Brexit Begins

[RandBlade]

Oh Jesus you utter tit, an incompetent and untrustworthy minister who bullies her staff and acts like a dumbass should resign. If she does not, she should be compelled to resign. Politicians are not elected to abuse civil servants.

I didn't say bullying was OK. I said what I described is NOT bullying. Tit, there's a difference.

From what I've seen so far Patel is proving a good Home Secretary, while the Home Office has not got my faith. Not only have I been criticising the Home Office for many years, you have been criticising the Home Office for years too, before Patel was appointed. So if a new Home Secretary is required to ruffle some feathers to sort out a serially incompetent team then good luck to her!

Or are you suddenly going to pretend the Home Office was perfect and flawless and a new Home Secretary wouldn't need to change the way they were operating?

[gogobongopop]

Of course they're not automatically dismissed. I didn't say otherwise. But if it's shown that someone is guilty of bullying then there's clear grounds for gross misconduct, and they should be sacked.

I'm hopeful she'll resign because I don't trust her.

[RandBlade]

You're just jumping on a bandwagon. You want her to resign for secondary reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with this, don't you?

The Home Secretary should have little reason to bully any of her staff, since they should be doing what she requires anyway. The Home Office needs to be changed.

[Aimless]

I didn't say bullying was OK. I said what I described is NOT bullying. Tit, there's a difference.

Jfc, no, gtfo. Shouting at and belittling your subordinates is textbook bullying. It is also pathetic, and indicates poor leadership skills.

Not only have I been criticising the Home Office for many years, you have been criticising the Home Office for years too, before Patel was appointed. So if a new Home Secretary is required to ruffle some feathers to sort out a serially incompetent team then good luck to her!

Or are you suddenly going to pretend the Home Office was perfect and flawless and a new Home Secretary wouldn't need to change the way they were operating?

This is stupid on several levels. The HO's dysfunction is systemic, and the dysfunction reflects the dysfunction that is emblematic of Little England's toxic politics & culture; it isn't something you can fix by shouting at and belittling your subordinates, or by being so incompetent and untrustworthy that intelligence officials can't speak frankly with you. If Patel pulls down her pants and takes a huge shit on her desk, would that be commendable, given that the HO is dysfunctional? No. Her behaviour has to be judged on its own merits, without resorting to the "look what you made me do" whine so loved by idiots, bullies and overgrown babies everywhere.

The Home Secretary should have little reason to bully any of her staff, since they should be doing what she requires anyway. The Home Office needs to be changed.

This, too, is stupid on several levels. Bullies don't need reasons for bullying subordinates; not doing what your boss "requires" you to do is not a justification for bullying; your boss may in fact be an incompetent halfwit who makes unrealistic or even impossible demands; bullying subordinates is certainly a way to change an organization, but it's a dumb way--and any change it brings about is not likely to be for the better.

[gogobongopop]

You're just jumping on a bandwagon. You want her to resign for secondary reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with this, don't you?

The Home Secretary should have little reason to bully any of her staff, since they should be doing what she requires anyway. The Home Office needs to be changed.

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon. Fuck you for implying I'm some kind of mindless drone.

I've made it perfectly clear in the past that I expect the highest possible standards from our MPs. Contrary to you. I don't trust her and never wanted her in cabinet. I think any MP who has had to resign from a government position in the past should forfeit that right in the future.

If she's found guilty she should resign. If she's not then she doesn't need to. That's a sensible position, unlike yours which seems to be "she has no reason to so fuck that guy and let's forget about it".

[RandBlade]

Jfc, no, gtfo. Shouting at and belittling your subordinates is textbook bullying. It is also pathetic, and indicates poor leadership skills.

That would be the shouting and belittling that he said himself were "false allegations" a couple of days ago? Are you suggesting he was lying a few days ago, or lying now? Oh and its worth noting that there is a formal complaints procedure and there have been to date "no formal complaints" made about Patel. In anywhere I've worked in with a formal complaints procedure the first step before leaving and moaning to the media is to lodge a formal complaint, that wasn't done.

This is stupid on several levels. The HO's dysfunction is systemic, and the dysfunction reflects the dysfunction that is emblematic of Little England's toxic politics & culture; it isn't something you can fix by shouting at and belittling your subordinates, or by being so incompetent and untrustworthy that intelligence officials can't speak frankly with you. If Patel pulls down her pants and takes a huge shit on her desk, would that be commendable, given that the HO is dysfunctional? No. Her behaviour has to be judged on its own merits, without resorting to the "look what you made me do" whine so loved by idiots, bullies and overgrown babies everywhere.

Indeed, Boris and Patel are seeking to fix that by getting rid of the toxic politics and cultures that predate them and set a healthy new environment.

If Patel pulls her pants and takes a huge shit on her desk I'd expect a formal complaint to be lodged. Which hasn't been done.

This, too, is stupid on several levels. Bullies don't need reasons for bullying subordinates; not doing what your boss "requires" you to do is not a justification for bullying; your boss may in fact be an incompetent halfwit who makes unrealistic or even impossible demands; bullying subordinates is certainly a way to change an organization, but it's a dumb way--and any change it brings about is not likely to be for the better.

Or that's not happening but your boss has identified you as an incompetent halfwit and has started proceedings to replace you and you decide to jump before you're pushed.

Lets see what we know
1: There are no previous complaints about alleged bullying by Patel.
2: There are no current formal complaints about alleged bullying by Patel.
3: The Home Office has been not fit for purpose for years if not decades.
4: The culture in the Home Office has to change.

[RandBlade]

Non-political but congratulations to the happy couple
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51691434

This will soon make the third PM in recent years (every majority winning PM of last quarter of a century) to have had a child in Downing Street.

[Aimless]

That would be the shouting and belittling that he said himself were "false allegations" a couple of days ago? Are you suggesting he was lying a few days ago, or lying now?

Perhaps you can provide a link to that quote so that we can get a better idea of how muddled you are.

[RandBlade]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51609047

[Aimless]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51609047

Can you please quote the part of the article where he's quoted as saying that the allegations of bullying are false?

[RandBlade]

The pair were both said to be "deeply concerned" by the "false allegations". <snip>

A spokesman for Ms Patel and Sir Philip said they were focused on delivering their department's "hugely important agenda" such as an overhaul of the immigration system, putting more police officers on the streets and combating terrorism.


The statement comes after a source told the BBC there had been no animosity or "blazing rows" between Ms Patel and Sir Philip - who has been the Home Office's permanent secretary since April 2017 - but they were simply "not the right fit".


The BBC's assistant political editor, Norman Smith, said the intervention from a security service source - saying the claims they withheld information from the home secretary were "simply untrue" - was "highly unusual".


The Home Office said "no formal complaints" had been made about Ms Patel, who has been home secretary since Boris Johnson became prime minister.

[Aimless]

That is an unattributed quote from a third party ffs.

[RandBlade]

Its an on the record quote attributed to both of them via a spokesman nearly a week ago. Are you claiming now that on the record quotes delivered by official spokesmen shouldn't be considered attributed ffs?

[Aimless]

Its an on the record quote attributed to both of them via a spokesman nearly a week ago. Are you claiming now that on the record quotes delivered by official spokesmen shouldn't be considered attributed ffs?

It is a quote from a third party and it isn't clear from the quote which—if any—of the two said the allegations of her bullying were false. It's barely on the record. It is so extremely stupid of you to call him a liar based on an unattributed quote from a third party. Embarrassing.

[Timbuk2]

Oh and its worth noting that there is a formal complaints procedure and there have been to date "no formal complaints" made about Patel.

"... ...there is no formal policy for making complaints against ministers: no code, no procedure, no transparency."

"Staff will have zero confidence in a process which is basically 'trust the Cabinet office behind closed doors to deal with it'."

[RandBlade]

"... ...there is no formal policy for making complaints against ministers: no code, no procedure, no transparency."

"Staff will have zero confidence in a process which is basically 'trust the Cabinet office behind closed doors to deal with it'."

There is one and its not been used. The union wants a new one, but there's an existing one and no complaints lodged via it.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...ints-procedure

Responding to the comments, a government spokesperson said: "Government departments have established procedures in place to deal with any complaints."

[Hazir]

So, today the first talks took place in Brussels. Interestingly enough they seem to be continued tomorrow.

[RandBlade]

Unsurprising.

This is a good point.

Twitter Link

May was unwilling to let talks collapse last time so the EU had the UK over the barrel. Now though the EU has nothing to gain from talks collapsing but the UK does so the roles are reversed. The EU may be bigger but the default of no deal is we get our negotiating objectives either way.

[Aimless]

The default of no deal is that you renege on your obligations wrt NI and take an economic hit due to trade restrictions. Nothing has changed wrt strategic concerns; no deal was a realistic and often likely possibility under May.

[RandBlade]

No deal was never a likely nor a realistic possibility under May as she was a nasty, terrible, crap so-called leader who was all bark and no bite. As I said before she became PM, I despised her all along, she a vicious xenophobic person who should never have been PM. Plus Parliament was never going to permit it given the Parliamentary arithmetics.

Its different now. We've already Brexited, we have an 80 seat majority and Parliament won't challenge the PM on this. Plus we've got a clear date set by which to make plans from - if it is to be an Aussie style trade arrangements going forwards that will be announced by 1 July and give businesses a full six month period and government without trade talks to finalise preparations for this.

PS its interesting in a dark way to think about how the coronavirus outbreak affects this. I've seen Lib Dems and others say that this would be the worst time to leave transition without a deal but MRDA. Realisitically looking at this darkly the virus is far more consequential in the short term than whether we Brexit or not, whether we get a deal or not etc and a worldwide recession is now probably inevitable. Post-transition Aussie style exit then will likely not see any economic hit as has been projected for years but instead after we've seen this virus pass we will see both a British and worldwide economic recovery that will coincide with a post-transition recovery here too.

[Hazir]

The only conclusion I can draw from what you write is that the UK can get the advantage of having no deal by having no deal. That seems a bit meager as the result of so much time and energy invested.

[RandBlade]

The time and energy has been to unmesh ourselves from your tentacles. We're part way there, no deal now simply hurries it along. The Navy would patrol our waters to ensure our fish remain ours and we would trade with you just as the Aussies do. So be it if it comes to that, when cooler heads emerge in Brussels we can start new trade talks building up rather than trying to diverge.

[Khendraja'aro]

Oh, great, now you're threatening war. Good job, make yourselves the pariahs of the western world.

[RandBlade]

War?

[Hazir]

You seem to have this crazy idea that everybody else is just going to roll over because you think it's your sea. Your fishing industry exist by the grace of a market in the EU.

But what's stranger, is that you haven't replied to what is the advantage of being able to opt for a no deal scenario, besides having no deal. Is there any other advantage at all? And why bother negotiate if no deal is something to aspire to? This whole Brexit thing has turned into a religion for you; you have visibly moved to the most extreme corner that offers itself in your country on relationships with other countries and claim that we believe you never changed anything at all.

Finally, stop blaming others for the failure of your Brexit. It won't save you at home and nobody on this side of the Channel gives a damn anyway.

[RandBlade]

Maritime law is very clear. It is our sea. Just as Iceland and Norway have their own waters and they're in the EEA!

Yes we have the advantage of being able to opt for no deal because we have asymmetric ambitions. No deal is not what we aspire to, the best possible deal while being an independent nation is our ambition but if the best possible deal while being an independent nation is no deal then that's better than signing up to a bad deal. I've not changed at all, there's literally no point in voting to leave if we do then sign up to faithfully maintain EU laws that the EU may create in the future despite having chosen to laws.

I'm not blaming anyone since Brexit is going great so far. Lets not forget the EU are concerned about trying to lock down ludicrous and unacceptable "level playing field" commitments because they're worried about a major economic competitor on their doorstep. You forget we voted to be independent because we want to be a major economic competitor.

[Hazir]

We are only worried if that competitor would be inside our market not playing by the same rules. With you outside the that won't be a worry of any kind because you'll be too busy with the fall out of actually being on the outside.

[RandBlade]

You think your market is yours?

The marketplace is global.

[Hazir]

You show yourself to be quite a bit of a moron Randy; you actually think that Britain is going to be be able to set its own rules if it doesn't sign up to our rules formally. The reality is though that we don't need anything formally agreed to make you jump exactly as high as we instruct you to jump. Decisions made in Brussels find their application all over the planet. Not just in the EU, not just in the EEA, not just in Europe, but all over the world for big swathes of the economy the relevant regulation is the EU regulation.

And here we have you thinking that your pipsqueak little Island can escape a regulator that regularly even sets the rules by which American multinationals abide.

[RandBlade]

Despicable racism from The Guardian.

Twitter Link