Off Topic The Politics Thread

You wouldn't want to walk in my shoes.
I don't have a problem with any peaceful demonstration. I have no interest in that Tommy bloke or the Anti-fascists.
However, I have walked past a few demonstrations in my time and the anti-fascists always seem to cover their faces and wear black. If that is not provocation then I don't know what is.
I didn't have a problem with the Trump demonstrators although I think most were hypocritical and some were just embarrassing. What did it achieve? That 100K don't like him? More people in this country didn't demonstrate, so does that mean they like him? IMO It achieved nothing other than giving Trump more publicity. All he will do is say that most of the demonstrators supported him.
Anyway tbh I don't really care because it doesn't affect me directly, I was more interested in football than Trump's visit.

 

When I look at the suggested process, there's a sense of inevitability about the result for me.

Using a second choice vote:
'No Deal' voters won't pick 'Stay In' as a second choice. 'Stay In' voters won't pick 'No Deal'. I can't see many 'Mays Option' voters picking 'No Deal' as a second choice, either.

But I prove I'm out of touch with lots of peoples views on a daily basis, so what do I know?

 

Appreciate the reply. FWIW, I don't think much of the anti-Trump protests as being an effective way of changing anything at this stage in the game. It's clear that none of this changes anyones mind.

 

I voted but I think we did this a while back.

So what will this thread uncover. My guess will be very little.

 

But is a second referendum a realistic option after wasting 2 years of our, and the EUs time on this ? Many firms have been relocating, ports such as Rotterdam have been preparing for Brexit - could Britain be held liable for such costs if we now go back on it ? What would a second referendum bring ? The country is still divided and a 52%-48% result for remain would just be unfinished business. A second referendum could only make sense if it produced a really conclusive result, otherwise it will rip Britain down the middle again and, even if 'Remain' scored a small victory, would not be accepted with much confidence by the EU.

 

Leaving is the best thing for Britain, whatever the deal

 

I just tripped over this and thought it was worth sharing. It's just an opinion, but I saw some merit in it. It matches with my experience of negotiating high value software sales and services - especially services.

/starts/
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn't another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig

/ends/

 

Apologies, as the following should probably sit on the Politics thread given the comment already made...

It may come as a surprise to learn that I’d most likely vote “stay in” in the event of another referendum, but not because I necessarily believe this to be the best decision in the long-term for our country, but more because our politicians have proven themselves to be incapable of delivery.

The bloody Tories have been internally split by Europe since the Year Dot, so its little wonder that we have the current load of **** from them. It’s in their DNA.

This goes back to that twat, Cameron, and the vanity project that was the referendum. As somebody that has always thought the UK better off out - or at least that we should find out - I believed this to be my only opportunity to exercise this opinion. I don’t believe we’ll ever get another chance, which probably contradicts what I’m going to say next (but I’ll say it anyway).

The right thing to have done - and to do now - is to have a general election with each party (or better still new parties, or coalition of interests) setting out their respective plans for Brexit or Remain. We have seen that Stay/Leave falls outside of party politics, with both Remainers and Brexiteers to be found right across the political spectrum. Then the electorate could have at least voted on the preferred plan. No, it wouldn’t have been perfect, but neither is what we have now.

Politicians are putting their own ambitions ahead of what is right for the country. It’s a vanity project and May does not have the mandate for it.

Better that we have some form of coalition government solely to deliver Brexit, then a new general election.

Sorry, shouldn’t have a glass of wine at lunchtime.

 

Bear this in mind. On the Today programme today, Greening was asked if she thought the EU would offer us a similar deal to what we had before, if we came back to them with our tails between our legs and apologised. She refused to answer, but it's obvious. Brussels would make the UK pay for all the uncertainty, and we'd get a worse deal than we had when Cameron was PM.

Just so you know what you're signing up to.

 

I don't see the point of it.
It will be an even higher leave vote next time. We just need to get out and move on. It's just another attempt to derail the will of the people.

 

You never bore me. However who else is to share blame for the failure to deliver Brexit with the Tories? The people spoke. They had the mandate. They sold the Crown jewels to buy a diamond studded tiara for Arlene (the latter because there is no magic money tree so they had to raise the funds somehow) as an insurance policy. It would frankly have been a lot simpler to organise a piss up in a brewery.

 

**** it, I think we should continue to have a referendum, say once a year until we get the result that everyone wants......................

 

If you believe it is just a Tory mess up then you really need to wake up. You need to get away from your anti-Tory stance and try looking at the bigger picture. Virtually everything we have proposed to the EU has been turned down. The EU want's Brexit to fail and are doing everything they can to stop it.
I am only glad that people are starting to realise what twats the EU bureaucrats are. Support for the EU is falling daily and it was nice listening to remain voters who said they just want to leave.
We have a Tory government and the are making mistakes but it's not entirely there fault. Just be grateful we don't have a Labour government running things because we would end up in a worse position.

 

All the EU have done is say 'tell us what you want and we'll consider it'. It's taken this Tory government 2 years to arrive at an 'agreed' position that looks like falling apart at any minute. I find it interesting that on the Greening thread, no Leaver has said that they would vote for the May proposal, preferring the no-deal option that is widely acknowledged to be the most damaging for the British economy. Yes, we'll have another recession, but it will be 'our' recession.

 

You're beginning to sound like your mate, Gideon, Strolls!

There are huge opportunities with Brexit

 

Sadly Stroller you are anti-Tory and a remainer. I cannot remember one post of yours that either sticks up for the government our questions the EU? Whereas I have moaned about things on both sides and have stated if I think something is a good idea.
The EU has been taking full advantage of us while the government argues over Brexit. Since the day the people voted to leave we have had Blair/Clegg/Lords/TV/Big business and 'remainers' who couldn't take the result undermine the government at every opportunity. Please don't tell me this is all a Tory mess because you would be letting yourself down. I also blame the enemy from within the Tory party who are undermining TM (and I am talking JRMogg).
As for these last-ditch attempts to get another referendum? People are sick of it and just want to leave (including many remainers). No point for another vote as it would probably end 54% 46% to leave. As for the 'No deal' point you mention (see paragraph 2). Insiders at EU are already saying they will reject it so what is the point dealing with them. We blew our chance by acting weak at the start (we can blame TM for that).
I like what Farage said today in that we should get rid of May accept some of the terms but if they don't accept others then we should say we will leave in March.
Now you may call that radical but it's the only way to deal with this lot. Saying all that it could be too late.

 

It is a Tory mess.

They are too chickenshit to go no deal (which is what you want) and have now monumentally screwed it up with what to do with Ireland. If the EU do not want to deal, then they are not obliged to deal. Of course, you can blame them if you like but ultimately, if we're to go it alone, then our government needs to be able to do it without getting handouts from other countries

 

This any good for you?

 

What handouts had you in mind, given that we were the second largest contributor to the EU, and if we no-deal, the EU will have a £39bn hole in their already flakey budget?

 

Bloody hell I am corrected. A first Stroller!
However, you know as well as I do you are only supporting her because if she stays you may get a Labour government or a second referendum. Fortunately for the good of this country, you are clutching at straws