Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
JohnC

Have Cake and Eat It

Just looking at the reports this morning which show the notes of the Brexit meeting snapped with a long lense.

Of course we want to have our cake and eat it. That is the normal starting point in any negotiation. The secret is being able to give ground graciously and not create so much tension that there is a melt down.

Why do the press have to report this stuff and stoke the fires of entrenchment in the negotiation. There is already more than enough "no movement" from the EU side.

Whoever leaked this photo should be done for treason. Nothing in these negotiations is going to be easy and everyone needs to stick together and push for the best deal for the UK.

I didn't want Brexit and I didn't vote for it but the country voted for it so we now all need to fight for it not against it.
Tim

I've just looked at the BBC's article about it and it's not clear whose views these are, who the meeting was with or even if it was relating directly to the Brexit negotiations (I suppose it might've been an internal meeting and refer o the other party).

So, a huge storm has now been created around Europe on the basis of a whole host of unknowns.
Great.
Thanks media.  
PG

Agree with both the above comments.

But also, when will people learn that in this age of digital photography, you've really got to cover up notes. Unless of course it is a deliberate leak by a new method............
Big Blue

This is a deliberate leak. Everyone knows they shouldn't have notes on show and when they do you know they meant it.
Roadsterstu

The media get worse.  Try to dredge up any old shite.
PhilD

PG wrote:
Agree with both the above comments.

But also, when will people learn that in this age of digital photography, you've really got to cover up notes. Unless of course it is a deliberate leak by a new method............


got to be deliberate and fake, where are the doodles or the christmas shopping list??

Talking doodles, are you guys box drawers or do you prefer less structured and more swirly patterns?
Big Blue

Pointy arrow type person
Frank Bullitt

It's a ruse - too many words on that page for the UK's Brexit Strategy.

PhilD wrote:
Talking doodles, are you guys box drawers or do you prefer less structured and more swirly patterns?


Organic shapes for me
Tim

I was watching Sky News briefly last night and while they were chatting to an EU type the presenter referred to the 'Brexit Memo'.
That was annoying, scribbles on a page are certainly not a memo, it's clear the presenter was trying to make it more official and controversial.
PhilD

Frank Bullitt wrote:
It's a ruse - too many words on that page for the UK's Brexit Strategy.


and page rather than fag packet.
Frank Bullitt

PhilD wrote:
Frank Bullitt wrote:
It's a ruse - too many words on that page for the UK's Brexit Strategy.


and page rather than fag packet.


I'm wondering how big 'A Wing and a Prayer' actually is to help me quantify the size
Michael

I didn't want it and I didn't vote for it but we are where we are and I we've got to make the most of it. Part of that is at least being optimistic as otherwise you're just giving up on yourself and everyone else.

It'll no doubt be difficult for a couple of years but I don't think it's the end of the world.
PhilD

Thanks for the coaching session Michael! Why did you think that was needed?
Michael

The wing and a prayer comment.
PhilD

FB is an intelligent chap, I'm sure he knows about the power and importantance of optimism!

As do I, which is why I won't bother disagreeing with your "couple of years" comment  
Frank Bullitt

Michael wrote:
The wing and a prayer comment.


Do you think it's more tangible at the moment than that? If you do, I admire your blind faith but don't share it.

I'd be delighted to see a successful outcome, but also very surprised.
Bob Sacamano

My experience of Government is that much of it is wing and a prayer stuff. They can't alter the macro factors so make tweaks to the stuff they can influence and then sit back and hope for the best (or that they're out of office when the shit hits the fan).

So far Brexit is pretty much going as I expected in as much we will arrive at some point in the future out of the EU but with no real idea how we got there and hoping that we made the right choice. I voted Remain because, much as I dislike the EU and its many faults, I really couldn't be arsed with all this on a purely selfish level. It's probably the right destination I just can't be bothered with the journey.
Michael

Frank Bullitt wrote:
Michael wrote:
The wing and a prayer comment.


Do you think it's more tangible at the moment than that? If you do, I admire your blind faith but don't share it.

I'd be delighted to see a successful outcome, but also very surprised.


I think things are more tangible, yes. But I also think that it needs to be introduced gradually as any information put out can send the markets into overdrive. I suspect the plan is for 'hard brexit' because that's what people ultimately voted for but they wouldn't dare announce it.
PG

Michael wrote:
I suspect the plan is for 'hard brexit' because that's what people ultimately voted for but they wouldn't dare announce it.


Also, the more shitty the EU negotiators are - either now, or when they inevitably vomit all over the requests that are made in any negotiations - the easier it is to say that a hard Brexit is the EU's fault as they would not engage in a sensible negotiation.
Racing Teatray

We can't blame the woes of Brexit on shitty EU negotiators. Everyone sensible knew the EU would be shitty about negotiations. It warned endlessly that it would be. And I doubt it has a realistic alternative - it can't allow Britain to be seen to be having its cake and eat it, otherwise other countries will legitimately ask why they can't have the same treatment.

I find the whole thing akin to warning a child not to touch a hot stove because it will burn its hand, being ignored by said child, and then being berated by it because it is now scarred for life.

I don't see any way in which Brexit doesn't turn out to be a net loss for the United Kingdom for at least the foreseeable future. Optimism and working together can minimise the damage but it cannot reverse it completely.
Frank Bullitt

Michael wrote:
Frank Bullitt wrote:
Michael wrote:
The wing and a prayer comment.


Do you think it's more tangible at the moment than that? If you do, I admire your blind faith but don't share it.

I'd be delighted to see a successful outcome, but also very surprised.


I think things are more tangible, yes. But I also think that it needs to be introduced gradually as any information put out can send the markets into overdrive. I suspect the plan is for 'hard brexit' because that's what people ultimately voted for but they wouldn't dare announce it.


I'd agree (to a degree) but at the moment all we have is a buggers middle of 'what ifs' and such alike.  My view is that Hard-Brexit is the backdrop that the UK (and businesses who operate here) should have been planning for from day 1 when article 50 was enacted immediately as promised - we would then have focus on spending 2 years negotiating the finer points of what 'Hard Brexit +' looked like in a clear environment.

As it is, we have a protracted period of hot-air, ambition and over-optimism (with a counter 'the world is doomed' rhetoric) trying to create a negotiation strategy by people seemingly ill-equipped to do so unable to truly consider what 'the end' looks like beyond 'Hard Brexit'; the sooner we all get our heads around what that looks like the sooner we will feel better about any improvement on that position.
Big Blue

Next year sees voting in France and Germany. After those results we can assess 'Brexit'. OMG my iPhone can now autofill 'Brexit'.
Michael

Frank Bullitt wrote:

As it is, we have a protracted period of hot-air, ambition and over-optimism (with a counter 'the world is doomed' rhetoric) trying to create a negotiation strategy by people seemingly ill-equipped to do so unable to truly consider what 'the end' looks like beyond 'Hard Brexit'; the sooner we all get our heads around what that looks like the sooner we will feel better about any improvement on that position.


Or you could look at it that we know what hard Brexit, or Brexit looks like. It means leaving the EU and all that goes with it. Before article 50 is triggered it gives everyone a bit of time to consider their position and it seems Nissan has done just that.
It would have been madness to enact article 50 on June 24th which is why Jeremy Corbyn liked the idea. It's also worth bearing in mind the two year period is not there to negotiate a deal on the new way of business, it's there to negotiate the exit arrangements for those employed by the EU and essentially wind up business. As it is we're out, the soft Brexit idea is a red herring, we've got to start looking and planning to deal with the EU as other countries who are not part of it does.
Frank Bullitt

The EU has systematically said it will only negotiate when article 50 is invoked and therefore all we 'know' is hard Brexit, so invoke and get on with it. Force the timeframe and take the initiative, instead were in this 'phoney-war' period achieving exactly nothing except causing continued concern for many people, businesses and markets.

Whether Corbin advocated an immediate triggering of article 50 sways me not one way or the other - I don't agree with him on many things but I also won't hold an opinion informed purely (or even remotely) because it is contrary to his.
Michael

If you triggered article 50 on June 24th the markets would panic. Give them time to understand the situation and they will panic less so.
At the same time this period allows others to reveal there position and gather intelligence. The March timetable makes sense to me.
Racing Teatray

Junckers wants us to trigger Article 50 post-haste because he knows that the triggering of that and the timing of that is one of the few bits of genuine leverage we have. I am not sure we should rush to do it when there is no clear plan for what comes next.

My contacts in government affirm what the media implies: there is currently no plan and the entire thing is deeply shambolic. Triggering Article 50 won't improve matters.#

It's also not entirely clear to me that Theresa May actually wants to, notwithstanding her public proclamations to the contrary.

Because if she does, it makes zero sense to challenge the High Court ruling in the Supreme Court, since the Supreme Court is, ahem, supremely unlikely to disagree with the High Court on what is a pretty clear legal principle, absent undue government pressure (in the event of which, we would immediately have a very serious constitutional crisis). The challenge does nothing except introduce a couple of months delay. Given all the High Court actually said is that triggering requires a Act of Parliament, she should simply have immediately pulled together a short sharp bill to submit to Parliament, and the Commons and Lords would, at the time, probably been very unlikely to vote against it. So it looks very much like a delaying tactic usefully disguised by the media outrage over the sheer temerity of the judges in upholding the sovereign nature of Parliament…
Tim

Michael wrote:
If you triggered article 50 on June 24th the markets would panic. Give them time to understand the situation and they will panic less so.


I think you're crediting the markets with a bit too much intelligence there - we're currently just coming slightly down from an, almost, all time high with the world full of uncertainty - not just Brexit.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be in this position.
Stuntman

Racing Teatray wrote:
It's also not entirely clear to me that Theresa May actually wants to, notwithstanding her public proclamations to the contrary.

Because if she does, it makes zero sense to challenge the High Court ruling in the Supreme Court, since the Supreme Court is, ahem, supremely unlikely to disagree with the High Court on what is a pretty clear legal principle, absent undue government pressure (in the event of which, we would immediately have a very serious constitutional crisis). The challenge does nothing except introduce a couple of months delay. Given all the High Court actually said is that triggering requires a Act of Parliament, she should simply have immediately pulled together a short sharp bill to submit to Parliament, and the Commons and Lords would, at the time, probably been very unlikely to vote against it. So it looks very much like a delaying tactic usefully disguised by the media outrage over the sheer temerity of the judges in upholding the sovereign nature of Parliament…


That's an interesting point of view.  Having thought about it, I tend to agree.
JohnC

Stuntman wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
It's also not entirely clear to me that Theresa May actually wants to, notwithstanding her public proclamations to the contrary.

Because if she does, it makes zero sense to challenge the High Court ruling in the Supreme Court, since the Supreme Court is, ahem, supremely unlikely to disagree with the High Court on what is a pretty clear legal principle, absent undue government pressure (in the event of which, we would immediately have a very serious constitutional crisis). The challenge does nothing except introduce a couple of months delay. Given all the High Court actually said is that triggering requires a Act of Parliament, she should simply have immediately pulled together a short sharp bill to submit to Parliament, and the Commons and Lords would, at the time, probably been very unlikely to vote against it. So it looks very much like a delaying tactic usefully disguised by the media outrage over the sheer temerity of the judges in upholding the sovereign nature of Parliament…


That's an interesting point of view.  Having thought about it, I tend to agree.


I agree too. Perhaps wait and see how much of a mess the EU gets in to with elections in other countries.
gonnabuildabuggy

JohnC wrote:
Stuntman wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
It's also not entirely clear to me that Theresa May actually wants to, notwithstanding her public proclamations to the contrary.

Because if she does, it makes zero sense to challenge the High Court ruling in the Supreme Court, since the Supreme Court is, ahem, supremely unlikely to disagree with the High Court on what is a pretty clear legal principle, absent undue government pressure (in the event of which, we would immediately have a very serious constitutional crisis). The challenge does nothing except introduce a couple of months delay. Given all the High Court actually said is that triggering requires a Act of Parliament, she should simply have immediately pulled together a short sharp bill to submit to Parliament, and the Commons and Lords would, at the time, probably been very unlikely to vote against it. So it looks very much like a delaying tactic usefully disguised by the media outrage over the sheer temerity of the judges in upholding the sovereign nature of Parliament…


That's an interesting point of view.  Having thought about it, I tend to agree.


I agree too. Perhaps wait and see how much of a mess the EU gets in to with elections in other countries.


That's my view.

They are kicking the can as far down the road as they can, whilst awaiting the results of the elections in other EU countries.

So far, Trump's win, whilst a potential disaster in many ways, could prove positive for the UK. That's one down.

On Sunday, it's Renzi's turn. And I think Austria too.

Then we all sit around to see if Le Pen can beat Faillon.

If all 3 of those go against the EU then you can bet our negotiation position has changed somewhat.

I'll bet May (and all of the government) were very happy when the legal challenge went "against" them.

EDIT - my personal belief is that May doesn't want the "hard" Brexit she refers to. I suspect she wants a level of curb on Free movement and to retain access to the single market.
PhilD

gonnabuildabuggy wrote:


They are kicking the can as far down the road as they can, whilst awaiting the results of the elections in other EU countries.

So far, Trump's win, whilst a potential disaster in many ways, could prove positive for the UK. That's one down.

Then we all sit around to see if Le Pen can beat Faillon.

If all 3 of those go against the EU then you can bet our negotiation position has changed somewhat.



Oh lovely, we need Trump and Le Pen to beat Brexit.  Brings to mind Blarno's "Which hat made of shit shall I wear today?" comment!
Racing Teatray

PhilD wrote:


Oh lovely, we need Trump and Le Pen to beat Brexit.  Brings to mind Blarno's "Which hat made of shit shall I wear today?" comment!


Indeed!!

However, even if Europe does collapse, whether through Grillo or Le Pen or some as yet unidentified cause, you can be sure that the rest of Europe will pretty quickly turn around at point the finger of blame at us. Whether that's fair or justified, or not, is neither here nor there. They will still do it. Brexit will be the mother and father of all scapegoats for the collapse of the European project, particularly if the outcome is generally unpleasant (which to my mind a Europe of Le Pens etc would be).

I just don't see a scenario materialising where those who voted for Brexit will ever find their lot in life improved by Brexit. Which is logical because the problems that afflict them were never really of the EU's making but rather our own. And when the government of the day no longer has the EU scapegoat for all ills, real and imagined, that ail the UK electorate, things may get a little uncomfortable.
Michael

I did wonder if the Tories might use Brexit as a scapegoat themselves. Economy has tanked because of Brexit so we're going slash the size of the state rather then raise taxes etc.
boc70

I see the Brexit subliminal psychology is at work in this thread...

PhilD

Michael wrote:
I did wonder if the Tories might use Brexit as a scapegoat themselves. Economy has tanked because of Brexit so we're going slash the size of the state rather then raise taxes etc.


Or to look at it another way, they have an plan/agenda (smaller state being an example) and will use any tools at their disposal to force it through. This may, where necessary, blame the more unpalatable aspects/fall out of this plan/agenda on something else, e.g. Brexit.
Michael

PhilD wrote:
Michael wrote:
I did wonder if the Tories might use Brexit as a scapegoat themselves. Economy has tanked because of Brexit so we're going slash the size of the state rather then raise taxes etc.


Or to look at it another way, they have an plan/agenda (smaller state being an example) and will use any tools at their disposal to force it through. This may, where necessary, blame the more unpalatable aspects/fall out of this plan/agenda on something else, e.g. Brexit.


I don't think that is looking at it another way?
PhilD

Michael wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Michael wrote:
I did wonder if the Tories might use Brexit as a scapegoat themselves. Economy has tanked because of Brexit so we're going slash the size of the state rather then raise taxes etc.


Or to look at it another way, they have an plan/agenda (smaller state being an example) and will use any tools at their disposal to force it through. This may, where necessary, blame the more unpalatable aspects/fall out of this plan/agenda on something else, e.g. Brexit.


I don't think that is looking at it another way?


Way 1 - Economy has tanked, blame Brexit

Way 2 - Want smaller state, blame Brexit

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum