Another Brexit Casualty

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-10 4:26 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-10 3:23 PM

Tracker - 2017-10-10 2:52 PMFor weeks we had to endure Brian complaining about how inadequate democracy was, basically because the Brexit vote did not go the way he wanted?Now it seems he is the great defender of the UK electoral democratic system?Which is it to be Brian?

Now Rich, did I say that? Really? You'll have to show me where. So yes, I support democracy, and especially the UK version of it, warts and all. What I don't support is government's attempt at hiving off responsibility for taking the most onerous and complex decision the UK has had to make since 1939, onto a population that had little chance of basing their decision on adequate facts. That is what I consider undemocratic.

But that is the core of the matter......there 'are no facts'....there will be no facts until the negotiation process is complete because until such is achieved any comment or claim is purely conjecture.  So what should have been done?.....have the leaving negotiations take place, determine the terms and conditions and 'then' have a vote?  Somehow I don't think the EU would play ball with that scenario.

Well, by that measure, there will be no facts after the negotiations have finished either! :-D But, strictly, of course, you are right.But what there could be (and IMO should have been) is a serious analysis of the probable economic, commercial, legal, and social, consequences of leaving, carried out by professionals in the relevant fields, put up openly for scrutiny, with moderated challenges to their perceived accuracy from suitably qualified dissenters. From that process, a more or less settled agreement on the pros and cons, could have been (and could be) reached. It should remain open for more information to be added as available.Something of the kind will be required after the negotiations reach a sufficiently advanced stage. I'm convinced a second referendum will be required at that stage, because I think there will be an irresistible demand for a vote on the outcome. If we aren't to repeat the last debacle, with unsubstantiated rubbish being spouted on all sides, some informed forum will be essential.I agree that the EU has gone too far towards federation, though I suspect I'd tolerate rather more of what you see as unwarranted interference than you would! :-DThe federalists should be left free to follow a federal path if the wish, just as they were free to adopt the Euro or not. I'd be very surprised if many countries would produce a popular vote for anything more than a very loose federation, if even that. People don't differ that much in their attitudes across the EU, and most have a quite strong sense of their national identities. Look at those who, like the Scots, the Welsh, the Basques, and the Catalans, who want greater autonomy. Will they vote to disappear into a homogenised European superstate?I just think this is the last shout of the European old guard, who are still worshiping at the altar of Schuman, Monnet, Adenauer, Churchill - et al, whose original ideas of a United States of Europe have become outmoded. The pendulum swings, then it comes back. I think the post-war federal pendulum has reached the end of its arc, and is about to swing back.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-10 6:10 PM

RogerC - 2017-10-10 4:11 PM...................1 Me claiming to be the great democrat and you the anti democrat?  Yet another case of inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up.  I never claimed to be 'great' anything.2 Equally I recall only commenting on your apparent inability to accept, without twist, spin and sowing confusion, the absolute undisputed result of the referendum.  I don't recall calling you anti democratic. ..............

1 Well, see your 2 above. Not for the first time, you allege "twist, spin, and sowing confusion" (in other words dishonesty) on my part. You say this relates to my "apparent inability to accept................. the absolute undisputed result of the referendum". I do not, and to the best of my recollection, never have, dispute the result of the referendum. It would, after all, be rather foolish to deny that 17,410,742 people voted, to leave while 16,141,241 voted to remain. It is a matter of record. I dispute many things about the referendum, but not its result. In respect of it being "another case of inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up": (see your 2 above) physician, heal thyself! :-DBack to 1: I note your objection to my bit of poetic licence over our respective stances regarding democracy. OK, objection noted, but at least it was not an allegation of dishonesty, such as you have so often, in various ways, aimed at me. If you will hand it out, you must expect, eventually, to get some back! :-D

Accuse you of dishonesty?  Most sincerely......never Brian. 

Spin definition in politics:

In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion in favour or against some organization or public figure.

Obfuscation:

.....the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.

Twist/distort and all of the above:

Any political analyst will tell you that the use of language in politics is just as, if not more important than, the actual viewpoints that make up a candidate. Orwellian language, which is generally defined as political rhetoric or oxymoronic language created to deceive, runs rampant in the world of politics.

So yes I certainly admit to feeling you are guilty of the above.....but dishonesty?  Never.

Lastly, I don't see the relevance of your comment and linking to '2 above'.

 

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-10 6:58 PM Well, by that measure, there will be no facts after the negotiations have finished either! :-D But, strictly, of course, you are right.But what there could be (and IMO should have been) is a serious analysis of the probable economic, commercial, legal, and social, consequences of leaving, carried out by professionals in the relevant fields, put up openly for scrutiny, with moderated challenges to their perceived accuracy from suitably qualified dissenters. From that process, a more or less settled agreement on the pros and cons, could have been (and could be) reached. It should remain open for more information to be added as available.Something of the kind will be required after the negotiations reach a sufficiently advanced stage. I'm convinced a second referendum will be required at that stage, because I think there will be an irresistible demand for a vote on the outcome.  

How can one have a serious analysis of 'probable' outcomes when one has not the slightest idea of what the other side is going to concede or stand firm on?  One could analyse until the cows come home but surely that analysis would not be based on anything other than how the 'experts' think the other side might react.  In essence no one can predict how the EU negotiators will respond until the questions are asked and the scenarios are put forward.

In addition had there been an open forum with the press delivering chapter and verse on the deliberations, providing information to Joe Public....and the EU with regard to just what the UK government/people was/is looking for to either remain or alternatively cause it to be desirous of leaving then surely that is akin to showing ones hand at poker.  Not a game winning tactic.

Your optimism is shining through again Brian with regard to the 'Old Guard' and the pendulum arc.  Time might tell in the very long run but I don't have the luxury of waiting  that long.  I prefer not to be sucked into an EU superstate in my lifetime and can only act accordingly.  As other remain idealists have said 'we might be out now but the younger generation will take us back in'.  So be it....but I will be long gone by the time that happens.....I hope.

Lastly have you read the latest from Juncker piling pressure on non Euro currency countries to adopt by 2019?

Poland and Hungary are openly and totally against it and other countries are saying they 'might'....only might mind you if their adoption of the Euro is beneficial to them.  It appears there are more member states unhappy about the pressure than there are those who will 'bend' under it.  He has created an atmosphere of political unrest in his drive towards his idea of how the EU should be.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-10-09 8:28 PM

 Using your desired model we could have had President Blair.................heaven help us.

Yes but, as Brian points out, only if we voted for him, and a few years later we would have another vote so could get rid of him.

We also wouldn't be stuck with Blair's extended family and hangers on, plus all Blair's descendants with their extended families and hangers on forced on to their subjects for evermore....

 

:-(More Importantly - using your desired model - our children could get a future Head of State like Kim Jong Un forced on to them - and no way to get rid of him :-(

 

Wheras, if the monarchy is as popular as you claim, this is our best ever opportunity to persuade them to let us have a vote on it. For the sake of future generations. :-D

Lets do something good for them. Lets leave them something better than a pile of debts, all the public assets sold off, and a housing crisis. :-(

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-10-10 9:11 PM

when one has not the slightest idea of what the other side is going to concede or stand firm on?

Could you put this 'Rule Brittania' crap aside for the moment and look at the facts to see which is in the strongest negotiating position.

One heavily indebted country dependent on 'just in time' unrestriced deliveries from Europe to keep its main exporters going. (and sell its exports)

Or the 27 other countries with a mind to show that leaving their club doesn't pay?

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-10-11 7:55 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-10 9:11 PMwhen one has not the slightest idea of what the other side is going to concede or stand firm on?

Could you put this 'Rule Brittania' crap aside for the moment and look at the facts to see which is in the strongest negotiating position.One heavily indebted country dependent on 'just in time' unrestriced deliveries from Europe to keep its main exporters going. (and sell its exports) Or the 27 other countries with a mind to show that leaving their club doesn't pay?

Says it all really.....your intense dislike of the Monarchy, now accusing me of posting 'Rule Britannia crap' and clearly you are firmly in the remain camp.  It appears, when one looks at your record of things you like to rail against viv a vis the UK, that there is little if anything you like about it.  One is minded to ask why you bother staying here at all?

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-10-11 8:27 AM

John52 - 2017-10-11 7:55 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-10 9:11 PMwhen one has not the slightest idea of what the other side is going to concede or stand firm on?

Could you put this 'Rule Brittania' crap aside for the moment and look at the facts to see which is in the strongest negotiating position.One heavily indebted country dependent on 'just in time' unrestriced deliveries from Europe to keep its main exporters going. (and sell its exports) Or the 27 other countries with a mind to show that leaving their club doesn't pay?

Says it all really.....your intense dislike of the Monarchy, now accusing me of posting 'Rule Britannia crap' and clearly you are firmly in the remain camp.  It appears, when one looks at your record of things you like to rail against viv a vis the UK, that there is little if anything you like about it.  One is minded to ask why you bother staying here at all?

All I am saying is we should have a vote on it (the Monarchy.)I don't want to deny you your vote.So why do you want to deny me mine?

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-10-11 8:45 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-11 8:27 AM

John52 - 2017-10-11 7:55 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-10 9:11 PMwhen one has not the slightest idea of what the other side is going to concede or stand firm on?

Could you put this 'Rule Brittania' crap aside for the moment and look at the facts to see which is in the strongest negotiating position.One heavily indebted country dependent on 'just in time' unrestriced deliveries from Europe to keep its main exporters going. (and sell its exports) Or the 27 other countries with a mind to show that leaving their club doesn't pay?

Says it all really.....your intense dislike of the Monarchy, now accusing me of posting 'Rule Britannia crap' and clearly you are firmly in the remain camp.  It appears, when one looks at your record of things you like to rail against viv a vis the UK, that there is little if anything you like about it.  One is minded to ask why you bother staying here at all?

All I am saying is we should have a vote on it (the Monarchy.)I don't want to deny you your vote.So why do you want to deny me mine?

Unfortunately that is not 'all' you are saying based on your rantings of previous/past posts against the Monarchy/military....in fact the establishment in general.  To be honest it has gone beyond boring and got to the point where I find your 'off topic' rants to be a strong disincentive to participating.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-10-11 8:59 AM

John52 - 2017-10-11 8:45 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-11 8:27 AM

John52 - 2017-10-11 7:55 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-10 9:11 PMwhen one has not the slightest idea of what the other side is going to concede or stand firm on?

Could you put this 'Rule Brittania' crap aside for the moment and look at the facts to see which is in the strongest negotiating position.One heavily indebted country dependent on 'just in time' unrestriced deliveries from Europe to keep its main exporters going. (and sell its exports) Or the 27 other countries with a mind to show that leaving their club doesn't pay?

Says it all really.....your intense dislike of the Monarchy, now accusing me of posting 'Rule Britannia crap' and clearly you are firmly in the remain camp.  It appears, when one looks at your record of things you like to rail against viv a vis the UK, that there is little if anything you like about it.  One is minded to ask why you bother staying here at all?

All I am saying is we should have a vote on it (the Monarchy.)I don't want to deny you your vote.So why do you want to deny me mine?

Unfortunately that is not 'all' you are saying based on your rantings of previous/past posts against the Monarchy/military....in fact the establishment in general.  To be honest it has gone beyond boring and got to the point where I find your 'off topic' rants to be a strong disincentive to participating.

I don't want to deny you your vote.So why do you want to deny me mine?Question too difficult was it?

[Violet1956]

John don’t you think it is likely that we could have a say about whether the Monarchy should retain its present status and privileges should any future Monarch step over the line? There remains a possibility that you and others who don’t like the current set up could lobby the government for a referendum on that. I see it as a potential vote winner for any party if Prince Charles gets to succeed to the throne and continues to be too big for his boots. The Royal Family’s publicity machine still haven’t succeeded in making him popular. I don’t find it remotely likely that even he, with all his likely delusions about how wonderful he would be as King, would call upon the armed forces to defend his position if an elected government put it to the vote.

 

I believe the Monarchy in the UK only exists in its present form for as long as the majority of HM subjects allow it to and in that sense it is not undemocratic for it to be retained pro tem.

 

Veronica

[John52]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-11 9:42 AM

 

I believe the Monarchy in the UK only exists in its present form for as long as the majority of HM subjects allow it to and in that sense it is not undemocratic for it to be retained pro tem.

 

Veronica

 

The problem with waiting until we have another Henry VIII / Kim Jong Un is that he will use his armed forces against his subjects to deny them an election..

Wheras, if the current encumbents are as popular as RogerC claims, the best time to persuade them to submit to elections is now.

So future generations will at least have one good thing to thank us for..

 

[antony1969]

John52 - 2017-10-11 1:16 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-11 9:42 AM

 

I believe the Monarchy in the UK only exists in its present form for as long as the majority of HM subjects allow it to and in that sense it is not undemocratic for it to be retained pro tem.

 

Veronica

 

The problem with waiting until we have another Henry VIII / Kim Jong Un is that he will use his armed forces against his subjects to deny them an election..

Wheras, if the current encumbents are as popular as RogerC claims, the best time to persuade them to submit to elections is now.

So future generations will at least have one good thing to thank us for..

 

Where is the appetite amongst the public for this election ? ... I have to say I don't see it anywhere unless its like the media blackout of Saturdays 50000 strong march in London against Islamic extremism and gets totally ignored by MSM ... Be interesting to see something

[Violet1956]

John52 - 2017-10-11 1:16 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-11 9:42 AM

 

I believe the Monarchy in the UK only exists in its present form for as long as the majority of HM subjects allow it to and in that sense it is not undemocratic for it to be retained pro tem.

 

Veronica

 

The problem with waiting until we have another Henry VIII / Kim Jong Un is that he will use his armed forces against his subjects to deny them an election..

Wheras, if the current encumbents are as popular as RogerC claims, the best time to persuade them to submit to elections is now.

So future generations will at least have one good thing to thank us for..

 

Major changes to the British Constitution would require new statutory provision so in theory anything that a Monarch didn’t like could result in the withholding of Royal Assent. I just don’t see that happening here at all in the modern era or that a Monarch would call upon the armed forces to quell any public dissent that would inevitably follow. To try to negate parliamentary authority or refuse to accept the advice of Ministers would bring about their downfall and more punitive sanctions in terms of paying their own way etc. Only a foolish Monarch would attempt it. …

 

Oops - I see the flaw in my argument we have a fool in waiting.

 

But there’s also a flaw in yours John. I don’t see republicans being able to garner sufficient support for the abolition of the Monarchy at present- why have a vote on something we know the outcome of already? I mean look at all those lovely frocks the Duchess of Cambridge wears and those cute kids plus the one on the way – it’s unthinkable!

;-)

[Tracker]

Whatever your thoughts on Prince Charles, he is not a fool.

He may have inherited his father's diplomacy skills but maybe given the polital economies of truth used by all parties that is no bad thing?

One thing is for sure, his Kingship would be very different from his mother's Queenship if only because he is from a different era with a different background.

Give the man a chance.

[Violet1956]

Tracker - 2017-10-11 2:53 PM

 

Whatever your thoughts on Prince Charles, he is not a fool.

He may have inherited his father's diplomacy skills but maybe given the polital economies of truth used by all parties that is no bad thing?

One thing is for sure, his Kingship would be very different from his mother's Queenship if only because he is from a different era with a different background.

Give the man a chance.

 

I can't forgive him for the pastiche forms of architecture he is so fond of and his meddling in the form of the Black Spider memos. A lower second from Cambridge after his privileged education was nowt to write home about either.

 

Sorry for adding to the diversion on this thread mind.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-10 8:48 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-10 6:10 PM

RogerC - 2017-10-10 4:11 PM...................1 Me claiming to be the great democrat and you the anti democrat?  Yet another case of inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up.  I never claimed to be 'great' anything.2 Equally I recall only commenting on your apparent inability to accept, without twist, spin and sowing confusion, the absolute undisputed result of the referendum.  I don't recall calling you anti democratic. ..............

1 Well, see your 2 above. Not for the first time, you allege "twist, spin, and sowing confusion" (in other words dishonesty) on my part. You say this relates to my "apparent inability to accept................. the absolute undisputed result of the referendum". I do not, and to the best of my recollection, never have, dispute the result of the referendum. It would, after all, be rather foolish to deny that 17,410,742 people voted, to leave while 16,141,241 voted to remain. It is a matter of record. I dispute many things about the referendum, but not its result. In respect of it being "another case of inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up": (see your 2 above) physician, heal thyself! :-DBack to 1: I note your objection to my bit of poetic licence over our respective stances regarding democracy. OK, objection noted, but at least it was not an allegation of dishonesty, such as you have so often, in various ways, aimed at me. If you will hand it out, you must expect, eventually, to get some back! :-D

Accuse you of dishonesty?  Most sincerely......never Brian. 

Spin definition in politics:

In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion in favour or against some organization or public figure.

Obfuscation:

.....the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.

Twist/distort and all of the above:

Any political analyst will tell you that the use of language in politics is just as, if not more important than, the actual viewpoints that make up a candidate. Orwellian language, which is generally defined as political rhetoric or oxymoronic language created to deceive, runs rampant in the world of politics.

So yes I certainly admit to feeling you are guilty of the above.....but dishonesty?  Never.

Lastly, I don't see the relevance of your comment and linking to '2 above'.

 

Accepted. However, to me, spin, obfuscation and twist are all designed to conceal truth, and that which seeks to conceal truth is by definition dishonest. Since you ask, the reference to your 2 above was to your statement that I was "inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up", when you seem to me to be doing exactly that in stating that I was unable "to accept, without twist, spin and sowing confusion, the absolute undisputed result of the referendum". As I said above, I do not argue with the result: it would be foolish to do so in the face of the published result. It is fact. So, I accept the result, but I do not agree with it, and argue on that basis.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-11 3:49 PM

RogerC - 2017-10-10 8:48 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-10 6:10 PM

RogerC - 2017-10-10 4:11 PM...................1 Me claiming to be the great democrat and you the anti democrat?  Yet another case of inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up.  I never claimed to be 'great' anything.2 Equally I recall only commenting on your apparent inability to accept, without twist, spin and sowing confusion, the absolute undisputed result of the referendum.  I don't recall calling you anti democratic. ..............

1 Well, see your 2 above. Not for the first time, you allege "twist, spin, and sowing confusion" (in other words dishonesty) on my part. You say this relates to my "apparent inability to accept................. the absolute undisputed result of the referendum". I do not, and to the best of my recollection, never have, dispute the result of the referendum. It would, after all, be rather foolish to deny that 17,410,742 people voted, to leave while 16,141,241 voted to remain. It is a matter of record. I dispute many things about the referendum, but not its result. In respect of it being "another case of inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up": (see your 2 above) physician, heal thyself! :-DBack to 1: I note your objection to my bit of poetic licence over our respective stances regarding democracy. OK, objection noted, but at least it was not an allegation of dishonesty, such as you have so often, in various ways, aimed at me. If you will hand it out, you must expect, eventually, to get some back! :-D

Accuse you of dishonesty?  Most sincerely......never Brian. 

Spin definition in politics:

In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion in favour or against some organization or public figure.

Obfuscation:

.....the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.

Twist/distort and all of the above:

Any political analyst will tell you that the use of language in politics is just as, if not more important than, the actual viewpoints that make up a candidate. Orwellian language, which is generally defined as political rhetoric or oxymoronic language created to deceive, runs rampant in the world of politics.

So yes I certainly admit to feeling you are guilty of the above.....but dishonesty?  Never.

Lastly, I don't see the relevance of your comment and linking to '2 above'.

 

Accepted. However, to me, spin, obfuscation and twist are all designed to conceal truth, and that which seeks to conceal truth is by definition dishonest. Since you ask, the reference to your 2 above was to your statement that I was "inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up", when you seem to me to be doing exactly that in stating that I was unable "to accept, without twist, spin and sowing confusion, the absolute undisputed result of the referendum". As I said above, I do not argue with the result: it would be foolish to do so in the face of the published result. It is fact. So, I accept the result, but I do not agree with it, and argue on that basis.

We will have to agree to disagree.....the definitions I provided clearly do not attribute dishonesty to any of the 'labels' quoted.  I prefer to accept that the terms apply to the use of language to provide a smokescreen whilst adroitly avoiding the core of the matter, of inserting additional information that has such a tenuous applicability as to be irrelevant, to twist and turn meanings to fit ones own agenda. Basically playing 'wordsmith' games.....which is quite an art if it is to be successful in it's application which on occasion you are.

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-10 9:11 PM........................How can one have a serious analysis of 'probable' outcomes when one has not the slightest idea of what the other side is going to concede or stand firm on?  One could analyse until the cows come home but surely that analysis would not be based on anything other than how the 'experts' think the other side might react.  In essence no one can predict how the EU negotiators will respond until the questions are asked and the scenarios are put forward.......................................

Just on this, in the hope it will answer some of the other points raised.

 

Relatively simply, by using Monte Carlo or similar methods to compute the variables, and arrive at the most probable outcomes. For example, to analyse the potential outcomes of leaving the customs union and relying upon WTO tariffs instead. Similarly with the single market, and so on through the various aspects of leaving our present relationship with the EU.

 

These methods don't provide finite answers, but a range of possible outcomes from which judgements can be made as to the best course to adopt. This isn't concerned with the reactions of others, only with evaluation of the "what if" issues, and the desirability of following various courses. It is a way to extrapolate logically from the present into the future when facing multi-faceted challenges. So, quite common in complex engineering and financial decision making, as an integral part of risk analysis. One doesn't need to parade the inputs, because what one is looking for is the "go - no go", outputs.

 

The experts come into play in selecting the variables, determining the risk factors, and evaluating the results. This is exactly what government demands should be done before any major publicly financed project is adopted. It is also what major developers do before embarking on large, risky, projects, because it is what their financiers demand. So, given that leaving the EU represents one of the most risky, multi-faceted, ventures the UK has embarked upon since WW2, wouldn't you expect the government to have commissioned something similar, and publish the results, allowing time for challenges to be brought and resolved, before deciding to hold a referendum?

 

I've been involved with project teams that have used these methods on far simpler problems than leaving the EU, so I'm incredulous that no such evaluation seems even to have been attempted before firing the starting pistol. The process has been driven by political will alone, without any attempt at evaluation of its pros and cons. Had any project team commenced work on a major public project in such a casual and ill-prepared basis, those same politicians who decided to run the referendum would have howled with rage at their stupidity.

[RogerC]

I appreciate that there are committees and think tanks and offices which play out 'what if' scenarios which, when carried out behind closed doors in order to try and reach a consensus on the outcome of whatever issue is under the microscope, is an exercise which has the potential to 'arm' the negotiators.  I don't consider that sort of 'what if', as there will inevitably be a great number of 'what if's', to be something that would be of value if placed in the public domain.  In fact I feel it would be the complete opposite......quite damaging to our negotiations.

However if those results were published for Joe Public to digest before partaking of the democratic process in a referendum then the referendum asks what? ....if this, that or the other happens do you want to leave or stay in the EU?

There are too many variables and too many unknowns because no one knows what the EU negotiators are going to be directed to offer, decline or compromise on.  All of this means that regardless of whatever 'war games' might have been played out none of the resulting conclusions would mean a jot.............which brings us back to the core of the matter.  No one knew pre referendum, no one knows now and no one will know until the negotiations are over.

[Tracker]

Some of us guessed that given the EU attitude towards any form of dissent, their treatment of non compliant Euro countries, and their attitude to DC when he tried to negotiate different terms, that they would not be prepared to negotiate with the UK. I can't say we were wrong?

 

Fair enough, its their club, we can take it or leave membership, so lets leave it, on our terms not theirs. We should of course fulfill all remaining contractual obligations to the EU as should the EU to the UK but we have another 17 months to organise trade deals with the rest of the world which should be long enough, except for the USA and China which only wants deals biased their way.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-11 4:39 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-10-10 9:11 PM........................How can one have a serious analysis of 'probable' outcomes when one has not the slightest idea of what the other side is going to concede or stand firm on?  One could analyse until the cows come home but surely that analysis would not be based on anything other than how the 'experts' think the other side might react.  In essence no one can predict how the EU negotiators will respond until the questions are asked and the scenarios are put forward.......................................

Just on this, in the hope it will answer some of the other points raised.

 

Relatively simply, by using Monte Carlo or similar methods to compute the variables, and arrive at the most probable outcomes. For example, to analyse the potential outcomes of leaving the customs union and relying upon WTO tariffs instead. Similarly with the single market, and so on through the various aspects of leaving our present relationship with the EU.

 

These methods don't provide finite answers, but a range of possible outcomes from which judgements can be made as to the best course to adopt. This isn't concerned with the reactions of others, only with evaluation of the "what if" issues, and the desirability of following various courses. It is a way to extrapolate logically from the present into the future when facing multi-faceted challenges. So, quite common in complex engineering and financial decision making, as an integral part of risk analysis. One doesn't need to parade the inputs, because what one is looking for is the "go - no go", outputs.

 

The experts come into play in selecting the variables, determining the risk factors, and evaluating the results. This is exactly what government demands should be done before any major publicly financed project is adopted. It is also what major developers do before embarking on large, risky, projects, because it is what their financiers demand. So, given that leaving the EU represents one of the most risky, multi-faceted, ventures the UK has embarked upon since WW2, wouldn't you expect the government to have commissioned something similar, and publish the results, allowing time for challenges to be brought and resolved, before deciding to hold a referendum?

 

I've been involved with project teams that have used these methods on far simpler problems than leaving the EU, so I'm incredulous that no such evaluation seems even to have been attempted before firing the starting pistol. The process has been driven by political will alone, without any attempt at evaluation of its pros and cons. Had any project team commenced work on a major public project in such a casual and ill-prepared basis, those same politicians who decided to run the referendum would have howled with rage at their stupidity.

 

I thought we had all the determining of risk factors/evaluating results from the experts such as Osbourne and Carney and business big hitters like Branson and showbiz legends like Geldof telling us what the day after and beyond would be like ... Maybe had all those experts started a project team to listen to the common man then the great educated might not be in such a fuzz ... What exactly Brian is it that was so casual and ill-prepared about the referendum that still grinds so ??

[RogerC]

There is no correlation between project teams and the EU situation where you propose having a project team reveal it's findings to all and sundry.

A project team has no opposition as it were.  At risk of stating the 'bleedin obvious' it looks at the pros, cons, viability, what if issues etc and all members of the team work together towards a solution which is agreeable to all and above all a viable proposition.  Conversely the EU situation was, and clearly still is an issue of opposing sides.  Both are looking to obtain the maximum advantage for their project team in the negotiations which clearly demonstrates that making public any pre referendum findings/predictions of the UK team would determine that the UK is the worst poker player ever.

Sorry Brian but what you wish had happened is IMO simply showing ones hand prematurely in a two player game of poker.

[Violet1956]

I don’t believe all of the consequences of Brexit were difficult to predict before the referendum. MPs and their advisers ought to have been able to predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy what would be the likely cost of legislative changes, the necessary employment of experts to assist in negotiations and what was likely to be the bill for things we had already signed up to which we would have to pay before we left just for starters. The focus of campaigning seems to have been on things that were much harder to predict. I wish more attention had been paid to giving the electorate some honest and reliable information about other “costs” which were reasonably identifiable at the pre- referendum stage not all of which are measurable in money terms. We had no such analysis of sufficient depth or which was widely disseminated that would enable the electorate to have a better picture. I accept that it may have had no effect on the way some people voted because they held the view that leaving was the best option whatever even those reasonably predictable costs of Brexit would be.

 

It’s high time that we learned that the resources of government departments are limited and that changes in focus of various government departments resulting from such a major change as Brexit have much wider knock-on effects in terms of public spending on education, health care and other public services. I am reminded of my children who, when told they couldn’t have a particular expensive object of their desire were wont to remark that I could just go to that hole in the wall where, as if by magic, the money would appear when I inserted a piece of plastic. That this money might be all that was left for their next meal never entered their heads.

 

Veronica

 

[antony1969]

https://twitter.com/DavidJoBrexit/status/918160552123404288

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-10-11 7:07 PM

 

https://twitter.com/DavidJoBrexit/status/918160552123404288

 

You have to sign up to see what this tweet is about Antony. Can you tell us what it is about I'm not signed up?

 

Veronica