Political relations between UK-EU

journolud said:
I didn’t go looking for this, it found its way to me but the answer to your question seems to be that touring musicians have always enjoyed visa free access to many countries until now and it is the UK government’s decision to end that relationship with the EU. Does seem on the face of it to be petty and pointless but like the scrapping of the Erasmus scheme there is the usual apparent promise of something bigger and better which I suspect we will never see

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
Well - I have to say that does 'baffle' me

Of course such arrangements would/should have to be reciprocal and it seems that it is the UK that has done the rejecting.

The article links the rejection to the impending new immigration policies and procedures. I can only think that there is some reason, supported by evidence, that justifies the HO in believing that the 'special arrangements' presented some form of 'backdoor' to illegal immigration? Otherwise it seems strange/petty to me.
 
Last edited:
mcfc1632 said:
....

The article links the rejection to the impending new immigration policies and procedures. I can only think that there is some justifiable reason, supported by evidence, that justifies the HO in believing that the 'special arrangements' presented some form of 'backdoor' to illegal immigration? Otherwise it seems strange/petty to me.
Click to expand...

Seriously, put down the Brexit crack pipe...
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
DPD has halted deliveries to the Eu and Northern Ireland blaming customs red tape.

www.lbc.co.uk

DPD halts road delivery of parcels to Europe due to Brexit red tape

Delivery firm DPD, supermarket M&S, and Scotland's seafood providers have issued warnings over delays and the amount of red tape they are facing due to new Brexit arrangements at borders.
www.lbc.co.uk www.lbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I bought myself a Christmas present. Shipped from Canada, to the US and some reason back to Canada and then back to the US, off to Switzerland on 19 Dec where it has remained ever since. My RM tracker has informed me that it is in Switzerland. I thought those fuckers at Uefa had got it out of the box and were fuckin' around playing with it 'cos we turned 'em over at CAS, but no! It's the bloody French again, still smarting from the battering they got Crécy, Poitier, Agincourt and Waterloo who appear not to be letting stuff cross, by air or land, and cracking on it's summat to do with Covid. Bastards. Get it sorted, Macron!

Mrs Ewing has just informed me that the French Covid vaccine comes with a 45-page consent form!
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
I get that and I know this thread is supposed to be about, well what do you do now.
The two opposing ideologies in here are never going to agree but from outside Britain looking in I do think Bob has a point about why it was never presented to you as a major change program, prior to referendum.

That is looking back and has been done to death but I think I did write in one of the original threads that if you are putting something as important as this to the people then there should have been a comprehensive booklet or prospectus delivered to each household detailing the consequences of what they are voting on.
Over here we’ve had many referendums, usually about amending the constitution.
Always the altered wording would be presented to the public and what the changes would mean.

In the context of Brexit and treating it professionally like a major change program, then I think before it being put to the people in a binary outcome question there was a lot of other project management steps that were probably missed too.
Project definition was sketchy. Analysis etc.
However, my point is that both sides have been right about elements of the arguments in here.

I think no matter how many different thread titles are started about Brexit in here you are always going to end up referencing the same failures.

How you turn your negatives into positives going forward is beyond me. But life is going to go on regardless.

I do think it wasn’t about trade for those that see the long term benefits for the UK and that in itself is fundamental problem for a those in Britain that don’t share their ideology.

Round and round we go in the same loop. Some see the benefit decades in the future and others doubt the financial pain will be worth it.
Click to expand...
I hate KOs at this time of day - 1330!! - or even worse 1230!!

1500, 1730, 2000 are all OK to get in the mood by visiting a few pubs before going to the match - and even in these strange times I can 'justify' starting drinking a few before KO as part of my 'pre-match routine'.

Anyway, so as to distract myself from temptation - I will just spend a few minutes typing out an explanation of what should have happened with regards to the management of Brexit - if the government ha followed the best practice guidance it has itself been responsible for establishing.

I know that a number of posters are not interested in 'facts' and inconvenient truths - but I make this effort for those that are interested in what should have happened - but will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Edit: as brief as possible - but still having typed most of it - a bit long - so please do not attempt to read it unless you have a genuine interest in the subject - and the truth of matters
 
Last edited:
mcfc1632 said:
Well - I have to say that does 'baffle' me

Of course such arrangements would/should have to be reciprocal and it seems that it is the UK that has done the rejecting.

The article links the rejection to the impending new immigration policies and procedures. I can only think that there is some justifiable reason, supported by evidence, that justifies the HO in believing that the 'special arrangements' presented some form of 'backdoor' to illegal immigration? Otherwise it seems strange/petty to me.
Click to expand...
How many people can you get on a double bass case floating across the Channel?
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Appreciate that.
And without having the same sort of experience either yourself or @Saddleworth2 would have, I still have enough experience at business level in change management procedure through my operational and IT support roles through the years and business case budget approval in my latter years.

I suspected all along that it was as haphazard as you imply and also that although you probably think that was a huge bonus for the EU side, I think it was also a source of enormous frustration.
I think the Irish government tried to use very diplomatic language at all times, but not only was it causing frustration but perhaps mistrust also. Maybe that’s just my perception of it. I could be projecting that.

There will be problems as everyone including yourself are saying and there will be negotiations for years, I feel, but that’s diplomacy anyway.

There will be consequences though that I know you have considered worth your own vision of an end game. You’ve said so all along.

We can see it here already with measures being planned for by many companies to bypass Britain.
The same will happen on the continent I’m sure.

It is what it is and we will all get on with it.
Hard to judge anything at the moment with Covid. Wait until things get back to some semblance of normal.
Click to expand...
TLDR: Only intended for the few posters interested in managing major change programmes – in the context of the Brexit referendum

Over the last couple of decades, in particular, the government has become aware of the impact that major projects and programmes failing causes – these impacts are reflected in timetable, costs, quality of public services and political embarrassment.

There has been an increasing and authoritative focus, under the control of the Cabinet Office, in ensuring that major projects and programmes are scrutinised by professionals acting for the CO, with processes for reporting into and coordinated by the CO being established. After many years of development this has resulted in:

“The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) is the government’s centre of expertise for infrastructure and major projects, supporting the successful delivery of all types of major projects. The IPA sits at the heart of government, reporting to the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury.”

Within the IPA has been the establishment of:

“The Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP). The IPA and Her Majesty’s Treasury have the final decision on which projects and programmes join the Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP). The IPA will be responsible for the tracking and monitoring of GMPP projects. The IPA will support GMPP projects with expert advice and support, intervening early to ensure that projects are set up for success.”

What should have happened was that, immediately following the 2015 election result, the CO’s IPA should have instructed all departments to establish Outline Business Cases and plans for leaving the EU – these would have led to the ‘Impact Assessments’ and been used to inform the referendum options. This was not approved by Cameron – anecdotally I hear because there was no desire to demonstrate that the UK could practically leave the EU – his focus was on it not progressing.

Once that gamble backfired and immediately following the referendum, then the CO’s IPA should have instructed all affected departments, e.g. HO, Defra, HMRC etc. to mobilise Programme Structures (i.e. workstreams within a PPM regime) and develop the programme planning that would have then led to the identification of the policies and actions required to implement the management of leaving the EU. Front and centre of this work should have been the development of TOMs for each department – I will refrain from going into detail about TOMs, but, simply, the production of TOMs would have ensured the necessary focus was provided that would have been required to identify the policies and activities needed to manage the transition from the current operational model to the new.

Simplistically, such policies and activities would have been brigaded into workstreams, within Programme Management structures, within each department and reported into and coordinated by the IPA’s GMPP.

Though the IPA GMPP, the CO would have ensured that the development of government policy was informed and funding secured.

That this was not commenced was a flagrant breach of duty and the decision was mainly Hammond’s – not wanting to actively plan for and fund the activities for Brexit to happen. My assumption is that this was because the intention/expectation was that Brexit would not happen – or if it did then, it would be only in such a BRINO fashion that there would be little change. It was only in the late Spring/Summer of 2018 that the CO was authorised/asked to start such fundamental work – far too late and then only half-heartedly because the May/Robbins/Hammond axis was still in charge.

There is simply no doubt that - had the government followed its own best practice in managing major change programmes - then indeed 100s (actually 1000s) of requirements and actions that would support the smoothing of exiting would have been identified, planned and undertaken.

This is a simple and undeniable fact – although I am not and never have said that exiting the EU would be some frictionless event.

This is why I have been very critical of the management of May/Robbins (I should have added Hammond) when leading for the UK on Brexit. Whether a Leaver or Remainer, we should all want what is best for the UK – and this highly unprofessional dereliction of duty by the UK government, which will certainly cause ‘avoidable levels’ of damage - I hold May/Robbins /Hammond directly responsible for.

This link to the IPA’s annual report will be of interest to only a very few:

IPA_AR_MajorProjects2019-20.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

The report comments on Brexit on Page 30 – the scope of reviews mentioned and support given reflects that they started way too late and is trivial to what should have been undertaken.
 
Last edited:
mcfc1632 said:
Well - I have to say that does 'baffle' me

Of course such arrangements would/should have to be reciprocal and it seems that it is the UK that has done the rejecting.

The article links the rejection to the impending new immigration policies and procedures. I can only think that there is some justifiable reason, supported by evidence, that justifies the HO in believing that the 'special arrangements' presented some form of 'backdoor' to illegal immigration? Otherwise it seems strange/petty to me.
Click to expand...
Allowing musicians continued easy access, both ways, to touring as well as maintaining the Erasmus system seem like such easy wins in selling Brexit that I can only conclude that the government are totally stupid or that Brexit negotiations were indeed ideologically driven rather than with the best interests of UK citizens in mind. These two very obvious examples being the case it does make me wonder how much more detail is to follow about how we have hampered ourselves for narrow, ideological reasons.
 
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.