Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Hobbit]

You don't think the UK Government could have done more to support the UK Steel industry? It's quite a complex issue isn't it and whilst the EU rules around state aid no doubt didn't help, the UK government could have done a lot more e.g. lowering business rates.

The closures were fairly inevitable due to the significant loses they were incurring caused by lowered steel prices due to global imports, with Russia, South Korea and particularly China cited as dumping steel. Other factors mitigating against profitability included high energy costs (including green taxes), high business rates and oversupply/low demand. In addition the UK government had voted against increased tariffs on imported Chinese steel due to its free trade policies, limiting import duties to minimal amounts (around 10%). The Daily Telegraph reported that the UK Government's failure to back EU attempts to increase anti-dumping measure on imported steel had been the tipping point in Tata's decision to exit the UK steel business.

Re your second paragraph, the lower steel prices equally applied in the Netherlands. And the EU Green Taxes also applied in the Netherlands. As for the UK not backing EU tariffs and quotas on China dumping steel, the UK can't block an EU wide tariffs and quotas.

Could the UK govt have done more? Without a doubt, but the climate for Tata to move was already there, and the decision to move was made long before China started dumping. The story is complex, including over £600m paid to Tata in carbon credits for mothballing the plant whilst the new one in the Netherlands was being built. The whole story in long and complex but the fact remains the EU have a criteria for attracting business into the EU, and one of those criteria is that it doesn't mean losing jobs elsewhere in the EU. If you look on the EU's own site it shows the investigation that took place re the funding and the move, and its a whitewash. Similarly the EU carried out one for the JLR move to the Czech Republic... another breaking of the EU's own rules and another whitewash.

Taking it back to your original point, I have every sympathy for the workers that lost their jobs whilst the EU flouted its own rules in funding and subsidies. Those weren't the scare stories you spoke of but are real hard, fact based stories. Many people in the NEast, where heavy industry has been decimated know that their job was shipped to the mainland EU with the help of the EU. They were never going to vote Remain.

 

[harpo_72]

If only all companies worked that way. Sadly the accountants tend to win, along with buyers getting a cut of savings, and when QC reject product, customers complain etc production get blamed.

It took a bit of work, the problem lies in purchasing departments acting outside of their skill set and making specialist decisions. I found they wanted me to stand behind their decision and fix the issues when they arose. When I refused to and asked them to take responsibility it got very interesting and it also got interesting when I rejected suppliers who were causing me quality issues, thankfully I had secondary suppliers more than willing to take up the extra volume. It left the purchase teams having to explain to the rejected supplier why they were not getting the volume they had been promised. A couple of those discussions usually helps align the purchase teams.
However all of this can be mitigated at the development stage and going into full volume production. Every supplier wants to be done and dusted (likewise the development teams) so we use the promise of full production sign off to get their quality commitment.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

It took a bit of work, the problem lies in purchasing departments acting outside of their skill set and making specialist decisions. I found they wanted me to stand behind their decision and fix the issues when they arose. When I refused to and asked them to take responsibility it got very interesting and it also got interesting when I rejected suppliers who were causing me quality issues, thankfully I had secondary suppliers more than willing to take up the extra volume. It left the purchase teams having to explain to the rejected supplier why they were not getting the volume they had been promised. A couple of those discussions usually helps align the purchase teams.
However all of this can be mitigated at the development stage and going into full volume production. Every supplier wants to be done and dusted (likewise the development teams) so we use the promise of full production sign off to get their quality commitment.

Purchasing depts now mainly look to make cost savings, it is what is asked of them. You need a half decent MD or similar to ensure that quality comes first, price second. Sadly I see it too many time the other way around now. Well done in winning your fight

We lost some business last year with a major German company with a factory in Portugal. The buyers got to keep 10% of any savings they could make. The factory is in a poor part of Portugal, this bonus could be huge to them. They didn't give a stuff about quality and sadly the production team were not strong enough to stop them. Our distributor out there spoke to one of the engineers on the production line and asked how the new products were faring. They told him they were poor, caused problems but they were told just to get on with it and manage the situation

 

[drdel]

Purchasing depts now mainly look to make cost savings, it is what is asked of them. You need a half decent MD or similar to ensure that quality comes first, price second. Sadly I see it too many time the other way around now. Well done in winning your fight

We lost some business last year with a major German company with a factory in Portugal. The buyers got to keep 10% of any savings they could make. The factory is in a poor part of Portugal, this bonus could be huge to them. They didn't give a stuff about quality and sadly the production team were not strong enough to stop them. Our distributor out there spoke to one of the engineers on the production line and asked how the new products were faring. They told him they were poor, caused problems but they were told just to get on with it and manage the situation

Very much the case with Tenders, especially in the public sector. The irony is that a more expert and qualified team identifies stuff the clowns don't, often means more cost so the better supplier's higher bid loses - not always but often. Just adds cost in the long run.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The government are telling us that the risks identified in the Operation Yellowhammer risk analysis have, to one degree or another, been mitigated or mitigation and contingency plans are in place. Have they been published - if not why wouldn't they want to tell us.

Because as it stands the Operation Yellowhammer document can simply be dismissed as Project Fear (even although the government has produced it) - and those of us who can be bothered reading it could feel a little bit freaked out by what it says.

BTW - discovered this morning that Yellowhammer is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem Well who knew...

 

[ColchesterFC]

The government are telling us that the risks identified in the Operation Yellowhammer risk analysis have, to one degree or another, been mitigated or mitigation and contingency plans are in place. Have they been published - if not why wouldn't they want to tell us.

I believe that the government announced that they would be producing an updated version of the document fairly shortly. Not sure when it was mentioned but possibly during the debate in the HoCs. Definitely remember seeing something about it on the BBC News website possibly with a comment from Gove about it.

 

[clubchamp98]

The government are telling us that the risks identified in the Operation Yellowhammer risk analysis have, to one degree or another, been mitigated or mitigation and contingency plans are in place. Have they been published - if not why wouldn't they want to tell us.

Because as it stands the Operation Yellowhammer document can simply be dismissed as Project Fear (even although the government has produced it) - and those of us who can be bothered reading it could feel a little bit freaked out by what it says.

BTW - discovered this morning that Yellowhammer is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem Well who knew...

Isn’t that the new name for the Labour Party they are announcing at conference.
But would fit any other party as well.

 

[Leftie]

Very much the case with Tenders, especially in the public sector. The irony is that a more expert and qualified team identifies stuff the clowns don't, often means more cost so the better supplier's higher bid loses - not always but often. Just adds cost in the long run.

Spot on. Roughly 90% of what I did was a waste of time from that perspective.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I believe that the government announced that they would be producing an updated version of the document fairly shortly. Not sure when it was mentioned but possibly during the debate in the HoCs. Definitely remember seeing something about it on the BBC News website possibly with a comment from Gove about it.

I heard Nigel Evans (I think it was) tell that the Yellowhammer risk analysis was a live analysis - though strikes me that he was muddling up the risk analysis with the risk mitigation plan that we have not seen. Though the risk analysis will change as new risks are added and other are closed - the risk mitigation plan will be most active and it is that which tells us the mitigated state of every risk.

For any project, Senior Management and the Client aren't that interested in getting updates of the risks per se - what they want to see is the current mitigated status of every risk - and they will expect to see it whenever they ask for it. The UK Public and business is in effect the 'Client' for Brexit risk management - and we should see the key risks that will affect us and what is being done about them - with associated timescales and predicted residual risk plus contingency.

There are risks that may only be appropriate for 'Senior Management' and that we would not expose to the customer - but where there are major or key risks that we do not expose to the customer because it is awkward or difficult for us - then we have to expect a severe kicking and/or penalties from the client if a risk we have not told them about or were not truthful about in our mitigation planning - transpires.

It is never a good idea to hide, or be less than truthful about, major customer impact risks.

So the government should be open about their current risk management plan for all risks identified in the Yellowhammer analysis - excepting Security risks, these being the ones the 'customer' does not need to know about.

In that way concerns the public have now over the risks will be mitigated

 

[ColchesterFC]

For any project, Senior Management and the Client aren't that interested in getting updates of the risks per se - what they want to see is the current mitigated status of every risk - and they will expect to see it whenever they ask for it. The UK Public and business is in effect the 'Client' for Brexit risk management - and we should see the key risks that will affect us and what is being done about them - with associated timescales and predicted residual risk plus contingency.

Re: The bit in bold. Any reasonable person would accept the response "We're currently updating it based on the most recent information we have and will release it to you as soon as it has been updated in the next few days". What's the point in releasing a document that is still being worked on and that will be out of date as soon as it is released?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Re: The bit in bold. Any reasonable person would accept the response "We're currently updating it based on the most recent information we have and will release it to you as soon as it has been updated in the next few days". What's the point in releasing a document that is still being worked on and that will be out of date as soon as it is released?

Because the risk management plan is a live document - it will not be getting updated periodically. Plus what we have seen is now over a month old and we have not seen any risk management plan. And there will be one that it shows the mitigations that the government is telling us have been put in place or are planned for every risk in Yellowhammer.

No matter the point you release a mitigation plan it is out of date - but I still have to provide my management the current plan whenever they ask for it. I may ask for a couple of hours to refresh it if I know important things have changed - but if they want it now they get it.

The current Brexit RMP will not be very much out of date - if at all. The government's Brexit Delivery team meet daily I believe - Gove will want to see an updated RMP at that meeting.

 

[Foxholer]

I heard Nigel Evans (I think it was) tell that the Yellowhammer risk analysis was a live analysis - though strikes me that he was muddling up the risk analysis with the risk mitigation plan that we have not seen. Though the risk analysis will change as new risks are added and other are closed - the risk mitigation plan will be most active and it is that which tells us the mitigated state of every risk.

For any project, Senior Management and the Client aren't that interested in getting updates of the risks per se - what they want to see is the current mitigated status of every risk - and they will expect to see it whenever they ask for it. The UK Public and business is in effect the 'Client' for Brexit risk management - and we should see the key risks that will affect us and what is being done about them - with associated timescales and predicted residual risk plus contingency.

There are risks that may only be appropriate for 'Senior Management' and that we would not expose to the customer - but where there are major or key risks that we do not expose to the customer because it is awkward or difficult for us - then we have to expect a severe kicking and/or penalties from the client if a risk we have not told them about or were not truthful about in our mitigation planning - transpires.

It is never a good idea to hide, or be less than truthful about, major customer impact risks.

So the government should be open about their current risk management plan for all risks identified in the Yellowhammer analysis - excepting Security risks, these being the ones the 'customer' does not need to know about.

In that way concerns the public have now over the risks will be mitigated

While the above approach generally works in a B2B 'prroject', I have never seen it applied to major government-general public relationship ones - especially in UK, with its high level of critical press 'review'!

In fact, I disagree that 'the public' is actually 'the client' wrt most of the yellowhammer relationships. To me, they/we are more equivalent to a company's shareholders. It's more likely that a 'trade body' would be the appropriate 'client'.

 

[drdel]

Because the risk management plan is a live document - it will not be getting updated periodically. Plus what we have seen is now over a month old and we have not seen any risk management plan. And there will be one that it shows the mitigations that the government is telling us have been put in place or are planned for every risk in Yellowhammer.

No matter the point you release a mitigation plan it is out of date - but I still have to provide my management the current plan whenever they ask for it. I may ask for a couple of hours to refresh it if I know important things have changed - but if they want it now they get it.

The current Brexit RMP will not be very much out of date - if at all. The government's Brexit Delivery team meet daily I believe - Gove will want to see an updated RMP at that meeting.

A Government can't just keep releasing stuff that is work-in-progress because how do you assess the point of release it would also lead to continuous tangents?

Not only that but much of the contents in the mitigation actions could be sensitive commercially.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

A Government can't just keep releasing stuff that is work-in-progress because how do you assess the point of release it would also lead to continuous tangents?

Not only that but much of the contents in the mitigation actions could be sensitive commercially.

I get that some mitigations might be commercially sensitive - but how are we to know what is actually being done and what has been done.

Yes - I've heard and seen feedback from some councils saying what they are doing - and that's great at a local level - but for some of the real major risks to the country does the public not have a right to know?

My suspicions go all the way back to just prior to triggering of Article 50 - and then afterwards.

At the time I was hoping for some indication from the government of their top level timeline for the negotiations from then until 29th March - not any detail of the negotiating strategy - just what the government was aiming to achieve big step-by-big step over the 2yrs after triggering. We got nothing.

We were told that of course the government had a plan, and on here I was told repeatedly to not be so naive asking for such a thing - of course the government would have one - but much too sensitive to release any indications whatsoever of the timelines or the plan. And my concerns were dismissed, by requests were waved away as being naive - what did I know of negotiating...

And no plan was forthcoming - Davis and May never really had a plan. Yes we got objectives out of May's Lancaster House speech. But these were objectives for the negotiations - not a base timeline for achieving them through the negotiations.

I have zero trust in this government - and in Johnson I have a great deal of mistrust. They should be doing what they can to ease the worries that many have - and take on board and correct criticisms of Yellowhammer as Project Fear document and irrelevant as a mitigation plan.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

While the above approach generally works in a B2B 'prroject', I have never seen it applied to major government-general public relationship ones - especially in UK, with its high level of critical press 'review'!

In fact, I disagree that 'the public' is actually 'the client' wrt most of the yellowhammer relationships. To me, they/we are more equivalent to a company's shareholders. It's more likely that a 'trade body' would be the appropriate 'client'.

OK - well they need to know.

 

[Deleted member 1418]

I get that some mitigations might be commercially sensitive - but how are we to know what is actually being done and what has been done.

Yes - I've heard and seen feedback from some councils saying what they are doing - and that's great at a local level - but for some of the real major risks to the country does the public not have a right to know?

My suspicions go all the way back to just prior to triggering of Article 50 - and then afterwards.

At the time I was hoping for some indication from the government of their top level timeline for the negotiations from then until 29th March - not any detail of the negotiating strategy - just what the government was aiming to achieve big step-by-big step over the 2yrs after triggering. We got nothing.

We were told that of course the government had a plan, and on here I was told repeatedly to not be so naive asking for such a thing - of course the government would have one - but much too sensitive to release any indications whatsoever of the timelines or the plan. And my concerns were dismissed, by requests were waved away as being naive - what did I know of negotiating...

And no plan was forthcoming - Davis and May never really had a plan. Yes we got objectives out of May's Lancaster House speech. But these were objectives for the negotiations - not a base timeline for achieving them through the negotiations.

I have zero trust in this government - and in Johnson I have a great deal of mistrust. They should be doing what they can to ease the worries that many have - and take on board and correct criticisms of Yellowhammer as Project Fear document and irrelevant as a mitigation plan.

I don't know how many times this has been covered!

Same old 💩💩💩💩💩

😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴

 

[Blue in Munich]

I don't know how many times this has been covered!

Same old 💩💩💩💩💩

😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴

No it’s not, there’s no mention of unicorns.

 

[Deleted member 1418]

Mods - close this thread down. It's full of ridiculous posts (mine included) and people getting all worked up and emotional.

As someone working on Brexit issues - both 'Deal' and 'No Deal' there's an awful lot I know but unfortunately cannot share.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Mods - close this thread down. It's full of ridiculous posts (mine included) and people getting all worked up and emotional.

As someone working on Brexit issues - both 'Deal' and 'No Deal' there's an awful lot I know but unfortunately cannot share.

Which is good to know - but the public doesn't and we are expected to just believe...

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Mods - close this thread down. It's full of ridiculous posts (mine included) and people getting all worked up and emotional.

As someone working on Brexit issues - both 'Deal' and 'No Deal' there's an awful lot I know but unfortunately cannot share.

You know about the unicorns? 😉