Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
*if true* someone should be strung up. You cannot bend to fanaticism. It doesn't discourage it encourages it
Appalling - but why exactly would she want to come and get asylum here. She wouldn't be entirely safe here either would she - as the article makes clear about similar cases. She is a Catholic - and there are plenty of alternatives.
> Unfortunately, what also hasn’t changed are the other irreconcilable aspects of Brexit. The EU and Ireland still demand an open border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland; the DUP demand no regulatory dealignment between NI and GB; Tory MPs demand the ability to diverge from the EU; the EU insists that its external Customs Union border must be consistent.
This is a good summary. I think the path of least resistance is to work around the Tory MPs. It'll be a fairly small minority who are prepared to vote for "fuck everything, let it all burn", so TMay will have to ask other MPs what concessions they need to get them to vote in favour or abstain and give them to them. If she plays her cards right she'll be able to bring some of the rebels back over to her side to minimize the concessions.
Yes, but if her side is in effect BINO and leaves us as a 'vassal state' with only the disadvantages of leaving, many would conclude that it would be better to stay. See statements by prominent Brexiteers.
> Unfortunately, what also hasn’t changed are the other irreconcilable aspects of Brexit. The EU and Ireland still demand an open border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland; the DUP demand no regulatory dealignment between NI and GB; Tory MPs demand the ability to diverge from the EU; the EU insists that its external Customs Union border must be consistent.
This is a good summary. I think the path of least resistance is to work around the Tory MPs. It'll be a fairly small minority who are prepared to vote for "fuck everything, let it all burn", so TMay will have to ask other MPs what concessions they need to get them to vote in favour or abstain and give them to them. If she plays her cards right she'll be able to bring some of the rebels back over to her side to minimize the concessions.
Yes, but if her side is in effect BINO and leaves us as a 'vassal state' with only the disadvantages of leaving, many would conclude that it would be better to stay. See statements by prominent Brexiteers.
That depends on why people support Leave.
For most people I suggest it was to get more control over immigration and/or a bit more money for the NHS.
And not to allow Liam Fox to conduct trade deals.
But for some prominent Brexiteers the opposite applies.
Isn't it the fault of the people who commit the crimes? Its too simple blaming poverty - as not all poor areas are seeing this problem on the same scale.
Also London has had some of the smallest cuts in police numbers proportionately - and the Mayor is adding 1,000 back this year reversing much of that loss. If its all about police cuts why is the biggest problem occurring in the place with the smallest reductions?
Of course one thing we can't discuss is the impact of family breakdown and fatherless households - resulting in young men finding what they lack at home in gangs (male role models).
and poverty is lower across the board from a decade ago.
Interesting. I am not saying you're wrong (I don't know) but what do you base that assertion on?
Pretty much all the ons figures. Child poverty, pensioner poverty, working poverty out of work poverty of all have seen a reduction from 2010 or at worst the same.
Thanks. I am sure poverty doesn't help (I don't get the feeling many middle class kids get mixed up with this) but I agree it's unlikely to be the whole story.
A quick web search found an old Mirror interview that described Corbyn as an occasional wine drinker. It is possible he's given it up since. Either way, I can't see it shifting many votes.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
How do you suggest we respond? Bomb them to make them send us metformin? Drop the Paras in to take the factory under military control?
If you think it is war, then warfare would be the solution, yes? But we do not have the military capacity to force them to sell us stuff. We are capable of self-sufficiency but that will take years and will displace other economic activity in the meantime. This is not a happy outcome, to put it mildly.
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
Agreed. Even if you get the numbers wrong it forces you to think things through more concretely.
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
You're missing the point. It's not that the EU would block exports, it's that those exports would get blocked in the chaos arising from a Hard Brexit clogging up the ports.
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
To intentionally do so would.
To inflict the same situation on ourselves in peace time, with no external enemy, due to poor planning and organisation would just be a humiliating admission that we have got things terribly wrong.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
Remind me again who coined the phrase "failing and blaming"?
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
What does that even mean? We are members of the club, which we have played a big part in shaping. Now we've decided to leave. How is that is possibly the EU's fault?
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
You're missing the point. It's not that the EU would block exports, it's that those exports would get blocked in the chaos arising from a Hard Brexit clogging up the ports.
Quite. It's not about anyone doing anything deliberately. In the short-term confusion, blockages, panic (from a bureaucratic point of view) we will have a very dynamic "free market" (i.e. anyone wanting medicines with the money to pay will get them, poorer people? Probably not). I'm sure the free marketeers will be delighted. As long as no-one turns up at their doors with pitchforks and torches, of course...
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
How do you suggest we respond? Bomb them to make them send us metformin? Drop the Paras in to take the factory under military control?
If you think it is war, then warfare would be the solution, yes? But we do not have the military capacity to force them to sell us stuff. We are capable of self-sufficiency but that will take years and will displace other economic activity in the meantime. This is not a happy outcome, to put it mildly.
It would be a hostile act. They are trying to salt the earth. They are no longer our colleagues but our competitors. Not even sure if they can be considered friends anymore. If this happens we will never rejoin.
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
How do you suggest we respond? Bomb them to make them send us metformin? Drop the Paras in to take the factory under military control?
If you think it is war, then warfare would be the solution, yes? But we do not have the military capacity to force them to sell us stuff. We are capable of self-sufficiency but that will take years and will displace other economic activity in the meantime. This is not a happy outcome, to put it mildly.
It would be a hostile act. They are trying to salt the earth. They are no longer our colleagues but our competitors. Not even sure if they can be considered friends anymore. If this happens we will never rejoin.
So (and please correct me if I'm wrong), your response would to be to...do nothing.
A quick web search found an old Mirror interview that described Corbyn as an occasional wine drinker. It is possible he's given it up since. Either way, I can't see it shifting many votes.
Well, if he is elected I, for one, will be taking to the bottle.
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
You're missing the point. It's not that the EU would block exports, it's that those exports would get blocked in the chaos arising from a Hard Brexit clogging up the ports.
It would represent a failure of UK Govt. planning as much as anything. It's not as if it was caught on the hop overnight. It has had many months to plan. If it hasn't, then the Transport Minister should have been fired, not allowed to flounce off....
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
How do you suggest we respond? Bomb them to make them send us metformin? Drop the Paras in to take the factory under military control?
If you think it is war, then warfare would be the solution, yes? But we do not have the military capacity to force them to sell us stuff. We are capable of self-sufficiency but that will take years and will displace other economic activity in the meantime. This is not a happy outcome, to put it mildly.
It would be a hostile act. They are trying to salt the earth. They are no longer our colleagues but our competitors. Not even sure if they can be considered friends anymore. If this happens we will never rejoin.
Indeed. The behaviour of the EU in the last two years has hardly engendered warm feelings towards them. A more conciliatory approach may have caused more leavers to have second thoughts. With friends like these, etc.
Ben Bradshaw on Any Questions at lunchtime said there was a majority in Parliament for EUref2 over No Deal and he and yellow Remainer MPs would vote for it and try and force it through at all costs even if it provoked a constitutional crisis and clash with the Executive.
Meanwhile Sturgeon of course would likely call an indyref2 either before Brexit Day or in the months after if No Deal looked likely perhaps even declaring UDI if necessary and the economy and stock market could also crash with No Deal. So we could be facing the biggest economic collapse since the 2008 crash, the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez and the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication and the biggest threat to the UK since the Irish War of Independence all at the same time
That might also apply to his making a presidential bid, but that the risk/return calculation for both him and the Democrats would be far less compelling.
Thanks.
And there is this:
" “Texas has been four years away from being competitive for 40 years,” said Peter Ernaut, a veteran Republican strategist who has advised Nevada Gov. "
And it will be a whole different ballgame running against longstanding and popular senior senator John Cornyn in 2020. He won by 27% in 2014 - compared to a lead of only 16% for Cruz two years earlier.
Clearly who the candidates are matters - as the Republican Governor won by 13 per cent compared to Cruz's lead of only 3 per cent in the same state on Tuesday.
Beto may not find it so easy against Cornyn. We will never quite know how much was a pro Beto or anti Cruz vote - as 400,000 fewer Texans voted Republican in the senate vs the Governorship.
Beto may wait to run for Texas Governor in 2022 and just stay in the House of Representatives for now
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
there wont be a shortage of meds or food .. its all bullshit. business will do what business needs to do.
Businesses will get their lorries to fly over gridlocked motorways?
I remember one Brexpert on here looking on Google Maps to prove Honda UK could build a runway in their car park in Swindon.
That wasn't me, but having flown directly over Honda in Swindon three weeks ago at 1700 feet, I can confirm that they already have a (disused) runway. Not that it looks that useful for cargo planes, to be fair.
(I'd like to add that I'm actually working towards my microlight licence, learning out of Redland Airfield near Swindon - I'm not so dedicated to this site that I actually hired a private aircraft to go and check for people...)
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
You're missing the point. It's not that the EU would block exports, it's that those exports would get blocked in the chaos arising from a Hard Brexit clogging up the ports.
It would represent a failure of UK Govt. planning as much as anything. It's not as if it was caught on the hop overnight. It has had many months to plan. If it hasn't, then the Transport Minister should have been fired, not allowed to flounce off....
Brexit enthusiasts appear to be notably lacking in skills other than the allocation of responsibility and blame to anyone but themselves. I assume it’s all part of the myth creation they need to perform to account for their underlying malfeasance and incompetence.
Who would you rather believe? A QC or Corbyn. I know whom I would place my trust in and it isn't Corbyn. He has history about being economical with the truth. Corbyn's aren't terminological inexactitudes either.
What this poll from gold standard Survation suggests is that as No Deal becomes more likely we are heading for a Corbyn premiership but without a Labour majority and with Corbyn reliant on the SNP for confidence and supply and the LDs to get any legislation through, that leads to soft Brexit or even EUref2
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
You're missing the point. It's not that the EU would block exports, it's that those exports would get blocked in the chaos arising from a Hard Brexit clogging up the ports.
It would represent a failure of UK Govt. planning as much as anything. It's not as if it was caught on the hop overnight. It has had many months to plan. If it hasn't, then the Transport Minister should have been fired, not allowed to flounce off....
But the SoS for Transport is, er, Grayling.
It was reported in July that the NHS will pay to stockpile drugs and that short shelf-life drugs will be flown in if it all goes pear-shaped. No doubt that money comes from the already too low NHS budget which has barely increased in real terms since 2010 ...
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
What does that even mean? We are members of the club, which we have played a big part in shaping. Now we've decided to leave. How is that is possibly the EU's fault?
Us deciding to leave has of course got a hell of a lot to do with the EU.
It has been clear for a very long time that they are determined to make life difficult for the UK and yes for people living in the UK to encourage the likes of Italy to remain.
The EU care fuck all about what damage its actions have on people, we have more than enough evidence of this already.
Yet we should remain because leaving is to difficult?
Who would you rather believe? A QC or Corbyn. I know whom I would place my trust in and it isn't Corbyn. He has history about being economical with the truth. Corbyn's aren't terminological inexactitudes either.
Maugham is a fanatical remain support who has been driven insane by Brexit. Of course he wants to gripe at Corbyn.
Who would you rather believe? A QC or Corbyn. I know whom I would place my trust in and it isn't Corbyn. He has history about being economical with the truth. Corbyn's aren't terminological inexactitudes either.
Maugham is a fanatical remain support who has been driven insane by Brexit. Of course he wants to gripe at Corbyn.
To the extent that he's hallucinating about Corbyn's drinking habits?
Us deciding to leave has of course got a hell of a lot to do with the EU.
It has been clear for a very long time that they are determined to make life difficult for the UK and yes for people living in the UK to encourage the likes of Italy to remain.
The EU care fuck all about what damage its actions have on people, we have more than enough evidence of this already.
Yet we should remain because leaving is to difficult?
fuck that - it can be done and it should be done.
We are doing it. Unfortunately we do not seem to have a government that is capable of analysing the problems caused by leave and emplacing solutions to ameliorate those problems. The problem is not LEAVE per se, it is the inability of government to cope with it.
It's worth recalling the purpose of Article 50, which is to provide an accelerated means of agreeing stuff as we head for the exit. The EU offer was a simple one: money, citizen rights and a commitment to no divergence on the Irish border in exchange for a time limited extension of current arrangements while we sort out longer term arrangements. If we don't agree these items now they will be carried forward to after we leave when the process will be a lot more difficult. The UK government tried to complicate things by bringing trading arrangements, customs unions and the like into the mix. If we can't agree the simple deal, we're certainly not going to agree the complicated one.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world. .
Who would you rather believe? A QC or Corbyn. I know whom I would place my trust in and it isn't Corbyn. He has history about being economical with the truth. Corbyn's aren't terminological inexactitudes either.
Maugham is a fanatical remain support who has been driven insane by Brexit. Of course he wants to gripe at Corbyn.
To the extent that he's hallucinating about Corbyn's drinking habits?
Politicians and lawyers, two cheeks of the same arse!
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
- minus half a million who are not yet diagnosed - minus half a million who are type I not type 2 - minus 15-20% Type 2s who are not on Metformin
equals about 2.5 million not 4 million.
Never mind that there are these things known as aircraft for hire, and then cargo on passenger planes, and a dozen or more different versions of metformin as licensed or generic drugs some of which are not in the EU, before we even start talking about emergencies...
We've had this once with scare stories about Insulin, even after Sir Michael Rawlins clarified the position within 3 days, and the industry made clear than plans were in place. Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
You're missing the point. It's not that the EU would block exports, it's that those exports would get blocked in the chaos arising from a Hard Brexit clogging up the ports.
It would represent a failure of UK Govt. planning as much as anything. It's not as if it was caught on the hop overnight. It has had many months to plan. If it hasn't, then the Transport Minister should have been fired, not allowed to flounce off....
But the SoS for Transport is, er, Grayling.
It was reported in July that the NHS will pay to stockpile drugs and that short shelf-life drugs will be flown in if it all goes pear-shaped. No doubt that money comes from the already too low NHS budget which has barely increased in real terms since 2010 ...
Johnson was a Minister for Transport until yesterday.
The money will come not from the NHS but from the fifteen billion or so the Chancellor is sat on as a contingency fund for Brexit.
That might also apply to his making a presidential bid, but that the risk/return calculation for both him and the Democrats would be far less compelling.
Thanks.
And there is this:
" “Texas has been four years away from being competitive for 40 years,” said Peter Ernaut, a veteran Republican strategist who has advised Nevada Gov. "
And it will be a whole different ballgame running against longstanding and popular senior senator John Cornyn in 2020. He won by 27% in 2014 - compared to a lead of only 16% for Cruz two years earlier.
Clearly who the candidates are matters - as the Republican Governor won by 13 per cent compared to Cruz's lead of only 3 per cent in the same state on Tuesday.
Beto may not find it so easy against Cornyn. We will never quite know how much was a pro Beto or anti Cruz vote - as 400,000 fewer Texans voted Republican in the senate vs the Governorship.
Beto may wait to run for Texas Governor in 2022 and just stay in the House of Representatives for now
O Rourke wasn't allowed to run for re-election to the House as he was running for the Senate - so will cease to be a member of Congress in January. So he is a free agent.
It's worth recalling the purpose of Article 50, which is to provide an accelerated means of agreeing stuff as we head for the exit. The EU offer was a simple one: money, citizen rights and a commitment to no divergence on the Irish border in exchange for a time limited extension of current arrangements while we sort out longer term arrangements. If we don't agree these items now they will be carried forward to after we leave when the process will be a lot more difficult. The UK government tried to complicate things by bringing trading arrangements, customs unions and the like into the mix. If we can't agree the simple deal, we're certainly not going to agree the complicated one.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world. .
Implying that the EU is the only game in town when it comes to cooperation. Other states manage to interact with the EU despite not being members of it.
It's worth recalling the purpose of Article 50, which is to provide an accelerated means of agreeing stuff as we head for the exit. The EU offer was a simple one: money, citizen rights and a commitment to no divergence on the Irish border in exchange for a time limited extension of current arrangements while we sort out longer term arrangements. If we don't agree these items now they will be carried forward to after we leave when the process will be a lot more difficult. The UK government tried to complicate things by bringing trading arrangements, customs unions and the like into the mix. If we can't agree the simple deal, we're certainly not going to agree the complicated one.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world. .
Implying that the EU is the only game in town when it comes to cooperation. Other states manage to interact with the EU despite not being members of it.
We are used to, and continue to demand, a lot more than the level of interaction that non-members are able to achieve.
That wasn't me, but having flown directly over Honda in Swindon three weeks ago at 1700 feet, I can confirm that they already have a (disused) runway. Not that it looks that useful for cargo planes, to be fair.
It's worth recalling the purpose of Article 50, which is to provide an accelerated means of agreeing stuff as we head for the exit. The EU offer was a simple one: money, citizen rights and a commitment to no divergence on the Irish border in exchange for a time limited extension of current arrangements while we sort out longer term arrangements. If we don't agree these items now they will be carried forward to after we leave when the process will be a lot more difficult. The UK government tried to complicate things by bringing trading arrangements, customs unions and the like into the mix. If we can't agree the simple deal, we're certainly not going to agree the complicated one.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world. .
Implying that the EU is the only game in town when it comes to cooperation. Other states manage to interact with the EU despite not being members of it.
We are used to, and continue to demand, a lot more than the level of interaction that non-members are able to achieve.
FF43 implies the whole system will be destroyed, which is a tad hyperbolic. Yes, we want to continue a close trading relationship. If they don't, fine.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
there wont be a shortage of meds or food .. its all bullshit. business will do what business needs to do.
Business will import what business is able to import. It cannot get round long customs delays and gridlocked traffic.
Meds are light weight and can be flown into the country.
A packet of diabetic medicine (eg janumet, metformin) measures about 12x5x4cm. Call it about 250 cubic cc's in volume. There are 4 million diabetics in the UK. So that's 250 cubic ccs x 4 million per month . So that's 1 billion cubic ccs per month. There are 1 million cubic ccs in 1 cubic m. So that's 1 thousand cubic metres of diabetic medicine per month.
A A400m has a cargo compartment that's 4m by 3.85m by 17.71m. That's 272 cubic m. Since not all the space at the back is usable and you can't safely pack to the rafters, let's round that to 200 cubic m.
So we'll need five A400Ms per month to service the diabetics. We have 27 and they can fly several times. So the diabetics are fine...
...provided that there's a competent government in place to do all this.
Are the rumours true that leading Brexiteers want diabetics to grow insulin in their back gardens? I am growing a lovely crop of Warfarin and Methotrexate. Hope the frost doesn’t get it.
If you need an antineoplastic, like methotrexate, or a vitamin K agonist like warfarin you don't (just) have diabetes
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
there wont be a shortage of meds or food .. its all bullshit. business will do what business needs to do.
Business will import what business is able to import. It cannot get round long customs delays and gridlocked traffic.
Meds are light weight and can be flown into the country.
A packet of diabetic medicine (eg janumet, metformin) measures about 12x5x4cm. Call it about 250 cubic cc's in volume. There are 4 million diabetics in the UK. So that's 250 cubic ccs x 4 million per month . So that's 1 billion cubic ccs per month. There are 1 million cubic ccs in 1 cubic m. So that's 1 thousand cubic metres of diabetic medicine per month.
A A400m has a cargo compartment that's 4m by 3.85m by 17.71m. That's 272 cubic m. Since not all the space at the back is usable and you can't safely pack to the rafters, let's round that to 200 cubic m.
So we'll need five A400Ms per month to service the diabetics. We have 27 and they can fly several times. So the diabetics are fine...
...provided that there's a competent government in place to do all this.
I suspect the pharma packaging could be reduced in size if needed. My statin tablets ceratinly could be.
No doubt, but that would require a license variation. Have we worked out who is approving licenses once we leave the EMA? Old King Cole? Anyone?
It's worth recalling the purpose of Article 50, which is to provide an accelerated means of agreeing stuff as we head for the exit. The EU offer was a simple one: money, citizen rights and a commitment to no divergence on the Irish border in exchange for a time limited extension of current arrangements while we sort out longer term arrangements. If we don't agree these items now they will be carried forward to after we leave when the process will be a lot more difficult. The UK government tried to complicate things by bringing trading arrangements, customs unions and the like into the mix. If we can't agree the simple deal, we're certainly not going to agree the complicated one.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world. .
Implying that the EU is the only game in town when it comes to cooperation. Other states manage to interact with the EU despite not being members of it.
We are used to, and continue to demand, a lot more than the level of interaction that non-members are able to achieve.
FF43 implies the whole system will be destroyed, which is a tad hyperbolic. Yes, we want to continue a close trading relationship. If they don't, fine.
That might be how you conceive of it, but the reality is much more complex. We "want", and need, an awful lot more than just a "close trading relationship".
"..the red lines and the parliamentary maths won’t be any different for any alternative Tory PM. " I don't think this much matters for a tory PM that accepts "No Deal Is Better than a Bad Deal".
He/she doesn't need to win any Commons votes between now and LiberationDay. If no further legislation is passed, Liberation happens. And as HMG schedules everything (except NC motions) and is the only possible proposer (except Corbyn's 3 remaining opposition days) nothing substantive can be passed.
All the rest is redirecting spending to preparations ie basically admin (after sacking Hammond and any other bedblockers.).
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
there wont be a shortage of meds or food .. its all bullshit. business will do what business needs to do.
Business will import what business is able to import. It cannot get round long customs delays and gridlocked traffic.
Meds are light weight and can be flown into the country.
A packet of diabetic medicine (eg janumet, metformin) measures about 12x5x4cm. Call it about 250 cubic cc's in volume. There are 4 million diabetics in the UK. So that's 250 cubic ccs x 4 million per month . So that's 1 billion cubic ccs per month. There are 1 million cubic ccs in 1 cubic m. So that's 1 thousand cubic metres of diabetic medicine per month.
A A400m has a cargo compartment that's 4m by 3.85m by 17.71m. That's 272 cubic m. Since not all the space at the back is usable and you can't safely pack to the rafters, let's round that to 200 cubic m.
So we'll need five A400Ms per month to service the diabetics. We have 27 and they can fly several times. So the diabetics are fine...
...provided that there's a competent government in place to do all this.
I suspect the pharma packaging could be reduced in size if needed. My statin tablets ceratinly could be.
No doubt, but that would require a license variation. Have we worked out who is approving licenses once we leave the EMA? Old King Cole? Anyone?
You'd expect the MHRA would play a role.
As they already exist.
I wonder if they are recruiting any of the staff that have deserted the EMA recently.
It's worth recalling the purpose of Article 50, which is to provide an accelerated means of agreeing stuff as we head for the exit. The EU offer was a simple one: money, citizen rights and a commitment to no divergence on the Irish border in exchange for a time limited extension of current arrangements while we sort out longer term arrangements. If we don't agree these items now they will be carried forward to after we leave when the process will be a lot more difficult. The UK government tried to complicate things by bringing trading arrangements, customs unions and the like into the mix. If we can't agree the simple deal, we're certainly not going to agree the complicated one.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world. .
I have no idea how Brexit-if it even happens- will turn out, but to say that the EU is the only thing holding the world together is a little bit hysterical.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
there wont be a shortage of meds or food .. its all bullshit. business will do what business needs to do.
Business will import what business is able to import. It cannot get round long customs delays and gridlocked traffic.
Meds are light weight and can be flown into the country.
A packet of diabetic medicine (eg janumet, metformin) measures about 12x5x4cm. Call it about 250 cubic cc's in volume. There are 4 million diabetics in the UK. So that's 250 cubic ccs x 4 million per month . So that's 1 billion cubic ccs per month. There are 1 million cubic ccs in 1 cubic m. So that's 1 thousand cubic metres of diabetic medicine per month.
A A400m has a cargo compartment that's 4m by 3.85m by 17.71m. That's 272 cubic m. Since not all the space at the back is usable and you can't safely pack to the rafters, let's round that to 200 cubic m.
So we'll need five A400Ms per month to service the diabetics. We have 27 and they can fly several times. So the diabetics are fine...
...provided that there's a competent government in place to do all this.
I suspect the pharma packaging could be reduced in size if needed. My statin tablets ceratinly could be.
No doubt, but that would require a license variation. Have we worked out who is approving licenses once we leave the EMA? Old King Cole? Anyone?
Surely doesn't need a licence variation to change the packaging size. Different pharma suppliers already have different sized packaging for the same tablets.
Packaging designs are approved. It's not quite the same process as a license variation, but they need to be reviewed by the regulators. The labels (the piece of paper inside the package that no one ever reads) is heavily negotiated.
It's worth recalling the purpose of Article 50, which is to provide an accelerated means of agreeing stuff as we head for the exit. The EU offer was a simple one: money, citizen rights and a commitment to no divergence on the Irish border in exchange for a time limited extension of current arrangements while we sort out longer term arrangements. If we don't agree these items now they will be carried forward to after we leave when the process will be a lot more difficult. The UK government tried to complicate things by bringing trading arrangements, customs unions and the like into the mix. If we can't agree the simple deal, we're certainly not going to agree the complicated one.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world. .
Implying that the EU is the only game in town when it comes to cooperation. Other states manage to interact with the EU despite not being members of it.
We are used to, and continue to demand, a lot more than the level of interaction that non-members are able to achieve.
FF43 implies the whole system will be destroyed, which is a tad hyperbolic. Yes, we want to continue a close trading relationship. If they don't, fine.
That might be how you conceive of it, but the reality is much more complex. We "want", and need, an awful lot more than just a "close trading relationship".
But even if we don't get what we want, there will still be some level of cooperation on many issues.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
there wont be a shortage of meds or food .. its all bullshit. business will do what business needs to do.
I think many of us are done with simplistic assertions that everything will be alright on the night.
But equally many of us are done with simplistic assertions that everything will go wrong on the night when we've seen so many previous simplistic assertions proved wrong.
Generally its those who predict some sort of muddled middle outcome who are right rather than the posturing extremes.
Given what we've seen over the last two years pessimism is the safer bet. Still now our Brexit Secretary grasped how goods arrive on this island I'm sure it will all go swimmingly.
Yet we haven't seen the promised immediate year long recession, the City relocate to Frankfurt, the refugee camps at Dover and a strawberry shortage for Wimbledon 2017.
So why should we take seriously simplistic assertions that pessimism is the safer bet ?
Which remain politician actually said there would be refugee camps in Dover or that the city would locate to Frankfurt or there would be a Strawberry shortage at Wimbledon?
I certainly know which leave politicians told us the deal would be easy and we held all the cards.
Remainers may have over-egged the pudding in predicting how quickly the effects of Brexit might be felt. We haven't actually left yet, so particularly if we end up without a deal, I would hold on before claiming Project Fear was baseless. Of course the leavers also told us that leaving with no deal was more Project Fear and it now looks like a good bet. I'll stick to my pessimism thanks.
It's worth recalling the purpose of Article 50, which is to provide an accelerated means of agreeing stuff as we head for the exit. The EU offer was a simple one: money, citizen rights and a commitment to no divergence on the Irish border in exchange for a time limited extension of current arrangements while we sort out longer term arrangements. If we don't agree these items now they will be carried forward to after we leave when the process will be a lot more difficult. The UK government tried to complicate things by bringing trading arrangements, customs unions and the like into the mix. If we can't agree the simple deal, we're certainly not going to agree the complicated one.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world. .
Implying that the EU is the only game in town when it comes to cooperation. Other states manage to interact with the EU despite not being members of it.
We are used to, and continue to demand, a lot more than the level of interaction that non-members are able to achieve.
To what benefit? All other 'Five Eyes'/'Anglosphere' nations perform economically as well or better than we do. And much is made by you and your fellow travellers about how well Germany can trade with non-EU nations so why can't we trade with the EU from outside?
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
there wont be a shortage of meds or food .. its all bullshit. business will do what business needs to do.
I think many of us are done with simplistic assertions that everything will be alright on the night.
But equally many of us are done with simplistic assertions that everything will go wrong on the night when we've seen so many previous simplistic assertions proved wrong.
Generally its those who predict some sort of muddled middle outcome who are right rather than the posturing extremes.
Given what we've seen over the last two years pessimism is the safer bet. Still now our Brexit Secretary grasped how goods arrive on this island I'm sure it will all go swimmingly.
Yet we haven't seen the promised immediate year long recession, the City relocate to Frankfurt, the refugee camps at Dover and a strawberry shortage for Wimbledon 2017.
So why should we take seriously simplistic assertions that pessimism is the safer bet ?
Which remain politician actually said there would be refugee camps in Dover or that the city would locate to Frankfurt or there would be a Strawberry shortage at Wimbledon?
I certainly know which leave politicians told us the deal would be easy and we held all the cards.
Remainers may have over-egged the pudding in predicting how quickly the effects of Brexit might be felt. We haven't actually left yet, so particularly if we end up without a deal, I would hold on before claiming Project Fear was baseless. Of course the leavers also told us that leaving with no deal was more Project Fear and it now looks like a good bet. I'll stick to my pessimism thanks.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
This isn't 1940, and we're not at war with the rest of the EU. I'm not quite sure what to make of that line. One of the strangest I've ever seen on this site.
There's an argument that if the EU actively stops planes flying and food/medicine coming in that is tantamount to an act of war
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
there wont be a shortage of meds or food .. its all bullshit. business will do what business needs to do.
I think many of us are done with simplistic assertions that everything will be alright on the night.
But equally many of us are done with simplistic assertions that everything will go wrong on the night when we've seen so many previous simplistic assertions proved wrong.
Generally its those who predict some sort of muddled middle outcome who are right rather than the posturing extremes.
Given what we've seen over the last two years pessimism is the safer bet. Still now our Brexit Secretary grasped how goods arrive on this island I'm sure it will all go swimmingly.
Yet we haven't seen the promised immediate year long recession, the City relocate to Frankfurt, the refugee camps at Dover and a strawberry shortage for Wimbledon 2017.
So why should we take seriously simplistic assertions that pessimism is the safer bet ?
Which remain politician actually said there would be refugee camps in Dover or that the city would locate to Frankfurt or there would be a Strawberry shortage at Wimbledon?
I certainly know which leave politicians told us the deal would be easy and we held all the cards.
Remainers may have over-egged the pudding in predicting how quickly the effects of Brexit might be felt. We haven't actually left yet, so particularly if we end up without a deal, I would hold on before claiming Project Fear was baseless. Of course the leavers also told us that leaving with no deal was more Project Fear and it now looks like a good bet. I'll stick to my pessimism thanks.
That'd be David Cameron.
Perhaps you could provide a link to the actual quotes
Which remain politician actually said there would be refugee camps in Dover or that the city would locate to Frankfurt or there would be a Strawberry shortage at Wimbledon?
I certainly know which leave politicians told us the deal would be easy and we held all the cards.
Remainers may have over-egged the pudding in predicting how quickly the effects of Brexit might be felt. We haven't actually left yet, so particularly if we end up without a deal, I would hold on before claiming Project Fear was baseless. Of course the leavers also told us that leaving with no deal was more Project Fear and it now looks like a good bet. I'll stick to my pessimism thanks.
That'd be David Cameron.
Perhaps you could provide a link to the actual quotes
"David Cameron says Calais refugee camps could move to Kent after EU exit"
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
This isn't 1940, and we're not at war with the rest of the EU. I'm not quite sure what to make of that line. One of the strangest I've ever seen on this site.
There's an argument that if the EU actively stops planes flying and food/medicine coming in that is tantamount to an act of war
The aviation industry expects a brief period of chaos, maybe 2-3 weeks, until a new arrangement is found.
Very well worth reading, particularly the last 5 paragraphs.
The old "reform from within" argument?
Cameron tried that and they weren't interested.
A large majority (I suspect) would support an EU based on Cameron's Bloomberg speech
If the EU were interested in reform, they'd be doing it now.
They aren't.
There was a BBC show after Brexit vote where they interviewed many of the top EU brass and their take was all this is happening because not close enough ties between EU nations, solution reform needed with more things at EU level.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
This isn't 1940, and we're not at war with the rest of the EU. I'm not quite sure what to make of that line. One of the strangest I've ever seen on this site.
There's an argument that if the EU actively stops planes flying and food/medicine coming in that is tantamount to an act of war
The aviation industry expects a brief period of chaos, maybe 2-3 weeks, until a new arrangement is found.
“Brief chaos”. Listen to yourselves.
Edit - I have heard differently, but your view assumes sanity and pragmatism. There’s precious little evidence of that.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
What does that even mean? We are members of the club, which we have played a big part in shaping. Now we've decided to leave. How is that is possibly the EU's fault?
Because they are insisting on the impossible.
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
No, the EU offered several different versions of "this" - Norway's version, Switzerland's version, Turkey's version, Canada's version, WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
If we have a people's vote and stay in the EU, does this mean that David Cameron's deal with the EU is restated, or is it lost?
Lost. Juncker made that clear the day after.
Subject to discussion. Several EU leaders have made it clear that we'd be welcome back on similar terms to those previously agreed (including the rebate etc.). Where I think they'd be sticky would be an insistence that we agree to commit to membership for at least 15-20 years. I can't see them wanting to repeat this business in a few years' time. No Government can bind its successors but a statement of intent would be needed.
Suspect the British public would agree, including many Leavers -they'd rather leave, but wouldn't want to repeat the whole of the last two years any time soon.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
No, the EU offered several different versions of "this" - Norway's version, Switzerland's version, Turkey's version, Canada's version, WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
As long as we leave part of our country behind. Slight caveat to their offers.
If we have a people's vote and stay in the EU, does this mean that David Cameron's deal with the EU is restated, or is it lost?
Lost. Juncker made that clear the day after.
Subject to discussion. Several EU leaders have made it clear that we'd be welcome back on similar terms to those previously agreed (including the rebate etc.). Where I think they'd be sticky would be an insistence that we agree to commit to membership for at least 15-20 years. I can't see them wanting to repeat this business in a few years' time. No Government can bind its successors but a statement of intent would be needed.
Suspect the British public would agree, including many Leavers -they'd rather leave, but wouldn't want to repeat the whole of the last two years any time soon.
Cameron's deal had nothing to do with the rebate. The EU have made it very clear that Cameron's deal is dead. We would revert to how it was before.
Mr. Alan, to be fair, the EU never tried to commit an act of regulatory annexation over other nation-states' territories, until now. Seeking to impose a border between constituent parts of the UK is not the act of a reasonable or friendly power.
Which remain politician actually said there would be refugee camps in Dover or that the city would locate to Frankfurt or there would be a Strawberry shortage at Wimbledon?
I certainly know which leave politicians told us the deal would be easy and we held all the cards.
Remainers may have over-egged the pudding in predicting how quickly the effects of Brexit might be felt. We haven't actually left yet, so particularly if we end up without a deal, I would hold on before claiming Project Fear was baseless. Of course the leavers also told us that leaving with no deal was more Project Fear and it now looks like a good bet. I'll stick to my pessimism thanks.
That'd be David Cameron.
Perhaps you could provide a link to the actual quotes
"David Cameron says Calais refugee camps could move to Kent after EU exit"
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
This isn't 1940, and we're not at war with the rest of the EU. I'm not quite sure what to make of that line. One of the strangest I've ever seen on this site.
There's an argument that if the EU actively stops planes flying and food/medicine coming in that is tantamount to an act of war
The aviation industry expects a brief period of chaos, maybe 2-3 weeks, until a new arrangement is found.
“Brief chaos”. Listen to yourselves.
Edit - I have heard differently, but your view assumes sanity and pragmatism. There’s precious little evidence of that.
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
I have no particular side.
Two to three weeks of chaos at airports would be a pretty sizeable hit. Enough for many many hours of preparation planning, which thankfully my colleagues are taking care of.
In case you're wondering, there are two views: that of Ryanair, and that of everyone else.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
This isn't 1940, and we're not at war with the rest of the EU. I'm not quite sure what to make of that line. One of the strangest I've ever seen on this site.
There's an argument that if the EU actively stops planes flying and food/medicine coming in that is tantamount to an act of war
The aviation industry expects a brief period of chaos, maybe 2-3 weeks, until a new arrangement is found.
“Brief chaos”. Listen to yourselves.
Edit - I have heard differently, but your view assumes sanity and pragmatism. There’s precious little evidence of that.
The very comment s/he's replying to calls this situation "tantamount to an act of war".
It's worth recalling the purpose of Article 50, which is to provide an accelerated means of agreeing stuff as we head for the exit. The EU offer was a simple one: money, citizen rights and a commitment to no divergence on the Irish border in exchange for a time limited extension of current arrangements while we sort out longer term arrangements. If we don't agree these items now they will be carried forward to after we leave when the process will be a lot more difficult. The UK government tried to complicate things by bringing trading arrangements, customs unions and the like into the mix. If we can't agree the simple deal, we're certainly not going to agree the complicated one.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world. .
I have no idea how Brexit-if it even happens- will turn out, but to say that the EU is the only thing holding the world together is a little bit hysterical.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that the UK has built up a sophisticated system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests with EU member countries and through the EU with other countries. It is throwing that away and along with it the glue that allows the UK to function as an advanced state. Could it recreate that glue? Eventually, yes. First thing it needs to get the deal sorted out with the EU.
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
I think I've pointed this out to you before; specifically that they did not need a deal and that effectively we were asking them for a favour.
Hm, doesn't the UK have a large trade deficit with the EU? While it may be a smaller fraction of their overall trade, it is not as if it wouldn't cause them disruption too.
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
I think I've pointed this out to you before; specifically that they did not need a deal and that effectively we were asking them for a favour.
Hm, doesn't the UK have a large trade deficit with the EU? While it may be a smaller fraction of their overall trade, it is not as if it wouldn't cause them disruption too.
Fair point, but my assumption is that as they are about 450 million to our 65 million (about 7 to 1) then they would absorb the damage easier.
If we have a people's vote and stay in the EU, does this mean that David Cameron's deal with the EU is restated, or is it lost?
Lost. Juncker made that clear the day after.
Subject to discussion. Several EU leaders have made it clear that we'd be welcome back on similar terms to those previously agreed (including the rebate etc.). Where I think they'd be sticky would be an insistence that we agree to commit to membership for at least 15-20 years. I can't see them wanting to repeat this business in a few years' time. No Government can bind its successors but a statement of intent would be needed.
Suspect the British public would agree, including many Leavers -they'd rather leave, but wouldn't want to repeat the whole of the last two years any time soon.
No, the EU want nothing less than our total and unconditional surrender.
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
I think I've pointed this out to you before; specifically that they did not need a deal and that effectively we were asking them for a favour.
The EU have an obligation to reach a deal with the leaving party under the Article 50 procedure. The EU are ignoring their obligations....tells you all you need to know.
Not sure that this type of pulled-out-of-the-air calc is much use. This one has a number 50-60% different from the actual on just one factor.
For 4 million diabetics read
[snip]
Even now some of the remain campaigners are still yammering on about it on Twitter.
It was an approximation to find the order of magnitude of the problem:if 50-60% wrong is all how wrong it is, I'll be very pleased.
Many people launch into massive rants about how bad things will be or how good things will be. It is a good idea to do such calculations first to test for plausibility: they are quick, cheap, and ballpark. I find such back-of-envelope calculations useful, and I think it did so here.
To block exportations of medicines would be an act of spite bordering an act of war.
You're missing the point. It's not that the EU would block exports, it's that those exports would get blocked in the chaos arising from a Hard Brexit clogging up the ports.
It would represent a failure of UK Govt. planning as much as anything. It's not as if it was caught on the hop overnight. It has had many months to plan. If it hasn't, then the Transport Minister should have been fired, not allowed to flounce off....
But the SoS for Transport is, er, Grayling.
It was reported in July that the NHS will pay to stockpile drugs and that short shelf-life drugs will be flown in if it all goes pear-shaped. No doubt that money comes from the already too low NHS budget which has barely increased in real terms since 2010 ...
Johnson was a Minister for Transport until yesterday.
The money will come not from the NHS but from the fifteen billion or so the Chancellor is sat on as a contingency fund for Brexit.
It's also a question of working capital not of money per se. If you are stockpiling you're just building up inventory of stuff you'd need to buy anyway. Sure there will be storage costs, but as a rule of thumb, logistic costs in the industry (including all freight, transport, storage) are around 1.5% of net sales, so not a huge amount as most would be incurred anyway
If we have a people's vote and stay in the EU, does this mean that David Cameron's deal with the EU is restated, or is it lost?
Lost. Juncker made that clear the day after.
Subject to discussion. Several EU leaders have made it clear that we'd be welcome back on similar terms to those previously agreed (including the rebate etc.). Where I think they'd be sticky would be an insistence that we agree to commit to membership for at least 15-20 years. I can't see them wanting to repeat this business in a few years' time. No Government can bind its successors but a statement of intent would be needed.
Suspect the British public would agree, including many Leavers -they'd rather leave, but wouldn't want to repeat the whole of the last two years any time soon.
No, the EU want nothing less than our total and unconditional surrender.
Provides there is an EU referendum before March which results in a Remain vote and Article 50 being revoked then we would never actually leave the EU but cancel Brexit and remain on the same terms.
It is only if we leave in March as planned then try to rejoin the EU the EU can dictate terms which is why single market and/or customs union is the only realistic option after that point rather than EU plus Euro plus Schengen which the EU may then demand and which two thirds of the British public would oppose on the polling
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
I think I've pointed this out to you before; specifically that they did not need a deal and that effectively we were asking them for a favour.
The EU have an obligation to reach a deal with the leaving party under the Article 50 procedure. The EU are ignoring their obligations....tells you all you need to know.
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
I think I've pointed this out to you before; specifically that they did not need a deal and that effectively we were asking them for a favour.
Hm, doesn't the UK have a large trade deficit with the EU? While it may be a smaller fraction of their overall trade, it is not as if it wouldn't cause them disruption too.
Fair point, but my assumption is that as they are about 450 million to our 65 million (about 7 to 1) then they would absorb the damage easier.
That's undoubtedly true, not only by virtue of a larger population, but also that UK makes a smaller fraction of the EU's trade than vice versa.
On topic, I think it's a better question than answer. As a political betting site, we should think carefully about the political consequences of a No Deal outcome in late March. These could snowball quite quickly.
More than a fortnight of no deal means the government falls.
There's no way the country will accept a shortage of meds and food.
The Brexiteers who promised us sunlit uplands and said No Deal was Project Fear will be the new guilty men who can be safely ignored.
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
Certainly No Deal means the Tories are absolutely f***ed for a generation.
No amount of bleating about the will of the people will save them from what's coming.
Rightly so.
It's the prospect of a Corbyn government which terrifies me, even more than a No Deal exit, which I have thought the most likely outcome for some time now.
Even if Britain decided to remain the amount of resentment that has been created will continue to inject its own poison into the British and European body politic. If a chaotic No Deal is the outcome, that too will inject poison into the European body politic in ways we cannot now anticipate. It is a real mess and, whatever your views on the results of the 2016 vote, could and should have been avoidable.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I better go and order my Siemens kitchen before it gets trapped on a Kent motorway somewhere.......
May has mishandled the negotiation.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
No, the EU offered several different versions of "this" - Norway's version, Switzerland's version, Turkey's version, Canada's version, WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
No, they didn't.
They insisted on a commitment to no hard border in Ireland as part of the withdrawal agreement
That makes any option apart from Remain/Norway impossible.
Anyone who knows Irish history appreciates that subtlety and fudge is what works there.
That might also apply to his making a presidential bid, but that the risk/return calculation for both him and the Democrats would be far less compelling.
Thanks.
And there is this:
" “Texas has been four years away from being competitive for 40 years,” said Peter Ernaut, a veteran Republican strategist who has advised Nevada Gov. "
And it will be a whole different ballgame running against longstanding and popular senior senator John Cornyn in 2020. He won by 27% in 2014 - compared to a lead of only 16% for Cruz two years earlier.
Clearly who the candidates are matters - as the Republican Governor won by 13 per cent compared to Cruz's lead of only 3 per cent in the same state on Tuesday.
Beto may not find it so easy against Cornyn. We will never quite know how much was a pro Beto or anti Cruz vote - as 400,000 fewer Texans voted Republican in the senate vs the Governorship.
Beto may wait to run for Texas Governor in 2022 and just stay in the House of Representatives for now
O Rourke wasn't allowed to run for re-election to the House as he was running for the Senate - so will cease to be a member of Congress in January. So he is a free agent.
He still will likely wait until 2022 and the Texas governorship race ( though candidates have run for President before and stayed Senators and I do not believe there is a constitutional bar to staying in the House while running for the Senate)
I'd expect a last alliance of Pro EU Tories and Labour MPs to form a government of national unity and sue for peace.
This isn't 1940, and we're not at war with the rest of the EU. I'm not quite sure what to make of that line. One of the strangest I've ever seen on this site.
There's an argument that if the EU actively stops planes flying and food/medicine coming in that is tantamount to an act of war
The aviation industry expects a brief period of chaos, maybe 2-3 weeks, until a new arrangement is found.
“Brief chaos”. Listen to yourselves.
Edit - I have heard differently, but your view assumes sanity and pragmatism. There’s precious little evidence of that.
The very comment s/he's replying to calls this situation "tantamount to an act of war".
No - it's if the *deliberate intent* of the EU is to achieve this - and they have been frustrating the planning process (e.g. by insisting that the CAA can't apply to reregister directly to the global body until after the UK leaves the EU) - then it is tantamount to an act of war.
If it's *just* the result of incompetent politicians then so be it
If we have a people's vote and stay in the EU, does this mean that David Cameron's deal with the EU is restated, or is it lost?
Lost. Juncker made that clear the day after.
Subject to discussion. Several EU leaders have made it clear that we'd be welcome back on similar terms to those previously agreed (including the rebate etc.). Where I think they'd be sticky would be an insistence that we agree to commit to membership for at least 15-20 years. I can't see them wanting to repeat this business in a few years' time. No Government can bind its successors but a statement of intent would be needed.
Suspect the British public would agree, including many Leavers -they'd rather leave, but wouldn't want to repeat the whole of the last two years any time soon.
No, the EU want nothing less than our total and unconditional surrender.
Comments
https://twitter.com/afp/status/1061232611929001984?s=21
For most people I suggest it was to get more control over immigration and/or a bit more money for the NHS.
And not to allow Liam Fox to conduct trade deals.
But for some prominent Brexiteers the opposite applies.
No easy solutions, I suspect.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1061249878293168128
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1061251002542768128
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1061251308974493696
I have to say one thing that Cameron was exceptional at was doing representing the UK at these kind of world events.
But if you take a step back, the EU is saying "it must be this or no deal"
Despite a clear statement from the UK that "this" is unacceptable.
They are the guilty party.
If you think it is war, then warfare would be the solution, yes? But we do not have the military capacity to force them to sell us stuff. We are capable of self-sufficiency but that will take years and will displace other economic activity in the meantime. This is not a happy outcome, to put it mildly.
To inflict the same situation on ourselves in peace time, with no external enemy, due to poor planning and organisation would just be a humiliating admission that we have got things terribly wrong.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/u09tvnxyj#?date=2018-11-10
Meanwhile Sturgeon of course would likely call an indyref2 either before Brexit Day or in the months after if No Deal looked likely perhaps even declaring UDI if necessary and the economy and stock market could also crash with No Deal. So we could be facing the biggest economic collapse since the 2008 crash, the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez and the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication and the biggest threat to the UK since the Irish War of Independence all at the same time
Not that it looks that useful for cargo planes, to be fair.
(I'd like to add that I'm actually working towards my microlight licence, learning out of Redland Airfield near Swindon - I'm not so dedicated to this site that I actually hired a private aircraft to go and check for people...)
It was reported in July that the NHS will pay to stockpile drugs and that short shelf-life drugs will be flown in if it all goes pear-shaped. No doubt that money comes from the already too low NHS budget which has barely increased in real terms since 2010 ...
It has been clear for a very long time that they are determined to make life difficult for the UK and yes for people living in the UK to encourage the likes of Italy to remain.
The EU care fuck all about what damage its actions have on people, we have more than enough evidence of this already.
Yet we should remain because leaving is to difficult?
fuck that - it can be done and it should be done.
We're heading for a major crisis.
Brexit is worse than people think it is. It is worse in a different way from what people think. It isn't fundamentally about the economics .With Brexit you destroy the system of rules, relationships and carefully balanced interests that allow advanced countries to function in a connected world.
.
https://mobile.twitter.com/thehistoryguy/status/1061246276484952064
The money will come not from the NHS but from the fifteen billion or so the Chancellor is sat on as a contingency fund for Brexit.
Prat
As they already exist.
I don't think this much matters for a tory PM that accepts "No Deal Is Better than a Bad Deal".
He/she doesn't need to win any Commons votes between now and LiberationDay. If no further legislation is passed, Liberation happens. And as HMG schedules everything (except NC motions) and is the only possible proposer (except Corbyn's 3 remaining opposition days) nothing substantive can be passed.
All the rest is redirecting spending to preparations ie basically admin (after sacking Hammond and any other bedblockers.).
I certainly know which leave politicians told us the deal would be easy and we held all the cards.
Remainers may have over-egged the pudding in predicting how quickly the effects of Brexit might be felt. We haven't actually left yet, so particularly if we end up without a deal, I would hold on before claiming Project Fear was baseless. Of course the leavers also told us that leaving with no deal was more Project Fear and it now looks like a good bet. I'll stick to my pessimism thanks.
Cameron tried that and they weren't interested.
A large majority (I suspect) would support an EU based on Cameron's Bloomberg speech
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/migrant-refugee-camp-calais-britain-brexit-eu-exit-david-cameron-kent-a6860466.html
I grant you the word "could" is used rather than "will". Technically correct, I suppose.
They aren't.
F1: third practice done. Red Bull seem out of the fight for pole. Will put up the pre-qualifying ramble fairly soon.
Edit - I have heard differently, but your view assumes sanity and pragmatism. There’s precious little evidence of that.
It suggests that they are not negotiating in good faith - that they don't want a deal.
Fine: that's legitimate. Just don't string the other party along.
Norway's version,
Switzerland's version,
Turkey's version,
Canada's version,
WTO.
All the government had to do was just bloody pick one!
Suspect the British public would agree, including many Leavers -they'd rather leave, but wouldn't want to repeat the whole of the last two years any time soon.
Mr. Alan, to be fair, the EU never tried to commit an act of regulatory annexation over other nation-states' territories, until now. Seeking to impose a border between constituent parts of the UK is not the act of a reasonable or friendly power.
I have no particular side.
Two to three weeks of chaos at airports would be a pretty sizeable hit. Enough for many many hours of preparation planning, which thankfully my colleagues are taking care of.
In case you're wondering, there are two views: that of Ryanair, and that of everyone else.
What a try.
It is only if we leave in March as planned then try to rejoin the EU the EU can dictate terms which is why single market and/or customs union is the only realistic option after that point rather than EU plus Euro plus Schengen which the EU may then demand and which two thirds of the British public would oppose on the polling
They insisted on a commitment to no hard border in Ireland as part of the withdrawal agreement
That makes any option apart from Remain/Norway impossible.
Anyone who knows Irish history appreciates that subtlety and fudge is what works there.
https://twitter.com/davelevinthal/status/1061274382289506307
If it's *just* the result of incompetent politicians then so be it
... and according to the polls, we have.