howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
In addition we have the multitude of small businesses that have bought and sold things across the member states without having to concern themselves with import/export documentation. They will need to employ the service of Freight forwarders nearby already busy and may decide to levy high charges because they can meaning small traders may feel it is not worth their while to export/import.
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
It appears that the no deal preparations are being intensified. That and May's postponement of the meaningful vote seems to indicate that she's heading for a "my way or no way" conclusion.
If so, I suspect that in a year's time there will be many who will rue the day.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
It does look like no deal is fast becoming favourite and Michael Gove has started advertising for 90 staff to run a crisis centre to deal with emergencies. With the time it takes to sift through applications and eventually hold interviews, add to that people working out their notice we could end up with 90 untrained people on the day we leave.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/18/brexit-cabinet-meets-to-discuss-ramping-up-plans-for-no-dealPaul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Thanks Button for clarity of explanation to we non practitioners. Moves things on but benefits all sides as a starter.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,987
Wise words on any Second Referendum from Allison Pearson, Telegraph columnist:-
Ah, yes, a second referendum in which people too stupid to tell the difference between Stay and Go will be required to understand a 500-page Withdrawal Agreement...
howard mcsweeney1, Jan Higgins and Paul Watkins like this
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Jan Higgins likes this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
From the Telegraph
Theresa May's Cabinet has agreed to implement all planning for a 'no deal' Brexit scenario in full and put the Army on standby to handle disruption, in a clear sign that the Government believes crashing out of the EU is more likely than ever. A Downing Street spokesman said the Government would now "ramp up" 'no deal' preparations across all areas of trade with the EU. “Cabinet agreed that with just over three months until our exit from the European Union we have now reached the point where we need to ramp up these preparations. This means we will now set in motion the remaining elements of our no-deal plans," they said. The spokesman added: "Cabinet also agreed to recommend businesses now also ensure they are similarly prepared, enacting their own no-deal plans as they judge necessary." In the House of Commons, defence secretary Gavin Williamson announced that 3,500 armed forces personnel were on standby "to support any government department on any contingencies they may need."
However David Gauke, the justice secretary, poured cold water on plans for a 'managed no deal Brexit' at the Cabinet meeting, describing the idea as a "unicorn that needs to be slaughtered."
The robust exchange came as Jeremy Hunt and other Cabinet ministers also "squashed" plans by Amber Rudd and prominent Remainers for "indicative votes" over Brexit. During a two-and-a-half hour Cabinet there was a heated debate over the plans, which are supported by five Remain ministers. A Cabinet source said that Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, was strongly critical of the plan to hold "indicative votes" on different Brexit options with a view to testing the "will of the house".
Andrea Leadsom and other Eurosceptics in the Cabinet alao criticised the approach amid concerns that it will be used as a vehicle for a second referendum. There was a "broad consensus" over no-deal planning and several ministers pushed for it to be made a "central assumption". Liz Truss, the Chief Secretary, suggested there should be daily meetings of the Government's Cobra emergency committee from the New Year to discuss no deal. Reports this morning suggested that £500m was allocated to the Home Office for border and immigration officials; the Department for Environment Farming and Rural Affairs will receive £400m for a new IT system for food and fish exports, and Department for International Trade will receive £130m for new trade negotiators.
The large cash injection marks a significant shift in the Government’s Brexit strategy, and is expected to send a warning to Brussels that the UK is serious about walking away unless new concessions on the Irish backstop are granted. This morning, James Brokenshire confirmed that the Government is “stepping up” its preparations for no deal, adding that he was not going to “try and pretend otherwise”. The Communities Secretary said it was “right and proper” that the UK was prepared to walk away, although he admitted there would “clearly be consequences of no deal in the short term”.
Ministers will be told that a no-deal Brexit will now be considered a "default" option if Parliament is unable to sign off a deal. Government business which is not considered essential will be cancelled.
The Cabinet will discuss how the £2 billion committed to funding preparations for a no-deal Brexit should be spent. A Downing Street spokesman said: "What I have always said is the closer we get to March 29, the more decisions will have to be taken [so that] we are prepared for a no-deal scenario."
The Prime Minister had said the Commons would have the chance to debate her Withdrawal Agreement in the week MPs return to Westminster after Christmas on January 7.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
This piece in the Times sums up Cruella and Jezza in my opinion.
Tick, tock, tick, tock. As if the crocodile in Peter Pan were swimming down the River Thames, you can almost hear the time passing in the Palace of Westminster. On Wednesday there will be just 100 days until Britain is legally committed to leaving the EU and only 46 days on which the House of Commons is due to be sitting. Time is running out for this constitutional crisis to be resolved and yet the prime minister and the leader of the opposition are conspiring to procrastinate. Both are irresponsibly putting narrow political concerns above the national interest to delay the moment of truth. Theresa May has postponed the Commons “meaningful vote” on her withdrawal agreement until the middle of next month because she knows she will lose it. After last week’s European Council it is abundantly clear that she cannot win the concessions she needs to get her deal through parliament, but she is still refusing to give MPs their say before Christmas, which makes it impossible for the deadlock to be confronted.
As prime minister, she should be trying to find a way out of the impasse and yet she insists she is not even contemplating any Plan B. Instead, she has denounced every other plausible alternative as an affront to democracy and embarked on a series of bizarre staged confrontations designed to show strength, which in fact only highlight her weakness. After her carefully choreographed showdown for the cameras with Jean-Claude Juncker came a personal attack on Tony Blair. It is, as Sam Gyimah, the former universities minister, said, “displacement activity” that is leaving the country in “limbo-land”. The only possible explanation is that Mrs May is trying to run down the clock so that MPs have no time to find a path between her deal and no deal. That is not just a shocking attempt to undermine the parliamentary sovereignty she claims to support, it also increases the chances of a dangerously disruptive hard Brexit.
With strange symmetry, Jeremy Corbyn is also dithering and prevaricating. Yesterday, Mr Corbyn told MPs that he intended to table a motion of no confidence in the prime minister — after he initially appeared to back away from the threat. But this is a piece of theatre, a meaningless gimmick with no legal force. If he wants to trigger a general election, the Labour leader needs to win a formal motion of no confidence in the whole government, not just a symbolic vote censuring Mrs May. Shadow cabinet ministers have repeatedly urged him to table such a motion but he has refused to do so because he knows that if he tries, and fails, to force a general election then he will have to decide whether or not to back a second referendum. With 117 Tory MPs now openly opposed to Mrs May’s leadership, it is hard to think of any circumstances more conducive to an opposition challenge, but the confidence motion is the “firewall”, as one senior figure puts it, between the Labour leader and a popular vote. “Anything not to be exposed as a Brexiteer to Labour Party members,” says a senior MP.
Mr Corbyn’s Eurosceptic instincts were obvious in a recent speech to the Party of European Socialists when he condemned the EU’s “support for austerity and failed neoliberal policies”, but on this he is at odds with the vast majority of his youthful supporters who are deeply pro-European and strongly in favour of another referendum.
This is not just a divide between centrists and Corbynistas but between different factions on the Labour left. The ideological purists in the leader’s office are attracted to the “creative destruction” of Brexit which they think might help bring about their revolution, whereas the political pragmatists worry that the disruption would make it harder to implement a radical programme if Labour does get into power. John McDonnell has become increasingly supportive of another referendum because “he’s wary of being the chancellor who has to implement Brexit”, according to one insider.
The parallels between Mrs May and Mr Corbyn are uncanny: the zombie prime minister is shadowed by a leader offering only an illusion of opposition. Both have survived leadership challenges from their MPs, and now cling stubbornly to power, isolated from large swathes of their party and with a bunker mentality setting in. Although socially awkward, they share a sense of moral superiority — the religiosity of the vicar’s daughter is mirrored by the spiritual certainty of the lifelong socialist. They pride themselves on being principled but in both cases the inflexibility is rapidly turning into their greatest weakness.
On Europe both are in denial about reality. Mrs May seems to think she can get substantial changes to her withdrawal agreement and Mr Corbyn appears to believe he can magically negotiate a “jobs first Brexit”, even though each of these options has been categorically ruled out by the EU. Both see the People’s Vote campaign as a sinister Blairite plot to undermine their leadership rather than acknowledging the constitutional clash between representative and direct democracy created by the 2016 referendum. There is, underlying the anxiety they display, a fundamental dishonesty in their positions. Mrs May is a Remainer who feels duty-bound to deliver the Brexit she once said would make the country poorer and less safe; Mr Corbyn is a long-standing Eurosceptic who feels politically obliged to oppose the UK’s departure from the EU because his party demands it of him. Neither is truly committed to the cause they have been forced to adopt. As Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK’s former permanent representative to the EU, put it in a speech last week: “The debate of the last 30 months has suffered from opacity, delusion-mongering and mendacity on all sides.”
So they twirl, Mrs May and Mr Corbyn, locked in a dance of death while the nation hangs in suspended animation. Crucial domestic policy reforms are on hold because the government is so preoccupied with Brexit that it can do nothing else. The green paper on social care, the long-term plan for the NHS and a review of school exclusions (which could have helped to tackle the knife crime crisis) were all supposed to have been published before Christmas but have been delayed. The rail network is in chaos, the welfare system is dysfunctional and a housing crisis goes unaddressed, yet to protect their own positions the prime minister and the leader of the opposition maintain the gridlock over Brexit. There is no alternative, Mrs May likes to suggest, echoing Margaret Thatcher. In fact, at a time when the country needs leadership more than ever, there is no government and there is no opposition. That is the real catastrophe.
Pablo and ray hutstone like this
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Excellent and well informed article. Will Hutton was on this morning's today programme and described it as being like the Titanic heading for the iceberg. But on this occasion the Captain is aware and could steer away. But she continues inexorably on, transfixed, to the final inevitable catastrophe.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Mr Finkelstein on the ball her.
The Conservative Party is suffering something like a nervous breakdown. To watch the Tories in the Commons is to watch a group that has lost much of its self discipline. Members openly insult each other, the leader has only just survived a vote of confidence, and the pro-Brexit European Research Group of backbenchers appears to have its own whipping system and policy platform. The idea of a formal split cannot be dismissed; indeed in parliamentary terms it already seems far advanced. When the ERG announced that its members — who, let’s not forget, are all Conservative members of parliament — had decided after much consideration not to support Labour in a vote of confidence in Theresa May, this counted as news.
When it is strong and healthy, the Tory party can be a formidable party of government. Right now, however, it can scarcely govern and wonders how best to make it through Christmas. Nearing the end of its programme of austerity, trying to cope with a changing public mood and a changing country (for instance its greater ethnic diversity or the rise in use of social media), the party’s self-confidence has abandoned it. The same sort of disorientation that can leave individuals vulnerable is afflicting the party as an organisation. As has happened repeatedly in Conservative history, when the party goes through periods of uncertainty, it fractures in the same way. It has, as it were, an inherited biological flaw. The Conservative Party is the home of those who believe in an open trading economy, offering people pragmatic government and limited state control. It also adapts to social change, and it is often Tories who legislate to reflect the nation’s liberal mood, such as laws to introduce equal votes for women or to institute gay marriage.
Yet the party also has a romantic, nationalist streak. This can tempt it into dreamy ideas about Britain and our role in the world. It can give itself up to nostalgia about the nation and empire. And it tends towards protectionism. At moments of Conservative strength these two elements — the pragmatic and the dreamy, the trader and the nationalist — coexist peacefully within the party, each bringing new voters to the other. But at moments of weakness, they clash and can tear the party asunder. The most frequently cited example of this is the crisis over the Corn Laws in 1845. The protectionists under Lord Stanley split with the smaller group of free traders under the party leader Robert Peel. Less often referred to, but more relevant to our times, is the Conservative division over tariffs in the early 20th century.
By 1902, after a long period in power, the Conservative and Unionists had begun to run out of ideas. Their confidence in Britain’s economic supremacy and imperial destiny was being tested by the rise of rival industrial powers such as Germany and the United States. The internal arguments over how to respond caused the party to split. Joseph Chamberlain, the most dynamic member of the cabinet, believed that the answer was an imperial union: an empire forged into one economic bloc by a system of tariffs known as Imperial Preference that would deter imports from other countries. As a bonus, the revenues could fund Britain’s nascent welfare system, allowing the party to win support among the industrial working class. The free-traders in cabinet thought this an impractical nationalist project, and believed it would cost them the votes of everyone but the rich, when citizens realised that tariffs would put up the price of basic goods like food.
Yet this clarity, however seductive, eventually comes up against political reality. Some of Chamberlain’s supporters thought retaliatory tariffs might one day lead to universal tariff-free trade. Some of Mr Johnson’s friends think that imposing tariffs on European goods will usher in an era of open trading. The electorate, while a first quite taken with it, in the end are more worried about price rises. But just as it did by the 1920s, the Conservative Party returns to pragmatism and prosperity. The party goes with the grain of the nation. As Britain becomes more urban, more diverse, more liberal and more internationalist, so the Conservative Party will too. It might, however, take its time.
And while it dawdles, it will struggle electorally.
daniel.finkelstein@thetimes.co.ukBrian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Dominic Raab making everything seem so simple writing in the Telegraph.
On Tuesday the Cabinet stepped up preparations to leave the EU on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms. That will strengthen the Prime Minister’s final efforts to salvage her Brexit deal, and mitigate the risks in case they fail. With 100 days until Brexit, we need a clear-sighted appraisal of those risks, and stronger ministerial grip to manage them and reassure the country. Health Secretary Matt Hancock has instituted full ‘no deal’ planning in the NHS. That includes working with pharmaceutical companies so they can stockpile medicines that might be affected by any delays at Calais. The NHS already coordinates with pharmaceutical businesses to keep 12-week stockpiles of hundreds of medicines and vaccines, so this work is familiar. Many firms are ahead of the game. The UK’s largest insulin supplier, French firm Sanofi, started building up a 14-week supply in early August.
The Government should now focus on three top priorities. First, managing the risk that EU border checks add costs to UK businesses. The UK will adopt a ‘continuity’ approach, recognising EU regulatory standards on day 1 of Brexit, and taking an intelligence-led approach to enforcement rather than checking every truck from Europe. Likewise, on exit, UK goods will comply with EU standards. Xavier Bertrand, President of the northern region of France, has said that the Calais authorities would facilitate the flow of lorries arriving from the UK. French officials say checks would take 2 minutes per lorry, not 10 minutes as Whitehall planners (inexplicably) assume.
If President Macron sought to choke the flow of UK goods entering via Calais, ports like Zeebrugge and Rotterdam would hoover up the business. Ministers need to work with operators and port authorities, so we have capacity to divert supply routes via Belgium and the Netherlands as swiftly as possible. Second, we need interim tariff liberalisation to protect UK consumers, if the EU applies tariffs on UK exports, and take immediate advantage of the opportunity to reduce the price of goods from the rest of the world. This should take into account the impact on the most sensitive UK sectors – including farmers – whilst sending the strongest message that global Britain is open for business. It would also provide a springboard to the free trade deals the UK will pursue from Asia to Latin America – to create the jobs of the future, and ease the cost of living at home. Third, the Treasury must prepare a Brexit budget to identify businesses – including ‘just in time’ manufacturers – most at risk from a departure on WTO terms. We should cut business taxes to boost them as they transition, and offset the cost from the £39 billion the UK would have paid the EU.
In some areas, we need EU cooperation. The European Commission has agreed to cooperate on aviation to ensure flights run between the UK and EU, and the Bank of England and European Central Bank are working together on financial risks. But, Commission Secretary General Martin Selmayr has refused wider collaboration. If this continues, we should be clear with UK and EU citizens that this is a deliberate choice made by Brussels.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
tic toc tic toc tic toc, the clock is ticking for Maggie may and her cronies, the whole thing needs sorting out as of two years ago not at the last hour.
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,033
Yeah, I like a chap who doesn't leave things to the last minute; I assume he finished writing jokes for Christmas crackers some time ago then.
(Not my real name.)
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
and they are humorless to.
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Patronising drivel from Raab. Just another incompetent prepared to put party and self interest before that of the nation. There is ample evidence now that there is a significant concern within business, defence and security, the arts and the population as a whole that this act of national self-mutilation demands at the very least a re-examination by the electorate.
If the sunlit uplands were so bright and easily obtainable then why are suddenly preparing to go to hell in a handcart?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I don't know where Raab gets the idea that the French authorities would benefit by choking the flow of trucks going through, sounds to me he is stoking up "patriotic" fervour. He also seems to think that people in the ports of Zeebrugge and Rotterdam are sitting twiddling their thumbs ready for the 4. 2 million trucks that normally go through Dover and Eurotunnel, not forgetting the cars and coaches.
Should he be correct has he thought about the costs to industry of higher crossing fees and the mileage plus the increased transit time which would cause serious damage to "just in time" consignments.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
there are some that are gullible and swallow the bait hook line and sinker.
Bob Whysman
- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,934
With the amount of suppositional drivel being bandied about in Parliament, in the E.U. and on certain forums the eventual outcome of Brexit is just theoretical. It will only be known sometime after it happens.
We all have our theories and ‘solutions’ which are obviously tailored to our own personal preferences. Nobody knows what will really happen but with so many ideas to choose from, one is bound to be almost spot on!
Whatever happens the only outcome eventually will be
if the strength of the hysteria which is being generated, is channeled into making it work.
Do nothing and nothing happens!
Jan Higgins likes this
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Bob Whysman- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,934
Brian Dixon wrote:there are some that are gullible and swallow the bait hook line and sinker.
They are called fish Brian.........perhaps your cod piece is obscuring your view.
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Jan Higgins likes this