Another new Brexit thread

[mcfc1632]

Possible no deal outcomes or economic hits were never mentioned in the referendum campaign. It was all sunlit uplands,easiest deal in history or no worse off than at present.
That could return to further divide the country along the remain/leave fault line.
But it is what it is now.
The CON worked.

That is your interpretation - and I can understand how you now choose to paint it that black and white - even though it was not really quite like you suggest.

Not for me - I was always aware of how much of a challenge this would be

Just as I have been aware for many years before 2016 just how bad the situation would develop into if we were to Remain in the EU

I could - and did - bemoan for many years that the 1973 vote was to join a 'common market' - not full blown ideological political, financial and economic integration. I would strongly argue that the way the UK public has been conned throughout decades is far more of a travesty than the mickey mouse Leave campaign which was a real David and Goliath contest and that shows just how shit the Remain team were.

Len - that moaning I did got me nowhere until, against all expectation, this opportunity for the UK to escape the EU hegemony came about - I was reconciled to the inevitable diminishing of the UK as it became fully subsumed into the EU.

I suggest that you and others - simply for your own good - need to move on - or just accept, like I did, that you are committing yourselves to years and years of frustrated bitterness.

Still moaning about the campaign - especially when the Remain campaign was so utterly better resourced and dominant - just comes across as the whinging of bad losers I am afraid.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Bless - I know that you are trying so score some point here Vic - but there will be a number of people on here that have experience in planning and managing major negotiations and I am content to let you continue to embarrass yourself for a while.

But to help a little bit...…...

With regard to preparing to undertake negotiations between the UK and EU on a wide-ranging FTA that will be the key contributing factor to the economic health of both parties for many years to come - your starter for 10 was:

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses - where you toss a coin to see who goes first

Whilst the policy on fishing as importance as a 'card' - waaay before you have that interaction the UK team will be establishing their target Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions at the 'macro levels'. Just as important our team will be establishing those of the EU and how these can be accommodated alongside ours and where these clash.

The EU have indicated what they seek - Van Leyden's recent emphasis on the 'absolute' requirements of equality of a level playing field and UK adherence to regulations amply suggest what they want and what they fear. Her comments on the need for more and more extensions - during which the UK will have to comply/adhere to EU regulations - also indicate their preferred approach to the management of the next stages - to give nothing of substance away and to agree longer and longer extensions.

It is from this strategic planning - which should have been commenced in the weeks after June 2016 - that the shape of Johnson's Brexit and any 'genuine red-lines' will emerge.

Frankly, we are already > 3 years behind the EU and such planning will hardly have started yet as Johnson could not be in a position to implement a genuine negotiation strategy until a Westminster majority was secured - he and his team have had all their focus and energy diverted on dealing with the EU proxies such as Grieve, Soubry and Benn.

So we start from a weaker position anyway and that is made worse by > 3 years of delay in properly planning negotiations and even worse still by the presence of a WA that has been largely drafted by a docile UK team at the EU's direction. Only the ruinous unfettered backstop has been removed - and thank the fuck for that as that utterly poisonous arrangement totally destroyed any future negotiating position of the UKs.

I have mentioned that there are some signs that the UK is starting to involve professionals in the design and management of its negotiations - the hard-stop on the timetable was a clear example of that and we see from the EU reaction how that is thoroughly irritating to them. They want control, full control and anything that impacts their having control is anathema to them. This is why May's deal was so perfect for the EU and so ruinous for the UK - unfortunately there is still a lot of May's surrender clauses within the WA.

But the hard-stop is only of benefit if there is other planning in-hand to ensure that we have our Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions properly defined at both the macro level - e.g. a clearly defined future economic model that determines our position on regulations and at the individual workstream level - e.g. our stance on fishing.

The EU have started to refer again to the risk of a No-Deal outcome - and this is important because it is something, one of the only things, that they are genuinely concerned about. Their concerns are not just because of the initial disruption - but also what it may lead to as a major economy, newly independent of their regulations and taking an economic hit as a result, needs to take dramatic/forceful actions to support recovery.

Without any 'need' to shift their position(s) the EU would happily just sit and let the clock click on for years to come - therefore it follows that we need to assess what are the few factors that would 'make them shift' - and something that has been an utterly obvious truism for > 3 years is:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they face the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it."

The key aspects are viable and political will. The EU did not face these under the May premiership and would not have expected to face them at all - the recent GE outcomes changes this and without such a 'fallback' at the macro level - then the rest is just unfounded hubris

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses like you seem to think - nor a situation of bartering at a market stall. We start from a position of the weaker partner - made much weaker by the incompetence of May/Robbins and the passage of so much time without effective preparations for a (even a partial) No-deal outcone.

You do not start these negotiations by chatting shit about fish.

Bless - I know that you are trying so score some point here Vic - but there will be a number of people on here that have experience in planning and managing major negotiations and I am content to let you continue to embarrass yourself for a while.

But to help a little bit...…...

With regard to preparing to undertake negotiations between the UK and EU on a wide-ranging FTA that will be the key contributing factor to the economic health of both parties for many years to come - your starter for 10 was:

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses - where you toss a coin to see who goes first

Whilst the policy on fishing as importance as a 'card' - waaay before you have that interaction the UK team will be establishing their target Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions at the 'macro levels'. Just as important our team will be establishing those of the EU and how these can be accommodated alongside ours and where these clash.

The EU have indicated what they seek - Van Leyden's recent emphasis on the 'absolute' requirements of equality of a level playing field and UK adherence to regulations amply suggest what they want and what they fear. Her comments on the need for more and more extensions - during which the UK will have to comply/adhere to EU regulations - also indicate their preferred approach to the management of the next stages - to give nothing of substance away and to agree longer and longer extensions.

It is from this strategic planning - which should have been commenced in the weeks after June 2016 - that the shape of Johnson's Brexit and any 'genuine red-lines' will emerge.

Frankly, we are already > 3 years behind the EU and such planning will hardly have started yet as Johnson could not be in a position to implement a genuine negotiation strategy until a Westminster majority was secured - he and his team have had all their focus and energy diverted on dealing with the EU proxies such as Grieve, Soubry and Benn.

So we start from a weaker position anyway and that is made worse by > 3 years of delay in properly planning negotiations and even worse still by the presence of a WA that has been largely drafted by a docile UK team at the EU's direction. Only the ruinous unfettered backstop has been removed - and thank the fuck for that as that utterly poisonous arrangement totally destroyed any future negotiating position of the UKs.

I have mentioned that there are some signs that the UK is starting to involve professionals in the design and management of its negotiations - the hard-stop on the timetable was a clear example of that and we see from the EU reaction how that is thoroughly irritating to them. They want control, full control and anything that impacts their having control is anathema to them. This is why May's deal was so perfect for the EU and so ruinous for the UK - unfortunately there is still a lot of May's surrender clauses within the WA.

But the hard-stop is only of benefit if there is other planning in-hand to ensure that we have our Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions properly defined at both the macro level - e.g. a clearly defined future economic model that determines our position on regulations and at the individual workstream level - e.g. our stance on fishing.

The EU have started to refer again to the risk of a No-Deal outcome - and this is important because it is something, one of the only things, that they are genuinely concerned about. Their concerns are not just because of the initial disruption - but also what it may lead to as a major economy, newly independent of their regulations and taking an economic hit as a result, needs to take dramatic/forceful actions to support recovery.

Without any 'need' to shift their position(s) the EU would happily just sit and let the clock click on for years to come - therefore it follows that we need to assess what are the few factors that would 'make them shift' - and something that has been an utterly obvious truism for > 3 years is:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they face the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it."

The key aspects are viable and political will. The EU did not face these under the May premiership and would not have expected to face them at all - the recent GE outcomes changes this and without such a 'fallback' at the macro level - then the rest is just unfounded hubris

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses like you seem to think - nor a situation of bartering at a market stall. We start from a position of the weaker partner - made much weaker by the incompetence of May/Robbins and the passage of so much time without effective preparations for a (even a partial) No-deal outcone.

You do not start these negotiations by chatting shit about fish.

Your description of a large scale strategic negotiation is good but I would add a couple of points. In some, but not all negotiations, your fall back can be your status quo. So in the case of a major outsource if you can’t get the deal you want, you may decide to continue to operate in-house as that’s the strongest case. Clearly in the case of Brexit, that fall back won’t work so you are left with Hard Brexit, wto terms etc. No safety net from Parliament this time. So who does hard Brexit hurt most. Eu or U.K.?
If there is a chance of a hard deadline in a contract negotiation, I would almost always run it as a competitive tender so that at the end of the process you have choices. You can decide not to renew a contract with the current incumbent but move to an alternative rather than the status quo. Not sure how that works with Brexit unless you believe we have the competence to run trade talks with the US and others in parallel with the EU this year. Hmmmm...
Do you honestly think we are moving from novice at negotiations to expert? That will take a mighty leap with some extremely capable people. Far more capable than who I see lined up in Liar Johnson’s Cabinet.
Finally, do you really need to be so condescending to a fellow Blue? Not cool.

 

[The perfect fumble]

That is your interpretation - and I can understand how you now choose to paint it that black and white - even though it was not really quite like you suggest.

Not for me - I was always aware of how much of a challenge this would be

Just as I have been aware for many years before 2016 just how bad the situation would develop into if we were to Remain in the EU

I could - and did - bemoan for many years that the 1973 vote was to join a 'common market' - not full blown ideological political, financial and economic integration. I would strongly argue that the way the UK public has been conned throughout decades is far more of travesty than the mickey mouse Leave campaign which was a real David and Goliath contest and that shows just how shit the Remain team were.

Len - that moaning I did got me nowhere until, against all expectation, this opportunity for the UK to escape the EU hegemony came about - I was reconciled to the inevitable diminishing of the UK as it became fully subsumed into the EU.

I suggest that you and others - simply for your own good - need to move on - or just accept, like I did, that you are committing yourselves to years and years of frustrated bitterness.

Still moaning about the campaign - especially when the Remain campaign was so utterly better resourced and dominant - just comes across as the whinging of bad losers I am afraid.

"You're not right, I knew all along, stop moaning, you're just a sore loser"

 

[west didsblue]

Bless - I know that you are trying so score some point here Vic - but there will be a number of people on here that have experience in planning and managing major negotiations and I am content to let you continue to embarrass yourself for a while.

But to help a little bit...…...

With regard to preparing to undertake negotiations between the UK and EU on a wide-ranging FTA that will be the key contributing factor to the economic health of both parties for many years to come - your starter for 10 was:

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses - where you toss a coin to see who goes first

Whilst the policy on fishing as importance as a 'card' - waaay before you have that interaction the UK team will be establishing their target Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions at the 'macro levels'. Just as important our team will be establishing those of the EU and how these can be accommodated alongside ours and where these clash.

The EU have indicated what they seek - Van Leyden's recent emphasis on the 'absolute' requirements of equality of a level playing field and UK adherence to regulations amply suggest what they want and what they fear. Her comments on the need for more and more extensions - during which the UK will have to comply/adhere to EU regulations - also indicate their preferred approach to the management of the next stages - to give nothing of substance away and to agree longer and longer extensions.

It is from this strategic planning - which should have been commenced in the weeks after June 2016 - that the shape of Johnson's Brexit and any 'genuine red-lines' will emerge.

Frankly, we are already > 3 years behind the EU and such planning will hardly have started yet as Johnson could not be in a position to implement a genuine negotiation strategy until a Westminster majority was secured - he and his team have had all their focus and energy diverted on dealing with the EU proxies such as Grieve, Soubry and Benn.

So we start from a weaker position anyway and that is made worse by > 3 years of delay in properly planning negotiations and even worse still by the presence of a WA that has been largely drafted by a docile UK team at the EU's direction. Only the ruinous unfettered backstop has been removed - and thank the fuck for that as that utterly poisonous arrangement totally destroyed any future negotiating position of the UKs.

I have mentioned that there are some signs that the UK is starting to involve professionals in the design and management of its negotiations - the hard-stop on the timetable was a clear example of that and we see from the EU reaction how that is thoroughly irritating to them. They want control, full control and anything that impacts their having control is anathema to them. This is why May's deal was so perfect for the EU and so ruinous for the UK - unfortunately there is still a lot of May's surrender clauses within the WA.

But the hard-stop is only of benefit if there is other planning in-hand to ensure that we have our Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions properly defined at both the macro level - e.g. a clearly defined future economic model that determines our position on regulations and at the individual workstream level - e.g. our stance on fishing.

The EU have started to refer again to the risk of a No-Deal outcome - and this is important because it is something, one of the only things, that they are genuinely concerned about. Their concerns are not just because of the initial disruption - but also what it may lead to as a major economy, newly independent of their regulations and taking an economic hit as a result, needs to take dramatic/forceful actions to support recovery.

Without any 'need' to shift their position(s) the EU would happily just sit and let the clock click on for years to come - therefore it follows that we need to assess what are the few factors that would 'make them shift' - and something that has been an utterly obvious truism for > 3 years is:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they face the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it."

The key aspects are viable and political will. The EU did not face these under the May premiership and would not have expected to face them at all - the recent GE outcomes changes this and without such a 'fallback' at the macro level - then the rest is just unfounded hubris

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses like you seem to think - nor a situation of bartering at a market stall. We start from a position of the weaker partner - made much weaker by the incompetence of May/Robbins and the passage of so much time without effective preparations for a (even a partial) No-deal outcone.

You do not start these negotiations by chatting shit about fish.

Groundhog Day every tedious post.

 

[Len Rum]

Bless - I know that you are trying so score some point here Vic - but there will be a number of people on here that have experience in planning and managing major negotiations and I am content to let you continue to embarrass yourself for a while.

But to help a little bit...…...

With regard to preparing to undertake negotiations between the UK and EU on a wide-ranging FTA that will be the key contributing factor to the economic health of both parties for many years to come - your starter for 10 was:

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses - where you toss a coin to see who goes first

Whilst the policy on fishing as importance as a 'card' - waaay before you have that interaction the UK team will be establishing their target Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions at the 'macro levels'. Just as important our team will be establishing those of the EU and how these can be accommodated alongside ours and where these clash.

The EU have indicated what they seek - Van Leyden's recent emphasis on the 'absolute' requirements of equality of a level playing field and UK adherence to regulations amply suggest what they want and what they fear. Her comments on the need for more and more extensions - during which the UK will have to comply/adhere to EU regulations - also indicate their preferred approach to the management of the next stages - to give nothing of substance away and to agree longer and longer extensions.

It is from this strategic planning - which should have been commenced in the weeks after June 2016 - that the shape of Johnson's Brexit and any 'genuine red-lines' will emerge.

Frankly, we are already > 3 years behind the EU and such planning will hardly have started yet as Johnson could not be in a position to implement a genuine negotiation strategy until a Westminster majority was secured - he and his team have had all their focus and energy diverted on dealing with the EU proxies such as Grieve, Soubry and Benn.

So we start from a weaker position anyway and that is made worse by > 3 years of delay in properly planning negotiations and even worse still by the presence of a WA that has been largely drafted by a docile UK team at the EU's direction. Only the ruinous unfettered backstop has been removed - and thank the fuck for that as that utterly poisonous arrangement totally destroyed any future negotiating position of the UKs.

I have mentioned that there are some signs that the UK is starting to involve professionals in the design and management of its negotiations - the hard-stop on the timetable was a clear example of that and we see from the EU reaction how that is thoroughly irritating to them. They want control, full control and anything that impacts their having control is anathema to them. This is why May's deal was so perfect for the EU and so ruinous for the UK - unfortunately there is still a lot of May's surrender clauses within the WA.

But the hard-stop is only of benefit if there is other planning in-hand to ensure that we have our Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions properly defined at both the macro level - e.g. a clearly defined future economic model that determines our position on regulations and at the individual workstream level - e.g. our stance on fishing.

The EU have started to refer again to the risk of a No-Deal outcome - and this is important because it is something, one of the only things, that they are genuinely concerned about. Their concerns are not just because of the initial disruption - but also what it may lead to as a major economy, newly independent of their regulations and taking an economic hit as a result, needs to take dramatic/forceful actions to support recovery.

Without any 'need' to shift their position(s) the EU would happily just sit and let the clock click on for years to come - therefore it follows that we need to assess what are the few factors that would 'make them shift' - and something that has been an utterly obvious truism for > 3 years is:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they face the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it."

The key aspects are viable and political will. The EU did not face these under the May premiership and would not have expected to face them at all - the recent GE outcomes changes this and without such a 'fallback' at the macro level - then the rest is just unfounded hubris

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses like you seem to think - nor a situation of bartering at a market stall. We start from a position of the weaker partner - made much weaker by the incompetence of May/Robbins and the passage of so much time without effective preparations for a (even a partial) No-deal outcone.

You do not start these negotiations by chatting shit about fish.

Mate just own the result and consequences of the final deal compared to what was promised.
Stop adding in advance all kinds of qualifications and caveats and blaming Remainers,Mavis,Robbins,Jezza,Gina Miller, Soubry, Grieve et al,the EU, the boogie.
JFOI will you.

 

[Vic]

Bless - I know that you are trying so score some point here Vic - but there will be a number of people on here that have experience in planning and managing major negotiations and I am content to let you continue to embarrass yourself for a while.

But to help a little bit...…...

With regard to preparing to undertake negotiations between the UK and EU on a wide-ranging FTA that will be the key contributing factor to the economic health of both parties for many years to come - your starter for 10 was:

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses - where you toss a coin to see who goes first

Whilst the policy on fishing as importance as a 'card' - waaay before you have that interaction the UK team will be establishing their target Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions at the 'macro levels'. Just as important our team will be establishing those of the EU and how these can be accommodated alongside ours and where these clash.

The EU have indicated what they seek - Van Leyden's recent emphasis on the 'absolute' requirements of equality of a level playing field and UK adherence to regulations amply suggest what they want and what they fear. Her comments on the need for more and more extensions - during which the UK will have to comply/adhere to EU regulations - also indicate their preferred approach to the management of the next stages - to give nothing of substance away and to agree longer and longer extensions.

It is from this strategic planning - which should have been commenced in the weeks after June 2016 - that the shape of Johnson's Brexit and any 'genuine red-lines' will emerge.

Frankly, we are already > 3 years behind the EU and such planning will hardly have started yet as Johnson could not be in a position to implement a genuine negotiation strategy until a Westminster majority was secured - he and his team have had all their focus and energy diverted on dealing with the EU proxies such as Grieve, Soubry and Benn.

So we start from a weaker position anyway and that is made worse by > 3 years of delay in properly planning negotiations and even worse still by the presence of a WA that has been largely drafted by a docile UK team at the EU's direction. Only the ruinous unfettered backstop has been removed - and thank the fuck for that as that utterly poisonous arrangement totally destroyed any future negotiating position of the UKs.

I have mentioned that there are some signs that the UK is starting to involve professionals in the design and management of its negotiations - the hard-stop on the timetable was a clear example of that and we see from the EU reaction how that is thoroughly irritating to them. They want control, full control and anything that impacts their having control is anathema to them. This is why May's deal was so perfect for the EU and so ruinous for the UK - unfortunately there is still a lot of May's surrender clauses within the WA.

But the hard-stop is only of benefit if there is other planning in-hand to ensure that we have our Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions properly defined at both the macro level - e.g. a clearly defined future economic model that determines our position on regulations and at the individual workstream level - e.g. our stance on fishing.

The EU have started to refer again to the risk of a No-Deal outcome - and this is important because it is something, one of the only things, that they are genuinely concerned about. Their concerns are not just because of the initial disruption - but also what it may lead to as a major economy, newly independent of their regulations and taking an economic hit as a result, needs to take dramatic/forceful actions to support recovery.

Without any 'need' to shift their position(s) the EU would happily just sit and let the clock click on for years to come - therefore it follows that we need to assess what are the few factors that would 'make them shift' - and something that has been an utterly obvious truism for > 3 years is:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they face the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it."

The key aspects are viable and political will. The EU did not face these under the May premiership and would not have expected to face them at all - the recent GE outcomes changes this and without such a 'fallback' at the macro level - then the rest is just unfounded hubris

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses like you seem to think - nor a situation of bartering at a market stall. We start from a position of the weaker partner - made much weaker by the incompetence of May/Robbins and the passage of so much time without effective preparations for a (even a partial) No-deal outcone.

You do not start these negotiations by chatting shit about fish.

Just as well I stopped reading halfway through and skipped to the last line.

 

[Vic]

Your description of a large scale strategic negotiation is good but I would add a couple of points. In some, but not all negotiations, your fall back can be your status quo. So in the case of a major outsource if you can’t get the deal you want, you may decide to continue to operate in-house as that’s the strongest case. Clearly in the case of Brexit, that fall back won’t work so you are left with Hard Brexit, wto terms etc. No safety net from Parliament this time. So who does hard Brexit hurt most. Eu or U.K.?
If there is a chance of a hard deadline in a contract negotiation, I would almost always run it as a competitive tender so that at the end of the process you have choices. You can decide not to renew a contract with the current incumbent but move to an alternative rather than the status quo. Not sure how that works with Brexit unless you believe we have the competence to run trade talks with the US and others in parallel with the EU this year. Hmmmm...
Do you honestly think we are moving from novice at negotiations to expert? That will take a mighty leap with some extremely capable people. Far more capable than who I see lined up in Liar Johnson’s Cabinet.
Finally, do you really need to be so condescending to a fellow Blue? Not cool.

Don't worry. I'm used to it. Never anything else from him.

 

[mcfc1632]

All valid stuff - I have made some comments against each of your different points

Because I have just done a 'top of the head' response so it is probably a bit wordy - it is better kept within the scope of your post so that only those that want to read it need bother

Your description of a large scale strategic negotiation is good but I would add a couple of points. In some, but not all negotiations, your fall back can be your status quo.
So in the case of a major outsource if you can’t get the deal you want, you may decide to continue to operate in-house as that’s the strongest case.

^^^^^ True - but TBF I would expect to have ensured that such a possible outcome would have become obvious during any associated market testing. In most organisations - especially in government departments - the planning of a significant Outsourcing initiative would require there to have been an Outline and Full Business Cases during which this would have been required to clearly established the benefit before progressing to market. For government departments this would have included (in the old days when I used to bid for or let these contracts) a Public Sector Comparator which would establish the comparison with in-house provision.
​

Clearly in the case of Brexit, that fall back won’t work so you are left with Hard Brexit, wto terms etc.

^^^^^ Spot on - so that is why there is a need to:

a) Establish your target outcomes - both at the macro and workstream (e.g. fisheries) levels which should be derived from:
b) Your Target Models - a lot of people on here have likely been involved in the design and specification of Target Operating Models and have managed or worked on change programmes to transition from the current model to them. The need is to go a couple of levels higher and devise the target model for the UK in relationship to the EU and the ROW - because you cannot design your models otherwise - this should have been done directly after the referendum if there was genuine intent to leave the EU in any fashion other than via a BRINO arrangement. In the case of Brexit your high-level Ideal, Realistic & Fallback (IRFs) positions might be crudely:

I = Having left the EU and enjoying full independence, but also having full benefits of SM access (I say this hypothetically) as there is more realism in establishing these positions

R = The arrangement generally referred to as Canada+

F - WTO terms

Of course all these positions and the many variants need to be determined, scenario tested, prioritised and placed under appropriate governance before 'engaging' seriously with the other party. These positions - the options priorities etc. should also be strictly confidential as much as possible as there is much benefit from one party to be aware of the fallback positions of the other party.

The lead negotiator and his/her team will seek to ensure that they have a negotiations strategy and plan that will seek to ensure:

a) that the Fallback positions are credible, have been made viable and are ready to be secured should they be required **
b) that the path towards securing the realistic outcomes is well mapped with milestones agreed at which the status of each IRF is reviewed/revised etc***
c) that the potential to achieve Ideal outcomes is also mapped

** In the case of Brexit a fundamental requirement from the outset was to act to ensure that the fallback was quickly established as both credible and viable - therefore it was essential that GENUINE No-Deal planning should have commenced in June 2016 and every day of delay has damaged the UK's position - because you cannot really track upwards to the achievement of Realistic and Ideal unless you have secured the viability of the Fallback.

*** This shows how good the EU team of professionals have been. They made so much progress in 2017/18, as they controlled May via Robbins, that they would have been able to 'upgrade' their fallback position to be the Irish Sea option (probably previously their Realistic outcome) and upgrade their Realistic Outcome to be May's unfettered backstop trap - previously beyond even their Ideal outcome.

So yes - despite the bollocks of some on here - the step backwards was indeed a significant move as the unfettered backstop gave to the EU total control of any and all future negotiations

For me - it is nice to see a Remainer establishing the clear need for what has always been true - not just about Brexit but about any major negotiation, but in the case of Brexit:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they face the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it."

Did you realise that you were clearly establishing the need for a No-Deal to be defined and both credible and viable? This has been much decried by a good number of Remainers on here - a lot because they have no experience in such matters (most people don't) and others because they simply have just hated the idea of ever having to face the truth of Brexit - they have just hoped to close their eyes and it disappears.

No safety net from Parliament this time. So who does hard Brexit hurt most. Eu or U.K.?

^^^^^^^ The 'safety net' was only ever a contrivance of the EU and its Remainer allies to undermine any possibility of Brexit becoming viable. Every aspect of what has been done in the last phases has been to intentionally undermine the UK - the 'need' for full disclosure etc. - utter bollocks and no way to run a negotiation - ruling No-Deal off the table - utterly destructive to the ability of the UK to negotiate to secure its best interests and as for the utterly ruinous unfettered backstop...….. That simply placed the UK in a straightjacket for decades to come.

I have been frustrated by those on here that post bollocks on these issues without knowledge - but I have stronger views about those that have understood and have basically lied to either themselves or the forum or both.

The reality and the answer lies in what I have posted above.

In 2016 each department should have been tasked with establishing its own IRFs and then these should have been placed into a major Change Programme - probably under the control of the government's Infrastructure & Projects Authority (IPA) - but more likely - under similar programme management arrangements, but controlled more tightly within the Cabinet Office - maybe even within or linked to COBRA - it is that important.

Hopefully it is not too late to start to do things properly - hopefully for quite a lot of months things have been commenced/in-hand and are now being accelerated - because no matter the damage done to the UK's position over the last 3 years - the principles remain the same.

If there is a chance of a hard deadline in a contract negotiation, I would almost always run it as a competitive tender so that at the end of the process you have choices. You can decide not to renew a contract with the current incumbent but move to an alternative rather than the status quo. Not sure how that works with Brexit unless you believe we have the competence to run trade talks with the US and others in parallel with the EU this year. Hmmmm...

Some of this - whilst correct - is more pertinent to a 'normal' procurement/negotiation, but with regards to Brexit there are a number of 'factors/aspects' here that are 'interleaved' - these things are not so black and white

FWIW I expect (if we are lucky and successful) that our team will establish a path that starts to secure the 2020 version of 'Realistic' - which for me would be along the lines of:

a) Determining the least worst case No-Deal outcome - which needs to have the attributes of being recoverable from and needs to be of sufficient concern to the EU that they would shift position in response and this then
b) gives us the scope to----------extend the transition period beyond the 2020 deadline - but to achieve a pre-determined outcome rather than just 'more of the same' - keeping the UK locked into effective a 'backstop'
c) recalibrate the IRFs and then keep managing the change programme - it will require many twists and turns and be planned against a number of milestones/key stages - but firstly you have to stop going in the wrong direction and correct course

The first part though is knowing the scope of a viable No-Real and making sure that the EU are aware that there is the political will - backed up with a massive Commons Majority - to use it. Then we will see movement - it is not a magic wand - but people need to start to get on board that this is where the UK are going - so let's try and make the best of it.

Do you honestly think we are moving from novice at negotiations to expert? That will take a mighty leap with some extremely capable people. Far more capable than who I see lined up in Liar Johnson’s Cabinet.

What is the option? For a lot on here and in the Remainer cadres of the UK - it is just to give up and accede to the EU's every wish

That is no longer an option that a majority electorate of the UK and now the UK's parliament will tolerate - so we need to make the most of what opportunity we have - even though our position has been worsened by the machinations at Westminster for over 3 years.

Yes we have capable people - it is not all just about who has managed the negotiations of TAs in recent years. More importantly - what is needed is determination and political will.

The next signs I expect to see are actions to see a thawing in the public relationship between the UK and EU - lots of talk about partnership and strategic importance etc - there cannot be a good outcome if either party is seen to have won/lost. If I was 'the UK team' I would want to see Brexit stop being the main topic in the news - there needs to calm and confidential high-level interworking - this cannot be done under the glare of newspaper headlines.

But I also expect a strengthening in the understanding of what the 'real red-lines' are between the parties and exploration of an accommodation - the EU need to know that we will walk-away if there is no acceptable alternative

Finally, do you really need to be so condescending to a fellow Blue? Not cool.

I would say to you what I have said to you before - just where the fuck were you when @west didsblue and others were calling me a liar? - what about the 100s of posts from the Daves and others slagging us Leavers off?

Can you point me to the posts of yours that show your balance and where you have asked these posters why they behave that way to fellow blues? and point out to them that it is not so cool?

I don't think that you can - but when you start doing that - please get back to me​

 

[mat]

Johnson to announce a "Brexit taskforce"

His version of Trumps Space Force where fuck all will be done apart from saying the same line in every speech.

 

[west didsblue]

I would say to you what I have said to you before - just where the fuck were you when @west didsblueand others were calling me a liar? - what about the 100s of posts from the Daves and others slagging us Leavers off?

Can you point me to the posts of yours that show your balance and where you have asked these posters why they behave that way to fellow blues? and point out to them that it is not so cool?

Diddums

 

[mcfc1632]

And there you have it.
The real reason for brexit.
A deregulated low wage, low benefit,low skill, low public spending economy justified on the basis of the EU wouldn't give us a good deal.

Fuck me Len

You are not alone - a good few of you do this - but why the need to twist the words of people to mean something other than was intended

Proper poor behaviour - but at least having the virtue of consistency

 

[mcfc1632]

Getting the excuses in early - the enemy within!

Weird - and obviously desperate

I am just making sensible and factual comments

Let me know when you are able to reciprocate and stop hiding behind snide one-liners

 

[mcfc1632]

"You're not right, I knew all along, stop moaning, you're just a sore loser"

And do you have any content or are you again reduced to blathering.

Yesterday I came across the 'Rise of the far right thread' - I did not realise for quite a few pages that it was from months ago

I have to say - you were a star - the thread was a great mixture of you being skewered by people with more knowledge than you but with your need to engage and make a fool of yourself anyway because you just cannot stop yourself

You 'going again'?

 

[mcfc1632]

Finally, do you really need to be so condescending to a fellow Blue? Not cool.

So @Saddleworth2

I replied in detail to this post and now bring your attention to the responses from the mainstream 'pack members' - I don't see you as one of those

Are you going to come back to any of them to ask if it is necessary to be so condescending to a fellow Blue and observe that it is not cool?

Or will you just - again - fall back to limiting such observations to Leavers - in which case you make a clear statement about your 'balance' IMO.

Hey - I am not arsed either way - it is you that calls your balance into question

 

[mcfc1632]

Groundhog Day every tedious post.

Oh here is Mr Snide - being - well snidey

But you cannot make yourself put ne on ignore or not bother reading my posts can you

Do you know what it is about your posts and attitude that is really delicious for me??????

 

[mcfc1632]

Just as well I stopped reading halfway through and skipped to the last line.

It is OK - I am not expecting any content from you

You showed your < Janet and John level of awareness in the earlier post. I am not really posting to impact you as I consider you incapable of the objectivity required for comprehension - I was just using your post to explain to others

 

[mcfc1632]

Diddums

Ha - beautifully timed

I just asked if you knew what it is about your posts and attitudes that I really find delicious - and here you are just to add some sweetener

And a new PB for you I think

The king of snide one-liners - achieves being snide in a single word - congrats;-)

 

[west didsblue]

Oh here is Mr Snide - being - well snidey

But you cannot make yourself put ne on ignore or not bother reading my posts can you

Do you know what it is about your posts and attitude that is really delicious for me??????

I skim read your vacuous posts and notice the same pompous repetitive phrases that pollute every thread you post on, and you don’t like it when you’re called out on it.
And I’m not the slightest bit interested in what you find “delicious”, but I’m sure you’re going to tell us anyway because your overinflated ego makes you think I give a shit.

 

[Saddleworth2]

So @Saddleworth2

I replied in detail to this post and now bring your attention to the responses from the mainstream 'pack members' - I don't see you as one of those

Are you going to come back to any of them to ask if it is necessary to be so condescending to a fellow Blue and observe that it is not cool?

Or will you just - again - fall back to limiting such observations to Leavers - in which case you make a clear statement about your 'balance' IMO'

Hey - I am not arsed either way - it is you that calls your balance into question

I don’t read everything from everyone mate. I do read much of yours which you may take as a backhanded complement. It’s not just you I challenge and sometimes fall out with btw as others could no doubt testify. Just think sometimes that abrasive approach sometimes deflects from the good stuff that is worth digging for ;-)

 

[mcfc1632]

Mate just own the result and consequences of the final deal compared to what was promised.
Stop adding in advance all kinds of qualifications and caveats and blaming Remainers,Mavis,Robbins,Jezza,Gina Miller, Soubry, Grieve et al,the EU, the boogie.
JFOI will you.

What?

Ignore the reality and close my eyes and ears to inconvenient truths

There are enough of you on here to take on that blinkered approach - you don't need more help