Utopia Talk / Politics / No-deal Brexit panic starts

EuropeanPussy Member	Sun Dec 30 02:16:37 “situation of extreme urgency” LOL http://www...tra-ferries-in-case-of-no-deal Sat 29 Dec 2018 07.59 GMT Brexit: over £100m spent on extra ferries in case of no deal Ports in Poole, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Immingham and Felixstowe would be used to ease Dover pressure The UK has spent more than £100m to charter ferries to ease “severe congestion” at Dover in the event of a no-deal Brexit, as the government ramps up its multi-billion contingency plans. Increased border checks at ports after Brexit could “cause delivery of critical goods to be delayed” if the UK leaves with no deal, according to documents outlining the £107.7m agreements to secure extra lorry capacity. The Liberal Democrats described the move as “complete madness” and said the government was spending public money recklessly in a last-minute attempt to prepare for a no-deal outcome. As much as £2bn has been allocated for contingency plans. The DfT did not put the contracts out to tender, as is customary. It said it was responding to a “situation of extreme urgency” brought about by “unforeseeable events”. The BBC reported that there was a private negotiation process after a number of firms were considered. The French operator Brittany Ferries, the Danish company DFDS and the UK’s Seaborne Freight would step in to ease pressure on Dover in the event of no deal, allowing almost 4,000 more lorries a week to come and go. The additional crossings are believed to be the equivalent of about 10% of the current traffic on the Dover Strait, and ports in Poole, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Immingham and Felixstowe will be used to ease the burden on Dover. DFDS was awarded a contract worth £47.3m, and Seaborne a £13.8m deal. Brittany Ferries’ contract is worth £46.6m, with the company adding 19 return sailings to three routes between the UK and France. In a 50% increase of its current schedule, more sailings will travel between Roscoff and Plymouth, Cherbourg and Poole and Le Havre and Portsmouth. The DFDS chief executive, Christophe Mathieu, said: “Our priority is to prepare for a no-deal Brexit and to create additional capacity. By increasing the number of rotations on routes like Le Havre-Portsmouth we will be able to meet the Department for Transport’s Brexit requirement. “We will also work hard to minimise impact on existing Brittany Ferries freight customers and passengers, although there may be some changes to some sailing times, for which we apologise in advance.” A Liberal Democrat spokesman said: “It is complete madness to see the government recklessly handing over £100m on preparing British ports for a no-deal scenario. The government has the power to stop no-deal at any time but instead is spending millions on last-minute contracts.” Eloise Todd, the leader of the Best for Britain campaign for a second EU referendum, said: “The truth is no deal is not inevitable. This government has a real choice to make for our country and it does not have to toy with a cliff-edge Brexit. “The only way forward for the country right now is to put the decision back to the people and put the public at the heart of the decision over our future. People have been locked out of the Brexit process since the 2016 vote. It’s time to bring them back in and let them decide our future.” A DfT spokesman said: “This significant extra capacity is a small but important element of the Department for Transport’s no-deal Brexit planning. “While remaining committed to working to ensure a deal is reached successfully, the department is helping ensure the rest of government are fully prepared for a range of scenarios, including a particular focus on a potential no-deal and to mitigate the impact of any Brexit outcome on all transport modes.” The DfT has previously said the delivery of critical goods could be delayed as part of “significant wider disruption to the UK economy and to the road network in Kent” if EU countries were to increase border checks following a no-deal Brexit.
EuropeanPussy Member	Fri Jan 04 03:54:28 http://www...s-training-trouble-hard-border Police reinforcements for Northern Ireland in case of no-deal Brexit Almost 1,000 officers from rest of UK to start training to deal with trouble arising from hard border
Paramount Member	Fri Jan 04 05:58:06 Will this only mean war?
jergul large member	Fri Jan 04 06:00:23 The regime is obviously tightening its grip.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Fri Jan 04 10:28:18 may believes god's on her side.
hood Member	Fri Jan 04 10:51:33 That's the beauty of imaginary friends. They can be anything you want them to be.
EuropeanPussy Member	Sun Jan 27 07:34:49 http://new...re-for-no-deal-brexit-11617564 UK begins stockpiling at military bases to prepare for no-deal Brexit Saturday 26 January 2019 Britain has begun stockpiling food, fuel, spare parts and ammunition at military bases in Gibraltar, Cyprus and the Falklands in case of a no-deal Brexit, Sky News has learnt. Extra supplies are also being built up at bases in the UK to reduce the risk of the armed forces running short and being unable to operate if it suddenly becomes much harder to import and export day-to-day goods after 29 March.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 27 07:40:35 ^Assuming that's not just an major act of overreacting panic on the part of the government, it's downright pathetic that a country of 65 million people would be so incapable of producing its own food and basic supplies.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 27 07:45:27 But I guess we can't expect anything better from the country that let millions of Irish and Indians starve to death.
Paramount Member	Sun Jan 27 08:36:02 It is like the millenium bug all over again. Do you remember that shit? Lol. People believed that the world would crash – that airplanes would fall from the skies, etc. But surprise surprise, the world continued on as usual. Britain will also continue to function even after a no-deal brexit. The only thing that is a threat and may make things not work, if is people starts stockpiling food and medicine, because then only a few will have access to it and the rest who needs it won’t get any, and that will create chaos.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 27 09:48:21 Rugian: In the event of no deal brexit, the ability to get those items into bases may be heavily constrained. If you avail yourself of a map, all those bases are overseas. Paramount: We import 30% of our food. I can confidently say in the event of a no deal brexit, there are good odds of a massive shit show. If absolutely everything goes to plan (and bearing in mind that all the stuff needed to be done isn't yet done and may not be done until the very last day), then it will be somewhat manageable. But there will be shortages of certain types of food. Amazingly, people stopped eating only seasonal fruit and vegetables decades ago.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 27 09:52:56 "If you avail yourself of a map, all those bases are overseas." And? Does Brexit mean the total breakdown of Britain's logistics system now?
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 27 09:54:06 I mean, according the Remainers screaming Chicken Little it probably does, but I'm asking for a response grounded in reality.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 01:24:57 Rugian: In a word, yes. That's exactly what no deal brexit risks. Because the haulier industry sea trucks moving all over Europe with complex iteneraries: there's no such thing as a fully distinct "British" industry really, theres just a bunch of UK haulier firms that operate across Europe. The customs and standards checks mean roll-on-roll-off ferries will be operating well below capacity. So we will likely need to use military logistics capability to patch capacity gaps. Which means that they won't be supplying bases. Oh, and we don't know if we will be able to fly over European air space. I mean, it's great to get this kind of airy "it'll be all right on the night" crap from someone who is so evidently will informed about what a single market entails.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 28 01:39:18 Seb Ruggy's benchmark for tolerable costs of leaving federation are based on the 1861 experience.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 01:53:09 Rugian probably hasn't figured out that trucks are profitable largely of they are carrying goods in both directions and operate on long lead time contacts. I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to figure out what this means for haulier industry right now given "plan A" was a transition period with no change in the laws, but we are two months away from no deal under which it's not even clear if you can legally drive a lorry off a commercial ferry into France on a UK license. Also, a quick peek on Google maps at the geography of our main ferry port at Dover to look for suitable lorry parks may be illuminating.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 28 04:09:15 Seb You do not actually have to enforce custom inspections if it comes to that. I would worry more about parking in Pas de Calais.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 28 04:13:09 Worst case scenario if we discount self-inflicting wounds? Trucks enter the UK without inspection, deliver their cargo, then return without cargo to the EU. This for overflow traffic a customs border cannot process. Discounting self-inflicted wounds is of course crazy in a brexit context.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 04:55:25 Jergul: Only if we are prepared to suffer a fiscal calamity from VAT and duties loss. We no longer get a cut from the cross EU system, and why ship anything to UK ports if you can ship to Zeebrugge and then Calais VAT and duty free? Safety and security checks: will the French be doing them? Unlikely. Etc etc. A funny kind of taking back control of our money, borders and laws this is if we outsource border control to the French, unilaterally waive customs and standards laws, and forgo all VAT and duties. Also, some of the checks are a requirement of Common Transit Convention, so if we don't do scanning, you are back to trucks Operating at much lower efficiencies as they can't bring goods into and then out of the UK in transit. So even waiving lots of the checks on the short term leads to a freight capacity issue.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 05:02:24 Basically, if you could get rid of all the checks (which is breach of WTO obligation), you greatly hike the price of freight and therefore particularly food, undermine the UK freight industry, and greatly reduce the maximum capacity of each ferry load (trucks can no longer be loaded optimally). Hence they are dredging old ports to bring them back into service.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 05:03:26 https://youtu.be/gACCCmFKP80
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 28 06:12:04 Seb, You're fucking unbelievable. If the UK is unable to handle such basic issues as securing air rights, then your entire government (in the American sense of the term) needs to be disbanded immediately. Brexit can't be faulted for such sheer and utter incompetence. You've had three years to prepare. If you're suggesting that a 65-million strong country with one of the largest economies in the world is so completely incapable of operating on an independent basis, then perhaps you really don't deserve to be a sovereign country.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 28 06:15:21 At this point, I'm more or less convinced that your government (which is full of Remainers anyway) is intentionally fucking up this whole thing as much as possible just to prove how "bad" Brexit is. What idiocy.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 06:40:22 Rugian: Yes. That's right. The government is sabotaging brexit. Even though all these issues were discussed at the time, and Brexiteers keep defying they are an issue and have deliberately avoided comming forward with solutions. Here is an alternative view: Brexiteers never had a plan, are too incompetent to generate one, and the broad coalition of leave depends on a range of mutually contradictory policies that make delivering anything like what was promised impossible.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 06:49:46 Rugian: Securing air rights based on what, exactly? Why would, e.g. France permit UK planes to fly in French air space with no gaurantees on their airworthiness? And why would Spain or Cypress, which want military bases gone, grant permission under any circumstances? There are literally over a thousand such legal treaties and frameworks that cover various aspects of international trade and freight, and in almost all of them, EU states are parties only through the EU so the UK in two years has been trying to secure accession to over a thousand multi party treaties, most requiring unanimous consent. Even where countries aren't interested in trying to screw concessions from either UK or EU (Cf USA holding up WTO accession over quotas), very few other countries are prioritising spending officials and legislators time to make the necessary amendments. The incompetence is in failing to think these things through when they were posed. Your ignorancy and idiocy in assuming unrealistic timeframes and contradictory outcomes doesn't constitute incompetency. That said, leaving brexit in the hands of brexit ministers like Johnson, Gove, Hunt and Davis - given that a prerequisite for believing in Brexit as a policy is to fail to grasp any of the practicalities of it - yes, deeply incompetent.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 06:54:30 Rugian: It's perfectly possible to operate independently. It's not as effective or efficient as cooperations. But leaving that aside, switching modes means: 1. Largely, it involves creating scores of new administrative functions and greatly increasing the ones we have. 2. Replicating 40 years of trade negotiations against every major economy in the world looking to use that as leverage for concessions 3. Having some countries actively trying to pursue their interests as they conflict with ours. It would take a decade to do properly. Two years is ridiculous. May's deal involved a further transition period. No deal preparations have been going for less than six months.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 06:58:02 Here are the facts: There is a deal on the table to cover withdrawal. It's the best deal we are going to get. If it is agreed, everything from EEA through to Canada or WTO only could then subsequently agreed as the end state. Brexiteers won't vote for it, because they can't agree amongst themselves (still) what the actual point and intent of brexit was in the first place, other than to leave. But to make a policy real means to make choices. And if you are not able to make choices and compromises, as a politician you have failed.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 28 08:39:10 Seb, Are you seriously expecting me to buy the claim that the UK is incapable of, say negotiating airspace use rights with France in the event of no-deal? If so, that's ridiculous. That's just more of the self-defeating gloom and doom attitude that has dominated the Brexit process so far. Securing new trade deals around the world was never going to be easy, sure. Problem is that your government hasn't even seriously tried, instead hinging their entire strategy on an EU deal which in retrospect had zero chance of actually being passed, and which undermined half the point of Brexit in the first place. If your government wasn't so incompetent, youd also have some external trade deals by now to secure your economic footing and use as leverage in EU negotiations. Talk about a wasted opportunity. At this point, your best bet is to embrace a hard Brexit and focusing on realistic prospects for new treaties. No-deal shouldn't mean being completely cut off from Europe in any circumstances, and I'm not buying any arguments to the contrary.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 09:47:25 Your plan for failing to reach a mutually acceptable agreement between the EU member states and the UK is that we... somehow pursuade them to break EU laws and stiff each other and agree terms they didn't agree previously? After we stiff them previously incurred financial obligations? Are you kidding me? Why is France going to do that again?
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 10:11:49 "Problem is that your government hasn't even seriously tried" 1. Legally, we can't conclude a trade agreement while members. Because the strategy is to leave then negotiate, all focus has been on getting 3rd countries to treat us as EU members while we get the basics (e.g. WTO membership, CITES, etc etc sorted). 2. We haven't had an independent trade function for decades, so we've needed to build that. 3. To the extent we have started exploring countries for trade deals: a. who wants to cut a deal with the UK when the UK's relation with the EU isn't settled. b. The EU already has free trade deals with those countries, so all we are doing is damage limitation. And all of those countries want to improve *their* terms of trade. c. Those countries might have access via our deal with EU, so you'd be making unnecessary concessions. d. In the real world, having the trade deal is kinda irrelevant. You need businesses to re-enter engineer their supply chains. There's no easy solution to replacing the flows to/from the EU with third countries. In short, it's incredibly unrealistic to think you can realign all the countries supply chains in two years. I mean, can the US is currently blocking our accession to WTO protocols to secure better terms of trade. And we know US conditions for trade is to privatise the NHS, which is never going to pass. "At this point, your best bet is to embrace a hard Brexit" No. At this point the best bet is to either take the deal May has negotiated, or to remain. A referendum probably need to make that decision. No deal brexit will be politically and economically ruinous.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 10:18:52 Rugian is such a tool. Brexit is literally failing for all the reasons people said it would fail, and he says it's because of incompetence, where competence is magically getting other countries to do what is best for the UK and against their own interests. I mean, all we need to do is to get the US and China to remove regulatory and tariff barriers to our key industries while continuing to protect ours to the degree they are now. Simples. If only we'd thought of that! "The plan was perfect, just the execution". Like one of those dozy 1970s Trots arguments for communism.
EuropeanPussy Member	Mon Jan 28 12:24:02 Panic! http://www...ity-firms-stockpile-for-brexit Industry sources said the cost of warehouse space had risen by as much as a quarter in the final three months of 2018 as fears of no deal exacerbated capacity problems caused by rising demand from online retailers. It is understood that pharmaceuticals storage, which is handled by five specialist licensed operators in the UK, is at capacity while frozen and chilled food warehouses, storing everything from garden peas to half-cooked supermarket bread and cold-store potatoes, are fully booked until beyond April. The Food Storage and Distribution Federation (FSDF), which represents 350 warehouse owners and 75% of all commercially available frozen and chilled food warehouses in the country, said its members were turning customers away. Tesco has rented frozen food containers outside its largest stores for the rest of this year. It normally only uses the containers to cover high demand over Christmas.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 12:25:05 Project fear! Remoaners! Let them eat unicorns!
Seb Member	Mon Jan 28 12:28:44 The shardenfreude of watching Brexiteers bollocks be exposed would be better if: a. They actually are not too thick to realise it was being exposed. b. It wasn't my country circling the plug hole.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 28 14:31:26 Lol england is so cucked that not even leaving the EU has the slightest chance of uncucking them. Neslon and churchill are crying.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 28 14:42:41 The cuck levels are off the charts http://www...ng-poem-social-media-site.html Twitter user is investigated by police for posting a poem on social media site suggesting transgender women are still men
Canadian Member	Mon Jan 28 21:56:40 Seb's argument is not that hard to understand. The EU wants it to be painful for the UK to leave, as a lesson to anyone else. Hell, the UK might not even leave, as that could restart the Troubles, or fire up independence movements in Northern Ireland and Scotland. I'm still rather shocked the H.M.S. Brextanic is barging full steam ahead into the iceberg that is leaving the E.U. A sliver of good news being that I will wait and see if their economy goes to pot before booking tickets to hop the pond - having a shit currency does encourage tourism.
Seb Member	Tue Jan 29 01:10:26 Canadian: No. It's not that they want it to be hard. The disruption is bad for them too. However, having put a collective offer on the table, they are not going to cut separate deals just because the UK reaches to have a better deal than they are prepared to offer, because it: 1. Undermines the EU (which is worse than disruption) 2. Offers worse terms for them then they have negotiated That will encourage any trade party to try and push for better terms in future and encourage other states to try and leave the EU but retain benefits.
Seb Member	Tue Jan 29 06:57:17 Sam: Nelson and Churchill wouldn't be great examples of people advocating retreat from Europe, which is what brexit is. Churchill even called for a United States of Europe!
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Tue Jan 29 08:40:46 churchill was a mass murderer,so ya not a great example.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jan 29 09:57:48 This is stupid in every way.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 29 11:51:31 "Weyand further warned that the debate in Westminster, in which discussions over the rival strengths and weaknesses of Norway and Canada’s relationship to the bloc have recently dominated, appeared at times to be “uninhibited by any knowledge of what is actually in the withdrawal agreement”. “Our impression is discussion is much more about the future of the country and the future of the UK-EU relationship than about the content of the withdrawal agreement,” she said."
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 29 13:09:55 "Churchill even called for a United States of Europe!" He probably didnt envision such cuckery however. He definetly would have hated your anti-western pro-immigrant bullshit.
Seb Member	Tue Jan 29 14:25:35 He'd certainly have hated your views Sam. Remember he refused to allow segregationist policies for US based troops.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 29 14:29:44 Lol seb is trying to go back in time and cuck the memory of one of the few good brits. Churchill would slap you, laugh, and then forget you existed.
Seb Member	Tue Jan 29 14:29:51 Jergul: Most MPs appear to either not have clocked that the withdrawal agreement sets no constraints on the future relationship, or at least find it convenient to pretend to not have understood this. The grieve and cooper ammendments, the most sensible approaches to allow key issues to be resolved one way or the other, have just fallen. So more humiliation as May goes to Europe to deliver a message from parliament to ditch the backstop that has already been rebuffed. Next vote will be on the 13 th. Meanwhile, firms are leaving, jobs are being lost.
Seb Member	Tue Jan 29 15:34:05 Sam: He'd shoot you. Not a fan of Nazis.
Canadian Member	Tue Jan 29 22:13:06 Seb: "However, having put a collective offer on the table, they are not going to cut separate deals just because the UK reaches to have a better deal than they are prepared to offer, because it: 1. Undermines the EU (which is worse than disruption) 2. Offers worse terms for them then they have negotiated That will encourage any trade party to try and push for better terms in future and encourage other states to try and leave the EU but retain benefits." - In more words than I, but yes. I am baffled by what May thinks she'll get from Brussels now, considering they have already told her they won't renegotiate the Irish backstop.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 30 04:02:52 Presumably so she can say she's done it, and that option has been exhausted. It's a very expensive piece of virtue signalling to Brexiteers to force them and anyone else on the fence to choose between no-deal or her deal. Apologies if the distinction seems pedantic, but it's important. It's pathetic that parliament decided to be so gutless as to play along. The choices are: no deal, Mays deal, remain. MPs ought to know this by now. The opportunity to figure out what parliament will support was on the table yesterday (Grieve ammendment), parliament chose not to take it. No deal really should be off the table. Parliament had an option to legislate to do that yesterday, but chose not to. Instead they chose (Bradey ammendment) to send May off to all for an unspecified change to the backkstop. It's difficult to see what the EU can do with that, as it's not clear whatever is negotiated (should they be inclined to do so) would be acceptable to parliament. The Bradey ammendment was clearly a front for the govt, so the whole thing looks set up to fail, so May can come back and say "see, my deal or no-deal" again. This is transparently obvious, but MPs are afraid that voters might not understand the options really are limited to three above, so will go along with it. Nothing has moved since before Christmas. Parliament is dodging the choice before it, out of cowardice, and at enormous cost to the UK economy and diplomatic credibility.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 30 04:04:00 *Apologies if the distinction seems pedantic, but it's important That was meant to go first and at the top referring to distinction between "wanting it to be painful" Vs "not willing to break fundamentals to mitigate UKs self inflicted pain".
Seb Member	Wed Jan 30 04:04:59 N.b. I have complicated views on the backstop. I think it's a mistake for RoI to insist on it. I think it's bad for Ireland, but the EU won't override Ireland on the issue.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jan 30 17:20:39 Ahhh yes seb, the classic liberal argument "those who disagree with me are nazis" Typical.
Nekran Member	Wed Jan 30 17:31:43 Yeah... that's why he calls you a nazi. Not because you have a long and rich history of cheering on genocide and claiming people of certain skin colors to be superior to others... Are you even offended to be called a nazi? And if so, is it because they also had some socialist policies?
Seb Member	Thu Jan 31 01:17:26 Sam: Oh no Sam, I don't call you a Nazi because I disagree with you. I disagree with you because you are a Nazi who is all into your racial superiority matter race bullshit.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 31 10:15:33 "long and rich history of cheering on genocide and claiming people of certain skin colors to be superior to others... " Lulz. I didn't realize a realistic interpretation of history was nazism now.
Pillz Member	Thu Jan 31 10:20:23 Re-education camp for you
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 31 10:22:47 "racial superiority matter race bullshit." The evidence offends me so it must be bullshit. Oh and nazis!!! Lol@seb
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 31 10:24:28 "Re-education camp for you" Lol yup. A proponent of state control of speech is calling other people nazis. How pathetically cute.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 31 16:19:42 Yes, the Nazis thought they had evidence too, with those natty calipers for measuring head shapes.
EuropeanPussy Member	Thu Jan 31 16:46:04 Uh that hurts! http://www...xit-preparations-a8755336.html Barclays has been given the all clear by the High Court to shift €190bn (£160bn) of its clients' assets to Ireland as it ramps up preparations for Brexit. The move which affects around 5,000 clients, can take place after judges approved it on Wednesday. “As we announced in 2017, Barclays will use our existing licensed EU-based bank subsidiary to continue to serve our clients within the EU beyond March 29 2019 regardless of the outcome of Brexit,” Barclays said. “Our preparations are well-advanced and we expect to be fully operational by March 29 2019.” Financial firms are expected to shift at least £800bn out of the UK before Brexit day on 29 March according to figures from EY.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 31 17:13:46 Somewhere, Shanon is standing under some bunting waving a British flag and cheering, though nobody understands why.
Dukhat Member	Thu Jan 31 17:54:19 Dumb white men are just dumb.
jergul large member	Fri Feb 01 05:58:51 Dukhat To be fair, they are also white, and dumb. By definition.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 01 10:00:54 "the Nazis thought they had evidence too" Too bad they sucked at thinking. Aha! Another similarity between seb and nazis!
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 01 10:37:35 http://i.k...s/newsfeed/001/200/369/161.jpg Oh look sebs reading level
Seb Member	Fri Feb 01 15:58:30 Sam is simultaneously arguing that non white races are genetically inferior, but it's wrong to liken him to a Nazi because the Nazis believed the same thing, but were wrong, because they sucked at thinking. Hmm.
EuropeanPussy Member	Sat Feb 02 12:00:16 Problems, problems, problems... http://www...f-rubbish-after-no-deal-brexit Government officials are preparing to deal with “putrefying stockpiles” of rubbish in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to documents leaked to the Guardian. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 29 March, export licences for millions of tonnes of waste will become invalid overnight. Environment Agency (EA) officials said leaking stockpiles could cause pollution. The EA is also concerned that if farmers cannot export beef and lamb, a backlog of livestock on farms could cause liquid manure stores to overflow. A senior MP said the problems could cause a public health and environmental pollution emergency. An EA source said: “It could all get very ugly, very quickly.”
Sam Adams Member	Sat Feb 02 13:00:19 Seb thinks the nazis only had one belief? Dumbseb.
Seb Member	Sun Feb 03 08:41:07 The pertinent one really is the whole racial superiority thing Sam. "I'm not a Nazi because while I agree in the racial superiority of whites, I am not actually a member of the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party" is a bit weak.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Feb 03 10:54:10 Seb you retard. In 1945, every major power, including both the UK and US, believed in the racial superiority of whites. And why wouldn't they? The ruled the world and non-whites in general couldn't even read.
Seb Member	Sun Feb 03 10:58:58 Sam: Yes, the idea was quite prevalent in broad culture, but pretty much died out when the utter insanity of the idea was demonstrated by it's biggest proponents who uniquely structured their entire social policy around it. Anyone still adhering to it is very much worthy of the epithet Nazi, especially if, like you, you think it should inform large chunks of public policy.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Feb 03 13:32:30 "but pretty much died out" In cuck circles of the uk, sure. Why do you think you lost your empire and became alabama?
Seb Member	Sun Feb 03 13:41:49 As the dog returns to its vomit, so the fool returns to his folly.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 03 15:34:58 Seb It is way better to dredge old ports. My point was it is better to limit customs inspections than it is to embargo yourself. Assuming as we do that a no deal may very well occur. Crazy. What a dereliction of duty.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 03 15:37:04 EFTA is not in play incidentally. Every member would veto a UK application.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Feb 03 15:57:40 What a self nut punch, I haven't seen a clusterfuck like that ever.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 03 16:36:56 It could be a trappings of empire thing. Maybe the EU should offer a deal the UK would be familiar with. The backdrop clause is valid for only 101 years and NI will gain the same border regime as the rest of the UK after that point if a deal is not sealed.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 04 01:30:53 Jergul: The suggestion is to create a another pillar. There are member state controls - e.g. French inspection of outbound stuff. That's a thing. The backstop problem is obvious: if a hard border between RoI and NI breaks the GFA for the Republicans, then one between the UK and NI breaks it for the Unionists, who also have paramilitary types. The GFA in any case does not commit an open border, but for NI to choose its alignment. Further, NI has more economic ties to the mainland. So entering into agreement to work out how to keep an open border that might require the EU and Ireland to do complicated things and accept higher risk of smuggling then they might want, while first committing that if they refuse we will stick a border in the North sea, while the French and Spanish have both said they will use the issue to extract further concessions in other areas, is a total non starter that may ought never to have agreed to. The DUP would never agree it unless they thought the UK would stay in the CU and SM, and the Brexiteers will never accept that, add if that's the end state remainders would rightly push for simply remaining in the EU. I think the Republic is being daft here: if they get their wish, they end up with an open border, active Unionists terrorists and unlikely much in the way of UK cooperation (not least because the EU isn't allowing data sharing and European arrest warrant to a non member). Also, Covney having explicitly rejected Stormont having any say, I don't see how Irish policy isnt a serious beach of the GFA actual text.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 04 02:41:38 Seb I was suggesting a hong kong solution. With the UK in the role of a divided Imperial China :-). "I think the Republic is being daft here" It does not want a hard border dividing Ireland. Meaning essentially that a hard brexit will be permanently hard. Unless you can imagine a no border final treaty agreement. Because that will be the caveat for any treaty above WTO baseline. The UK was a horrible choice for a country to leave the EU. It would have been a lot easier with virtually any other country.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 04 05:05:03 Jergul: It'll never happen because the DUP votes are needed and they hate it. And if it happens, then there's going to be an almighty cluster fuck. The UK doesn't want a hard border either, and there are probably ways to make a scheme that delivers what is needed, provided there's cross border co& operation and the EU is willing to make exceptional agreements. However, if the backstop is agreed, then there is almost no liklihood that the EU will make such accomodations. Which means either the UK will break the WA, or we will have to abide by it by imposing a hard external border between UK and the North, in which case there will be a huge recession in NI, and the various Ulster terrorists will kick off (and the Republic will be exposed to it with no border). Meanwhile, the EU has ruled out UK participation in police intelligence sharing and the European arrest warrant. Will the UK bend over backwards to accommodate a return to violence instigated by Ireland's insistence on a backstop? Unlikely. It's a daft move. The only way the GFA can be maintained is through a cooperative approach, and there's just no way that's going to happen if there's no requirement on RoI to cooperate. So, if we get no deal, the first thing we do is spend months on working out formal mechanisms for the unilateral measures we will both end up taking. The ammount of bad will between both sides thereafter will be huge. And the net effect will be a UK that will be looking for a big geopolitical event to shake things up. So whatever the formality, I think the UK will not be actively part of Europe's security arrangements. Russian destabilising the EU is, from the UKs point of view, an opportunity, not a threat. Height of stupidity.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 04 05:06:59 Many people seem to forget that unionism is still the political majority in NI. Not wanting the UK to leave the EU isn't the same as wanting to leave the UK in order to be in the EU. Plus in 2017, DUP significantly increased their vote share. So the idea that brexit will lead to a sudden desire for reunification seems wishful thinking at best.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 04 09:29:16 Seb Brexit is the height of stupidity. Compounded in magnitude if the UK opts for a hard exit. The choice now is between a backstop and a hard brexit. Does a majority in NI want a backstop, or a hard brexit? I don't think it in UKs interests to play to the EU what Ukraine is to Russia. Better to aim for Belorussian status.
Dukhat Member	Mon Feb 04 11:44:14 Time to have another referendum. Plenty of old, dumb, senile white people have died so the vote will be closer. Proof: Hot Rod died.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 04 14:00:28 Jergul: To answer your question: David Trimble, Nobel Prize Laureate, Architect of the good Friday agreement and signatory to it on behalf of unionists, is taking the UK govt to court on the basis that committing to the backstop would be a violation of the GFA.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 04 18:18:47 Seb That did not answer my question. On customs. May getting something sort of right. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47121225
Seb Member	Mon Feb 04 18:32:07 Jergul: That's been in the works for as long as no deal planning. Just been under NDA. The issue are EU member states legal obligations to do checks on exports, and how to do the minimum checks and charges on EU imports so as not to trigger WTO MFN complaints from non EU exporters. Because if we have to drop duties on non EU imports arriving in the UK, the EU will definitely have to charge duties on UK imports to the EU.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Feb 14 10:57:32 http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzOGDwuU8AAxArq.jpg:large
EuropeanPussy Member	Sun Feb 17 06:26:45 http://www...ses-blaming-brexit-uncertainty The British airline Flybmi has gone bust, cancelling all flights with immediate effect and blaming Brexit as the main cause of its collapse. The company, which employs 376 staff and operates more than 600 flights a week, said it faced “several difficulties” in recent weeks including spikes in fuel and carbon costs, the latter arising from the EU’s recent decision to exclude UK airlines from full participation in the Emissions Trading Scheme. “Current trading and future prospects have also been seriously affected by the uncertainty created by the Brexit process, which has led to our inability to secure valuable flying contracts in Europe and lack of confidence around bmi’s ability to continue flying between destinations in Europe,” the airline said in a statement.
EuropeanPussy Member	Tue Feb 19 07:54:35 http://eu....shut-plant-britain/2912983002/ TOKYO – Honda said Tuesday it plans to close its car factory in western England in 2021, imperiling 3,500 jobs in a fresh blow to the British economy as it faces its March 29 exit from the European Union.
Pillz Member	Tue Feb 19 09:12:13 Businesses never shut their doors until Brexit happened
Seb Member	Tue Feb 19 09:13:44 Pillz: It's quite a coincidence they are all shutting up now though isn't it? Particularly when said companies did say they would do precisely that in the event of leaving the EU without frictionless access.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Feb 20 00:32:30 I have an old friend from Tooting who works as an airplane technician in Holland, where he's lived for nearly 2 decades now and created a life for himself. His particular occupation and residential situation is in the direct line of Brexit fire. But he posts Hard Brexit Now! on his FB page everyday, because, y'know, brown people, and Tom Robinson, and Soros, and monty pythons black knight chopping his own nose off etc
Daemon Member	Wed Mar 13 06:59:59 Didn't find an English article, here's an automatic translation. I've used DeepL for translation, gives me much better results than Google translate http://www.deepl.com/translator http://www.wz.de/nrw/duesseldorf/duesseldorfer-unternehmen-hakle-hilft-grossbritannien-mit-klopapier-aus_aid-37401539 Düsseldorf-based company helps Great Britain out with toilet paper March 12th, 2019 After media reports that the kingdom could run out of toilet paper after day two after Brexit, a parcel was sent from Düsseldorf on Tuesday... The forthcoming Brexit, Britain's withdrawal from the EU, is in the headlines every day, and not only good things are to be expected for the Kingdom in this consequence. According to media reports, Great Britain is then threatened by a toilet paper crisis, for example: Great Britain is the largest importer of toilet paper in Europe. Already on day 2 after the Brexit the British could stand before empty shelves. The Düsseldorf toilet paper manufacturer Hakle now wants to provide "spontaneous immediate help" with a range of toilet paper rolls. The package, loaded on Tuesday morning, is addressed to Buckingham Palace. Nina Werner von Hakle handed over the pallet to the shipping company on Tuesday.
murder Member	Wed Mar 13 16:57:57 This whole Brexit thing was clearly well thought through. I can't believe that the British people left the same pinheads in power in the last election. Theresa May should step aside and let Wallace Hartley take over as PM. He has experience in this sort of thing. :o)
Seb Member	Thu Mar 14 02:39:48 Murder: They didn't leave the same people in charge. May lost her majority. And unfortunately Corbyn is also a brexiteer, displays all the character defects of May, and would be even worse in terms of policies. So we are not now overburdened with choice, despite historically low approval ratings for everyone. I'm voting for the giant asteroid party myself. I for one welcome the firey obliteration of all that we survey.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 14 12:51:41 Seems to me that the EU could grant the UK an indefinite extension no matter what extension time frame the UK asks for. Limbo may be the best option for everyone until a new legislature can be voted in. I realize of course that the UK has set a time limit to the extension due to its own internal politics. But that is not really relevant to what extension the EU actually gives.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 14 15:17:40 Extension has, in EU law, to be by mutual agreement. Unfortunately. I'm too exhausted with todays bullshit to go into any more depth today. My uni flatmates and I once got the complete Monty python boxed set. For a few days we binged on it, but after a few hours we got into a state of what we decided to name "python fatigue". "Why yes, of course he just hit the man with a hadock, what else would he have done". I have entered a similar state.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 14 15:40:52 "unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period" The order is actually a bit reversed. The EU should by this wording decide on what form and conditions an extension should have, and the UK would need to decide if it agrees with the form and conditions. But it is fair enough that a UK request trigger EU deliberations before giving the extension an appropriate form. An extension could be challenged the content as not having agreement in a court of law. If successful, would render the extension void and result in an immediate hard brexit. Such a course would be fine with me as UK does retain recourse if it disagrees with the terms of the extension. Allowing the UK to set the terms would be a loop of never-ending madness.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 14 16:29:28 The point is, the UK has to positively agree to the extension. In practice that means a law ammending the previously passed withdrawal act needs to be passed in the UK (UK agreement needs to be consistent with its own constitutional procedures to be valid under EU law, and a uk govt cannot legally break the law, so UK govt agreeing an extension without Todd change would not be recognised by the EU). Otherwise in both EU and UK law, no extension. Of course the EU can impose conditions by simple virtue of the EU 27 needing to agree. But I suspect there are limits to the kinds of conditions. E.g. things that would go beyond the normal powers of the council to agree. So for example, if the UK rebate is something that is within the jurisdiction of purely the council, that could be a condition, but if that required e.g. a treaty change, e.g. join the euro, then it couldn't. Not entirely sure what would happen if the condition of the extension was that the UK hold a referendum say, and then did not. My guess is there isn't a clear mechanism to force that and while a breach of a political commitment, wouldn't be enforceable on its own during the extension as the UK remains a member with all rights of a member as per ECJ ruling. The EU attempting to extend unilaterally simply doesn't work. It wouldn't even need challenge. Nor can the UK set terms. Ultimately we are asking. There may be terms the govt might not accept, or parliament might not agree to (and thus not and the EU withdrawal act). But that seems, under the circumstances, somewhat hypothetical. Though we are through the looking glass, dish the rabbit hole and dancing wth the fairies, so, who knows.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 14 16:45:32 Seb Agreement for an extension is given by act of parliament (We agree that May ask for an extension). The EU then gives an extension in the form it finds appropriate. The UK has recourse to challenge ("hey, that is not what we agreed to") in a court of law. If successful, then the extension is overturned. If the UK is granted an indefinite extension, then it would be by design. In your example of demanding a referendum without specifying the consequences of not holding a referendum. It seems to me to be out of British hands once parliament authorizes may to ask for a referendum and she does that. The EU can do what it likes and the UK can challenge any extension if it wants to. Here is the actual wording: That this house: (1) notes the resolutions of the house of 12 and 13 March, and accordingly agrees that the government will seek to agree with the European Union an extension of the period specified in article 50(3); (2) agrees that, if the house has passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1) (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019, then the government will seek to agree with the European Union a one-off extension of the period specified in article 50(3) for a period ending on 30 June 2019 for the purpose of passing the necessary EU exit legislation; and (3) notes that, if the house has not passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019, then it is highly likely that the European council at its meeting the following day would require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length, and that any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European parliament elections in May 2019. ============= "Seek to agree" Jesus.
	show deleted posts