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.

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?

#3461 Post by Alan H » May 23rd, 2018, 12:26 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

The Van Driver Being Put Out Of Business By Brexit
This van driver gave a fascinating insight into how Brexit will affect business in Britain - leading some Brexiteers to admit they may have voted the wrong way.

Kieran told James O'Brien that his delivery company will go out of business almost immediately if Britain leaves the Customs Union.

He said that Brexit campaigners who say that frictionless borders are possible outside the Customs Union are liars, citing the huge amount of paperwork needed every time he delivers to Switzerland.

Speaking to LBC, he said: "I have a contract with Eurostar. Today, we were sent out in the early hours of the morning to Brussels. Load up and come home. We do that two or three times a week.

"No customs checks - all I have to do is list the goods on what's called a CNR form, an international delivery note.

"If we go outside the Customs Union, we need to do transit documents. They cost £75-£90 a pop. You have to go to Customs House in Dover to clear them. You have to park up.

"If you get sent down what's called a Route One, which I've had before, you're stuck there for six to seven hours waiting to clear them. On a quiet day, you can be out and clear in 45-50 minutes.

"If we were outside the Customs Union, all vehicles would have to do this."

The listener response to Kieran's call was huge.
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?

#3462 Post by Alan H » May 23rd, 2018, 1:28 pm

UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits ministe
Britain will be legally bound to pay its £39bn Brexit divorce bill before the details of a future EU trade deal are agreed, a minister has admitted.

MPs will be asked to authorise the payment when they vote on the withdrawal deal in the autumn, Suella Braverman said – but there will be no trade treaty until after the UK leaves the EU next year.

The admission was seized on by some MPs, who said David Davis had previously vowed to impose “conditionalities” in the Brexit deal, to protect the taxpayer.

But, under fierce questioning, Ms Braverman acknowledged the EU would only be signing a “duty of good faith” to pursue an extensive trade agreement.

Asked if MPs would be “agreeing the financial settlement before there is a legal treaty on the future relationship”, the minister – eventually – replied: “Yes”
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?

#3463 Post by Alan H » May 23rd, 2018, 1:32 pm

The BrexitBonus™ will pay for this, won't it? Boris Johnson criticised after calling for his own 'Brexit plane' to build up trade after UK leaves EU
Foreign secretary accused of backing a 'vanity project' - because 'he feels chartered aircraft are beneath him'
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?

#3464 Post by Alan H » May 23rd, 2018, 6:12 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Post-Brexit customs arrangements may not be ready, MPs told
HM Revenue and Customs chief executive Jon Thompson told the Brexit Select Committee that elements of the so-called "maximum facilitation" plan could take three years to put in place.

The plan, also known as "max fac" is one of two options under consideration by the Cabinet and is the model favoured by Brexiteers including foreign secretary Boris Johnson and environment secretary Michael Gove.

Max fac would use trusted trader arrangements and technology like number plate recognition cameras to avoid the need for border checks.

Prime minister Theresa May is thought to support the alternative model being considered, a new "customs partnership" where the UK collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods intended for the bloc, with traders potentially able to claim a rebate if British duties vary.

Hilary Benn, chairman of the Commons Exiting the European Union Committee, said Mr Thompson had written to them saying that some elements of the max fac plan "could take around three years, which takes us beyond December 2020", the end of the proposed transition period.
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?

#3465 Post by Alan H » May 24th, 2018, 12:22 pm

Blog: Sir Ivan Rogers’ speech text in full

And some commentary on it - a must-read for all Brexiters (that includes you, coffee):
1) Sir Ivan Rogers speech, a sobering & devastating speech from our former leading EU diplomat on #Brexit, its history and the UK position.

Should be read by *everyone* however I'll pull out a few key points in this thread

Blog: Sir Ivan Rogers' speech text in full - Policy Scotland
The full text of Sir Ivan Rogers' lecture on the real post-Brexit options, given at the University of Glasgow on 23 May 2018.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... =firefox-b

2) the UK already had the best deal of all EU member states. We may not have believed it but the other 27 nations did.
Anyone who thinks about this for more than 5 minutes would realise this
Cameron in fact managed to improve it further, but the press torpedoed his deal

3) the 4 freedoms are seen as indivisible by the EU27. Trucks & money having more rights to move than people is absolutely unacceptable to them. That's just a fact.
Anyone, Labour or Tory, who tells you we can get a great deal without free movement of people is lying to you

4) "No deal" was never and could never be a possibility. The reasons are covered in the speech however the EU have always known we cannot just walk away & can see we are making no preparations for doing so, therefore blustering about it just makes the UK look ridiculous

5) those who talk most about walking away from the CU/SM and who confidently put forward free trade opportunity know the least about how free trade actually operates. Their grasp of even the most basic details is highly limited.

6) hardest to swallow but in the interests of transparency: the 3 major groups of Remainers, Leavers & Fudgers (cakeists) are all kidding ourselves. Something new & highly complex must emerge, which will take years to form & involve a frank debate on real Vs perceived sovereignty

7) the EU is a legal construct, not a gentleman's agreement. There is no legal "half way in/half way out" of SM & CU.

If you are out, you are out, a 3rd country, like all other 3rd countries. It's not bullying but a legal requirement. The EU have no choice & not do we

8) it is bonkers to expect to leave a club & then have a say in the rules of that club. We would not accept Canada having a say in our laws and regulations and it's ludicrous to expect the EU to do likewise.

This is vitally important because...

9) ... there are 3 major standard setters in the world today, the EU, the US & China. Pretty much everyone else has to align with one or more of those to trade.

We will have to align with the EU, regardless of what #Brexit we undertake, but we will have no say in those regs.

10) Sir Ivan highlights 2 example areas. Privacy (for example GDPR) will be a dominating area in technology over the coming years. Financial regulations cover a very large part of our economy. We will have to align with the EU, including any changes, with no say whatsoever

11) this is his core argument. By leaving the EU we gain theoretical sovereignty, but lose huge swathes of practical sovereignty & control over our destiny.

That's just reality, we have to align with EU, the US or China, everyone does, but without a seat at the table

12) the CU & SM go hand in hand. Having one without the other does not solve our problems
The car & other Industries blossomed because of our EU membership. They *will* disappear, at least in their current form, if we leave the SM & CU
Anyone with an interest in jobs knows this

13) any significant free trade deals we sign will significantly impact areas of the UK economy even if we benefit overall.
The sad reality is this will likely impact leave voters more than remain voters in many cases

The chances are that the public would reject such deals (imho)

14) the wacky ideas on customs being debated by Government will not work and more importantly will not be accepted by the EU27. They create additional complexity and risk to the EU27 economies for no benefit.

15) a hard border in Ireland in the absence of a customs agreement is not a threat from the EU but a legal requirement under international trade law.

16) the EU is and always has been an economic *and political* project. Virtually everyone else in the EU knows & has always known this.
Blame generations of UK politicians for not making this clear to the UK population.

17) finally, much of what has been said about #Brexit, but particularly by Brexiters is nonsense.
In leaving we trade one set of "upsides" for a significant set of downsides. Only by confronting those as a nation can we get to a realistic and worthwhile decision

18) anyone concerned with sovereignty for example should be greatly concerned that we will have no say in huge areas of regulations that impact our current & future economy

19) anyone thinking the UK would get special treatment as a 3rd country outside the EU needs to realise this isn't legally possible without treaty change, and accept that if the roles were reversed they would see the request as utterly self serving & ludicrous

20) fundamentally, politicians on left and right are playing games & spinning illusions rather than telling the public the truth.

Because of this the public cannot make an informed decision, this will have damaging repercussions for years
End/
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?

#3466 Post by Alan H » May 24th, 2018, 12:27 pm

Eurobarometer survey shows highest support for the EU in 35 years
Two thirds of Europeans believe their country has benefited from being a member of the EU, the highest percentage since 1983 and an increase of three percentage points since the autumn.

In addition 60% of Europeans consider EU membership a good thing, according to the latest Eurobarometer published on Wednesday 23 May.
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?

#3467 Post by Alan H » May 25th, 2018, 12:22 am

Good to see the Tories coming up with innovative, bold and daring new solutions to the self-inflicted upcoming labour shortages that Brexit will create:
2018-05-25_00h18_04.png
2018-05-25_00h18_04.png (813.78 KiB) Viewed 1715 times
Chain gangs*. The solution to Brexit labour shortages is chain gangs...

* Not actual chain gangs, but if the Tories also abandon the ECHR then who knows...
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?

#3468 Post by Alan H » May 25th, 2018, 11:49 am

And so, Tory squabbling continues: Brexit: Ex-Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings warns of 'train wreck'
"The government effectively has no credible policy and the whole world knows it," said Mr Cummings.
Not that Cummings has a record of getting anything much right in the past, but the whole world doesn't seem to know it: many hardened Brexiters seem to be in denial.
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?

#3469 Post by Alan H » May 25th, 2018, 11:58 am

Seen on Twitter:
How many Brexiteers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two. One to promise a brighter future and the second to screw it up.
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?

#3470 Post by Alan H » May 25th, 2018, 12:42 pm

Ian Dunt's Friday email:
As Ivan Rogers noted this week, the priorities of the Brexit debate are insane. It is, in the words of Britain’s former EU man, "simply absurd" the way the customs union is the "only apparent subject for discussion".

The union, which eradicates tariffs on goods moving across borders in Europe while harmonising them for things coming in from outside, is a tiny part of the Brexit debacle. People have begun to talk as if it somehow solves the Irish border problem, but it does not. You need single market membership on goods to make sure there are no checks at the border. It is also false to really consider the customs union in total separation from the single market. It functions the way it does because of the single market and is reliant on it.

There is something almost comically silly about a services-based economy focusing so relentlessly on a customs union while ignoring the shared regulatory functions of the European project which offer it so many advantages.

But, for various reasons, that is where we are. One of the chief reasons is the Irish border and the unexpected manner in which it has gradually developed such seriousness as to make all other Brexit issues swirl around its centre of gravity. Without a customs union solution, there are checks on the border, for country-of-origin requirements and other matters.

But there are reasons of political strategy that have forced the customs union to the fore as well. For several people in Labour, the customs union solved a problem. It separated the Brexit issue from the immigration issue. By avoiding discussion of the single market, it put the freedom of movement argument in its box. Brexit supporters were unable to reply that Labour wanted unlimited immigration - the charge which most unnerves especially northern industrial-town MPs.

This was a marriage of convenience. Customs union membership was the only softening of Brexit some Labour figures were interested in. Others thought it was strategically useful to secure soft Brexit base-camp with a government U-turn on the customs union, then fight for single market membership from there.

And there was something else. Customs union membership is perhaps the only major issue on which there is probably a Commons majority in the Brexit debate. There is no Commons majority for no-deal Brexit, or hard Brexit, or for the likely contents of a free trade agreement with China or the US, or for single market membership, or for leaving the single market, given its ramifications, or for Remain. But there probably is a majority for customs union membership. It has the considerable political advantage of being doable.

We will find out just how doable it is next month, when MPs are set to vote on it. In the mean time, Brussels is briefing against Theresa May’s three customs plans.

The customs partnership would require inhuman degrees of bureaucracy and demand that the EU spends lots of money creating a weak system relying on a third party which would amass them less money than what they have right now.

The maximum facilitation model would take years to sort out and would not work. It is not a thing, it is just a posh way of saying that you are not going to check lorries anymore.

And then there is the third idea, which is to try and reinterpret the Irish ‘backstop’ solution in the existing draft agreements as an extra transition in which all the UK stays in the customs union.

This last idea has a kind of impertinent wit to it. There is something charming about how the UK is seeking to subvert an EU victory over it into a weapon against Brussels. Plus, it showed Brexiters were starting to accept that the planned transition, which runs to the end of 2020, would not be long enough. Now, a plan lasting until 2023 is being suggested.

But the reality, as a Brussels insider briefed journalists last night, is that Barnier is not going to have the backstop solution turn into a whole-UK solution. That can only come through new UK red lines on trade in which it wants to stay in the customs union and single market. Also, the backstop is not a backstop if it is time limited. It’s like having a safety-net with limited netting.

There is a fourth idea, which was broadly supported by Rogers and which, with mild variation, is promoted by the Institute of Directors (IoD): to have a partial customs union.

The logic of this comes down to what Britain can offer other countries in trade deals. The reason you can’t really sign trade deals inside a customs union is because you can’t mess with your tariffs. If Britain does go out looking for new deals it is going to lower those tariffs, allow other countries to send in lots of cheap agricultural and industrial goods, and in exchange try to secure penetration of its financial services into their market.

Whether that can be achieved, given nervousness around financial services, is another matter. Whether it is a valid democratic expression of the referendum vote, given that it would punish Leave areas and reward Remain ones, is also up for debate. But put that to one side for a moment.

Industrial tariffs are already very low. So the UK could stay inside the customs union for those goods. The IoD adds processed agricultural goods to this mix. But Britain could extract other agricultural goods from the customs union. This would give it something to negotiate with in trade deals, but preserve as much frictionless trade as possible.

There is a precedent for this - Turkey. But it is not a particularly good one. And in reality no-one has any idea if this idea would fly, either in negotiation or on the ground. It would also not remove the Irish border problem, because you’d need checks. But it certainly has a better chance than the other three.

And then there is the fifth idea: to simply stay in the customs union. This is the true backstop, not in Brexit talks, but in the Commons timetable. When the Lords amendment on it comes back next month, MPs can force the government to do what it has seemingly been incapable of doing until now: making a decision. What happens after that - to the red lines, to the prime minister, to her Cabinet, and to the hard rump of Tory European Research Group Brexiters, is anyone’ guess. Another period of intense political chaos could be just around the corner
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?

#3471 Post by Alan H » May 25th, 2018, 6:23 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Semi-digested factoids are no substitute for sober judgment
There is still no more detail on what the UK is proposing as the solutions to the linked issues of the post-Brexit Irish border, customs arrangements and trade. So far as I know, no documented proposal has been made public or been supplied to the EU negotiators. Perhaps that is not surprising. After all, as pointed out in my previous post, this is not some well-worked out strategic plan: it’s a tactical response to the woeful inability of the government and of Brexiters more generally to agree on anything else. Their worst plan except for all the other plans, perhaps.

It’s worth briefly recalling the roots of this. These lie, in general, with the abject failure of Brexiters to address or even accept the complex practicalities of what they urged people to vote for. As regards the Irish border, in particular, voters were told by Boris Johnson and Theresa Villiers, then the Northern Ireland Secretary that absolutely nothing would change if they chose Brexit. This was based on the claim that the Common Travel Area (CTA) had existed pre-EU, so would just continue afterwards. To the casual listener, this may have sounded plausible and well-informed. But of course it was irrelevant, since the CTA has nothing to do with the movement of goods across borders.

Brexiters continue to deploy such pieces of misinformation (including, in some cases, the CTA line), often based upon garbled or semi-understood versions of much more complex facts. Examples include, amongst many others, claiming or supposing that Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status means something like the best possible trading terms, when in fact it means almost the opposite, and of course the (related) old chestnut that ‘we can just trade on WTO terms as we do with the rest of the world’.
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?

#3472 Post by Alan H » May 26th, 2018, 2:59 pm

May playing 'hide and seek' in Brexit talks, Barnier says
Theresa May has been accused of playing “hide and seek” in the Brexit talks and attempting to pin the blame for the damaging consequences on Brussels, in a damning speech by the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier.

After a fraught week of negotiations, during which the UK declined to spell out its proposed solution for avoiding a hard border with Ireland or offer positions on a range of crucial issues, Barnier gave a withering assessment of the prime minister’s approach.

He suggested that the UK was seeking to blame the EU for the problems which have emerged in recent days, from the shutting out of British firms from the £8bn Galileo satellite project to the rejection of the UK’s proposed retention of the powers of the European arrest warrant and continued say in the shaping of data laws.

But the former French minister told a conference of lawyers in Portugal on Saturday that the UK now needed to offer a “realistic” vision of the future and own up to the consequences of its own decisions.
“I can see the temptation of the blame game to bring the negative consequences of Brexit on the European Union. But we will not be impressed. I will not be impressed.

“It is the United Kingdom that leaves the European Union. It cannot, on leaving, ask us to change who we are and how we operate.”
It's not that it's asking; it's demanding.
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?

#3473 Post by Alan H » May 26th, 2018, 3:14 pm

So, after previous referendums, Ireland changed its mind on a crucial issue by holding another referendum.

If only the UK had something crucial we could try that novel idea out on...
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?

#3474 Post by animist » May 26th, 2018, 3:23 pm

lightbulb joke posted on Facebook!

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

Re: In or out?

#3475 Post by animist » May 26th, 2018, 3:23 pm

Alan H wrote:Ian Dunt's Friday email:
yep, strange how discourse here is both parochial (ie ignoring the fact that, at some point, Britain will propose and the EU dispose) but also focused on the Customs Union rather than the more important Single Market. And (Nick, please note that it is me saying this), Dunt is surely right to suggest that some of the explanation lies in the divisions within the Labour Party; as coffee realises, the CU does not force Britain to stick with free movement, so Labour can for now unite over this. The only bit of Dunt's piece which I would query is when, at the end of it, he forecasts another year of chaos - change this to indefinite chaos. Referendums should be banned!

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

Re: In or out?

#3476 Post by Alan H » May 27th, 2018, 9:49 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Eurotunnel warns on Tory plans for post-Brexit customs
Eurotunnel has issued a stark warning that UK businesses and consumers will face serious economic costs if the government adopts either of the post-Brexit customs models being considered by Theresa May’s government.

The intervention by the Channel tunnel operator, coupled with a claim by the company that the necessary technology to prevent delays at the borders may not be ready until several years after Brexit, will add to growing pressure on Theresa May to face down hardline Brexiters by keeping the UK inside the EU customs union.

With just weeks to go until the prime minister faces a series of crucial votes on Brexit in the House of Commons, the head of HM Revenue and Customs, Jon Thompson, sent shockwaves through Whitehall last week when he revealed that British companies would face an additional bill of around £20bn a year in extra bureaucracy if the so-called “max fac” border option, backed by the leading Brexiters Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, was adopted.
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?

#3477 Post by Alan H » May 27th, 2018, 9:54 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Red alert: UK farmers warn of soft fruit shortage
Evidence submitted by English Apples and Pears Limited to the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) select committee suggests that almost a third of its members are scaling back as a result of the shortage. Some said they would be removing orchards, a troubling scenario given that more than 60% of the country’s traditional orchards are estimated to have disappeared since the 1950s.

“Urgent action is needed now to avoid crops being left unpicked, food wastage, food inflation and displacement by imported foods,” the submission stated.

The Association of Labour Providers was equally gloomy. It said 49% of labour providers do not expect to be able to source and supply sufficient seasonal agricultural workers this year and added: “Currently an average of 60% of agriculture and horticulture businesses are experiencing shortages in low and unskilled roles, with one in eight in crisis.”

The problem is not confined to fruit picking. The British Meat Processors Association said 71% of labour providers have indicated they will struggle to meet the labour demands of the food manufacturing sector this year.
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?

#3478 Post by Alan H » May 27th, 2018, 9:55 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? From February: Layoffs Arrive in Brexit Britain, and Auto Workers Are Up First
In his 50 years working in Britain’s car industry, John Cooper has survived plenty of upheavals. None is scarier than the prospect of Brexit.

Being split off from their biggest market means the job cuts and production slowdown U.K. carmakers have imposed the past few months could be just a prelude to wholesale shutdowns.

The shock is only beginning to hit. Since October, 650 of Cooper’s colleagues have lost their jobs at the factory where Vauxhall Motors churns out Astra hatchbacks. The remaining 1,200 staff worry the plant may close if the U.K. loses tariff-free access to Europe. Across the River Mersey from Vauxhall’s factory, Jaguar Land Rover is planning production cuts.
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?

#3479 Post by Alan H » May 27th, 2018, 7:26 pm

Forty years of failed political leadership
Political leadership since the Referendum has been weaker and more inept – even at the basic level of administrative competence – for a more sustained period than at any time in modern British history. This applies most obviously to David Cameron blithely walking away from the mess he created and of course to Theresa May. As catalogued on this blog, her numerous mis-steps include a complete failure to seek and develop an even vaguely consensual approach to Brexit, a refusal to be honest with the public and perhaps herself about the choices and consequences entailed by Brexit, and the botched General Election in which, amongst other things, she refused to discuss Brexit in any serious or detailed way. Most egregiously, as almost all sides of the Brexit debate agree, the manner and timing of her triggering of the Article 50 process was probably the worst political decision of any British Prime Minister since the Second World War.

Nor does the buck stop with the Prime Minister. Tory Cabinet Ministers and backbenchers have signally failed to provide the kind of collective leadership which the gravity of the situation demands, and many of them persist in pursuing fantastical and nonsensical ideas. Those most committed to Brexit, having been given by May the largest part of what they wanted, have done all they can to undermine her. That partly reflects her own failure to recognize that they could never be placated, but also their refusal to take responsibility for their own policy. The Labour Party has been just as poor, failing to define a clear position, riven by internal conflict and with a leader who seems barely interested in, and supremely uninformed about, Brexit and what it means. And if invoking Article 50 was a mistake of historic proportions, let’s not forget that Parliament – having been given the chance through the heroic efforts of Gina Miller – voted to do so.
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?

#3480 Post by Alan H » May 27th, 2018, 8:11 pm

Chicken safety fear as chlorine washing fails bacteria tests
The chlorine washing of food, the controversial “cleaning” technique used by many US poultry producers who want access to the British market post-Brexit, does not remove contaminants, a new study has found.

The investigation, by a team of microbiologists from Southampton University and published in the US journal mBio, found that bacilli such as listeria and salmonella remain completely active after chlorine washing. The process merely makes it impossible to culture them in the lab, giving the false impression that the chlorine washing has been effective.

Apart from a few voluntary codes, the American poultry industry is unregulated compared with that in the EU, allowing for flocks to be kept in far greater densities and leading to a much higher incidence of infection. While chicken farmers in the EU manage contamination through higher welfare standards, smaller flock densities and inoculation, chlorine washing is routinely used in the US right at the end of the process, after slaughter, to clean carcasses. This latest study indicates it simply doesn’t work.
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?

#3481 Post by Alan H » May 28th, 2018, 12:19 pm

The Galileo space row shows the mess of Brexit in microcosm
We cannot leave the EU and retain all the rights we had as members, as the tussle over this vital satellite system shows

‘The government’s position is that the UK wants to retain its participation in Galileo, including access to classified data from the satellite system needed for security and defence.’ Photograph: Pierre Carril/ESA/PA
A row over the UK’s access to the Galileo project, the European satellite global-positioning system used both for civil and military purposes, is the latest tussle about what Brexit would mean for British science and technology. For all the familiar, rhetorical huffing and puffing, the dispute is another illustration of the myriad small-print complexities that need to be resolved if the UK departs from the EU.
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