RugbyRebels

Quite why he's decided to tie this to Brexit I've no idea. As the article itself points out, it's been on the rise for yonks. The Great Repeal Bill will merely highlight the issue. Of course, if the various committees spent more time scrutinising legislation rather than seeking headlines by shouting at Brailsford, Green (not that Green doesn't deserve to be shouted at/punched in his metaphorically wonderful obese gut) etc and actually let the quangos get on with their jobs, and/or stopped buggering off on pointless foreign 'fact finding trips' this might not be such a problem. Though, having said all that the Executive are the root cause.

Perhaps more to the point, even taking all the above in to account, the UK parliament is a lot more powerful than the EU parliament. In fact, a lot of the laws transferred by the Great Repeal
Bill will have come in to being at a time when the EU parliament had no powers at all other than comment, ie no powers at all.

Mellsblue wrote:Quite why he's decided to tie this to Brexit I've no idea. As the article itself points out, it's been on the rise for yonks. The Great Repeal Bill will merely highlight the issue. Of course, if the various committees spent more time scrutinising legislation rather than seeking headlines by shouting at Brailsford, Green (not that Green doesn't deserve to be shouted at/punched in his metaphorically wonderful obese gut) etc and actually let the quangos get on with their jobs, and/or stopped buggering off on pointless foreign 'fact finding trips' this might not be such a problem. Though, having said all that the Executive are the root cause.

Perhaps more to the point, even taking all the above in to account, the UK parliament is a lot more powerful than the EU parliament. In fact, a lot of the laws transferred by the Great Repeal
Bill will have come in to being at a time when the EU parliament had no powers at all other than comment, ie no powers at all.

If you'd followed the discussion you'd know that it is proposed to give the government very wide powers indeed to vary all EU legislation adopted on our leaving the EU. That's why Brexit is relevant.

You betray an ignoance of how legislation is enacted. Select Committees do not scrutinise Bills, they scrutinise policy and its implementation. Standing Committees scrutinise legislation and they are not the people chasing headlines.

The UK Parliament being more powerful than the European Parliament is a complete irrelevance.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Quite why he's decided to tie this to Brexit I've no idea. As the article itself points out, it's been on the rise for yonks. The Great Repeal Bill will merely highlight the issue. Of course, if the various committees spent more time scrutinising legislation rather than seeking headlines by shouting at Brailsford, Green (not that Green doesn't deserve to be shouted at/punched in his metaphorically wonderful obese gut) etc and actually let the quangos get on with their jobs, and/or stopped buggering off on pointless foreign 'fact finding trips' this might not be such a problem. Though, having said all that the Executive are the root cause.

Perhaps more to the point, even taking all the above in to account, the UK parliament is a lot more powerful than the EU parliament. In fact, a lot of the laws transferred by the Great Repeal
Bill will have come in to being at a time when the EU parliament had no powers at all other than comment, ie no powers at all.

If you'd followed the discussion you'd know that it is proposed to give the government very wide powers indeed to vary all EU legislation adopted on our leaving the EU. That's why Brexit is relevant.

You betray an ignoance of how legislation is enacted. Select Committees do not scrutinise Bills, they scrutinise policy and its implementation. Standing Committees scrutinise legislation and they are not the people chasing headlines.

The UK Parliament being more powerful than the European Parliament is a complete irrelevance.

Trust me, I've followed it. My point is that legislation has been poorly scrutinised for years now and the problem is slowly becoming worse. What they are doing has been done for years, as anyone who'd followed it prior to the referendum would know, it's just Brexit and the great repeal bill has brought the issue to the fore.

I know how it works. If these committees weren't set up to double up on the work of quangos the MP's would have more time to scrutinise legislation.

The judge complains there will be a democratic deficit in our parliament because of Brexit, but the democratic deficit when and where these laws were initially made is worse. Though, it must be said that the UK parliament is moving in the wrong direction and the EU parliament has moved in the correct direction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... U-hat.html

Brenda's hat.
Reading the comments section it seems that none of them are too keen on the suggestion that Brenda's a Remoaner.
But that looks a pretty clear statement to me.

Interesting to see how much progress the government has actually made since the referendum. The Great Repeal Bill is now the Repeal Bill, and...?

Digby wrote:Interesting to see how much progress the government has actually made since the referendum. The Great Repeal Bill is now the Repeal Bill, and...?

We have a shiny new government department.

Its obvious why May is dragging her heels over Brexit,she doesn't want to leave, she voted remain, she should never have been made PM, it should have been a leave candidate who was made PM.
All these threats from the EU cronies about consequences are a load of crap, Britain has one of the largest economies in Europe, the EU are desperate for us to stay, the EU is crumbling under its own bureaucratic weight, as an organisation and force they are a complete waste of space.
If by "hard Brexit" they mean we must get out asap whatever the consequences then I'm all for it. The EU is like a giant millstone around our necks, all it has done is drive wages down while sucking the life out of all our resources, we are well rid of it, if that ever happens, and I'm very doubtful of that.
The EU is great for the rich globalists and big business, its a complete catastrophe for the working class.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Interesting to see how much progress the government has actually made since the referendum. The Great Repeal Bill is now the Repeal Bill, and...?

We have a shiny new government department.

Shiny and new in the sense it's borrowed from other departments who previously worked with the EU. Although I'd grant they've put a moron in charge.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Interesting to see how much progress the government has actually made since the referendum. The Great Repeal Bill is now the Repeal Bill, and...?

We have a shiny new government department.

Shiny and new in the sense it's borrowed from other departments who previously worked with the EU. Although I'd grant they've put a moron in charge.

And expensive. I read in a paper from the Institute of Govt a while ago that the average first year set-up costs for each new department is £15 million.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: We have a shiny new government department.

Shiny and new in the sense it's borrowed from other departments who previously worked with the EU. Although I'd grant they've put a moron in charge.

And expensive. I read in a paper from the Institute of Govt a while ago that the average first year set-up costs for each new department is £15 million.

That's peanuts. Even before ongoing payments to the EU are sorted, the divorce bill is sorted, and the impact to trade is felt we'll easily top a billion in the administration costs of Brexit. Mind given we've pretty much 2 years of parliament given over to Brexit it's hardly insightful to note it'll be an expensive old time.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Shiny and new in the sense it's borrowed from other departments who previously worked with the EU. Although I'd grant they've put a moron in charge.

And expensive. I read in a paper from the Institute of Govt a while ago that the average first year set-up costs for each new department is £15 million.

That's peanuts. Even before ongoing payments to the EU are sorted, the divorce bill is sorted, and the impact to trade is felt we'll easily top a billion in the administration costs of Brexit. Mind given we've pretty much 2 years of parliament given over to Brexit it's hardly insightful to note it'll be an expensive old time.

As you got self say, it's reshuffling the chairs on the deck rather than moving them on to a new boat. Hence my point was more the cost of each new administration fumbling around the edges of stuff to create a shiny new department that are mostly rebadged existing departments. In the grand scheme of things £15m may be peanuts, and I certainly wasn't saying it's expensive in the context of Brexit, but multiply it across all the new departments created in the last ten years and you've sorted capital expenditure in schools across a fair few cities.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: And expensive. I read in a paper from the Institute of Govt a while ago that the average first year set-up costs for each new department is £15 million.

That's peanuts. Even before ongoing payments to the EU are sorted, the divorce bill is sorted, and the impact to trade is felt we'll easily top a billion in the administration costs of Brexit. Mind given we've pretty much 2 years of parliament given over to Brexit it's hardly insightful to note it'll be an expensive old time.

As you got self say, it's reshuffling the chairs on the deck rather than moving them on to a new boat. Hence my point was more the cost of each new administration fumbling around the edges of stuff to create a shiny new department that are mostly rebadged existing departments. In the grand scheme of things £15m may be peanuts, and I certainly wasn't saying it's expensive in the context of Brexit, but multiply it across all the new departments created in the last ten years and you've sorted capital expenditure in schools across a fair few cities.

but this happens in all major ops. they cost money to run of themselves.

I don't know how many times as a for instance I've been part of an office where we've suddenly moved to a new bank of desks, had desk space reduced and extra desks added, had new offices go up, moved to a new floor, moved to a new building, had teams merge, had teams diverge, had some staff secluded off/ringfenced (even put behind the sometimes literal chinese wall)

I don't really know how one avoids such costs unless an organisation simply makes no changes.

In saying that I do consider too many managers make changes simply so they feel they've done something, and often the better decision would have been to do nothing. But when you look at what gets people promoted it's not typically a more coherent long term strategy, its shouting and making supposed short term advances

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
That's peanuts. Even before ongoing payments to the EU are sorted, the divorce bill is sorted, and the impact to trade is felt we'll easily top a billion in the administration costs of Brexit. Mind given we've pretty much 2 years of parliament given over to Brexit it's hardly insightful to note it'll be an expensive old time.

As you got self say, it's reshuffling the chairs on the deck rather than moving them on to a new boat. Hence my point was more the cost of each new administration fumbling around the edges of stuff to create a shiny new department that are mostly rebadged existing departments. In the grand scheme of things £15m may be peanuts, and I certainly wasn't saying it's expensive in the context of Brexit, but multiply it across all the new departments created in the last ten years and you've sorted capital expenditure in schools across a fair few cities.

but this happens in all major ops. they cost money to run of themselves.

I don't know how many times as a for instance I've been part of an office where we've suddenly moved to a new bank of desks, had desk space reduced and extra desks added, had new offices go up, moved to a new floor, moved to a new building, had teams merge, had teams diverge, had some staff secluded off/ringfenced (even put behind the sometimes literal chinese wall)

I don't really know how one avoids such costs unless an organisation simply makes no changes.

In saying that I do consider too many managers make changes simply so they feel they've done something, and often the better decision would have been to do nothing. But when you look at what gets people promoted it's not typically a more coherent long term strategy, its shouting and making supposed short term advances

All very true, but your initial reaction was that they've just amalgamated a few existing teams, given it a fancy title and put an idiot in charge. So, I was just pointing out that £15m-ish is a lot to pay to achieve what you view as virtually nothing.
I was merely trying to add weight to your point. Not set off a discussion about waste across the UK business community.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: As you got self say, it's reshuffling the chairs on the deck rather than moving them on to a new boat. Hence my point was more the cost of each new administration fumbling around the edges of stuff to create a shiny new department that are mostly rebadged existing departments. In the grand scheme of things £15m may be peanuts, and I certainly wasn't saying it's expensive in the context of Brexit, but multiply it across all the new departments created in the last ten years and you've sorted capital expenditure in schools across a fair few cities.

but this happens in all major ops. they cost money to run of themselves.

I don't know how many times as a for instance I've been part of an office where we've suddenly moved to a new bank of desks, had desk space reduced and extra desks added, had new offices go up, moved to a new floor, moved to a new building, had teams merge, had teams diverge, had some staff secluded off/ringfenced (even put behind the sometimes literal chinese wall)

I don't really know how one avoids such costs unless an organisation simply makes no changes.

In saying that I do consider too many managers make changes simply so they feel they've done something, and often the better decision would have been to do nothing. But when you look at what gets people promoted it's not typically a more coherent long term strategy, its shouting and making supposed short term advances

All very true, but your initial reaction was that they've just amalgamated a few existing teams, given it a fancy title and put an idiot in charge. So, I was just pointing out that £15m-ish is a lot to pay to achieve what you view as virtually nothing.
I was merely trying to add weight to your point. Not set off a discussion about waste across the UK business community.

If they hadn't found a way to piss £15million up the wall on setting up a new department it'd have been something else. I don't think a certain amount of waste is avoidable, it's just what happens.

Like any marriage turned sour its going to be expensive, the quicker its done the better, we should never have got involved in the first place, we were conned into it.
Stop making payments to the EU, pull up the drawbridge and tell them to fuck off, they are making a right meal out of it.

Weird for someone who campaigned for remain, but it would appear that only Theresa was against guaranteeing the rights of Eu citizens already in the UK after the brexit vote.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.indepe ... html%3Famp

Does she have any opinions of her own, or just agree with whatever the polls are telling her is most popular on any given day?

canta_brian wrote:Weird for someone who campaigned for remain, but it would appear that only Theresa was against guaranteeing the rights of Eu citizens already in the UK after the brexit vote.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.indepe ... html%3Famp

Does she have any opinions of her own, or just agree with whatever the polls are telling her is most popular on any given day?

She's a pragmatist. It makes no negotiating sense to guarantee rights unilaterally or to make a broad statement of a guarantee without any idea what the limits should be. She's playing the stupid hand she's been given with as much logic as she can muster. It would of course be better to not play it at all but there we go.

I wouldn't guarantee fuck all, I'd keep them all all edge, "well yes maybe, if your good, and have a job, we'll see how it goes, maybe you can stay"

Lord Lucan wrote:I wouldn't guarantee fuck all, I'd keep them all all edge, "well yes maybe, if your good, and have a job, we'll see how it goes, maybe you can stay"

Yes but you're an idiot.

Lord Lucan wrote:I wouldn't guarantee fuck all, I'd keep them all all edge, "well yes maybe, if your good, and have a job, we'll see how it goes, maybe you can stay"

Shut the fuck up.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Weird for someone who campaigned for remain, but it would appear that only Theresa was against guaranteeing the rights of Eu citizens already in the UK after the brexit vote.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.indepe ... html%3Famp

Does she have any opinions of her own, or just agree with whatever the polls are telling her is most popular on any given day?

She's a pragmatist. It makes no negotiating sense to guarantee rights unilaterally or to make a broad statement of a guarantee without any idea what the limits should be. She's playing the stupid hand she's been given with as much logic as she can muster. It would of course be better to not play it at all but there we go.

quite.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Weird for someone who campaigned for remain, but it would appear that only Theresa was against guaranteeing the rights of Eu citizens already in the UK after the brexit vote.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.indepe ... html%3Famp

Does she have any opinions of her own, or just agree with whatever the polls are telling her is most popular on any given day?

She's a pragmatist. It makes no negotiating sense to guarantee rights unilaterally or to make a broad statement of a guarantee without any idea what the limits should be. She's playing the stupid hand she's been given with as much logic as she can muster. It would of course be better to not play it at all but there we go.

Exactly. Explaining every move, counter move and objective to the entire population would be self-defeating. Perhaps time a few people realised that and worked out how best to support the efforts at Brexit rather than just chuck rocks from the sidelines.

Like it or not, its happening and if this current climate continues then the likelihood is that we will end up in a far worse place than we might otherwise be.

Sandydragon wrote:[1.]Exactly. Explaining every move, counter move and objective to the entire population would be self-defeating.
[2.]Perhaps time a few people realised that and worked out how best to support the efforts at Brexit rather than just chuck rocks from the sidelines.

[3.]Like it or not, its happening and if this current climate continues then the likelihood is that we will end up in a far worse place than we might otherwise be.

[1.] Yep, I don't like the strategy we appeasr to be using; but we don't need it spelled out - and with the chosen strategy, spelling things would actively undermine it.
[2.] Yeah, that'll make so much difference. So much difference in fact, that we should all become blind followers and supportive of things we disapprove of because our input in random rugby forum #6 will completely undermine the negotiations.
Alternatively, we've had our say, and we don't get another one. Anything said by Joe Bloggs now is utterly immaterial.
[3.] Yes, we know it's happening, and the current climate will make no difference to anything anymore. Publicly approving of things we don't approve of won't change anything for the better, and publicly disapproving of things we do approve of won't make things any worse... except for setting a really bad precedent of shutting down opposing voices.

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:[1.]Exactly. Explaining every move, counter move and objective to the entire population would be self-defeating.
[2.]Perhaps time a few people realised that and worked out how best to support the efforts at Brexit rather than just chuck rocks from the sidelines.

[3.]Like it or not, its happening and if this current climate continues then the likelihood is that we will end up in a far worse place than we might otherwise be.

[1.] Yep, I don't like the strategy we appeasr to be using; but we don't need it spelled out - and with the chosen strategy, spelling things would actively undermine it.
[2.] Yeah, that'll make so much difference. So much difference in fact, that we should all become blind followers and supportive of things we disapprove of because our input in random rugby forum #6 will completely undermine the negotiations.
Alternatively, we've had our say, and we don't get another one. Anything said by Joe Bloggs now is utterly immaterial.
[3.] Yes, we know it's happening, and the current climate will make no difference to anything anymore. Publicly approving of things we don't approve of won't change anything for the better, and publicly disapproving of things we do approve of won't make things any worse... except for setting a really bad precedent of shutting down opposing voices.

Think SD might have been referring more to the politicians/'experts'/journos who just keep having a go at the Government
about anything & everything to do with the negotiations

to cheer us all up

http://newsthump.com/2016/06/22/growing ... ntry-back/