The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

They can have some lying tw@t ire too. Happy now? They have both of course paid some of the price, in terms of having to resign from Government.

It's about time some different rules were set for campaigning.

[jimbo]

It's difficult for Osborne to arrange a budget from the back benches though.

I knew the £350m was bullshit and I'm guessing a lot of people did. But it was there, in bloody big writing, and I'm guessing more than 1.2nillion across the country believed it to be true.

I'm not bitter - we're leaving, and I hope we leave in the best way possible (which I still think is maintaining some ties with Europe, especially as the alternative of cosying up to an erratic America makes me uncomfortable).

What does irritate a bit is how so many blatant untruths seem to be pushed by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic at the moment with absolutely no accountability. My job is all about guiding people to make fully informed decisions, with a responsibility to give people all the likely options and the risks and benefits. As a result bullshit stands out a mile, and I wonder how valid results really are when people haven't been given all that information.

[Hoboh]

They can have some lying tw@t ire too. Happy now? They have both of course paid some of the price, in terms of having to resign from Government.

It's about time some different rules were set for campaigning.

Thank you.

I would take issue with you over the campaigning though, it is a touch elitist to assume everyone else cannot see bollocks when dangled in front of them, they may see bollocks but the other side has peed them off for too long for them to care.

Anyway, the real depressing thought is 2 years of all this on Brexit and as long as it takes for trump to work out how to open the brief case.

[Hoboh]

It's difficult for Osborne to arrange a budget from the back benches though.

I knew the £350m was bullshit and I'm guessing a lot of people did. But it was there, in bloody big writing, and I'm guessing more than 1.2nillion across the country believed it to be true.

I'm not bitter - we're leaving, and I hope we leave in the best way possible (which I still think is maintaining some ties with Europe, especially as the alternative of cosying up to an erratic America makes me uncomfortable).

What does irritate a bit is how so many blatant untruths seem to be pushed by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic at the moment with absolutely no accountability. My job is all about guiding people to make fully informed decisions, with a responsibility to give people all the likely options and the risks and benefits. As a result bullshit stands out a mile, and I wonder how valid results really are when people haven't been given all that information.

No offence but in the world we live too much information tends to flick the off switch in many people, short, simple and to the point sells more.

[jimbo]

There should still be an obligation and accountability to give correct and accurate information though!

[Harry Genshaw]

They can have some lying tw@t ire too. Happy now? They have both of course paid some of the price, in terms of having to resign from Government.

It's about time some different rules were set for campaigning.

Well at least you're consistent

Anyway, we don't have the extra money yet and those that pledged/promised/suggested spending it on the NHS aren't likely to be holding the purse strings when we do. You never know, Theresa, Jeremy or whichever sap is in power at the time might just decide to chuck it into the health service . If we've still got one that is

[Worthy4England]

They can have some lying tw@t ire too. Happy now? They have both of course paid some of the price, in terms of having to resign from Government.

It's about time some different rules were set for campaigning.

Thank you.

I would take issue with you over the campaigning though, it is a touch elitist to assume everyone else cannot see bollocks when dangled in front of them, they may see bollocks but the other side has peed them off for too long for them to care.

Anyway, the real depressing thought is 2 years of all this on Brexit and as long as it takes for trump to work out how to open the brief case.

Tell you what. I'll go a bit more elitist then. On "understanding" of all the implications everyone else cannot see the bollocks. I'm fairly sure there will have been some we all "missed".

Being pi $$ed off by the other side is a reasonable reason to vote one way or another. None of which should give either side the right to blatantly lie.

The real depressing thought it that some people think there'll only be another 2 years of "all this".

[Hoboh]

They can have some lying tw@t ire too. Happy now? They have both of course paid some of the price, in terms of having to resign from Government.

It's about time some different rules were set for campaigning.

Thank you.

I would take issue with you over the campaigning though, it is a touch elitist to assume everyone else cannot see bollocks when dangled in front of them, they may see bollocks but the other side has peed them off for too long for them to care.

Anyway, the real depressing thought is 2 years of all this on Brexit and as long as it takes for trump to work out how to open the brief case.

Tell you what. I'll go a bit more elitist then. On "understanding" of all the implications everyone else cannot see the bollocks. I'm fairly sure there will have been some we all "missed".

Being pi $$ed off by the other side is a reasonable reason to vote one way or another. None of which should give either side the right to blatantly lie.

The real depressing thought it that some people think there'll only be another 2 years of "all this".

Actually I agree with jimbo

There should still be an obligation and accountability to give correct and accurate information though!

Which I suspect is also your base line so by default, I also agree with you

You're probably right about the two year thing unfortunately but I reckon it will be for a different reason than you think.

[Worthy4England]

They can have some lying tw@t ire too. Happy now? They have both of course paid some of the price, in terms of having to resign from Government.

It's about time some different rules were set for campaigning.

Well at least you're consistent

Anyway, we don't have the extra money yet and those that pledged/promised/suggested spending it on the NHS aren't likely to be holding the purse strings when we do. You never know, Theresa, Jeremy or whichever sap is in power at the time might just decide to chuck it into the health service . If we've still got one that is [/quote

Theresa, who holds the purse strings (she gets to pick the Chancellor", has accepted Brexit means Brexit. If she can extrapolate from that, that immigration/free movement was a key part, how come she hasn't been able to extrapolate the NHS funding number? It's not like it was hidden behind a garden gnome.

All this bearing in mind that the government's immigration target of "below 100,000" was set 7 years ago. Not like they haven't had a chance. The number of net migrations is still increasing.

I guess the good news is, they might be able to cut NHS enough between now and 2020, to make it look like they've given some of the £350m to it, just before the next X-Factor Election.

[Worthy4England]

They can have some lying tw@t ire too. Happy now? They have both of course paid some of the price, in terms of having to resign from Government.

It's about time some different rules were set for campaigning.

Thank you.

I would take issue with you over the campaigning though, it is a touch elitist to assume everyone else cannot see bollocks when dangled in front of them, they may see bollocks but the other side has peed them off for too long for them to care.

Anyway, the real depressing thought is 2 years of all this on Brexit and as long as it takes for trump to work out how to open the brief case.

Tell you what. I'll go a bit more elitist then. On "understanding" of all the implications everyone else cannot see the bollocks. I'm fairly sure there will have been some we all "missed".

Being pi $$ed off by the other side is a reasonable reason to vote one way or another. None of which should give either side the right to blatantly lie.

The real depressing thought it that some people think there'll only be another 2 years of "all this".

Actually I agree with jimbo

There should still be an obligation and accountability to give correct and accurate information though!

Which I suspect is also your base line so by default, I also agree with you

You're probably right about the two year thing unfortunately but I reckon it will be for a different reason than you think.

I'd be delighted, if in an entirely non-elitist way, you could tell me what I think, so I can judge the validity of the assertion.

[Hoboh]

They can have some lying tw@t ire too. Happy now? They have both of course paid some of the price, in terms of having to resign from Government.

It's about time some different rules were set for campaigning.

Thank you.

I would take issue with you over the campaigning though, it is a touch elitist to assume everyone else cannot see bollocks when dangled in front of them, they may see bollocks but the other side has peed them off for too long for them to care.

Anyway, the real depressing thought is 2 years of all this on Brexit and as long as it takes for trump to work out how to open the brief case.

Tell you what. I'll go a bit more elitist then. On "understanding" of all the implications everyone else cannot see the bollocks. I'm fairly sure there will have been some we all "missed".

Being pi $$ed off by the other side is a reasonable reason to vote one way or another. None of which should give either side the right to blatantly lie.

The real depressing thought it that some people think there'll only be another 2 years of "all this".

Actually I agree with jimbo

There should still be an obligation and accountability to give correct and accurate information though!

Which I suspect is also your base line so by default, I also agree with you

You're probably right about the two year thing unfortunately but I reckon it will be for a different reason than you think.

I'd be delighted, if in an entirely non-elitist way, you could tell me what I think, so I can judge the validity of the assertion.

Well I would think you see the negotiations dragging, fallout on both sides, people playing politics every time some part of the negotiations surface, everyone agreeing 2 years is not long enough, transitional periods appearing, that type of thing.
I hope you have time to reply before you actually start doing some work

[BWFC_Insane]

Guys, c'mon. Accurate independent facts are elitist. Get with the program it's all about "alternative facts" now. In the good old days we used to call them lies.....

[Worthy4England]

Well I would think you see the negotiations dragging, fallout on both sides, people playing politics every time some part of the negotiations surface, everyone agreeing 2 years is not long enough, transitional periods appearing, that type of thing.
I hope you have time to reply before you actually start doing some work

I spend a significant majority of my time negotiating large contracts and agreements (typically hundreds of millions/low billions) - which is why I said, that I thought 2 years was optimistic. Let's hypothesize it takes 18-36 months to top and tail a reasonably complex Contract to the agreement of two parties and maybe a few intermediaries - and comparatively I'm talking less complexity than Trade Agreements and how to revoke 40 years of law equitably. Then whether we're all loved up or all fallen out, they aren't going to nail it in two years with a dearth of Trade Negotiators.

Somewhere there will be a fudge.

[bedwetter2]

Well I would think you see the negotiations dragging, fallout on both sides, people playing politics every time some part of the negotiations surface, everyone agreeing 2 years is not long enough, transitional periods appearing, that type of thing.
I hope you have time to reply before you actually start doing some work

I spend a significant majority of my time negotiating large contracts and agreements (typically hundreds of millions/low billions) - which is why I said, that I thought 2 years was optimistic. Let's hypothesize it takes 18-36 months to top and tail a reasonably complex Contract to the agreement of two parties and maybe a few intermediaries - and comparatively I'm talking less complexity than Trade Agreements and how to revoke 40 years of law equitably. Then whether we're all loved up or all fallen out, they aren't going to nail it in two years with a dearth of Trade Negotiators.

Somewhere there will be a fudge.

And would you suggest that trade agreements between countries or groups of countries are prescriptive in the way that large contracts/agreements between companies may be?

In other words, is it possible for a country to be promiscuous in who they sell to or buy from without penalties being enacted?

[Worthy4England]

Well I would think you see the negotiations dragging, fallout on both sides, people playing politics every time some part of the negotiations surface, everyone agreeing 2 years is not long enough, transitional periods appearing, that type of thing.
I hope you have time to reply before you actually start doing some work

I spend a significant majority of my time negotiating large contracts and agreements (typically hundreds of millions/low billions) - which is why I said, that I thought 2 years was optimistic. Let's hypothesize it takes 18-36 months to top and tail a reasonably complex Contract to the agreement of two parties and maybe a few intermediaries - and comparatively I'm talking less complexity than Trade Agreements and how to revoke 40 years of law equitably. Then whether we're all loved up or all fallen out, they aren't going to nail it in two years with a dearth of Trade Negotiators.

Somewhere there will be a fudge.

And would you suggest that trade agreements between countries or groups of countries are prescriptive in the way that large contracts/agreements between companies may be?

In other words, is it possible for a country to be promiscuous in who they sell to or buy from without penalties being enacted?

No - they're not the same level of prescription at the same sort of level - and I'm glad you noted "may be" for the second part - plenty of framework agreements out there.

There's lots of "ifs", "buts" and "maybes" and I'm hardly declaring WW3 here. Just saying in my opinion this will not all be resolved nor running smoothly in two years time.

Do you think everything will be sorted out in 2 years from March?

[Hoboh]

I don't, I truly don't see anything being resolved mainly because the nature of the beast (the EU) will not be in its current entity.

[bedwetter2]

Well I would think you see the negotiations dragging, fallout on both sides, people playing politics every time some part of the negotiations surface, everyone agreeing 2 years is not long enough, transitional periods appearing, that type of thing.
I hope you have time to reply before you actually start doing some work

I spend a significant majority of my time negotiating large contracts and agreements (typically hundreds of millions/low billions) - which is why I said, that I thought 2 years was optimistic. Let's hypothesize it takes 18-36 months to top and tail a reasonably complex Contract to the agreement of two parties and maybe a few intermediaries - and comparatively I'm talking less complexity than Trade Agreements and how to revoke 40 years of law equitably. Then whether we're all loved up or all fallen out, they aren't going to nail it in two years with a dearth of Trade Negotiators.

Somewhere there will be a fudge.

And would you suggest that trade agreements between countries or groups of countries are prescriptive in the way that large contracts/agreements between companies may be?

In other words, is it possible for a country to be promiscuous in who they sell to or buy from without penalties being enacted?

No - they're not the same level of prescription at the same sort of level - and I'm glad you noted "may be" for the second part - plenty of framework agreements out there.

There's lots of "ifs", "buts" and "maybes" and I'm hardly declaring WW3 here. Just saying in my opinion this will not all be resolved nor running smoothly in two years time.

Do you think everything will be sorted out in 2 years from March?

Sorted out everything in two years? Not a hope in hell the way the politicians will go about it, but it would be possible.

Most, I won't say all although closer to the truth, politicians have little to no comprehension of the world of commerce and I believe couldn't tell the difference between a contract and an agreement.

As I am sure you are aware individuals or companies buy from individuals or companies. The only input of countries or blocs is to make commerce more difficult, either through tariffs or making suppliers conform to that country's regulations for products or services imported. An example of this is type approval for vehicles. Obviously it is rather more complex than that one example.

Believe it or not, there was a time before the EEC when Britain traded freely with virtually every country.

Like you I have quite some experience of negotiating contracts and framework agreements. If I had wanted to buy a product from any source it wouldn't have mattered if the supplier was the workshops of Hades so long as it was to spec and offered value. I probably wouldn't have gone as far as signing a contract with Hades. (I know you could argue the legal status of purchase orders)

There is a lot of bs spoken about FTAs by know-nowts.

The bigger issues are untangling EU and British legal frameworks and a number of overdue reforms which would greatly improve democracy in the UK.

Nearly all of this could be achieved in 2 years if there was a will to do so, e.g. a cut and paste exercise for EU laws/directives which are deemed suitable or necessary to retain in the UK's legal system.

Won't happen I know, but it should.

[Lord Kangana]

Britain traded so freely with the rest of the world that it spent over a decade begging the Europeans to be able to join their party.

[Worthy4England]

I do know Britain traded before the EEC. Trade freely and trade for free are not the same thing of course. After the Kennedy round of GATT, there were still double digit percentages on many product types.

But regardless of the numbers attached to each product type, you still have to have the appropriate wording to try and get to a point that protectionism is minimised (which was rather the point in doing all this in the first place).

Certainly the bigger issue will be the legal frameworks.

We both know this isn't going to happen in 2 years.

[bedwetter2]

Britain traded so freely with the rest of the world that it spent over a decade begging the Europeans to be able to join their party.

It did, but I was really referring to pre-1958.