Having to stockpile food will be bad enough for the UK, but is there a realistic chance there could be a medicine shortage as well? Interested to know likelihood of this as I have an uncle going through chemotherapy at the moment.
I’d say pretty much anything is possible. I’d like to think that it won’t come to that, but for once I’d agree with Mr Hunt that the chances are growing day by day.
The most alarming thing is that our politicians still seem unsure of the consequences of a no deal scenario and are actively burying their heads in the sand.
The no deal scenario will not happen. Firstly it would never get through the Commons, and secondly the civil unrest would be unmanageable.
I still believe it will be EEA/EFTA or we stay.
I understand that the Commons has a natural majority against a no-deal scenario. However what worries me, is that like it or not, there is a deadline. One which we imposed. So what happens, and I am genuinely asking a question to which i don't know the answer, if the Govt. says in October we cannot secure a deal, so we leave without one, and the Commons votes against it? Sure they have voted against it, but what have they then told the Govt to do? Go back and continue negotiations? Maybe, but time is running out. The silly mare triggered Article 50. I don't think it is possible to say "oh hang on there's a bit of a delay here,, give us a few more months" is it? I know many EU people would like to facilitate the UK changing its mind, but as we keep being told, it's a rules based organisation. We triggered Article 50, not them. Out means Out. No?
I mean, i really am not sure, and would love to be wrong on this...on the technical point...
Anyone?
I'll have a go. Not because I have a particularly interesting answer, but because it's a fascinating and important question.
If the Government returns with no acceptable deal in October (which is very possible) and the House votes against accepting "no deal" (which is almost certain in the circumstances), it will be a de facto vote of no confidence in the Government itself and in the Prime Minister in particular. She would have to be replaced.
But the selection of the replacement would have to take place in extraordinary circumstances. For the first time it wouldn't be fought over who might be the most suitable candidate to lead the party over the next decade or so - it would be who would be able to stave off a General Election defeat within a few weeks.
So Tory MPs would present their case in terms purely of how they can extricate the party from the zugzwang, ie those who re-present to the party the opportunities around no deal (eg Rees Mogg), those who say it's worth going back to renegotiate (perhaps David Davis?) and those who say scrap the whole thing and move forward within the EU (possibly someone like Justine Greening).
A swift election would therefore be followed by a vote being put to the House again, based on the winning candidate's Brexit position (no deal, renegotiate or scrap).
The middle one causes the biggest issue, because that's a case of going back to the EU, begging them for more time. But, as it would be based on a leadership that has convinced (most of) its part to support their vision, it's more likely to be accepted.
Of course, if this comes to pass, the Rees Mogg solution would be the cataclysm that many have been warning against for some time. And that's May's incentive to come up with something - anything - rather than a no deal.
Trouble is, everyone in the EU27 knows that May has to come up with something. Because otherwise, it's her expensively and publicly drawn-out resignation.
Is it time to call it? Has the tide turned? I look at that poll, and at this thread in recent weeks....the Brexiteers seem shot to pieces, it's just trolling posts now. I won't nudge him any more, but poor old Dippenhall could not even explain to me how Brexit will solve the productivity crisis that he himself identified as a reason why the economy lags others.
When did you last hear a new fact that strengthened the case for Brexit?
It just might be, there still won’t be a second vote though.
If I'd said the productivity crisis would be solved by Brexit I might have answered you.
The point I try and make that you choose to not hear is that the impact of poor productivity growth over the last 8 years is three times greater than the worst prediction for negative GDP impact over the next 20 years. Why are you not on the streets protesting about productivity.
Adults would have debated the impact of no deal at the beginning and worked out solutions instead of saying we can't talk about mutually beneficial objectives only how we stick to EU process.
Protesting who or what? Has the government got a policy of encouraging poor productivity and punishing better productivity? Was there a referendum where 52% of the population voted to be as unproductive as possible?
What you're saying makes no sense. Of course productivity needs to be improved, but it's is completely unrelated to the EU (as can be proved by the greater productivity across the euro zone), so why do you keep bringing up?
It's like having a go at women's rights campaignings who are attacking the government over the poor rape conviction rates by asking why they aren't protesting against prostate cancer as it kills more people.
DID I SAY PRODUCTIVITY IS RELATED TO THE EU????
FFS I keep bringing it up because of the mindless replies that suggest most Remainers don't understand the English language. Or it could be that when your head is stuck up your arse it filters out anything that doesn't fit with the rules of Project Fear.
I'll put it another way.
If Remainers are wetting their knickers about a 7.9% negative impact on GDP as a result of Brexit over 20 years +, they would have been shitting themselves had they been told in 2009 that GDP would be 20% lower in 2017 as a result of stagnating GDP growth.
Given that the main plank of the Remainer's argument for voting Leave was the predictions of the impact on GDP, I stupidly thought putting the figure into some context might warrant a re-appraisal of the strength of argument against Brexit.
I agree I am stupid.
There are some really strange things in this post. "GDP would be 20% lower in 2017 as a result of stagnating GDP growth". This simply doesn't make sense. GDP can't be lowered simply because the rate of growth in GDP is lower, unless that rate of growth is negative.
Since mid-2009, UK GDP has grown every quarter (with two exceptions - in 2012/13). GDP is increasing. The ten-year trend is positive.
In any case, let's assume it's reducing - (Which it isn't). (But, you know, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is) - reducing it further would be a bad thing. Brexit will reduce GDP. By how much depends on the "type" of Brexit. And there are regional variations.
But, if there's an argument that goes "UK GDP is reducing, so we should do something about it". The "it" shouldn't really be something that makes it worse.
Is it time to call it? Has the tide turned? I look at that poll, and at this thread in recent weeks....the Brexiteers seem shot to pieces, it's just trolling posts now. I won't nudge him any more, but poor old Dippenhall could not even explain to me how Brexit will solve the productivity crisis that he himself identified as a reason why the economy lags others.
When did you last hear a new fact that strengthened the case for Brexit?
It just might be, there still won’t be a second vote though.
If I'd said the productivity crisis would be solved by Brexit I might have answered you.
The point I try and make that you choose to not hear is that the impact of poor productivity growth over the last 8 years is three times greater than the worst prediction for negative GDP impact over the next 20 years. Why are you not on the streets protesting about productivity.
Adults would have debated the impact of no deal at the beginning and worked out solutions instead of saying we can't talk about mutually beneficial objectives only how we stick to EU process.
Protesting who or what? Has the government got a policy of encouraging poor productivity and punishing better productivity? Was there a referendum where 52% of the population voted to be as unproductive as possible?
What you're saying makes no sense. Of course productivity needs to be improved, but it's is completely unrelated to the EU (as can be proved by the greater productivity across the euro zone), so why do you keep bringing up?
It's like having a go at women's rights campaignings who are attacking the government over the poor rape conviction rates by asking why they aren't protesting against prostate cancer as it kills more people.
DID I SAY PRODUCTIVITY IS RELATED TO THE EU????
FFS I keep bringing it up because of the mindless replies that suggest most Remainers don't understand the English language. Or it could be that when your head is stuck up your arse it filters out anything that doesn't fit with the rules of Project Fear.
I'll put it another way.
If Remainers are wetting their knickers about a 7.9% negative impact on GDP as a result of Brexit over 20 years +, they would have been shitting themselves had they been told in 2009 that GDP would be 20% lower in 2017 as a result of stagnating GDP growth.
Given that the main plank of the Remainer's argument for voting Leave was the predictions of the impact on GDP, I stupidly thought putting the figure into some context might warrant a re-appraisal of the strength of argument against Brexit.
I agree I am stupid.
There are some really strange things in this post. "GDP would be 20% lower in 2017 as a result of stagnating GDP growth". This simply doesn't make sense. GDP can't be lowered simply because the rate of growth in GDP is lower, unless that rate of growth is negative.
Since mid-2009, UK GDP has grown every quarter (with two exceptions - in 2012/13). GDP is increasing. The ten-year trend is positive.
In any case, let's assume it's reducing - (Which it isn't). (But, you know, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is) - reducing it further would be a bad thing. Brexit will reduce GDP. By how much depends on the "type" of Brexit. And there are regional variations.
But, if there's an argument that goes "UK GDP is reducing, so we should do something about it". The "it" shouldn't really be something that makes it worse.
Should it?
We're having an argument about Brexit but nobody still seems to know what it is.
On the subject of food security the boss of the Food and Drink Federation is calling for more clarity for consumers about what a "no deal" (like the outcome Jeremy Hunt is saying is increasing daily) will actually mean.
"Brexit is shaping up to be the stuff of nightmares..."
Interesting that they have no formal talks with our government about securing the food supply chain and the government is now denying there are plans to stockpile food. Which I think is a change of policy as they have ducked the question until now?
Of course I can't be smug. I rely on M&S Czech for my watercress, British milk, butter, cheese etc and a whole range of other good stuff. Buy British, me, see, just as patriotic as any Brexiter on here.
Breathtaking, terrifying incompetence.
Oh FFS. Few hours after writing that, I pop down to my M&S, only to find that they have organised a Brexit Shock training session for customers
Brexit already started to bite in Hampshire. No J20's in 2 pubs in lymington today, and no cod and chips or white rolls in the harvester in basngstoke. They must be stuck in calais in the queue.
Is it time to call it? Has the tide turned? I look at that poll, and at this thread in recent weeks....the Brexiteers seem shot to pieces, it's just trolling posts now. I won't nudge him any more, but poor old Dippenhall could not even explain to me how Brexit will solve the productivity crisis that he himself identified as a reason why the economy lags others.
When did you last hear a new fact that strengthened the case for Brexit?
DID I SAY PRODUCTIVITY IS RELATED TO THE EU????
FFS I keep bringing it up because of the mindless replies that suggest most Remainers don't understand the English language. Or it could be that when your head is stuck up your arse it filters out anything that doesn't fit with the rules of Project Fear.
I'll put it another way.
If Remainers are wetting their knickers about a 7.9% negative impact on GDP as a result of Brexit over 20 years +, they would have been shitting themselves had they been told in 2009 that GDP would be 20% lower in 2017 as a result of stagnating GDP growth.
Given that the main plank of the Remainer's argument for voting Leave was the predictions of the impact on GDP, I stupidly thought putting the figure into some context might warrant a re-appraisal of the strength of argument against Brexit.
I agree I am stupid.
I certainly didn't read that you blame the EU for poor productivity - and I agree that tackling the productivity problem would go a long way to mitigate any loss in GDP as a result of Brexit.
What I would observe though is that because the EU are not responsible for our appalling productivity, would it not be possible to improve said productivity whilst remaining in the EU? That way we don't suffer the leaving hit on GDP and add to GDP by increasing productivity - a double whammy! If it has always been in our hands to correct the productivity issue then why the f*ck haven't we done it?
Am I missing something?
Thanks for a reasoned response, a breath of fresh air.
If the EU has no positive impact on productivity it has no negative impact either, so there cannot be a double whammy, in or out of the EU has no direct impact on productivity.
If Brexit was a single issue viz trade with EU, then you are perfectly right in saying it is mad to leave the EU knowing it will have a negative impact on GDP over the medium term. My point is that Brexit is not decided on a single issue and no one will notice an 8% fall in GDP over 20 years, particularly if productivity reverts to historic norms. After 30 years the experts say the impact of Brexit will have been fully absorbed.
In summary, I just don't accept the idea that protecting a reducing trade balance with the EU affecting 13% of our GDP stands up as the central plank of the Remain argument or supports the hyperbole of Remain politicians standing up to protect British people from Armageddon.
Armageddon would be averted by a marginal increase in productivity and would overtake the negative impact of Brexit at a stroke. I will not try and argue there is any predictable positive outcome for productivity after Brexit, just as no one can argue it will be positive by staying in the EU. But if business is forced to adapt to labour shortages it will result in improved productivity. Project Fear says things stay the same and UK business stops producing.
Labour, not cheap labour, is needed to ensure the UK continues to produce services and products and for wages to rise and consumer spending to remain strong. The EU provides a source of cheap labour, so if Brexit stems that supply and replaces cheap labour with labour that has to be attracted by paying a living wage it might lead to higher prices, but low prices should be enjoyed on the back of improved productivity, not on the back of cheap EU labour. Labour costs or labour shortages, are the biggest driver of productivity improvement, but Project Fear says it is the driver of unemployment.
Just seen the tragic new about shortage of Vets, caused by Brexit, must now think about voting Remain. Don't have any pets, dont want any but this will defo sway me! Stupid bird1
Do you think the fact that we will not be able to export livestock, due to having insufficient vets, might be a problem for farmers?
How many animals do we export? I thought we were a massive food importer?
Thousands. Sheep mainly. But also non-food animal exports.
Could be part of the reason that Wales has switched from being 52/48 Brexit two years ago in the referendum to latest poll if asked again now 73% remain
I wonder how many of them were farmers who received EU subsidies that still voted out. Truly astounding if they did.
Amid the news of Dover perhaps becoming a permanent lorry park, I checked what percentage of them voted out - 62.2%. Well played Dover.
Not unrelated to the above, either Kent County Council are telling porkies or the government are...
It is a strange coincidence that they're making provisions for lorry parks at a similar time to Brexit. It's almost like every import and export will have to be customs cleared.
I actually work in freight although our trucks go via the shuttle in Folkestone. As things stand it is going to be a total cluster fuck. Any Swiss loads I've handled have been a total pain, no freight company in the UK has the manpower or knowledge to import/export hundreds of thousands of jobs that need customs clearance. And that's before you consider the resources and investment needed in HMCE to actually green flag each set of cargo. And that's before you consider tariffs and collection of VAT/duty.
March is going to come around too soon. We 100% will not be set up for a fluid continuation of trade. How can a company or forwarder prepare when the government hasn't even got a clue how things will work?
Golfie Jnr has just disowned me because he had just found out that if we leave with No Deal on March 29th then on April 1st he wont be able to buy a BLT sandwich.....
I did tell him it was an April fools joke but he took it seriously......
Saw some of it, Marcus Fysh MP seemed to have all pro Brexit answers, not.
Under eight months to arrange and sign off these streamlined, hassle free trade deals. Stockpiling food and medicine is one of the few sensible things we've heard.
Is it time to call it? Has the tide turned? I look at that poll, and at this thread in recent weeks....the Brexiteers seem shot to pieces, it's just trolling posts now. I won't nudge him any more, but poor old Dippenhall could not even explain to me how Brexit will solve the productivity crisis that he himself identified as a reason why the economy lags others.
When did you last hear a new fact that strengthened the case for Brexit?
It just might be, there still won’t be a second vote though.
If I'd said the productivity crisis would be solved by Brexit I might have answered you.
The point I try and make that you choose to not hear is that the impact of poor productivity growth over the last 8 years is three times greater than the worst prediction for negative GDP impact over the next 20 years. Why are you not on the streets protesting about productivity.
Adults would have debated the impact of no deal at the beginning and worked out solutions instead of saying we can't talk about mutually beneficial objectives only how we stick to EU process.
Protesting who or what? Has the government got a policy of encouraging poor productivity and punishing better productivity? Was there a referendum where 52% of the population voted to be as unproductive as possible?
What you're saying makes no sense. Of course productivity needs to be improved, but it's is completely unrelated to the EU (as can be proved by the greater productivity across the euro zone), so why do you keep bringing up?
It's like having a go at women's rights campaignings who are attacking the government over the poor rape conviction rates by asking why they aren't protesting against prostate cancer as it kills more people.
DID I SAY PRODUCTIVITY IS RELATED TO THE EU????
FFS I keep bringing it up because of the mindless replies that suggest most Remainers don't understand the English language. Or it could be that when your head is stuck up your arse it filters out anything that doesn't fit with the rules of Project Fear.
I'll put it another way.
If Remainers are wetting their knickers about a 7.9% negative impact on GDP as a result of Brexit over 20 years +, they would have been shitting themselves had they been told in 2009 that GDP would be 20% lower in 2017 as a result of stagnating GDP growth.
Given that the main plank of the Remainer's argument for voting Leave was the predictions of the impact on GDP, I stupidly thought putting the figure into some context might warrant a re-appraisal of the strength of argument against Brexit.
I agree I am stupid.
Now come on, Dipps. You originally introduced the productivity issue to diss the argument of Remainers that the GDP figures since around Q2 17 were a consequence of the referendum result. That implies that you didn't accept that they were (are) largely driven by that.
FT research has shown that by the end of the first quarter the UK economy was about 1.2 per cent smaller than it would have been without the Brexit vote. The referendum inflicted damage primarily through a hit to household incomes from the 10 per cent dive in sterling, which drove up import prices. Even economists on the leave side now accept this, although they blame Philip Hammond, the chancellor.
So then I ask you again, how will Brexit improve our GDP performance, and over what timescale, bearing in mind that it is starting from a minus point, not zero (given that our GDP now would we better had we just decided to carry on as normal in the EU). And how exactly will this growth come about? If it does not somehow improve productivity, what else will drive GDP upwards? And if you cannot give a solid answer, then why the feck are we doing this to ourselves?
Golfie Jnr has just disowned me because he had just found out that if we leave with No Deal on March 29th then on April 1st he wont be able to buy a BLT sandwich.....
I did tell him it was an April fools joke but he took it seriously......
Saw some of it, Marcus Fysh MP seemed to have all pro Brexit answers, not.
Under eight months to arrange and sign off these streamlined, hassle free trade deals. Stockpiling food and medicine is one of the few sensible things we've heard.
That sort of comment is the equivalent of telling us to support Millwall when we lose (all too fecking often) to them. I mean, after all, shouldn't we all just get behind them as they won????
Brexiteers like Boris, JRM and others arrogantly assume that 100% of the 51.9% voted for a hard or no Brexit, despite them and many of the leavers promising we could leave and stay in Customs Union. Hence leaving without a soft option or stay would be against the will of the people.
Having to stockpile food will be bad enough for the UK, but is there a realistic chance there could be a medicine shortage as well? Interested to know likelihood of this as I have an uncle going through chemotherapy at the moment.
I’d say pretty much anything is possible. I’d like to think that it won’t come to that, but for once I’d agree with Mr Hunt that the chances are growing day by day.
The most alarming thing is that our politicians still seem unsure of the consequences of a no deal scenario and are actively burying their heads in the sand.
The no deal scenario will not happen. Firstly it would never get through the Commons, and secondly the civil unrest would be unmanageable.
I still believe it will be EEA/EFTA or we stay.
I understand that the Commons has a natural majority against a no-deal scenario. However what worries me, is that like it or not, there is a deadline. One which we imposed. So what happens, and I am genuinely asking a question to which i don't know the answer, if the Govt. says in October we cannot secure a deal, so we leave without one, and the Commons votes against it? Sure they have voted against it, but what have they then told the Govt to do? Go back and continue negotiations? Maybe, but time is running out. The silly mare triggered Article 50. I don't think it is possible to say "oh hang on there's a bit of a delay here,, give us a few more months" is it? I know many EU people would like to facilitate the UK changing its mind, but as we keep being told, it's a rules based organisation. We triggered Article 50, not them. Out means Out. No?
I mean, i really am not sure, and would love to be wrong on this...on the technical point...
Anyone?
I'll have a go. Not because I have a particularly interesting answer, but because it's a fascinating and important question.
If the Government returns with no acceptable deal in October (which is very possible) and the House votes against accepting "no deal" (which is almost certain in the circumstances), it will be a de facto vote of no confidence in the Government itself and in the Prime Minister in particular. She would have to be replaced.
But the selection of the replacement would have to take place in extraordinary circumstances. For the first time it wouldn't be fought over who might be the most suitable candidate to lead the party over the next decade or so - it would be who would be able to stave off a General Election defeat within a few weeks.
So Tory MPs would present their case in terms purely of how they can extricate the party from the zugzwang, ie those who re-present to the party the opportunities around no deal (eg Rees Mogg), those who say it's worth going back to renegotiate (perhaps David Davis?) and those who say scrap the whole thing and move forward within the EU (possibly someone like Justine Greening).
A swift election would therefore be followed by a vote being put to the House again, based on the winning candidate's Brexit position (no deal, renegotiate or scrap).
The middle one causes the biggest issue, because that's a case of going back to the EU, begging them for more time. But, as it would be based on a leadership that has convinced (most of) its part to support their vision, it's more likely to be accepted.
Of course, if this comes to pass, the Rees Mogg solution would be the cataclysm that many have been warning against for some time. And that's May's incentive to come up with something - anything - rather than a no deal.
Trouble is, everyone in the EU27 knows that May has to come up with something. Because otherwise, it's her expensively and publicly drawn-out resignation.
i'm thinking along those lines too apart from the fact that when HOC votes against accepting a "no deal" then there is a vote of no cofidence in the Government & therefore a GE, rather than a no confidence vote in TM (which can only come from her party I believe)
I truely believe we wont get to March 29th with a "no deal" scenario. Either the Government falls and leave is postponed until after a GE takes place, or TM is asked to go back & re-negotiate (again, perhaps, witj another adjournment to leaving) or the UK & EU get round the table for last ditch talks.
Having to stockpile food will be bad enough for the UK, but is there a realistic chance there could be a medicine shortage as well? Interested to know likelihood of this as I have an uncle going through chemotherapy at the moment.
I’d say pretty much anything is possible. I’d like to think that it won’t come to that, but for once I’d agree with Mr Hunt that the chances are growing day by day.
The most alarming thing is that our politicians still seem unsure of the consequences of a no deal scenario and are actively burying their heads in the sand.
The no deal scenario will not happen. Firstly it would never get through the Commons, and secondly the civil unrest would be unmanageable.
I still believe it will be EEA/EFTA or we stay.
I understand that the Commons has a natural majority against a no-deal scenario. However what worries me, is that like it or not, there is a deadline. One which we imposed. So what happens, and I am genuinely asking a question to which i don't know the answer, if the Govt. says in October we cannot secure a deal, so we leave without one, and the Commons votes against it? Sure they have voted against it, but what have they then told the Govt to do? Go back and continue negotiations? Maybe, but time is running out. The silly mare triggered Article 50. I don't think it is possible to say "oh hang on there's a bit of a delay here,, give us a few more months" is it? I know many EU people would like to facilitate the UK changing its mind, but as we keep being told, it's a rules based organisation. We triggered Article 50, not them. Out means Out. No?
I mean, i really am not sure, and would love to be wrong on this...on the technical point...
Anyone?
I'll have a go. Not because I have a particularly interesting answer, but because it's a fascinating and important question.
If the Government returns with no acceptable deal in October (which is very possible) and the House votes against accepting "no deal" (which is almost certain in the circumstances), it will be a de facto vote of no confidence in the Government itself and in the Prime Minister in particular. She would have to be replaced.
But the selection of the replacement would have to take place in extraordinary circumstances. For the first time it wouldn't be fought over who might be the most suitable candidate to lead the party over the next decade or so - it would be who would be able to stave off a General Election defeat within a few weeks.
So Tory MPs would present their case in terms purely of how they can extricate the party from the zugzwang, ie those who re-present to the party the opportunities around no deal (eg Rees Mogg), those who say it's worth going back to renegotiate (perhaps David Davis?) and those who say scrap the whole thing and move forward within the EU (possibly someone like Justine Greening).
A swift election would therefore be followed by a vote being put to the House again, based on the winning candidate's Brexit position (no deal, renegotiate or scrap).
The middle one causes the biggest issue, because that's a case of going back to the EU, begging them for more time. But, as it would be based on a leadership that has convinced (most of) its part to support their vision, it's more likely to be accepted.
Of course, if this comes to pass, the Rees Mogg solution would be the cataclysm that many have been warning against for some time. And that's May's incentive to come up with something - anything - rather than a no deal.
Trouble is, everyone in the EU27 knows that May has to come up with something. Because otherwise, it's her expensively and publicly drawn-out resignation.
i'm thinking along those lines too apart from the fact that when HOC votes against accepting a "no deal" then there is a vote of no cofidence in the Government & therefore a GE, rather than a no confidence vote in TM (which can only come from her party I believe)
I truely believe we wont get to March 29th with a "no deal" scenario. Either the Government falls and leave is postponed until after a GE takes place, or TM is asked to go back & re-negotiate (again, perhaps, witj another adjournment to leaving) or the UK & EU get round the table for last ditch talks.
Its too big to fail.
Imagine trying to run a business that relies on buying and/or selling goods overseas. It would be impossible to make any medium or long term plans.
The cliff edge is seven months away. We still don't know what type of Brexit the Government will endorse and the PM will negotiate. And it's becoming less clear who the Government or the PM will be.
Golfie Jnr has just disowned me because he had just found out that if we leave with No Deal on March 29th then on April 1st he wont be able to buy a BLT sandwich.....
I did tell him it was an April fools joke but he took it seriously......
Saw some of it, Marcus Fysh MP seemed to have all pro Brexit answers, not.
Golfie Jnr has just disowned me because he had just found out that if we leave with No Deal on March 29th then on April 1st he wont be able to buy a BLT sandwich.....
I did tell him it was an April fools joke but he took it seriously......
Saw some of it, Marcus Fysh MP seemed to have all pro Brexit answers, not.
Having to stockpile food will be bad enough for the UK, but is there a realistic chance there could be a medicine shortage as well? Interested to know likelihood of this as I have an uncle going through chemotherapy at the moment.
I’d say pretty much anything is possible. I’d like to think that it won’t come to that, but for once I’d agree with Mr Hunt that the chances are growing day by day.
The most alarming thing is that our politicians still seem unsure of the consequences of a no deal scenario and are actively burying their heads in the sand.
The no deal scenario will not happen. Firstly it would never get through the Commons, and secondly the civil unrest would be unmanageable.
I still believe it will be EEA/EFTA or we stay.
I understand that the Commons has a natural majority against a no-deal scenario. However what worries me, is that like it or not, there is a deadline. One which we imposed. So what happens, and I am genuinely asking a question to which i don't know the answer, if the Govt. says in October we cannot secure a deal, so we leave without one, and the Commons votes against it? Sure they have voted against it, but what have they then told the Govt to do? Go back and continue negotiations? Maybe, but time is running out. The silly mare triggered Article 50. I don't think it is possible to say "oh hang on there's a bit of a delay here,, give us a few more months" is it? I know many EU people would like to facilitate the UK changing its mind, but as we keep being told, it's a rules based organisation. We triggered Article 50, not them. Out means Out. No?
I mean, i really am not sure, and would love to be wrong on this...on the technical point...
Anyone?
I'll have a go. Not because I have a particularly interesting answer, but because it's a fascinating and important question.
If the Government returns with no acceptable deal in October (which is very possible) and the House votes against accepting "no deal" (which is almost certain in the circumstances), it will be a de facto vote of no confidence in the Government itself and in the Prime Minister in particular. She would have to be replaced.
But the selection of the replacement would have to take place in extraordinary circumstances. For the first time it wouldn't be fought over who might be the most suitable candidate to lead the party over the next decade or so - it would be who would be able to stave off a General Election defeat within a few weeks.
So Tory MPs would present their case in terms purely of how they can extricate the party from the zugzwang, ie those who re-present to the party the opportunities around no deal (eg Rees Mogg), those who say it's worth going back to renegotiate (perhaps David Davis?) and those who say scrap the whole thing and move forward within the EU (possibly someone like Justine Greening).
A swift election would therefore be followed by a vote being put to the House again, based on the winning candidate's Brexit position (no deal, renegotiate or scrap).
The middle one causes the biggest issue, because that's a case of going back to the EU, begging them for more time. But, as it would be based on a leadership that has convinced (most of) its part to support their vision, it's more likely to be accepted.
Of course, if this comes to pass, the Rees Mogg solution would be the cataclysm that many have been warning against for some time. And that's May's incentive to come up with something - anything - rather than a no deal.
Trouble is, everyone in the EU27 knows that May has to come up with something. Because otherwise, it's her expensively and publicly drawn-out resignation.
i'm thinking along those lines too apart from the fact that when HOC votes against accepting a "no deal" then there is a vote of no cofidence in the Government & therefore a GE, rather than a no confidence vote in TM (which can only come from her party I believe)
I truely believe we wont get to March 29th with a "no deal" scenario. Either the Government falls and leave is postponed until after a GE takes place, or TM is asked to go back & re-negotiate (again, perhaps, witj another adjournment to leaving) or the UK & EU get round the table for last ditch talks.
Brexit already started to bite in Hampshire. No J20's in 2 pubs in lymington today, and no cod and chips or white rolls in the harvester in basngstoke. They must be stuck in calais in the queue.
Lymington pubs probably think they are far too classy for J20.
For those who can't be arsed to read the whole lot, some extracts from the Guardian.
This is from the introduction.
The fiscal contraction brought about by the Conservative-led coalition government starting 2010 was sizable: aggregate real government spending on welfare and social protection decreased by around 16% per capita. At the district-level, which administer most welfare programs, spending per person fell by 23.4% in real terms between 2010 and 2015, varying dramatically across districts, ranging from 46.3% to 6.2% with the sharpest cuts in the poorest areas. Using data from government estimates on the simulated intensity of specific welfare cuts across districts, I show that support for Ukip started to grow in areas with significant exposure to specific benefit cuts, after these became effective ...
The austerity-induced increase in support for Ukip is sizable and suggests that the tight 2016 EU referendum result (leave won by a margin of 3.5 percentage points) could have well resulted in a victory for remain, had it not been for austerity. The point estimates suggest that in districts that received the average austerity shock, Ukip vote shares were, on average, 3.58 percentage points higher in the 2014 European elections or even 11.62 percentage points higher in the most recent local elections prior to the referendum. Due to the tight link between Ukip vote shares and an area’s support for leave, simple back of the envelope calculations suggest that leave support in 2016 could have been up to 9.51 percentage points lower and thus, could have swung the referendum in favour of remain.
And this is from the conclusion.
This paper presents novel and comprehensive evidence suggesting that austerity induced welfare reforms brought about by the Conservative-led coalition government from late 2010 onwards are key to understanding Brexit. Austerity-induced welfare reforms are a strong driving factor behind the growing support for the populist Ukip party in the wake of the EU referendum, contributed to the development of broader anti-establishment preferences and are strongly associated with popular support for Leave. The results suggest that the EU referendum either may not have taken place, or, as a back of the envelope calculations suggests, could have resulted in a victory for remain, had it not been for austerity.
Researchers have made a similar argument before (including in this paper, co-authored by Fetzer.) But the new study is much more comprehensive, because it includes evidence from a huge Understanding Society household panel linking exposure to benefits cuts with rising support for Ukip. As Fetzer explains in a blog summarising his paper, the bedroom tax was one factor.
Individuals who were exposed to a set of welfare reforms shift to Ukip once they had experienced the benefit cut. One example of a reform studied is the so-called “bedroom tax”. The results suggest that households exposed to this tax shifted towards supporting Ukip, and experienced economic grievances as they fell behind with their rent payments due to the cut. Indeed, dissatisfaction with political institutions as a whole increased following such cuts, with affected individuals being more likely to think that their vote is “unlikely to make a difference” and that “public officials do not care” about them. In other words, by curtailing the welfare state, austerity has likely activated a broad range of existing economic grievances that have developed over a long period.
If Brexit is a mess who can we pin the blame on? : Immigrants? Remainers? C4 PC Police Roland Duchatelet The emails of Hilary Clinton
You missed out Jeremy Corbyn.
Sorry!
Well he has been called anti-Semitic for hosting a Holocaust Memorial day, because some people objected to the speech by a Jewish man who survived Auschwitz. He therefore must be responsible for Brexit, Windrush and the rise of nationalism around the world.
We’re reaching an interesting phase of Brexit now. Lots of scenarios being suggested and as a staunch remainer I cling to the hope that Brexit is reversed.
However. I’m beginning to think that scenario is now more likely under Teresa May and the conservatives than if she was forced to call a general election as a result of a vote of no confidence as per the posts above and the result meant that Corbyn came to power. Corbyn is a brexiteer. He just hasn’t got the courage to say it. That tells me all I need to know about the man and the reason I can’t vote for him.
Comments
If the Government returns with no acceptable deal in October (which is very possible) and the House votes against accepting "no deal" (which is almost certain in the circumstances), it will be a de facto vote of no confidence in the Government itself and in the Prime Minister in particular. She would have to be replaced.
But the selection of the replacement would have to take place in extraordinary circumstances. For the first time it wouldn't be fought over who might be the most suitable candidate to lead the party over the next decade or so - it would be who would be able to stave off a General Election defeat within a few weeks.
So Tory MPs would present their case in terms purely of how they can extricate the party from the zugzwang, ie those who re-present to the party the opportunities around no deal (eg Rees Mogg), those who say it's worth going back to renegotiate (perhaps David Davis?) and those who say scrap the whole thing and move forward within the EU (possibly someone like Justine Greening).
A swift election would therefore be followed by a vote being put to the House again, based on the winning candidate's Brexit position (no deal, renegotiate or scrap).
The middle one causes the biggest issue, because that's a case of going back to the EU, begging them for more time. But, as it would be based on a leadership that has convinced (most of) its part to support their vision, it's more likely to be accepted.
Of course, if this comes to pass, the Rees Mogg solution would be the cataclysm that many have been warning against for some time. And that's May's incentive to come up with something - anything - rather than a no deal.
Trouble is, everyone in the EU27 knows that May has to come up with something. Because otherwise, it's her expensively and publicly drawn-out resignation.
Since mid-2009, UK GDP has grown every quarter (with two exceptions - in 2012/13). GDP is increasing. The ten-year trend is positive.
In any case, let's assume it's reducing - (Which it isn't). (But, you know, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is) - reducing it further would be a bad thing. Brexit will reduce GDP. By how much depends on the "type" of Brexit. And there are regional variations.
But, if there's an argument that goes "UK GDP is reducing, so we should do something about it". The "it" shouldn't really be something that makes it worse.
Should it?
I actually work in freight although our trucks go via the shuttle in Folkestone. As things stand it is going to be a total cluster fuck. Any Swiss loads I've handled have been a total pain, no freight company in the UK has the manpower or knowledge to import/export hundreds of thousands of jobs that need customs clearance. And that's before you consider the resources and investment needed in HMCE to actually green flag each set of cargo. And that's before you consider tariffs and collection of VAT/duty.
March is going to come around too soon. We 100% will not be set up for a fluid continuation of trade. How can a company or forwarder prepare when the government hasn't even got a clue how things will work?
Under eight months to arrange and sign off these streamlined, hassle free trade deals. Stockpiling food and medicine is one of the few sensible things we've heard.
Unfortunately as this FT article shows, virtually everyone now accepts that this is what happened. The article (The UK economy since the Brexit vote — in 5 charts) tersely puts it
FT research has shown that by the end of the first quarter the UK economy was about 1.2 per cent smaller than it would have been without the Brexit vote. The referendum inflicted damage primarily through a hit to household incomes from the 10 per cent dive in sterling, which drove up import prices. Even economists on the leave side now accept this, although they blame Philip Hammond, the chancellor.
So then I ask you again, how will Brexit improve our GDP performance, and over what timescale, bearing in mind that it is starting from a minus point, not zero (given that our GDP now would we better had we just decided to carry on as normal in the EU). And how exactly will this growth come about? If it does not somehow improve productivity, what else will drive GDP upwards? And if you cannot give a solid answer, then why the feck are we doing this to ourselves?
Councils preparing for social unrest amid Brexit uncertainty
Mind you, I'm probably just a bad loser.
I truely believe we wont get to March 29th with a "no deal" scenario. Either the Government falls and leave is postponed until after a GE takes place, or TM is asked to go back & re-negotiate (again, perhaps, witj another adjournment to leaving) or the UK & EU get round the table for last ditch talks.
Its too big to fail.
The cliff edge is seven months away. We still don't know what type of Brexit the Government will endorse and the PM will negotiate. And it's becoming less clear who the Government or the PM will be.
Immigrants?
Remainers?
C4
PC Police
Roland Duchatelet
The emails of Hilary Clinton
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/381-2018_fetzer.pdf
For those who can't be arsed to read the whole lot, some extracts from the Guardian.
This is from the introduction.
The fiscal contraction brought about by the Conservative-led coalition government starting 2010 was sizable: aggregate real government spending on welfare and social protection decreased by around 16% per capita. At the district-level, which administer most welfare programs, spending per person fell by 23.4% in real terms between 2010 and 2015, varying dramatically across districts, ranging from 46.3% to 6.2% with the sharpest cuts in the poorest areas. Using data from government estimates on the simulated intensity of specific welfare cuts across districts, I show that support for Ukip started to grow in areas with significant exposure to specific benefit cuts, after these became effective ...
The austerity-induced increase in support for Ukip is sizable and suggests that the tight 2016 EU referendum result (leave won by a margin of 3.5 percentage points) could have well resulted in a victory for remain, had it not been for austerity. The point estimates suggest that in districts that received the average austerity shock, Ukip vote shares were, on average, 3.58 percentage points higher in the 2014 European elections or even 11.62 percentage points higher in the most recent local elections prior to the referendum. Due to the tight link between Ukip vote shares and an area’s support for leave, simple back of the envelope calculations suggest that leave support in 2016 could have been up to 9.51 percentage points lower and thus, could have swung the referendum in favour of remain.
And this is from the conclusion.
This paper presents novel and comprehensive evidence suggesting that austerity induced welfare reforms brought about by the Conservative-led coalition government from late 2010 onwards are key to understanding Brexit. Austerity-induced welfare reforms are a strong driving factor behind the growing support for the populist Ukip party in the wake of the EU referendum, contributed to the development of broader anti-establishment preferences and are strongly associated with popular support for Leave. The results suggest that the EU referendum either may not have taken place, or, as a back of the envelope calculations suggests, could have resulted in a victory for remain, had it not been for austerity.
Researchers have made a similar argument before (including in this paper, co-authored by Fetzer.) But the new study is much more comprehensive, because it includes evidence from a huge Understanding Society household panel linking exposure to benefits cuts with rising support for Ukip. As Fetzer explains in a blog summarising his paper, the bedroom tax was one factor.
Individuals who were exposed to a set of welfare reforms shift to Ukip once they had experienced the benefit cut. One example of a reform studied is the so-called “bedroom tax”. The results suggest that households exposed to this tax shifted towards supporting Ukip, and experienced economic grievances as they fell behind with their rent payments due to the cut. Indeed, dissatisfaction with political institutions as a whole increased following such cuts, with affected individuals being more likely to think that their vote is “unlikely to make a difference” and that “public officials do not care” about them. In other words, by curtailing the welfare state, austerity has likely activated a broad range of existing economic grievances that have developed over a long period.
However. I’m beginning to think that scenario is now more likely under Teresa May and the conservatives than if she was forced to call a general election as a result of a vote of no confidence as per the posts above and the result meant that Corbyn came to power. Corbyn is a brexiteer. He just hasn’t got the courage to say it. That tells me all I need to know about the man and the reason I can’t vote for him.