Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

These issues are more to do with the embracing of globalism and losing the technical knowledge as to how to make stuff like this.
If nothing else, the pandemic will focus minds on developing a resilient industry that can use locally sourced materials whenever possible as opposed to depending on others to produce and sell it to you.

This is a lesson that all countries are learning the hard way, just look at the quality of PPE that arrived here from China in recent weeks.

It is indeed a lesson that the current crop of Tories would do well to not only learn but reflect on the 'why', because it was their idol Thatcher that saw to the decimating of British industry on an - if you'll pardon the pun - industrial scale.

Irish Praetorian

54and56 wrote: »

You reap what you sow.

Beef farmers used to be organised, own co-ops etc.

They sold all that out for a once off bribe payment years ago and now moan that they are price takers.

Why don't they organise themselves into co-ops who build/buy and operate meat factories in a co-operative manner so they get to produce value added product supermarkets want to buy (and effectively control the supply of same) thus removing the Larry Goodman type middle man much the same as French vineyards all use a community owned facility to process their grapes before each of them produces their own label wine or contribute their grapes to a single regional production which they then get their proportional share of the revenue from?

Our farmers are world class at two things:-

1. Producing high quality product.
2. Getting fcuked over by the meat factories.

It's always amazed me that they can't just club together, open their own factories and move up the value chain. What, apart from inertia, is stopping them?

This actually sounds quite interesting, you wouldn't have a link outlining the 'bribe' process, or whatever it was exactly, in more detail would you?

Irish Praetorian

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

On 29 July 1014, at the Battle of Kleidion, Byzantine Emperor Basil II defeated the Bulgars. There were fifteen thousand prisoners and one man in a hundred had an eye removed.

The rest were blinded and had to be guided home by the half blind.



The UK are heading for a similar half blind leading the blind as 403 of 878 companies that have received money from the customs paperwork training fund are existing customs intermediaries.

There's about 200,000 UK companies that trade with the EU who will be filling out customs forms for the first time. So far they've got just 1% of the extra customs agents they need.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-52287926

Had to like this just on the strength of the obscure Byzantine reference alone - the UK at the moment might be more Basil Fawlty rather than Basil Bulgaroktonus though.

briany

Lemming wrote: »

It is indeed a lesson that the current crop of Tories would do well to not only learn but reflect on the 'why', because it was their idol Thatcher that saw to the decimating of British industry on an - if you'll pardon the pun - industrial scale.

They're not going to learn that lesson. No-one is. What they'll do is announce a 'pandemic strategy' for the future. This will include storing great big piles of Chinese-made PPE in warehouses around the country to be distributed in a pandemic event. Also, they will have a plan to provide or supplement the income of workers on a short-term basis during the 'peak' period. As well as that, they will designate certain locations as auxiliary NHS stations, to be filled when extra bed capacity is needed.

In other words, a lot of the things they're doing now, just intended to be rolled out in a more organised, less panicked way. Expect the Irish government to announce something very similar.

There will be no lasting changes other than people being more mindful of their hygiene, which would be positive in itself. Other than that, people are gumming to get back to the old normal of socialising and everything else. I expect the politicians with a lot invested in the old system are hoping things get back to the old normal, too.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

These issues are more to do with the embracing of globalism and losing the technical knowledge as to how to make stuff like this.
If nothing else, the pandemic will focus minds on developing a resilient industry that can use locally sourced materials whenever possible as opposed to depending on others to produce and sell it to you.

That's not how I see it. We've always had "globalisation" within the limits of each civilisation's transport capabilities, right back to the times of the Celts, and the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese.

What we're seeing here - in respect of Brexit as much as the ventilator debacle - is the result of years of chasing "the popular vote" where all policy-making is a reaction to whatever's agitating the emotions of the common man, with very little thought given to the mechanics of implementing whatever solution is promised to win votes.

This is not a uniquely British problem, but the Tory party does seem to have elevated reactionary politicking to an artform ... at the expense of good governance. Other than a few dodgy batches, there's nothing inherently wrong with PPE coming from China, and post-Covid-19 the good socio-economic reasons for sourcing all kinds of supplies from the far side of the world will hold true again, as much as they did last year.

In that context, as the continent of Europe seeks to recover it's previous quality of life, it'll be perfectly reasonable to fall back on Chinese suppliers of the cheap and disposable while we Europeans concentrate on producing and exporting high(er) value goods. With the EU's diplomatic deal-makers swarming the planet to reclaim old markets and create new ones, it will not be a good time to be a small independent nation whose government is still arguing over what kind of Brexit the voters voted for.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

It is indeed a lesson that the current crop of Tories would do well to not only learn but reflect on the 'why', because it was their idol Thatcher that saw to the decimating of British industry on an - if you'll pardon the pun - industrial scale.

The dynamic duo of Thatcher and Regan, ripped the heart out of the western manufacturing industrial centres under the guise of "taking back control from the unions". While in reality it was to kick start a major plan to bring about globalisation in a big way and make most countries totally interdependent on each other, using the cheapest labour sources possible to enhance corporate profits and concentrate power with the multinationals.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

That's not how I see it. We've always had "globalisation" within the limits of each civilisation's transport capabilities, right back to the times of the Celts, and the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese.

Historically traders traded unavailable goods between places, they did not "send coal to Newcastle" for example, they traded it for something that could not be obtained in Newcastle. The "globalisation" of today is a very different animal, it is exploiting the cheap labour in other countries to make goods that could easily be made here (or in the UK) for greater profit.

CelticRambler wrote: »

In that context, as the continent of Europe seeks to recover it's previous quality of life, it'll be perfectly reasonable to fall back on Chinese suppliers of the cheap and disposable while we Europeans concentrate on producing and exporting high(er) value goods. With the EU's diplomatic deal-makers swarming the planet to reclaim old markets and create new ones, it will not be a good time to be a small independent nation whose government is still arguing over what kind of Brexit the voters voted for.

You DO realise that China is making big moves into this "quality" marketplace and will undercut all EU (& Western) manufacturers in the medium term future.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

The dynamic duo of Thatcher and Regan, ripped the heart out of the western manufacturing industrial centres under the guise of "taking back control from the unions". While in reality it was to kick start a major plan to bring about globalisation in a big way and make most countries totally interdependent on each other, using the cheapest labour sources possible to enhance corporate profits and concentrate power with the multinationals.

At risk of going off-topic - so I'll be brief - I really would not ascribe such Machiavellian planning [regards notions of globalisation] to what Reagan & Thatcher did; "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained through stupidity", or in this case simple greed instead of stupidity. Remember the 1980s was the era of the Gordon Gecko mantra "Greed is good" that ran rampant through the likes of Wall St. They [Thatcher & Reagan] chased better profits for their corporate party lobbyists and friends. The rest took care of itself because nature abhors a vacuum.

No argument on the unions bit.

sondagefaux

Deleted User wrote: »

These issues are more to do with the embracing of globalism and losing the technical knowledge as to how to make stuff like this.
If nothing else, the pandemic will focus minds on developing a resilient industry that can use locally sourced materials whenever possible as opposed to depending on others to produce and sell it to you.

This is a lesson that all countries are learning the hard way, just look at the quality of PPE that arrived here from China in recent weeks.

If it wasn't for globalisation, Ireland wouldn't have a world-leading medical technology research and manufacturing sector.

A new system of splitting ventilators between two patients which can be adjusted for each individual has been designed by clinicians and medical technologists in Galway.

Galway is a medtech hub, where about half of the world’s ventilators are produced, and the new system will halve the number of ventilators required in intensive care settings during the Covid-19 pandemic.

By safely splitting ventilators between patients, the system aims to alleviate the pressure on resources and on medical teams who may be forced to make difficult choices due to shortage of equipment.

Designed by the Inspire team, based at NUI Galway (NUIG), the new system is being made available to health services globally on the website www.galwayventshare.com.

It can be replicated using medically approved ventilator equipment that already exists in most hospitals, according to the team.

The scientists say it allows for delivery of the correct lung volume, based on each patient’s requirements and this can be adjusted as necessary.

The ability to adjust the equipment is said to be particularly effective for people with lung disease or respiratory illness.

“The idea of using a ventilator to ventilate the lungs of two patients is very much a last resort.,”Prof John Laffey, professor of anaesthesia at NUIG’s school of medicine, explained.

“Unfortunately, we have heard some reports of intensive care colleagues in other countries in the tragic situation of having to choose which one of two COVID-19 patients to offer ventilator support to,” he said.

“This innovation will change that decision from one of having to decide which patient to provide this life supporting technology to allowing one to provide ventilatory support to both patients, buying time to allow one source additional ventilators,”he said.

“This solution developed in Galway is an important advance over others because it allows one to control key ventilatory parameters for each patient separately, which is really important for a severe lung disease like Covid-19, and it monitors each patient separately,”Prof Laffey said.

The Inspire team comprises alumni of the NUIG BioInnovate medical device training programme who work throughout the medtech hub in Galway.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/galway-medtech-sector-designs-ventilator-which-can-treat-two-patients-at-once-993329.html

Do you really think there would be a world-leading medical device research and training programme in Galway if it wasn't for the presence of multinational medical technology manufacturers there?

And please don't try to pretend that back in the day Ireland had an indigenous world-leading medical technology manufacturing sector, along with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads... :rolleyes:

As to the quality of PPE arriving into Ireland from China, a significant percentage of it didn't meet Irish/EU standards because the manufacturers weren't given the correct specifications.

The newer stock arriving has been made to Irish/EU standards, now that the manufacturers have been given the correct specifications.

If manufacturers aren't told exactly what they should be making by the customer, they'll make what they think the customer wants.

Irish Praetorian

sondagefaux wrote: »

If it wasn't for globalisation, Ireland wouldn't have a world-leading medical technology research and manufacturing sector.



https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/galway-medtech-sector-designs-ventilator-which-can-treat-two-patients-at-once-993329.html

Do you really think there would be a world-leading medical device research and training programme in Galway if it wasn't for the presence of multinational medical technology manufacturers there?

And please don't try to pretend that back in the day Ireland had an indigenous world-leading medical technology manufacturing sector, along with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads... :rolleyes:

As to the quality of PPE arriving into Ireland from China, a significant percentage of it didn't meet Irish/EU standards because the manufacturers weren't given the correct specifications.

The newer stock arriving has been made to Irish/EU standards, now that the manufacturers have been given the correct specifications.

If manufacturers aren't told exactly what they should be making by the customer, they'll make what they think the customer wants.

Really having a hard time believing half the worlds ventilators are manufactured in Galway, does it mean half the worlds ventilators are manufactured in med-tech hubs?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Ok, please take the globalisation to a new thread and get back on topic. Thanks.

54and56

Enzokk wrote: »

I found this article very interesting,

Muddled thinking punctures plan for British ventilator

Now this is a Covid-19 article but the twitter thread from the journalist makes some interesting comparisons to what we are discussing here,

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1251445356874870784?s=20

Basically the same thinking that has allowed the UK to sleepwalk into a disaster of a Brexit has meant they have wasted time of companies designing ventilators that has no use because they messed up the specs from the start.

We have seen it with Brexit, "how hard can it be?" has been said many times regarding customs or checks or most anything really. Well if this is a guide then it is very hard and the UK will waste time and not get it right.

This article (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/14/coronavirus-uk-ireland-delay) articulates the differences between science led evidence based early decision making and the kind of "how hard can it be" Brexit knumbskull bravado leading the decision making in the UK at the moment. I recall this thread despairing at the poor quality of leadership at the top of the Troy party last year when pre WA Brexit was in full swing (remember Mark Francois - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Francois).

Add a pandemic to the mix and the leadership and decision making deficit is magnified and not for the good.

Taken from the aforementioned article - "almost three and a half times as many people have died of the coronavirus in the UK as in Ireland".

boggerman1

Listening to an astounding car crash interview with I think it’s ian Duncan Smith on 5 live.tories laying off the blame to someone or anyone else.nothing to see here gov and it’s too soon to apportion blame.n

weemcd

Johnson and Gove are taking hidings today in the papers, the news and social media. You reap what you sow. I'd really love this to be the end of them, in any rational world it would be, but somehow I think they'll stumble through and largely get away with it. Then once the dust has settled get on with whatever awful version of Brexit they wish to continue with.

I despair.

Lemming

weemcd wrote: »

Johnson and Gove are taking hidings today in the papers, the news and social media. You reap what you sow. I'd really love this to be the end of them, in any rational world it would be, but somehow I think they'll stumble through and largely get away with it. Then once the dust has settled get on with whatever awful version of Brexit they wish to continue with.

I despair.

The new catch-line, replacing "will of the people" is "led by the science". Watch and count the number of times it gets brought up when the GUBUment malfeacent democidal f*cks get asked a probing question.

I would like to think that once this crisis has past there will be the absolute calamitous mother of all enquiries with ungodly levels of reckoning following for all those responsible in the UK. I would also like to think that unlike Brexit, those responsible will not be able to hide from the ample evidence that has been cruelly inflicted upon the nation by way of deaths, economic damage, and an NHS - and wider social care sector - that will undoubtedly suffer large numbers of staff quitting their posts in response to having been so completely betrayed and failed.

But .... Brexit.

So no, they'll most likely skip away scot free.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Ok, please take the globalisation to a new thread and get back on topic. Thanks.

Posts deleted.

Leroy42

There seems to be growing calls for an extension in the UK. The polling seems to suggest that the majority are open to it, the media seem to be opening up to the need for it.

I wonder how long the government can continue down this track of refusing any discussion of an extension?

As with the entire Brexit issue, they never actually give any data on which their position is based. They mentioned uncertainty, but surely they have a way to calculate what that actually means so they can compare it to the costs?

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

There seems to be growing calls for an extension in the UK. The polling seems to suggest that the majority are open to it, the media seem to be opening up to the need for it.

I wonder how long the government can continue down this track of refusing any discussion of an extension?

As with the entire Brexit issue, they never actually give any data on which their position is based. They mentioned uncertainty, but surely they have a way to calculate what that actually means so they can compare it to the costs?

The problem with the extension request is not uncertainty, but certainty - the certainty of economic chaos if they do not extend the transition.

With the current Covid crisis, they cannot even handle that crisis, let alone prepare for a no-deal scenario. Nor do they have the time to deal with negotiations for a deal as there is only two months left before they must request an extension.

The only other choice is a BRINO deal. Which is it, Mr Johnson?

Retr0gamer

Isn't there a whole mess of legal issues though if they do go for an extension.

Is it true that in their arrogance the current government has pretty much made it legally water tight that they legally have to leave on the date set? Nothing is ever set in stone but would be entertaining to try and see them get out of a mess they put themselves in.

Leroy42

It is certainly complicated, but moreso in the EU rather than the UK. It simply requires an extension law to be passed in the HoC, which should be easy enough given the majority.

But in terms of an extension, there is a provision for a 1 or 2 year extension already built into the WA, so whilst it might be complicated it has already been envisaged and I am sure that plans are in place.

So, that is not a reason not to extend. The only real reason not to extend, is because the UK don't want to.

But as yet, they have given no reason why an extension would be the poorer decision. Simply saying it would doesn't make it true.

And surely, given the governments new found admiration and acceptance of experts, they should have some economists or similar lay out the clear advice on which they are basing their decision.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

And surely, given the governments new found admiration and acceptance of experts, they should have some economists or similar lay out the clear advice on which they are basing their decision.

Yeah well ... ... ... that admiration and acceptance seems to be reserved primarily for experts who are prepared to talk about the very real possibility that unicorns do exist, just haven't been discovered yet. And also firmly believe in closing stable doors long after the horses have bolted.

I haven't seen, heard or read anything in the last three months that suggests that anyone in Westminster is giving serious thought to Brexit countdown clock. This may be deliberate - why remind the public that they're still heading for an abyss when everyone's distracted by other news, if that's what you always wanted.

When that distraction has run its course, though, and economies start to recover, which sector will be first to rebound - goods or services? My feeling is that agriculture and manufacturing will spin up very quickly, but services will lag behind, and this will have a direct impact on how the EU moves ahead. If there's a reduced demand for financial and insurance products provided by (or in) London, it'll be a heck of a lot easier for Brussels to pull multiple aspects of that industry under the EU's umbrella.

Enzokk

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Isn't there a whole mess of legal issues though if they do go for an extension.

Is it true that in their arrogance the current government has pretty much made it legally water tight that they legally have to leave on the date set? Nothing is ever set in stone but would be entertaining to try and see them get out of a mess they put themselves in.

Well they have legislated that they will not ask for an extension. All it means is that they have to legislate that they request the extension before it can happen. Parliament will have to vote for it to make it happen, instead of the PM just asking for it without parliament's go ahead.

sondagefaux

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Isn't there a whole mess of legal issues though if they do go for an extension.

Is it true that in their arrogance the current government has pretty much made it legally water tight that they legally have to leave on the date set? Nothing is ever set in stone but would be entertaining to try and see them get out of a mess they put themselves in.

The UK's Withdrawal Act sets 31st December 2020 as the final day of the transition period as far as the UK is concerned.

But it's just another Act of Parliament and can be amended in the same way as any other Act.

If the UK government introduced an Act to amend the Wjthdrawal Act to allow for an extension beyond this year, it would pass through parliament quite easily, although there would be some Tory MPs who would vote against it.

Shelga

Quite surprised that nothing about Brexit was asked at PMQs yesterday, seeing as they have 69 days until the deadline for a transition extension request.

It’s such an easy win for the opposition too. No PM in sight, country in the grip of a pandemic, everything halted. Do they really think they’re going to have even the bones of a trade deal in 69 days? What is going to happen?!

ancapailldorcha

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Isn't there a whole mess of legal issues though if they do go for an extension.

Is it true that in their arrogance the current government has pretty much made it legally water tight that they legally have to leave on the date set? Nothing is ever set in stone but would be entertaining to try and see them get out of a mess they put themselves in.

The British Parliament is essentially a 650-person dictatorship and can overturn this block at will. The last term is pertinent as there just doesn't seem to be the political will at the moment.

A good example is the last election. The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act was supposed to stop governments abusing elections by insisting on a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons for calling one. Of course, this could be and was overridden by the 50%+1 rule when Jo Swinson somehow got it into her head that she could somehow win an election while Nicola Sturgeon fancied more seats.

Leroy42

Shelga wrote: »

Quite surprised that nothing about Brexit was asked at PMQs yesterday, seeing as they have 69 days until the deadline for a transition extension request.

It’s such an easy win for the opposition too. No PM in sight, country in the grip of a pandemic, everything halted. Do they really think they’re going to have even the bones of a trade deal in 69 days? What is going to happen?!

It would have been a wasted question. Whatever he asked, Raab would have simply stated that they are leaving on 31 Dec, Deal or No Deal and any follow up would be met with "You lost the election, the people have spoken, again, and we need to refocus on Covid and let the government get on with the great deal that Boris delivered for the UK."

Enzokk

Some Brexit related news, the UK seems to have laid out a strong opening position when it comes to access to Europol and other security information from the EU.

UK making 'impossible demands' over Europol database in EU talks

The British government is making impossible demands over access to Europol databases in the negotiations over the future relationship with the EU, according to a leaked assessment of the UK’s position drawn up by the German government.

As talks between the two sides resumed via video calls this week, Britain’s negotiators not only refused to extend the transition period because of the Covid-19 pandemic, but also stated the UK side’s eagerness to continue taking part in EU-wide data-sharing arrangements and even expanding their reach.

So a couple of things, again there was the insistence that the UK will not extend the transition period. They also seem to think they are entitled to information from the EU for security purposes. If they do participate in the data sharing it means the UK will have to accept EU standards on data protection which comes with accepting jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Then there is the small matter of data breaches already,

But some German politicians are particularly indignant at the idea that the UK could continue to take part in the Schengen Information System (SIS), since the decision to allow Britain to take part in the scheme five years ago has already proven controversial.

A 2018 report by the Council of the European Union found that the UK was making improper use of the database by illegally copying classified personal information and sharing it with US companies.

“It is nothing short of brazen by the British government to want to take part in Europe’s largest police database in spite of repeatedly breaking its rules,” said Andrej Hunko, a spokesman on European affairs for Die Linke, the German left party.

Lemming

Remarkable choice of language in the FT today (Pandemic puts UK immigration policy under pressure) around the Pandemic & Brexit; it is openly scathing of the government and Brexit.

Here are a few nuggets

Financial Times wrote:

Before the pandemic erupted, the government published proposals for a points-based immigration system whose purpose was to clamp down on EU citizens seeking work in the UK and, in particular, to impose tight limits on low-paid foreign workers.

In February Priti Patel, the home secretary (interior minister), dismissed the concerns of British companies that the new regime would lead to damaging labour shortages, saying there were more than 8m “economically inactive” Britons who could fill the jobs.

What she omitted to say was that 2.2m of these people were students, 2.1m were long-term sick people and 1.9m were looking after families.

During the pandemic, Britons have woken up to the fact that vital sectors such as the National Health Service, home care, farming and food processing are operating thanks in no small measure to low-paid EU and non-European workers of precisely the kind whose numbers Ms Patel’s proposals are intended to restrict.

None other than Prince Philip, the 98-year-old husband of Queen Elizabeth, rammed home this point on Monday. He paid tribute to ...

However, Brexit is the glue that holds together Mr Johnson’s government, and strident rhetoric and outright lies about immigration were part of the formula that won the UK’s 2016 referendum for the pro-Brexit forces.

During the referendum campaign these forces fanned the perception that had arisen, in the years when the UK was open to free movement of EU citizens, that such workers were to blame for depressed wages, housing shortages and pressure on public services.

So far, there is scant evidence that the government will rethink its immigration plans, just as there is no sign that it will bow to common sense and arrange an extension beyond December of the transition period governing post-Brexit EU-UK relations.

In both cases, the stubbornness arises not so much from stupidity as from a conscious political calculation that the Conservative party’s unity, close to being torn to shreds between 2016 and 2019, requires sticking to the hardline definition of Brexit and national sovereignty reached after Mr Johnson replaced Theresa May as prime minister.

Whilst none of the above is a surprise to anyone who reads this thread (or its former incarnations), what surprised me was the tone of the article and the choice of language employed (quite hostile towards those forces involved in Brexit) from a broadsheet paper that would generally be found leaning towards the Tories in outlook. Given the general kicking that the Tories are starting to receive - and rightly so - over their (dire mis)handling of the Covid 19 crisis with more and more media outlets starting to pile in, it remains to be seen how long the Tories are prepared to play chicken with the electorate over Brexit.

Peregrinus

Lemming wrote: »

. . . . Whilst none of the above is a surprise to anyone who reads this thread (or its former incarnations), what surprised me was the tone of the article and the choice of language employed (quite hostile towards those forces involved in Brexit) from a broadsheet paper that would generally be found leaning towards the Tories in outlook. Given the general kicking that the Tories are starting to receive - and rightly so - over their (dire mis)handling of the Covid 19 crisis with more and more media outlets starting to pile in, it remains to be seen how long the Tories are prepared to play chicken with the electorate over Brexit.

This isn't new. The FT has consistently criticized both the concept and the execution of Brexit, and has steadily pointed out the delusions and dishonesties on which the Brexit campaign is built. They are proof, if you like, that it is possible to be right of centre, generally aligned with Tory policies and values, and yet not drink the Brexit cool-aid.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't new. The FT has consistently criticized both the concept and the execution of Brexit, and has steadily pointed out the delusions and dishonesties on which the Brexit campaign is built. They are proof, if you like, that it is possible to be right of centre, generally aligned with Tory policies and values, and yet not drink the Brexit cool-aid.

FT generally puts business interests before nationalism.