Brexit discussion thread IV

McGiver

Interesting documentary just released. Touches the NI and GFA issue as well.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6290122/

lawred2

judeboy101 wrote: »

Strazdas wrote: »

I think there is hope for the British long term with the royals though. Charles seems sensible enough as do William and Harry. It was said this week that Charles and William refused to meet Trump and wanted nothing to do with him.

Even Harry marrying a mixed race American woman would suggest he feels no affinity whatsoever to the inward looking English nationalists at the heart of Brexit.

They made the poor girl change her religion and nationality, pretty inward looking if you ask me.

Really?

VinLieger

judeboy101 wrote: »

They made the poor girl change her religion and nationality, pretty inward looking if you ask me.

Well considering the reigning Monarch is the head of the church of england it would be a bit bizarre in the entirely possible scenario where Harry became king and she was queen and she was of a different religion wouldn't it?


Also one key reason she gave up her US citizenship is due to the US demanding all US citizens regardless of what country they currently work and live in to still file taxes with the IRS. This would have opened up the royal family to having to pay taxes in the US. BTW only 2 countries in the world do this the US and..... Eritrea so claiming the UK are the ones looking inward on this is a bit uninformed.

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Well considering the reigning Monarch is the head of the church of england it would be a bit bizarre in the entirely possible scenario where Harry became king and she was queen and she was of a different religion wouldn't it?

Hadn't realised this at all.
There is the huge contradiction which is at the heart of Brexit tbh.
A nation that pretends to be tolerant and inclusive actually has religious supremacy at it's heart. Ya ya you are grand if you are Roman Catholic or Jewish or Muslim but actually there are places you are barred from getting to.

Genuinely amazed that this happened in 2018.

Leroy42

There seems a very large portion of the electorate that just seem totally unmoved by the likely outcome of a hard brexit.

I think that this comes down to a number of factors

- They simply do not believe the forecasts. This, IMO, is a combination of feeling that the people producing the forecasts got stuff wrong in the past (and as such means that everything they do it wrong), the claimed crash after the vote never happened (although of course there has been a negative economic impact but much less than predicted).
- In terms of things like food shortages, queue's at ports/passport control, people simply have no experience of what this actually means. The last time we had borders was so long ago that many of forgotten the impact, and on top of that global trade has totally changed in that time such that in the past you had one movement from country A to Country B and now you have multiple movements between multiple countries, sometimes with the final destination of the finished good being country A itself. This means many times the number of customs transactions.
- There seems to be this overriding feeling, and this is running through the governments, business and the stock markets, that a deal will be done. A deal is always done and will, somehow at the last minute be done. There is little evidence for this, and in fact it all seems to point in the growing probability of a no deal exit, but it appears that people generally are unwilling to countenance this probability.

It is the only way that I can explain why such a large % of the population are still gunning for a no deal. My reading of it is that it is bravado, don't give them an inch type position on the basis that nothing will fundamentally change anyway.

badtoro

EdgeCase wrote: »

Crazy to have them in the UK in the first place. There are potential situations where we might not be able to access them.

It was a wtf? moment when I heard it. Makes one wonder what other important assets the country doesn't have control over.

VinLieger

badtoro wrote: »

It was a wtf? moment when I heard it. Makes one wonder what other important assets the country doesn't have control over.

Thats a bit disingenuous, we have control over the oil as evidenced that we are removing it from the UK. Its likely we just don't have large enough facilities to refine and store it all which i dont think is that big an issue.

Leroy42

With the probability of a no deal, at least IMO, increasing all the time, I was wondering what the actual impact of a no deal would be.

Yes, I have and read the talk of food shortages, long queue at Dover etc, but is that really the likely scenario?

The UK seem to be going with the transferring all current EU into UK law and regulations are not going to change overnight. So in effect, there is no more risk from a container coming for the UK on 1 April 2019 over 20 March 2019. EU have already agreed in principle to a transition period (based on an agreement) so they acknowledge the ability to continue to trade whilst UK are technically outside the EU.

I'm not saying that there won't be problems, but I think the scenario of food shortages/planes not flying is akin to the economic forecasts prior to the vote. Brexit will result in long term harm to the UK, but the situation won't suddenly change overnight.

Or am I being hopelessly naive and simply not understanding the realities?

Also, with the UK being our main distribution network, what is the likely impact on the ROI. Will we be facing food/energy shortages?

flatty

judeboy101 wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It depends on the outome of Brexit. If there is no brexit, or some form of workable deal, you may well be right that there wont be another indy referendum in Scotland for another 20 years. If there is a no-deal Brexit, though, I think there will be a referendum within a few years and it's hard to see the argument for staying in the UK at that stage.

Despite the snp's "we have oil" mantra, Scotland don't have an economy that could support independence, the fact that it would be geographicaly isolated from eu (assuming no Irish unity) and also that we would be crazy to let them into EU(our USP is that we are English speaking common law based, why share that with another country).

I'm ashamed that an Irish person would think this. My days I'm flabbergasted.

flatty

judeboy101 wrote: »

Rhineshark wrote: »

They don't at the moment but that is because their economy is shaped into that of the whole UK. I think Scotland has as good a chance as any small country going independent if the alternative was a no-deal Brexit UK worst case scenario.

I don't think we'd be crazy to let them in - if anything we'd be crazy to keep them out! For a start, it seems morally wrong for the sake of something that petty given what access to the SM would mean to a newly-independent Scotland. There is the social backlash if it was seen as something like that as well as the international loss of face. The EU project has been about stabilising a continent to stop us all killing each other (essentially) and part of that is about bringing up standards of living in poorer regions. Wealth inequality breeds instability. Success variable but definitely has been of use. Keeping a country out that meets many of the standards for a selfish (debatable) benefit to one country flies in the face of that.

If there has to be an immediate benefit to us though - land bridge. That the island of Britain geographically isolates us is a huge problem. Also, one of the strongest determinants to trade is proximity. Britain going pear-shaped isn't good for our exports. We'd be mad to want two basketcase countries as our nearest neighbours when there was anything we could do to have one stable neighbour.

Sure by that argument we should let turkey in. Scotland is rife with sectarianism, absentee landlords and a generous education and health system. The latter two kept going by westminster. Scotland can join Iceland and norway for all I care, but they share much more in common with the rest of the UK, than they will ever do with us.

I lived there for four years, in Glasgow. It is a fantastic country. This is quite simply untrue.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not saying that there won't be problems, but I think the scenario of food shortages/planes not flying is akin to the economic forecasts prior to the vote. Brexit will result in long term harm to the UK, but the situation won't suddenly change overnight.

Or am I being hopelessly naive and simply not understanding the realities?

Also, with the UK being our main distribution network, what is the likely impact on the ROI. Will we be facing food/energy shortages?

You arent understanding the realities, there are factories, specifically car ones in the UK, that operate on same day delivery expectations where even having parts be a minute late can halt production for hours. Adding even 1 extra minute for every truck and car passing through dover etc will have an epic domino effect causing road networks leading to them to come to a standstill.


Food shortages may not happen but there undoubtedly will be numerous cases of food rotting and being seriously delayed getting delivered. The knock on effect of this will very likely be panic buying as we see during weather events which will cause more issues. Don't forget this also will increase cost due to the new admin required for importing as well as the increased time it takes to deliver.


The thing very many people can't wrap their head around is the knock on effect of all of this. Yes 1 minute doesn't sound like that big of a deal to a single vehicle or person but when everyone is delayed by 1 minute that's when things turn into hours of delay that the UK simply is not ready to deal with.

badtoro

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats a bit disingenuous, we have control over the oil as evidenced that we are removing it from the UK. Its likely we just don't have large enough facilities to refine and store it all which i dont think is that big an issue.

You may withdraw the "disingenuous" remark.

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

(...)

The UK seem to be going with the transferring all current EU into UK law and regulations are not going to change overnight. (...)

Brexit will result in long term harm to the UK, but the situation won't suddenly change overnight.

Or am I being hopelessly naive and simply not understanding the realities?

It’s the legalities you are not understanding in the above: the U.K. transposing the acquis into its legislation is wholly ineffectual absent an agreement (inclusive of the transition period) ratified by the EU27.

There is a very fundamental change occurring on 29 March 2019: the U.K. exits the scope of the TEU & TFEU, the jurisdiction of the ECJ and its pooled liabilities to all other EU bodies.

So unless there is (ratified) agreement to keep going as is, or not far off, on 1st April 2019, the U.K. becomes that 3rd country overnight and the EU27 shall have to treat it -and everything coming and going to it- as such, likewise overnight (hence the latest notice to stakeholders).

That transposition really is for nothing (besides statutory compatibility of course), until and unless the EU27 formally accept to trade and generally behave with the U.K. (and reciprocally) on an agreed basis with agreed procedures (equivalence? mutual recognition? ...), enforcing bodies (eg ECB, EAEC), refereeing (eg ECJ), etc.

VinLieger

In fairness there is one aspect of a Hard Brexit/No deal or situation where they lose freedom of movement to look forward to. Every time you go on holidays to Spain, Portugal, Canaries etc you can smugly walk past the fuming brits waiting ages in their NON EU passport and customs queues.

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

In fairness there is one aspect of a Hard Brexit/No deal or situation where they lose freedom of movement to look forward to. Every time you go on holidays to Spain, Portugal, Canaries etc you can smugly walk past the fuming brits waiting ages in their NON EU passport and customs queues.

it'll still be our fault in their eyes

Leroy42

OK, but what about the point about there being no practical change on 1st April. There is no more risk from the container from one day to the next, and with the EU already, as part of an agreement, willing to extend a transition period, they have acknowledged this.

Or is it, and I think it is based on the previous replies so forgive me for not fully getting it yet, is it that the risk is irrelevant as it is now simply a matter of international law that once out of the EU the UK containers need to be treated as any other 3rd party regardless of what was in operation the day before?

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

(...)

Or is it, and I think it is based on the previous replies so forgive me for not fully getting it yet, is it that the risk is irrelevant as it is now simply a matter of international law that once out of the EU the UK containers need to be treated as any other 3rd party regardless of what was in operation the day before?

That’s it, you got it (in the context of a ‘bare’ no deal Brexit).

Pragmatically, as you say anything landing in the U.K. on 1st April, and for days later in all likelihood, will still land there and make their way into food, JIT etc. supply chains (as the U.K. government most likely adopts a perma-open border to try and stave off the issue).

The problems will start to scale and ripple, possibly geometrically rather than arithmetically, as EU-bound stuff gets blocked for inspection and gradullay clogs travel arteries, and more importantly, as EU exporters fail to secure fret insurance, payment guarantees etc. for U.K.-bound stuff in the absence of a reliable legal framework for such trading and so gradually refrain from shipping stuff to the U.K.

EU-bound U.K. airline flights will be grounded much sooner than the above, for substantially the same reason: no more legal frameworks (Open Skies, parts certification, pilot qualifications, etc) applying to U.K. airlines and planes, means U.K. airlines would not be able to validly insure nor staff EU-bound flights from 1st April 2019, all other (relevant) issues of regulatory compliance put aside for brevity.

FWIW, my contingency planning (to go fetch and expatriate the M-i-Law from the U.K. in case it all goes to sh1t real fast) involves road only, and the closest U.K. landing point to her place (Hull, about 60 miles) so that wouldn’t need to fuel up in the U.K. Same day return with VIP pass: off the ferry Saturday AM, back on it Saturday night.

VinLieger

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We already can't access them, which is why they are where they are in the first place. Digging for oil in the ocean isn't easy or cheap - and that's only after the exploratory phase (again expensive and difficult) before you even know if these reserves are viable for drilling.

I think you are getting confused. the article in question was refferring to the UK storing already drilled oil that is either refined or waiting got be refined by them. This is not oil still in the ground.


https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/ireland-set-to-remove-oil-reserves-from-britain-as-brexit-deadline-looms-closer-37119507.html

Silent Running

Delays will quickly compound in the event of a crash out. Hypothetically, the first truck will be delayed 1 minute (or hour, etc). The next truck would be delayed the one minute of the first, and his own minute, The third truck will get the two minutes of the second truck, plus his own minute, and on, and on. You can see how quickly this could get to total logjam. :eek:

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, but what about the point about there being no practical change on 1st April. There is no more risk from the container from one day to the next, and with the EU already, as part of an agreement, willing to extend a transition period, they have acknowledged this.

But we are explicitly talking about a no-deal Brexit, so there is no transition period.

As a short term measure, the UK could wave containers through from the Continent to keep food and medicines on the shelves, but everyone else in the world would immediately start proceedings with the WTO to get the same access to the UK market. To follow the rules, the UK would have to drop all controls and tariffs on all imports from everywhere, which is out of the question.

France would also stop checking containers for stowaways since they are not the EU's problem anymore, meaning the UK would either have to allow open season for illegal immigrants or stop and check every container at Dover. They have neither the space nor the staff to do that.

They would also be talking to the WTO to get recognition as a WTO trading nation at the very same time that every other WTO nation is complaining about them. And we know how good their negotiators are...

judeboy101

flatty wrote: »

I'm ashamed that an Irish person would think this. My days I'm flabbergasted.

Bit melodramatic, plenty of scots have joined the British army and done terrible things to the Irish over the last 100 years. I don't remember large scale protests in Scotland over British occupation of Ireland. Plenty over the israeli occupation, but none for British occupation. Some Irish ppl have a romanticised idea of some "Celtic" brotherhood. The reality is that the Scots are very much British, they showed that when they voted to stay British. When we got the chance to leave the UK, we did. That's the difference between our cultures.

FreudianSlippers

VinLieger wrote: »

I think you are getting confused. the article in question was refferring to the UK storing already drilled oil that is either refined or waiting got be refined by them. This is not oil still in the ground.


https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/ireland-set-to-remove-oil-reserves-from-britain-as-brexit-deadline-looms-closer-37119507.html

Thanks - this thread moves too fast!

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Link dumping post deleted.

LaChatteGitane

judeboy101 wrote: »

Bit melodramatic, plenty of scots have joined the British army and done terrible things to the Irish over the last 100 years. I don't remember large scale protests in Scotland over British occupation of Ireland. Plenty over the israeli occupation, but none for British occupation. Some Irish ppl have a romanticised idea of some "Celtic" brotherhood. The reality is that the Scots are very much British, they showed that when they voted to stay British. When we got the chance to leave the UK, we did. That's the difference between our cultures.

Have you ever thought that there is a vast amount of English living in Scotland who were allowed to vote in that referendum ?

swampgas

ambro25 wrote: »

FWIW, my contingency planning (to go fetch and expatriate the M-i-Law from the U.K. in case it all goes to sh1t real fast) involves road only, and the closest U.K. landing point to her place (Hull, about 60 miles) so that wouldn’t need to fuel up in the U.K. Same day return with VIP pass: off the ferry Saturday AM, back on it Saturday night.

Have started contingency planning myself to exfiltrate the Father in Law from the UK. He is trying to figure out if he should sell up and move now, or wait and risk a worst-case scenario where property prices and sterling both tank leaving him much worse off than he would be otherwise. If the decision were mine, I'd be selling up immediately and transferring sterling to euro.

I wonder how many other people are making similar assessments right now...

ancapailldorcha

We have Justine Greening now calling for a second referendum on the basis that the current proposal is the worst of both worlds. Hopefully, more moderate Tories come to their senses.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

With the probability of a no deal, at least IMO, increasing all the time, I was wondering what the actual impact of a no deal would be.

Yes, I have and read the talk of food shortages, long queue at Dover etc, but is that really the likely scenario?

The UK seem to be going with the transferring all current EU into UK law and regulations are not going to change overnight. So in effect, there is no more risk from a container coming for the UK on 1 April 2019 over 20 March 2019. EU have already agreed in principle to a transition period (based on an agreement) so they acknowledge the ability to continue to trade whilst UK are technically outside the EU.

I'm not saying that there won't be problems, but I think the scenario of food shortages/planes not flying is akin to the economic forecasts prior to the vote. Brexit will result in long term harm to the UK, but the situation won't suddenly change overnight.

Or am I being hopelessly naive and simply not understanding the realities?

Also, with the UK being our main distribution network, what is the likely impact on the ROI. Will we be facing food/energy shortages?

Food shortages is a bit of a strawman, no one has said there will be food shortages. There will be shortages of certain food products that come from the EU, some fresh food imported from the EU may rot in the ports as a result of customs chaos. As a result of potential fuel shortages for the same reason, there may be dificulty in geting normal deliveries out to the regions. It's a case of disruption and shortages of certain products, not food shortages in a more general scense. Think of the bad weather earlier this year, there was disruption to the supply chains, certain products ran out in some places, but no one starved.

We have seen the kind of disruption a no-deal brexit will cause before. There will be flight disruption like the time that volcano erupted in Iceland, there will be supply chain disruption like there was due to bad weather earlier this year. The efects will be an annoyance to most rather than any kind of danger. The difference being that this will be a man made disaster rather than a natural one, and it will be more of a perfect storm as they will happen all at the same time.

lawred2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We have Justine Greening now calling for a second referendum on the basis that the current proposal is the worst of both worlds. Hopefully, more moderate Tories come to their senses.

I'm not sure the result would be much different...

ancapailldorcha

lawred2 wrote: »

I'm not sure the result would be much different...

I disagree. The Leave side now have to play with facts instead of unicorns. That and we have two years of spectacular government incompetence that Armando Iannucci would consider too ridiculous to put into one of his satires.

Don't get me wrong. Remaining this way doesn't fix the issues that led 17.4 million people to vote for Brexit. It's a start but a future government really needs to take these people's concerns seriously starting with helping build functioning housing markets, fixing the press and maybe, just maybe introducing a fit-for-purpose voting system.

At the very least, another Leave vote would end the ambiguity once and for all and properly commit the UK to this course.

judeboy101

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

Have you ever thought that there is a vast amount of English living in Scotland who were allowed to vote in that referendum ?

Vast amount of EU nationals and 16yr olds also voted, your point? The reality is that in the context of brexit. We should look after our own 26, and be totally miserly when it comes to the UK. A hard brexit is the perfect opportunity to finally separate us from the UK. Then when they realise their mistake, we can deal with them from a position of strength, not one of deference.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We have Justine Greening now calling for a second referendum on the basis that the current proposal is the worst of both worlds. Hopefully, more moderate Tories come to their senses.

I'm honestly starting to think a second referendum might not be a bad idea.

Imreoir2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But we are explicitly talking about a no-deal Brexit, so there is no transition period.

As a short term measure, the UK could wave containers through from the Continent to keep food and medicines on the shelves, but everyone else in the world would immediately start proceedings with the WTO to get the same access to the UK market. To follow the rules, the UK would have to drop all controls and tariffs on all imports from everywhere, which is out of the question.

France would also stop checking containers for stowaways since they are not the EU's problem anymore, meaning the UK would either have to allow open season for illegal immigrants or stop and check every container at Dover. They have neither the space nor the staff to do that.

They would also be talking to the WTO to get recognition as a WTO trading nation at the very same time that every other WTO nation is complaining about them. And we know how good their negotiators are...

The UK simply waiving trucks fom the EU through does not even come close to solving the problem though.

Trucks from the UK will be jammed trying to get out because the French will apply controls on the French side, and the delays this causes will mean that UK trucks wont be able to get out of the UK because there will be no where for them to land on the EU side due to the backup. If there are significant delays getting out of the UK, the return leg for those trucks is also significantly delayed, as is anything they may be carrying on the way back.

The paperwork needed for trucks starting on the EU side will delay them going through the EU ports too, even if they get waived through the UK ports when they get there.

A border is not open if it is only open on one side.

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm honestly starting to think a second referendum might not be a bad idea.

I think it's a great idea. Boris Johnson had mooted it before the referendum as it beholds the politicians negotiating the deal to the people by giving them the power to throw it out.

Like I said, it won't fix economic inequality and the feeling of general powerlessness which I think were the primary motivations of people voting Leave.

lawred2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. The Leave side now have to play with facts instead of unicorns. That and we have two years of spectacular government incompetence that Armando Iannucci would consider too ridiculous to put into one of his satires.

Don't get me wrong. Remaining this way doesn't fix the issues that led 17.4 million people to vote for Brexit. It's a start but a future government really needs to take these people's concerns seriously starting with helping build functioning housing markets, fixing the press and maybe, just maybe introducing a fit-for-purpose voting system.

At the very least, another Leave vote would end the ambiguity once and for all and properly commit the UK to this course.

Second referendum would be a great idea for all the reasons you listed.

So it won't happen.

Ever.

ambro25

Imreoir2 wrote: »

We have seen the kind of disruption a no-deal brexit will cause before. There will be flight disruption like the time that volcano erupted in Iceland, there will be supply chain disruption like there was due to bad weather earlier this year. The efects will be an annoyance to most rather than any kind of danger.

I’m in general agreement with your points, but in the specific context of a hard no deal-Brexit, I believe that the effects will be much broader and faster far-reaching, than comparable to bad weather-caused, for two related reasons:

one, because unlike ‘just bad weather’, which is a known longstanding risk at known times of year, the causes of disruption will be very numerous, heterogeneous and compounding (legal, financial, practical issues all feeding into and cascading from one another, from 23:01 literally), and still aren’t much contingency-planned for by many, but by the most forward-planning/best-managed companies; and

two, because in the continuing absence of legal/regulatory certainty, none of the multifarious actors involved woukd know where and how best to aim their crisis management efforts, for a return to normality, never mind in a joined-up thinking way (relative to: wait for weather to abate/gritters to do their stuff).

Here is to hoping for sense to pervade in good time...but that’s betting territory at this stage, and the odds fade daily as the Art.50 clock continues to tick down.

Enzokk

I would be very concerned if I were the UK. Their most experienced trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer, has been talking up the UK after Brexit. He looks at life all glass half full and says there are a lot of opportunities out there in 10 years time. Basically the elites of the UK will be fine because the UK produces some of the best in the world.

“We produce the best professional services in the world. Our banks are the best in the world. Our insurance companies are the most reliable. Our architects, our designers, our artists, our lawyers, our accountants — they’re world class. We have intellectual property rights to die for. It is these services that the fastest-growing economies in Asia and Africa crave. The world is begging for the UK to be able to trade with it. It’s not because of something we’re going to take from people. It’s because our world-class services are what other countries need to become more efficient themselves. We’ll be pushing on an open door.”

I am open to be corrected but wasn't it the more educated that voted to remain? I doubt those in rural UK that voted overwhelmingly vor Brexit voted for this.

What would worry me though if I was a leave voter, Crawford Falconer thinks the opportunities out there is massive. The likes of Australia and New Zealand is clamoring for a deal with the UK. The US are, in his words, committed to negotiate with the UK about a trade deal.

And there’s quite a queue building on the other side. “The countries that the EU has had agreements with are more than happy to have those agreements with us in our own right, once we’ve left. Countries like Australia and New Zealand, which haven’t yet, but are about to start negotiations with the EU, are also clamouring to start with us. Countries that are failing to achieve negotiations with the EU, like the United States, are committed to negotiation with us.”

The bright ­side of Brexit: exclusive interviews with the Department for International Trade’s top negotiators

Here is where my worry comes in regarding Falconer. He touts all that is good for the UK, yet a few months before he took up his role in the UK he was giving different advice. Then he said you needed to avoid the US like the plague because they are too protectionist. He advised that New Zealand will need to look at forming a super partnership with other nations to try and counter the US. One of those partners? Well the EU off course, to add heft to a partnership when it comes to trade off course, because the TPP (without the US) would not be enough on its own.

Take this article before his appointment that was published on the 23rd March 2017.

Bold plan to counter Trump's America First policies

One of New Zealand’s most experienced trade negotiators last night set out a bold plan to revamp and expand the TPP as a way to deal with President Donald Trump’s “America First” policies.

Before an Institute of International Affairs audience in Wellington which included current and former MFAT trade negotiators and foreign diplomats, Crawford Falconer said the need to start taking action to deal with Trump’s American protectionist policies was urgent.

Then the region ought to bring the EU in but its member states would need enormous encouragement.

“And the group would need to be that big before it would change the judgement of the US.”

Also, in the Sunday Times puff piece he mentions that another strength of the UK is the food standards they have in the country. Apparently standards of countries in Asia is low so they can trust UK food. But wouldn't a trade deal with the US possibly change that? Again the journalist didn't delve too deeply, then again the objective probably wasn't to make readers think about whether Brexit is a good idea, it is rather to sell Brexit.

VinLieger

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Food shortages is a bit of a strawman, no one has said there will be food shortages. There will be shortages of certain food products that come from the EU, some fresh food imported from the EU may rot in the ports as a result of customs chaos. As a result of potential fuel shortages for the same reason, there may be dificulty in geting normal deliveries out to the regions. It's a case of disruption and shortages of certain products, not food shortages in a more general scense. Think of the bad weather earlier this year, there was disruption to the supply chains, certain products ran out in some places, but no one starved.

The snow was a week of disruption and the shortages were mainly due to people panic buying and overstocking their own houses plus no deliveries being made. Now think about 2-3 weeks of delayed deliveries or months of severely reduced and delayed deliveries coupled with panic buying overstocking and shortages become a very real possibility. If a supply chain falls apart it cannot just be restarted at 100% capacity immediately, it can take quite a long time to rebuild it, look at the KFC distributor change in the UK this year as a great case study example. They had many restaurants without various ingredients and products for over a month.

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. The Leave side now have to play with facts instead of unicorns. That and we have two years of spectacular government incompetence that Armando Iannucci would consider too ridiculous to put into one of his satires.

Don't get me wrong. Remaining this way doesn't fix the issues that led 17.4 million people to vote for Brexit. It's a start but a future government really needs to take these people's concerns seriously starting with helping build functioning housing markets, fixing the press and maybe, just maybe introducing a fit-for-purpose voting system.

At the very least, another Leave vote would end the ambiguity once and for all and properly commit the UK to this course.

At the moment, I would say that talk about a 2nd referendum is premature. Not premature because there's so much time (there isn't) but premature because Brexiteers still seem to believe that there's a conspiracy to thwart Brexit from A) politicians who either oppose Brexit or carrying it out half-heartedly 48 percent of the public, of whom many cannot accept the outcome of a vote, and C) the big bad EU - intent on punishing Britain for their insolence. To them, another referendum is just a step in the plan to stop Brexit altogether, and they'll cry bloody murder if it's brought to the table.

flatty

judeboy101 wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

I'm ashamed that an Irish person would think this. My days I'm flabbergasted.

Bit melodramatic, plenty of scots have joined the British army and done terrible things to the Irish over the last 100 years. I don't remember large scale protests in Scotland over British occupation of Ireland. Plenty over the israeli occupation, but none for British occupation. Some Irish ppl have a romanticised idea of some "Celtic" brotherhood. The reality is that the Scots are very much British, they showed that when they voted to stay British. When we got the chance to leave the UK, we did. That's the difference between our cultures.

Plenty of Irish also. What's your point?

Zubeneschamali

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Trucks from the UK will be jammed trying to get out because the French will apply controls on the French side, and the delays this causes will mean that UK trucks wont be able to get out of the UK because there will be no where for them to land on the EU side due to the backup.

4 out of 5 trucks leaving the UK are empty. Have a 2-queue system, and load 4 out of 5 ferries with empty trucks, 1 with exports. Checks on the empty trucks will be much simpler and quicker.

I don't think the EU will go out of their way to starve the UK out - keeping trade going within EU rules will still be a priority.

An Ciarraioch

The DUP continue to push for an adamantine-hard Brexit, with Jeffrey Donaldson saying today that no-deal would be preferable to an Irish Sea border:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/no-deal-better-than-border-in-irish-sea-says-dups-donaldson-37121284.html

Nody

Remember how May's deal was about starring down the Brexit wing of her party? Well she appears to have caved in on all demands now...

Her spokesman signalled a climbdown when he told reporters: “We will consider the amendments and set out our position in due course.”

It appeared that the government might accept all four amendments – in the belief that doing so would not wreck the Chequers plan for tariffs, even before it reaches Brussels.

Any and all good will from actually acting as a PM out the window in the blink of an eye...

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, but what about the point about there being no practical change on 1st April. There is no more risk from the container from one day to the next, and with the EU already, as part of an agreement, willing to extend a transition period, they have acknowledged this.

Or is it, and I think it is based on the previous replies so forgive me for not fully getting it yet, is it that the risk is irrelevant as it is now simply a matter of international law that once out of the EU the UK containers need to be treated as any other 3rd party regardless of what was in operation the day before?

Any change from full membership of the single market opens the prospect of border delays.

There are currently neither tariff or non-tariff barriers between the UK and any EU country. After they leave, there may be both.

If the UK maintains compliance with EU standards, then their goods can be legally sold in the EU. But that still might have to be checked on entry and there may be tariffs which will require customs checks and paperwork.

There is also the matter of goods imported into the UK under the terms of any trade agreements the UK strikes with third countries. If any of those goods are shipped on into the EU, there will be border delays while their compliance is verified.

The EU is not for moving on the integrity of the Single Market.

An Ciarraioch

Net migration from the EU to the UK reaches its lowest level for five years, while non-EU migration reaches record levels, so looks like the right-wing newspapers will have to find a new scapegoat to replace the "Polish plumber":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44846002

EdgeCase

judeboy101 wrote: »

Vast amount of EU nationals and 16yr olds also voted, your point? The reality is that in the context of brexit. We should look after our own 26, and be totally miserly when it comes to the UK. A hard brexit is the perfect opportunity to finally separate us from the UK. Then when they realise their mistake, we can deal with them from a position of strength, not one of deference.

I wouldn’t see Scotland in 2018 as being comparable to Ireland in 1918, or directly comparable with the Republic of Ireland which has been independent for the best part of a century at this stage. The circumstances are very different and, as much as the Scots would prefer to remain in the EU, leaving the UK would likely have even more profound impacts on them as they’re fully integrated, even more so than Northern Ireland. When push comes to shove, Scotland has to do what’s best for Scotland and Ireland has to do what’s best for Ireland.

The Scots really need to continue to exert as much political influence as they can to steer the UK back into some kind of sane trajectory. Their best result would be to keep the UK in the EU or at least the customs union. Failing that, they probably should aim for a federal UK with far more autonomy for Scotland to prevent further insanity as the English conservatives and far right are totally undermining any hope of Scotland becoming a modern social democracy.

I’d love to see Scottish independence but I also recognise it has huge risks and cost implications for the Scottish economy. If the UK goes into a tail spin after a hard Brexit, then maybe it might make sense but if a sane solution can be found that avoids that, it’s definitely needs to be found.

I’m amazed that nobody in leadership in England seems to be able to put the UK before party petty politics and actually lead. As politicians go, the whole lot of them are an utter disappointment if that’s the quality of leadership the UK now has on offer. They’re a bunch of wimps who fear the tabloids.

If they’re not careful Britain will become some kind of glorified Trump golf course.

Infini

lawred2 wrote: »

Second referendum would be a great idea for all the reasons you listed.

So it won't happen.

Ever.

Wouldn't be so sure of it. Unless May gets shafted out and a Brexitard ends up being the one who sunk the UK, Pragmatism can win out. A rerun of the referendum would certainly offer the only a way out of this but with the added effect of having a gun to their heads. Would also expect the remain side to seriously up their game to end this. The brexiteers are gobbers. Whats needed is enough first to defeat them then after a serious war on the misinformation and idiocy that caused this to begin with.

briany

EdgeCase wrote: »

I wouldn’t see Scotland in 2018 as being comparable to Ireland in 1918, or directly comparable with the Republic of Ireland which has been independent for the best part of a century at this stage. The circumstances are very different and, as much as the Scots would prefer to remain in the EU, leaving the UK would likely have even more profound impacts on them as they’re fully integrated, even more so than Northern Ireland. When push comes to shove, Scotland has to do what’s best for Scotland and Ireland has to do what’s best for Ireland.

The Scots really need to continue to exert as much political influence as they can to steer the UK back into some kind of sane trajectory. Their best result would be to keep the UK in the EU or at least the customs union. Failing that, they probably should aim for a federal UK with far more autonomy for Scotland to prevent further insanity as the English conservatives and far right are totally undermining any hope of Scotland becoming a modern social democracy.

I’d love to see Scottish independence but I also recognise it has huge risks and cost implications for the Scottish economy. If the UK goes into a tail spin after a hard Brexit, then maybe it might make sense but if a sane solution can be found that avoids that, it’s definitely needs to be found.

I’m amazed that nobody in leadership in England seems to be able to put the UK before party petty politics and actually lead. As politicians go, the whole lot of them are an utter disappointment if that’s the quality of leadership the UK now has on offer. They’re a bunch of wimps who fear the tabloids.

If they’re not careful Britain will become some kind of glorified Trump golf course.

I think the unspoken motto of the UK has always been, "England first. And then, if we have time, the other 3." It's a union centred around English concerns. After all, England is where about 85 percent of the UK population resides and where their central governmental institutions are located.

The English may allow the Scottish to offer subtle course adjustments out of politeness as much as anything, but they're not going to let the Scottish make a hard left where the whole UK is concerned. Scotland just doesn't have the stroke.

An Ciarraioch

Dominic Grieve suggests it's a choice between Chequers and cancelling Brexit:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/if-we-can-t-work-together-on-a-deal-we-must-rethink-the-whole-idea-of-brexit-a3888121.html

trellheim

Grieve's not wrong

But the PM’s approach is not invalid.
She is doing her best to minimise the damage that flows from the decision to leave the European Union.
Every option is unfortunately worse than staying in the EU.
But the current government policy is a lot better than the alternative being promoted.

I like DG but he'll win no friends with JRM with that ... suspect he doesnt give a toss

Reiterate : from the ERG POV all that needs to happen is that they kill every deal between now and March, job done and they are OUT ( it'll be a dumpster fire but - it'll be worth it - and they are betting the EU will cut a deal )

VinLieger

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The uk will starve themselves checking trucks for migrants. France etc would only be to happy to get them out of country and stand back from midnight doing nothing about migrants crossing into UK

I can already envision newspapers and sky news going ape****

The customs on the French side is a joint operation between UK and French authorities inspecting trucks.