If Rogers had been doing his job he would not have penned the extraordinary 1,400 word apology for his meretricious and dishonourable departure. If Rogers had a true allegiance to his nation and sovereign rather than to the unelected officials of the Commission, he would not have gushed his hubristic nonsense all over the papers. And if Rogers had any real intellectual grasp of the over-riding issues rather than a shallow official's understanding of the minutiae, the problem would not have arisen in the first place. The bloke is quite clearly a shallow, petulant arsehole and we're really much better off without him.
22 comments:
Pompous Soames thinks it's bad news, so therefore it really is good news for the UK.
Indeed we are better off without him. It would be nice if one of the papers would expose him for what he is rather than hype his resignation as another brexit disaster. The man cares nought for his Country, his arrogance is unbounded, he spends his time talking the UK down. We need people with a can do / will do attitude not a pessimistic Europhile more working against us.
He's apparently written 1400 words of vitriolic self-justification, lecturing the Government for failing to do as he instructed.
I think we know why Cameron's "renegotiation" failed so comprehensively .... the reason was Ivan Rogers, who considered his role to be pandering to the EU and watering down Cameron's renegotiation demands so they became meaningless.
So I suppose we should be grateful the arrogant tosser was in Brussels to help the Leave campaign.
It struck me as not what a true diplomat would do.
Mr. Rogers was not the UK's ambassador to the EU but rather the EU's ambassador to the UK.
I hate to say it but wrong ...
I repeat - the thing that really gets me is that all the politicians lied about brexit.
It isn't going to be easy it isn't going to be nice & no-one has got a plan of any sort.
What a fuck-up.
The ambassador was pointing all of this pout.
Don't shoot the messenger!
DeeDee: ".. pandering to the EU and watering down Cameron's renegotiation demands so they became meaningless."
Not understanding why people wish to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt like this.
Cameron was a died in the wool EUrophilliac, dressed in a smart little Eurosceptic waistcoat.
He never intended to win the referendum, and it was probably only because the opinion polls were gerrymandered, that the remainers were taken by surprise.
But it reveals why, EU-rope was never an issue in British domestic discourse, or when it was, the issue was quickly swept back under the rug.
The British at heart are essentially patriotic and don't really want to be governed by foreign authority.
NB. A different perspective on Rogers resignation over at EUReferendum.
Agreed.
Read eureferendum.com every day to get the true facts.
PS. Everyone can have a bad picture day too.
Concur with John Brown at 4 January 2017 at 08:44
G Tingey - Yes the politicians lied about Brexit. Yes they did Mr Tingey - On BOTH sides, but then at least the leave side never threatened World War III or a punishing budget if the plebs didn't toe the line!
The Ambassador was a dyed in the wool Europhile FFS, as was Cameron - and between them completely botched the faux "re-negotiation" Useless tossers the pair of them.
I was a new grad in Rhodesia when the British government in the form of Nicholas Soames arrived to complete the handover to Robert Gabriel. We had had a tough time in the 'war' UK sanctions bit hard and we lost soldiers, missionaries, civilians, farmers. There was no glamour, no supermarket goodies but honest good food and wine produced in the Eastern highlands. Soames brought containers of food and drink with him. That was my introduction to the disconnect between 'them' and 'us' continued to this day.
The fault lies squarely with Cameron (and others, for Cameron is no tactician) delivering a referendum without plans or consideration for the outcome regardless of the way it occurred.
Of course this wasn't a 'deliberate' oversight on Cameron's behalf - his actions were based entirely on sabotaging the possibility of an out vote winning and the possibility of the confusion that followed resulting in a compromised exit that left everything (essentially) unchanged.
Tw@t.
Mr Raedwald, I agree with much of what you post, but I think you might be wrong here. Richard North (EU Referendum) reckons that the bloke was actually one of the few actively working on an exit plan and understood the issues. We could use all the help that we can get from intelligent people who've thought things through and aren't afraid to point out to politicians when they are talking boll**ks.
Leaving the EU is going to be bit like a plane flight: flying is pretty safe, as is sitting on the ground. It's the transition between the two states that needs to be done carefully and with a plan. Otherwise what should be a process can become an event ;-(
gareth
Let's hope his sacking will be followed by many other similar subversives to lose their jobs.
You seem to be holding back! Tell us what you really think of him...
Only kidding. Bloke's a cunt. Good riddance...
As Dioclese suggests, you need to get off the fence. I'm off to read the EUReferendum spiel, but wonder how much diplomacy is required to tell the unaudited Brussels/Strasbourg gravy train that we are turning off the financial tap and resurrecting proper border controls?
I suspect all ambassadors go native eventually.
The same applies to Richard North of EUReferendum. He has spent so long following the EU that he can't live without it, he just thinks it would be better if he ran it and he doesn't like Farrage or UKIP either.
Everyone (well, everyone who has convinced himself that he matters) has tied himself (and herself) in knots about "Brexit plans" and supposedly tough "complex" negotiations. The reality is we don't actually need a "plan" agreed with the EU - we don't need to negotiate, we can just walk away as the American colonialists did in 1776.
" we can just walk away as the American colonialists did in 1776."
Yes. That should be our approach. If they want to negotiate, they can come to us. It should be Leave first, then negotiate.
This is possible only because the EU doesn't yet have its own army, navy and air force to prevent breakaways.
Don Cox
Agree with Budgie at 19:14 Walk away, they need us not we them, their nasty little empire is coming apart, it will be better to applaud its death throes from a distance than to be involved in the carnage.
Ivan's departure has all the hallmarks of an office politics spat.
The relative silence on what's actually to be done and the throngs of "experts" - mostly self regarding academics and greasy pole shinner-uppers does not inspire confidence in the navigation through to a UK exit from the EU...
Is he perhaps a Winchester chap before Balliol?
Post a Comment