INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3661 Post by Alan H » July 31st, 2018, 1:57 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

13-mile lorry park may last 'many years' after Brexit, impact reports reveal
The government's "temporary solution" to potential traffic chaos on Kent's roads after Brexit will have to last "many years" as a permanent solution will not be in place until "2023 at the earliest", Sky News can reveal.

According to internal Brexit impact reports from two Conservative-run local councils, the conversion of four lanes of the M20 motorway into a 13-mile (20km) long lorry park could be in place for a number of years after the UK's departure from the EU.

The first preparations for the scheme, known as Operation Brock, have just begun, with hard shoulders about to be strengthened to sustain the weight of hundreds of parked articulated lorries.

Such a scenario is anticipated should either the Channel Tunnel or cross-Channel ferry routes see new customs or regulatory checks after Brexit.

In the internal Brexit impact report from Dover District Council, obtained by Sky News, some exasperation is expressed at the slow pace of central government preparedness.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#3662 Post by jaywhat » August 1st, 2018, 6:46 am

Is there any way of seeing this crap situation in a better light. It is all so depressing - is there a decent humanist answer?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3663 Post by animist » August 1st, 2018, 7:45 am

jaywhat wrote:Is there any way of seeing this crap situation in a better light. It is all so depressing - is there a decent humanist answer?
IMO being a humanist, if it means anything, means being committed to the general good, and also a general scepticism about the limits of human wisdom, which translates into not putting faith in possible but uncertain long-term benefits at the expense of more certain and immediate costs. So the narrow patriotism of the Leavers is precluded, as is the faith of some of them in the long-term benefits of Brexit

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3664 Post by Alan H » August 1st, 2018, 11:46 am

animist wrote:
jaywhat wrote:Is there any way of seeing this crap situation in a better light. It is all so depressing - is there a decent humanist answer?
IMO being a humanist, if it means anything, means being committed to the general good, and also a general scepticism about the limits of human wisdom, which translates into not putting faith in possible but uncertain long-term benefits at the expense of more certain and immediate costs. So the narrow patriotism of the Leavers is precluded, as is the faith of some of them in the long-term benefits of Brexit
Well said. The leavers (and Tories) seem to be wondering, "what's in it for me?". Brexiters can't even cogently answer that, but a more humanist response might be, "what's in it for us?". - or even better, "what's in it for everyonr?". Answering thise questions never seems to give any good answers.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3665 Post by Alan H » August 1st, 2018, 1:18 pm

In the referendum campaign, anyone remember stockpiling drugs hailed as one of the many benefits of Brexit? French drug maker Sanofi stockpiling for Brexit
French company Sanofi is beginning to stockpile drugs in preparation for a hard Brexit.

The company is increasing its stocks by four weeks to give it a 14 week supply of medicines in case of any disruption to supply caused by a no-deal Brexit.

Extra supplies of a wide range of products, including insulin, are being built up.

Sanofi is worried about any transport delays following Brexit, as most of its supplies have to cross the Channel.

"The uncertainty in the Brexit negotiations means that Sanofi has been planning for a 'no deal' scenario," said Hugo Fry, managing director, Sanofi UK, adding this was in line with recommendations by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.

"Patient safety is our main priority and we have made arrangements for additional warehouse capacity in order to stockpile our products, where global supply allows, in the UK and increase UK-based resource to prepare for any changes to customs or regulatory processes," said Mr Fry.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3666 Post by Alan H » August 2nd, 2018, 2:08 pm

This is an interesting read: The ultimate Brexit counterfactual
Imagine a scenario where it was not Britain leaving the European Union but one of the other member states, whilst Britain was remaining. It is worth considering because it helps us to understand how—in the real scenario of Brexit—the EU27 are reacting. In particular, it helps us to understand why that reaction should not be described as punishment.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3667 Post by animist » August 2nd, 2018, 7:21 pm

Alan H wrote:This is an interesting read: The ultimate Brexit counterfactual
Imagine a scenario where it was not Britain leaving the European Union but one of the other member states, whilst Britain was remaining. It is worth considering because it helps us to understand how—in the real scenario of Brexit—the EU27 are reacting. In particular, it helps us to understand why that reaction should not be described as punishment.
well yes, although the very nature of supposing a counterfactual means that one can only speculate - and all speculation reflects the biases of the person who is doing the speculating. Here is another counterfactual - I really do wonder what Nick might have said to this if he had not left this forum in a huff. Obviously I agree with the author that Brexit-inclined Brits would probably be toughies in relation to some other state which wanted to leave, though some might have encouraged them if these Eurosceptics were REAL enemies of the EU - who knows?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3668 Post by Alan H » August 2nd, 2018, 7:34 pm

So it was only the Leave campaigns that broke the law... Remain EU referendum campaign spending claims rejected
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3669 Post by Alan H » August 2nd, 2018, 8:23 pm

All those Brexit Bonanzas... Councils preparing for social unrest amid Brexit uncertainty
As the government further delays publication of 'no deal' Brexit preparedness reports, dozens of councils have taken the initiative to produce their own analyses, Sky News can reveal.

Local authorities across the UK have expressed serious concerns about the delivery of public services in dozens of Brexit impact studies obtained by Sky News as part of its Brexit Forensics investigation.

Nearly 30 councils have responded to a freedom of information request for their Brexit plans, with some expressing mounting incredulity and exasperation at having to plan to deliver local public services against a backdrop of highly uncertain Brexit negotiations with Europe and within government.
There is one "positive" listed: that people might move away so there will be less demand on council services.
At what point is an uprising justified?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3670 Post by Alan H » August 3rd, 2018, 1:20 am

Madness. Fucking madness. Blue fucking passports. Government's 'no deal' Brexit plans lost on M20 motorway
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3671 Post by animist » August 3rd, 2018, 10:06 am

Alan H wrote:So it was only the Leave campaigns that broke the law... Remain EU referendum campaign spending claims rejected
ah, but you should know that the Electoral Commission is institutionally biased in favour of Remain and of avoiding the creative challenges of Brexit :D

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3672 Post by Alan H » August 3rd, 2018, 5:18 pm

Well worth watching:



Then ask what provisions the Tories will have made in the next eight months to mitigate all the problems they themselves have caused...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3673 Post by Alan H » August 4th, 2018, 8:37 pm

Dexeu discussing cancelling police leave for two months in case of ‘no deal’ Brexit backlash
Plans to ask police chiefs to cancel officers’ leave in the two months after Brexit have been discussed in Whitehall as the government readies itself for the worst case scenario of social unrest caused by a No Deal. i understands that officials at the Department of Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) are contemplating the move as they prepare to issue guidance to individuals and businesses over how they should prepare for a chaotic British exit from the EU next March. One MP protested last night that the police should be fighting crime rather than coping with a “no-deal shambles”. While Brexiteers will dismiss the plan as scare-mongering, it comes after a raft of recent warnings of the consequence of a no-deal Brexit. These include the government stockpiling food to cope with food shortages, and a weekend report – later denied by Downing Street – that the army was on standby to cope with disorder.
Just two months? Do they think we'll all be too weak through lack of food after that to protest?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3674 Post by animist » August 4th, 2018, 9:11 pm

Alan H wrote:Dexeu discussing cancelling police leave for two months in case of ‘no deal’ Brexit backlash
Plans to ask police chiefs to cancel officers’ leave in the two months after Brexit have been discussed in Whitehall as the government readies itself for the worst case scenario of social unrest caused by a No Deal. i understands that officials at the Department of Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) are contemplating the move as they prepare to issue guidance to individuals and businesses over how they should prepare for a chaotic British exit from the EU next March. One MP protested last night that the police should be fighting crime rather than coping with a “no-deal shambles”. While Brexiteers will dismiss the plan as scare-mongering, it comes after a raft of recent warnings of the consequence of a no-deal Brexit. These include the government stockpiling food to cope with food shortages, and a weekend report – later denied by Downing Street – that the army was on standby to cope with disorder.
Just two months? Do they think we'll all be too weak through lack of food after that to protest?
so fucking stupid. This spoilt and stupid country deserves anything it gets

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3675 Post by Alan H » August 4th, 2018, 9:42 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:Dexeu discussing cancelling police leave for two months in case of ‘no deal’ Brexit backlash
Plans to ask police chiefs to cancel officers’ leave in the two months after Brexit have been discussed in Whitehall as the government readies itself for the worst case scenario of social unrest caused by a No Deal. i understands that officials at the Department of Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) are contemplating the move as they prepare to issue guidance to individuals and businesses over how they should prepare for a chaotic British exit from the EU next March. One MP protested last night that the police should be fighting crime rather than coping with a “no-deal shambles”. While Brexiteers will dismiss the plan as scare-mongering, it comes after a raft of recent warnings of the consequence of a no-deal Brexit. These include the government stockpiling food to cope with food shortages, and a weekend report – later denied by Downing Street – that the army was on standby to cope with disorder.
Just two months? Do they think we'll all be too weak through lack of food after that to protest?
so fucking stupid. This spoilt and stupid country deserves anything it gets
Sadly, it's those who can least afford to suffer who will suffer - regardless of how they voted. Business as usual for the Tories.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3676 Post by animist » August 5th, 2018, 10:07 am

I try to watch the Sky News Press Review. Last night the compere mentioned that she had been to various EU negotiations and was struck by the way that last-minute deals were struck; the same conclusion was mentioned by Nick and I imagine by others. What bothers me is something which AFAIK is not being said by anyone enough: ie that this is not a "normal" EU negotiation, but (to use an overused word) an existential one. We simply cannot rely on some hunch that it'll be alright on the night, because there is too much at stake. Added to which, how can the Irish border problem, or whether Britain stays in the Currency Union or a zillion other issues, be settled in this magical and instantaneous way?

Alan, so glad that you are here with this forum :smile:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3677 Post by animist » August 5th, 2018, 12:40 pm


User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3678 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2018, 12:48 pm

animist wrote:I try to watch the Sky News Press Review. Last night the compere mentioned that she had been to various EU negotiations and was struck by the way that last-minute deals were struck; the same conclusion was mentioned by Nick and I imagine by others. What bothers me is something which AFAIK is not being said by anyone enough: ie that this is not a "normal" EU negotiation, but (to use an overused word) an existential one. We simply cannot rely on some hunch that it'll be alright on the night, because there is too much at stake. Added to which, how can the Irish border problem, or whether Britain stays in the Currency Union or a zillion other issues, be settled in this magical and instantaneous way?

Alan, so glad that you are here with this forum :smile:
Somehow we'll muddle through... the Brits always do... in the face of adversity... the British are at their finest as the underdog but always come out ot top... stiff upper lip and all that...

We've heard them all.

Of course, the average person doesn't have a clue what any negotiations are like - they might, at best, see it as haggling over the price of a second-hand car. It's not even that we are arguing about a quota size: there are fundamental issues here that what we aere told we'd get and what the Tories are now demanding are just not on offer as they completely contradict fundamental tenets of the EU. These are not things that have suddenly been invented: theya re the whole fucking reason we joined in the first place.

So far, the Tories have failed to come up with a plan that comes close to what we were promised or close to what is actually achievable.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3679 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2018, 10:46 pm

Now that the UK is stockpiling food, maybe it’s time to admit Brexit is a mistake?
Brexit has become a bizarre, macabre spectacle of national self-sabotage.
Even if we (whether the government or supermarkets or anyone else in the distribution chain) stockpile anything, the additional costs will have to be paid by someone. Prices will rise just because of that on top of everything else.

This madness has to stop or be stopped.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3680 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2018, 12:39 am

The Observer view on why Theresa May must stop the Brexit clock
The English, it is often said, lacking in language skills, have an unfortunate habit of shouting at foreigners when travelling abroad, assuming that by raising their voices and waving their arms, their needs will eventually be understood. This approach rarely works well. It tends to annoy those on the receiving end, while failing to assist mutual comprehension. Yet this, in sum, is what the hard Tory Brexiters have been reduced to as pressure grows to avoid a national “no-deal” catastrophe when the UK quits the EU next March.

Theresa May, who is nominally in charge of this process, is pursuing a slightly more subtle approach. Rather than rant and rave at Johnny Foreigner from the safety of Westminster’s isolationist redoubts, she has bravely ventured on to European soil. On Friday, she sat down to dinner with Emmanuel Macron, France’s president. Her cunning strategy, according to her Fleet Street supporters, is “divide and rule”. Except, in this instance, Britain is divided and Europe rules.

Macron may have wondered why the prime minister was there at all. He had made plain in advance that on no account would France do, say or promise anything that might undermine the united stance of the EU’s 27 remaining states, embodied in the maddeningly pernickety Michel Barnier. Macron was polite to his guest, of course, but like the nouvelle cuisine of which the French are proud, the political fare was lacking in substance and ultimately unsatisfying.

May’s cabinet colleagues, fanning out across the continent like Patton’s Third Army to advance her Chequers compromise, do not appear to have fared any better. Especially embarrassing are the efforts of Jeremy Hunt, the new foreign secretary. He gravely warned puzzled Europeans last week that Britain was heading for “no-deal by accident” by pushing itself off a cliff. The UK would not “blink first”, he added. Perhaps Hunt thinks he is Clint Eastwood. It matters not. On Brexit, this government has its eyes tight shut. It is blind to the consequences – and the waiting chasm. Blinking does not come into it.

What part of the EU’s unchanging position on the principles governing Britain’s future relationship with Europe does May’s government not understand? For two years or more, Barnier, the chief negotiator, firmly backed by 27 governments, has been telling London there can be no compromise and no fudge that weakens the integrity of the single market, pan-European customs and legal regulations and Europe’s borders. Yet May’s Chequers plan, seeking exceptional (and unworkable) arrangements, blithely ignores all that.

In case the European public did not appreciate what was at stake, or was taken in by chauvinistic Tory claims of EU vindictiveness and dogmatism, Barnier published an op-ed in 20 European newspapers last week. Amid Brexit’s baffling complexities, his concision and clarity were refreshing. He explained the EU’s justified fears about the impact of Brexit on Europe and why it cannot reasonably be expected to bow to May’s demands for special treatment:

“The UK knows well the benefits of the single market. It has contributed to shaping our rules over the last 45 years. And yet some UK proposals would undermine our single market, which is one of the EU’s biggest achievements. The UK wants to keep free movement of goods between us, but not of people and services. And it proposes to apply EU customs rules without being part of the EU’s legal order. The UK wants to take back sovereignty and control of its own laws, which we respect, but it cannot ask the EU to lose control of its borders and laws,” Barnier wrote.

There are many additional reasons to believe May’s Chequers plan is dead in the water. Both Tory Brexiters and Remainers dislike it. Opposition parties will not support it. It commands no majority in parliament or in the country, where backing for a second referendum is growing. May’s plan may not even survive the Conservative party conference in Birmingham next month. But she has no Plan B – unless she dreamed one up with some magical thinking on Lake Garda last week.

Face facts, Mrs May. The Europeans are not going to back down and shouting at them, cajoling and wheedling or trying to divide them will not work. The Brexit writing is on the wall for Britain. As Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, suggests, a no-deal outcome would have disastrous consequences. Businesses, trade unions, foreign investors, carmakers, bankers, airlines, food suppliers and even M&S sandwich exporters all agree: this country, its Brexit-tainted economy already badly underperforming, simply cannot afford such a gross act of national self-harm.

Yet lacking a viable alternative, May is hurtling towards both a no-deal calamity and an ignominious end to her premiership. So forget Jacob Rees-Mogg, Iain Duncan Smith and other false tribunes of past island glories. There is now only one sensible, responsible course of action. As we have urged here before, May must stop the Brexit clock, call a time out and humbly ask the EU27 for a significant delay beyond March. This has been a harsh learning process for all concerned and it is as yet incomplete. The entire country needs a moment to pause, reflect and think afresh.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3681 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2018, 11:58 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Trump will 'force' May's government to accept hormone beef and chlorinated chicken after Brexit
The UK will struggle to secure a free trade deal with the US without making major concessions on agriculture according to the former UK ambassador in Washington.

Sir Peter Westmacott warned that the Trump administration was playing "hardball" and would likely demand that the UK allowed the import of products such as hormone-treated US beef and chlorine-washed chickens.

That could do "serious damage" to the UK's farming industry, he said.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply