Reply to: Brexit impact studies

[original PM]

Ironically he's supposed to be a PM and doesn't seem to understand the importance of impact analysis. He must be one of those modern type of PMs

Impact assessments are nothing without proper risk analysis.

How many projects have you seen mired and going nowhere because some senior nugget has identified the most ridiculous risk without actually understanding that the likelihood of that risk becoming a reality is zero.

But then you have kind of hit the nail on the head - you are simply a better the devil you know kind of person and so any sort of change scares you.

[meridian]

Brexit impact studies

Sectoral analyses are now available for Fisheries. Apparently, much of the fisheries activity is by coastal towns. Who knew, eh?

[northernladyuk]

Ironically he's supposed to be a PM and doesn't seem to understand the importance of impact analysis. He must be one of those modern type of PMs

He is so thick, I am starting to suspect he is David Davis.

[Whorty]

You're confusing (deliberately?) planning for exact outcomes with assessing for contingency and possibilities, and "What If" analysis.

The question isn't about planning, which is where you are confusing yourself. It's about impact assessments on the various possible outcomes and using those impact assessments to form your policy on where you would like the outcome to head.

You can call it "guessing" if you like, but that's quite childish.

Ironically he's supposed to be a PM and doesn't seem to understand the importance of impact analysis. He must be one of those modern type of PMs

[meridian]

There is a theory that the assessments have been done. However, the results of any of them are so dire that Davis is suppressing them and would rather be thought a liar than release them, as this may result in Brexit being rethought.

Ideology and party over country.

There's another competing theory that Davis is simply too thick to do this.

[darmstadt]

"My officials, supported by officials across Government, are carrying out programme of sectoral analysis and regulatory analysis, which will identify the key factors for some 50 sectors of British business. It is extremely important that the House understands that.

"We are building a detailed understanding of how the withdrawal from the EU will affect domestic policies, to seize opportunities and ensure a smooth process of exit."

- David Davis to House of Commons, 5 September 2016

"We currently have in place an assessment of 51 sectors of the economy.

"We are looking at those one by one, but the aim at the end is that this will inform the negotiating approach so that no one gets hurt.

"I should mention that we are also doing that assessment in a way that will throw up whether something has an impact on the individual nations of the United Kingdom, as well as on the UK as a whole."

- David Davis to House of Commons, 20 October 2016

"We are in the midst of carrying out about 57 sets of analyses, each of which has implications for individual parts of 85% of the economy...

"We are taking our time to get prepared on all fronts. That is why our 57 studies cover 85% of the economy - everything except sectors that are not affected by international trade...

"We will also look at the regional effect. The idea of this aim is to get the best outcome for the country as a whole, but to make sure that everybody gains from it."

- David Davis to Brexit Committee, 14 December 2016

"We continue to analyse the impact of our exit across the breadth of the UK economy, covering more than 50 sectors - I think it was 58 at the last count - to shape our negotiating position.

- David Davis to the House of Commons, 2 February 2017

"In my job I don’t think out loud and I don’t make guesses. Those two things. I try and make decisions. You make those based on the data.

"That data’s being gathered, we’ve got 50, nearly 60 sector analyses already done, we’ve got planning work going on in the customs, we’ve got planning work going on 22 other issues which are critical, 127 all told."

- David Davis to BBC Andrew Marr Show, 25 June 2017

Labour MP Seema Malhotra: Has the Prime Minister seen the impact assessments that have been published, yes or no?

David Davis: The details of them? Sorry, did you say “have been published”?

Seema Malhotra: Sorry, I am just asking whether she has seen the impact assessments. A yes or no answer is fine.

David Davis: Which ones? I will give a proper answer; I do not give yes/no answers.

Seema Malhotra: I mean the impact assessments that you have not published.

David Davis: That we have not published?

Seema Malhotra: Yes.

David Davis: She will know the summary outcomes of them. She will not necessarily have read every single one. They are in excruciating detail.

- David Davis to Brexit Committee, 25 October 2017

"We are conducting a broad range of analysis at the macroeconomic and sectoral level to understand the impact of leaving the EU on all aspects of the UK, including the agriculture sector."

- David Davis-signed response to House of Lords Committee, 30 October 2017

“We are looking at the British economy, sector by sector, to see the impact that Brexit might have on it and taking a sounding of views right across the economy. That seems to me to be the perfectly logical way to approach this, acting purely in the national interest."

- Brexit minister Lord Bridges to the House of Lords, 14 September 2016

"It is an attempt to try to get this into a manageable format so that we can analyse what Brexit might mean for those particular sectors."

- Brexit minister Lord Bridges, evidence to Lords Brexit committee, 13 October 2016

[darmstadt]

Actually I think some people have made assessments of Brexit’s likely effects, sadly not the government but big business which, unless something happens within the next 48 hours, may cause repercussions...https://www.theguardian.com/politics...annot-progress

What Davis has admitted is even more serious than some people realise; no one in the Conservative Party has been making necessary assessments of Brexit’s likely effects. The Referendum was effectively called in May 2015 when the Tories won that year’s General Election, including it as a gesture to ‘buy’ up assurances of support from the party’s extremist fringe. Since then, two-and-a-half years have passed, during which the Referendum has been and gone, the Leave vote won, Article-50 has been activated, and we have had approximately six months of fruitless negotiations in Brussels. In all of that time, no one in either Cameron’s Government or May’s has even bothered to assess what the actual impact of Brexit will be?

That admission is even more appalling than Davis’ fictitious boasts about what a thorough assessment his department had carried out. After all, if the country does not know what impact ending the current settlement with the EU will have, how can it know what it will need from the new settlement? Little wonder therefore that negotiations with the EU’s representatives are going so badly, when British officials and politicians do not even know the implications of anything they ask for, or even precisely what they need to ask for, or for that matter what will happen if they do not get what they ask for. They have been driving in the dark without headlights for half a year, which has meant progress has not only been difficult, it has been logically impossible; how can progress be made towards a destination that has not even been identified or defined?

These details were central to everything about how Brexit is to be carried out, and until they were properly calculated, it was insanity on Theresa May’s part choosing to activate Article-50 so soon. It started a two-year countdown, and over half of the first year of precious negotiating time has been wasted on a reckless General Election backfire, and aimless thrashing-about when finally at the table. There is no point in childishly continuing to blame EU officials for the logjams, the fault is entirely on the British side.

https://thegreatcritique.wordpress.c...ing-too-small/

[meridian]

Do not confuse planning for the future based on knowns with guessing at what the future could hold for unknowns.

So for example yes - it is highly likely that 'money' as a thing will not be abolished before I die so the accumulation of wealth is a prudent choice to protect your loved ones.

What can you tell me exactly about what will happen after Brexit which you feel you could plan for?

You're confusing (deliberately?) planning for exact outcomes with assessing for contingency and possibilities, and "What If" analysis.

The question isn't about planning, which is where you are confusing yourself. It's about impact assessments on the various possible outcomes and using those impact assessments to form your policy on where you would like the outcome to head.

You can call it "guessing" if you like, but that's quite childish.

[original PM]

There are a multitude of options for the UK to aim for in their future negotiations, from full continued integration ("Norway" or Switzerland" options), through to Canada-style agreements, through to "No Deal".

How do you know which option to push for, if you don't know the potential impact of each on the UK?

Do you run your contracting business in the same way, just winging it and hoping for the best? Would you agree that that would not be the best way to run a business if you have a wife, kids, and mortgage that rely on your continued income? And if you do agree, then why is that an acceptable way to run a country?

(By the way, the EU has completed their own impact assessments because, well, they are prepared and have a position to negotiate that will provide the best outcome for them from this. Those impact assessments are available online for anyone to see)

Do not confuse planning for the future based on knowns with guessing at what the future could hold for unknowns.

So for example yes - it is highly likely that 'money' as a thing will not be abolished before I die so the accumulation of wealth is a prudent choice to protect your loved ones.

What can you tell me exactly about what will happen after Brexit which you feel you could plan for?

[darmstadt]

What part of 'put your cards on the table and lets come back in a 3 years time to see what has happened' are you struggling with?

?

3 years eh? Pretty pointless then...

The time-frame allowed in Article 50 is two years - and this can only be extended by unanimous agreement from all EU countries.
If no agreement is reached in two years, and no extension is agreed, the UK automatically leaves the EU and all existing agreements - including access to the single market - would cease to apply to the UK. If that happens, Brexit Day would be Friday, 29 March 2019.

Your leaders are lying to you, they have no idea what they want nor what they are doing (1) so I think the best the UK is going to get is a righteous cluster****



(1) A good example was again shown yesterday when Hammond stated that the divorce bill would be paid regardless yet an hour later, 10 Downing Street said that wasn't true

[meridian]

What part of 'put your cards on the table and lets come back in a 3 years time to see what has happened' are you struggling with?

?

There are a multitude of options for the UK to aim for in their future negotiations, from full continued integration ("Norway" or Switzerland" options), through to Canada-style agreements, through to "No Deal".

How do you know which option to push for, if you don't know the potential impact of each on the UK?

Do you run your contracting business in the same way, just winging it and hoping for the best? Would you agree that that would not be the best way to run a business if you have a wife, kids, and mortgage that rely on your continued income? And if you do agree, then why is that an acceptable way to run a country?

(By the way, the EU has completed their own impact assessments because, well, they are prepared and have a position to negotiate that will provide the best outcome for them from this. Those impact assessments are available online for anyone to see)

[original PM]

It was Davies who said they were in progress, it was Davies who said they would be released, and now that he admits that no studies have been done, you’re saying that he’s not the lying idiot who said they were happening, but anyone who considers it a good idea to look at possible future outcomes is an idiot?
You really do live in a post-truth, Trump bubble.

What part of 'put your cards on the table and lets come back in a 3 years time to see what has happened' are you struggling with?

?

[WTFH]

Trying to do an 'impact assessment' for Brexit would have been like trying to predict the future.

You are all fu<king idiots if you think every single thing can be planned and known before it happens.

It's quite sad to see supposedly intelligent people reduce to blithering panicking idiots.

But anyway - given you are all so clever I would have thought you would have done some impact assessments - so come on what's going to happen - put your cards on the table and lets come back in 3 years and see who has a fookin clue what they are talking about.

It was Davies who said they were in progress, it was Davies who said they would be released, and now that he admits that no studies have been done, you’re saying that he’s not the lying idiot who said they were happening, but anyone who considers it a good idea to look at possible future outcomes is an idiot?
You really do live in a post-truth, Trump bubble.

[original PM]

Trying to do an 'impact assessment' for Brexit would have been like trying to predict the future.

You are all fu<king idiots if you think every single thing can be planned and known before it happens.

It's quite sad to see supposedly intelligent people reduce to blithering panicking idiots.

But anyway - given you are all so clever I would have thought you would have done some impact assessments - so come on what's going to happen - put your cards on the table and lets come back in 3 years and see who has a fookin clue what they are talking about.

[HugeWhale]

. No need for MPs when people have the tech to vote on every decision themselves. I'm sure an impartial form of media can be provided to give the public the truth on what they are about to vote for. Too democratic?

X factor government. The first thing they'd do is reinstate the death penalty. Then they'd raise taxes. Then they'd ban just about everything that is fun.
The tyranny of the majority. Frightful.