Is that Mike quoting The Sun as a reliable source?
People seem very keen to quote the Guardan (I assume because it is free) and the Telegraph (because it is little more than a Brexit freesheet). Neither seem any more reliable than The Sun.
I have long been confused by the mysterious success of Patisserie Valerie. Surely there is a relatively limited market for gateaux?
Luke Johnson is a very smart guy and it’s a shock to see he seems to have been so thoroughly hoodwinked.
I think the source of the confusion has just revealed itself to be some rather dodgy accounting, rather than the innate success of the business!
The question is how it managed to go on for so long without anyone noticing? As you say, Johnson's a smart guy and you think he'd have been asking the right questions.
All rather weird, I guess there will be books written about it for the next generation of business and accounting students to study, and probably a few court cases for the law students to study too!
When I’ve sat on a board you are dependent on the numbers they throw up. Absolutely you look at the KPIs and trends and any issues. But if the numbers are made up - provided they are consistent - then you assume they are correct.
The auditors seem to have messed up in a big way if the cash balances were wrong. That’s a basic reconciliation
Reading up on the details, it’s astonishing that no one involved in the business but not involved in the fraud didn’t ask some basic questions. The markings were better than Starbucks, with no dip in margins or profits per store in any year as the business grew. Simply not credible.
Even less so, had anyone is senior management bothered to visit a couple of their outlets. I had the misfortune to go into their Stratford on Avon unit a couple of years back. Almost deserted - in one of the busiest tourist towns in England - and the food offering was worse that the average motorway service station. And it was obvious that very, very little money had been spent on fitting it out.
Had I been a shareholder, I would have sold immediately.
so you knew PatVal was underperforming and did nothing about it ? You are clearly complicit in this whole scandal.
I can see parliament is underperfoming, does that make me complicit?
I don't think this will work. Bluntly, £5000 wouldn't make up the salary gap they're talking about, and as a one off in most parts of the country it wouldn't even help towards buying a house.
Until workload is brought under control pay is so much irrelevance. This could actually be done very easily. A cheap start could be made by abolishing OFSTED, OFQUAL and whatever the DfE is called this week, all of which perform their tasks extraordinarily badly and do nothing except annoy actual experts by pontificating loudly about subjects they understand about as well as Corbyn does the Brexit negotiations.
However, the next stage is cutting class sizes and that's so costly no government will ever do it.
£5,000 is a cup of coffee every day for about 4 years.
What I find strange about this (and I'm not alone) is why Parliament can stop us leaving. They voted to let the people decide and promised to honour that promise.
Why insist on backbench MPs having a say? It's nowt to do with them. It's up to the powers-that-be (the executive if you like) to fulfil their promise. Why bring in MPs who dislike the result to arrange it? They're the pissheads at the back in a pub discussion who just like attention.
You may not like it, but that's puzzling a lot of people, me included. Had the Scot's voted for independence, would Parliament have insisted on strong Unionist MPs having a meaningful say in the outcome? If so, would the Scots have agreed?
Something something something Parliamentary sovereignty something something something take back control.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU.
It has been claimed that the UK could simply move to WTO terms if there is no deal with the EU. But Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true.
“No deal means leaving with nothing,” she said. “The anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades.”
The government’s own statistics have estimated that under the worst case no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower than if the UK stays in the EU, in 15 years.
There are two apparently insurmountable hurdles to the UK trading on current WTO tariffs in the event of Britain crashing out in March, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
You can afford to ROFL Alan. The poor sods up and down the country struggling to make ends meet at the moment will be the ones feeling the pain of no deal.
If you gave a toss about the poor sods you would have been doing something about it for the last 20 years or so.
Brexit was completely avoidable if instead of stuffing their boots our managerial and politcal classes had spent some time thinkinmg about they people in their charge
I don't think this will work. Bluntly, £5000 wouldn't make up the salary gap they're talking about, and as a one off in most parts of the country it wouldn't even help towards buying a house.
Until workload is brought under control pay is so much irrelevance. This could actually be done very easily. A cheap start could be made by abolishing OFSTED, OFQUAL and whatever the DfE is called this week, all of which perform their tasks extraordinarily badly and do nothing except annoy actual experts by pontificating loudly about subjects they understand about as well as Corbyn does the Brexit negotiations.
However, the next stage is cutting class sizes and that's so costly no government will ever do it.
No Deal would probably help most ironically, teacher recruitment always goes up in a recession
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU.
It has been claimed that the UK could simply move to WTO terms if there is no deal with the EU. But Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true.
“No deal means leaving with nothing,” she said. “The anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades.”
The government’s own statistics have estimated that under the worst case no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower than if the UK stays in the EU, in 15 years.
There are two apparently insurmountable hurdles to the UK trading on current WTO tariffs in the event of Britain crashing out in March, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
You can afford to ROFL Alan. The poor sods up and down the country struggling to make ends meet at the moment will be the ones feeling the pain of no deal.
If you gave a toss about the poor sods you would have been doing something about it for the last 20 years or so.
Brexit was completely avoidable if instead of stuffing their boots our managerial and politcal classes had spent some time thinkinmg about they people in their charge
Well that's rubbish. The appalling golf club bores have been cosseted like no other group. They voted en masse to leave the EU.
Is that Mike quoting The Sun as a reliable source?
People seem very keen to quote the Guardan (I assume because it is free) and the Telegraph (because it is little more than a Brexit freesheet). Neither seem any more reliable than The Sun.
Tom Newton Dunn seems a decent journalist to me.
He's quoting an unnamed source in Cabinet, but all political journos do that.
May ruling out N O D E A L would almost certainly mean it's now Plan A.
It is, since the official plan looks to be deal without backstop, which means no deal if the EU say no.
No, it means permanent Customs Union which Parliament would almost certainly vote for instead and which Juncker backed at the weekend and which by ruling out No Deal May is not going to block
There have been five or six votes on various forms of "A" or "The" customs union, all of which have failed in the Commons. Why would the result be any different if it were tried again?
The Commons voted down permanent Customs Union by just 6 votes last summer, the 10 Ministers reported as being ready to resign to stop No Deal would be enough on their own to pass a permanent Customs Union if they switched from opposing it last year to backing it now.
Given at least 50 Tory MPs who backed the Deal will likely switch and vote for anything to stop No Deal if the Deal is defeated again or the EU blocks any changes that moves permanent Customs Union from 301 MPs last year to at least 350 MPs and a clear majority
If you gave a toss about the poor sods you would have been doing something about it for the last 20 years or so.
Brexit was completely avoidable if instead of stuffing their boots our managerial and politcal classes had spent some time thinkinmg about they people in their charge
Exactly. The Eu has substantially benefitted some people.
Those people did nothing, other than bleat about how “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” they were (to quote a famous Remainer).
I don't think this will work. Bluntly, £5000 wouldn't make up the salary gap they're talking about, and as a one off in most parts of the country it wouldn't even help towards buying a house.
Until workload is brought under control pay is so much irrelevance. This could actually be done very easily. A cheap start could be made by abolishing OFSTED, OFQUAL and whatever the DfE is called this week, all of which perform their tasks extraordinarily badly and do nothing except annoy actual experts by pontificating loudly about subjects they understand about as well as Corbyn does the Brexit negotiations.
However, the next stage is cutting class sizes and that's so costly no government will ever do it.
You've heard me say this before, but steps 1, 2, 3 and 4 in both reducing workload and raising attainment are getting SEN kids out of mainstream classes by reviving special education.
Mrs Capitano's workload (primary head) pretty much followed a Pareto Principle Of Doom last year - 10% of the kids were 90% of the work. And getting the underfunded, demotivated LA to provide any support was an exercise in frustration.
One of the reasons I rate Layla Moran is because she's one of very few politicians to have twigged this. Labour's policy is still the disastrous "inclusivity" and the Conservatives are culpable for the current mess.
The real significance of last night's news about the anti-no deal ministers seems to have been missed. They're seeking to defer the point at which they might resign, not seeking to bring it to a head now.
Is that Mike quoting The Sun as a reliable source?
People seem very keen to quote the Guardan (I assume because it is free) and the Telegraph (because it is little more than a Brexit freesheet). Neither seem any more reliable than The Sun.
Tom Newton Dunn seems a decent journalist to me.
He's quoting an unnamed source in Cabinet, but all political journos do that.
It appears that the cabinet is leading like a sieve, even more so than usual.
It's basically time now for them to either shit or get off the pot, they sound like Labour MPs talking about leaving last year. Do they want to stop Brexit happening or do they want to take a ministerial salary and car, because they can't do both.
If this is true (how would we know?) this is a significant climb down for May. She can no longer use the threat of No Deal to suborn Parliament to vote for her shite deal.
She sort-of can since nobody believes anything she says either way. I mean, they won't believe her when she says she won't go No Deal, but they also can't be sure that she *won't* go No Deal.
It's a weird kind of negotiating strength: Normally you gain by making your words credible, but since she's trying to threaten both sides simultaneously it might be just what she needs...
At this moment the only people who can stop a no deal exit are MPs. And they can only do it not by posturing and whining but by taking a conscious, deliberate decision to either pass this deal, or to Revoke Article 50.
It is therefore disingenuous for anyone to blame May for the mess we are in. She actually has a workable plan and the Ultras aside, remains the only person who has (the Cooper plan being so much hot air). It is Parliament that is causing this logjam, and it is Parliament that needs to get itself sorted.
Hopefully next year there will be an election and a clearout, as they're demonstrating all the skill and grace and integrity of a Corbyn at the moment, pursuing impossible dreams and lying about them. But for the moment, we need to concentrate on surviving the next two months and three days.
Would we be in this mess if Gina Miller had lost her court case? So the irony is that if we end up in No Deal it's Remains fault...
Well I am not sure if you are being ironic, or demonstrating the blame-gaming and general stupidity that we will continue to see from those that advocated the pointless madness that is known as Brexit.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU.
It has been claimed that the UK could simply move to WTO terms if there is no deal with the EU. But Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true.
“No deal means leaving with nothing,” she said. “The anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades.”
The government’s own statistics have estimated that under the worst case no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower than if the UK stays in the EU, in 15 years.
There are two apparently insurmountable hurdles to the UK trading on current WTO tariffs in the event of Britain crashing out in March, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
You can afford to ROFL Alan. The poor sods up and down the country struggling to make ends meet at the moment will be the ones feeling the pain of no deal.
If you gave a toss about the poor sods you would have been doing something about it for the last 20 years or so.
Brexit was completely avoidable if instead of stuffing their boots our managerial and politcal classes had spent some time thinkinmg about they people in their charge
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval schedule:
You can afford to ROFL Alan. The poor sods up and down the country struggling to make ends meet at the moment will be the ones feeling the pain of no deal.
If you gave a toss about the poor sods you would have been doing something about it for the last 20 years or so.
Brexit was completely avoidable if instead of stuffing their boots our managerial and politcal classes had spent some time thinkinmg about they people in their charge
Well that's rubbish. The appalling golf club bores have been cosseted like no other group. They voted en masse to leave the EU.
yeah weve been through this fairy tale before. You dont get many golf club members in the C2DE category, they cant afford it.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval schedule:
You can afford to ROFL Alan. The poor sods up and down the country struggling to make ends meet at the moment will be the ones feeling the pain of no deal.
If you gave a toss about the poor sods you would have been doing something about it for the last 20 years or so.
Brexit was completely avoidable if instead of stuffing their boots our managerial and politcal classes had spent some time thinkinmg about they people in their charge
Well that's rubbish. The appalling golf club bores have been cosseted like no other group. They voted en masse to leave the EU.
yeah weve been through this fairy tale before. You dont get many golf club members in the C2DE category, they cant afford it.
Far from being a fairytale, reactionary elderly affluent professionals were the key demographic to win it for Leave. They were pampered by successive governments.
You have no explanation for their behaviour. I do.
The real significance of last night's news about the anti-no deal ministers seems to have been missed. They're seeking to defer the point at which they might resign, not seeking to bring it to a head now.
They will give the Deal one more chance, if it does not pass they will resign and switch en masse to vote for BINO and get their revenge on the ERG by ensuring BINO then has a parliamentary majority. That is the real significance
May ruling out N O D E A L would almost certainly mean it's now Plan A.
It is, since the official plan looks to be deal without backstop, which means no deal if the EU say no.
No, it means permanent Customs Union which Parliament would almost certainly vote for instead and which Juncker backed at the weekend and which by ruling out No Deal May is not going to block
There have been five or six votes on various forms of "A" or "The" customs union, all of which have failed in the Commons. Why would the result be any different if it were tried again?
The Commons voted down permanent Customs Union by just 6 votes last summer, the 10 Ministers reported as being ready to resign to stop No Deal would be enough on their own to pass a permanent Customs Union if they switched from opposing it last year to backing it now.
Given at least 50 Tory MPs who backed the Deal will likely switch and vote for anything to stop No Deal if the Deal is defeated again or the EU blocks any changes that moves permanent Customs Union from 301 MPs last year to at least 350 MPs and a clear majority
And plenty of Con MPs who voted for the deal are not going to vote for the ultimate vassal state outcome, whereby the EU negotiate on our behalf to reduce tariffs on our imports, but we have to negotiate separately with each country to reduce them on our exports.
A whipped CU vote probably leads to the likes of Gove resigning, it would be all the downsides of Brexit but with none of the upsides.
Oh, and customs union, whether "A" CU or "The" CU, still doesn't solve the backstop problem.
"May may be inching towards a policy acceptable to the bulk of both Tory and Labour MPs. The only way to get something through the house."
So if the Scots were allowed another Independence referendum and the vote went 52 - 48 in favour of independence, to soothe the unionist MPs, you'd offer a little more devolution instead?
Really? And you'd expect them to be happy?
Mr Meeks is right on one thing, we need to leave for the sake of the country.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU.
It has been claimed that the UK could simply move to WTO terms if there is no deal with the EU. But Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true.
“No deal means leaving with nothing,” she said. “The anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades.”
The government’s own statistics have estimated that under the worst case no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower than if the UK stays in the EU, in 15 years.
There are two apparently insurmountableaft schedule:
You can afford to ROFL Alan. The poor sods up and down the country struggling to make ends meet at the moment will be the ones feeling the pain of no deal.
If you gave a toss about the poor sods you would have beir boots our managerial and politcal classes had spent some time thinkinmg about they people in their charge
That managerial class that you are not part of?
correct
the managerial split in the UK is between the large corporates and the SMEs
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
What I find strange about this (and I'm not alone) is why Parliament can stop us leaving. They voted to let the people decide and promised to honour that promise.
Why insist on backbench MPs having a say? It's nowt to do with them. It's up to the powers-that-be (the executive if you like) to fulfil their promise. Why bring in MPs who dislike the result to arrange it? They're the pissheads at the back in a pub discussion who just like attention.
You may not like it, but that's puzzling a lot of people, me included. Had the Scot's voted for independence, would Parliament have insisted on strong Unionist MPs having a meaningful say in the outcome? If so, would the Scots have agreed?
That's two different questions.
1) Why is parliament involved? Because Britain is a parliamentary democracy.
2) Why are MPs who oppose Brexit involved? Technically it's same reason as (1). But politically it's because MPs who favour Brexit can't agree on how they think the referendum should be implemented. If the Leave enthusiasts hadn't run against the deal, or if they'd proposed an alternative deal that they agreed on and that the EU would swallow, then the Tory Remain MPs would have sucked it up and voted it through. But they're faced with a situation where there's nothing they can do that won't result in them being accused of betraying the referendum result, so they've started to figure they may as well be hung for a sheep as hung for a lamb...
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval schedule:
You can afford to ROFL Alan. The poor sods up and down the country struggling to make ends meet at the moment will be the ones feeling the pain of no deal.
If you gave a toss about the poor sods you would have been doing something about it for the last 20 years or so.
Brexit was completely avoidable if instead of stuffing their boots our managerial and politcal classes had spent some time thinkinmg about they people in their charge
Well that's rubbish. The appalling golf club bores have been cosseted like no other group. They voted en masse to leave the EU.
yeah weve been through this fairy tale before. You dont get many golf club members in the C2DE category, they cant afford it.
Far from being a fairytale, reactionary elderly affluent professionals were the key demographic to win it for Leave. They were pampered by successive governments.
You have no explanation for their behaviour. I do.
No the corporates and their hangers on such as big the 4 accountants and large legals are the pampered crew. plus anything in London.
A reflection of the Parliamentary arithmetic given if Parliament does not vote for the Deal a second time it will almost certainly vote for a permanent Customs Union instead to avoid No Deal and given Juncker's statement over the weekend the EU could renegotiate with a permanent Customs Union that would then become the new Deal by default
A permanent CU respects the result of the referendum and – crucially – offers certainly and stability for exporters like our business. It would probably be greeted by an uplift in several economic confidence indicators. It has been the obvious solution all along and one can only hope that it is where we end up.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
No one knows how bad it will be.
Sometimes things turn out to be entirely outside the range of speculation, whether for better or for worse.
Looking at a range of unevidenced guesses and propaganda and saying it's bound to be in the middle isn't a safe procedure.
If this is true (how would we know?) this is a significant climb down for May. She can no longer use the threat of No Deal to suborn Parliament to vote for her shite deal.
She sort-of can since nobody believes anything she says either way. I mean, they won't believe her when she says she won't go No Deal, but they also can't be sure that she *won't* go No Deal.
It's a weird kind of negotiating strength: Normally you gain by making your words credible, but since she's trying to threaten both sides simultaneously it might be just what she needs...
At this moment the only people who can stop a no deal exit are MPs. And they can only do it not by posturing and whining but by taking a conscious, deliberate decision to either pass this deal, or to Revoke Article 50.
It is therefore disingenuous for anyone to blame May for the mess we are in. She actually has a workable plan and the Ultras aside, remains the only person who has (the Cooper plan being so much hot air). It is Parliament that is causing this logjam, and it is Parliament that needs to get itself sorted.
Hopefully next year there will be an election and a clearout, as they're demonstrating all the skill and grace and integrity of a Corbyn at the moment, pursuing impossible dreams and lying about them. But for the moment, we need to concentrate on surviving the next two months and three days.
Would we be in this mess if Gina Miller had lost her court case? So the irony is that if we end up in No Deal it's Remains fault...
Certainly if we end up with No Deal Leavers will claim it's Remain's fault.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
A reflection of the Parliamentary arithmetic given if Parliament does not vote for the Deal a second time it will almost certainly vote for a permanent Customs Union instead to avoid No Deal and given Juncker's statement over the weekend the EU could renegotiate with a permanent Customs Union that would then become the new Deal by default
A permanent CU respects the result of the referendum and – crucially – offers certainly and stability for exporters like our business. It would probably be greeted by an uplift in several economic confidence indicators. It has been the obvious solution all along and one can only hope that it is where we end up.
No, it would completely screw our exporters in favour of our importers, mainly other EU countries. This is why Junker would sign it tomorrow, and the Labour MPs supporting the idea haven't got a clue what it means in practice.
See Turkey for more details, every deal the EU does covers imports to Turkey but not exports from Turkey.
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nail up the volume.
crazy.
No one knows how bad it will be.
Sometimes things turn out to be entirely outside the range of speculation, whether for better or for worse.
Looking at a range of unevidenced guesses and propaganda and saying it's bound to be in the middle isn't a safe procedure.
Ive said portraying everything as a disaster is crazy.
some things will go wrong but not everything
and as for being safe in the middle, I dont discount that somethings will also go well.
Mr. Anazina, nothing says regaining the right to determine our own political destiny like handing over control of our trade policy to the organisation we voted to leave.
Is that Mike quoting The Sun as a reliable source?
People seem very keen to quote the Guardan (I assume because it is free) and the Telegraph (because it is little more than a Brexit freesheet). Neither seem any more reliable than The Sun.
I read Dear Deidre in the Sun.. its great entertainment
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
I don't think this will work. Bluntly, £5000 wouldn't make up the salary gap they're talking about, and as a one off in most parts of the country it wouldn't even help towards buying a house.
Until workload is brought under control pay is so much irrelevance. This could actually be done very easily. A cheap start could be made by abolishing OFSTED, OFQUAL and whatever the DfE is called this week, all of which perform their tasks extraordinarily badly and do nothing except annoy actual experts by pontificating loudly about subjects they understand about as well as Corbyn does the Brexit negotiations.
However, the next stage is cutting class sizes and that's so costly no government will ever do it.
£5,000 is a cup of coffee every day for about 4 years.
£3.42 for a cup of coffee? How the other other half lives!
Mr. Anazina, nothing says regaining the right to determine our own political destiny like handing over control of our trade policy to the organisation we voted to leave.
Nice in theory but there are also practical aspects.
Do you think Liam Fox is capable of conducting successful trade negotiations ?
And if not then who in Westminster do you think is ?
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nail up the volume.
crazy.
No one knows how bad it will be.
Sometimes things turn out to be entirely outside the range of speculation, whether for better or for worse.
Looking at a range of unevidenced guesses and propaganda and saying it's bound to be in the middle isn't a safe procedure.
Ive said portraying everything as a disaster is crazy.
some things will go wrong but not everything
and as for being safe in the middle, I dont discount that somethings will also go well.
You said it could never be as bad as the remainers portray it.
The fact is that we won't know how bad it's going to be until it happens.
Mr. Richard, sorry, I misunderstood. If the customs union is to last only until Fox is out of the Cabinet, it's an option worth considering.
Systems should be set up on the basis of long term national interest, not to throw power at a particularly capable man or restrict it from an idiot. That's why Rome won the Second Punic War. Their political system was absolutely solid.
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
the piece quoted simply backs up what Ive said. Pumping out non stop gloom is not effective, the public has deemed it not credible and doubling down will simply make the "experts" even less credible in future.
Mr. Richard, sorry, I misunderstood. If the customs union is to last only until Fox is out of the Cabinet, it's an option worth considering.
Systems should be set up on the basis of long term national interest, not to throw power at a particularly capable man or restrict it from an idiot. That's why Rome won the Second Punic War. Their political system was absolutely solid.
But who would you replace Fox with ?
Can you give the names of people you think could conduct successful trade negotiations ?
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nail up the volume.
crazy.
No one knows how bad it will be.
Sometimes things turn out to be entirely outside the range of speculation, whether for better or for worse.
Looking at a range of unevidenced guesses and propaganda and saying it's bound to be in the middle isn't a safe procedure.
Ive said portraying everything as a disaster is crazy.
some things will go wrong but not everything
and as for being safe in the middle, I dont discount that somethings will also go well.
You said it could never be as bad as the remainers portray it.
The fact is that we won't know how bad it's going to be until it happens.
of course we wont which is why bigging everything up as a disaster doesnt work
if youre complaining about everything youre complaining about nothing
a few reasoned arguments would have worked better and have had a hearing
Will there ever be another Scottish referendum on independence? if so, why? Unless the UK Parliament already has a majority for it, a leave vote would be deemed too difficult to implement. After all, we 300 years of history to unravel.
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nail up the volume.
crazy.
No one knows how bad it will be.
Sometimes things turn out to be entirely outside the range of speculation, whether for better or for worse.
Looking at a range of unevidenced guesses and propaganda and saying it's bound to be in the middle isn't a safe procedure.
Ive said portraying everything as a disaster is crazy.
some things will go wrong but not everything
and as for being safe in the middle, I dont discount that somethings will also go well.
You said it could never be as bad as the remainers portray it.
The fact is that we won't know how bad it's going to be until it happens.
of course we wont which is why bigging everything up as a disaster doesnt work
if youre complaining about everything youre complaining about nothing
a few reasoned arguments would have worked better and have had a hearing
Critiquing the tactics of your opponents is usually a sign they’re winning.
Mr. Richard, sorry, I misunderstood. If the customs union is to last only until Fox is out of the Cabinet, it's an option worth considering.
Systems should be set up on the basis of long term national interest, not to throw power at a particularly capable man or restrict it from an idiot. That's why Rome won the Second Punic War. Their political system was absolutely solid.
But who would you replace Fox with ?
Can you give the names of people you think could conduct successful trade negotiations ?
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nail up the volume.
crazy.
No one knows how bad it will be.
Sometimes things turn out to be entirely outside the range of speculation, whether for better or for worse.
Looking at a range of unevidenced guesses and propaganda and saying it's bound to be in the middle isn't a safe procedure.
Ive said portraying everything as a disaster is crazy.
some things will go wrong but not everything
and as for being safe in the middle, I dont discount that somethings will also go well.
You said it could never be as bad as the remainers portray it.
The fact is that we won't know how bad it's going to be until it happens.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Probably... May deposed and A50 revoked or at the very least delayed. What we lotophagi of pb.com often forget is how wildly popular No Deal will be among the belligerent shit munchers of the north who smoke cigarettes and have clothes with writing on it.
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nail up the volume.
crazy.
No one knows how bad it will be.
Sometimes things turn out to be entirely outside the range of speculation, whether for better or for worse.
Looking at a range of unevidenced guesses and propaganda and saying it's bound to be in the middle isn't a safe procedure.
Ive said portraying everything as a disaster is crazy.
some things will go wrong but not everything
and as for being safe in the middle, I dont discount that somethings will also go well.
You said it could never be as bad as the remainers portray it.
The fact is that we won't know how bad it's going to be until it happens.
of course we wont which is why bigging everything up as a disaster doesnt work
if youre complaining about everything youre complaining about nothing
a few reasoned arguments would have worked better and have had a hearing
Critiquing the tactics of your opponents is usually a sign they’re winning.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Probably... May deposed and A50 revoked or at the very least delayed. What we lotophagi of pb.com often forget is how wildly popular No Deal will be among the belligerent shit munchers of the north who smoke cigarettes and have clothes with writing on it.
If people are working on the assumption that Article 50 will be revoked in April, they really are in for a rude awakening.
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Christ knows. But the way that the death cult discount the possibility of serious disruption when the government itself does not and where such Einsteins as Chris Grayling and Matt Hancock are in charge of critical departments illustrates the way in which faith trumps reason.
If there are avoidable deaths as a result of no-deal Brexit, there will be blood on the hands of all that were willing to accept that outcome.
May ruling out N O D E A L would almost certainly mean it's now Plan A.
It is, since the official plan looks to be deal without backstop, which means no deal if the EU say no.
No, it means permanent Customs Union which Parliament would almost certainly vote for instead and which Juncker backed at the weekend and which by ruling out No Deal May is not going to block
There have been five or six votes on various forms of "A" or "The" customs union, all of which have failed in the Commons. Why would the result be any different if it were tried again?
The Commons voted down permanent Customs Union by just 6 votes last summer, the 10 Ministers reported as being ready to resign to stop No Deal would be enough on their own to pass a permanent Customs Union if they switched from opposing it last year to backing it now.
Given at least 50 Tory MPs who backed the Deal will likely switch and vote for anything to stop No Deal if the Deal is defeated again or the EU blocks any changes that moves permanent Customs Union from 301 MPs last year to at least 350 MPs and a clear majority
And plenty of Con MPs who voted for the deal are not going to vote for the ultimate vassal state outcome, whereby the EU negotiate on our behalf to reduce tariffs on our imports, but we have to negotiate separately with each country to reduce them on our exports.
A whipped CU vote probably leads to the likes of Gove resigning, it would be all the downsides of Brexit but with none of the upsides.
Oh, and customs union, whether "A" CU or "The" CU, still doesn't solve the backstop problem.
Plenty but not enough to stop permanent Customs Union passing given it only needs less than 10 Tory Deal backers to switch to have a Commons majority.
Juncker backed a permanent Customs Union at the weekend as the only basis for renegotiation and said that was the only circumstance the EU might consider dropping the backstop. Permanent Customs Union could of course run alongside the backstop, those who oppose the backstop would not vote for permanent Customs Union anyway but there are not enough of them to stop it
A reflection of the Parliamentary arithmetic given if Parliament does not vote for the Deal a second time it will almost certainly vote for a permanent Customs Union instead to avoid No Deal and given Juncker's statement over the weekend the EU could renegotiate with a permanent Customs Union that would then become the new Deal by default
A permanent CU respects the result of the referendum and – crucially – offers certainly and stability for exporters like our business. It would probably be greeted by an uplift in several economic confidence indicators. It has been the obvious solution all along and one can only hope that it is where we end up.
I prefer the Deal to permanent Customs Union which has its downsides as Sandpit points out but permanent Customs Union is still better than No Deal
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
So, good to know that Anna Soubry is signed up to a non-disastrous Brexit. And here's me thinking she just wants to Remain....
As she is an intelligent person she knows there is no such thing as a "non-disastrous " Brexit, though there are definitely some versions of the said delirium that are more disastrous than others. Boris doesn't consider any version of Brexit that might advance his career as disastrous.
Mr. Richard, both front benches are stacked with incompetence. By your rationale, we should permanently give ourselves over to EU governance rather than handle our own affairs because the current crop is blighted.
We voted to leave the EU. Even remaining might be better than the nonsense being proposed by some now. Retaining the burdens and losing what advantages there are, May agreeing to regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland, £39bn to the EU being legally binding (if the deal passes) and the EU's declaration on a trade deal being empty words, all point to feebleness and tomfoolery.
It won't last. The way forward is a settlement that can be seen to be fair to both sides and last on that basis. Currently a Parliament of Remainers are seeking to dilute the decision to leave to the point we're leaving in name only.
Politics is currently entrenched, polarised, and poisonous. But it can, and likely will, get worse from here.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
Lack of fresh brie and not being a held up by Irish lorries thundering along the A14 on their way to France is something we would get over.
However this deal is going to be fudged through - despite the best efforts of Lib Dems like Ms Soubry.
She is not a LibDem just because she doesn't sign up to the stupidity of Brexit you plonker. That is like suggesting all people who are in favour of Brexit are Kippers. It is just stupid and demonstrates how puerile your understanding of the subject is.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
Lack of fresh brie and not being a held up by Irish lorries thundering along the A14 on their way to France is something we would get over.
However this deal is going to be fudged through - despite the best efforts of Lib Dems like Ms Soubry.
She is not a LibDem just because she doesn't sign up to the stupidity of Brexit you plonker. That is like suggesting all people who are in favour of Brexit are Kippers. It is just stupid and demonstrates how puerile your understanding of the subject is.
He has a deep understanding - of how to push your buttons....
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
Seems the public have a touching faith in "they", as in the powers-that-be, civil servants etc who wont "let things get out of hand" (p.28)
Seems odd to me, as at least some of the Brexit vote was a pure, "we'll teach them [as in the same 'they'] a bloody lesson".
Nor do the public seem to believe a word this 'they' says about No Deal, but expect them to make sure it isn't too bad.
God help us all.
I'd trust Tesco procurement managers to fill shelves before civil servants help in anyway. The will have a much bigger incentive to expedite deliveries than Tarquin from the FO.
Luke Johnson is a very smart guy and it’s a shock to see he seems to have been so thoroughly hoodwinked.
I think the source of the confusion has just revealed itself to be some rather dodgy accounting, rather than the innate success of the business!
The question is how it managed to go on for so long without anyone noticing? As you say, Johnson's a smart guy and you think he'd have been asking the right questions.
All rather weird, I guess there will be books written about it for the next generation of business and accounting students to study, and probably a few court cases for the law students to study too!
When I’ve sat on a board you are dependent on the numbers they throw up. Absolutely you look at the KPIs and trends and any issues. But if the numbers are made up - provided they are consistent - then you assume they are correct.
The auditors seem to have messed up in a big way if the cash balances were wrong. That’s a basic reconciliation
While accountants in private companies might massage the figures slightly with things like valuations of leases and intangibles, the books at PV seem to bear no relationship to the true figures, with debt facilities and overdrafts apparently missing completely.
I think it was your good self who said on here that audit is the next big scandal coming down the line, and this is undoubtedly a future textbook example of what happens when those who you are paying to be critical and cynical don't fulfill that role effectively - but still feel able to charge top rates for their services. Dare I suggest that the same might also be said of the non-executive directors, whom the shareholders might expect to be asking the right questions rather than simply assuming things are great?
NED positions are difficult. I enjoy them because I am still learning but in the main they are a lot of personal risk for not much money
I always assumed the whole non-exec director thing was the old boys network writ large. Unless you went to the right school (i.e private) you are unlikely to be invited to become a NED, but once you are on one board the invites will roll in it seems.
The only change in recent years is that 'old boys' has become 'old boys and girls' as companies scramble to avoid appearing to be totally male dominated.
Not really - it is network driven (knowing the ceo/chairman/lawyers etc) but not really old school anymore.
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
Lack of fresh brie and not being a held up by Irish lorries thundering along the A14 on their way to France is something we would get over.
However this deal is going to be fudged through - despite the best efforts of Lib Dems like Ms Soubry.
She is not a LibDem just because she doesn't sign up to the stupidity of Brexit you plonker. That is like suggesting all people who are in favour of Brexit are Kippers. It is just stupid and demonstrates how puerile your understanding of the subject is.
She is actively agitating to thwart the PMs plans and is not bringing forward or supporting any amendments that have a honest or constructive way forward.
She wants the referendum overturned but cowers behind a "Peoples Vote".
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU.
It has been claimed that the UK could simply move to WTO terms if there is no deal with the EU. But Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true.
“No deal means leaving with nothing,” she said. “The anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades.”
The government’s own statistics have estimated that under the worst case no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower than if the UK stays in the EU, in 15 years.
There are two apparently insurmountable hurdles to the UK trading on current WTO tariffs in the event of Britain crashing out in March, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
You can afford to ROFL Alan. The poor sods up and down the country struggling to make ends meet at the moment will be the ones feeling the pain of no deal.
That last paragraph is self contradictory
“The U.K. must produce a schedule” “Several countries have objected to the draft”
I recall back last year - Oct/Nov? - there was a report on the schedule negotiations making progress
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
The examples I gave just happened to be fresh foods, but it's not limited to those. It also applies to tinned and frozen foods. Even things like soap sometimes.
May ruling out N O D E A L would almost certainly mean it's now Plan A.
It is, since the official plan looks to be deal without backstop, which means no deal if the EU say no.
No, it means permanent Customs Union which Parliament would almost certainly vote for instead and which Juncker backed at the weekend and which by ruling out No Deal May is not going to block
There have been five or six votes on various forms of "A" or "The" customs union, all of which have failed in the Commons. Why would the result be any different if it were tried again?
The Commons voted down permanent Customs Union by just 6 votes last summer, the 10 Ministers reported as being ready to resign to stop No Deal would be enough on their own to pass a permanent Customs Union if they switched from opposing it last year to backing it now.
Given at least 50 Tory MPs who backed the Deal will likely switch and vote for anything to stop No Deal if the Deal is defeated again or the EU blocks any changes that moves permanent Customs Union from 301 MPs last year to at least 350 MPs and a clear majority
And plenty of Con MPs who voted for the deal are not going to vote for the ultimate vassal state outcome, whereby the EU negotiate on our behalf to reduce tariffs on our imports, but we have to negotiate separately with each country to reduce them on our exports.
A whipped CU vote probably leads to the likes of Gove resigning, it would be all the downsides of Brexit but with none of the upsides.
Oh, and customs union, whether "A" CU or "The" CU, still doesn't solve the backstop problem.
Plenty but not enough to stop permanent Customs Union passing given it only needs less than 10 Tory Deal backers to switch to have a Commons majority.
Juncker backed a permanent Customs Union at the weekend as the only basis for renegotiation and said that was the only circumstance the EU might consider dropping the backstop. Permanent Customs Union could of course run alongside the backstop, those who oppose the backstop would not vote for permanent Customs Union anyway but there are not enough of them to stop it
Did Junker actually say he'd consider removing the backstop for a CU deal??
CU doesn't solve the backstop, only CU and SM does that (with the latter including large annual payments and FoM) to avoid regulatory divergence between NI and ROI. There's no way the PM agrees to that.
Mr. Richard, both front benches are stacked with incompetence. By your rationale, we should permanently give ourselves over to EU governance rather than handle our own affairs because the current crop is blighted.
We voted to leave the EU. Even remaining might be better than the nonsense being proposed by some now. Retaining the burdens and losing what advantages there are, May agreeing to regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland, £39bn to the EU being legally binding (if the deal passes) and the EU's declaration on a trade deal being empty words, all point to feebleness and tomfoolery.
It won't last. The way forward is a settlement that can be seen to be fair to both sides and last on that basis. Currently a Parliament of Remainers are seeking to dilute the decision to leave to the point we're leaving in name only.
Politics is currently entrenched, polarised, and poisonous. But it can, and likely will, get worse from here.
So you're saying you want an independent trade policy but don't know anyone who could conduct successful trade negotiations.
Is having worse trade deals or no trade deals such a symbol of national virility for you ?
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
The examples I gave just happened to be fresh foods, but it's not limited to those. It also applies to tinned and frozen foods. Even things like soap sometimes.
I don't think this will work. Bluntly, £5000 wouldn't make up the salary gap they're talking about, and as a one off in most parts of the country it wouldn't even help towards buying a house.
Until workload is brought under control pay is so much irrelevance. This could actually be done very easily. A cheap start could be made by abolishing OFSTED, OFQUAL and whatever the DfE is called this week, all of which perform their tasks extraordinarily badly and do nothing except annoy actual experts by pontificating loudly about subjects they understand about as well as Corbyn does the Brexit negotiations.
However, the next stage is cutting class sizes and that's so costly no government will ever do it.
You've heard me say this before, but steps 1, 2, 3 and 4 in both reducing workload and raising attainment are getting SEN kids out of mainstream classes by reviving special education.
Mrs Capitano's workload (primary head) pretty much followed a Pareto Principle Of Doom last year - 10% of the kids were 90% of the work. And getting the underfunded, demotivated LA to provide any support was an exercise in frustration.
One of the reasons I rate Layla Moran is because she's one of very few politicians to have twigged this. Labour's policy is still the disastrous "inclusivity" and the Conservatives are culpable for the current mess.
Agreed.
The recent parliamentary report is pertinent: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeduc/342/342.pdf Local Authority PRUs have in some ways become special schools, albeit ad hoc, underfunded, and oversubscribed, in all but name. Some of the larger primaries are setting up their own internal PRUs.
May ruling out N O D E A L would almost certainly mean it's now Plan A.
It is, since the official plan looks to be deal without backstop, which means no deal if the EU say no.
No, it means permanent Customs Union which Parliament would almost certainly vote for instead and which Juncker backed at the weekend and which by ruling out No Deal May is not going to block
There have been five or six votes on various forms of "A" or "The" customs union, all of which have failed in the Commons. Why would the result be any different if it were tried again?
The Commons voted down permanent Customs Union by just 6 votes last summer, the 10 Ministers reported as being ready to resign to stop No Deal would be enough on their own to pass a permanent Customs Union if they switched from opposing it last year to backing it now.
Given at least 50 Tory MPs who backed the Deal will likely switch and vote for anything to stop No Deal if the Deal is defeated again or the EU blocks any changes that moves permanent Customs Union from 301 MPs last year to at least 350 MPs and a clear majority
And plenty of Con MPs who voted for the deal are not going to vote for the ultimate vassal state outcome, whereby the EU negotiate on our behalf to reduce tariffs on our imports, but we have to negotiate separately with each country to reduce them on our exports.
A whipped CU vote probably leads to the likes of Gove resigning, it would be all the downsides of Brexit but with none of the upsides.
Oh, and customs union, whether "A" CU or "The" CU, still doesn't solve the backstop problem.
Plenty but not enough to stop permanent Customs Union passing given it only needs less than 10 Tory Deal backers to switch to have a Commons majority.
Juncker backed a permanent Customs Union at the weekend as the only basis for renegotiation and said that was the only circumstance the EU might consider dropping the backstop. Permanent Customs Union could of course run alongside the backstop, those who oppose the backstop would not vote for permanent Customs Union anyway but there are not enough of them to stop it
Did Junker actually say he'd consider removing the backstop for a CU deal??
CU doesn't solve the backstop, only CU and SM does that (with the latter including large annual payments and FoM) to avoid regulatory divergence between NI and ROI. There's no way the PM agrees to that.
No, they suggested going back to a Northern Ireland-only backstop.
Mr. Richard, is permanently handing over sovereign powers to an organisation we voted to leave your idea of respecting democracy?
I share your lack of faith in Fox. That doesn't mean we should aspire to ignore the referendum and permanently hand over authority over our nation to the EU, having just voted to leave it.
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
The examples I gave just happened to be fresh foods, but it's not limited to those. It also applies to tinned and frozen foods. Even things like soap sometimes.
When the supermarkets themselves are building up their stocks ahead of Brexit, it makes obvious sense to do so as an individual too. I'm shopping more than normal at the moment, so as to accumulate a reasonable store of long-lasting food items and essentials ahead of 29 March, and I expect many others are as well. Like any form of insurance, one hopes it won't be needed!
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
Seems the public have a touching faith in "they", as in the powers-that-be, civil servants etc who wont "let things get out of hand" (p.28)
Seems odd to me, as at least some of the Brexit vote was a pure, "we'll teach them [as in the same 'they'] a bloody lesson".
Nor do the public seem to believe a word this 'they' says about No Deal, but expect them to make sure it isn't too bad.
God help us all.
I'd trust Tesco procurement managers to fill shelves before civil servants help in anyway. The will have a much bigger incentive to expedite deliveries than Tarquin from the FO.
When will we see the first supermarket advertise that it's implementing measures to mitigate the worst food-reducing effects of Brexit? (All good marketing men should find opportunity in disaster.) Offering selected 'Brexit discounts' on products with a long shelf life might be a good approach.
The Commons voted down permanent Customs Union by just 6 votes last summer, the 10 Ministers reported as being ready to resign to stop No Deal would be enough on their own to pass a permanent Customs Union if they switched from opposing it last year to backing it now.
Given at least 50 Tory MPs who backed the Deal will likely switch and vote for anything to stop No Deal if the Deal is defeated again or the EU blocks any changes that moves permanent Customs Union from 301 MPs last year to at least 350 MPs and a clear majority
And plenty of Con MPs who voted for the deal are not going to vote for the ultimate vassal state outcome, whereby the EU negotiate on our behalf to reduce tariffs on our imports, but we have to negotiate separately with each country to reduce them on our exports.
A whipped CU vote probably leads to the likes of Gove resigning, it would be all the downsides of Brexit but with none of the upsides.
Oh, and customs union, whether "A" CU or "The" CU, still doesn't solve the backstop problem.
Plenty but not enough to stop permanent Customs Union passing given it only needs less than 10 Tory Deal backers to switch to have a Commons majority.
Juncker backed a permanent Customs Union at the weekend as the only basis for renegotiation and said that was the only circumstance the EU might consider dropping the backstop. Permanent Customs Union could of course run alongside the backstop, those who oppose the backstop would not vote for permanent Customs Union anyway but there are not enough of them to stop it
Did Junker actually say he'd consider removing the backstop for a CU deal??
CU doesn't solve the backstop, only CU and SM does that (with the latter including large annual payments and FoM) to avoid regulatory divergence between NI and ROI. There's no way the PM agrees to that.
No, they suggested going back to a Northern Ireland-only backstop.
Lol, and who's going to agree to annexing NI? The DUP (and possibly a few Conservatives) would cross the floor and we'd have even more Parliamentary chaos than we do already.
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
Seems the public have a touching faith in "they", as in the powers-that-be, civil servants etc who wont "let things get out of hand" (p.28)
Seems odd to me, as at least some of the Brexit vote was a pure, "we'll teach them [as in the same 'they'] a bloody lesson".
Nor do the public seem to believe a word this 'they' says about No Deal, but expect them to make sure it isn't too bad.
God help us all.
I'd trust Tesco procurement managers to fill shelves before civil servants help in anyway. The will have a much bigger incentive to expedite deliveries than Tarquin from the FO.
When will we see the first supermarket advertise that it's implementing measures to mitigate the worst food-reducing effects of Brexit? (All good marketing men should find opportunity in disaster.) Offering selected 'Brexit discounts' on products with a long shelf life might be a good approach.
Plus when a deal is fudged through there might be some bargains to be had as they have a surplus.
The optics of a few embittered Con MPs not supporting an amendment that could see a version of Mrs Mays deal passing isn't going to be good for the "Onoda" holdouts.
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
The examples I gave just happened to be fresh foods, but it's not limited to those. It also applies to tinned and frozen foods. Even things like soap sometimes.
Mr. Richard, is permanently handing over sovereign powers to an organisation we voted to leave your idea of respecting democracy?
I share your lack of faith in Fox. That doesn't mean we should aspire to ignore the referendum and permanently hand over authority over our nation to the EU, having just voted to leave it.
I'm afraid you're just blathering MD whereas I'm looking at things in a real world perspective.
Give us some names of people you think could conduct successful trade negotiations.
Because if you can't then you're willing to accept worse trade deals as a symbol of national virility.
And nothing is 'permanent' in this country's relationship with the EU.
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
The examples I gave just happened to be fresh foods, but it's not limited to those. It also applies to tinned and frozen foods. Even things like soap sometimes.
When the supermarkets themselves are building up their stocks ahead of Brexit, it makes obvious sense to do so as an individual too. I'm shopping more than normal at the moment, so as to accumulate a reasonable store of long-lasting food items and essentials ahead of 29 March, and I expect many others are as well. Like any form of insurance, one hopes it won't be needed!
Yes. The problem is that most people probably buy their food on a "just in time" basis too.
No doubt if there are serious food shortages political rhetoric will finally go out of the window and we'll agree to anything the EU wants to restore the status quo ante.
I'm afraid my stockpiling is being done on the basis of the story about how fast you have to run if there are two of you being chased by a lion.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionle, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
I think that a 30 year recession can be safely discounted.
Brexit even on the worst terms can NEVER be as bad as the remainers portray it. They have gone to every extreme possible gloomsday and banked it as nailed on, Nothing ever is.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
Indeed. The bar for no-deal is now so low, that people not starving, dying for want of medicine or rioting in the street will mean it's a success.
Both of you are, as usual, quite wrong. The public is not expecting trouble, it is discounting all the warnings. Any disruption is going to be a big shock for them:
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU.
It has been claimed that the UK could simply move to WTO terms if there is no deal with the EU. But Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true.
“No deal means leaving with nothing,” she said. “The anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades.”
The government’s own statistics have estimated that under the worst case no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower than if the UK stays in the EU, in 15 years.
There are two apparently insurmountable hurdles to the UK trading on current WTO tariffs in the event of Britain crashing out in March, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
"Brexiteers have thrown their support behind calls for a "Freedom Clause" on Theresa May’s deal as MPs warn this is their "last chance" to influence the process.
The Government is expected to support an amendment tabled by Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, which calls for the backstop to be scrapped and replaced with “alternative arrangements”."
What we are seeing in practice is a doubling down of the Project Fear from the original referendum. In 2016 it was Stuart Rose who was caught saying that wages would go up if we left the EU, last week it was the Airbus executive letting slip on TV that the government put her up to warning of job losses if there's no deal.
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
Nobody knows. But I know that in the supermarket where I shop there are often empty shelves - basic things like bread, milk, bananas and so on - even at the best of times. I suppose that's how things are run to optimise profits. There is very little slack in the system.
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
I agree with that, the issue is that with so many people talking up food shortages, the resultant panic buying may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
Imagine we only have the choice of 2 brands of frozen peas rather than 4 for a couple of weeks - will be the first world problem to end them all.
The question is whether you have any solid evidence for saying "the choice of 2" rather than "the choice of zero". I doubt it.
Peas wont be an issue - Uk is the largest producer in the EU. You'll have the choice of Birdseye or Tesco no problem..
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying. Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
"Brexiteers have thrown their support behind calls for a "Freedom Clause" on Theresa May’s deal as MPs warn this is their "last chance" to influence the process.
The Government is expected to support an amendment tabled by Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, which calls for the backstop to be scrapped and replaced with “alternative arrangements”."
Can someone clarify the motion tomorrow. What are the amendments actually amending? My understanding is that there won’t be a MV tomorrow...
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
I'm not sure people are going to be buying panic buying frozen peas when they don't have room in their freezers....because it's full of fish fingers.
And why bother filling up your house with all manner of stuff, when someone else will be doing it for you - then having it (admitedly, at a mark-up) at every car-boot in the land?
"Brexiteers have thrown their support behind calls for a "Freedom Clause" on Theresa May’s deal as MPs warn this is their "last chance" to influence the process.
The Government is expected to support an amendment tabled by Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, which calls for the backstop to be scrapped and replaced with “alternative arrangements”."
Can someone clarify the motion tomorrow. What are the amendments actually amending? My understanding is that there won’t be a MV tomorrow...
Not sure they are finalised - suspect the reason for a government motion is so that Bercow can't block it.
This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
I don't see how the government could whip for Sir Graham Brady's amendment either in theory or in practice. How can you sanction an MP who voted for the deal and who voted against an amendment that sabotages the deal that the government negotiated?
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
Sorry to be a bore, but the problem is that you simply don't know how bad the "actual shortages" will be.
If we knew there wouldn't be any "actual shortages", it would indeed be best to keep quiet about the subject.
If we knew there would be serious "actual shortages" then it would be irresponsible _not_ to encourage people to build up their own stocks of food and essentials.
It's a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world where we are collectively taking a leap in the dark and exposing our population to an unknown risk, and the criticism is directed at the people talking about the risk rather than the people causing the risk!
Comments
People seem very keen to quote the Guardan (I assume because it is free) and the Telegraph (because it is little more than a Brexit freesheet). Neither seem any more reliable than The Sun.
Brexit was completely avoidable if instead of stuffing their boots our managerial and politcal classes had spent some time thinkinmg about they people in their charge
The only way to get something through the house.
Time for the ERG to be told to bugger off.
He's quoting an unnamed source in Cabinet, but all political journos do that.
Given at least 50 Tory MPs who backed the Deal will likely switch and vote for anything to stop No Deal if the Deal is defeated again or the EU blocks any changes that moves permanent Customs Union from 301 MPs last year to at least 350 MPs and a clear majority
Those people did nothing, other than bleat about how “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” they were (to quote a famous Remainer).
Mrs Capitano's workload (primary head) pretty much followed a Pareto Principle Of Doom last year - 10% of the kids were 90% of the work. And getting the underfunded, demotivated LA to provide any support was an exercise in frustration.
One of the reasons I rate Layla Moran is because she's one of very few politicians to have twigged this. Labour's policy is still the disastrous "inclusivity" and the Conservatives are culpable for the current mess.
It's basically time now for them to either shit or get off the pot, they sound like Labour MPs talking about leaving last year. Do they want to stop Brexit happening or do they want to take a ministerial salary and car, because they can't do both.
Since this is all a game of expectation management the promise wont match the result so the "experts" will simply debase their status again.
I might have thought that after the Osborne doom fiasco someone would have proposed changing the approach, instead theyve doubled down and ramped up the volume.
crazy.
You have no explanation for their behaviour. I do.
A whipped CU vote probably leads to the likes of Gove resigning, it would be all the downsides of Brexit but with none of the upsides.
Oh, and customs union, whether "A" CU or "The" CU, still doesn't solve the backstop problem.
"May may be inching towards a policy acceptable to the bulk of both Tory and Labour MPs.
The only way to get something through the house."
So if the Scots were allowed another Independence referendum and the vote went 52 - 48 in favour of independence, to soothe the unionist MPs, you'd offer a little more devolution instead?
Really? And you'd expect them to be happy?
Mr Meeks is right on one thing, we need to leave for the sake of the country.
the managerial split in the UK is between the large corporates and the SMEs
1) Why is parliament involved? Because Britain is a parliamentary democracy.
2) Why are MPs who oppose Brexit involved? Technically it's same reason as (1). But politically it's because MPs who favour Brexit can't agree on how they think the referendum should be implemented. If the Leave enthusiasts hadn't run against the deal, or if they'd proposed an alternative deal that they agreed on and that the EU would swallow, then the Tory Remain MPs would have sucked it up and voted it through. But they're faced with a situation where there's nothing they can do that won't result in them being accused of betraying the referendum result, so they've started to figure they may as well be hung for a sheep as hung for a lamb...
Sometimes things turn out to be entirely outside the range of speculation, whether for better or for worse.
Looking at a range of unevidenced guesses and propaganda and saying it's bound to be in the middle isn't a safe procedure.
http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/Brexit-The-Final-Countdown-Full-Presentation-PDF.pdf
See page 28.
See Turkey for more details, every deal the EU does covers imports to Turkey but not exports from Turkey.
some things will go wrong but not everything
and as for being safe in the middle, I dont discount that somethings will also go well.
Seems odd to me, as at least some of the Brexit vote was a pure, "we'll teach them [as in the same 'they'] a bloody lesson".
Nor do the public seem to believe a word this 'they' says about No Deal, but expect them to make sure it isn't too bad.
God help us all.
Do you think Liam Fox is capable of conducting successful trade negotiations ?
And if not then who in Westminster do you think is ?
People have just switched off to it, and don't think the government will in practice allow a shortage of basic supplies to happen. Agreements to keep ports open and planes flying in the event of no deal have already been made, the assumption is that if we crash out we'll immediately start talking to the EU from a mutual (as opposed to one-sided) standpoint, to resolve quickly any significant obstacles to trade.
What do you think happens in practice in April if there's no deal?
The fact is that we won't know how bad it's going to be until it happens.
Systems should be set up on the basis of long term national interest, not to throw power at a particularly capable man or restrict it from an idiot. That's why Rome won the Second Punic War. Their political system was absolutely solid.
Can you give the names of people you think could conduct successful trade negotiations ?
if youre complaining about everything youre complaining about nothing
a few reasoned arguments would have worked better and have had a hearing
So I don't find it at all fanciful to suppose that even moderate disruption to imports, in combination with panic buying, could lead to serious food shortages.
youve spent the last 2 years doing it
If there are avoidable deaths as a result of no-deal Brexit, there will be blood on the hands of all that were willing to accept that outcome.
Juncker backed a permanent Customs Union at the weekend as the only basis for renegotiation and said that was the only circumstance the EU might consider dropping the backstop. Permanent Customs Union could of course run alongside the backstop, those who oppose the backstop would not vote for permanent Customs Union anyway but there are not enough of them to stop it
Bread and milk shortages are generally on a daily basis, due to producers not wanting to leave them on shelves overnight, rather than for lack of ingredients - most of which are domestic in origin.
Yes, it's possible that bananas and avocados are in short supply out of season for a few weeks, but now we are into very first world problems rather than people starving.
However this deal is going to be fudged through - despite the best efforts of Lib Dems like Ms Soubry.
We voted to leave the EU. Even remaining might be better than the nonsense being proposed by some now. Retaining the burdens and losing what advantages there are, May agreeing to regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland, £39bn to the EU being legally binding (if the deal passes) and the EU's declaration on a trade deal being empty words, all point to feebleness and tomfoolery.
It won't last. The way forward is a settlement that can be seen to be fair to both sides and last on that basis. Currently a Parliament of Remainers are seeking to dilute the decision to leave to the point we're leaving in name only.
Politics is currently entrenched, polarised, and poisonous. But it can, and likely will, get worse from here.
She wants the referendum overturned but cowers behind a "Peoples Vote".
“The U.K. must produce a schedule”
“Several countries have objected to the draft”
I recall back last year - Oct/Nov? - there was a report on the schedule negotiations making progress
We know the supermarkets currently operate on a "just in time" basis for commercial reasons. They have been trying to obtain extra warehouse space, but this article from two months ago says frozen storage space was full, chilled storage space was virtually full and there were starting to be issues with room-temperature storage space:
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/finance/brexit/supermarkets-hoarding-space-as-stockpiling-scramble-intensifies/574149.article
CU doesn't solve the backstop, only CU and SM does that (with the latter including large annual payments and FoM) to avoid regulatory divergence between NI and ROI. There's no way the PM agrees to that.
Is having worse trade deals or no trade deals such a symbol of national virility for you ?
The recent parliamentary report is pertinent:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeduc/342/342.pdf
Local Authority PRUs have in some ways become special schools, albeit ad hoc, underfunded, and oversubscribed, in all but name.
Some of the larger primaries are setting up their own internal PRUs.
I share your lack of faith in Fox. That doesn't mean we should aspire to ignore the referendum and permanently hand over authority over our nation to the EU, having just voted to leave it.
The optics of a few embittered Con MPs not supporting an amendment that could see a version of Mrs Mays deal passing isn't going to be good for the "Onoda" holdouts.
Give us some names of people you think could conduct successful trade negotiations.
Because if you can't then you're willing to accept worse trade deals as a symbol of national virility.
And nothing is 'permanent' in this country's relationship with the EU.
No doubt if there are serious food shortages political rhetoric will finally go out of the window and we'll agree to anything the EU wants to restore the status quo ante.
I'm afraid my stockpiling is being done on the basis of the story about how fast you have to run if there are two of you being chased by a lion.
Page 18 is good, too:
"7 of 8 Leave voters said they knew nothing about the deal (0 out of 10)..."
"Brexiteers have thrown their support behind calls for a "Freedom Clause" on Theresa May’s deal as MPs warn this is their "last chance" to influence the process.
The Government is expected to support an amendment tabled by Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, which calls for the backstop to be scrapped and replaced with “alternative arrangements”."
Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
And why bother filling up your house with all manner of stuff, when someone else will be doing it for you - then having it (admitedly, at a mark-up) at every car-boot in the land?
This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
If we knew there wouldn't be any "actual shortages", it would indeed be best to keep quiet about the subject.
If we knew there would be serious "actual shortages" then it would be irresponsible _not_ to encourage people to build up their own stocks of food and essentials.
It's a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world where we are collectively taking a leap in the dark and exposing our population to an unknown risk, and the criticism is directed at the people talking about the risk rather than the people causing the risk!