Political relations between UK-EU

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Vic said:
What was dishonest? No-one can tell us a strategy that would have got Labour more votes.
Click to expand...
Vic, what is the point of a discussion on this. Who is going to vote for a party that wont say what it will do or what is best for the country. It was abdication pure and simple. Last word on it. Looking forward not back :-)
 
mcfc1632 said:
Excellent post

I have a lot of agreement with this post - even though it is dealing with a different aspect of 'management arrangements' to what @Saddleworth2 and myself have mentioned and are experienced in.

We are essentially commenting on 'once the scope and intended outcomes/delivery' etc. are established - how a change programme should be managed.

But - you raise an excellent point - because before you get too far into implementation planning you need to decide the outcomes to be delivered.

What May should have done - right up front is an 'options appraisal' and I would guess that of (let's say) 10 options that would have been considered then only 3 or 4 would have been short-listed and none of those would have been the option of No-Deal and perhaps also not the deal that has been achieved.

The BRINO option would have certainly been on the short-list - as would Norway and others that reflect close-alignment. The 'contingency' of Remaining would have been kept alive as well.

And - again you are right - if we had achieved for example @Mëtal Bikër 's desire for an EFTA solution - then the majority of people would have been satisfied and the extremists on both sides would have been left to whinge. There may have been some residual 'rumblings' - but this would have been ignored and the populace would have moved on.

I certainly would have been happy - in fact I would have expressed myself as being delighted. Notwithstanding that I am far more delighted with the actual outcome.

I come from the starting point of never thinking that we would leave - and then (even worse) in 2017-2019 thinking that we were going to end up in May's fucked up unfettered backstop.

I would have taken an EFTA arrangement in an heartbeat back in the dark days

You are indeed - spot on

The entire episode has been a series of fuckups and incompetence due to being driven and affected by self-interest groups.

The end result - what we have now - feels like some perverse game of 'musical chairs' - with this deal being the last one to get a seat - pure luck.
Click to expand...
mcfc1632 said:
But - you raise an excellent point - because before you get too far into implementation planning you need to decide the outcomes to be delivered.
Click to expand...
A TOM!
First question of any struggling programme. Do you have a target operating model? If the answer is no, you know you are fucked.
 
Rascal said:
I am good my old friend thanks. Hope you are too.

The EU has some good points, i am on record as saying i would want further integration and an EU superstate that had the chance to be a Socialist EU superstate. However I wasn't comfortable with the status quo as that served to enhance capitalism. It put limits on state spending, as in they had to stay within parameters set by the ECB which hampered countries who wished to use Keynesian economic theory to get out of economic slump. The EU is designed as a free market kind of utopia with a nod to social protections i accept, but we could have more protections for workers and we could have our own say on economic policy.

Freedom of movement, was not just about our freedom to go to Ibiza on a beano, it was freedom of movement for Employers too, that meant they could take jobs out of the country by moving to another part of the EU to take advantage of lower wages. Some people call this 'social dumping'. It's about undercutting local wages and conditions by shipping in workers from overseas or basing your company's legal status on wherever saves you the most money or where you recieve the highest subsidy. That results in competing interests between employers and employees and the ECJ tends to side with the Employer's which can lead to an erosion of workers rights.

I would consider the EU as a barrier to Democratic Socialism rather than Social Democracy, The EU is not implicitly against nationalisation but it is for competition and aims to prevent monopoly, so in reality you cant have a Nationalised rail service as that would be a monopoly. If you nationalised the railways you have to allow competition and offer equal subsidy to any competitor to the nationalised service which sort of defeats the point of nationalisation. It tries to stop state aid as it creates unfair competition although in reality it cant and there are ways around it if you are devious. But as we Brits are always up for fair play we don't obviously.
The main thrust of European economic policy has been to extend and deepen the market through liberalisation, privatisation, and flexiblisation, subordinating employment and social protection to goals of low inflation, debt reduction, and increased competitiveness, basically it is a neo-liberal construct of its time, although it does have echoes of Scandi Social democracy.

I was as i said all for changing the EU from within, but there was no political will in this country to do that, it was status quo or leave, status quo is unacceptable, so that left the leave option.



'.
Click to expand...
Good ta mate.
Interesting stuff and food for thought.
 
Vic said:
And the Daily Express wakes up:

Brexit deal betrayal as 'crucial section' missing from text to benefit Macron and Merkel​

BORIS JOHNSON's Brexit trade deal does not include an EU-wide arrangement for financial services because France and Germany wanted to focus on goods, which was to their economic advantage, the former director of Special Projects at Vote Leave has claimed.​

Click to expand...
I think that goes in the no shit sherlock workstream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
Vic said:
Just for fun, no waffling - what would your virtual workstream have come up with to "deal with" the 16.2 - 17.4 problem? (Bear in mind that you're unusual and most of the people working on the workstream would have voted Remain. What would be the remit of the workstream? How to reconcile the irreconcilable or produce another stage in the political lies about Brexit?)

I am serious. I don't believe you could even set the parameters for that workstream without having a workstream to set the parameters, especially as from the outset you didn't want the only easy way to do it - BRINO.
Click to expand...
Oooh - a genuine question

Shame you could not resist the barb about no waffling. I have been quite succinct in my posts on this subject today - you should see what I can pour out when being paid my day rate;-)

But I have to point out a couple of flaws in your posts - and genuinely I am not being 'pointed'

As the Programme Director / Senior Manager/SoS / Person responsible etc.

I would be undertaking the Change Programme for 'a client/organisation' etc. in this case HMG. My personal preferences or those of the staff in the workstreams would be irrelevant - that is not how these things work. It is professional management - not achieving personal goals/interests.

I would have ensured the options Appraisal was undertaken - probably within the a development of a Business Case to make sure that I have the budget - and I would have made sure that No-Deal was put forward as an option - as well as BRINO and a range options in between.

Once the options appraisal chose the short-list - No-Deal and the current deal would not have had a chance - I would have ensured a further 'down-select' process was undertaken to determined the 'preferred option' and the backup/contingency

That then would lead me to determine the intended outcomes and start to do the activity planning of each of the workstreams.

Re the workstream that you refer to with 16.2 - 17.4 - 'Stakeholder Management and Communications' - that would have been a breeze actually. That is because the preferred option in 2016 - Summer 2019 would have undoubtedly have been a version of close alignment.

So managing the communications of that would have been straightforward - although a very large workstream with a large budget and a lot of actions. I would have just done that - 'cos it would have been my job.

In undertaking the activity based planning of other workstreams I would have ensured that the required policies, risks, dependencies etc associated to agriculture, fishing and other sectors were assessed and determined - that would have led to addressing the issues that dids and bob refer to.

Of course - there would have still been teething issues and therefore 'transition arrangements' required - including funding for people that lose out inappropriately and these would have been put in place.

@Saddleworth2 - just top of the head and missing a lot of detail - would you have approached it fundamentally differently?

Vic - does that make sense to you
 
Is this the time to post video of Gove warning of disruption and firms scratching their heads over products to export, but with no idea on paperwork and lorries stuck at depots?

Oh, I’ll pass for now, maybe when the Govt stops cosplaying and succumbs further to geopolitical reality.

Great deal we signed though. More ways to fuck us over than an anal porn video, but much less fun, assuming you are into that sort of thing of course. Which I’m not. Much. Too much info? Noted.
 
Although this from Gove was priceless

‘But he said that if the government does everything it can, working with businesses, “then we can make sure that we do get to a new normal where trade flows more freely than ever before.” @BBC

It cannot flow more freely. It is a lie. It is an impossibility. Why do we elect lying cunts?

Ah, well. Pass the popcorn.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Shock - horror!!

A reply that makes a a point you want to make - but does not the answer the question that was asked

My gob is (not) smacked
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know the answer (and I presume you don't) - I assume it was always possible to export shellfish before we joined the EEC but it's totally irrelevant. Within the EU, shellfish exports have vastly increased - because of the single market - and your Brexit may kill off parts of the UK's fishing industry. YOUR Brexit.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
Vic, what is the point of a discussion on this. Who is going to vote for a party that wont say what it will do or what is best for the country. It was abdication pure and simple. Last word on it. Looking forward not back :-)
Click to expand...
I've no idea what the point is. I only bother to correct nonsensical comments about what Labour could have done differently, and how many more people with opposing views might have been pissed off.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Oooh - a genuine question

Shame you could not resist the barb about no waffling. I have been quite succinct in my posts on this subject today - you should see what I can pour out when being paid my day rate;-)

But I have to point out a couple of flaws in your posts - and genuinely I am not being 'pointed'

As the Programme Director / Senior Manager/SoS / Person responsible etc.

I would be undertaking the Change Programme for 'a client/organisation' etc. in this case HMG. My personal preferences or those of the staff in the workstreams would be irrelevant - that is not how these things work. It is professional management - not achieving personal goals/interests.

I would have ensured the options Appraisal was undertaken - probably within the a development of a Business Case to make sure that I have the budget - and I would have made sure that No-Deal was put forward as an option - as well as BRINO and a range options in between.

Once the options appraisal chose the short-list - No-Deal and the current deal would not have had a chance - I would have ensured a further 'down-select' process was undertaken to determined the 'preferred option' and the backup/contingency

That then would lead me to determine the intended outcomes and start to do the activity planning of each of the workstreams.

Re the workstream that you refer to with 16.2 - 17.4 - 'Stakeholder Management and Communications' - that would have been a breeze actually. That is because the preferred option in 2016 - Summer 2019 would have undoubtedly have been a version of close alignment.

So managing the communications of that would have been straightforward - although a very large workstream with a large budget and a lot of actions. I would have just done that - 'cos it would have been my job.

In undertaking the activity based planning of other workstreams I would have ensured that the required policies, risks, dependencies etc associated to agriculture, fishing and other sectors were assessed and determined - that would have led to addressing the issues that dids and bob refer to.

Of course - there would have still been teething issues and therefore 'transition arrangements' required - including funding for people that lose out inappropriately and these would have been put in place.

@Saddleworth2 - just top of the head and missing a lot of detail - would you have approached it fundamentally differently?

Vic - does that make sense to you
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what question you are answering. If its 'how would you run a traditional large change programme' then yes what you have documented is pretty reasonable. The development of a target operating model 'up front' is crucial as you need to know what the fuck it is you are attempting to deliver.

If the question is, how would you of used Programme management disciplines to deliver Brexit, then thats a different question. What was needed up front to develop a TOM would have been difficult and protracted. A better way of doing it would have been to form a small, senior, empowered, cross party steering group to consider the options and whip their respective parties into line. Perhaps with some discussion, some elements of a solution could have been found to appease Scotland and built a better solution to NI but who knows?

I cant help feeling that whatever the option put forward, it would have been too aligned to the EU for half the stakeholders and not aligned enough for the other half. A year or even 18 months of painful option wrangling and trying to get as many on side as possible would have made everything that followed a great deal easier.

I have significant doubts though that May/Corbyn would have been capable of leading such an activity, particularly considering the right wing of her party and various terrorists. After all, if you remember there was a process through HOC to vote on options and look how that turned out. So to make it work and achieve an operating model that the country could get behind required a very different type of politics than the incumbents were capable of providing leadership for.

In you response to Vic, you made all of that sound straightforward but I think it was anything but and explains why so much has been kicked down the road. Thoughts?

Once established though the workstreams are a great deal easier as they have a good handle on scope and what it is they are setting out to achieve.

One element which has been particularly badly done is readiness testing. In the past I have set up a matrix of workstreams on programmes both 'vertical' ones with their own scope of work and then 'horizontal' ones that offer a 'shared service' to each of the vertical workstreams. Typically this would include business readiness testing which would ensure all vertical workstreams are independently assessed before they can be given a go decision.

Big subject but all theoretical and wont change an atom.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Oooh - a genuine question

Shame you could not resist the barb about no waffling. I have been quite succinct in my posts on this subject today - you should see what I can pour out when being paid my day rate;-)

But I have to point out a couple of flaws in your posts - and genuinely I am not being 'pointed'

As the Programme Director / Senior Manager/SoS / Person responsible etc.

I would be undertaking the Change Programme for 'a client/organisation' etc. in this case HMG. My personal preferences or those of the staff in the workstreams would be irrelevant - that is not how these things work. It is professional management - not achieving personal goals/interests.

I would have ensured the options Appraisal was undertaken - probably within the a development of a Business Case to make sure that I have the budget - and I would have made sure that No-Deal was put forward as an option - as well as BRINO and a range options in between.

Once the options appraisal chose the short-list - No-Deal and the current deal would not have had a chance - I would have ensured a further 'down-select' process was undertaken to determined the 'preferred option' and the backup/contingency

That then would lead me to determine the intended outcomes and start to do the activity planning of each of the workstreams.

Re the workstream that you refer to with 16.2 - 17.4 - 'Stakeholder Management and Communications' - that would have been a breeze actually. That is because the preferred option in 2016 - Summer 2019 would have undoubtedly have been a version of close alignment.

So managing the communications of that would have been straightforward - although a very large workstream with a large budget and a lot of actions. I would have just done that - 'cos it would have been my job.

In undertaking the activity based planning of other workstreams I would have ensured that the required policies, risks, dependencies etc associated to agriculture, fishing and other sectors were assessed and determined - that would have led to addressing the issues that dids and bob refer to.

Of course - there would have still been teething issues and therefore 'transition arrangements' required - including funding for people that lose out inappropriately and these would have been put in place.

@Saddleworth2 - just top of the head and missing a lot of detail - would you have approached it fundamentally differently?

Vic - does that make sense to you
Click to expand...
Well, thank you. It's certainly not the first genuine question I've asked you. It may be the first you've answered, at least for a long while.

I'll not pick at it, but I will say:

(1) I have a suspicion that some of this may have been going on (including that the risks, dependencies etc associated to agriculture, fishing and other sectors were assessed and determined) but were ignored as it would have increased the pressure to tell the public and perhaps prompt a second referendum, and

(2) Wouldn't it have been good to have all this before the first referendum? (Or if it was all done, not call it Project Fear.)

My other big current question would be how on earth small-scale fish exporters got it so wrong, and didn't join Bob Geldof on his boat?
 
BobKowalski said:
Although this from Gove was priceless

‘But he said that if the government does everything it can, working with businesses, “then we can make sure that we do get to a new normal where trade flows more freely than ever before.” @BBC

It cannot flow more freely. It is a lie. It is an impossibility. Why do we elect lying cunts?

Ah, well. Pass the popcorn.
Click to expand...

All I think when I see them say stuff like that is that even they don’t think it’s a particularly good deal if they have to lie about it.

Why not just say trade will not be as seamless as it was before as it can’t be, we believe it’s worth it though for these other reasons. Being disingenuous about it just makes me think they don’t think the reality is actually justifiable.
 
Vic said:
Well, I assume not intended, but that "options appraisal" bit justifies the attempt to stop Brexit.

10 options - none of them put to the people, and certainly not the one we've got.

I'll take the usual crap for saying "Vote Leave (there are 10 options available)" would have gone well on a bus.
Click to expand...
Sorry Vic

You are not understanding how an options appraisal is done in the context of this exchange
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top