Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 172

Thread: Flawed process being used for Brexit decisions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Flawed process being used for Brexit decisions

    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 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. This 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 agendawithout it ever having had the chance to be matched against an actual Withdrawal Agreement document (ie the final 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.

    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), 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" and Remain, in the second (and final) referendum.

    In addition, this would bring the whole process (accidently but conveniently) back in line with the industry standard "due diligence sandwich" used routinely 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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4,943
    Thanks
    1,097
    Thanked 884 Times in 721 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by projectm View Post
    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 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. This 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 agendawithout it ever having had the chance to be matched against an actual Withdrawal Agreement document (ie the final 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.

    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), 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" and Remain, in the second (and final) referendum.

    In addition, this would bring the whole process (accidently but conveniently) back in line with the industry standard "due diligence sandwich" used routinely 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
    It sound like you are a leaver who is pissed off because his side lost.

    Send your complaint to Dept. of Sh!t Happens.

    And don't feel ashamed of being a project manager. Nothing ever gets built on time or within budget. But that isn't your fault. It is a law that goes back to Pharoh Cheops who wanted a simple tombstone with Rest in Peace on it. But by time the project managers had finished he ended up with the Great Pyramid at Gaza.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Borchester For This Useful Post:

    Streetwalker (19-01-2019)

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 145 Times in 122 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by projectm View Post
    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 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. This 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 agendawithout it ever having had the chance to be matched against an actual Withdrawal Agreement document (ie the final 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.

    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), 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" and Remain, in the second (and final) referendum.

    In addition, this would bring the whole process (accidently but conveniently) back in line with the industry standard "due diligence sandwich" used routinely 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
    You're mainly correct, but unfortunately politics in the UK doesn't work on any rational basis - it's mainly based on capturing people's emotions.

    Witness for example the fact that the Labour leader's current policy is pretty much identical to the Leave leadership policy during the 2016 referendum campaign - utter fantasy and wishful thinking.

    If you are a project manager, you will also be familiar with the fact that half your project teams think project management is BS and you are just slowing things down. People don't like being held to account, challenged, or made to do anything much at all.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,188
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 304 Times in 245 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by projectm View Post

    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. This did not exist in 2016, thus rendering the referendum illogical (or at least incomplete).

    No that is incorrect - no agreement is necessary under article 50.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by El Jefe View Post
    No that is incorrect - no agreement is necessary under article 50.
    I do not understand your point. If the EU does not need to agree to our final Withdrawal Agreement, then why has the PM spent 2 years negotiating with them and getting their agreement to Her Deal? Why are the EU refusing to reopen this document? I would welcome a further explanation of your point, please, as I may have misunderstood what you were saying. Obviously, no EU agreement is needed if "No Deal" is resorted to, but I did not say that - I referred to whatever ends up as the final Withdrawal agreement, be it May's Deal (or a variant of this yet to appear), or a No Deal.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    9,710
    Thanks
    1,872
    Thanked 1,740 Times in 1,246 Posts
    Read article 50, then you'll get it.
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...EX%3A12012M050
    "or failing that"

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Read article 50, then you'll get it.
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...EX%3A12012M050
    "or failing that"
    Its rather a lot to plough through. Perhaps you would indulge me and explain what I have missed, please.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Southport
    Posts
    1,102
    Thanks
    183
    Thanked 193 Times in 139 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by projectm View Post
    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 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. This 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 agendawithout it ever having had the chance to be matched against an actual Withdrawal Agreement document (ie the final 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.

    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), 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" and Remain, in the second (and final) referendum.

    In addition, this would bring the whole process (accidently but conveniently) back in line with the industry standard "due diligence sandwich" used routinely 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
    The fact that your post is not in standard font shows that it is a copy and paste from somewhere else. Nobody, especially only 4 posts in changes their font.

    Another infiltrate.
    I can explain it to you, but I canít understand it for you.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,188
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 304 Times in 245 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by projectm View Post
    I do not understand your point.

    Its simple - if we cannot agree a Deal with the EU for our post brexit relationship we simply leave with no deal. We dont need the EU's permission or agreement to actually leave.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to El Jefe For This Useful Post:

    Nick (19-01-2019), scott777 (27-01-2019), Streetwalker (19-01-2019)

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    The fact that your post is not in standard font shows that it is a copy and paste from somewhere else. Nobody, especially only 4 posts in changes their font.

    Another infiltrate.
    Yes, I wrote it elsewhere (not a forum, but something I was writing for myself) and pasted it in. I viewed it here, and added the bit that later (for some reason) appeared in green before pressing the "post" button. Is that a problem?

    I am not one thing pretending to be another (for instance I am not a journalist, commentator or politician). I am genuinely an ordinary voter who thinks (because of previous experience in my working life) that the method being used for the Brexit decision process is deeply flawed, and I feel strongly that this is wrong and should be officially complained about in some way. Nobody (such as the Pestons, etc) seems to have noticed a thing, and I cant help wondering why.

    Though I am not really on the side of Leave or Remain (I can see good and bad points on both sides), I am very strongly concerned about a process that is apparently not fit for purpose and yet is being used for major change within our UK democracy.

    Surely it is good to raise this and ask if others agree with my concerns.

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, 07:26 PM
  2. Flawed predictions
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-07-2017, 10:51 AM
  3. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 29-03-2017, 05:19 AM
  4. Labour 'won't frustrate' Brexit process
    By stevectaylor in forum Brexit
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2016, 10:50 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
  •