Boris. £350m for the NHS if we leave EU. Again.
Discussion
Eddie Strohacker said:
It's pretty clear with as objective a face as I can manage that the UK is woefully underprepared. On a pragmatic level, I can't hold this against the Government. Cameron clearly set out his stall that we would be remaining in, precluding any great contingency planning.
I disagree. Cameron held the referendum; he should have prepared for either outcome. Remain were never so far ahead that a leave vote was out of the question so it would have been simple good governance to thoroughly prepare for both outcomes, regardless of his intention to quit if he lost. Deliberately failing to prepare for a predictable, major shock of high probability was idiotic and reckless. Perhaps if Cameron had approached the vote with a little more integrity and presented the facts of EU membership honestly, rather than through the obvious, hyperbolic spin of project fear, then he would not have given Leave so many open goals or set the level of the debate so low.Coolbanana said:
jsf said:
I used to sit in meetings with large numbers of people from various companies when I worked in IT, for example where we discussed the design and implementation of large scale integrated systems for major high street retailers costing millions, these systems could bankrupt the companies involved if they went wrong either before implementation or once in service, they also drove profits significantly higher when successful. I understand fully the complexities of trying to get everyone to work towards the end goal in the most organised manner, it takes hard work and the willingness to achieve.
When you have parties involved that want to scupper progress, the task becomes much more difficult, you then have to find a way to deal with that to bring the project forward to a satisfactory conclusion.
I don't disagree with your sentiments; before I founded my own company in the UK and aligned it with other members of my Family's businesses, I used to Chair Meetings involving Government representatives and Senior figures from large companies involved in multi-million £ projects. From what I have seen of progress in the documents produced by the EU so far, they very strongly suggest that not much has been achieved and we are still in the pre-amble stage dealing with the less complex issues. When you have parties involved that want to scupper progress, the task becomes much more difficult, you then have to find a way to deal with that to bring the project forward to a satisfactory conclusion.
I would have expected to be touching on larger issues by now.
If there is going to be a more realistic approach after pressure from the UK digging their heals in, that will be a good thing long term. The politics of this will be in letting the EU show they have won a concession large enough to move on from this rather absurd first position.
This is where having an idiot like Junker in a high profile role is so damaging for the EU, they need a high quality politician, not a pisshead with an agenda that ignores reality.
fblm said:
I disagree. Cameron held the referendum; he should have prepared for either outcome. Remain were never so far ahead that a leave vote was out of the question so it would have been simple good governance to thoroughly prepare for both outcomes, regardless of his intention to quit if he lost. Deliberately failing to prepare for a predictable, major shock of high probability was idiotic and reckless. Perhaps if Cameron had approached the vote with a little more integrity and presented the facts of EU membership honestly, rather than through the obvious, hyperbolic spin of project fear, then he would not have given Leave so many open goals or set the level of the debate so low.
I was being as generous as I could manage, but I agree, Cameron was a reckless idiot. What followed is worse & far from over.jsf said:
There is a major problem here where the EU has painted itself into a corner by insisting on agreeing the exit bill before moving on, why they thought the UK would agree to this is showing their in built culture that they are the boss. This is the issue that could lead to no deal.
If there is going to be a more realistic approach after pressure from the UK digging their heals in, that will be a good thing long term. The politics of this will be in letting the EU show they have won a concession large enough to move on from this rather absurd first position.
This is where having an idiot like Junker in a high profile role is so damaging for the EU, they need a high quality politician, not a pisshead with an agenda that ignores reality.
The whole of that hinges on the idea that the EU need us more than we need them. It all tumbles from that single position. Then ends on a rather low ad hom, but never mind that. Everything we've seen to date from the 27 taking all of 15 minutes to agree Barnier's mandate to Davis' rolling over for a tummy tickle on concurrent talks on day ONE!! of negotiations gives lie to that. I'm sorry to see such an entrenched head in the sand view being offered over & over without even a cursory glance at events.If there is going to be a more realistic approach after pressure from the UK digging their heals in, that will be a good thing long term. The politics of this will be in letting the EU show they have won a concession large enough to move on from this rather absurd first position.
This is where having an idiot like Junker in a high profile role is so damaging for the EU, they need a high quality politician, not a pisshead with an agenda that ignores reality.
jsf said:
There is a major problem here where the EU has painted itself into a corner by insisting on agreeing the exit bill before moving on, why they thought the UK would agree to this is showing their in built culture that they are the boss. This is the issue that could lead to no deal.
Why? Is there a problem with agreeing what already-committed ongoing expenditure needs to be paid for post-exit? Surely it's actually really straightforward, and doesn't actually impinge on the terms of a deal?So why on earth WOULDN'T the UK negotiators be happy to get it out of the way first...? Unless, of course, they were planning on being a t
t and either refusing to agree or then trying to twist it based on other things... Or is it simply a childish "We want to say how this works"?Eddie Strohacker said:
The whole of that hinges on the idea that the EU need us more than we need them. It all tumbles from that single position. Then ends on a rather low ad hom, but never mind that. Everything we've seen to date from the 27 taking all of 15 minutes to agree Barnier's mandate to Davis' rolling over for a tummy tickle on concurrent talks on day ONE!! of negotiations gives lie to that. I'm sorry to see such an entrenched head in the sand view being offered over & over without even a cursory glance at events.
You see, this is where I think Davis got his tactics right. You say he rolled over on day one, what he actually did was wait for the detail, then has started to tear that detail to pieces. It's much smarter and is doing precisely what he said he would do, but in a way that is far more constructive than arguing over a principle.jsf said:
There is a major problem here where the EU has painted itself into a corner by insisting on agreeing the exit bill before moving on, why they thought the UK would agree to this is showing their in built culture that they are the boss. This is the issue that could lead to no deal.
If there is going to be a more realistic approach after pressure from the UK digging their heals in, that will be a good thing long term. The politics of this will be in letting the EU show they have won a concession large enough to move on from this rather absurd first position.
This is where having an idiot like Junker in a high profile role is so damaging for the EU, they need a high quality politician, not a pisshead with an agenda that ignores reality.
It's a tough position from both sides and Citizen's of both EU and the UK will see matters differently. I wholly understand the conclusions you have drawn and your stance regarding the EU's approach but equally, the EU are not the one's who initiated this process and have to protect their position - or be seen to - for their 27. Therefore ratifying the exit bill as a priority from their point of view is understandable too, in my opinion. If there is going to be a more realistic approach after pressure from the UK digging their heals in, that will be a good thing long term. The politics of this will be in letting the EU show they have won a concession large enough to move on from this rather absurd first position.
This is where having an idiot like Junker in a high profile role is so damaging for the EU, they need a high quality politician, not a pisshead with an agenda that ignores reality.
Both sides rhetoric was quite clear before Article 50 was even invoked; both were going to play hard-ball to get what they wanted in a tough series of negotiations.
So what we have, is a well-prepared EU storming in, slamming their documents on the table, delivering their demands before negotiations can even begin and then folding their arms and giving Davy and his Team the steely stare.
On the UK side we have a Team desperately playing catch-up in terms of getting their act together and hoping they can wing it for bit while they do and see how far they get while learning what it is the EU want.
Eventually the EU will soften once it can demonstrate that it has made its point and has won some concessions, as you have alluded to, and Team UK has caught up and actually have a workable Plan.
Then we will all see some decent progress and finally learn what everyone is going to get from Brexit.
TooMany2cvs said:
jsf said:
There is a major problem here where the EU has painted itself into a corner by insisting on agreeing the exit bill before moving on, why they thought the UK would agree to this is showing their in built culture that they are the boss. This is the issue that could lead to no deal.
Why? Is there a problem with agreeing what already-committed ongoing expenditure needs to be paid for post-exit? Surely it's actually really straightforward, and doesn't actually impinge on the terms of a deal?So why on earth WOULDN'T the UK negotiators be happy to get it out of the way first...? Unless, of course, they were planning on being a t
t and either refusing to agree or then trying to twist it based on other things... Or is it simply a childish "We want to say how this works"?The trade side of things should be the easiest part to agree on, because we don't have the issues of traditional trade agreements with regards to equivalence, everything you need, if the will is there to come to a deal, is already in place.
To choose the most contentious issue first shows how low down the order of priorities the EU consider the interests of EU business or people compared to funding their project. That approach is counter productive for everyone, especially when the whole deal has to be agreed or nothing is agreed anyway.
jsf said:
There is a major problem here where the EU has painted itself into a corner by insisting on agreeing the exit bill before moving on, why they thought the UK would agree to this is showing their in built culture that they are the boss. This is the issue that could lead to no deal.
The EU has hardly "painted itself into a corner". Setting an agenda for the negotiations was extremely canny; more so getting the UK to agree to this agenda at the first round of negotiation talks. Now it is the UK that is trying to row back from that agreement. The EU has the upper hand here. Its weakness, if there is one, is that it seems unwilling to descend to details that will justify its bill. That's what's running the clock down at the moment. I'm not at all sure that the EU sees that as a problem for it though, whereas it does see it as a problem for the UK.
jsf said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
The whole of that hinges on the idea that the EU need us more than we need them. It all tumbles from that single position. Then ends on a rather low ad hom, but never mind that. Everything we've seen to date from the 27 taking all of 15 minutes to agree Barnier's mandate to Davis' rolling over for a tummy tickle on concurrent talks on day ONE!! of negotiations gives lie to that. I'm sorry to see such an entrenched head in the sand view being offered over & over without even a cursory glance at events.
You see, this is where I think Davis got his tactics right. You say he rolled over on day one, what he actually did was wait for the detail, then has started to tear that detail to pieces. It's much smarter and is doing precisely what he said he would do, but in a way that is far more constructive than arguing over a principle.It seems the EU are astonished and bemused by such an approach, and it would seem so are some UK taxpayers which given they will be picking up the bill is quite bizarre!
jsf said:
Because it's less damaging to business both in the UK and EU (and world) to get on with the trade side of things as early as possible.
The trade side of things should be the easiest part to agree on, because we don't have the issues of traditional trade agreements with regards to equivalence, everything you need, if the will is there to come to a deal, is already in place.
To choose the most contentious issue first shows how low down the order of priorities the EU consider the interests of EU business or people compared to funding their project. That approach is counter productive for everyone, especially when the whole deal has to be agreed or nothing is agreed anyway.
You can't have it both ways! It's either trade as a priority or it's the divorce bill. Need I remind you of the 'Row of the summer'? Because it seems I do.The trade side of things should be the easiest part to agree on, because we don't have the issues of traditional trade agreements with regards to equivalence, everything you need, if the will is there to come to a deal, is already in place.
To choose the most contentious issue first shows how low down the order of priorities the EU consider the interests of EU business or people compared to funding their project. That approach is counter productive for everyone, especially when the whole deal has to be agreed or nothing is agreed anyway.
The truth is Davis isn't some super smart rapier negotiator, there are repeated indications, of which that is a very good one that he doesn't have the strongest command of his brief. He capitulated on day one because there's only so many fights a weakened minority government can pick & he had little choice but to accept Barnier's insistence. Divorce first, trade second & you've got May's hubris to thank for that.
Eddie Strohacker said:
jsf said:
Because it's less damaging to business both in the UK and EU (and world) to get on with the trade side of things as early as possible.
The trade side of things should be the easiest part to agree on, because we don't have the issues of traditional trade agreements with regards to equivalence, everything you need, if the will is there to come to a deal, is already in place.
To choose the most contentious issue first shows how low down the order of priorities the EU consider the interests of EU business or people compared to funding their project. That approach is counter productive for everyone, especially when the whole deal has to be agreed or nothing is agreed anyway.
You can't have it both ways! It's either trade as a priority or it's the divorce bill. Need I remind you of the 'Row of the summer'? Because it seems I do.The trade side of things should be the easiest part to agree on, because we don't have the issues of traditional trade agreements with regards to equivalence, everything you need, if the will is there to come to a deal, is already in place.
To choose the most contentious issue first shows how low down the order of priorities the EU consider the interests of EU business or people compared to funding their project. That approach is counter productive for everyone, especially when the whole deal has to be agreed or nothing is agreed anyway.
The truth is Davis isn't some super smart rapier negotiator, there are repeated indications, of which that is a very good one that he doesn't have the strongest command of his brief. He capitulated on day one because there's only so many fights a weakened minority government can pick & he had little choice but to accept Barnier's insistence. Divorce first, trade second & you've got May's hubris to thank for that.
What did you expect it would be? Two blokes stood at a podium shouting at each other over the agenda? That was never going to happen, and thankfully it panned out as you would expect it to.
Davis doesn't need to be a super smart negotiator, neither does Barnier, all they need to do is let the civil servants work through the process and give their guidance where required on political positions. It's why for the majority of the time Barnier and Davis aren't there.
Eddie Strohacker said:
No, I expected it to conclude in concurrent trade & divorce talks. That was literally what it was about! I mean spinning is one thing but you're trying to rewrite history!
That's what most people expected to happen, but we got the two tier structure of agree the first stage (bill, citizens rights, Irish border) before we move on.Ignoring the money and citizen rights for a second, you cant agree what will happen in Ireland without knowing what the customs arrangements will be, to know that you have to get onto trade and customs, which the EU wont do.
jsf said:
Because it's less damaging to business both in the UK and EU (and world) to get on with the trade side of things as early as possible.
The trade side of things should be the easiest part to agree on, because we don't have the issues of traditional trade agreements with regards to equivalence, everything you need, if the will is there to come to a deal, is already in place.
To choose the most contentious issue first shows how low down the order of priorities the EU consider the interests of EU business or people compared to funding their project. That approach is counter productive for everyone, especially when the whole deal has to be agreed or nothing is agreed anyway.
You want to leave the EU and you are bThe trade side of things should be the easiest part to agree on, because we don't have the issues of traditional trade agreements with regards to equivalence, everything you need, if the will is there to come to a deal, is already in place.
To choose the most contentious issue first shows how low down the order of priorities the EU consider the interests of EU business or people compared to funding their project. That approach is counter productive for everyone, especially when the whole deal has to be agreed or nothing is agreed anyway.
hing because they won't discuss it on our terms. Is that right?PurpleMoonlight said:
You want to leave the EU and you are bhing because they won't discuss it on our terms. Is that right?
bhing because they won't discuss it on our terms. Is that right?hing might be a bit strong, but he's definitely peeing in your pocket & telling you it's raining.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNcyC2PfqPE
The row of the summer - about halfway through.
PurpleMoonlight said:
jsf said:
That's what most people expected to happen, but we got the two tier structure of agree the first stage (bill, citizens rights, Irish border) before we move on.
Hang on. You voted to leave without knowing the process of doing so.I make decisions every day without knowing the exact outcomes that leads to, we all do that, you included.
I get up every morning not knowing if I will be alive by the end of the day, we all do that too.
If you have any sense, you make a decision based on the pro's and cons of the possibilities. My judgement may be different to yours, that's how the world works.
PurpleMoonlight said:
You want to leave the EU and you are bhing because they won't discuss it on our terms. Is that right?
No, I am not bhing because they won't discuss it on our terms. Is that right?hing, its playing out as I expected. I expected the EU would grandstand, that's what they do.I would like to see that stage over, so both sides can get on with working towards an outcome that works for everyone and removes the fears that some people may have right now.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff