I see the EU (in the shape of Leo) have given the Remainers their orders. For you Tommy, the Brexit is over. Revoke art 50 or else. Mind you, the Irish have form.
My problem is I took the piss out of my in-laws when the Irish took fright. Now the boot may be on the other foot.
Yes, but you've given your view, and your view is disturbingly hypocritical to say the least.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
Er, no. No deal is a highly undesirable set of circumstances so undesirable for the government to have ruled it out instantly. The problem was indeed of such undesirability that the government deemed that it was not going to entertain the possibility of it occurring.
A bit like if you carry a knife on the streets. You are giving permission to someone to kill you. Now, being mugged, disrespected, etc is certainly bad, but it is not as bad as being killed.
Topping, the world is chock full of countries that are fully politically and economically disengaged with the EU. Indeed, once upon a time, we used to be one. Somehow, they aren't eating each other in the ruins of their cities. To suggest that fully uncoupling from the EU is fraught with issues is fine. To suggest it is a fate so awful it cannot be looked in the face, much less prepared for, is comical.
Blimey that is disappointing.
The world may be chock full of countries that are fully politically and economically disengaged with the EU but it is not chock full of countries that have spent the past 40 years integrating into the EU and then deciding they want to leave it.
Disagree with that. Brexit does not appear to be a very salient issue for Labour voters. Other issues would easily override it - whether they voted Leave or Remain.
Exactly, I'm sure Labour would lose some Brexit voters due to 'Brexit betrayal' but probably a lower percentage of them than the Conservatives and the Conservatives have maybe* about 4 times as many leave voters as Labour do.
*Does anyone know where I can find figures for Conservative and Labour voters in terms of leave and remain voters?
YouGov typically has Labour splitting 70/20 Remain, and the Conservatives 70/20 Leave.
Survation typically has the split at about 2/1 in each case.
Awesome, cheers.
So if I did say a 70/20/10 split on each party to estimate each parties share of 2017 leave voters would that be a fair rough estimate?
My guess is you'd see a reversion to the polling we saw in 2013-15.
I feel like you skipped several stages past my question but I'll take that as a yes
Is that the polling when Ed was considered on course to win?
How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
But we know why there was an effective moritorium on No Deal planning for a couple of years.
Because there would have been intense popular pressure to use it as the route out of this highly predictable en passe....
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
I see the EU (in the shape of Leo) have given the Remainers their orders. For you Tommy, the Brexit is over. Revoke art 50 or else. Mind you, the Irish have form.
My problem is I took the piss out of my in-laws when the Irish took fright. Now the boot may be on the other foot.
Yes, but they have the full and unequivocal backing of a political and economic bloc of half a billion people, and we have Jacob Rees-Mogg.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
I see the EU (in the shape of Leo) have given the Remainers their orders. For you Tommy, the Brexit is over. Revoke art 50 or else. Mind you, the Irish have form.
My problem is I took the piss out of my in-laws when the Irish took fright. Now the boot may be on the other foot.
Yes, but they have the full and unequivocal backing of a political and economic bloc of half a billion people, and we have Jacob Rees-Mogg.
"There is already a perfectly worked out contingency plan: revoke Article 50."
A cunning plan so cunning, no one's thought of it yet. In some ways, it would be a relief. I can just imagine the stirring speech in the Commons. "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for war."
I see the EU (in the shape of Leo) have given the Remainers their orders. For you Tommy, the Brexit is over. Revoke art 50 or else. Mind you, the Irish have form.
My problem is I took the piss out of my in-laws when the Irish took fright. Now the boot may be on the other foot.
Yes, but they have the full and unequivocal backing of a political and economic bloc of half a billion people, and we have Jacob Rees-Mogg.
And Steve Baker. That evens it up a bit.
Steve Baker has I see just been awarded the ERG Medal of Honor.
I see the EU (in the shape of Leo) have given the Remainers their orders. For you Tommy, the Brexit is over. Revoke art 50 or else. Mind you, the Irish have form.
My problem is I took the piss out of my in-laws when the Irish took fright. Now the boot may be on the other foot.
Yes, but they have the full and unequivocal backing of a political and economic bloc of half a billion people, and we have Jacob Rees-Mogg.
And Steve Baker. That evens it up a bit.
Steve Baker has I see just been awarded the ERG Medal of Honor.
I see the EU (in the shape of Leo) have given the Remainers their orders. For you Tommy, the Brexit is over. Revoke art 50 or else. Mind you, the Irish have form.
My problem is I took the piss out of my in-laws when the Irish took fright. Now the boot may be on the other foot.
Yes, but they have the full and unequivocal backing of a political and economic bloc of half a billion people, and we have Jacob Rees-Mogg.
You forget, we also have the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation
How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
Well (not that you need my endorsement) that shows excellent judgement, and is something we can agree upon.
If GE2017 had resulted in a Labour Gov't and Corbyn/Starmer had headed off to negotiate their "Jobs first" brexit they'd have most likely come back with eternal customs arrangement/Freedom of movement I'm guessing... Obviously the big one for Corbyn would be being free of state aid rules within the EU. Nevertheless it would most likely have been a Brexit of sorts (As May's deal is)
Would the Tory front bench (Doubtless the ERG would be totally against it) be opposing the deal as Corbyn is now ?
"There is already a perfectly worked out contingency plan: revoke Article 50."
A cunning plan so cunning, no one's thought of it yet. In some ways, it would be a relief. I can just imagine the stirring speech in the Commons. "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for war."
That's why the army are involved in 'no deal' preparations.
If GE2017 had resulted in a Labour Gov't and Corbyn/Starmer had headed off to negotiate their "Jobs first" brexit they'd have most likely come back with eternal customs arrangement/Freedom of movement I'm guessing... Obviously the big one for Corbyn would be being free of state aid rules within the EU. Nevertheless it would most likely have been a Brexit of sorts (As May's deal is)
Would the front bench (Doubtless the ERG would be totally against it) be opposing it as Corbyn is now ?
The ERG would be the Tory front bench, would they not?
I have never heard of such a thing before, but I saw on sale at Tescos a 'Festive Unicorn Cake', so I apologise to all the Brexit new dealers among the Tories and Labour out there, after I told them unicorns do not exist.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
If GE2017 had resulted in a Labour Gov't and Corbyn/Starmer had headed off to negotiate their "Jobs first" brexit they'd have most likely come back with eternal customs arrangement/Freedom of movement I'm guessing... Obviously the big one for Corbyn would be being free of state aid rules within the EU. Nevertheless it would most likely have been a Brexit of sorts (As May's deal is)
Would the front bench (Doubtless the ERG would be totally against it) be opposing it as Corbyn is now ?
The ERG would be the Tory front bench, would they not?
Maybe, maybe not. The LOTO could be Hunt for instance.
Then we see very differently. I see a pro-Brexit, socially conservative, working class party doing quite well in Labour seats, *if* Labour votes with the government to revoke Article 50.
Only time will tell. We may yet get to find out...
But the Conservatives didn't get them out with all the advantages and habitual Conservative voters that being a Conservative comes with. That party would have to almost completely take the Conservative vote if it didn't get Labour remainers in those seats (which it wouldn't as a Brexit betrayal party) to come close to challenging and take the Labour leave voters to have a chance of winning them.
and If that was repeated in other seats the Conservatives are wiped out and Labour get a landslide so it is a net positive for Labour. It just doesn't seem realistic to claim Brexit betrayal would harm the party with the majority of leavers as much as the one with very few.
We might be getting close to going round in circles though, clearly we do see things differently.
I think we do, as I say time will tell.
I try to keep up with what's going on in UKIP-land and while I agree with Sean_F we'd probably see polling return somewhere to where we were in 2013-2015, what you have now that you didn't have then is a bunch of angry kippers _plus_ the Tommeh Robinson anti-Islam crowd. Organised very effectively via social media (look at how quickly the Gilets Jaunes organised in ways that simply weren't there in 2013, when facebook was all about cat videos and baby pics...)
Now I know in a venn diagram there's likely to be a huge crossover in those two demographics, but my guess is that a very working-class brexit betrayal party will poll around 24% and will take as many votes from Labour as it does from the Tories. This certainly isn't something I'm crowing or gleeful about, in fact it's one of my greatest fears - that Alastair Meeks and co are absolutely right that the end result of Brexit will be to let the far right in through the back door.
It's one of the reasons I'm so in favour of May's deal. Some will cry betrayal, but by and large it is a compromise that will take the sting out of the stab-in-the-back myth you can already see UKIP preparing. Parliament voting to revoke article 50 will have the opposite effect.
It's all clear now - May went absolutely huge on the May to survive 2018 Betfair market.
And well played that woman if so.
She plays to win. Or at least until the clock runs out. She reminds me of that Red Dwarf scene where Rimmer is playing draughts and has only one move to make, so simply refuses to make it as the other side has to leave at some point and he'll win by default. Only she's forgotten it's her who loses when the clock runs out.
The world really is going to hell in a hand basket....
Radiohead, Roxy Music and Janet Jackson will join the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame next year, alongside Def Leppard, The Zombies, Stevie Nicks and The Cure.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Can Article 50 be revoked through a backbench bill ?
Maybe not technically, but, as we've seen in recent weeks, contempt of Parliament proceedings can be launched if the government doesn't do as instructed...
An humble address to revoke Art 50 !
Bercow would permit anything so long as it prevents Brexit.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
the price of fish l;ocally would drop and we could all have lobster for dinner ?
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
This is the whole point Richard - again with the word 'instantly', like leaving the EU is going to be some sort of freak surprise. It is not going to be a surprise, it will happen on a set, scheduled date, and the issues you mention need to be discussed and dealt with.
Or, as you and others seem to prefer, panicked over but not dealt with.
I don't mind external politicians opining about matters which, after all, do also affect them (so long as they do not get uppity about the reverse), but if he is to make such an intervention I hope he has done his research and is correct that it is within the gift of Parliament, otherwise it would be just like any random person demanding a foreign country do something with no idea of how their legal processes work.
TBF to May, she's doing more than simply running down the clock.
She's a bustler, she'll be indulging in frenetic displacement activity for another month and a half. Jetting across europe, demanding exceptional European Councils, negotiating addendums, demanding assurances...
Won't make a jot of difference to anything, of course, but people will commend her for it regardless. May can no longer distinguish between useful work and simply giving the appearance of doing something useful. And it all gets her praise so she doesn't mind.
But fortunately there is a hard deadline. Maybe we should let her get on with it, a special christmas treat for her strong and stable leadership.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
the price of fish l;ocally would drop and we could all have lobster for dinner ?
Yes, and scallops. Excellent news for me in the short term, as I like both. Not so good for the fishermen, who might be a bit miffed.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Can Article 50 be revoked through a backbench bill ?
Maybe not technically, but, as we've seen in recent weeks, contempt of Parliament proceedings can be launched if the government doesn't do as instructed...
An humble address to revoke Art 50 !
Bercow would permit anything so long as it prevents Brexit.
Humble Address to revoke article 50 conditional on Bercow shutting the fuck up occasionally?
Can Article 50 be revoked through a backbench bill ?
Maybe not technically, but, as we've seen in recent weeks, contempt of Parliament proceedings can be launched if the government doesn't do as instructed...
An humble address to revoke Art 50 !
Bercow would permit anything so long as it prevents Brexit.
Humble Address to revoke article 50 conditional on Bercow shutting the fuck up occasionally?
That would test him to the limit no doubt. But he does have enough quality that he could probably sacrifice his need to aggrandize a little.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
This is the whole point Richard - again with the word 'instantly', like leaving the EU is going to be some sort of freak surprise. It is not going to be a surprise, it will happen on a set, scheduled date, and the issues you mention need to be discussed and dealt with.
Or, as you and others seem to prefer, panicked over but not dealt with.
But that is a "future relationship" and we agreed to the EU's demand not to discuss that until the withdrawal agreement had been ratified.
If you are arguing that it is all a shitshow then no one on this board would I'm sure disagree. If you think it could in any way not have been a shitshow then I think you are on far shakier ground.
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
This is the whole point Richard - again with the word 'instantly', like leaving the EU is going to be some sort of freak surprise. It is not going to be a surprise, it will happen on a set, scheduled date, and the issues you mention need to be discussed and dealt with.
Or, as you and others seem to prefer, panicked over but not dealt with.
OT. If you're reasonably well travelled and you landed from Mars you'd expect in a major European city to have a reasonable idea where you were within 5 or 10 minutes of wandering around.
The architecture the ambience the colour of the paint the language the look of the people the shops etc.
I arrived somewhere this morning and if it wasn't that I knew where I was I couldn't have guessed. A lot of English was spoken. There was a local dialect that I'd never heard before. The architecture was new to me and the currency was the euro. There was a local look which was slightly Turkish. Low hairlines and deep black hair..
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
How much of UK caught and landed fish is destined for UK market and how much to export markets?
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
How much of UK caught and landed fish is destined for UK market and how much to export markets?
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Most of us that have businesses would agree. One can try and prepare for the worst, but few businesses except the very largest will have genuinely prepared for we know not what without a whole army of forecasters. It is why the whole thing is so mad.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
A vast amount of the fish processed in Britain's huge seafood processing plants in places like Grimsby for entry into the British food chain, is caught by EU fleets (due to quotas). In a situation whereby fish caught by British fishermen could not be exported to the EU, their catches would simply displace those of their former EU competitors. Not very nice for them of course.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
So we can sell them, just not to the EU until we prepare and come up with a solution.
How is this an argument for not preparing exactly?
OT. If you're reasonably well travelled and you landed from Mars you'd expect in a major European city to have a reasonable idea where you were within 5 or 10 minutes of wandering around.
The architecture the ambience the colour of the paint the language the look of the people the shops etc.
I arrived somewhere this morning and if it wasn't that I knew where I was I couldn't have guessed. A lot of English was spoken. There was a local dialect that I'd never heard before. The architecture was new to me and the currency was the euro. There was a local look which was slightly Turkish. Low hairlines and deep black hair..
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
No, I don't buy that for one minute. They might not have spent on big Brexit infrastructure like the full scale re-engineering of Kent, but I'd expect them to have a full Operations Manual, running to a multiple of the thickness of the WA that will be run by COBRA in the weeks, perhaps months, after No Deal.
It will detail how we respond, how we maintain and top up stockpiles, how we run customs, the contingencies in place with the supermarkets to quickly stitch together a domestic supply chain for those fish and many, many other mind boggling things.
The base political assumption might be that No Deal will not last long, and that an unsigned deal might stay on the table for a short while after 29/3 and we can jump straight back into transition, but the manual should also prioritise which mini deals to push for (or activate, if we spend some time agreeing mini deals before 29/3) first.
Let me be clear, I'll still be on the streets participating in mass protest if No Deal comes to pass (in between sourcing loo roll), but I still don't accept your very Sir Humphrey answer.
TBF to May, she's doing more than simply running down the clock.
She's a bustler, she'll be indulging in frenetic displacement activity for another month and a half. Jetting across europe, demanding exceptional European Councils, negotiating addendums, demanding assurances...
Won't make a jot of difference to anything, of course, but people will commend her for it regardless. May can no longer distinguish between useful work and simply giving the appearance of doing something useful. And it all gets her praise so she doesn't mind.
But fortunately there is a hard deadline. Maybe we should let her get on with it, a special christmas treat for her strong and stable leadership.
Bustle away.
Indeed. In a former life as a kindergarten teacher, we used to call it "busywork." The kid who had finished colouring in and was about to be a hassle would be tasked with re-arranging all the crayons from light to dark. And get praise and a sticker for it.
It may turn out that the humble address leading to the contempt motion was a rather more significant constitutional innovation than we've realised.
Typically, humbled addresses are usually used for harmless things, thank you notes, birthday greetings etc.
But the Clerk of the House told Bercow that Labour's Humble Address was "effective". Meaning that Labour could use a humble address to compel the government to comply, or face contempt proceedings.
I see no reason to assume a humble address to compel Mrs May to revoke Article 50 should be any less effective.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
the price of fish l;ocally would drop and we could all have lobster for dinner ?
Yes, and scallops. Excellent news for me in the short term, as I like both. Not so good for the fishermen, who might be a bit miffed.
Id have thought the fishermen would br quite happy ,58% of all fish caught in british waters is by EU boats. We also run a BoP deficit on fish. I think thats why generally the fishermen are for leaving. French and Spanish restaurateurs might be less keen
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
So we can sell them, just not to the EU until we prepare and come up with a solution.
How is this an argument for not preparing exactly?
Who are you going to sell fresh seafood to if not the EU? You can't just stick it in a container and take it on a long sea voyage.
(And as I said this is the simplest of all the myriad of problems which are insoluble by unilateral action).
I don't mind external politicians opining about matters which, after all, do also affect them (so long as they do not get uppity about the reverse), but if he is to make such an intervention I hope he has done his research and is correct that it is within the gift of Parliament, otherwise it would be just like any random person demanding a foreign country do something with no idea of how their legal processes work.
As has been pointed out on here before, the legislature cannot do this without it being submitted by the executive. It can, and should apply as much pressure as possible though. This madness has gone on long enough. Many people on the right bluster on about the possible benefits of benign dictatorship, well now is the time for MPs to stop being frit of their frothy mouthed leave constituents and do what they know is in the best interest of the country.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
A vast amount of the fish processed in Britain's huge seafood processing plants in places like Grimsby for entry into the British food chain, is caught by EU fleets (due to quotas). In a situation whereby fish caught by British fishermen could not be exported to the EU, their catches would simply displace those of their former EU competitors. Not very nice for them of course.
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
No, I don't buy that for one minute. They might not have spent on big Brexit infrastructure like the full scale re-engineering of Kent, but I'd expect them to have a full Operations Manual, running to a multiple of the thickness of the WA that will be run by COBRA in the weeks, perhaps months, after No Deal.
It will detail how we respond, how we maintain and top up stockpiles, how we run customs, the contingencies in place with the supermarkets to quickly stitch together a domestic supply chain for those fish.
The base political assumption might be that No Deal will not last long, and that an unsigned deal might stay on the table for a short while after 29/3 and we can jump straight back into transition, but the manual should also prioritise which mini deals to push for (or activate, if we spend some time agreeing mini deals before 29/3) first.
Let me be clear, I'll still be on the streets participating in mass protest if No Deal comes to pass (in between sourcing loo roll), but I still don't accept your very Sir Humphrey answer.
Yes. I'm sure the government has all kinds of contingency planning. But that is contingency planning, not making preparations for BAU, except a BAU outside the EU and our various agreements with them.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
A vast amount of the fish processed in Britain's huge seafood processing plants in places like Grimsby for entry into the British food chain, is caught by EU fleets (due to quotas). In a situation whereby fish caught by British fishermen could not be exported to the EU, their catches would simply displace those of their former EU competitors. Not very nice for them of course.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
A vast amount of the fish processed in Britain's huge seafood processing plants in places like Grimsby for entry into the British food chain, is caught by EU fleets (due to quotas). In a situation whereby fish caught by British fishermen could not be exported to the EU, their catches would simply displace those of their former EU competitors. Not very nice for them of course.
Not so, it's different types of fish.
this is good for Fishing information, types, catch, landing tonnes, import export.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
So we can sell them, just not to the EU until we prepare and come up with a solution.
How is this an argument for not preparing exactly?
Are you pretending to be dumb? I really can't believe anyone can be so stupid as to think we are suddenly going to find new markets for a products that is renowned for having a very short shelf life. It really is staggering.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
the price of fish l;ocally would drop and we could all have lobster for dinner ?
Yes, and scallops. Excellent news for me in the short term, as I like both. Not so good for the fishermen, who might be a bit miffed.
Id have thought the fishermen would br quite happy ,58% of all fish caught in british waters is by EU boats. We also run a BoP deficit on fish. I think thats why generally the fishermen are for leaving. French and Spanish restaurateurs might be less keen
I'm sure that one morning our fishermen could go out, catch and sell one type and quantity of fish to the EU and the next morning they could go out, catch and sell any other type and quantity of fish to not the EU.
It may turn out that the humble address leading to the contempt motion was a rather more significant constitutional innovation than we've realised.
Typically, humbled addresses are usually used for harmless things, thank you notes, birthday greetings etc.
But the Clerk of the House told Bercow that Labour's Humble Address was "effective". Meaning that Labour could use a humble address to compel the government to comply, or face contempt proceedings.
I see no reason to assume a humble address to compel Mrs May to revoke Article 50 should be any less effective.
Hmmmm.
In the United Kingdom, a humble address for a return is a rarely used parliamentary procedure by which either the House of Commons or House of Lords may petition the monarch, and by extension HM Government, to order documents to be produced
I think it falls down here, the revocation of Article 50 is not a "document to be produced".
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
No, I don't buy that for one minute. They might not have spent on big Brexit infrastructure like the full scale re-engineering of Kent, but I'd expect them to have a full Operations Manual, running to a multiple of the thickness of the WA that will be run by COBRA in the weeks, perhaps months, after No Deal.
It will detail how we respond, how we maintain and top up stockpiles, how we run customs, the contingencies in place with the supermarkets to quickly stitch together a domestic supply chain for those fish.
The base political assumption might be that No Deal will not last long, and that an unsigned deal might stay on the table for a short while after 29/3 and we can jump straight back into transition, but the manual should also prioritise which mini deals to push for (or activate, if we spend some time agreeing mini deals before 29/3) first.
Let me be clear, I'll still be on the streets participating in mass protest if No Deal comes to pass (in between sourcing loo roll), but I still don't accept your very Sir Humphrey answer.
Yes. I'm sure the government has all kinds of contingency planning. But that is contingency planning, not making preparations for BAU, except a BAU outside the EU and our various agreements with them.
One of the obvious weaknesses of the "we should prepare for no deal" argument is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tell Nissan et al they have two years to get ready for no deal, and they will make very different decisions from if you tell them you'll make sure nothing much changes in the short term.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
the price of fish l;ocally would drop and we could all have lobster for dinner ?
Yes, and scallops. Excellent news for me in the short term, as I like both. Not so good for the fishermen, who might be a bit miffed.
Id have thought the fishermen would br quite happy ,58% of all fish caught in british waters is by EU boats. We also run a BoP deficit on fish. I think thats why generally the fishermen are for leaving. French and Spanish restaurateurs might be less keen
I'm sure that one morning our fishermen could go out, catch and sell one type and quantity of fish to the EU and the next morning they could go out, catch and sell any other type and quantity of fish to not the EU.
But if you say it's no problem then that's cool.
That's exactly what they do. You put down your nets and pull out what comes, and sell it for what you can get, it's not market gardening ffs.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
A vast amount of the fish processed in Britain's huge seafood processing plants in places like Grimsby for entry into the British food chain, is caught by EU fleets (due to quotas). In a situation whereby fish caught by British fishermen could not be exported to the EU, their catches would simply displace those of their former EU competitors. Not very nice for them of course.
Not so, it's different types of fish.
Leave fanatics demonstrating they have the intellect of the average halibut...though that is probably being unkind to flatfish.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
So we can sell them, just not to the EU until we prepare and come up with a solution.
How is this an argument for not preparing exactly?
Are you pretending to be dumb? I really can't believe anyone can be so stupid as to think we are suddenly going to find new markets for a products that is renowned for having a very short shelf life. It really is staggering.
the LuckyGuys and Xenons of this world would have liked the government to have spent the past two years negotiating with China for the sale of our post-EU fishing catch and to have reached agreement on firm orders for determined quantity and type, and pricing and guarantees, and delivery schedules, and contingencies, and alternative shipping methods, and quality control and disease control checks.
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
No, I don't buy that for one minute. They might not have spent on big Brexit infrastructure like the full scale re-engineering of Kent, but I'd expect them to have a full Operations Manual, running to a multiple of the thickness of the WA that will be run by COBRA in the weeks, perhaps months, after No Deal.
It will detail how we respond, how we maintain and top up stockpiles, how we run customs, the contingencies in place with the supermarkets to quickly stitch together a domestic supply chain for those fish.
The base political assumption might be that No Deal will not last long, and that an unsigned deal might stay on the table for a short while after 29/3 and we can jump straight back into transition, but the manual should also prioritise which mini deals to push for (or activate, if we spend some time agreeing mini deals before 29/3) first.
Let me be clear, I'll still be on the streets participating in mass protest if No Deal comes to pass (in between sourcing loo roll), but I still don't accept your very Sir Humphrey answer.
Yes. I'm sure the government has all kinds of contingency planning. But that is contingency planning, not making preparations for BAU, except a BAU outside the EU and our various agreements with them.
One of the obvious weaknesses of the "we should prepare for no deal" argument is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tell Nissan et al they have two years to get ready for no deal, and they will make very different decisions from if you tell them you'll make sure nothing much changes in the short term.
Mr. Cocque, but who would put forward said address?
Dunno, as I said I'm just trying to determine if Parliament has a mechanism to command the Prime Minister to revoke it, short of a motion of no confidence if she does not.
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
No, I don't buy that for one minute. They might not have spent on big Brexit infrastructure like the full scale re-engineering of Kent, but I'd expect them to have a full Operations Manual, running to a multiple of the thickness of the WA that will be run by COBRA in the weeks, perhaps months, after No Deal.
It will detail how we respond, how we maintain and top up stockpiles, how we run customs, the contingencies in place with the supermarkets to quickly stitch together a domestic supply chain for those fish.
The base political assumption might be that No Deal will not last long, and that an unsigned deal might stay on the table for a short while after 29/3 and we can jump straight back into transition, but the manual should also prioritise which mini deals to push for (or activate, if we spend some time agreeing mini deals before 29/3) first.
Let me be clear, I'll still be on the streets participating in mass protest if No Deal comes to pass (in between sourcing loo roll), but I still don't accept your very Sir Humphrey answer.
Yes. I'm sure the government has all kinds of contingency planning. But that is contingency planning, not making preparations for BAU, except a BAU outside the EU and our various agreements with them.
Agree. It's not BAU. In pure no deal, government would spend 4-6 exhausting months dealing with this on a crisis footing, a lot from the No Deal Manual, a hell of a lot of unthought of detail in addition to the manual, quite a bit of genuinely left field stuff.
I wouldn't expect much in the way of getting back to any kind of even limited BAU before the autumn.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
A vast amount of the fish processed in Britain's huge seafood processing plants in places like Grimsby for entry into the British food chain, is caught by EU fleets (due to quotas). In a situation whereby fish caught by British fishermen could not be exported to the EU, their catches would simply displace those of their former EU competitors. Not very nice for them of course.
Not so, it's different types of fish.
Leave fanatics demonstrating they have the intellect of the average halibut...though that is probably being unkind to flatfish.
And as I said that is the simplest of all possible examples. Don't get me started on the complicated stuff, like derivatives contracts.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
the price of fish l;ocally would drop and we could all have lobster for dinner ?
Yes, and scallops. Excellent news for me in the short term, as I like both. Not so good for the fishermen, who might be a bit miffed.
Id have thought the fishermen would br quite happy ,58% of all fish caught in british waters is by EU boats. We also run a BoP deficit on fish. I think thats why generally the fishermen are for leaving. French and Spanish restaurateurs might be less keen
I'm sure that one morning our fishermen could go out, catch and sell one type and quantity of fish to the EU and the next morning they could go out, catch and sell any other type and quantity of fish to not the EU.
But if you say it's no problem then that's cool.
That's exactly what they do. You put down your nets and pull out what comes, and sell it for what you can get, it's not market gardening ffs.
So at the most simple level all of a sudden you have twice as much fish as you have demand for. No wonder Richard and Alan are celebrating. A consumer bonanza.
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
The trouble is that there is literally nothing the UK can by itself do in many cases. We cannot force the EU to allow non-EU agricultural products or UK-caught fish into the EU. We cannot force the EU to suspend its rules on medical imports, or manufactured goods type approvals, or not to bother with customs checks at Calais. We cannot force other countries where trade depends on regulations based on our EU membership to instantly recognise something else.
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
No, I don't buy that for one minute. They might not have spent on big Brexit infrastructure like the full scale re-engineering of Kent, but I'd expect them to have a full Operations Manual, running to a multiple of the thickness of the WA that will be run by COBRA in the weeks, perhaps months, after No Deal.
It will detail how we respond, how we maintain and top up stockpiles, how we run customs, the contingencies in place with the supermarkets to quickly stitch together a domestic supply chain for those fish.
The base political assumption might be that No Deal will not last long, and that an unsigned deal might stay on the table for a short while after 29/3 and we can jump straight back into transition, but the manual should also prioritise which mini deals to push for (or activate, if we spend some time agreeing mini deals before 29/3) first.
Let me be clear, I'll still be on the streets participating in mass protest if No Deal comes to pass (in between sourcing loo roll), but I still don't accept your very Sir Humphrey answer.
Yes. I'm sure the government has all kinds of contingency planning. But that is contingency planning, not making preparations for BAU, except a BAU outside the EU and our various agreements with them.
One of the obvious weaknesses of the "we should prepare for no deal" argument is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tell Nissan et al they have two years to get ready for no deal, and they will make very different decisions from if you tell them you'll make sure nothing much changes in the short term.
Unlike HMG, I expect Nissan will have prepared.
How do you think they would have prepared if given 2 years to get ready?
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
the price of fish l;ocally would drop and we could all have lobster for dinner ?
Yes, and scallops. Excellent news for me in the short term, as I like both. Not so good for the fishermen, who might be a bit miffed.
Id have thought the fishermen would br quite happy ,58% of all fish caught in british waters is by EU boats. We also run a BoP deficit on fish. I think thats why generally the fishermen are for leaving. French and Spanish restaurateurs might be less keen
I'm sure that one morning our fishermen could go out, catch and sell one type and quantity of fish to the EU and the next morning they could go out, catch and sell any other type and quantity of fish to not the EU.
But if you say it's no problem then that's cool.
Depends what you call a problem.
As Richard correctly points out talking about "fish" is meaningless. Some fish such as cod and mackerel we could happily catch ourselves in greater numbers and we would consume them. The fancier types of fish usually shell fish would have a problem, Either we suddeenly develop a taste for them, freeze them and find new markets or somebodys out of a job,
As ever on in Brext central people take the most extreme positions and argue it as the norm.
@Grabcocque An humble address can only be used for production of papers.
Erskine May, the authoritative guide to the practices and procedures of the House, explains that: Each House has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a motion for a return. A return from the Privy Council or from Departments headed by a Secretary of State is called for by means of an humble Address to the Sovereign.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
@Nemtynakht proposed below a mechanism to present all three choices, which might be acceptable to the EU, by putting the question on the WA first.
Negotiating with EU27 about which options should appear on the referendum ballot would be idiotic. They might as well allow every vote for Remain to count as half a vote. And it's unlikely that MPs will vote to give the electorate a chance to vote for a WA that they themselves will have labelled a complete crock. Sooner or later the attitude that "We know this is a steaming pile of dung but we're running with it because it's what the public wants" will have to, have to, surely, bite the dust. The government must put a clear programme to a vote in a referendum. If the clearest they've got is WTO, then use that. The other option should be Remain. Too afraid that people will reject the rubbish they've come up with? Get out of office, then.
In the United Kingdom, a humble address for a return is a rarely used parliamentary procedure by which either the House of Commons or House of Lords may petition the monarch, and by extension HM Government, to order documents to be produced
I think it falls down here, the revocation of Article 50 is not a "document to be produced".
Fair enough, though the humble address given after a queen's speech doesn't command documents to be produced. But maybe that's the only additional power they possess beyond wishing her a happy birthday.
So at the most simple level all of a sudden you have twice as much fish as you have demand for. No wonder Richard and Alan are celebrating. A consumer bonanza.
Not for long, though, because the fleets would soon be scrapped.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
A vast amount of the fish processed in Britain's huge seafood processing plants in places like Grimsby for entry into the British food chain, is caught by EU fleets (due to quotas). In a situation whereby fish caught by British fishermen could not be exported to the EU, their catches would simply displace those of their former EU competitors. Not very nice for them of course.
Not so, it's different types of fish.
Leave fanatics demonstrating they have the intellect of the average halibut...though that is probably being unkind to flatfish.
It's not different types of fish, it is what they catch that day, from the same seas. What do you think they do to get these 'different' types of fish, place an order?
In the United Kingdom, a humble address for a return is a rarely used parliamentary procedure by which either the House of Commons or House of Lords may petition the monarch, and by extension HM Government, to order documents to be produced
I think it falls down here, the revocation of Article 50 is not a "document to be produced".
Fair enough, though the humble address given after a queen's speech doesn't command documents to be produced. But maybe that's the only additional power they possess beyond wishing her a happy birthday.
There might be some other arcane mechanism parliament can force the executive's hand but it isn't an humble address.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
How much of UK caught and landed fish is destined for UK market and how much to export markets?
About two-thirds goes to the EU, IIRC.
Well, as a nation, for the good of hard Brexit, we'll have to change our eating habits.
OT. If you're reasonably well travelled and you landed from Mars you'd expect in a major European city to have a reasonable idea where you were within 5 or 10 minutes of wandering around.
The architecture the ambience the colour of the paint the language the look of the people the shops etc.
I arrived somewhere this morning and if it wasn't that I knew where I was I couldn't have guessed. A lot of English was spoken. There was a local dialect that I'd never heard before. The architecture was new to me and the currency was the euro. There was a local look which was slightly Turkish. Low hairlines and deep black hair..
Malta ?
Bravo! The European city of Culture Valletta.
What an unusual place. They even drive on the left.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
How much of UK caught and landed fish is destined for UK market and how much to export markets?
About two-thirds goes to the EU, IIRC.
Well, as a nation, for the good of hard Brexit we'll have to change our eating habits.
Yougov should poll on whether people would prefer herring, shellfish and mackerel over tuna, haddock and cod. The leave/remain split would be interesting.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
How much of UK caught and landed fish is destined for UK market and how much to export markets?
About two-thirds goes to the EU, IIRC.
Well, as a nation, for the good of hard Brexit we'll have to change our eating habits.
So at the most simple level all of a sudden you have twice as much fish as you have demand for. No wonder Richard and Alan are celebrating. A consumer bonanza.
Not for long, though, because the fleets would soon be scrapped.
Now youre just getting silly, the UK fishing fleet is hardly going to be demanding the CFP goes if it means suicide..
As Richard correctly points out talking about "fish" is meaningless. Some fish such as cod and mackerel we could happily catch ourselves in greater numbers and we would consume them. The fancier types of fish usually shell fish would have a problem, Either we suddeenly develop a taste for them, freeze them and find new markets or somebodys out of a job,
As ever on in Brext central people take the most extreme positions and argue it as the norm.
Eventually, yes, the market would adjust at some new level and mix of types of catch, but that adjustment can't be done quickly. Meanwhile a lot of fisherman and related operations would have gone bust.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
So we can sell them, just not to the EU until we prepare and come up with a solution.
How is this an argument for not preparing exactly?
Are you pretending to be dumb? I really can't believe anyone can be so stupid as to think we are suddenly going to find new markets for a products that is renowned for having a very short shelf life. It really is staggering.
the LuckyGuys and Xenons of this world would have liked the government to have spent the past two years negotiating with China for the sale of our post-EU fishing catch and to have reached agreement on firm orders for determined quantity and type, and pricing and guarantees, and delivery schedules, and contingencies, and alternative shipping methods, and quality control and disease control checks.
Just in case.
Or could just subsidise fishing for a few months with some of the £39bn we've saved until a new market is found.
Yougov should poll on whether people would prefer herring, shellfish and mackerel over tuna, haddock and cod. The leave/remain split would be interesting.
OT. If you're reasonably well travelled and you landed from Mars you'd expect in a major European city to have a reasonable idea where you were within 5 or 10 minutes of wandering around.
The architecture the ambience the colour of the paint the language the look of the people the shops etc.
I arrived somewhere this morning and if it wasn't that I knew where I was I couldn't have guessed. A lot of English was spoken. There was a local dialect that I'd never heard before. The architecture was new to me and the currency was the euro. There was a local look which was slightly Turkish. Low hairlines and deep black hair..
Malta ?
Bravo! The European city of Culture Valletta.
What an unusual place. They even drive on the left.
And the language is a form of Arabic heavily influenced by Romance, whereas Spanish is the other way round.
Yougov should poll on whether people would prefer herring, shellfish and mackerel over tuna, haddock and cod. The leave/remain split would be interesting.
oh and sea bream and sea bass - baked and served with a butter citrus sauce or a fresh tomato salsa
OT. If you're reasonably well travelled and you landed from Mars you'd expect in a major European city to have a reasonable idea where you were within 5 or 10 minutes of wandering around.
The architecture the ambience the colour of the paint the language the look of the people the shops etc.
I arrived somewhere this morning and if it wasn't that I knew where I was I couldn't have guessed. A lot of English was spoken. There was a local dialect that I'd never heard before. The architecture was new to me and the currency was the euro. There was a local look which was slightly Turkish. Low hairlines and deep black hair..
Malta is interesting, historically, with some intriguing Neolithic ruins. And a very fine Caravaggio in the cathedral. But it’s also hideously overcrowded; so take the boat to Gozo. Quiet and small and lovely.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
LOL at that!
I see LOLing, I see no argument. Are you another one who believes in no preparation for something as dangerous as no deal?
As I've just pointed out, it is impossible to prepare or plan for things outside your control. At best you can mitigate things a bit, but not in the timescales which are not or have ever been available.
Absolute rubbish.
OK, so let's take the simplest possible example, one so simple that anyone can understand it. How could the UK government prepare for the fact that with No Deal, from March 30th two-thirds of the UK fishing industry's catch can't be sold?
Why not?
Because the EU rules won't allow it without inspections, which aren't feasible with the facilities available and the shelf life is measured in hours.
How much of UK caught and landed fish is destined for UK market and how much to export markets?
About two-thirds goes to the EU, IIRC.
Well, as a nation, for the good of hard Brexit, we'll have to change our eating habits.
"Swedish political crisis deepens as opposition get its budget passed
Sweden's political crisis deepened on Wednesday as parliament rejected the caretaker government's budget in favour of a tax-cutting one from the opposition."
So at the most simple level all of a sudden you have twice as much fish as you have demand for. No wonder Richard and Alan are celebrating. A consumer bonanza.
Not for long, though, because the fleets would soon be scrapped.
Now youre just getting silly, the UK fishing fleet is hardly going to be demanding the CFP goes if it means suicide..
So at the most simple level all of a sudden you have twice as much fish as you have demand for. No wonder Richard and Alan are celebrating. A consumer bonanza.
Not for long, though, because the fleets would soon be scrapped.
Now youre just getting silly, the UK fishing fleet is hardly going to be demanding the CFP goes if it means suicide..
I wouldn’t rely on the fishing industry for long term thinking. Given the choice of restricting catches for the long term or profit today, they’d destroy their future every time. Look at the Grand Banks.
As Richard correctly points out talking about "fish" is meaningless. Some fish such as cod and mackerel we could happily catch ourselves in greater numbers and we would consume them. The fancier types of fish usually shell fish would have a problem, Either we suddeenly develop a taste for them, freeze them and find new markets or somebodys out of a job,
As ever on in Brext central people take the most extreme positions and argue it as the norm.
Eventually, yes, the market would adjust at some new level and mix of types of catch, but that adjustment can't be done quickly. Meanwhile a lot of fisherman and related operations would have gone bust.
Now youre conjecturing Richard. Theres a world wide shortage of fish which is why prices are climbing. Really none of us know how fishing communities would react, Pretending we do is just silly.
Comments
My problem is I took the piss out of my in-laws when the Irish took fright. Now the boot may be on the other foot.
The world may be chock full of countries that are fully politically and economically disengaged with the EU but it is not chock full of countries that have spent the past 40 years integrating into the EU and then deciding they want to leave it.
Is that the polling when Ed was considered on course to win?
Because there would have been intense popular pressure to use it as the route out of this highly predictable en passe....
This really be shouldn't hard to understand, but the nuttier kind of Leavers seem to find it an unfathomable concept.
"There is already a perfectly worked out contingency plan: revoke Article 50."
A cunning plan so cunning, no one's thought of it yet. In some ways, it would be a relief. I can just imagine the stirring speech in the Commons. "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for war."
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/bbc-sacks-dr-phil-hammond-for-vow-to-stand-against-jacob-rees-mogg/22/08/
If GE2017 had resulted in a Labour Gov't and Corbyn/Starmer had headed off to negotiate their "Jobs first" brexit they'd have most likely come back with eternal customs arrangement/Freedom of movement I'm guessing...
Obviously the big one for Corbyn would be being free of state aid rules within the EU.
Nevertheless it would most likely have been a Brexit of sorts (As May's deal is)
Would the Tory front bench (Doubtless the ERG would be totally against it) be opposing the deal as Corbyn is now ?
I try to keep up with what's going on in UKIP-land and while I agree with Sean_F we'd probably see polling return somewhere to where we were in 2013-2015, what you have now that you didn't have then is a bunch of angry kippers _plus_ the Tommeh Robinson anti-Islam crowd. Organised very effectively via social media (look at how quickly the Gilets Jaunes organised in ways that simply weren't there in 2013, when facebook was all about cat videos and baby pics...)
Now I know in a venn diagram there's likely to be a huge crossover in those two demographics, but my guess is that a very working-class brexit betrayal party will poll around 24% and will take as many votes from Labour as it does from the Tories. This certainly isn't something I'm crowing or gleeful about, in fact it's one of my greatest fears - that Alastair Meeks and co are absolutely right that the end result of Brexit will be to let the far right in through the back door.
It's one of the reasons I'm so in favour of May's deal. Some will cry betrayal, but by and large it is a compromise that will take the sting out of the stab-in-the-back myth you can already see UKIP preparing. Parliament voting to revoke article 50 will have the opposite effect.
Radiohead, Roxy Music and Janet Jackson will join the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame next year, alongside Def Leppard, The Zombies, Stevie Nicks and The Cure.
Or, as you and others seem to prefer, panicked over but not dealt with.
She's a bustler, she'll be indulging in frenetic displacement activity for another month and a half. Jetting across europe, demanding exceptional European Councils, negotiating addendums, demanding assurances...
Won't make a jot of difference to anything, of course, but people will commend her for it regardless. May can no longer distinguish between useful work and simply giving the appearance of doing something useful. And it all gets her praise so she doesn't mind.
But fortunately there is a hard deadline. Maybe we should let her get on with it, a special christmas treat for her strong and stable leadership.
Bustle away.
If you are arguing that it is all a shitshow then no one on this board would I'm sure disagree. If you think it could in any way not have been a shitshow then I think you are on far shakier ground.
The architecture the ambience the colour of the paint the language the look of the people the shops etc.
I arrived somewhere this morning and if it wasn't that I knew where I was I couldn't have guessed. A lot of English was spoken. There was a local dialect that I'd never heard before. The architecture was new to me and the currency was the euro. There was a local look which was slightly Turkish. Low hairlines and deep black hair..
How is this an argument for not preparing exactly?
It will detail how we respond, how we maintain and top up stockpiles, how we run customs, the contingencies in place with the supermarkets to quickly stitch together a domestic supply chain for those fish and many, many other mind boggling things.
The base political assumption might be that No Deal will not last long, and that an unsigned deal might stay on the table for a short while after 29/3 and we can jump straight back into transition, but the manual should also prioritise which mini deals to push for (or activate, if we spend some time agreeing mini deals before 29/3) first.
Let me be clear, I'll still be on the streets participating in mass protest if No Deal comes to pass (in between sourcing loo roll), but I still don't accept your very Sir Humphrey answer.
And get praise and a sticker for it.
Typically, humbled addresses are usually used for harmless things, thank you notes, birthday greetings etc.
But the Clerk of the House told Bercow that Labour's Humble Address was "effective". Meaning that Labour could use a humble address to compel the government to comply, or face contempt proceedings.
I see no reason to assume a humble address to compel Mrs May to revoke Article 50 should be any less effective.
Hmmmm.
(And as I said this is the simplest of all the myriad of problems which are insoluble by unilateral action).
Wormwood Scrubs?
How long are you in for?
It can, and should apply as much pressure as possible though. This madness has gone on long enough. Many people on the right bluster on about the possible benefits of benign dictatorship, well now is the time for MPs to stop being frit of their frothy mouthed leave constituents and do what they know is in the best interest of the country.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02788/SN02788.pdf
But if you say it's no problem then that's cool.
I think it falls down here, the revocation of Article 50 is not a "document to be produced".
It cannot revoke A50 directly, but it could use a Humble Address to command Mrs May to do it.
Just in case.
I wouldn't expect much in the way of getting back to any kind of even limited BAU before the autumn.
As Richard correctly points out talking about "fish" is meaningless. Some fish such as cod and mackerel we could happily catch ourselves in greater numbers and we would consume them. The fancier types of fish usually shell fish would have a problem, Either we suddeenly develop a taste for them, freeze them and find new markets or somebodys out of a job,
As ever on in Brext central people take the most extreme positions and argue it as the norm.
@Grabcocque An humble address can only be used for production of papers.
Erskine May, the authoritative guide to the practices and procedures of the House, explains that: Each House has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a motion for a return. A return from the Privy Council or from Departments headed by a Secretary of State is called for by means of an humble Address to the Sovereign.
What an unusual place. They even drive on the left.
Propose we call it "Boris Bread".
The leave/remain split would be interesting.
Right next impossible to solve problem.
you could also add hake, sole and crab
Sweden's political crisis deepened on Wednesday as parliament rejected the caretaker government's budget in favour of a tax-cutting one from the opposition."
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/swedish-political-crisis-deepens-as-opposition-get-its-budget-passed-11026308