Thanks Thanks:  412
Likes Likes:  5,983
Page 606 of 728 FirstFirst ... 106506556596604605606607608616656706 ... LastLast
Results 6,051 to 6,060 of 7275

Thread: Brexit

  1. #6051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterchilton View Post
    Please reveal your sources. Why wouldn't the EU / Remain Empire say that no progress was being made? Some news sources soak it up because it suits them. Why would the PM tell the same remain press what he was up to in detail? So that they could use it in the negotiations? It would be naive to disclose whats going on and bereft of information the press make some up or adorn whatever morsel they get and the remain public soak it up as fact ...


    With the greatest of respect I do not 'soak' anything up. Surely my offer to change my opinion of the cynical actions of Bozo when you produce the evidence that I requested earlier must display that I am prepared to accept evidence presented from either leave or remain supporting organisations or individuals. Your valued support will of course help to form or reform my opinion and will be most welcome. I await your presentation of evidence with eager anticipation
    It's all very well using WW2 analogies when referring to Brexit - 'spirit of the blitz' and all that. Imagine the curious atmosphere though if you were sitting in your air raid shelter looking around and realising that half of the people around you had voted to get bombed

  2. #6052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxie View Post
    I see it a bit like this. A person takes over a lease on a reservoir and wants to buy some fish to stock it. The owner then tells him he has to buy his fish from the same supplier they have always used, me, cannot go elsewhere and have to stock a certain number of fish. The owner tells me this. Now all you top negotiators come and negotiate with me and see if you can get a good deal under these circumstances!
    The leaseholder needs to negotiate with the owners before he comes anywhere near you. The owners clearly have strong views, and with good reasons for them, which may or many not be valid. I would sit down with them, find out why they feel so strongly about only buying from you, explain the benefits of looking elsewhere, and show them some hard numbers to back up the commercial reason for switching.

    But they probably feel an emotional attachment to you on some level, so numbers won't work on their own. Could be loyalty because you've always looked after them. Could be fear of change. Could be safety in numbers - everyone they know uses you, their neighbours, you're the go-to fish man. Could be pragmatism - they might feel that there are cheaper/better fish out there, but now isn't the time to disrupt our supply, the business is just coming out of a recession, let's get things on an even keel. Could be they don't trust the new leaseholder to fight his way out of a wet paper bag, let alone get a better price for fish, so they're trying to protect the basic supply of fish even it means they're tying the leaseholder's hands and going against what their community wants - you say you want a different fish supplier, and that's cool, but honestly, not with these guys steering the ship... Either way, I'd try and find out and then work on unpicking it.

    I wouldn't tie them all up in a cupboard and tell them I'm doing what I want anyway, I want the chlorinated fish, and if you don't support me, I'll remove you one by one from the deeds of the lake until you agree.

    I wouldn't trigger a procurement process without making sure I had the support of the owners on how we'd structure the new buying framework, what our criteria for success looks like and how we'll ensure continued supply of fish in the transition period, because it's not my place to decide these things, it's theirs, and so setting off on a huge buying exercise without their explicit support just seems like a recipe for confusion and ultimately a flawed procurement process. (My business was just involved in a huge public sector procurement exercise that was cancelled at the last minute - 3 days before tender submission - because it wasn't structured properly. It will be restarted again once they've addressed this. They do this for marketing, and not for rewriting and reworking 40 years of the fabric our nation's function...)

    (Loxie, I'm not sure it's all that much like buying fish).
    Last edited by Safranfoer; 13-09-2019 at 11:49 AM.

  3. #6053
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Mid Wales
    Posts
    553

    Default

    I have as much access the the facts as you have.

  4. #6054

    Default

    Remember Thomas Muir of Huntershill

  5. #6055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Safranfoer View Post
    The leaseholder needs to negotiate with the owners before he comes anywhere near you. The owners clearly have strong views, and with good reasons for them, which may or many not be valid. I would sit down with them, find out why they feel so strongly about only buying from you, explain the benefits of looking elsewhere, and show them some hard numbers to back up the commercial reason for switching.

    But they probably feel an emotional attachment to you on some level, so numbers won't work on their own. Could be loyalty because you've always looked after them. Could be fear of change. Could be safety in numbers - everyone they know uses you, their neighbours, you're the go-to fish man. Could be pragmatism - they might feel that there are cheaper/better fish out there, but now isn't the time to disrupt our supply, the business is just coming out of a recession, let's get things on an even keel. Could be they don't trust the new leaseholder to fight his way out of a wet paper bag, let alone get a better price for fish, so they're trying to protect the basic supply of fish even it means they're tying the leaseholder's hands and going against what their community wants - you say you want a different fish supplier, and that's cool, but honestly, not with these guys steering the ship... Either way, I'd try and find out and then work on unpicking it.

    I wouldn't tie them all up in a cupboard and tell them I'm doing what I want anyway, I want the chlorinated fish, and if you don't support me, I'll remove you one by one from the deeds of the lake until you agree.

    I wouldn't trigger a procurement process without making sure I had the support of the owners on how we'd structure the new buying framework, what our criteria for success looks like and how we'll ensure continued supply of fish in the transition period, because it's not my place to decide these things, it's theirs, and so setting off on a huge buying exercise without their explicit support just seems like a recipe for confusion and ultimately a flawed procurement process. (My business was just involved in a huge public sector procurement exercise that was cancelled at the last minute - 3 days before tender submission - because it wasn't structured properly. It will be restarted again once they've addressed this. They do this for marketing, and not for rewriting and reworking 40 years of the fabric our nation's function...)

    (Loxie, I'm not sure it's all that much like buying fish).
    No. But that wasn't the point. The analogy was about forcing a negotiation with no ability to walk away. The relationship automatically becomes parasitic rather than symbiotic.

  6. #6056

    Default

    Just in case y’all missed it .
    Hope it doesn’t put you off your lunch.

    Anti-Brexiters file new legal challenge to force article 50 extension | Politics | The Guardian
    Remember Thomas Muir of Huntershill

  7. #6057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxie View Post
    No. But that wasn't the point. The analogy was about forcing a negotiation with no ability to walk away. The relationship automatically becomes parasitic rather than symbiotic.
    There's a reality that we can't just walk away though, whatever we say, so it's something of an empty threat.

  8. #6058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxie View Post
    I see it a bit like this. A person takes over a lease on a reservoir and wants to buy some fish to stock it. The owner then tells him he has to buy his fish from the same supplier they have always used, me, cannot go elsewhere and have to stock a certain number of fish. The owner tells me this. Now all you top negotiators come and negotiate with me and see if you can get a good deal under these circumstances!
    If I was the leaseholder....
    If those clauses weren't in the lease agreement I'd tell the owner where to go.
    If those clauses were in the lease agreement, I'd politely tell the owner the clauses are restraint of trade and go about my business with whomsoever I want to buy fish from.

    I kind of get your point though, we do need to be talking more about fish and fishing. I had a nice sea trout a couple of nights ago. There are not many fish about this year, they are obviously as sick of Brexit as we are, but still catching odd ones to keep me going. Personally, I blame the remainers for the lack of fish this year - if we hadn't been in Europe in 2015/2016 then Storms Desmond and Frank would have missed us by some distance (we are going to tow the UK into the mid Atlantic aren't we?) and the rivers might have more fish in them.

  9. #6059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ibm59 View Post
    Just in case y’all missed it .
    Hope it doesn’t put you off your lunch.

    Anti-Brexiters file new legal challenge to force article 50 extension | Politics | The Guardian

    Put me off my home made chicken curry? Not likely
    It's all very well using WW2 analogies when referring to Brexit - 'spirit of the blitz' and all that. Imagine the curious atmosphere though if you were sitting in your air raid shelter looking around and realising that half of the people around you had voted to get bombed

  10. #6060
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    cotswolds
    Posts
    2,132

    Default

    Good old Dale - hippy entrepreneur who has very cleverly made £100m on the back of renewables funded by the British taxpayer. He was my landlord in Stroud for many years prior to my retirement and is a capitalist through and through.
    To be fair on the guy, he is now one of the largest employers in the Stroud Valleys owns Forest Green Rovers and as a vegan has banned all meat and animal products from being consumed on or in the grounds. Veggie burgers are now the norm . I hope he loses the action which to my mind us frivolous.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •