a "Yorkshire" gene. Or rather the Viking forbears of present day Yorkshire folk made a great impression ?

It's funny really. We have the word "insular", implying some sort of exemption from gene-mixing, yet mainland Britain is a smorgasbord of European ethnicities before you start adding in the more exotic.

That said, we know Hadrians wall was guarded by Syrians.

In short, Didby Jones is talking nonsense. There won't be trade deals until the ink is dry on the Contracts.

I wish I could believe that there was some Plan B mastermind at work... But remember: it's nearly always cock-up not conspiracy

Yeah, much as I like Lurking's theory, I fear this is the case.

I have inconsiderate ancestors too and missed the EU passport thing by a whisker. I have one grandparent from an Irish background but they were actually born in the UK.

In short, Didby Jones is talking nonsense

For some reason, I like the idea of Didby .

I wonder if we could try and get a reporter to say it in the same way "Jeremy Hunt" is too tempting to pronounce correctly ?

Lurking - as my foot shape and choice of swear words can attest, I am pretty Anglo-Saxon

Mind you, I have also messed up with my choice of partner, as DH is also English a long way back (with a Scottish streak in the genes from somewhere that the geneaologists in the family can't identify) so our DC are both stuck with the single passport. Though we have lived in a couple of different countries now, so maybe we are citizens of nowhere the world and should report to the Tower forthwith

I bet you're glad to be out of there, LH.

With the cockup rather than consipracy - some people are hoping that the Euratom dilemma was set up so as to engineer a way to revoke article 50. A handy thread by David Allen Green on the subject:

Ian Katz‏Verified account
@iankatz1000
Ian Katz Retweeted BBC Newsnight
Ministerial source tells @nicholaswatt: "We will not be leaving Euratom. We do not have the numbers in parliament" #newsnight

David Allen Green‏
@davidallengreen
David Allen Green Retweeted Ian Katz

1. Just a few thoughts about the comment of the ministerial "source" in this tweet, and the Euratom issue generally.
2. Read the quote carefully. You will see it is based on two. assumptions.
3. The first assumption is that it is open to the UK to not leave Euratom, because of 'not having the numbers' or otherwise.
4. The complacent arrogance that it is still for UK to decide these things, by itself. But, since A50 notification, this is not down to UK.
5. The A50 notification changed everything. The UK is no longer in control of the Brexit process, whether the "numbers" are there or not.
6. Furthermore: May explicitly included Euratom in the A50 letter - see third paragraph: www.gov.uk/government/publications/prime-ministers-letter-to-donald-tusk-triggering-article-50/prime-ministers-letter-to-donald-tusk-triggering-article-50 …
7. The language on Euratom is legalistic, not by a politician. The mention is not by accident. It was deliberate. Legal advice was obtained.
8. Some say that leaving the Euratom treaty was implicit in A50 - but if so, that does not matter, as the letter spelled it out anyway.
9. All this means that for UK to reverse on Euratom requires (imo) the Article 50 letter itself to be revoked or amended.

10. I cannot see how the issue can be fudged. A formal notice on quitting Euratom can only be rescinded with equal formality. 11. It is not open to May to say "whoops, I meant to insert a "not" in the sentence about leaving Euratom." 12. And so, if that is the case, the question becomes whether that can be done unilaterally by UK, or only by agreement with EU27. 13. And, in turn, that opens the questions as to whether the A50 letter in respect of leaving EU as a whole is revocable and, if so, how. 14. One can be certain that a minister saying there are not the "numbers" any more will not be enough to stop a formal notice in its tracks. 15. The cat, genie and horse are all out of their respective containers on that. 16. It will not be for ministers or parliament to simply reverse Euratom on a whim. No doubt that notice will have to be revoked or amended. 17. The second assumption is that the EU will go along with only those parts of Brexit for which there are "numbers" in UK parliament. 18. The EU do not care which parts of Brexit have numbers in Commons. It will make no difference. The EU has already set out its position. 19. Cross-bench alliances can vote for all sorts of concessions and compromises on Brexit, but no reason why EU will notice still less care. 20. Parliament, and UK ministers, are no longer in control of Brexit, whatever the "numbers".

/ends

CM‏
@cameronmrtt
Replying to @davidallengreen
Conspiracy theory, but could they have specifically included the Euratom reference in order to give them a legal reason to revoke A50?

David Allen Green‏ @davidallengreen

David Allen Green Retweeted CM
Absolutely no chance at all.

Theresa May once believed a case was determined by there being a pet cat. This is what we are dealing with.

[The story in question: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15160326 ]