Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117

Thread: Flawed process being used for Brexit decisions

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    304
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by El Jefe View Post
    Yes having a Remainer negotiating the exit deal has been stunningly successful..

    At least May tries to negotiate and lives in the real world instead of living in fairy tale Johnson land...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Thumbs up Original thread post - now corrected (sorry!)

    Quote Originally Posted by El Jefe View Post
    No that is incorrect - no agreement is necessary under article 50.
    Below is a corrected form of the post I started this thread with. Please ignore the original (and thanks to El Jefe and several others who pointed out the silly error of omission I made. I would like to register a "thanks" to these in this post, but do not yet know how to do this formally.)


    I would like to send in a serious complaint regarding the Brexit process. However, I am not aware of the appropriate destination for it.

    In view of that I am putting it on this forum. I would be grateful if someone would kindly suggest who, or which government department, I should send it to, please, but also I would be very interested in your opinions of my analysis. It is as follows:

    Having spent a career in project management, I noticed that the Brexit referendum of 2016 was deeply flawed, and the consequences of this flaw are causing massive problems at the present time. Recognition of the flaw, and taking remedial action would, even now, enable the whole process to be put back "on the rails", and would remove the catastrophic process problems that now beset us. It would not alter the politics, which are not my concern anyway, as I believe that if correct process is in place, then the politics will be able to flow naturally and democracy will be best served (whatever the final result of the process).

    All processes must be designed to produce definable entities called deliverables, as only deliverables are real (ie can be used, or chosen, etc). For instance, it would be grammatically correct to construct a referendum question dealing with choice to buy (or not buy) a unicorn, but it would be logically meaningless, as the government does not have the power to deliver a unicorn. However, the referendum of 2016 was similarly illogical, as its "deliverable" to choose between was either Remain - obviously deliverable - or "Leave EU" - which sounds deliverable at first glance. However, the actual deliverable for this could only ever be a legally binding Withdrawal Agreement document, agreed by both EU and UK government (or the "No Deal" option which does not need EU agreement). This (except the "No Deal") did not exist in 2016, thus rendering the referendum illogical (or at least incomplete).

    The day could be saved, though, if that document could be made to exist now, as the government is intending, of course. But, this has been allowed to have a most unfortunate (and presumably unintended) effect, which is to remove the Remain option from the agenda without it ever having had the chance to be matched against an actual Withdrawal Agreement document (ie the Final Deal or "No Deal"). Many who voted for the nebulous aspiration "leave EU" option in the referendum may well have voted Remain if the 2016 referendum had been a logical (or complete) one. These voters (number unknown) have effectively been disenfranchised, and democracy damaged.

    My complaint is that the 2016 Referendum was not fit for purpose, and may well have constituted illegal process. This urgently needs to be addressed. Our democracy is too important to just "let it all go".

    The complaint stands, but I point out that now a deliverable finally exists (ie whichever Withdrawal Agreement version eventually ends up as the final one - which could be the "No Deal"), the damage can be minimised, and a democratic way forward provided, by having the second part of the logical decision making process, ie a "straight fight" referendum between the "Final Withdrawal Agreement (or "No Deal", whichever is left standing at that point) and Remain, in the second (and final) referendum. This even balance of straight choice between two actual deliverables is the ONLY fair model for the referendum.

    In addition, this would bring the whole process (accidently but conveniently) back in line with the industry standard "due diligence sandwich" used on a daily basis in commerce, where a first decision (gather info or stop) is followed by gathering all the info (due diligence - legally backed), which then enables the second decision (proceed with final deal or stop). This also negates the jibe about "why not best of three then?", as no further change in information occurs, so no further choice could be needed.

    I look forward to receiving your views.

    projectm


    Last edited by cromwell; 19-01-2019 at 07:51 PM. Reason: Edited to standard forum type and colour

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,769
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 212 Times in 178 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Findeton View Post
    At least May tries to negotiate and lives in the real world instead of living in fairy tale Johnson land...

    Johnson wants the same Canada plus deal that the Mr Tusk has been offering for the past 2 years.....

    Now who is living in a fairy tale?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    304
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by El Jefe View Post
    Johnson wants the same Canada plus deal that the Mr Tusk has been offering for the past 2 years.....

    Now who is living in a fairy tale?
    There's a thing called Northern Ireland. It would still exist in a Canada +++ deal. The problem has never been the tariffs rate.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Heart of England
    Posts
    9,023
    Thanks
    1,649
    Thanked 1,483 Times in 1,084 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by projectm View Post
    Its rather a lot to plough through. Perhaps you would indulge me and explain what I have missed, please.
    No. It's not a lot to plough through, unless you are illiterate or too lazy to read it.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    No. It's not a lot to plough through, unless you are illiterate or too lazy to read it.
    Hi Barry, I have realised my mistaken omission (and thanks to all for pointing it out).

    Accordingly I have reposted an edited version of my original post. It seems to have slotted in a couple of posts above here.

    I wonder if people would be kind enough to read the edited version and address my main point, as I think it has importance even at this stage.

    We as a nation should now address the awkward but vital fact that the first referendum was so defectively constructed as to be unusable. It had to fail and it did. It was asked to provide differentiation that it was incapable of fairly providing (though it appeared to). A case of the wrong tool for the job, at that point in the process. However, the damage it has done haunts the remaining process, and must be addressed urgently.

    But nobody wants to know. Nobody even makes public a detailed analysis of that first referendum, to facilitate discussion.

    Why not?

    projectm

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    445
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
    Farage and Johnson should have negotiated the "easiest deal in the world".

    Sadly even they knew that most of the promises they made were full of ****, so they rather resigned.

    Oh and I hope it will also be Farage and Johnson who will strike the unilateral trade deals with the rest of the world.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    North of England
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Conchúr View Post

    Tell us then, how would you have gone about making the Irish accept watery promises on the border?
    Tell me then who is responsible for the border when the EU subsumes new nations into its club? Is it the country (un)lucky enough to be outside the EU's responsibility or is it the EU? I think you might find that it is the EU's task. Where the UK have gone wrong is in allowing the EU to try to make it the UK's responsibility. We should have turned round and said that if there needed to be a border they had better get on with it.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to BigAl For This Useful Post:

    Raymond (21-01-2019)

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    409
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 57 Times in 54 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
    Tell me then who is responsible for the border when the EU subsumes new nations into its club? Is it the country (un)lucky enough to be outside the EU's responsibility or is it the EU? I think you might find that it is the EU's task. Where the UK have gone wrong is in allowing the EU to try to make it the UK's responsibility. We should have turned round and said that if there needed to be a border they had better get on with it.

    Is this the glory of Brexit? That a British government would toss aside its responsibilities to its citizens in Northern Ireland? That it would risk the peace process by shirking its responsibilities in ensuring stability along the border? That it would oversee Brexit but also antagonistically hurl all responsibility for cleaning up the border mess to its European allies?

    There is a lot of bluster on this group about how we should have done this and how we should have done that -- lots of bombastic hindsight on how the UK should have just given two fingers to the EU on the border. Sadly it's all utter tripe because none of it would have been diplomatically possible . . . unless of course the UK sought to start off its great Brexit adventure by openly suggesting to the rest of the world that it was an antagonistic uncooperative partner that would shirk all sense of duty for coming to reasonable compromises, and instead simply demand.

    What a great vision for Brexit Britain: "Let's be the country who asks for everything and accepts responsibility for nothing". They should have put that on that on the bus . .

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Conchúr For This Useful Post:

    Rei (21-01-2019)

  12. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    North of England
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts
    We are quite happy with the stability of the border as it is - we don't see any need to change it. There has been cross border cooperation between the 2 halves of Ireland for a very long time - it is not us that want to change that relationship. It is the EU that are demanding a change to the border question because the situation between the 2 parts is changing. All I am saying is if they want to change it let them find a solution. If they think that there will be any sort of abuse of such freedom they can monitor imports from and exports to the Republic quite easily - there is no land border.

Similar Threads

  1. PM now portaying Brexit process as damage limitation.
    By Hyperduck Quack Quack in forum Brexit
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-03-2018, 08:26 PM
  2. Flawed predictions
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-07-2017, 11:51 AM
  3. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 29-03-2017, 06:19 AM
  4. Labour 'won't frustrate' Brexit process
    By stevectaylor in forum Brexit
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2016, 11:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •