Brexit Party 'Fastest growing Political Force'

EarthRod

Distinguished Member
You're clearly not a fan Alan and are seemingly quite emotional about it. A little hyperbolic IMHO but I accept your differing view.
Yes, very OTT.

Seriously, I prefer the organisation to deal only with trade agreements between European countries and nothing else. For it to be greatly reduced in size, power and to massively reduce it's financial income.

Streamlining is a word that springs to mind, together with accountability.
 

kav

Distinguished Member
I feel the 40 year-old bloated bureaucratic organisation is unnecessary and not required. Surplus to requirements. It enjoys a extremely healthy financial income without any blood, sweat or tears; unlike most countries.

It's like a big mosquito feeding off the blood of it's member 'states'.
Permit me an anecdote on this, seeing as it's Sunday night and I'm enjoying a lovely Glenfiddich. :)

I work in a field whose entire purpose is to prevent bad stuff happening, or at worst, to catch it as early as possible and minimise the resulting damage. Because of this it isn't always easy to quantify what could have gone wrong if we hadn't been there to intervene and manage a given situation. By its nature this means that it's very easy for someone unfamiliar with our function to say "what the hell do those guys do? We're managing pretty well, surely we don't need to spend so much money on them".

What that often means is that when it comes to times when cuts are considered necessary, my function is almost always included as part of those cuts. Inevitably, what happens over a number of years is that an organisation "streamlines" this function down to the bare bones, to the point where the staff left to try to carry the workload of a previously much bigger team inevitably start to drop the ball on these hitherto invisible things. This starts to piss management off, because their previously seamless service now has some gaping holes in it thanks to said streamlining. However it doesn't make them care enough to address the issue.

Ultimately, the sh*t hits the fan on something significant enough to draw regulatory or legal attention, and someone senior says "I have an idea! We need to invest more in that function to prevent this kind of stuff happening in future!". And then there's a period of a few years where we feel the love and get a few quid invested into our division, and everyone starts to be able to breathe a little and actually feel like we are able to stay on top of things.

Then a year or two later when things are running smoothly again, some senior person says "why the hell are we spending so much on those guys? We need to streamline!" and the whole cycle repeats.

I've worked in half a dozen industries and this cycle repeats in the same way across them all. There's a book in there around how to manage this more effectively that someone could get rich off.

All of this to say that it seems to me that much of the EU operates like this. It might seem redundant and pointless to those who don't have full visibility of the context for why these things are in place - and only a miniscule proportion of people on the entire continent actually do. It isn't until those things are no longer in place that the wheels start to fall off. With something as enormous as the EU project, it's impossible to tell what the ramifications will be. Worst case, if we consider the core function of the EU as preserving peace across Europe through developing shared economic prosperity, then on a long enough time line, should the whole thing fail and the socioeconomic and political disparities widen across the continent, peace could also be at risk along with it. Before anyone throws out the Project Fear line at me, I did say this is a worst case scenario, not an expected one.

(I fully expect the "don't care, as long as we're out" response from most of this forum but figured I'd post this anyway. :) )

I've not finished watching it yet but looking what it did with Ted Cruz he was nowhere until CA became involved. I agree the damage is done but it shows the dark arts involved now
I think the mistake that film made was putting too much focus on the young woman who worked for them - she came across as a bit of an unreliable narrator and even if her story was accurate, it was also vague enough for the conspiracy theorists to poke a hundred holes in it. If they had spent another year or however long it took to build up more evidence beyond her testimony, it would have told a more effective story.

Completely agree though that the principle is terrifying and of critical concern in contemporary politics.
 

EarthRod

Distinguished Member
Permit me an anecdote on this, seeing as it's Sunday night and I'm enjoying a lovely Glenfiddich. :)

I work in a field whose entire purpose is to prevent bad stuff happening, or at worst, to catch it as early as possible and minimise the resulting damage. Because of this it isn't always easy to quantify what could have gone wrong if we hadn't been there to intervene and manage a given situation. By its nature this means that it's very easy for someone unfamiliar with our function to say "what the hell do those guys do? We're managing pretty well, surely we don't need to spend so much money on them".

What that often means is that when it comes to times when cuts are considered necessary, my function is almost always included as part of those cuts. Inevitably, what happens over a number of years is that an organisation "streamlines" this function down to the bare bones, to the point where the staff left to try to carry the workload of a previously much bigger team inevitably start to drop the ball on these hitherto invisible things. This starts to piss management off, because their previously seamless service now has some gaping holes in it thanks to said streamlining. However it doesn't make them care enough to address the issue.

Ultimately, the sh*t hits the fan on something significant enough to draw regulatory or legal attention, and someone senior says "I have an idea! We need to invest more in that function to prevent this kind of stuff happening in future!". And then there's a period of a few years where we feel the love and get a few quid invested into our division, and everyone starts to be able to breathe a little and actually feel like we are able to stay on top of things.

Then a year or two later when things are running smoothly again, some senior person says "why the hell are we spending so much on those guys? We need to streamline!" and the whole cycle repeats.

I've worked in half a dozen industries and this cycle repeats in the same way across them all. There's a book in there around how to manage this more effectively that someone could get rich off.

All of this to say that it seems to me that much of the EU operates like this. It might seem redundant and pointless to those who don't have full visibility of the context for why these things are in place - and only a miniscule proportion of people on the entire continent actually do. It isn't until those things are no longer in place that the wheels start to fall off. With something as enormous as the EU project, it's impossible to tell what the ramifications will be. Worst case, if we consider the core function of the EU as preserving peace across Europe through developing shared economic prosperity, then on a long enough time line, should the whole thing fail and the socioeconomic and political disparities widen across the continent, peace could also be at risk along with it. Before anyone throws out the Project Fear line at me, I did say this is a worst case scenario, not an expected one.

(I fully expect the "don't care, as long as we're out" response from most of this forum but figured I'd post this anyway. :) )
Good post.

I quite agree the cycle of events you talked about does happen, it's a natural cycle which occurs in any large organisation. Usually something happens which triggers the cycle, for example a change of Director or even the CEO who has a strong desire to put his/her stamp or the running of a department or organisation.

In my 40-odd years of work I have experienced five of these cycles. One massive cycle I managed to dodge in a large organisation by changing jobs a year before the sh*t hit the fan. It wasn't until a few years after the sh*t hit the fan I saw the reason why the massive cycle occurred. Live and learn.

You mention 'wheels falling off' and this is the crux of the matter. In my opinion any major change will look like the wheels are, or will, fall off. It is a natural feeling of uncertainty, of fear for the future or the unknown. I have had such fear many times, but have 'ridden' that fear and undertaken the necessary mental change of gears to combat the uncertainties. It is a hard process, but necessary.

The reality is the difference between actually achieving a tangible and meaningful end result, and thinking the process and organisation to get to an end result is more important than the end result itself.

The EU is an organisation which is more attuned and geared up to the bureaucratic system and process of the latter.
 
Top Bottom