Yes, they did, but most of those MP's stood on manifesto's to leave. Snakes in the grass who will have their comeuppance in the next election, whenever that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
Printable View
Yes, they did, but most of those MP's stood on manifesto's to leave. Snakes in the grass who will have their comeuppance in the next election, whenever that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
But that isn't going to work is it, we need some kind of trade agreement, otherwise we will have a very serious food shortage problem within just a few hours and at most a couple of days, of the borders being closed to hauliers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
Our food supply network is based on Just-in-Time (JIT) deliveries, even a minor disruption will cause chaos, see the effects of the petrol prices strike action September 2000.
The same applies to pharmaceuticals.
I hope I don't sound over-dramatic, this is a very real possibility and I believe there are already some effects being noticed in the pharmaceuticals delivery networks.
“A ‘no-deal’ Brexit would mean the biggest disintegration of the complex regulated medicines market in Europe in terms of regulation, cross border movement of goods, comparative pricing, and intellectual property,”
Read the full article fr details on how it is already affecting the UKs position in terms of drugs, trials and regulation on medical care:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-o...-brexit--64926
I'm sorry DM, but this is just complete tosh.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
I can't remember a post on my fairly long time on this forum that has contained so many whoppers.
It might be economically more beneficial to have some sort of trade agreement, but that is a matter of opinion.
I can certainly give you some benefits of not having one.
Food shortages within a few hours! Why? We control what comes in. The Government has already issued information to say they will not be holding up goods coming in to the UK.
Borders being closed to hauliers! I haven't heard that one before. Source please. I suspect there isn't one.
Even a minor disruption will cause chaos? Really? Well I ship goods to the EU and I can tell you that 24 hour delays are almost a weekly occurrence.
Weather events, strikes, ferry breakdown, Train stuck in tunnel, immigrants walking through tunnel...…
I could go on.
The same applies to pharmaceutical! What the same bull-shit?
No you don't sound over-dramatic, you sound deluded. Do you also believe that rabbits fly and there are tooth fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Shrugs... sorry to upset you.
I cite a reputable source, that in turn links to a comprehensive study.
You rant a bit, sound like you're really angry and call me names...?
Sorry, this is not the kind of 'discussion' I wish to participate in, as you were :)
Mmmh. Thinking about my own contributions - I am quite heartened to read that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Oh me too, if nothing else my reflection on the countless articles and the concerns of the folk I know who work in the economics department, has made you feel better - result :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Brexit should bring us together, not divide us - if we let them divide the country into tiny pathetic little spats between otherwise rational people - we are giving them exactly what they want!! Rise above it :)
I see Amber Rudd has resigned from the cabinet saying the government aren't spending enough time planning for a deal. Tell us something we don't know.
I wonder at what point we'll reach the nadir of this whole governmental affair. It's certainly hard to see any rapprochement in the near future.
You didn't upset me. You entertained me with some comedy gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
Just on your "source" that I neglected to opine on.
It's written October 2018 and things have changed. Of course scientists are a little jittery even now, but they are nearly all on the EU gravy train in some way and concerned about future funding.
Your piece includes the scare stories about insulin. Novo Nordisk, the largest supplier to the UK says it will not have a problem. It has made provisions and has been holding increased stocks in the UK since before the March Brexit that never was and continues to do so.
Incidentally, despite Brexit, and just befor the article in your link was written, Novo Nordisk opened a new diabetes research centre in Oxford, an investment of over £100 million, which will lead to around 100 new scientific jobs.
Oh, and whilst we are on the scientific jobs, another concern from your link.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-o...ientists-66252
What is clear though, is that if you Google for "insulin Brexit supply" you get pages and pages of scare stories (mostly from 2018 or very early 2019 it has to be said)
It really is irresponsible and I have a great deal of sympathy for those relying on supply of key drugs.
If you take a company like Novo Nordisk, they employ 40,000 people, they make drugs in 8 countries with some outside the EU.
They are used to how the international supply chain and regulatory network operates.
Also the EU has passed around 50 provisions to cover many such issues in the event of no deal.
The main problem is that we haven't yet reciprocated them in full. You see there is a problem. Our Parliament won't make the rather sensible step of taking the measures necessary to cover a No Deal scenario and make it as smooth as possible.
Rather reckless, considering that Mr Macron was not happy about the last extension in the Spring and an extension to 31/10 is entirely at the discretion of the EU, taking only one member state to veto if a request comes in.
I've never seen you a as a poster of whoppers Graham, even though I do disagree with you at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
If you have ever delivered any, it is probably done with your typical style that indicates to everyone that your comment is a little tongue in cheek.
Given the latest ruling by the courts, who is actually guilty of proroguing parliament, Boris or the Queen?
The ruling is that the advise given to the Queen was at fault as the court in Scotland found it wasn't the genuine advise.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
In simple terms they are saying that behind the scenes Johnson has said "Let's close Parliament and shut the Commons up for a while" but gone to the Queen and said "Let's close Parliament down so we can have a Queen's speech.
I find it interesting that the courts in Scotland seem to be able to mind read what was in Johnson's mind at the time he spoke to the Queen, so would be surprised if it carried through the Supreme Court next week.
Mind reading?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I once sacked a gas meter collector (which was the lowest post in the Company) at a joint Trade Union Hearing for borrowing a trivial amount of money during the collection week ("teeming and ladling") which technically was theft. The collector was not very bright but had over 20 years service, his sister had cancer,...the case cried out for mercy but my Trade Union opposite number and I decided that we had to follow the letter of the Company Law (theft = automatic dismissal) but assumed that the higher Joint Appeals Panel would override our judgement and display magnanimity etc. My boss, who would deal with the appeal, was content with what the panel had done.
But his Trade Union equivalent decided not to appeal the case.
Not sure how it's linked Graham sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Back at the time of the Tory leadership contest, Raab threw in the idea of a blanket prorogation from September to end October.
Some candidates clearly distanced themselves from it. Johnson merely said he didn't see it happening.
That discussion might have taken place between advisors, even cabinet members and up to PM along the lines of "it would certainly sort the problem out wouldn't it...." I don't doubt.
But fact is, the prorogation that Johnson went for didn't and couldn't have "stymied" the Commons and in fact we have seen clear evidence of that in the last week's proceedings.
The Scottish judges appear to be saying Johnson wanting to present a Queen's Speech was a ruse. He didn't really mean it and in reality he wanted to stymie the Commons.
That's supposition in my opinion.
.
The Scottish Court knows that whatever they decide their decision will go to a higher authority so it is all a bit of a game - and the popular decision in Scotland is to find against Johnson.
So you think they are bent then :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Well if I'd have said that....
:D
I see parts of operation yellowhammer (why that name?) have now been released.
I think the bit about food shortages and medicine shortages is being blown out of proportion. I suspect there would be some short-shelf-life foods that would become unsellable in the lorries while waiting 2.5 days at Dover, but that doesn't really amount to food shortages in my book. I can go a few weeks without strawberries. I think the medicine shortages story falls into the same category.
However, the increase in electricity prices would be more of a concern, since this affects many parts of the economy. As always, the devil is in the detail. No doubt remainers will say it could be a doubling of the price, while brexiteers will say it is likely to go down after a negligible increase.
BTW: Bridge between Scotland and Ireland!!
I spent 14 years in the military. We ALWAYS planned for worst case scenario i.e. Russian invasion. Of course, it never happened. WCS is just that...worst case. The actuality is often better or of no consequence. But you would never let public, or worse, the press, know what WCS was!
Yes, of course! :)
I am sure my friend won't mind me sharing this little anecdote from a few months ago:
"I usually take the dog for a walk in some woods just north of the hospital. A few months ago I was walking in area I hadn’t been to before when I could hear shouting. I found an area with some old (very large) corrugated iron barns, and parking outside, with about 30 police vans, a dozen police cars and about 20 other cars parked up. A copper stopped me and asked me to put the dog on a lead as “we are throwing petorl bombs”. When I came around the corner there were about 100 coppers in full riot gear belting their shields and crossing trenches filled with burning petrol.
About a week earlier I had read an article in the Plymouth Herald about them trying to get information under the Freedom of Information Act about rumours they had heard that the police were ramping up training activities in preparation for a no-deal Brexit. I asked the copper whether this was what they were training before; he didn’t confirm of deny it but grinned and said they had to be prepared for all eventualities."
Increasing energy prices has been an issue for quite a while, hence Red Ed proposing an energy price cap way back when, and then Mrs May adopting the same policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Quite simple really, build more capacity, don't add any tariffs to imported energy, or imported fuel, and consider reviewing the climate levies that add a huge chunk to current bills.
They can even eliminate the 5% VAT on domestic gas and electricity.
Can you imagine if we had an operation Yellowhammer equivalent for Fell Running.
"We're all going to die of hypothermia as the force 9 winter storm descends on us" or something along those lines.
"We'll have to stop fell running" shout all the track fairies.
But back to Yellowhammer, it is described as a "reasonable worst case scenario".
Why haven’t they published the reasonable BEST case scenario as well?
Yes, they have. But to clear, this isn't a continuation of the price rises we've seen in recent years. It brings other factors into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Personally, I think climate change is more important than leaving the EU. So even if we do "crash out" (or whatever you want to call it), I wouldn't cut climate levies.
What would be the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
If you are putting in actions for the worse case scenario, I would assume that by default you would have covered the best case scenario.
This is not about justifying peoples' opinions, it is about being prepared.
exactly Pat. Being prepared does NOT mean it will happen. But try telling a newspaper editor or keyboard warrior that!!
I think you get my point, but OK Pat, so why don't they war game the Revoke scenario?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
What would be the point if they have no intention of doing so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
That's an interesting question. What kind of output do you think you might get from that? Won't all the answers be: we continue to...Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
well if they've identified public disorder as one risk, it will be the same with bells on if we revoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Good point.
You say "with bells on". Do we think brexiteers are more prone to rioting that remainers?
Or should we be ready for riots either way? No deal = riots, deal = riots, remain for a while longer = riots, remain = riots.
I'm a Brexiteer and I've never taken part in a protest and never been a member of a political party. I'd be more likely to emigrate if I felt the fabric of our country was going to be decimated - and I do think that's a genuine risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
But consider we leave. That is the democratic result delivered. You can argue about nuances, but leaving would deliver on the referendum.
Not leaving renders democracy in effect dead.
There's a really good article here from Vernon Bogdanor - if you don't know him, he is probably the most revered constitutional expert in the UK.
He makes the point that this isn't a democratic crisis, in fact it has perhaps created a more healthy democratic environment.
But there is a real danger. Many peoples votes don't usually count. Anyone but Labour in Blackburn, anyone but Tory in Henley.
In 2016 they counted.
I'm not sure how Brexiteers would react if their mandate was undermined. But I can imagine it would be an angry reaction.
The DUP have a lot to answer for; this could have been sorted out long ago if they were not so stubborn about their "Britishness" being effected. In the poll below 58.4% favour the Irish Sea border, that would include the vast majority of Nationalists and people who would not put themselves in either camp plus a significant minority of Unionists.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...stop-lbrjn0f5g
Only in the same way that you are "stubborn" about your Irishness and yes, I can be stubborn about my WelshnessQuote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Or the Northern Irish electorate could get it together and vote for the more rational SDLP and UUP. I really cannot get my head around why they have persisted to support the extremes of the political divide in increasing numbers more or less since Trimble and Hume delivered the GFA, especially as they vote for people who do not come together to govern the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
It would still be a very small minority (not significant minority) of unionists who would be in favour. From the article you have linked:Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
About 94% of DUP voters and 69% of Ulster Unionist voters were opposed to such a backstop, .
You always paint it as DUP intransigence when in fact the Ulster Unionists and others are also against the backstop. Upholding the Good Friday Agreement only seems to apply to the nationalists. For some reason it's not important when it comes to the unionists.
Perhaps a less confrontational approach by Varadkar and the EU might have paid more dividends. Why for instance was a trade agreement and the withdrawal agreement not negotiated in conjunction with each other? Why did Varadkar not continue Enda Kenny's more consensual approach? Is it because Brit bashing is far more popular politically?
Afraid they are voting based on what they are "against" as opposed to what they are "for". Each side does not want to split their vote and let the other lot in, so they are coalescing around two parties. That is what FPTP gets you.
According to David Trimble, one of the architects of the GFA as you said, the backstop is a threat to peace and puts the GFA at risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
According to Simon Byrne the Chief Constable of the PSNI and Drew Harris the Garda Commissioner Brexit and a hard border is a threat to peace and puts the GFA at risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Unfortunately both statements have a lot of truth to them.
and the backstop would be against the GFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
But as has been said, the UK certainly wouldn't have a hard border.
So in my opinion, we should just leave and set up the alternative arrangements (should have started it two years ago) and prove that it can be done.
and now see if the Tories increase their poll lead. I think they might :D
Hilarious watching the remain BBC media running around like dogs with two dicks. All saying that no one expected this. I did, what else were remain supreme court judges going to do? Still all pissing in the same pot.
I bet Corbyn still won't agree to a General Election, because he'll lose by a bigger margin now.
I reckon he'll appeal to the European Court. They'll give him proper justice.