Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
Here’s a short list:
1) relax trade barriers unilaterally for a short period
2) provide banks with cheap funding to provide to supermarkets to stock up with longer-life food stuffs
3) use the Armed Forces to support distribution (as already mooted)
For a socialist, you have a remarkably negative view on the potential of state action.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
Quite. The idea that the purchasing and logistics departments of major retailers will just shrug their shoulders and blame Brexit for the empty shelves is one of the sillier of this year’s silly season stories.
Of course they will adapt, given time. But how long does it take for food shortages (even just scarcity of some foods) to destroy the Government's reputation and have a large majority of the electorate denying they ever wanted Brexit?
There will be no shortages at a macro level. Arch Remainers will scream about scarcity or higher prices for some foods.
The majority who voted Leave will not give it much thought. I was endlessly told on the doorstep while campaigning for it that the first few years would be tough.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
The scenario is that the slightest delay in transiting the border creates massive queues which ties up vehicles. We already import from elsewhere - a significant amount of the chicken we eat is from Brazil and Thailand for example. But can't just switch supply. Growing more of our food is something we are going to have to do anyway and is absolutely an ambition regardless. Cant be done by 30th March 2019 though...
Anyway, this is just the food industry. A lot pf other industries which effectively stop if we have a physical border imposed at Calais
Why not transfer more freight to ports other than Dover and Calais?
I rather expected a small avalanche of opposing views when I posted such a thing a few posts ago. Now I hardly imagine that this site is the wellspring of all political argument in the nation, but I had hoped to provoke a response.
It caused me to think. What actually is the mechanism by which insightful political thoughts (not that this was one of them) gain an airing? Where are the forums of debate?
Re your discussion point: what difference does it make?
I have to take issue with your last paragraph since it commits a fundamental error by inferring that 'the electorate' makes a choice. It does not - 46 million individual voters make an individual choice. It is wrong to treat the electorate as a single sentient being.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
It was utterly cack-handed of Mrs May to send the Article 50 letter before she had secured the mandate she needed. That was not down to the voters. That was down to her. She gave away the only real point of leverage Britain had. And for what?
What was the pressing urgency, again?
She left it for 10 months. Difficult to see how she could have procrastinated further, or what would have been gained by delaying. The fundamental road-block was that our EU friends were refusing to negotiate until we pulled the trigger.
"One of the most popular shows on Venezuelan TV had to be pulled off the air because its title had become a national embarrassment. Who Wants to be a Millionaire, based on the British programme, had been running for 17 years, but by the time the final episode played out the top prize, which had already been doubled to two million bolivars, was worth less than £1,500. So brutal has this country’s inflation been since then that, last week, the contestants would have been competing for a jackpot of 13 pence."
I have to take issue with your last paragraph since it commits a fundamental error by inferring that 'the electorate' makes a choice. It does not - 46 million individual voters make an individual choice. It is wrong to treat the electorate as a single sentient being.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
It was utterly cack-handed of Mrs May to send the Article 50 letter before she had secured the mandate she needed. That was not down to the voters. That was down to her. She gave away the only real point of leverage Britain had. And for what?
What was the pressing urgency, again?
She left it for 10 months. Difficult to see how she could have procrastinated further, or what would have been gained by delaying. The fundamental road-block was that our EU friends were refusing to negotiate until we pulled the trigger.
She could have refused to invoke A50 until the EU negotiated. They couldn't have stood the uncertainty for long.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
Here’s a short list:
1) relax trade barriers unilaterally for a short period
2) provide banks with cheap funding to provide to supermarkets to stock up with longer-life food stuffs
3) use the Armed Forces to support distribution (as already mooted)
For a socialist, you have a remarkably negative view on the potential of state action.
You forgot: issue ration books.
Those won’t be necessary. A better point that no Remainer has raised is how do we pay for these imports if our currency has collapsed?
Answer: FX reserves. $164 billion will pay for quite a lot of Ottolenghi recipes.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
part.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
The scenario is that the slightest delay in transiting the border creates massive queues which ties up vehicles. We already import from elsewhere - a significant amount of the chicken we eat is from Brazil and Thailand for example. But can't just switch supply. Growing more of our food is something we are going to have to do anyway and is absolutely an ambition regardless. Cant be done by 30th March 2019 though...
Anyway, this is just the food industry. A lot pf other industries which effectively stop if we have a physical border imposed at Calais
First off the slightest delay at the border creates massive queues is wrong. About 2 weeks ago there were 5 hour delays because the air conditioning did not work and there were not "massive queues." Thankfully we have a free market and every supermarket is worried that their competitor has supply chains sorted out in case we can not get food from the EU. They will all have contingency plans to keep the shelves stocked. What happened in Russia when they banned imports of the food from the EU will happen here. First increased buying from external markets. I walk round Aldi and there is food from Africa, Middle East, South/Central America and Asia. They already know where to go as they buy from them already. Secondly we will go down the quality scale. At the moment the supermarkets want only grade 1, if food is scare then the supermarkets will stock lower grades and 30% of food production here is lower grade, let alone what the RoW produces. This means that the fresh grade 2 toms that go into food processing will be replaced by imported tinned toms which do not care if they spent a couple of weeks in customs. Then finally we will put all this set aside land that CAP insists on back into production, for cereals and veg and salads takes one year. How do we know this because when Spain had a wet winter and could not supply salads and veggies the supermarkets changed supply to here, Waitrose opens a new salad plant in Evesham, Thanet Earth added 2 new greenhouses.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
Here’s a short list:
1) relax trade barriers unilaterally for a short period
2) provide banks with cheap funding to provide to supermarkets to stock up with longer-life food stuffs
3) use the Armed Forces to support distribution (as already mooted)
For a socialist, you have a remarkably negative view on the potential of state action.
3) The Armed Forces will be too busy enforcing the curfew!
Looks like an outlier. Labour and Conservative both up, and a 7 point lead for "right to leave the EU" in the North of England.
Not really that surprising as YouGov also has 49% of C2DE voters thinking we were right to Leave the EU and only 36% thinking we were wrong to Leave.
On the headline voting intention YouGov has 7% of 2017 Tory voters saying they would now vote UKIP but 4% of 2017 Labour voters and 10% of 2017 LD voters saying they would now vote Conservative. 6% of 2017 Labour voters say they would now vote LD
Those 7% of 2017 Tory voters won't have a UKIP candidate to vote for though. The numbers are actually significantly better for the Conservatives than the headlines suggest (if we were to have an election called tomorrow - which is, er, unlikely)
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
Quite. The idea that the purchasing and logistics departments of major retailers will just shrug their shoulders and blame Brexit for the empty shelves is one of the sillier of this year’s silly season stories.
Of course they will adapt, given time. But how long does it take for food shortages (even just scarcity of some foods) to destroy the Government's reputation and have a large majority of the electorate denying they ever wanted Brexit?
How did the fuel protests affect the Blair government’s chance of re-election in 2001?
There may well be short term disruptions to supply of certain products, but people won’t be starving and retailers will find ways to get goods on the shelves, even if it means using different suppliers, different routes and some temporary warehousing. If push really comes to shove we could eat shitty American food for a few weeks.
I’ve said before that I think there’s there’s more chance of Waitrose in Dubai having empty shelves (mostly UK food exports) than Waitrose in the U.K.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
The scenario is that the slightest delay in transiting the border creates massive queues which ties up vehicles. We already import from elsewhere - a significant amount of the chicken we eat is from Brazil and Thailand for example. But can't just switch supply. Growing more of our food is something we are going to have to do anyway and is absolutely an ambition regardless. Cant be done by 30th March 2019 though...
Anyway, this is just the food industry. A lot pf other industries which effectively stop if we have a physical border imposed at Calais
Why not transfer more freight to ports other than Dover and Calais?
Because logistics companies won't think and troubleshoot.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
A pointless argument: anti-semitism isn’t the prerogative of the left or right. It comes from both and doubtless some of those sending such tweets are not Corbynites. They are all revolting, whatever party they support.
Doubtless some of those sending tweets are official Russian trolls.
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
Quite. The idea that the purchasing and logistics departments of major retailers will just shrug their shoulders and blame Brexit for the empty shelves is one of the sillier of this year’s silly season stories.
Of course they will adapt, given time. But how long does it take for food shortages (even just scarcity of some foods) to destroy the Government's reputation and have a large majority of the electorate denying they ever wanted Brexit?
There will be no shortages at a macro level. Arch Remainers will scream about scarcity or higher prices for some foods.
The majority who voted Leave will not give it much thought. I was endlessly told on the doorstep while campaigning for it that the first few years would be tough.
I don't remember "the first few years would be tough" appearing in any of the Leave campaign literature.
Every Leaver of my acquaintance adopted the Fox/Davis line: 'they need us more than wee need them', 'German carmakers will ensure we have a free trade deal', 'easiest deal in the world' etc. etc.
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
Brexit probably is the most damaging policy since the Second World War because it impacts so many areas, all of them negatively. The economy, the UK's international influence, government effectiveness, the Union settlement will all be impacted in the short, medium and long terms. Suez was a one off with.a relatively limited fallout in terms of policy area and time.
We'll see. For now there's no evidence of that; in fact the only new significant piece of information we have is that the economic damage as a result of the uncertainty has been less than expected.
As so often, our greatest PM of the last 50 years (bar Maggie) probably got it right: 'A mistake, but not a disaster'.
Either way, it was the electorate's choice, not the government's nor the Conservative Party's. There's no getting away from that.
I don't think Brexit necessarily will be disaster. A chronic disease rather than an acute one. There is no question that the border issue is destabilising Northern Ireland and Brexit isn't comfortable for Scottish unionists either. Independence will be back on the agenda again. Next time who will argue for union with a corpse? The country is divided politically. Brexit was sold on a false prospectus of walking away from the hard won system of multilateral and third party relationships with no cost in terms of the economy, tax take for welfare and so on . I agree the present lot aren't egregiously incompetent. Brexit is undeliverable as promised. The government will never, ever, confront voters with the consequences of their decision. They will pretend "do what you are told" for less than we had before is us taking back control. This dissembling will eat away at the body politic.
And I haven't discussed the economy yet, where again it's all downside.
I rather expected a small avalanche of opposing views when I posted such a thing a few posts ago. Now I hardly imagine that this site is the wellspring of all political argument in the nation, but I had hoped to provoke a response.
It caused me to think. What actually is the mechanism by which insightful political thoughts (not that this was one of them) gain an airing? Where are the forums of debate?
Your point could clearly spin off into a debate about political philosophy, and the utility of the traditional left-right frame of political analysis. But, more straightforwardly, the fiercest opposition to 20th century fascism came principally from the left, communists and socialists, and those tempted to collaborate or appease came principally from the soft right, in both Italy and Germany and in what became the Allied countries. Therefore if the left-right frame of analysis has any meaningfulness at all, it cannot make any sense to position naziism on the left. Quite what your point was in making such a suggestion in the first place isn't clear.
I have to take issue with your last paragraph since it commits a fundamental error by inferring that 'the electorate' makes a choice. It does not - 46 million individual voters make an individual choice. It is wrong to treat the electorate as a single sentient being.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
The fact that it was so obvious that May wanted a large majority in order to do whatever she wanted on Brexit, regardless of potential parliamentary opposition, was one of the contributing factors in driving people in the opposite direction, and particularly in driving remainers towards Labour, seen as the only alternative governmental choice, rather than the LibDems.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
It was utterly cack-handed of Mrs May to send the Article 50 letter before she had secured the mandate she needed. That was not down to the voters. That was down to her. She gave away the only real point of leverage Britain had. And for what?
What was the pressing urgency, again?
She left it for 10 months. Difficult to see how she could have procrastinated further, or what would have been gained by delaying. The fundamental road-block was that our EU friends were refusing to negotiate until we pulled the trigger.
I’ll tell you what she - and more importantly the country - would have gained. We could have had serious detailed practical planning for no deal; serious practical planning for withdrawal and a post-Brexit future. Not airy fairy statements about close relationships but hard-headed practical proposals for NI, for the City, for pharmaceuticals, for the car industry, for the aerospace industry, for agriculture, for transport, for the nuclear industry, for innumerable sectors based on detailed technical knowledge and advice from those who understand those sectors. We could have got advice from people who understood EU rules and the EU’s approach. We could have got advice from people who understand free trade agreements. We could have worked out a proper realistic strategy and different options. We could have come to the talks properly prepared - instead of making it up as we we went along. We could have got ourselves a smidgen of credit for how we went about Brexit instead of looking like gormless unprepared arrogant ninnies.
Here we are - 7 months before we exit - and we’re still negotiating with ourselves.
Even if something is conbled together at the last minute, the way we have gone about it has damaged our standing in the world. It is shaming.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Britain and the EU did not fit easily together but there was a grown up way of going about Brexit. It has not been the one taken by the Tories and they deserve slapping around the face with a rotting wet fish for the way they have behaved.
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Interesting info on chicken imports,thanks. The things you learn on PB eh?
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
Brexit probably is the most damaging policy since the Second World War because it impacts so many areas, all of them negatively. The economy, the UK's international influence, government effectiveness, the Union settlement will all be impacted in the short, medium and long terms. Suez was a one off with.a relatively limited fallout in terms of policy area and time.
We'll see. For now there's no evidence of that; in fact the only new significant piece of information we have is that the economic damage as a result of the uncertainty has been less than expected.
As so often, our greatest PM of the last 50 years (bar Maggie) probably got it right: 'A mistake, but not a disaster'.
Either way, it was the electorate's choice, not the government's nor the Conservative Party's. There's no getting away from that.
I don't think Brexit necessarily will be disaster. A chronic disease rather than an acute one. There is no question that the border issue is destabilising Northern Ireland and Brexit isn't comfortable for Scottish unionists either. Independence will be back on the agenda again. Next time who will argue for union with a corpse? The country is divided politically. Brexit was sold on a false prospectus of walking away from the hard won system of multilateral and third party relationships with no cost in terms of the economy, tax take for welfare and so on . I agree the present lot aren't egregiously incompetent. Brexit is undeliverable as promised. The government will never, ever, confront voters with the consequences of their decision. They will pretend "do what you are told" for less than we had before is us taking back control. This dissembling will eat away at the body politic.
And I haven't discussed the economy yet, where again it's all downside.
There is already plenty of anecdotal evidence of business decisions, and plans in anticipation of decisions, being taken to move activities out of the UK and/or redirect future investment towards the rest of the EU. It is clearly going to be a slow burn. The big mistake of project fear was in suggesting death would come from a heart attack rather than cancer.
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
Brexit probably is the most damaging policy since the Second World War because it impacts so many areas, all of them negatively. The economy, the UK's international influence, government effectiveness, the Union settlement will all be impacted in the short, medium and long terms. Suez was a one off with.a relatively limited fallout in terms of policy area and time.
We'll see. For now there's no evidence of that; in fact the only new significant piece of information we have is that the economic damage as a result of the uncertainty has been less than expected.
As so often, our greatest PM of the last 50 years (bar Maggie) probably got it right: 'A mistake, but not a disaster'.
Either way, it was the electorate's choice, not the government's nor the Conservative Party's. There's no getting away from that.
And I haven't discussed the economy yet, where again it's all downside.
There is already plenty of anecdotal evidence of business decisions, and plans in anticipation of decisions, being taken to move activities out of the UK and/or redirect future investment towards the rest of the EU. It is clearly going to be a slow burn. The big mistake of project fear was in suggesting death would come from a heart attack rather than cancer.
There is already plenty of evidence of increased investment in the UK because of brexit as well.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
A pointless argument: anti-semitism isn’t the prerogative of the left or right. It comes from both and doubtless some of those sending such tweets are not Corbynites. They are all revolting, whatever party they support.
Doubtless some of those sending tweets are official Russian trolls.
I'm sending this massage from my dacha overlooking a massive Troll Farm just outside the Russian spa town of Novosunilsk
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Interesting info on chicken imports,thanks. The things you learn on PB eh?
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
A not insignificant portion of the UK demand for cheap chicken is for pet food.
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
Brexit probably is the most damaging policy since the Second World War because it impacts so many areas, all of them negatively. The economy, the UK's international influence, government effectiveness, the Union settlement will all be impacted in the short, medium and long terms. Suez was a one off with.a relatively limited fallout in terms of policy area and time.
We'll see. For now there's no evidence of that; in fact the only new significant piece of information we have is that the economic damage as a result of the uncertainty has been less than expected.
As so often, our greatest PM of the last 50 years (bar Maggie) probably got it right: 'A mistake, but not a disaster'.
Either way, it was the electorate's choice, not the government's nor the Conservative Party's. There's no getting away from that.
And I haven't discussed the economy yet, where again it's all downside.
There is already plenty of anecdotal evidence of business decisions, and plans in anticipation of decisions, being taken to move activities out of the UK and/or redirect future investment towards the rest of the EU. It is clearly going to be a slow burn. The big mistake of project fear was in suggesting death would come from a heart attack rather than cancer.
There is already plenty of evidence of increased investment in the UK because of brexit as well.
Name one project that is because of Brexit rather than in spite of it.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
It was utterly cack-handed of Mrs May to send the Article 50 letter before she had secured the mandate she needed. That was not down to the voters. That was down to her. She gave away the only real point of leverage Britain had. And for what?
What was the pressing urgency, again?
She left it for 10 months. Difficult to see how she could have procrastinated further, or what would have been gained by delaying. The fundamental road-block was that our EU friends were refusing to negotiate until we pulled the trigger.
I’ll tell you what she - and more importantly the country - would have gained. We could have had serious detailed practical planning for no deal; serious practical planning for withdrawal and a post-Brexit future. Not airy fairy statements about close relationships but hard-headed practical proposals for NI, for the City, for pharmaceuticals, for the car industry, for the aerospace industry, for agriculture, for transport, for the nuclear industry, for innumerable sectors based on detailed technical knowledge and advice from those who understand those sectors. We could have got advice from people who understood EU rules and the EU’s approach. We could have got advice from people who understand free trade agreements. We could have worked out a proper realistic strategy and different options. We could have come to the talks properly prepared - instead of making it up as we we went along. We could have got ourselves a smidgen of credit for how we went about Brexit instead of looking like gormless unprepared arrogant ninnies.
Here we are - 7 months before we exit - and we’re still negotiating with ourselves.
Even if something is conbled together at the last minute, the way we have gone about it has damaged our standing in the world. It is shaming.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Britain and the EU did not fit easily together but there was a grown up way of going about Brexit. It has not been the one taken by the Tories and they deserve slapping around the face with a rotting wet fish for the way they have behaved.
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
Brexit probably is the most damaging policy since the Second World War because it impacts so many areas, all of them negatively. The economy, the UK's international influence, government effectiveness, the Union settlement will all be impacted in the short, medium and long terms. Suez was a one off with.a relatively limited fallout in terms of policy area and time.
We'll see. For now there's no evidence of that; in fact the only new significant piece of information we have is that the economic damage as a result of the uncertainty has been less than expected.
As so often, our greatest PM of the last 50 years (bar Maggie) probably got it right: 'A mistake, but not a disaster'.
Either way, it was the electorate's choice, not the government's nor the Conservative Party's. There's no getting away from that.
And I haven't discussed the economy yet, where again it's all downside.
There is already plenty of anecdotal evidence of business decisions, and plans in anticipation of decisions, being taken to move activities out of the UK and/or redirect future investment towards the rest of the EU. It is clearly going to be a slow burn. The big mistake of project fear was in suggesting death would come from a heart attack rather than cancer.
There is already plenty of evidence of increased investment in the UK because of brexit as well.
Name one project that is because of Brexit rather than in spite of it.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
A pointless argument: anti-semitism isn’t the prerogative of the left or right. It comes from both and doubtless some of those sending such tweets are not Corbynites. They are all revolting, whatever party they support.
But does anybody suggest that the Conservatives, the LibDems, the Greens - even UKIP for God's sake! - don't take immediate action if/when anti-semitism rears its head?
There's only one party in the UK that drags its feet investigating anti-semitism by its members. For that the Labour Party deserves universal oppprobrium.
Not only that - it has been quietly readmitting members as well who were suspended for anti semitism.
For any fans of political counterfactuals. I'm not taking the piss, just want to make a creative point about the people's vote group;
Ladies and Gentlemen, picture the scene; 5.30am on 24th June, 2019. A remain voter stares bleary eyed at a class of his favourite tipple, swirling it thoughtfully in his hand. The public has voted 59.7 to 40.3 for the government’s deal; a mashup of chequers and Canada +++. Both of the main parties knew losing a knife edge vote in the commons was unpalatable, so threw the question back to the people. The choice was stark; Accept a shoddy deal or reject and welcome a government resignation and chaotic general election.
Our protagonist and many of his fellow remain supporters couldn’t believe their luck; a re-run. As the arch-remainer Blair had said; “we are the insurgents now”. The campaign was well funded and run in a similar way to the previous leave campaign; lots of promises – a renegotiation, perhaps a better deal in the single market, perhaps a third referendum on remaining with full membership – anything was possible! In contrast, the new leave campaign was the exact opposite; take the deal, you now know what you are getting, or welcome more chaos and a Corbyn government.
The sight of hard left remainers and Nigel Farage campaigning together to reject the government’s deal, albeit for different reasons, was too much for the public. Voter’s reasoned that if these two extremes were on one side, then maybe the government’s compromise wasn’t that bad... Maybe David Cameron was right when he said that the public didn't like politicians banging on about Europe... Ultimately they came out in their droves and said “Enough about Europe; get on with fixing our public services”.
Catching a glimpse of himself in the mirror, the last three years have aged our protagonist beyond his years. He had bet the farm on the second referendum and didn’t even have magic beans to show for it. Climbing into bed he lies restless, eyes bloodshot, and it dawn’s on him... That’s the issue settled for a generation. Perhaps this would be the ways thing are for the rest of his life... But at least with Mays victory vindicating her strategy, Boris couldn’t become PM... Could he?
I’ll tell you what she - and more importantly the country - would have gained. We could have had serious detailed practical planning for no deal; serious practical planning for withdrawal and a post-Brexit future. Not airy fairy statements about close relationships but hard-headed practical proposals for NI, for the City, for pharmaceuticals, for the car industry, for the aerospace industry, for agriculture, for transport, for the nuclear industry, for innumerable sectors based on detailed technical knowledge and advice from those who understand those sectors. We could have got advice from people who understood EU rules and the EU’s approach. We could have got advice from people who understand free trade agreements. We could have worked out a proper realistic strategy and different options. We could have come to the talks properly prepared - instead of making it up as we we went along. We could have got ourselves a smidgen of credit for how we went about Brexit instead of looking like gormless unprepared arrogant ninnies.
Here we are - 7 months before we exit - and we’re still negotiating with ourselves.
Even if something is conbled together at the last minute, the way we have gone about it has damaged our standing in the world. It is shaming.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Britain and the EU did not fit easily together but there was a grown up way of going about Brexit. It has not been the one taken by the Tories and they deserve slapping around the face with a rotting wet fish for the way they have behaved.
The problem is May. More time wouldn't have changed that. She wasn't a Brexiteer then got into Number 10 with the vacuous claim that Brexit Means Brexit and had no idea what to do next.
We should have had a PM who'd thought seriously on the subject. Someone who believed in Brexit and saw a viable path to take. Not someone who wanted to obfuscate every decision. We should have had Gove.
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Interesting info on chicken imports,thanks. The things you learn on PB eh?
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
A not insignificant portion of the UK demand for cheap chicken is for pet food.
Which reminds me, our dog's favourite food is made in Germany. How do I break it to him gently?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
Brexit probably is the most damaging policy since the Second World War because it impacts so many areas, all of them negatively. The economy, the UK's international influence, government effectiveness, the Union settlement will all be impacted in the short, medium and long terms. Suez was a one off with.a relatively limited fallout in terms of policy area and time.
We'll see. For now there's no evidence of that; in fact the only new significant piece of information we have is that the economic damage as a result of the uncertainty has been less than expected.
As so often, our greatest PM of the last 50 years (bar Maggie) probably got it right: 'A mistake, but not a disaster'.
Either way, it was the electorate's choice, not the government's nor the Conservative Party's. There's no getting away from that.
And I haven't discussed the economy yet, where again it's all downside.
There is already plenty of anecdotal evidence of business decisions, and plans in anticipation of decisions, being taken to move activities out of the UK and/or redirect future investment towards the rest of the EU. It is clearly going to be a slow burn. The big mistake of project fear was in suggesting death would come from a heart attack rather than cancer.
There is already plenty of evidence of increased investment in the UK because of brexit as well.
Name one project that is because of Brexit rather than in spite of it.
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Interesting info on chicken imports,thanks. The things you learn on PB eh?
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
A not insignificant portion of the UK demand for cheap chicken is for pet food.
Which reminds me, our dog's favourite food is made in Germany. How do I break it to him gently?
Looks like an outlier. Labour and Conservative both up, and a 7 point lead for "right to leave the EU" in the North of England.
Not really that surprising as YouGov also has 49% of C2DE voters thinking we were right to Leave the EU and only 36% thinking we were wrong to Leave.
On the headline voting intention YouGov has 7% of 2017 Tory voters saying they would now vote UKIP but 4% of 2017 Labour voters and 10% of 2017 LD voters saying they would now vote Conservative. 6% of 2017 Labour voters say they would now vote LD
Those 7% of 2017 Tory voters won't have a UKIP candidate to vote for though. The numbers are actually significantly better for the Conservatives than the headlines suggest (if we were to have an election called tomorrow - which is, er, unlikely)
Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull likely shares May's pain over the UKIP problem, he is under big pressure from rightwingers in the Australian Liberal Party he leads like Abbott and Dutton over an Energy Bill to reduce emissions and the fact the Coalition now trails Labor in the polls while losing votes on its rightflank to One Nation as evidenced in the recent Longman by election it lost to Labor in Queensland
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Interesting info on chicken imports,thanks. The things you learn on PB eh?
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
A not insignificant portion of the UK demand for cheap chicken is for pet food.
Which reminds me, our dog's favourite food is made in Germany. How do I break it to him gently?
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Interesting info on chicken imports,thanks. The things you learn on PB eh?
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
A not insignificant portion of the UK demand for cheap chicken is for pet food.
Some vegetarian chicken-substitute for me, please!
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Interesting info on chicken imports,thanks. The things you learn on PB eh?
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
A not insignificant portion of the UK demand for cheap chicken is for pet food.
Some vegetarian chicken-substitute for me, please!
You’ll have cabbage and swede, and you’ll be grateful
For any fans of political counterfactuals. I'm not taking the piss, just want to make a creative point about the people's vote group;
Ladies and Gentlemen, picture the scene; 5.30am on 24th June, 2019. A remain voter stares bleary eyed at a class of his favourite tipple, swirling it thoughtfully in his hand. The public has voted 59.7 to 40.3 for the government’s deal; a mashup of chequers and Canada +++. Both of the main parties knew losing a knife edge vote in the commons was unpalatable, so threw the question back to the people. The choice was stark; Accept a shoddy deal or reject and welcome a government resignation and chaotic general election.
Our protagonist and many of his fellow remain supporters couldn’t believe their luck; a re-run. As the arch-remainer Blair had said; “we are the insurgents now”. The campaign was well funded and run in a similar way to the previous leave campaign; lots of promises – a renegotiation, perhaps a better deal in the single market, perhaps a third referendum on remaining with full membership – anything was possible! In contrast, the new leave campaign was the exact opposite; take the deal, you now know what you are getting, or welcome more chaos and a Corbyn government.
The sight of hard left remainers and Nigel Farage campaigning together to reject the government’s deal, albeit for different reasons, was too much for the public. Voter’s reasoned that if these two extremes were on one side, then maybe the government’s compromise wasn’t that bad... Maybe David Cameron was right when he said that the public didn't like politicians banging on about Europe... Ultimately they came out in their droves and said “Enough about Europe; get on with fixing our public services”.
Catching a glimpse of himself in the mirror, the last three years have aged our protagonist beyond his years. He had bet the farm on the second referendum and didn’t even have magic beans to show for it. Climbing into bed he lies restless, eyes bloodshot, and it dawn’s on him... That’s the issue settled for a generation. Perhaps this would be the ways thing are for the rest of his life... But at least with Mays victory vindicating her strategy, Boris couldn’t become PM... Could he?
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Interesting info on chicken imports,thanks. The things you learn on PB eh?
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
A not insignificant portion of the UK demand for cheap chicken is for pet food.
Some vegetarian chicken-substitute for me, please!
You’ll have cabbage and swede, and you’ll be grateful
For any fans of political counterfactuals. I'm not taking the piss, just want to make a creative point about the people's vote group;
Ladies and Gentlemen, picture the scene; 5.30am on 24th June, 2019. A remain voter stares bleary eyed at a class of his favourite tipple, swirling it thoughtfully in his hand. The public has voted 59.7 to 40.3 for the government’s deal; a mashup of chequers and Canada +++. Both of the main parties knew losing a knife edge vote in the commons was unpalatable, so threw the question back to the people. The choice was stark; Accept a shoddy deal or reject and welcome a government resignation and chaotic general election.
Our protagonist and many of his fellow remain supporters couldn’t believe their luck; a re-run. As the arch-remainer Blair had said; “we are the insurgents now”. The campaign was well funded and run in a similar way to the previous leave campaign; lots of promises – a renegotiation, perhaps a better deal in the single market, perhaps a third referendum on remaining with full membership – anything was possible! In contrast, the new leave campaign was the exact opposite; take the deal, you now know what you are getting, or welcome more chaos and a Corbyn government.
The sight of hard left remainers and Nigel Farage campaigning together to reject the government’s deal, albeit for different reasons, was too much for the public. Voter’s reasoned that if these two extremes were on one side, then maybe the government’s compromise wasn’t that bad... Maybe David Cameron was right when he said that the public didn't like politicians banging on about Europe... Ultimately they came out in their droves and said “Enough about Europe; get on with fixing our public services”.
Catching a glimpse of himself in the mirror, the last three years have aged our protagonist beyond his years. He had bet the farm on the second referendum and didn’t even have magic beans to show for it. Climbing into bed he lies restless, eyes bloodshot, and it dawn’s on him... That’s the issue settled for a generation. Perhaps this would be the ways thing are for the rest of his life... But at least with Mays victory vindicating her strategy, Boris couldn’t become PM... Could he?
Interesting abuse of the apostrophe in that final para.
I’ll tell you what she - and more importantly the country - would have gained. We could have had serious detailed practical planning for no deal; serious practical planning for withdrawal and a post-Brexit future. Not airy fairy statements about close relationships but hard-headed practical proposals for NI, for the City, for pharmaceuticals, for the car industry, for the aerospace industry, for agriculture, for transport, for the nuclear industry, for innumerable sectors based on detailed technical knowledge and advice from those who understand those sectors. We could have got advice from people who understood EU rules and the EU’s approach. We could have got advice from people who understand free trade agreements. We could have worked out a proper realistic strategy and different options. We could have come to the talks properly prepared - instead of making it up as we we went along. We could have got ourselves a smidgen of credit for how we went about Brexit instead of looking like gormless unprepared arrogant ninnies.
Here we are - 7 months before we exit - and we’re still negotiating with ourselves.
Even if something is conbled together at the last minute, the way we have gone about it has damaged our standing in the world. It is shaming.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Britain and the EU did not fit easily together but there was a grown up way of going about Brexit. It has not been the one taken by the Tories and they deserve slapping around the face with a rotting wet fish for the way they have behaved.
The problem is May. More time wouldn't have changed that. She wasn't a Brexiteer then got into Number 10 with the vacuous claim that Brexit Means Brexit and had no idea what to do next.
We should have had a PM who'd thought seriously on the subject. Someone who believed in Brexit and saw a viable path to take. Not someone who wanted to obfuscate every decision. We should have had Gove.
May was shit. But she had Boris and Davis and Fox and they were arch-Brexiteers who came up with the square root of fuck all. What viable path did Gove produce before the referendum?
I don’t think we needed someone who believed in Brexit. This wasn’t about electing a Pope where some smidgen of belief is essential. We needed someone who was prepared to do the necessary detailed work of understanding how sensibly to extract Britain from a decades long relationship with the EU and then explaining this to the British people. And if she had reached out to those on the losing side rather than spitting at them she might have got help to counter those who thought that it was all so easy.
But she didn’t, we are where we are and we now face, on top of all this, the prospect of an incompetent Trot becoming PM. FFS!!!
Brexit probably is the most damaging policy since the Second World War because it impacts so many areas, all of them negatively. The economy, the UK's international influence, government effectiveness, the Union settlement will all be impacted in the short, medium and long terms. Suez was a one off with.a relatively limited fallout in terms of policy area and time.
We'll see. For now there's no evidence of that; in fact the only new significant piece of information we have is that the economic damage as a result of the uncertainty has been less than expected.
As so often, our greatest PM of the last 50 years (bar Maggie) probably got it right: 'A mistake, but not a disaster'.
Either way, it was the electorate's choice, not the government's nor the Conservative Party's. There's no getting away from that.
And I haven't discussed the economy yet, where again it's all downside.
There is already plenty of anecdotal evidence of business decisions, and plans in anticipation of decisions, being taken to move activities out of the UK and/or redirect future investment towards the rest of the EU. It is clearly going to be a slow burn. The big mistake of project fear was in suggesting death would come from a heart attack rather than cancer.
There is already plenty of evidence of increased investment in the UK because of brexit as well.
Name one project that is because of Brexit rather than in spite of it.
For any fans of political counterfactuals. I'm not taking the piss, just want to make a creative point about the people's vote group;
Ladies and Gentlemen, picture the scene; 5.30am on 24th June, 2019. A remain voter stares bleary eyed at a class of his favourite tipple, swirling it thoughtfully in his hand. The public has voted 59.7 to 40.3 for the government’s deal; a mashup of chequers and Canada +++. Both of the main parties knew losing a knife edge vote in the commons was unpalatable, so threw the question back to the people. The choice was stark; Accept a shoddy deal or reject and welcome a government resignation and chaotic general election.
Our protagonist and many of his fellow remain supporters couldn’t believe their luck; a re-run. As the arch-remainer Blair had said; “we are the insurgents now”. The campaign was well funded and run in a similar way to the previous leave campaign; lots of promises – a renegotiation, perhaps a better deal in the single market, perhaps a third referendum on remaining with full membership – anything was possible! In contrast, the new leave campaign was the exact opposite; take the deal, you now know what you are getting, or welcome more chaos and a Corbyn government.
The sight of hard left remainers and Nigel Farage campaigning together to reject the government’s deal, albeit for different reasons, was too much for the public. Voter’s reasoned that if these two extremes were on one side, then maybe the government’s compromise wasn’t that bad... Maybe David Cameron was right when he said that the public didn't like politicians banging on about Europe... Ultimately they came out in their droves and said “Enough about Europe; get on with fixing our public services”.
Catching a glimpse of himself in the mirror, the last three years have aged our protagonist beyond his years. He had bet the farm on the second referendum and didn’t even have magic beans to show for it. Climbing into bed he lies restless, eyes bloodshot, and it dawn’s on him... That’s the issue settled for a generation. Perhaps this would be the ways thing are for the rest of his life... But at least with Mays victory vindicating her strategy, Boris couldn’t become PM... Could he?
Interesting abuse of the apostrophe in that final para.
Haha grammar was never my strong point!
Sorry - my reply was churlish and I deleted it - too late though
Not really sure what the question was on your alt-history 2nd referendum? "Accept the deal as outlined" or... what?
I’ll tell you what she - and more importantly the country - would have gained. We could have had serious detailed practical planning for no deal; serious practical planning for withdrawal and a post-Brexit future. Not airy fairy statements about close relationships but hard-headed practical proposals for NI, for the City, for pharmaceuticals, for the car industry, for the aerospace industry, for agriculture, for transport, for the nuclear industry, for innumerable sectors based on detailed technical knowledge and advice from those who understand those sectors. We could have got advice from people who understood EU rules and the EU’s approach. We could have got advice from people who understand free trade agreements. We could have worked out a proper realistic strategy and different options. We could have come to the talks properly prepared - instead of making it up as we we went along. We could have got ourselves a smidgen of credit for how we went about Brexit instead of looking like gormless unprepared arrogant ninnies.
Here we are - 7 months before we exit - and we’re still negotiating with ourselves.
Even if something is conbled together at the last minute, the way we have gone about it has damaged our standing in the world. It is shaming.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Britain and the EU did not fit easily together but there was a grown up way of going about Brexit. It has not been the one taken by the Tories and they deserve slapping around the face with a rotting wet fish for the way they have behaved.
The problem is May. More time wouldn't have changed that. She wasn't a Brexiteer then got into Number 10 with the vacuous claim that Brexit Means Brexit and had no idea what to do next.
We should have had a PM who'd thought seriously on the subject. Someone who believed in Brexit and saw a viable path to take. Not someone who wanted to obfuscate every decision. We should have had Gove.
Corbyn would likely have won the 2017 GE if Gove was his opponent.
Plus the Chequers Deal at the end of the day is probably the only deal which can be done with the EU while at least doing something to respect the key elements of the Leave vote, that would be the case whether May or Gove did it
For any fans of political counterfactuals. I'm not taking the piss, just want to make a creative point about the people's vote group;
Ladies and Gentlemen, picture the scene; 5.30am on 24th June, 2019. A remain voter stares bleary eyed at a class of his favourite tipple, swirling it thoughtfully in his hand. The public has voted 59.7 to 40.3 for the government’s deal; a mashup of chequers and Canada +++. Both of the main parties knew losing a knife edge vote in the commons was unpalatable, so threw the question back to the people. The choice was stark; Accept a shoddy deal or reject and welcome a government resignation and chaotic general election.
Our protagonist and many of his fellow remain supporters couldn’t believe their luck; a re-run. As the arch-remainer Blair had said; “we are the insurgents now”. The campaign was well funded and run in a similar way to the previous leave campaign; lots of promises – a renegotiation, perhaps a better deal in the single market, perhaps a third referendum on remaining with full membership – anything was possible! In contrast, the new leave campaign was the exact opposite; take the deal, you now know what you are getting, or welcome more chaos and a Corbyn government.
The sight of hard left remainers and Nigel Farage campaigning together to reject the government’s deal, albeit for different reasons, was too much for the public. Voter’s reasoned that if these two extremes were on one side, then maybe the government’s compromise wasn’t that bad... Maybe David Cameron was right when he said that the public didn't like politicians banging on about Europe... Ultimately they came out in their droves and said “Enough about Europe; get on with fixing our public services”.
Catching a glimpse of himself in the mirror, the last three years have aged our protagonist beyond his years. He had bet the farm on the second referendum and didn’t even have magic beans to show for it. Climbing into bed he lies restless, eyes bloodshot, and it dawn’s on him... That’s the issue settled for a generation. Perhaps this would be the ways thing are for the rest of his life... But at least with Mays victory vindicating her strategy, Boris couldn’t become PM... Could he?
Interesting abuse of the apostrophe in that final para.
and more importantly the country - would have gained. We could have had serious detailed practical planning for no deal; serious practical planning for withdrawal and a post-Brexit future. Not airy fairy statements about close relationships but hard-headed practical proposals for NI, for the City, for pharmaceuticals, for the car industry, for the aerospace industry, for agriculture, for transport, for the nuclear industry, for innumerable sectors based on detailed technical knowledge and advice from those who understand those sectors. We could have got advice from people who understood EU rules and the EU’s approach. We could have got advice from people who understand free trade agreements. We could have worked out a proper realistic strategy and different options. We could have come to the talks properly prepared - instead of making it up as we we went along. We could have got ourselves a smidgen of credit for how we went about Brexit instead of looking like gormless unprepared arrogant ninnies.
Here we are - 7 months before we exit - and we’re still negotiating with ourselves.
Even if something is conbled together at the last minute, the way we have gone about it has damaged our standing in the world. It is shaming.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Britain and the EU did not fit easily together but there was a grown up way of going about Brexit. It has not been the one taken by the Tories and they deserve slapping around the face with a rotting wet fish for the way they have behaved.
The problem is May. More time wouldn't have changed that. She wasn't a Brexiteer then got into Number 10 with the vacuous claim that Brexit Means Brexit and had no idea what to do next.
We should have had a PM who'd thought seriously on the subject. Someone who believed in Brexit and saw a viable path to take. Not someone who wanted to obfuscate every decision. We should have had Gove.
May was shit. But she had Boris and Davis and Fox and they were arch-Brexiteers who came up with the square root of fuck all. What viable path did Gove produce before the referendum?
I don’t think we needed someone who believed in Brexit. This wasn’t about electing a Pope where some smidgen of belief is essential. We needed someone who was prepared to do the necessary detailed work of understanding how sensibly to extract Britain from a decades long relationship with the EU and then explaining this to the British people. And if she had reached out to those on the losing side rather than spitting at them she might have got help to counter those who thought that it was all so easy.
But she didn’t, we are where we are and we now face, on top of all this, the prospect of an incompetent Trot becoming PM. FFS!!!
Is Cyclefree writing this stuff ? Glad it's after 10pm.
For any fans of political counterfactuals. I'm not taking the piss, just want to make a creative point about the people's vote group;
Ladies and Gentlemen, picture the scene; 5.30am on 24th June, 2019. A remain voter stares bleary eyed at a class of his favourite tipple, swirling it thoughtfully in his hand. The public has voted 59.7 to 40.3 for the government’s deal; a mashup of chequers and Canada +++. Both of the main parties knew losing a knife edge vote in the commons was unpalatable, so threw the question back to the people. The choice was stark; Accept a shoddy deal or reject and welcome a government resignation and chaotic general election.
Our protagonist and many of his fellow remain supporters couldn’t believe their luck; a re-run. As the arch-remainer Blair had said; “we are the insurgents now”. The campaign was well funded and run in a similar way to the previous leave campaign; lots of promises – a renegotiation, perhaps a better deal in the single market, perhaps a third referendum on remaining with full membership – anything was possible! In contrast, the new leave campaign was the exact opposite; take the deal, you now know what you are getting, or welcome more chaos and a Corbyn government.
The sight of hard left remainers and Nigel Farage campaigning together to reject the government’s deal, albeit for different reasons, was too much for the public. Voter’s reasoned that if these two extremes were on one side, then maybe the government’s compromise wasn’t that bad... Maybe David Cameron was right when he said that the public didn't like politicians banging on about Europe... Ultimately they came out in their droves and said “Enough about Europe; get on with fixing our public services”.
Catching a glimpse of himself in the mirror, the last three years have aged our protagonist beyond his years. He had bet the farm on the second referendum and didn’t even have magic beans to show for it. Climbing into bed he lies restless, eyes bloodshot, and it dawn’s on him... That’s the issue settled for a generation. Perhaps this would be the ways thing are for the rest of his life... But at least with Mays victory vindicating her strategy, Boris couldn’t become PM... Could he?
Interesting abuse of the apostrophe in that final para.
@Sandpit dealing with purchasing amd logiatics departments of major retailers they are all looking at any and every option to avoid empty shelves. They can't purchase sufficient supplies and transport it in life at any price never mind one that punters can afford, hence their responce back to the government. Believe me, if one of them could gain advantage over the others to save a ha'p'eth in costs in sourcing and shipping, they'd already be doing it
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Interesting info on chicken imports,thanks. The things you learn on PB eh?
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
A not insignificant portion of the UK demand for cheap chicken is for pet food.
Which reminds me, our dog's favourite food is made in Germany. How do I break it to him gently?
It was utterly cack-handed of Mrs May to send the Article 50 letter before she had secured the mandate she needed. That was not down to the voters. That was down to her. She gave away the only real point of leverage Britain had. And for what?
What was the pressing urgency, again?
She left it for 10 months. Difficult to see how she could have procrastinated further, or what would have been gained by delaying. The fundamental road-block was that our EU friends were refusing to negotiate until we pulled the trigger.
I’ll tell you what she - and more importantly the country - would have gained. We could have had serious detailed practical planning for no deal; serious practical planning for withdrawal and a post-Brexit future. Not airy fairy statements about close relationships but hard-headed practical proposals for NI, for the City, for pharmaceuticals, for the car industry, for the aerospace industry, for agriculture, for transport, for the nuclear industry, for innumerable sectors based on detailed technical knowledge and advice from those who understand those sectors. We could have got advice from people who understood EU rules and the EU’s approach. We could have got advice from people who understand free trade agreements. We could have worked out a proper realistic strategy and different options. We could have come to the talks properly prepared - instead of making it up as we we went along. We could have got ourselves a smidgen of credit for how we went about Brexit instead of looking like gormless unprepared arrogant ninnies.
Here we are - 7 months before we exit - and we’re still negotiating with ourselves.
Even if something is conbled together at the last minute, the way we have gone about it has damaged our standing in the world. It is shaming.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Britain and the EU did not fit easily together but there was a grown up way of going about Brexit. It has not been the one taken by the Tories and they deserve slapping around the face with a rotting wet fish for the way they have behaved.
The real reason for lack of preparedness was the sheer arrogance amongst many in the UK that the EU will be pining for a FTA. So there was a strong belief that none of that would be necessary and would be a waste of money and time.
I rather expected a small avalanche of opposing views when I posted such a thing a few posts ago. Now I hardly imagine that this site is the wellspring of all political argument in the nation, but I had hoped to provoke a response.
It caused me to think. What actually is the mechanism by which insightful political thoughts (not that this was one of them) gain an airing? Where are the forums of debate?
Your point could clearly spin off into a debate about political philosophy, and the utility of the traditional left-right frame of political analysis. But, more straightforwardly, the fiercest opposition to 20th century fascism came principally from the left, communists and socialists, and those tempted to collaborate or appease came principally from the soft right, in both Italy and Germany and in what became the Allied countries. Therefore if the left-right frame of analysis has any meaningfulness at all, it cannot make any sense to position naziism on the left. Quite what your point was in making such a suggestion in the first place isn't clear.
Well... I've always thought of the left as 'big government' and the right as 'less government'. I would say I'm on the political right in my views precisely on that basis. As far as I can see this is the best division of right vs left, but maybe others would disagree.
Motive? I was just thinking aloud.
Thanks for replying.
I don't think that your fiercest critics in life are those furthest away from you. I see no reason to polarise on that basis.
I think it's unfortunate that we're on a 1-dimenional political scale. If I like the free-market then apparently I must hate social-equality. If you're on the left then you have to hug trees. This is such a strong theme that despite overwhelming evidence I suspect that the Tories (with 2 female PMs) might score less well than Labour on gender-inequality.
Let's take UKIP - where is that party positioned? 'Far right' is I guess the general view - however that judgement is based on somewhat peripheral statements. Their policies have elements that are small-government, but on the whole they are anything but.
I don't conclude anything from this, other than I'd quite like to see a debate re-emerge that isn't about the acidic issues of race, xenophobia, and equality. These issues are hugely important, but there are issues about economic and governance that are hugely important too. In my view there's no need to so strongly tie the two.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was blarliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
It was utterly cack-handed of Mrs May to send the Article 50 letter before she had secured the mandate she needed. That was not down to the voters. That was down to her. She gave away the only real point of leverage Britain had. And for what?
What was the pressing urgency, again?
She left it for 10 months. Difficult to see how she could have procrastinated further, or what would have been gained by delaying. The fundamental road-block was that our EU friends were refusing to negotiate until we pulled the trigger.
I’ll tell you what she - and more importantly the country - would have gained. We could have had serious detailed practical planning for no deal; serious practical planning for withdrawal and a post-Brexit future. Not airy fairy statements about close relationships but hard-headed practical proposals for NI, for the City, for pharmaceuticals, for the car industry, for the aerospace industry, for agriculture, for transport, for the nuclear industry, for innumerable sectors based on detailed technical knowledge and advice from those who understand those sectors. We could have got advice from people who understood EU rules and the EU’s approach. We could have got advice from people who understand free trade agreements. We could have worked out a proper realistic strategy and different options. We could have come to the talks properly prepared - instead of making it up as we we went along. We could have got ourselves a smidgen of credit for how we went about Brexit instead of looking like gormless unprepared arrogant ninnies.
Here we are - 7 months before we exit - and we’re still negotiating with ourselves.
Even if something is conbled together at the last minute, the way we have gone about it has damaged our standing in the world. It is shaming.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Britain and the EU did not fit easily together but there was a grown up way of going about Brexit. It has not been the one taken by the Tories and they deserve slapping around the face with a rotting wet fish for the way they have behaved.
What is this grown up way of Brexit that does not effectively look like a mirror image of the Chequers Deal given no regulatory alignment and no payments to the EU at all means No Deal Hard Brexit and staying in the Single Market and Customs Union means full free movement and none of our own trade deals thus disrespecting the Leave vote? Do tell.
Pah! I am sure true be-Leavers are happy to go without meds for a couple of years while we adjust.
More an issue of lack of preparation by NHS England with shortages in some areas and stockpiles of medicines in the other
I'd like to see the government blame Brexit chaos on the NHS.
NHS England can be reformed without blaming the frontline NHS staff.
Brexit or no Brexit NHS management needs urgent reform (as do GP contracts where you can get six figure salaries without turning up for work and retire at 55 but that is a different matter)
Your point could clearly spin off into a debat position naziism on the left. Quite what your point was in making such a suggestion in the first place isn't clear.
Well... I've always thought of the left as 'big government' and the right as 'less government'. I would say I'm on the political right in my views precisely on that basis. As far as I can see this is the best division of right vs left, but maybe others would disagree.
Motive? I was just thinking aloud.
Thanks for replying.
I don't think that your fiercest critics in life are those furthest away from you. I see no reason to polarise on that basis.
I think it's unfortunate that we're on a 1-dimenional political scale. If I like the free-market then apparently I must hate social-equality. If you're on the left then you have to hug trees. This is such a strong theme that despite overwhelming evidence I suspect that the Tories (with 2 female PMs) might score less well than Labour on gender-inequality.
Let's take UKIP - where is that party positioned? 'Far right' is I guess the general view - however that judgement is based on somewhat peripheral statements. Their policies have elements that are small-government, but on the whole they are anything but.
I don't conclude anything from this, other than I'd quite like to see a debate re-emerge that isn't about the acidic issues of race, xenophobia, and equality. These issues are hugely important, but there are issues about economic and governance that are hugely important too. In my view there's no need to so strongly tie the two.
Left-right conflates a view of economics (state control v free markets) with other dimensions such as authoritarian-libertarian or collective-individual. Most serious analysis takes place over two dimensions, but there are varying models as to what the two dimensions should be. Economically left/right and authoritarian/libertarian is perhaps the most common 2D plot, putting communism and fascism as the ultimate authoritarian parties top left and top right. Identifying truly libertarian parties is the difficult bit - the LibDems would be closest to libertarian centre; Labour is heading authoritarian left, the Tories arguably mid-scale right. UKIP might once have been a libertarian right party (as under Sked) but its manifesto can't really be described as libertarian. Libertarian left doesn't really seem to exist.
I rather expected a small avalanche of opposing views when I posted such a thing a few posts ago. Now I hardly imagine that this site is the wellspring of all political argument in the nation, but I had hoped to provoke a response.
It caused me to think. What actually is the mechanism by which insightful political thoughts (not that this was one of them) gain an airing? Where are the forums of debate?
Your point could clearly spin off into a debate about political philosophy, and the utility of the traditional left-right frame of political analysis. But, more straightforwardly, the fiercest opposition to 20th century fascism came principally from the left, communists and socialists, and those tempted to collaborate or appease came principally from the soft right, in both Italy and Germany and in what became the Allied countries. Therefore if the left-right frame of analysis has any meaningfulness at all, it cannot make any sense to position naziism on the left. Quite what your point was in making such a suggestion in the first place isn't clear.
Well... I've always thought of the left as 'big government' and the right as 'less government'. I would say I'm on the political right in my views precisely on that basis. As far as I can see this is the best division of right vs left, but maybe others would disagree.
Motive? I was just thinking aloud.
Thanks for replying.
I don't think that your fiercest critics in life are those furthest away from you. I see no reason to polarise on that basis.
I think it's unfortunate that we're on a 1-dimenional political scale. If I like the free-market then apparently I must hate social-equality. If you're on the left then you have to hug trees. This is such a strong theme that despite overwhelming evidence I suspect that the Tories (with 2 female PMs) might score less well than Labour on gender-inequality.
Let's take UKIP - where is that party positioned? 'Far right' is I guess the general view - however that judgement is based on somewhat peripheral statements. Their policies have elements that are small-government, but on the whole they are anything but.
I don't conclude anything from this, other than I'd quite like to see a debate re-emerge that isn't about the acidic issues of race, xenophobia, and equality. These issues are hugely important, but there are issues about economic and governance that are hugely important too. In my view there's no need to so strongly tie the two.
I think your view that 'right' equates to less government is mistaken. Plenty of historic examples of right-wing governments across the world imposing more, not less government, e.g. Franco's Spain.
I have to take issue with your last paragraph since it commits a fundamental error by inferring that 'the electorate' makes a choice. It does not - 46 million individual voters make an individual choice. It is wrong to treat the electorate as a single sentient being.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
The fact that it was so obvious that May wanted a large majority in order to do whatever she wanted on Brexit, regardless of potential parliamentary opposition, was one of the contributing factors in driving people in the opposite direction, and particularly in driving remainers towards Labour, seen as the only alternative governmental choice, rather than the LibDems.
Indeed so. My point exactly. Those people can hardly complain, can they? Yet complain they do, and the more enthusiastic they were to deny her her mandate, the more they complain about the the consequences of denying her her mandate.
The problem is May. More time wouldn't have changed that. She wasn't a Brexiteer then got into Number 10 with the vacuous claim that Brexit Means Brexit and had no idea what to do next.
We should have had a PM who'd thought seriously on the subject. Someone who believed in Brexit and saw a viable path to take. Not someone who wanted to obfuscate every decision. We should have had Gove.
May was shit. But she had Boris and Davis and Fox and they were arch-Brexiteers who came up with the square root of fuck all. What viable path did Gove produce before the referendum?
I don’t think we needed someone who believed in Brexit. This wasn’t about electing a Pope where some smidgen of belief is essential. We needed someone who was prepared to do the necessary detailed work of understanding how sensibly to extract Britain from a decades long relationship with the EU and then explaining this to the British people. And if she had reached out to those on the losing side rather than spitting at them she might have got help to counter those who thought that it was all so easy.
But she didn’t, we are where we are and we now face, on top of all this, the prospect of an incompetent Trot becoming PM. FFS!!!
I would say this government doesn't lack competence so much as lack honesty. It won't - maybe cannot - tell the public that the Brexit it voted for is undeliverable. So it doubles down and pretends the mess is Brexit delivered. No-one is fooled but no-one faces up to the truth of the situation either.
Comments
The majority who voted Leave will not give it much thought. I was endlessly told on the doorstep while campaigning for it that the first few years would be tough.
Answer: FX reserves. $164 billion will pay for quite a lot of Ottolenghi recipes.
Thankfully we have a free market and every supermarket is worried that their competitor has supply chains sorted out in case we can not get food from the EU. They will all have contingency plans to keep the shelves stocked.
What happened in Russia when they banned imports of the food from the EU will happen here.
First increased buying from external markets. I walk round Aldi and there is food from Africa, Middle East, South/Central America and Asia. They already know where to go as they buy from them already. Secondly we will go down the quality scale. At the moment the supermarkets want only grade 1, if food is scare then the supermarkets will stock lower grades and 30% of food production here is lower grade, let alone what the RoW produces. This means that the fresh grade 2 toms that go into food processing will be replaced by imported tinned toms which do not care if they spent a couple of weeks in customs.
Then finally we will put all this set aside land that CAP insists on back into production, for cereals and veg and salads takes one year. How do we know this because when Spain had a wet winter and could not supply salads and veggies the supermarkets changed supply to here, Waitrose opens a new salad plant in Evesham, Thanet Earth added 2 new greenhouses.
The ingenuity of the leavers is a joy to behold.
There may well be short term disruptions to supply of certain products, but people won’t be starving and retailers will find ways to get goods on the shelves, even if it means using different suppliers, different routes and some temporary warehousing. If push really comes to shove we could eat shitty American food for a few weeks.
I’ve said before that I think there’s there’s more chance of Waitrose in Dubai having empty shelves (mostly UK food exports) than Waitrose in the U.K.
@benpointer yes, Thai and Braziliam chicken is cheap. Which is why it gets imported. Because ordinary punters can't afford the good stuff
@Sean_F use any port you like. Ask Zeebrugge how they will manage to process customs or standards checks on all the produce they import into the UK. Its the length of time that checks take thats the issue not the location
Every Leaver of my acquaintance adopted the Fox/Davis line: 'they need us more than wee need them', 'German carmakers will ensure we have a free trade deal', 'easiest deal in the world' etc. etc.
And I haven't discussed the economy yet, where again it's all downside.
We could have worked out a proper realistic strategy and different options. We could have come to the talks properly prepared - instead of making it up as we we went along. We could have got ourselves a smidgen of credit for how we went about Brexit instead of looking like gormless unprepared arrogant ninnies.
Here we are - 7 months before we exit - and we’re still negotiating with ourselves.
Even if something is conbled together at the last minute, the way we have gone about it has damaged our standing in the world. It is shaming.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Britain and the EU did not fit easily together but there was a grown up way of going about Brexit. It has not been the one taken by the Tories and they deserve slapping around the face with a rotting wet fish for the way they have behaved.
Seems like Brazilian & Thai chicken is mainly used for processed chicken products (does that = ready meals?). Found this 2016 report on PoultryWorld.net:
UK poultry consumption on the increase
On the other hand, total consumption of poultry meat in the UK, including turkey and to a much lesser extent duck and geese, grew from 2.07 MT in 2011 to 2.13 MT in 2014 before jumping to 2.306 MT last year, thus creating an ever larger gap between demand and supply. As a result, the UK had to import 939,000 tonnes of poultry meat, which was almost 8% more than in 2014. British exports of poultry meat further declined to just 323,000 tonnes.
The largest portion of these imports is fresh or frozen chicken and other poultry meat, of which the UK last year had to buy 438,000 tonnes in other countries. The Netherlands supplied 190,500 tonnes or 43% of total imports in this category. Last year, Dutch exports of this meat to the UK was 7% higher than in the 2 previous years. Other major suppliers are Poland which sent 65,500 tonnes to the British market, followed by Ireland, Germany and Belgium. However, imports of processed poultry products mostly come from much further away, with Thailand supplying 127,200 tonnes and Brasil 42,200 tonnes.
Lots of noise but no real movement.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/motorway-used-13-mile-lorry-13009526
Ladies and Gentlemen, picture the scene; 5.30am on 24th June, 2019. A remain voter stares bleary eyed at a class of his favourite tipple, swirling it thoughtfully in his hand. The public has voted 59.7 to 40.3 for the government’s deal; a mashup of chequers and Canada +++. Both of the main parties knew losing a knife edge vote in the commons was unpalatable, so threw the question back to the people. The choice was stark; Accept a shoddy deal or reject and welcome a government resignation and chaotic general election.
Our protagonist and many of his fellow remain supporters couldn’t believe their luck; a re-run. As the arch-remainer Blair had said; “we are the insurgents now”. The campaign was well funded and run in a similar way to the previous leave campaign; lots of promises – a renegotiation, perhaps a better deal in the single market, perhaps a third referendum on remaining with full membership – anything was possible! In contrast, the new leave campaign was the exact opposite; take the deal, you now know what you are getting, or welcome more chaos and a Corbyn government.
The sight of hard left remainers and Nigel Farage campaigning together to reject the government’s deal, albeit for different reasons, was too much for the public. Voter’s reasoned that if these two extremes were on one side, then maybe the government’s compromise wasn’t that bad... Maybe David Cameron was right when he said that the public didn't like politicians banging on about Europe... Ultimately they came out in their droves and said “Enough about Europe; get on with fixing our public services”.
Catching a glimpse of himself in the mirror, the last three years have aged our protagonist beyond his years. He had bet the farm on the second referendum and didn’t even have magic beans to show for it. Climbing into bed he lies restless, eyes bloodshot, and it dawn’s on him... That’s the issue settled for a generation. Perhaps this would be the ways thing are for the rest of his life... But at least with Mays victory vindicating her strategy, Boris couldn’t become PM... Could he?
We should have had a PM who'd thought seriously on the subject. Someone who believed in Brexit and saw a viable path to take. Not someone who wanted to obfuscate every decision. We should have had Gove.
http://hurryupharry.org/2018/08/13/corbyn-and-munich/
Here is the new Alloy Wheel plant in Scotland.
https://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/24058/green-light-130m-lochaber-alloy-wheels-plant/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-21/malcolm-turnbull-at-mercy-of-small-ruthless-rump-leadership/10144964
Deleted
I don’t think we needed someone who believed in Brexit. This wasn’t about electing a Pope where some smidgen of belief is essential. We needed someone who was prepared to do the necessary detailed work of understanding how sensibly to extract Britain from a decades long relationship with the EU and then explaining this to the British people. And if she had reached out to those on the losing side rather than spitting at them she might have got help to counter those who thought that it was all so easy.
But she didn’t, we are where we are and we now face, on top of all this, the prospect of an incompetent Trot becoming PM. FFS!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/08/mclaren-automotive-manufacturing-plant-sheffield-200-jobs
Not really sure what the question was on your alt-history 2nd referendum? "Accept the deal as outlined" or... what?
Plus the Chequers Deal at the end of the day is probably the only deal which can be done with the EU while at least doing something to respect the key elements of the Leave vote, that would be the case whether May or Gove did it
How wrong they were !
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1031647415265357824
Well... I've always thought of the left as 'big government' and the right as 'less government'. I would say I'm on the political right in my views precisely on that basis. As far as I can see this is the best division of right vs left, but maybe others would disagree.
Motive? I was just thinking aloud.
Thanks for replying.
I don't think that your fiercest critics in life are those furthest away from you. I see no reason to polarise on that basis.
I think it's unfortunate that we're on a 1-dimenional political scale. If I like the free-market then apparently I must hate social-equality. If you're on the left then you have to hug trees. This is such a strong theme that despite overwhelming evidence I suspect that the Tories (with 2 female PMs) might score less well than Labour on gender-inequality.
Let's take UKIP - where is that party positioned? 'Far right' is I guess the general view - however that judgement is based on somewhat peripheral statements. Their policies have elements that are small-government, but on the whole they are anything but.
I don't conclude anything from this, other than I'd quite like to see a debate re-emerge that isn't about the acidic issues of race, xenophobia, and equality. These issues are hugely important, but there are issues about economic and governance that are hugely important too. In my view there's no need to so strongly tie the two.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7059820/jeremy-corbyn-aide-oust-pro-israel-mp-guide/
staff.
Brexit or no Brexit NHS management needs urgent reform (as do GP contracts where you can get six figure salaries without turning up for work and retire at 55 but that is a different matter)