Errrhhh...you know who Byline are right? Cavaet Emptor...
Who are they ?
They are a bit like Alex Jones of the Left.
I see their recent Festival was attended by such deranged conspiracists as John Cleese, Baroness Warsi, Damian Collins MP, and Gary Lineker.
Clearly extremists of the first water.
Have you heard John Cleese recently? And Baroness Warsi appears never does any checks on people, see the Islamic terrorist lot she recently did a conference with.
Go google, they have had a load of conspiracy theory stories that have turned out to be total horseshit.
Errrhhh...you know who Byline are right? Cavaet Emptor...
Who are they ?
They are a bit like Alex Jones of the Left.
I see their recent Festival was attended by such deranged conspiracists as John Cleese, Baroness Warsi, Damian Collins MP, and Gary Lineker.
Clearly extremists of the first water.
Have you heard John Cleese recently?
Go google, they have had a load of conspiracy theory stories that have turned out to be total horseshit.
You compared them to Alex Jones, who claims/believes that the US government was behind the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.
You need help.
Like Alex Jones, they see a conspiracy theory in every story. Alex Jones is the mega extreme of that, but Byline have been done by the regulator for Fake News and made all sorts of crazy claims like false flag death threats etc (which is a standard go to claim that Alex Jones often makes).
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
I see the yellow jackets in France are burning EU flags tonight and calling for Frexit
Anyone offering bets yet on which palace will be evacuated first? Buckingham or the Elysee?
Whatever many of the economic predictions about no deal, it is difficult to see that civil unrest will reach anything likely the levels that currently seems to be a permanent state of affairs in France.
I am not so sure.
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Some interesting comments on here this morning so perhaps some more detailed thought on the politics. Let's imagine ourselves two months in the future - it's April 3rd and we left the European Union five days ago without a Deal.
It's quite easy to be the Government in a time of national crisis at least from a political standpoint. The public tend to rally behind you and the opposition are unable to make much in the way of political capital for either a) being branded treacherous and unpatriotic or b) being branded opportunistic.
The first problem is we genuinely don't know what will happen on March 30th and the days following - short term mild disruption, large scale disruption or no disruption at all? I always tell people it's never the big things that get you, it's the little things. It will be the little things amplified which will produce the sense of crisis.
How will that play out politically - around 40% of those asked still support the Conservatives. To what extent will that hitherto solid glacis of support be fractured if at all by events of a No Deal? The critical event may be the extent to which elements of the 40% are actually supporters of the Theresa May Party and that support may not transfer so readily to her successor.
So much will depend on the manner of her departure and the choice of her successor. In 1990, some Conservative voters who had been alienated by Thatcher came back to the fold when she was gone. What degree of current Conservative support is more support for Theresa May than support for the Conservatives themselves (and what proportion is also an anti-Corbyn vote?)
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
If you listen to the Motor industry experts, the X-Trail not coming is because it is a diesel and the EU / Japanese FTA. The fact they aren't simply using their partner Renault and building say in France says a lot about the reality in regards this model.
However, it is clear that they are using this announcement as a big warning. They have reaffirmed to the next-gen Qashqai from 2020 (which is has 1000s and 1000s of jobs connected to it), but reading between the lines from the letter I take it they are prodding the government to sort their shit out...(or else).
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Something is clearly up in China, but given the government figures are as dodgy as hell, you can only get the straws in the wind from the results of western companies selling their goods there.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Yes. It is a statement of the bleeding obvious, which is that Brexit is deferring investment across the country, including at Nissan.
However we had to go through a whole news cycle with Brexiters scoffing at the very idea of it.
Some interesting comments on here this morning so perhaps some more detailed thought on the politics. Let's imagine ourselves two months in the future - it's April 3rd and we left the European Union five days ago without a Deal.
It's quite easy to be the Government in a time of national crisis at least from a political standpoint. The public tend to rally behind you and the opposition are unable to make much in the way of political capital for either a) being branded treacherous and unpatriotic or b) being branded opportunistic.
The first problem is we genuinely don't know what will happen on March 30th and the days following - short term mild disruption, large scale disruption or no disruption at all? I always tell people it's never the big things that get you, it's the little things. It will be the little things amplified which will produce the sense of crisis.
How will that play out politically - around 40% of those asked still support the Conservatives. To what extent will that hitherto solid glacis of support be fractured if at all by events of a No Deal? The critical event may be the extent to which elements of the 40% are actually supporters of the Theresa May Party and that support may not transfer so readily to her successor.
So much will depend on the manner of her departure and the choice of her successor. In 1990, some Conservative voters who had been alienated by Thatcher came back to the fold when she was gone. What degree of current Conservative support is more support for Theresa May than support for the Conservatives themselves (and what proportion is also an anti-Corbyn vote?)
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Yes. It is a statement of the bleeding obvious, which is that Brexit is deferring investment across the country, including at Nissan.
However we had to go through a whole news cycle with Brexiters scoffing at the very idea of it.
Hardly - BigG is not exactly a cheerleader for Brexit. The comments last night were specifically about the Xtrail.
I think it can also be argued that for business it is not simply about Deal vs no deal. It is, at least in part, that they don't know which one is going to happen.
Even if it's no deal, they would prefer to know by now - nobody likes planning for things that might or might not happen, including business. Just generating lots of wasted costs, whichever scenario results.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
There is no net loss of jobs with the X-trail move. They weren't here in the first place. However, it is a warning shot to Parliament to get a deal done.
I think the French will suffer bigger losses of Nissan production to Japan though now that Ghosn has been ousted and the 10% finished automotive vehicles tariff between the EU and Japan has been eliminated. With Korea and Japan both signed up o EU trade deals it means point of origin rules will be very favourable for supply chains to be consolidated to East Asia.
I think that's the bigger worry for Nissan, Toyota and Honda manufacturing all across Europe (including the UK).
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Plenty of nonsense in the Mail on Sunday. I am certain plans have always existed for an emergency evacuation of the Queen and Government in the event of uncontrollable civil unrest just as there were and are plans to get the Queen out of London in the event of a nuclear attack.
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
A devaluation of sterling will as we are always told be a huge boon to exporters (as it was after June 2016) and if the rate falls sharply against the USD, the FTSE 100 should be surging toward 10,000.
The MoS is of course a huge supporter of the Prime Minister and her Deal and any half-repeated positive rumour will be magnified if it can be used to bolster May and her Deal.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Yes. It is a statement of the bleeding obvious, which is that Brexit is deferring investment across the country, including at Nissan.
However we had to go through a whole news cycle with Brexiters scoffing at the very idea of it.
Hardly - BigG is not exactly a cheerleader for Brexit. The comments last night were specifically about the Xtrail.
Actually, BigG has moved hard-wards of late. It’s an interesting journey from someone who voted Remain.
Meanwhile, Lord Falconer has resigned...to reality.
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Plenty of nonsense in the Mail on Sunday. I am certain plans have always existed for an emergency evacuation of the Queen and Government in the event of uncontrollable civil unrest just as there were and are plans to get the Queen out of London in the event of a nuclear attack.
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
A devaluation of sterling will as we are always told be a huge boon to exporters (as it was after June 2016) and if the rate falls sharply against the USD, the FTSE 100 should be surging toward 10,000.
The MoS is of course a huge supporter of the Prime Minister and her Deal and any half-repeated positive rumour will be magnified if it can be used to bolster May and her Deal.
Although generally agree, haven’t we discovered that the sterling drop hasn’t actually made significant impact on exports?
The net impact of the sterling drop was just that we became a ton poorer against the rest of the world.
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Plenty of nonsense in the Mail on Sunday. I am certain plans have always existed for an emergency evacuation of the Queen and Government in the event of uncontrollable civil unrest just as there were and are plans to get the Queen out of London in the event of a nuclear attack.
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
A devaluation of sterling will as we are always told be a huge boon to exporters (as it was after June 2016) and if the rate falls sharply against the USD, the FTSE 100 should be surging toward 10,000.
The MoS is of course a huge supporter of the Prime Minister and her Deal and any half-repeated positive rumour will be magnified if it can be used to bolster May and her Deal.
Although generally agree, haven’t we discovered that the sterling drop hasn’t actually made significant impact on exports?
The net impact of the sterling drop was just that we became a ton poorer against the rest of the world.
There has been a huge drop in the current account deficit. One quarter it was almost balanced.
I see the yellow jackets in France are burning EU flags tonight and calling for Frexit
Anyone offering bets yet on which palace will be evacuated first? Buckingham or the Elysee?
Whatever many of the economic predictions about no deal, it is difficult to see that civil unrest will reach anything likely the levels that currently seems to be a permanent state of affairs in France.
I am not so sure.
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Equally a single job disappears and the Tories could lose 2-4 votes from that single redundancy as No Deal would be blamed even if, like the x-trail, the reason is something else entirely.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
You do yourself no credit by sniping at my comments
I stated the facts behind Nissan's decision and brexit was not the driver
I also did conceed that brexit makes investment decisions difficult, but this is not one of them
Spotted in the Sunday Times that the EY Item Club are forecasting growth of 0.7% this year and 0.6% next year if we leave with no deal. That does not sound like much of an economic catastrophe. My apologies if this has been covered on here earlier today.
You missed this bit
EY Item Club, which uses the Treasury’s forecasting model, expects the economy to expand by 0.7% this year and 0.6% next year under a no-deal Brexit — with the potential for a recession in the second half of 2019.
Overall annual growth is usually a better measure.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Smacks of the Govt. "doing an Airbus" - "be really helpful if you could link the X-Trail decision to Brexit uncertainty..." If Brexit was an integral component of that decision, we would know about it.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Yes. It is a statement of the bleeding obvious, which is that Brexit is deferring investment across the country, including at Nissan.
However we had to go through a whole news cycle with Brexiters scoffing at the very idea of it.
I find it puzzling that all mainstream opinion on economic forecasting is deemed to be project fear and any ideological fantasy opined by supporters of Brexit is exemplary in precision and accuracy. Those of us with long enough memories will recall Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf and his commentary that advocated Iraqi preparations and execution of the war!
Brexiteers are the equivalent of Comical Ali and it surprises me that even on this website some who should know better continue to advocate the indefensible.
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Plenty of nonsense in the Mail on Sunday. I am certain plans have always existed for an emergency evacuation of the Queen and Government in the event of uncontrollable civil unrest just as there were and are plans to get the Queen out of London in the event of a nuclear attack.
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
A devaluation of sterling will as we are always told be a huge boon to exporters (as it was after June 2016) and if the rate falls sharply against the USD, the FTSE 100 should be surging toward 10,000.
The MoS is of course a huge supporter of the Prime Minister and her Deal and any half-repeated positive rumour will be magnified if it can be used to bolster May and her Deal.
Although generally agree, haven’t we discovered that the sterling drop hasn’t actually made significant impact on exports?
The net impact of the sterling drop was just that we became a ton poorer against the rest of the world.
There has been a huge drop in the current account deficit. One quarter it was almost balanced.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
You do yourself no credit by sniping at my comments
I stated the facts behind Nissan's decision and brexit was not the driver
I also did conceed that brexit makes investment decisions difficult, but this is not one of them
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Yes. It is a statement of the bleeding obvious, which is that Brexit is deferring investment across the country, including at Nissan.
However we had to go through a whole news cycle with Brexiters scoffing at the very idea of it.
Hardly - BigG is not exactly a cheerleader for Brexit. The comments last night were specifically about the Xtrail.
Actually, BigG has moved hard-wards of late. It’s an interesting journey from someone who voted Remain.
Meanwhile, Lord Falconer has resigned...to reality.
What on earth are you talking about. I have consistently rejected ERG in all its forms, also no deal, and stated the deal should be accepted as Norway is hopeless and we may as well remain
So where is your unsupported allegation I have moved hardwards recently
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Smacks of the Govt. "doing an Airbus" - "be really helpful if you could link the X-Trail decision to Brexit uncertainty..." If Brexit was an integral component of that decision, we would know about it.
I suppose when many of the UK factories close down you will say you didn't think they really meant it!
Brexiteers are the equivalent of Comical Ali and it surprises me that even on this website some who should know better continue to advocate the indefensible.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
You do yourself no credit by sniping at my comments
I stated the facts behind Nissan's decision and brexit was not the driver
I also did conceed that brexit makes investment decisions difficult, but this is not one of them
Was it a factor, or was it not a factor?
Not on the x trail.
I would have thought you would have checked all the detail on Nissan's move.
Indeed had we been in the EU they would have made the same decision
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Plenty of nonsense in the Mail on Sunday. I am certain plans have always existed for an emergency evacuation of the Queen and Government in the event of uncontrollable civil unrest just as there were and are plans to get the Queen out of London in the event of a nuclear attack.
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
A devaluation of sterling will as we are always told be a huge boon to exporters (as it was after June 2016) and if the rate falls sharply against the USD, the FTSE 100 should be surging toward 10,000.
The MoS is of course a huge supporter of the Prime Minister and her Deal and any half-repeated positive rumour will be magnified if it can be used to bolster May and her Deal.
Although generally agree, haven’t we discovered that the sterling drop hasn’t actually made significant impact on exports?
The net impact of the sterling drop was just that we became a ton poorer against the rest of the world.
There has been a huge drop in the current account deficit. One quarter it was almost balanced.
I know you have the facts to back that up.
Yes in the year after the vote it dropped from 6.7% of GDP to 3% of GDP. Bigger surplus in services trade, better primary and secondary income recorded from overseas investments by UK businesses and individuals. It has since gone back to about 4% due to overseas investors benefiting from investments made in the UK. The trade deficit in goods has been pretty static, what has been gained in export volumes has been about offset in import prices rising.
Something is clearly up in China, but given the government figures are as dodgy as hell, you can only get the straws in the wind from the results of western companies selling their goods there.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Smacks of the Govt. "doing an Airbus" - "be really helpful if you could link the X-Trail decision to Brexit uncertainty..." If Brexit was an integral component of that decision, we would know about it.
I suppose when many of the UK factories close down you will say you didn't think they really meant it!
The risk is only on no deal brexit. I absolutely expect TM to avoid it
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Plenty of nonsense in the Mail on Sunday. I am certain plans have always existed for an emergency evacuation of the Queen and Government in the event of uncontrollable civil unrest just as there were and are plans to get the Queen out of London in the event of a nuclear attack.
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
A devaluation of sterling will as we are always told be a huge boon to exporters (as it was after June 2016) and if the rate falls sharply against the USD, the FTSE 100 should be surging toward 10,000.
The MoS is of course a huge supporter of the Prime Minister and her Deal and any half-repeated positive rumour will be magnified if it can be used to bolster May and her Deal.
Although generally agree, haven’t we discovered that the sterling drop hasn’t actually made significant impact on exports?
The net impact of the sterling drop was just that we became a ton poorer against the rest of the world.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
You do yourself no credit by sniping at my comments
I stated the facts behind Nissan's decision and brexit was not the driver
I also did conceed that brexit makes investment decisions difficult, but this is not one of them
Was it a factor, or was it not a factor?
Not on the x trail.
I would have thought you would have checked all the detail on Nissan's move.
Indeed had we been in the EU they would have made the same decision
The FT reports, “While a sharp fall in demand for diesel cars was a big factor in Nissan’s decision, the company said yesterday that Brexit had also influenced its decision to make X-trails destined for the European market in Kyushu rather than Sunderland.”
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Plenty of nonsense in the Mail on Sunday. I am certain plans have always existed for an emergency evacuation of the Queen and Government in the event of uncontrollable civil unrest just as there were and are plans to get the Queen out of London in the event of a nuclear attack.
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
A devaluation of sterling will as we are always told be a huge boon to exporters (as it was after June 2016) and if the rate falls sharply against the USD, the FTSE 100 should be surging toward 10,000.
The MoS is of course a huge supporter of the Prime Minister and her Deal and any half-repeated positive rumour will be magnified if it can be used to bolster May and her Deal.
I never mentioned the Mail on Sunday!
I agree that power and fuel are unlikely to be impacted.
I could not care less about the Queen - They print stories like that to sell papers! The Daily Express used to print the same old nonsense about Princess Diana for years or the worse weather likely to hit in decades.
I know you support Brexit and have succumbed to almost conspiracy theory level paranoia about project fear despite the rapidly deteriorating economic outlook. As a passing note I don't think a surging FTSE 100 will be much comfort to a person who has lost their job or someone who finds it harder to feed a young family due to currency depreciation putting up the cost of fuel, which will force domestic and imported food to rise in price.
But that implies she's bluffing, Big G, and if that is the case then the Remain MPs in the House need only call the bluff, and wait for the clock to run down until she has no alternative but to Revoke.
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
My first thought is that his wiki page is somewhat on the thin side:
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
You do yourself no credit by sniping at my comments
I stated the facts behind Nissan's decision and brexit was not the driver
I also did conceed that brexit makes investment decisions difficult, but this is not one of them
Was it a factor, or was it not a factor?
Not on the x trail.
I would have thought you would have checked all the detail on Nissan's move.
Indeed had we been in the EU they would have made the same decision
The FT reports, “While a sharp fall in demand for diesel cars was a big factor in Nissan’s decision, the company said yesterday that Brexit had also influenced its decision to make X-trails destined for the European market in Kyushu rather than Sunderland.”
Tbh, it's true. However, if it was a critical concern then they would have moved the planned investment to an existing French site and put all of the blame on brexit. That they have decided to keep production in Japan is telling and a sign it is related to weakness in the European consumer market rather than specifically brexit.
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
You are spot on re Major. Long term it may have been better for them if they had lost in 92. But hindsight is wonderful. The "same Party, new government" trick was one Brown came close to pulling off too. A more empathetic figure with less baggage from the old regime (as Major was) could probably have done so. And how different things would be now!
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Plenty of nonsense in the Mail on Sunday. I am certain plans have always existed for an emergency evacuation of the Queen and Government in the event of uncontrollable civil unrest just as there were and are plans to get the Queen out of London in the event of a nuclear attack.
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
A devaluation of sterling will as we are always told be a huge boon to exporters (as it was after June 2016) and if the rate falls sharply against the USD, the FTSE 100 should be surging toward 10,000.
The MoS is of course a huge supporter of the Prime Minister and her Deal and any half-repeated positive rumour will be magnified if it can be used to bolster May and her Deal.
I never mentioned the Mail on Sunday!
I agree that power and fuel are unlikely to be impacted.
I could not care less about the Queen - They print stories like that to sell papers! The Daily Express used to print the same old nonsense about Princess Diana for years or the worse weather likely to hit in decades.
I know you support Brexit and have succumbed to almost conspiracy theory level paranoia about project fear despite the rapidly deteriorating economic outlook. As a passing note I don't think a surging FTSE 100 will be much comfort to a person who has lost their job or someone who finds it harder to feed a young family due to inflation putting up the cost of fuel, which will force domestic and imported food to rise in price.
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
You do yourself no credit by sniping at my comments
I stated the facts behind Nissan's decision and brexit was not the driver
I also did conceed that brexit makes investment decisions difficult, but this is not one of them
Was it a factor, or was it not a factor?
Not on the x trail.
I would have thought you would have checked all the detail on Nissan's move.
Indeed had we been in the EU they would have made the same decision
The FT reports, “While a sharp fall in demand for diesel cars was a big factor in Nissan’s decision, the company said yesterday that Brexit had also influenced its decision to make X-trails destined for the European market in Kyushu rather than Sunderland.”
Sky have just confirmed that Nissan have said the x trail decision is not brexit related and their investment in Sunderland is assured
Even Ed Conwy of Sky has just said this is not a brexit decision and the car will not be built elsewhere in Europe
There is no doubt the present impasse is not helping at all but the answer lies in the HOC
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
Loads did. 30% of the voters are right wing Brexiters. You may deplore that fact, but you can't hand wave it. They are not people who secretly favour the EU.
But that implies she's bluffing, Big G, and if that is the case then the Remain MPs in the House need only call the bluff, and wait for the clock to run down until she has no alternative but to Revoke.
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
Loads did. 30% of the voters are right wing Brexiters. You may deplore that fact, but you can't hand wave it. They are not people who secretly favour the EU.
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
Labour needed to gain a hell of a lot of seats in 1992 to win, it was not really possible especially against a new PM and the levels of support each party were achieving.
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.
But that implies she's bluffing, Big G, and if that is the case then the Remain MPs in the House need only call the bluff, and wait for the clock to run down until she has no alternative but to Revoke.
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
But that implies she's bluffing, Big G, and if that is the case then the Remain MPs in the House need only call the bluff, and wait for the clock to run down until she has no alternative but to Revoke.
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....
I was canvassing in some of the more difficult parts of a ward down in Dorset on Saturday. Strong support on the doorstep. Much better reception than the same street 3 months ago...
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
Labour needed to gain a hell of a lot of seats in 1992 to win, it was not really possible especially against a new PM and the levels of support each party were achieving.
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Plenty of nonsense in the Mail on Sunday. I am certain plans have always existed for an emergency evacuation of the Queen and Government in the event of uncontrollable civil unrest just as there were and are plans to get the Queen out of London in the event of a nuclear attack.
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
I never mentioned the Mail on Sunday!
I agree that power and fuel are unlikely to be impacted.
I could not care less about the Queen - They print stories like that to sell papers! The Daily Express used to print the same old nonsense about Princess Diana for years or the worse weather likely to hit in decades.
I know you support Brexit and have succumbed to almost conspiracy theory level paranoia about project fear despite the rapidly deteriorating economic outlook. As a passing note I don't think a surging FTSE 100 will be much comfort to a person who has lost their job or someone who finds it harder to feed a young family due to inflation putting up the cost of fuel, which will force domestic and imported food to rise in price.
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
No - common sense, perhaps. I simply cannot understand how ripping up an economic framework to become economically more insular is going to work. The whole thing goes all against the knowledge I have acquired in economics, financial systems and trade. Talk of the FTSE rising in value is of little benefit to the real economy and durability of our society.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Smacks of the Govt. "doing an Airbus" - "be really helpful if you could link the X-Trail decision to Brexit uncertainty..." If Brexit was an integral component of that decision, we would know about it.
I suppose when many of the UK factories close down you will say you didn't think they really meant it!
The risk is only on no deal brexit. I absolutely expect TM to avoid it
The risk is with any Brexit that doesn't have a Customs Union with the EU.
It is just that with a Deal, the uncertainty is a little longer, until we have all this again.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
Labour needed to gain a hell of a lot of seats in 1992 to win, it was not really possible especially against a new PM and the levels of support each party were achieving.
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.
Just because he behaved like an exuberant fool does not mean he thought he could win! Ten years earlier he fell in the sea and gave an ebullient signal to the media!
But that implies she's bluffing, Big G, and if that is the case then the Remain MPs in the House need only call the bluff, and wait for the clock to run down until she has no alternative but to Revoke.
I see Nissan have conceded that “the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
Not sure Nissan's statement on the decision actually attributes the decision to Brexit, does it? The Brexit comment is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, hardly a 'concession'.
Smacks of the Govt. "doing an Airbus" - "be really helpful if you could link the X-Trail decision to Brexit uncertainty..." If Brexit was an integral component of that decision, we would know about it.
I suppose when many of the UK factories close down you will say you didn't think they really meant it!
The risk is only on no deal brexit. I absolutely expect TM to avoid it
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
Not sure why you regard this as a partisan point. Were you after a no deal exit from the off, or do you think leaving is such an absolute good that no form of brexit can be in any respect bad?
You don't seem to understand how the world works. Customs officers are guided by sets of rules, not by on the fly assessments of what is best for their fellow countrymen, and, as is rather lucidly explained in the passage I quoted, nobody knows even in broad terms what is going to happen when all the relevant rules cease to apply.
Your last sentence makes sense only if you are genuinely incapable of understanding the difference between what I think might happen and what I think will happen. Is that really the case? And if you think I am over cautious I am at least in the company of the major supermarkets and the NHS, for starters.
If you're worried, get a big freezer, and stick meat and veg in it.
Power cuts.
We used to freeze excess fruit and veg from the garden. Now we have a dehydrator. It means we can store veg without on-going power cost and without taking up freezer space. It also means the stuff, stored in jars as it shrinks alot, is easier to sort through. The other useful bit of kit is a bacon slicer - makes drying prep super quick. As well as home-grown stuff we can also take advantage of low seasonal prices at street market and so on. In theory you can dry meat and fish but I found this more fiddly and less successful. Also small, lightweight dried food is ideal for kayaking/camping - mix ingredients at home then when out just add water and cook. Or in the case of dried apple slices just chew, they are delicious snacks.
But that implies she's bluffing, Big G, and if that is the case then the Remain MPs in the House need only call the bluff, and wait for the clock to run down until she has no alternative but to Revoke.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
This implies that the Conservatives were equally electable in 1992 and 1997, which I don't think is true.
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.
The other factor was the sheer numbers of people out on the doorsteps knocking for Labour. A union friend once described to me the way they literally swamped whole estates in marginals with people knocking up and shoving leaflets in the days running up to the GE. It was unlike anything she had ever seen in an election.
It is possible that Jezza will pull off the latter (if his youth wing don't lose faith in the old Brexiteer!) but the former is doubtful.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
This implies that the Conservatives were equally electable in 1992 and 1997, which I don't think is true.
Interesting point. I see what you are getting at, but on the other hand in 1992 there was the very recent memory of the poll tax, and in 1997 the economy was in a better state than in 1992. Overall, I'd say the big difference was on the opposition side.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
This is probably part of it, but I'm not sure it tallies with John Major's personal ratings, which were very good at the 1992 election, and poor at the 1997 election (though still not as bad as his party's).
In fact, in some ways, it's surprising 1992 was a closer result than 1987, because the Tories had a much clearer advantage on leadership ratings in the former than in the latter (Kinnock's own ratings were slightly better in 1987).
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.
Compare with the lack of preparation and inattention to detail of political parties in recent years.
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.
Not a problem with #CCU
Don’t you mean Starmer’s customs union?
They are probably still trying to explain to Jezza that the Customs Union, is not the trade union of custom officers.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.
The other factor was the sheer numbers of people out on the doorsteps knocking for Labour. A union friend once described to me the way they literally swamped whole estates in marginals with people knocking up and shoving leaflets in the days running up to the GE. It was unlike anything she had ever seen in an election.
It is possible that Jezza will pull off the latter (if his youth wing don't lose faith in the old Brexiteer!) but the former is doubtful.
The two points are related. The feeling amongst Labour activists that at long last, after nearly 20 years, they finally had a coherent and potentially winning offer to make to voters, was palpable. As you say, it didn't appear out of nowhere, Blair's team had systematically identified all of Labour's big weaknesses and had equally systematically addressed them.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
This implies that the Conservatives were equally electable in 1992 and 1997, which I don't think is true.
Interesting point. I see what you are getting at, but on the other hand in 1992 there was the very recent memory of the poll tax, and in 1997 the economy was in a better state than in 1992. Overall, I'd say the big difference was on the opposition side.
Purely anecdotal, but I knew 92 was lost to Labour on the morning of the vote, when two of my mate's wives (in different marginals and both classic swing voters) separately announced they were sticking with Tories because of the tax issue.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.
Compare with the lack of preparation and inattention to detail of political parties in recent years.
Comments
Go google, they have had a load of conspiracy theory stories that have turned out to be total horseshit.
You need help.
Big G and others were assuring us solemnly last night that Brexit had nothing to do with it.
Still, all is well, since this is what Sunderland voted for.
If food and medication supplies are disrupted, this will have a tangible affect on peoples lives as they will be unable to get things they have taken for granted. An example of similar shock deprivation of supply was the fuel protest in 2000, which showed up in public opinion immediately. Then it was travel disruption, this time fuel is unlikely to be in the loop but medicine and food are pretty fundamental to life.
I actually think anger could be worse in a No Deal scenario as lack or type of food or medication are very individualistic needs. Currency depreciation could produce a double whammy in making what is imported even more expensive than just the implications of short supply.
Some interesting comments on here this morning so perhaps some more detailed thought on the politics. Let's imagine ourselves two months in the future - it's April 3rd and we left the European Union five days ago without a Deal.
It's quite easy to be the Government in a time of national crisis at least from a political standpoint. The public tend to rally behind you and the opposition are unable to make much in the way of political capital for either a) being branded treacherous and unpatriotic or b) being branded opportunistic.
The first problem is we genuinely don't know what will happen on March 30th and the days following - short term mild disruption, large scale disruption or no disruption at all? I always tell people it's never the big things that get you, it's the little things. It will be the little things amplified which will produce the sense of crisis.
How will that play out politically - around 40% of those asked still support the Conservatives. To what extent will that hitherto solid glacis of support be fractured if at all by events of a No Deal? The critical event may be the extent to which elements of the 40% are actually supporters of the Theresa May Party and that support may not transfer so readily to her successor.
So much will depend on the manner of her departure and the choice of her successor. In 1990, some Conservative voters who had been alienated by Thatcher came back to the fold when she was gone. What degree of current Conservative support is more support for Theresa May than support for the Conservatives themselves (and what proportion is also an anti-Corbyn vote?)
However, it is clear that they are using this announcement as a big warning. They have reaffirmed to the next-gen Qashqai from 2020 (which is has 1000s and 1000s of jobs connected to it), but reading between the lines from the letter I take it they are prodding the government to sort their shit out...(or else).
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-Trends/Asian-companies-see-profit-evaporating-as-China-demand-shrinks
The timing for Brexit is unfortunate.
Still it does amusingly reveal a certain metropolitan 'intellectual' mentality.
However we had to go through a whole news cycle with Brexiters scoffing at the very idea of it.
However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out.
Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
I think it can also be argued that for business it is not simply about Deal vs no deal. It is, at least in part, that they don't know which one is going to happen.
Even if it's no deal, they would prefer to know by now - nobody likes planning for things that might or might not happen, including business. Just generating lots of wasted costs, whichever scenario results.
I think the French will suffer bigger losses of Nissan production to Japan though now that Ghosn has been ousted and the 10% finished automotive vehicles tariff between the EU and Japan has been eliminated. With Korea and Japan both signed up o EU trade deals it means point of origin rules will be very favourable for supply chains to be consolidated to East Asia.
I think that's the bigger worry for Nissan, Toyota and Honda manufacturing all across Europe (including the UK).
I remember 2000 and for months afterward drivers would drive with tanks as close to full as possible "just in case" but that was then. Not certain why fuel and power supplies should be affected if we leave the EU without a Deal.
As for food supplies, they are more likely to be affected by a surge of Project Fear-induced panic buying than by any additional checks put in at ports and airports.
A devaluation of sterling will as we are always told be a huge boon to exporters (as it was after June 2016) and if the rate falls sharply against the USD, the FTSE 100 should be surging toward 10,000.
The MoS is of course a huge supporter of the Prime Minister and her Deal and any half-repeated positive rumour will be magnified if it can be used to bolster May and her Deal.
It’s an interesting journey from someone who voted Remain.
Meanwhile, Lord Falconer has resigned...to reality.
https://twitter.com/lordcfalconer/status/1092112273114578944?s=21
The net impact of the sterling drop was just that we became a ton poorer against the rest of the world.
I stated the facts behind Nissan's decision and brexit was not the driver
I also did conceed that brexit makes investment decisions difficult, but this is not one of them
Q1 +1.0%
Q2 -0.1%
Q3 -0.1%
Q4 +1.0%
gives a year with 1.8% growth but a recession
Q1 -1.0%
Q2 +0.1%
Q3 +0.1%
Q4 -1.0%
gives a year with -1.8% growth but no recession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
Brexiteers are the equivalent of Comical Ali and it surprises me that even on this website some who should know better continue to advocate the indefensible.
So where is your unsupported allegation I have moved hardwards recently
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47071234
https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1092180299583311874
I would have thought you would have checked all the detail on Nissan's move.
Indeed had we been in the EU they would have made the same decision
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/exports
but so have imports:
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/imports
there seems to be nothing which will dampen the UK's demand for imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
And not likely to do so either when there are so many more wealth consumers than wealth creators.
I agree that power and fuel are unlikely to be impacted.
I could not care less about the Queen - They print stories like that to sell papers! The Daily Express used to print the same old nonsense about Princess Diana for years or the worse weather likely to hit in decades.
I know you support Brexit and have succumbed to almost conspiracy theory level paranoia about project fear despite the rapidly deteriorating economic outlook. As a passing note I don't think a surging FTSE 100 will be much comfort to a person who has lost their job or someone who finds it harder to feed a young family due to currency depreciation putting up the cost of fuel, which will force domestic and imported food to rise in price.
You think that's going to happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishi_Sunak
The "same Party, new government" trick was one Brown came close to pulling off too. A more empathetic figure with less baggage from the old regime (as Major was) could probably have done so.
And how different things would be now!
Even Ed Conwy of Sky has just said this is not a brexit decision and the car will not be built elsewhere in Europe
There is no doubt the present impasse is not helping at all but the answer lies in the HOC
Sign the deal
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....
And UKIP is now the BNP.
If the ERG stop a deal and we no deal I would agree, but I will have resigned my membership in that case
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
To be fair Sky have confirmed x trail was not a brexit decision.
However, it is acceptable to warn against no deal and that has to be stopped
Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
https://twitter.com/lionelbarber/status/1092171902821584896?s=21
It is just that with a Deal, the uncertainty is a little longer, until we have all this again.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
You don't seem to understand how the world works. Customs officers are guided by sets of rules, not by on the fly assessments of what is best for their fellow countrymen, and, as is rather lucidly explained in the passage I quoted, nobody knows even in broad terms what is going to happen when all the relevant rules cease to apply.
Your last sentence makes sense only if you are genuinely incapable of understanding the difference between what I think might happen and what I think will happen. Is that really the case? And if you think I am over cautious I am at least in the company of the major supermarkets and the NHS, for starters.
The other factor was the sheer numbers of people out on the doorsteps knocking for Labour. A union friend once described to me the way they literally swamped whole estates in marginals with people knocking up and shoving leaflets in the days running up to the GE. It was unlike anything she had ever seen in an election.
It is possible that Jezza will pull off the latter (if his youth wing don't lose faith in the old Brexiteer!) but the former is doubtful.
In fact, in some ways, it's surprising 1992 was a closer result than 1987, because the Tories had a much clearer advantage on leadership ratings in the former than in the latter (Kinnock's own ratings were slightly better in 1987).