Asking a 91-year old woman to walk backwards in heels down a stepped monument is not on. She very nearly caught a heel doing so last year.
I don't recall her mother laying a wreath - it was always done by an equerry.
Simples, she can wear flats.
Stop stealing my posts!
As PB’s shoe expert, it was my duty to comment.
Excuse me!???!!?????
I do the shoes around here - especially womens' shoes. I am prepared to let you have the mens' shoe franchise on the basis that all bloke shoes look the same apart from the colour and whether they have laces or velcro.
Asking a 91-year old woman to walk backwards in heels down a stepped monument is not on. She very nearly caught a heel doing so last year.
I don't recall her mother laying a wreath - it was always done by an equerry.
Simples, she can wear flats.
Stop stealing my posts!
As PB’s shoe expert, it was my duty to comment.
Excuse me!???!!?????
I do the shoes around here - especially womens' shoes. I am prepared to let you have the mens' shoe franchise on the basis that all bloke shoes look the same apart from the colour and whether they have laces or velcro.
Some of my shoes have tassels, sans laces and velcro.
Asking a 91-year old woman to walk backwards in heels down a stepped monument is not on. She very nearly caught a heel doing so last year.
I don't recall her mother laying a wreath - it was always done by an equerry.
Simples, she can wear flats.
Stop stealing my posts!
As PB’s shoe expert, it was my duty to comment.
Excuse me!???!!?????
I do the shoes around here - especially womens' shoes. I am prepared to let you have the mens' shoe franchise on the basis that all bloke shoes look the same apart from the colour and whether they have laces or velcro.
Some of my shoes have tassels.
Get new laces. When they start to unravel they are not tassels....
Wow. Unless Tom Clacy got it wrong or things have changed I believe there is a basic rule that a President cannot authorise a nuclear strike without confirmation from a suitable senior official. You'd hope no-one is as crazy as the President...
If the US general & ex vice chief of staff who was banging the drum for attacking Iran on the Today programme this am is anything to go by, we can't depend on non crazy senior officials.
Wow. Unless Tom Clacy got it wrong or things have changed I believe there is a basic rule that a President cannot authorise a nuclear strike without confirmation from a suitable senior official. You'd hope no-one is as crazy as the President...
One assumes (naively possibly!) that there would be enough people in the chain between the President and the missile that could resign rather than obey the order.
And people said - many, many on here - that there was nothing to choose between Clinton and Trump. They also tended to be Brexiteers coincidentally.
Both Brexit and Trump are f*** the establishment votes by the have littles. If anything those things are going to get more common over the next few years....
Mr. Eek, I partially disagree. There is an element of that, but also legitimate grievances against the EU (similarly, I can see why people might have voted Remain. I hesitated rather more than I thought would).
To the future, I agree. The middle class seems to be thinning, with more going down than up. We're in a very turbulent period of change which has a long way to shake out yet.
An illustration of the old adage, ask a stupid question and you'll get a spurious statistic. I would spend some moments trying to work what they were asking me. Is "No deal is better than a bad deal" axiomatically true? (It is) Do you want no deal? Do you want, and expect, a deal but think no deal has to be part of the negotiating toolkit?
Edit With the addition of a word, the alternative question is the key one:
All likely deals are better than no deal.
That's why No deal must be part of the negioting strategy is nonsense. Barnier et al are very unlikely to offer us a deal that is worse than no deal. If we are negotiating in that space, we have mucked up big time.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
Mr. 43, indeed. Change 'deal' to 'meal' and you need to know if a bad meal is cabbage and sprouts, or poison and razorblades.
Collection of statistics, even when done in the most serious way, can be very problematic. Thankfully, we have a discerning, intelligent and objective media to properly assess and explain the numbers.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Hammond has introduced the new concept of an amicable No Deal which is preferable to a bad tempered No Deal.
An illustration of the old adage, ask a stupid question and you'll get a spurious statistic. I would spend some moments trying to work what they were asking me. Is "No deal is better than a bad deal" axiomatically true? (It is) Do you want no deal? Do you want, and expect, a deal but think no deal has to be part of the negotiating toolkit?
Edit With the addition of a word, the alternative question is the key one:
All likely deals are better than no deal.
That's why No deal must be part of the negioting strategy is nonsense. Barnier et al are very unlikely to offer us a deal that is worse than no deal. If we are negotiating in that space, we have mucked up big time.
No doubt you’d be making that point if the results were the other way round.....
Mr. 43, indeed. Change 'deal' to 'meal' and you need to know if a bad meal is cabbage and sprouts, or poison and razorblades.
Collection of statistics, even when done in the most serious way, can be very problematic. Thankfully, we have a discerning, intelligent and objective media to properly assess and explain the numbers.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Hammond has introduced the new concept of an amicable No Deal which is preferable to a bad tempered No Deal.
I saw his approach as saying I'm not going to spend billions on the necessary infrastructure for a no deal and hence you will realise at some point during 2018 that there simply are not the physical assets nor personnel in place for a hard Brexit and hence soft Brexit it is.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
An illustration of the old adage, ask a stupid question and you'll get a spurious statistic. I would spend some moments trying to work what they were asking me. Is "No deal is better than a bad deal" axiomatically true? (It is) Do you want no deal? Do you want, and expect, a deal but think no deal has to be part of the negotiating toolkit?
Edit With the addition of a word, the alternative question is the key one:
All likely deals are better than no deal.
That's why No deal must be part of the negioting strategy is nonsense. Barnier et al are very unlikely to offer us a deal that is worse than no deal. If we are negotiating in that space, we have mucked up big time.
No doubt you’d be making that point if the results were the other way round.....
There's a 74% probability of me making the same point if the results were the other way round.
Asking a 91-year old woman to walk backwards in heels down a stepped monument is not on. She very nearly caught a heel doing so last year.
I don't recall her mother laying a wreath - it was always done by an equerry.
Simples, she can wear flats.
Stop stealing my posts!
As PB’s shoe expert, it was my duty to comment.
Excuse me!???!!?????
I do the shoes around here - especially womens' shoes. I am prepared to let you have the mens' shoe franchise on the basis that all bloke shoes look the same apart from the colour and whether they have laces or velcro.
Some of my shoes have tassels.
Get new laces. When they start to unravel they are not tassels....
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Hammond has introduced the new concept of an amicable No Deal which is preferable to a bad tempered No Deal.
I saw his approach as saying I'm not going to spend billions on the necessary infrastructure for a no deal and hence you will realise at some point during 2018 that there simply are not the physical assets nor personnel in place for a hard Brexit and hence soft Brexit it is.
Perhaps the hard Brexiteers should set up a GoFundMe page to pay for it?
An illustration of the old adage, ask a stupid question and you'll get a spurious statistic. I would spend some moments trying to work what they were asking me. Is "No deal is better than a bad deal" axiomatically true? (It is) Do you want no deal? Do you want, and expect, a deal but think no deal has to be part of the negotiating toolkit?
Edit With the addition of a word, the alternative question is the key one:
All likely deals are better than no deal.
That's why No deal must be part of the negioting strategy is nonsense. Barnier et al are very unlikely to offer us a deal that is worse than no deal. If we are negotiating in that space, we have mucked up big time.
There was a suggestion on twitter that at least some of the no dealers may have conflated/confused no deal with the current status quo. No doubt that tweeter is now being chased across a muddy field by a baying mob.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
Quite. They are repeating Cameron's mistake that got us to this point in the first place.
Mr. Eek, I partially disagree. There is an element of that, but also legitimate grievances against the EU (similarly, I can see why people might have voted Remain. I hesitated rather more than I thought would).
To the future, I agree. The middle class seems to be thinning, with more going down than up. We're in a very turbulent period of change which has a long way to shake out yet.
I think our vote was far more nuanced than many others - both Trump and Brexit had a lot of voters who have otherwise rarely voted..
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
+1
No, 74% of people believe that a deal that is bad for them personally or incudes things they disagree with is worse than no deal. Who defines a bad deal or for that matter a good deal. Its a stupid question it would be more valid to ask if deal x,y or z are worse than no deal.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
That falls down because we are hamstrung by the default "no action" option being hugely deleterious for us. It doesn't matter what it means for them (BMWs, etc), a do nothing option means we suffer more than almost any other scenario.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
An illustration of the old adage, ask a stupid question and you'll get a spurious statistic. I would spend some moments trying to work what they were asking me. Is "No deal is better than a bad deal" axiomatically true? (It is) Do you want no deal? Do you want, and expect, a deal but think no deal has to be part of the negotiating toolkit?
Edit With the addition of a word, the alternative question is the key one:
All likely deals are better than no deal.
That's why No deal must be part of the negioting strategy is nonsense. Barnier et al are very unlikely to offer us a deal that is worse than no deal. If we are negotiating in that space, we have mucked up big time.
There was a suggestion on twitter that at least some of the no dealers may have conflated no deal with the current status quo. No doubt that tweeter is now being chased across a muddy field by a baying mob.
There are some. Richard Nabavi in this forum would be in the group that sees the base condition as the status quo, I think. I am coming to the realisation that there is a group, prominent in the Conservative Party, that see scorched earth not as an outcome to be avoided, but one they are actively promoting under the pretence of EU obstruction. There is a logic to it. Avoidance of scorched earth requires compromises that would see the UK still tied to the EU.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
That falls down because we are hamstrung by the default "no action" option being hugely deleterious for us. It doesn't matter what it means for them (BMWs, etc), a do nothing option means we suffer more than almost any other scenario.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
Asking a 91-year old woman to walk backwards in heels down a stepped monument is not on. She very nearly caught a heel doing so last year.
I don't recall her mother laying a wreath - it was always done by an equerry.
Simples, she can wear flats.
Stop stealing my posts!
As PB’s shoe expert, it was my duty to comment.
Excuse me!???!!?????
I do the shoes around here - especially womens' shoes. I am prepared to let you have the mens' shoe franchise on the basis that all bloke shoes look the same apart from the colour and whether they have laces or velcro.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
That falls down because we are hamstrung by the default "no action" option being hugely deleterious for us. It doesn't matter what it means for them (BMWs, etc), a do nothing option means we suffer more than almost any other scenario.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
What is BATNA?
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.
Basically, building shelters in case the bombs do go off....
An illustration of the old adage, ask a stupid question and you'll get a spurious statistic. I would spend some moments trying to work what they were asking me. Is "No deal is better than a bad deal" axiomatically true? (It is) Do you want no deal? Do you want, and expect, a deal but think no deal has to be part of the negotiating toolkit?
Edit With the addition of a word, the alternative question is the key one:
All likely deals are better than no deal.
That's why No deal must be part of the negioting strategy is nonsense. Barnier et al are very unlikely to offer us a deal that is worse than no deal. If we are negotiating in that space, we have mucked up big time.
As a Remainer I think that no deal is better than a bad deal, i.e. call the whole thing off and revert to the status quo rather than have a bad deal.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
That falls down because we are hamstrung by the default "no action" option being hugely deleterious for us. It doesn't matter what it means for them (BMWs, etc), a do nothing option means we suffer more than almost any other scenario.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
What is BATNA?
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.
Basically, building shelters in case the bombs do go off....
Oh I see. Time to start stocking up with non-perishable foods before the panic begins.....
Harry Weinstein - "You know, we all make mistakes"...
The recording played on R5 yesterday from the model in the hotel room was positively creepy.
It was positively chilling.
The decision of the New York Authorities not to prosecute at that time was....interesting.
Total mystery.
Just like CNN's coverage being limited to 5 minutes in the middle of the hour, spliced between 55 minutes of Trump bashing and not a single mention of his political donations.
Asking a 91-year old woman to walk backwards in heels down a stepped monument is not on. She very nearly caught a heel doing so last year.
I don't recall her mother laying a wreath - it was always done by an equerry.
Simples, she can wear flats.
Stop stealing my posts!
As PB’s shoe expert, it was my duty to comment.
Excuse me!???!!?????
I do the shoes around here - especially womens' shoes. I am prepared to let you have the mens' shoe franchise on the basis that all bloke shoes look the same apart from the colour and whether they have laces or velcro.
Yes I know, but not being a Brexiteer, I live in the present not the past
But it is interesting how fashion trends swing and change over time. For instance, for men's "plumbing" skirts/kilts make more sense than trousers. Actually, for either gender, trousers make little sense (says a woman wearing bootcut jeans)
From a crossword I've just learned that the gun fight at the OK corral lasted about 30 seconds. In this case we are going to demonstrate how slowly we can reach a messy conclusion.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
That falls down because we are hamstrung by the default "no action" option being hugely deleterious for us. It doesn't matter what it means for them (BMWs, etc), a do nothing option means we suffer more than almost any other scenario.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
Indeed we need to look very carefully at BATNA and no-deal options.
At a base level it means that we need to start with things like replication of regulatory structures - as an example our Civil Aviation Authority needs to apply for membership to ICAO who are the global aviation regulator and part of the UN. Not talk about it, but actually get the application in. Things that would mitigate what no-deal looks like. The EU will probably object to our application until the day we actually leave, but we can and should appeal to global authorities over the heads of the EU for such petty brinkmanship as suggesting our planes will be grounded if there’s no deal.
There will be several other industries where similar action could be taken, most of which have a higher authority such as UN or WTO body.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
That falls down because we are hamstrung by the default "no action" option being hugely deleterious for us. It doesn't matter what it means for them (BMWs, etc), a do nothing option means we suffer more than almost any other scenario.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
What is BATNA?
Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement. The idea is that you should go into a negotiation with a firm idea of your best alternative. Anything you negotiate goes up from there. The problem with the "No deal is better than a bad deal" is that it miscalculates the UK's BATNA. Putting to one side your views on Leave versus Remain and just sticking with negotiating techniques, our BATNA was to refuse to budge from the status quo and be uncooperative until you get your way. That way you lock in your current benefits. Voiding your benefits and then refusing to negotiate adding some of them back in again is silly. We threw away our BATNA when we triggered Article 50.
Not that I think a lack of cooperation is a good way of doing a relationship negotiation. It needs trust.
Edit. No Deal is Better than a bad Deal is the EU's BATNA interestingly. That's why they are sitting pretty.
Asking a 91-year old woman to walk backwards in heels down a stepped monument is not on. She very nearly caught a heel doing so last year.
I don't recall her mother laying a wreath - it was always done by an equerry.
Simples, she can wear flats.
Stop stealing my posts!
As PB’s shoe expert, it was my duty to comment.
Excuse me!???!!?????
I do the shoes around here - especially womens' shoes. I am prepared to let you have the mens' shoe franchise on the basis that all bloke shoes look the same apart from the colour and whether they have laces or velcro.
Some of my shoes have tassels.
Get new laces. When they start to unravel they are not tassels....
Harry Weinstein - "You know, we all make mistakes"...
The recording played on R5 yesterday from the model in the hotel room was positively creepy.
It was positively chilling.
The question now has to be whether this will be contained to Harvey Weinstein, or whether the long held open secrets of Hollywood sexual impropriety and casting couches is all about to come out?
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
That falls down because we are hamstrung by the default "no action" option being hugely deleterious for us. It doesn't matter what it means for them (BMWs, etc), a do nothing option means we suffer more than almost any other scenario.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
Indeed we need to look very carefully at BATNA and no-deal options.
At a base level it means that we need to start with things like replication of regulatory structures - as an example our Civil Aviation Authority needs to apply for membership to ICAO who are the global aviation regulator and part of the UN. Not talk about it, but actually get the application in. Things that would mitigate what no-deal looks like. The EU will probably object to our application until the day we actually leave, but we can and should appeal to global authorities over the heads of the EU for such petty brinkmanship as suggesting our planes will be grounded if there’s no deal.
There will be several other industries where similar action could be taken, most of which have a higher authority such as UN or WTO body.
This is why I think Hammond is forcing the govt into soft Brexit. Unless these things are in preparation (and he has said he won't spend the money to prepare them - £250m won't pay for more than one parking meter on the A2 for a fortnight), we simply won't be in a position to go WTO.
If Theresa doesn't sack him and install someone who will begin the multi-billion pound investment programme that WTO will require, she is tacitly, perhaps even intentionally who knows, acknowledging that we are going to soft Brexit.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
That falls down because we are hamstrung by the default "no action" option being hugely deleterious for us. It doesn't matter what it means for them (BMWs, etc), a do nothing option means we suffer more than almost any other scenario.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
What is BATNA?
Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement.
Is there any chance we could go with the phrase Best Alternative To Super High Import Tariffs?
Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement. The idea is that you should go into a negotiation with a firm idea of your best alternative. Anything you negotiate goes up from there. The problem with the "No deal is better than a bad deal" is that it miscalculates the UK's BATNA. Putting to one side your views on Leave versus Remain and just sticking with negotiating techniques, our BATNA was to refuse to budge from the status quo and be uncooperative until you get your way. That way you lock in your current benefits. Voiding your benefits and then refusing to negotiate adding some of them back in again is silly. We threw away our BATNA when we triggered Article 50.
Not that I think a lack of cooperation is a good way of doing a relationship negotiation. It needs trust.
Edit. No Deal is Better than a bad Deal is the EU's BATNA interestingly. That's why they are sitting pretty.
Thank you, very well put. The problem is, of course, that the EU refused to negotiate until articel 50 had been triggered. If the UK had not triggered it there would have been a prolonged standoff in which neither side would move. This would have led the Tory headbangers to accuse May of betrayal and having a secret agenda to remain. She triggered article 50 to avoid this - another example of how policy is being driven by the extreme Eurosceptic maoists determined to take the country over the cliff.
Translated as the UK isn't giving in to EU inflated demands.
As I have been predicting for weeks he will say later this month that insufficient progress has been made to allow us to get on to discussing the trade relationship. This is why being seen to prepare for a no deal scenario is so important and the apparent lack of urgency is so frustrating. When we are told our efforts are being marked C- by the class teacher we need to either offer more money or show we have a choice. By not giving ourselves a choice we end up paying more.
FWIW I am not sure Barnier himself believes this is the way to go. It seems to be the Germans (who are obviously concerned how much more this is going to cost them) that seem to be pushing this.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Hammond has introduced the new concept of an amicable No Deal which is preferable to a bad tempered No Deal.
Actually that is an important distinction. An Amicable No Deal would be WTO terms but with cooperation to sort out things like the aviation industry, medical regulations, and so on. A Bad-Tempered No Deal would be utter chaos arising from lack of such cooperation.
On Hammond's future, punters (and investors) should remember that if he were to get sacked, the reaction in the financial markets could be quite severe.
Translated as the UK isn't giving in to EU inflated demands.
As I have been predicting for weeks he will say later this month that insufficient progress has been made to allow us to get on to discussing the trade relationship. This is why being seen to prepare for a no deal scenario is so important and the apparent lack of urgency is so frustrating. When we are told our efforts are being marked C- by the class teacher we need to either offer more money or show we have a choice. By not giving ourselves a choice we end up paying more.
FWIW I am not sure Barnier himself believes this is the way to go. It seems to be the Germans (who are obviously concerned how much more this is going to cost them) that seem to be pushing this.
And yet we have Hammond undermining the government's strategy, supported by MPs and journalists who either haven't a clue about negotiating, or would rather see Britain fail than be proved wrong that Brexit cannot be anything other than a disaster.
Asking a 91-year old woman to walk backwards in heels down a stepped monument is not on. She very nearly caught a heel doing so last year.
I don't recall her mother laying a wreath - it was always done by an equerry.
Simples, she can wear flats.
Stop stealing my posts!
As PB’s shoe expert, it was my duty to comment.
Excuse me!???!!?????
I do the shoes around here - especially womens' shoes. I am prepared to let you have the mens' shoe franchise on the basis that all bloke shoes look the same apart from the colour and whether they have laces or velcro.
Yes I know, but not being a Brexiteer, I live in the present not the past
But it is interesting how fashion trends swing and change over time. For instance, for men's "plumbing" skirts/kilts make more sense than trousers. Actually, for either gender, trousers make little sense (says a woman wearing bootcut jeans)
One theory is, trousers are better to ride a horse in. There is always a certain cachet about horse related clothing (cf polo shirts, polonecks, polo belts, those Clint Eastwood coats) so trousers catch on and become the norm.
Thank you, very well put. The problem is, of course, that the EU refused to negotiate until articel 50 had been triggered. If the UK had not triggered it there would have been a prolonged standoff in which neither side would move. This would have led the Tory headbangers to accuse May of betrayal and having a secret agenda to remain. She triggered article 50 to avoid this - another example of how policy is being driven by the extreme Eurosceptic maoists determined to take the country over the cliff.
Odd that you blame 'Tory headbangers' for the irrational behavior of the EU27.
Thank you, very well put. The problem is, of course, that the EU refused to negotiate until articel 50 had been triggered. If the UK had not triggered it there would have been a prolonged standoff in which neither side would move. This would have led the Tory headbangers to accuse May of betrayal and having a secret agenda to remain. She triggered article 50 to avoid this - another example of how policy is being driven by the extreme Eurosceptic maoists determined to take the country over the cliff.
Odd that you blame 'Tory headbangers' for the irrational behavior of the EU27.
Also odd given Labour wanted Art50 triggered right away as well.
The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
Translated as the UK isn't giving in to EU inflated demands.
As I have been predicting for weeks he will say later this month that insufficient progress has been made to allow us to get on to discussing the trade relationship. This is why being seen to prepare for a no deal scenario is so important and the apparent lack of urgency is so frustrating. When we are told our efforts are being marked C- by the class teacher we need to either offer more money or show we have a choice. By not giving ourselves a choice we end up paying more.
FWIW I am not sure Barnier himself believes this is the way to go. It seems to be the Germans (who are obviously concerned how much more this is going to cost them) that seem to be pushing this.
It's decent negotiating tactics from Barnier - knowing that we are a divided nation (and with the so-called elites mostly favouring Remain) he is hoping we put pressure on ourselves to capitulate to their timetable. Which we should resist.
The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
The more pertinent point is that it doesn't matter how much we spend on No Deal - we can't be prepared for it unilaterally. If the French and others don't spend the same, then we'd still be left with utter chaos.
Indeed we need to look very carefully at BATNA and no-deal options.
At a base level it means that we need to start with things like replication of regulatory structures - as an example our Civil Aviation Authority needs to apply for membership to ICAO who are the global aviation regulator and part of the UN. Not talk about it, but actually get the application in. Things that would mitigate what no-deal looks like. The EU will probably object to our application until the day we actually leave, but we can and should appeal to global authorities over the heads of the EU for such petty brinkmanship as suggesting our planes will be grounded if there’s no deal.
There will be several other industries where similar action could be taken, most of which have a higher authority such as UN or WTO body.
In theory, yes. However the EU are unlikely to offer a deal so bad that it is worse than no agreement. The outline looks to be Citizen rights and Irish border, agreed and probably insoluble respectively and then a sum of money as an exit fee of about €60 billion. In exchange we get a two year continuation of current arrangements. That might seem expensive, however: the immediate disruption of a no deal will be particularly catastrophic. Any refusal to pay an exit fee will carry over. If we ever want a relationship with the EU again we will have to cover it. We might as well see it as a cost of Brexit. Brexit is an expensive operation. We will be paying large amounts of money to EU countries under any scenario as we try to buy back some of the influence we lose by leaving the EU.
There is stuff to haggle over but talk of walking away just delays agreement and poisons the well. There is nothing to be said for it, except it pleases Leavers. And that is the issue. Whenever the government has a choice of negotiating seriously with the EU or appeasing Leavers (Calling Article 50, NDIBTABD etc) they have invariably appeased Leavers to the detriment of the settlement.
And yet we have Hammond undermining the government's strategy, supported by MPs and journalists who either haven't a clue about negotiating, or would rather see Britain fail than be proved wrong that Brexit cannot be anything other than a disaster.
Do you think a strategy based on spending billions on infrastructure that you don't intend to use just to impress the other side sounds sensible?
And yet we have Hammond undermining the government's strategy, supported by MPs and journalists who either haven't a clue about negotiating, or would rather see Britain fail than be proved wrong that Brexit cannot be anything other than a disaster.
Do you think a strategy based on spending billions on infrastructure that you don't intend to use just to impress the other side sounds sensible?
Perhaps we construct cardboard customs facilities at the ports, like those fake airfields they built in WW2 to fool the German spy planes.
Translated as the UK isn't giving in to EU inflated demands.
As I have been predicting for weeks he will say later this month that insufficient progress has been made to allow us to get on to discussing the trade relationship. This is why being seen to prepare for a no deal scenario is so important and the apparent lack of urgency is so frustrating. When we are told our efforts are being marked C- by the class teacher we need to either offer more money or show we have a choice. By not giving ourselves a choice we end up paying more.
FWIW I am not sure Barnier himself believes this is the way to go. It seems to be the Germans (who are obviously concerned how much more this is going to cost them) that seem to be pushing this.
And yet we have Hammond undermining the government's strategy, supported by MPs and journalists who either haven't a clue about negotiating, or would rather see Britain fail than be proved wrong that Brexit cannot be anything other than a disaster.
The closest analogy I can come up with is the American war of Independence. How did the world's most powerful empire get beaten by a bunch of back woodsmen with hunting rifles? Well, mainly because there was a very significant minority in this country who did not think we should be fighting at all and that the Americans were in the right. So our efforts were undermined and ultimately failed. Until Donald Trump was given the nuclear codes this was not obviously a disaster.
In this country we had 48% of the vote in favour of remaining. We are hopelessly split as a country about what to do here and it is again undermining our position threatening the worst of all worlds. Alastair Meeks has pointed out that no effort has been made to appease or win over the remain faction. This is undoubtedly true although I suspect in many cases nothing was going to convince them to move on. But putting the negotiations in the hands of prominent Brexiteers was a serious mistake. Getting rid of Hammond would be another. We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.
Morning, Mr.D. Have you read the BBC article on Hamilton's qualifying prowess ? It's a tough hagiographic for my taste, but there's some interesting stuff - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41576209
And yet we have Hammond undermining the government's strategy, supported by MPs and journalists who either haven't a clue about negotiating, or would rather see Britain fail than be proved wrong that Brexit cannot be anything other than a disaster.
Do you think a strategy based on spending billions on infrastructure that you don't intend to use just to impress the other side sounds sensible?
And yet we have Hammond undermining the government's strategy, supported by MPs and journalists who either haven't a clue about negotiating, or would rather see Britain fail than be proved wrong that Brexit cannot be anything other than a disaster.
Do you think a strategy based on spending billions on infrastructure that you don't intend to use just to impress the other side sounds sensible?
Perhaps we construct cardboard customs facilities at the ports, like those fake airfields they built in WW2 to fool the German spy planes.
And yet we have Hammond undermining the government's strategy, supported by MPs and journalists who either haven't a clue about negotiating, or would rather see Britain fail than be proved wrong that Brexit cannot be anything other than a disaster.
Do you think a strategy based on spending billions on infrastructure that you don't intend to use just to impress the other side sounds sensible?
The authorising of such sums is different to actually spending those sums right now. It shows intent that we could go that route, if we have to. And if we have to, we will.
Hammond's position indicates to Brussels he would never go that route. Epic negotiating fail.
And yet we have Hammond undermining the government's strategy, supported by MPs and journalists who either haven't a clue about negotiating, or would rather see Britain fail than be proved wrong that Brexit cannot be anything other than a disaster.
Do you think a strategy based on spending billions on infrastructure that you don't intend to use just to impress the other side sounds sensible?
The authorising of such sums is different to actually spending those sums right now. It shows intent that we could go that route, if we have to. And if we have to, we will.
Hammond's position indicates to Brussels he would never go that route. Epic negotiating fail.
Didn't he simply say we wouldn't spend those sums "until the last moment". That's not never, that's not now.
Comments
I do the shoes around here - especially womens' shoes. I am prepared to let you have the mens' shoe franchise on the basis that all bloke shoes look the same apart from the colour and whether they have laces or velcro.
https://twitter.com/SkyData/status/918381450336047104
"Bangladesh’s GDP per person is now higher than Pakistan’s
At market exchanges rates, at least"
https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21728658-market-exchanges-rates-least-bangladeshs-gdp-person-now-higher-pakistans
http://interactive.news.sky.com/SMSLXIII_NODEAL_111017_FP.pdf
If he's not ready to take on responsibilities yet then when will he be?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914778/This-mushroom-cloud-waiting-happen-Jill-Stein-blasts-warmonger-Hillary-arguing-vote-lead-nuclear-war-Russia.html
To the future, I agree. The middle class seems to be thinning, with more going down than up. We're in a very turbulent period of change which has a long way to shake out yet.
Edit With the addition of a word, the alternative question is the key one:
All likely deals are better than no deal.
That's why No deal must be part of the negioting strategy is nonsense. Barnier et al are very unlikely to offer us a deal that is worse than no deal. If we are negotiating in that space, we have mucked up big time.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/918412972443226114
Collection of statistics, even when done in the most serious way, can be very problematic. Thankfully, we have a discerning, intelligent and objective media to properly assess and explain the numbers.
.....
Oh.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
http://www.batashoemuseum.ca/standing-tall/
Basically, building shelters in case the bombs do go off....
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/10/the-rebels-are-right-universal-credit-is-a-good-reform-endangered-by-a-poor-decision-on-its-implementation.html
Just like CNN's coverage being limited to 5 minutes in the middle of the hour, spliced between 55 minutes of Trump bashing and not a single mention of his political donations.
But it is interesting how fashion trends swing and change over time. For instance, for men's "plumbing" skirts/kilts make more sense than trousers. Actually, for either gender, trousers make little sense (says a woman wearing bootcut jeans)
In this case we are going to demonstrate how slowly we can reach a messy conclusion.
At a base level it means that we need to start with things like replication of regulatory structures - as an example our Civil Aviation Authority needs to apply for membership to ICAO who are the global aviation regulator and part of the UN. Not talk about it, but actually get the application in. Things that would mitigate what no-deal looks like. The EU will probably object to our application until the day we actually leave, but we can and should appeal to global authorities over the heads of the EU for such petty brinkmanship as suggesting our planes will be grounded if there’s no deal.
There will be several other industries where similar action could be taken, most of which have a higher authority such as UN or WTO body.
Not that I think a lack of cooperation is a good way of doing a relationship negotiation. It needs trust.
Edit. No Deal is Better than a bad Deal is the EU's BATNA interestingly. That's why they are sitting pretty.
In any case, I've met neither of them.
If Theresa doesn't sack him and install someone who will begin the multi-billion pound investment programme that WTO will require, she is tacitly, perhaps even intentionally who knows, acknowledging that we are going to soft Brexit.
(And yes, I've just verbed Brexit.)
Time for that coat again....
Did May ever reverse that Osborne decision?
Remember when his resignation was a sign the Tories were in turmoil!
We could have made sufficient progress if we'd agreed to write a blank cheque. No doubt some here would prefer that.
FWIW I am not sure Barnier himself believes this is the way to go. It seems to be the Germans (who are obviously concerned how much more this is going to cost them) that seem to be pushing this.
On Hammond's future, punters (and investors) should remember that if he were to get sacked, the reaction in the financial markets could be quite severe.
Hence why Hammond is wrong not to be investing in a contingency plan.
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
As they have been instructed.
In simple terms, they have us over a barrel.
There is stuff to haggle over but talk of walking away just delays agreement and poisons the well. There is nothing to be said for it, except it pleases Leavers. And that is the issue. Whenever the government has a choice of negotiating seriously with the EU or appeasing Leavers (Calling Article 50, NDIBTABD etc) they have invariably appeased Leavers to the detriment of the settlement.
Yet.
In this country we had 48% of the vote in favour of remaining. We are hopelessly split as a country about what to do here and it is again undermining our position threatening the worst of all worlds. Alastair Meeks has pointed out that no effort has been made to appease or win over the remain faction. This is undoubtedly true although I suspect in many cases nothing was going to convince them to move on. But putting the negotiations in the hands of prominent Brexiteers was a serious mistake. Getting rid of Hammond would be another. We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.
Have you read the BBC article on Hamilton's qualifying prowess ? It's a tough hagiographic for my taste, but there's some interesting stuff -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41576209
We are about to be out of the EU for generations to come.
Just hand over £100bn and have the two year transition period.
In 30 years time who will have remembered? As HK tailors say - the quality of the cloth will be remembered for far longer than the price you paid.
Hammond's position indicates to Brussels he would never go that route. Epic negotiating fail.
Hamilton is an excellent qualifier, but it's also worth noting he's always had a car capable of winning races, which helps.