Brexit: give me a positive effect... XIII

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Colin, can you do a hard reboot please, your algorithms seem to have got into a loop.

 

[TheDecameron]

When Johnson rolled up his trouser legs, all the ticks left UKIP/BP for the Tory host. Basically the same with far right and racist parties- they ran to Johnson at the GE. Tommy Yaxley-Prison told his followers to vote Tory. The Tory vote is now a broad church

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ervatives-support-britain-first-a9252201.html

But the revelation that Brexit Party supporters are actively signing up as Conservative members to vote in the leadership contest is likely to fuel fears of “entryism” – an issue that has already been raised by several prominent Tory MPs.

Far-right Britain First is urging its supporters to join the Conservative Party in order to “make Boris Johnson’s leadership more secure”.

The extremist group, whose leaders were jailed last year, sent an email to subscribers claiming “thousands” of its activists were becoming members of the Tories.

 

[Mullardman]

Broad it may be. A church it isn't.

 

[-alan-]

Sure, and what did they do about it?

Decided that a UK parliament was definitely neither a body they could trust nor want to be ruled from, obviously!

 

[TheDecameron]

Colin, can you do a hard reboot please, your algorithms seem to have got into a loop.

The odour of kipper can be quite difficult to get rid of, no matter if you stick a blue rosette on it.

 

[Markyb]

Jaysus, remind me not to come to this thread without signing in so the ignore works.

 

[Colin Barron]

When Johnson rolled up his trouser legs, all the ticks left UKIP/BP for the Tory host. Basically the same with far right and racist parties- they ran to Johnson at the GE. Tommy Yaxley-Prison told his followers to vote Tory. The Tory vote is now a broad church

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ervatives-support-britain-first-a9252201.html

But the revelation that Brexit Party supporters are actively signing up as Conservative members to vote in the leadership contest is likely to fuel fears of “entryism” – an issue that has already been raised by several prominent Tory MPs.

Far-right Britain First is urging its supporters to join the Conservative Party in order to “make Boris Johnson’s leadership more secure”.

The extremist group, whose leaders were jailed last year, sent an email to subscribers claiming “thousands” of its activists were becoming members of the Tories.

If what you say is correct, then Boris has support from the left Labour heartlands, through the middle ground and to your friends on the far right you regularly advertise. This was a considerable achievement with the remainer controlled media and Westminster bubble.

 

[TheDecameron]

If what you say is correct, then Boris has support from the left Labour heartlands, through the middle ground and to your friends on the far right you regularly advertise. This was a considerable achievement with the remainer controlled media and Westminster bubble.

They’re not my friends- they’re yours. Same monument polishers, same faces on your YouTube link!

 

[eternumviti]

Emotive twisting of facts as usual from you, what next - forced by the Germans?

From the UK Gov website....

"Shellfish such as oysters, mussels, clams, cockles and scallops (live bivalve molluscs) are generally harvested from waters that are either classified as Class A or Class B.

Class A waters means that it has been harvested from waters that are of good quality and they can be exported to the EU without being cleaned/purified, while Class B waters means that the shellfish aren’t ready for human consumption before being purified. Exporters have previously exported class B shellfish to the EU where they were purified.

Now that the UK is classed as a third country, the EU Commission have voiced concerns about the trade in uncleaned live bivalve molluscs, harvested from Class B waters. The Government is in touch with the Commission to raise the issue and find an appropriate solution.

Shellfish harvested from Class A waters, or that have been cleaned and are ready for human consumption, can continue to be exported to the EU."

Remind me, which third countries are not require to purify shellfish from Class B waters? Class A is unaffected and the delay is pure UK dogma over signing up to an agreement.



This wouldn't be because the technical claims and ambitions have not been realised would it? Oh wait.....another example of Johnson blagging away our lack of preparation and signing something he claimed he hadn't. You really do scrape the barrel to justify Johnson (dup)ing the public don't you? See what I did there? Anyway, your favourite electronic solution.....all it needs is for the UK to deliver it's solution. What could possibly go wrong?

“The key thing about the Protocol is that it’s not a completed article – it’s still a work in progress,” he says. “It’s a bit like when you get a new pair of shoes: you have to wear them in for a while.”

Practically, that means tempering expectations about the speed at which technology can solve the problems raised by the Protocol. The IT and surveillance systems required to process customs declarations more efficiently will take months, if not years, to bed in. Others, like audited movement systems, already exist on the frontier between Sweden and Norway. While trade associations including Logistics UK advocate for such a framework as a way of reducing the burden of checks on hauliers, it is important to remember that the context for its deployment in Scandinavia was entirely different.

The thing with Sweden and Norway is that you have this huge border, but trucks are only allowed to transit ten roads,” explains Leheny. Additionally, “Norway is part of the European Economic Area. So, it is very closely aligned to the European Union anyway.”

The ability of the UK government to deliver on such a system remains in doubt. Its track record for border technology innovation is lacking. In March, the Home Office was condemned by a parliamentary committee for the ‘staggering cost’ involved in upgrading its ‘Digital Services at the Border’ programme for monitoring the flow of people, estimating that only one in 15 border staff were trained in its use so far.

https://techmonitor.ai/policy/geopolitics/technology-meant-to-solve-northern-irish-border



Do you think the movement of lorries has been at all helped by a massive reduction in the need for them? I'm glad they can cope with less than half of previous levels and no holiday traffic. Jesus. Coming soon, food shortages have boosted allotment take up, public weight loss bonanza.

You obviously went to a lot of effort to collate that lot. I could have saved you the trouble and done it for you. It's all 'after the event' stuff, that wonderful thing hindsight.

You said that you (you being the generic for 'we' ) had warned 'precisely' of what would happen in the event of Brexit. My request to you was to show me evidence of your forewarning (that is, warning from before the event) of what would happen in two precise cases, that of the NIP, and shellfish exports to the EU. And you did, I think, sink your teeth somewhat into predictions of 40 mile tailbacks into Dover, whatever the lengthy 'yebbut'.

The only person who I saw predict with any precision - and even he sometimes overstated it - was the that great Eurosceptic Christopher Booker, whose essays on the subject of trade disruption in the event of a hard (non-EEA aligned) Brexit I have been guiltily rereading. He nailed it time and again.

 

[SteveS1]

You obviously went to a lot of effort to collate that lot. I could have saved you the trouble and done it for you. It's all 'after the event' stuff, that wonderful thing hindsight.

You said that you (you being the generic for 'we' ) had warned 'precisely' of what would happen in the event of Brexit. My request to you was to show me evidence of your forewarning (that is, warning from before the event) of what would happen in two precise cases, that of the NIP, and shellfish exports to the EU. And you did, I think, sink your teeth somewhat into predictions of 40 mile tailbacks into Dover, whatever the lengthy 'yebbut'.

The only person who I saw predict with any precision - and even he sometimes overstated it - was the that great Eurosceptic Christopher Booker, whose essays on the subject of trade disruption in the event of a hard (non-EEA aligned) Brexit I have been guiltily rereading. He nailed it time and again.

None of these were hindsight, the rules were in place and the impacts predicted in so many places it's absurd. We decided to opt for them despite the obvious consequences largly because in addition to zelaots like yourself who didn't care, there were enough people with a vote but without the knowledge of what it would mean and were prepared to take optimistic bluster on face value.

You are once again being disingenuous, fact is you don't care what the level of disruption or damage is. You haven't dealt with the non-problem of UK's ECJ record nor provided examples of where any actual like for like EU border comparisons with third countries supports your version.

 

[roman]

If what you say is correct, then Boris has support from the left Labour heartlands, through the middle ground and to your friends on the far right you regularly advertise. This was a considerable achievement with the remainer controlled media and Westminster bubble.

Remainder controlled media?!?

Where on earth do you live?

 

[eternumviti]

You could almost be forgiven for wondering how the UK coped under ECJ here's how.........

"The UK rarely ends up in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and when it does it wins its cases more often than most European Union (EU) member states, a new report finds.

Who’s afraid of the ECJ?, published today by the independent Institute for Government (IfG), charts the UK’s experience at the ECJ compared to the 14 other longest standing members of the EU.

The UK won around a quarter of all the cases against it in the last 14 years: the highest success rate of any country that joined the EU before 2004 and the third-highest success rate of any country in the EU now.

Since 2003 the European Commission has opened over 750 complaints against the UK for failing to follow or apply EU law. The UK resolved 668 of these complaints before even reaching the court through negotiation and informal dispute resolution. In the end, the Commission decided to refer only 83 of these cases to the European Court.

Environmental issues are those most likely to see the UK end up at the European Court, the paper reveals, because such cases are often costly to resolve. For example, the UK has repeatedly been taken to court for failing to implement a 1991 directive on the management of urban waste water because water treatment plants are expensive to provide."

Great, now we are free to carry on polluting rivers, well done.

https://www.instituteforgovernment....analysis-shows-uk-rarely-taken-european-court

If the UK was compelled to show up in the ECJ Dock less often than other members, I suspect that that shows once again that the UK is generally better at obeying rules than are many other European countries.

I haven’t been able to quickly find the equivalent number for the UK, but given every year around 2000-odd new statutory instruments find their way onto our statute books, and there are still laws in force from over a century ago, I’d be surprised if our domestic numbers aren’t similarly vast.

As to the last point, also just regurgitated by Colin, it’s looking distinctly tired these days, isn’t it. We have easily the worst government of my lifetime, blatantly corrupt, devoid of any ethics, and almost entirely lacking in competence. Yet all the polling indicates they’d get re-elected. To be blunt, repeating that old UKIP trope is getting insulting now.

On you first para, sure, lots of legislation is passed via SIs, there simply isn't enough time to pass it through Parliament. But it does at least come from our elected executive, not entirely reassuring at the moment of course, but that executive is still subject to the ballot box, which is never the case with the EU executive.

Also, fundamental to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (the antithesis of executive sovereignty, as arguably exercised by the EU and perhaps less arguably by our own current incumbents) is the fact that no parliament may be bound by its predecessors.

As to your second para, that is, the above excepted, a different subject. Any discussion of the shortcomings of the EU always seems to be hobbled by EUphiles by this rather specious comparison.

Decided that a UK parliament was definitely neither a body they could trust nor want to be ruled from, obviously!

Which is precisely the conclusion reached by the majority who voted in the 2016 referendum on EU membership.

 

[roman]

You obviously went to a lot of effort to collate that lot. I could have saved you the trouble and done it for you. It's all 'after the event' stuff, that wonderful thing hindsight.

You said that you (you being the generic for 'we' ) had warned 'precisely' of what would happen in the event of Brexit. My request to you was to show me evidence of your forewarning (that is, warning from before the event) of what would happen in two precise cases, that of the NIP, and shellfish exports to the EU. And you did, I think, sink your teeth somewhat into predictions of 40 mile tailbacks into Dover, whatever the lengthy 'yebbut'.

The only person who I saw predict with any precision - and even he sometimes overstated it - was the that great Eurosceptic Christopher Booker, whose essays on the subject of trade disruption in the event of a hard (non-EEA aligned) Brexit I have been guiltily rereading. He nailed it time and again.

Oh come on, please be serious. Is this really all the leavers have left?, That unless they can directly reference a prediction on whelks dating back five years then their forewarnings don't count? Desperate stuff.

Meanwhile in thousands of posts and pages the leave side has failed to say anything vaguely persuasive about leaving, let alone the specifics five years hence.

 

[SteveS1]

If the UK was compelled to show up in the ECJ Dock less often than other members, I suspect that that shows once again that the UK is generally better at obeying rules than are many other European countries.

None of which deals with the motives of those who wish to be 'free' of sensible rules and obligations.

 

[TheDecameron]

All the EU HGV drivers got the foxtrot Oscar message and there is a national shortage of haulage capacity affecting the food supply.


LONDON, June 25 (Reuters) - Britain could face gaps on supermarket shelves this summer and an "unimaginable" collapse of supply chains after the pandemic and Brexit led to a shortage of more than 100,000 truck drivers, industry leaders have warned.

In a June 23 letter sent to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the industry called for his personal intervention to allow access to European labour by introducing temporary worker visas for HGV drivers and adding them to a "shortage occupation list".

 

[wacko]

If the UK was compelled to show up in the ECJ Dock less often than other members, I suspect that that shows once again that the UK is generally better at obeying rules than are many other European countries.
On you first para, sure, lots of legislation is passed via SIs, there simply isn't enough time to pass it through Parliament. But it does at least come from our elected executive, not entirely reassuring at the moment of course, but that executive is still subject to the ballot box, which is never the case with the EU executive.
Also, fundamental to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (the antithesis of executive sovereignty, as arguably exercised by the EU and perhaps less arguably by our own current incumbents) is the fact that no parliament may be bound by its predecessors.
As to your second para, that is, the above excepted, a different subject. Any discussion of the shortcomings of the EU always seems to be hobbled by EUphiles by this rather specious comparison.
Which is precisely the conclusion reached by the majority who voted in the 2016 referendum on EU membership.

You make some good points EV and you are definitely better informed than most, including myself.
However they are debating points. For all your knowledge you cannot identify any EU regulations that negatively affected the UK.
In the real world there are so many practical negatives from Brexit that are affecting millions of people, and no positives.
But as pointed out Brexit is done and there is no 'rejoining' at least in our lifetimes. It is just lose/lose.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

On you first para, sure, lots of legislation is passed via SIs, there simply isn't enough time to pass it through Parliament. But it does at least come from our elected executive, not entirely reassuring at the moment of course, but that executive is still subject to the ballot box, which is never the case with the EU executive.

Also, fundamental to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (the antithesis of executive sovereignty, as arguably exercised by the EU and perhaps less arguably by our own current incumbents) is the fact that no parliament may be bound by its predecessors.

If you look at the process by which EU legislation is developed, the COREPER (EU) stage is not all that different to our parliamentary Report stage, except that COREPER takes as much time as it needs, and is undertaken by people who understand what the legislative proposal’s objectives are, and briefed by their respective national governments as to the desired outcome. Whereas our Report stage is, yes, undertaken by elected rather than appointed representatives, but is often severely curtailed as to time, and often divided along partisan party lines. I’m less than convinced our system is either better, or indeed, more democratic.

 

[Tony L]

EU law is fundamentally distinct from sovereign UK law in that the UK voter has the opportunity to vote into power, and to sanction at the ballot box, those who make it.

LOL.

PS Vote Green in EU elections and get Green MEPs. Vote Green in UK elections and get a bunch of lying thieving elitist Etonian ***ts stealing our tax payments whilst laughing in our faces. As ever Good Law Project is the closest to political accountability and representation that we have in the UK kleptocracy at present. Anyone who gives a crap about the future of this country really should donate.

 

[Colin Barron]

They’re not my friends- they’re yours. Same monument polishers, same faces on your YouTube link!

Friends or not you are the main publicity source for Ukip, Nigel and the brexit party on pfm.

 

[eternumviti]

None of these were hindsight, the rules were in place and the impacts predicted in so many places it's absurd. We decided to opt for them despite the obvious consequences largly because in addition to zelaots like yourself who didn't care, there were enough people with a vote but without the knowledge of what it would mean and were prepared to take optimistic bluster on face value.

You are once again being disingenuous, fact is you don't care what the level of disruption or damage is. You haven't dealt with the non-problem of UK's ECJ record nor provided examples of where any actual like for like EU border comparisons with third countries supports your version.

Well, if you predicted the block on shellfish produce or the fact that the NIP was more likely to break the GFA than the fact that there is and always has been an international border between the two Irelands, then, I must have missed it.

I certainly predicted the latter, whilst even some of the more esteemed members of pfm were still in denial that the NIP would place a border down the Irish Sea.

I've got nothing to add to what I've already said regarding your ECJ deflection. The UK was subject to a vast sweep of EU laws and regulations as a member. The comparative sparsity of ECJ sanctions against the UK shows only that the UK was pretty good at conforming to those rules. Apart from that, it is irrelevant to the conversation.

Oh come on, please be serious. Is this really all the leavers have left?, That unless they can directly reference a prediction on whelks dating back five years then their forewarnings don't count? Desperate stuff.

Meanwhile in thousands of posts and pages the leave side has failed to say anything vaguely persuasive about leaving, let alone the specifics five years hence.

Yes, my point is a facile one, it is simply to refute the claim that everyone on the remain side precisely predicted the outcomes of Brexit. They didn't, and indeed we still don't know, medium and long term, what they will be. The number of variables is enormous, but they could be shoehorned under two broad headings;

1) Future UK Govt policy.
2) The future direction and governance of the European Union.

None of which deals with the motives of those who wish to be 'free' of sensible rules and obligations.

'Sensible' according to whom. What I would like to see is 'suitable' and 'proportionate'.

Most EU law is elaborated UNECE directive, and I don't imagine that will change in an independent UK.