Political relations between UK-EU

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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.