|
Post by staffordshrew on Sept 24, 2020 11:43:32 GMT 1
Bit of a bugger for lorries doing normal things in Kent and not even looking to get to the ports - like delivering the beer. Talking to the landlord at my local yesterday, he said that a lot of brewers aren't brewing real ale at the moment, as they are fearful of having to pour everything away if Boris closes the pubs down again. They are concentrating on turning out keg rubbish. This is getting serious! Bottle conditioned instead? Cheers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 12:36:50 GMT 1
I don't remember Gove telling us there would be queues of lorries and customs issues before we voted in the referendum? Lorries will require a government permit to enter Kent under plans to prevent chaos at cross-Channel sea ports at the end of the year. Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, said that drivers who did not have the correct paperwork to pass French customs could be stopped by police using automatic number-plate recognition technology. They would be turned around and the drivers issued with £300 fines as part of efforts to prevent tailbacks and chaos at ports. The Times. I thought we were getting rid of all that pesky bureaucracy by leaving?
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Sept 24, 2020 13:18:36 GMT 1
Lorries will require a government permit to enter Kent under plans to prevent chaos at cross-Channel sea ports at the end of the year. Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, said that drivers who did not have the correct paperwork to pass French customs could be stopped by police using automatic number-plate recognition technology. They would be turned around and the drivers issued with £300 fines as part of efforts to prevent tailbacks and chaos at ports. The Times. I thought we were getting rid of all that pesky bureaucracy by leaving? There were reports earlier in the year that Mr Gove had approved plans for recruitment of 50,000 new customs officers to cope with ‘post Brexit red tape’.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Sept 24, 2020 14:40:46 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 18:09:07 GMT 1
I thought we were getting rid of all that pesky bureaucracy by leaving? There were reports earlier in the year that Mr Gove had approved plans for recruitment of 50,000 new customs officers to cope with ‘post Brexit red tape’. I suppose it will be our red tape though....
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Sept 28, 2020 16:37:16 GMT 1
The dreadful Gove has gone to Brissels to try to get a late-late deal. The mask suits him, but it might better if it sealed up his mouth.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 28, 2020 19:08:46 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/28/brexit-deal-boris-johnson-leaving-euHere’s the important point: there’s not so much practical difference between no deal and the rotten bare-bones deal left on the table. Boris Johnson would, of course proclaim an “incredible, fantastic, world-beating” victory if he achieved the latter – but don’t let him get away with it, as the brutal reality hits home on 1 January. It’s dawning on business that any deal now will only be damage limitation. Gove has admitted that, deal or no deal, January will see traffic jams at ports, delays to supply chains and some 7,000 lorries needing passports to enter Kent. But as the independent research organisation UK in a Changing Europe spells out, a deal now may eliminate tariffs and quotas, but still means disruption and loss on a gargantuan scale. “Brexit will do two to three times the damage of Covid,” says Anand Menon, its director, quoting LSE data. A deal still adds £15bn to the cost of customs, HMRC warns. Mountainous paperwork for every import and export eclipses any red-tape saving promised by Brexiteers. Travelling the EU will require an international driving licence and/or a green card work permit, and the loss of the European health insurance card (EHIC) will make insurance costly for the old and sick. George Eustice, the agriculture minister, told the Commons last week that five times more certificates would be needed for every animal product, despite a critical shortage of vets. There will be scant exchange of data, and no financial services equivalence.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 1, 2020 11:30:59 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8793607/EU-starts-legal-action-against-UK-Boris-Johnsons-Brexit-plans.htmlUrsula von der Leyen today announced the European Union is launching legal action against the UK over Boris Johnson's plans to tear up parts of the Brexit divorce deal. Brussels had given Downing Street until the end of September to scrap the Prime Minister's controversial proposals which are contained within the UK Internal Market Bill. But the UK Government refused to budge and Ms von der Leyen said this morning that as a result the bloc has now started legal proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 1, 2020 12:02:19 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8793607/EU-starts-legal-action-against-UK-Boris-Johnsons-Brexit-plans.htmlUrsula von der Leyen today announced the European Union is launching legal action against the UK over Boris Johnson's plans to tear up parts of the Brexit divorce deal. Brussels had given Downing Street until the end of September to scr@p the Prime Minister's controversial proposals which are contained within the UK Internal Market Bill. But the UK Government refused to budge and Ms von der Leyen said this morning that as a result the bloc has now started legal proceedings. Not really the sort of relationship we need with those Boris describes as our "European friends".
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 1, 2020 12:21:18 GMT 1
Today's development was entirely predictable. Whatever the context, if you treat an agreement that you have negotiated as a buffet from which you can pick and choose other parties to the agreement are going to take a different view. As sure as eggs is eggs.
Of course Johnson will wrap himself in the flag, but it remains that uninterupted and frictionless commerce across borders relies upon rules not the absence of them.
The fair approah to a 52-48 referendum result would have been to negotiate an exit based upon a close relationship with the EU. But no. Not enough politicians in the 2017-2019 parliament accepted the leave result despite what the manifestos said. And so instead we have the Conservative Party and it's cronies doing this instead.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 1, 2020 12:57:03 GMT 1
Today's development was entirely predictable. Whatever the context, if you treat an agreement that you have negotiated as a buffet from which you can pick and choose other parties to the agreement are going to take a different view. As sure as eggs is eggs. Of course Johnson will wrap himself in the flag, but it remains that uninterupted and frictionless commerce across borders relies upon rules not the absence of them. The fair approah to a 52-48 referendum result would have been to negotiate an exit based upon a close relationship with the EU. But no. Not enough politicians in the 2017-2019 parliament accepted the leave result despite what the manifestos said. And so instead we have the Conservative Party and it's cronies doing this instead. I would add "with a deciding referendum to say yes or no to the negotiated deal" to "The fair approah to a 52-48 referendum result would have been to negotiate an exit based upon a close relationship with the EU."
Once you start offering the public referendums instead of the standard way of having our elected representitives decide then you have to follow it through.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Oct 1, 2020 14:30:11 GMT 1
With the result as close as it was and with May's negligible working majority it would have been preferable to form a committee of all parties and both opinions to get the best deal we could. The EU have negotiated in good faith (mostly), but our hands were tied when May said that no deal was better than a bad deal. Ever since then no deal has been preferred option of every vociferous Brexit voter, yet most of them were telling everyone that would listen that we were going to get a great deal before then.
If we end up with no deal the Tories are going to have to own that decision and any downsides along with it.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Oct 1, 2020 15:07:49 GMT 1
None of the people I know who voted leave wanted no deal, they wanted a return to the EEC where we simply had frictionless trade with Europe. They didn’t want anything to do with the European Parliament or diminution of the power of our parliament. Only a few fanatics will be happy with no deal.
Incidentally, there was a scathing commentary on the government position re the internal market bill from Lord Justice Sumption on World at One today.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Oct 1, 2020 15:23:16 GMT 1
With the result as close as it was and with May's negligible working majority it would have been preferable to form a committee of all parties and both opinions to get the best deal we could. The EU have negotiated in good faith (mostly), but our hands were tied when May said that no deal was better than a bad deal. Ever since then no deal has been preferred option of every vociferous Brexit voter, yet most of them were telling everyone that would listen that we were going to get a great deal before then. If we end up with no deal the Tories are going to have to own that decision and any downsides along with it. Out of interest how do you know the EU have negotiated in good faith mostly?
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Oct 1, 2020 16:27:38 GMT 1
With the result as close as it was and with May's negligible working majority it would have been preferable to form a committee of all parties and both opinions to get the best deal we could. The EU have negotiated in good faith (mostly), but our hands were tied when May said that no deal was better than a bad deal. Ever since then no deal has been preferred option of every vociferous Brexit voter, yet most of them were telling everyone that would listen that we were going to get a great deal before then. If we end up with no deal the Tories are going to have to own that decision and any downsides along with it. Out of interest how do you know the EU have negotiated in good faith mostly? Good faith as it is being looked at here is pretty basic - doing what you said that you would in a formal legal agreement. The EU is accountable to all the member states - any notion of the EU itself breaching one of its agreements would just not fly because it would be a) leaked, and b) not accepted by one of the states. That is why agreements made by the EU take so long.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Oct 1, 2020 21:13:09 GMT 1
Out of interest how do you know the EU have negotiated in good faith mostly? Good faith as it is being looked at here is pretty basic - doing what you said that you would in a formal legal agreement. The EU is accountable to all the member states - any notion of the EU itself breaching one of its agreements would just not fly because it would be a) leaked, and b) not accepted by one of the states. That is why agreements made by the EU take so long. But we had 2/3 years of negotiations before the Withdrawal Agreement was signed. So I’ll have to ask again - how does anybody on here know the EU has negotiated in good faith since 24th June 2016...??
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 1, 2020 21:24:01 GMT 1
Good faith as it is being looked at here is pretty basic - doing what you said that you would in a formal legal agreement. The EU is accountable to all the member states - any notion of the EU itself breaching one of its agreements would just not fly because it would be a) leaked, and b) not accepted by one of the states. That is why agreements made by the EU take so long. But we had 2/3 years of negotiations before the Withdrawal Agreement was signed. So I’ll have to ask again - how does anybody on here know the EU has negotiated in good faith since 24th June 2016...?? Does not seem to have been a murmer to the cpntrary from our team. Nor any secret briefings to the broadsheets to put anything into the public domain. I think we can categorically say that they won't be breaking international law either. How do you know they haven't negotiated in good faith? What is your interpretation of "good faith"?
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Oct 1, 2020 22:33:18 GMT 1
But we had 2/3 years of negotiations before the Withdrawal Agreement was signed. So I’ll have to ask again - how does anybody on here know the EU has negotiated in good faith since 24th June 2016...?? Does not seem to have been a murmer to the cpntrary from our team. Nor any secret briefings to the broadsheets to put anything into the public domain. I think we can categorically say that they won't be breaking international law either. How do you know they haven't negotiated in good faith? What is your interpretation of "good faith"? Where have i said they haven’t? I haven’t said that have I so don’t make things up Merely asked a question twice which has yet to be answered with any evidence, just opinions
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Oct 2, 2020 8:25:54 GMT 1
Does not seem to have been a murmer to the cpntrary from our team. Nor any secret briefings to the broadsheets to put anything into the public domain. I think we can categorically say that they won't be breaking international law either. How do you know they haven't negotiated in good faith? What is your interpretation of "good faith"? Where have i said they haven’t? I haven’t said that have I so don’t make things up Merely asked a question twice which has yet to be answered with any evidence, just opinions So no evidence at all that the EU have acted in bad faith. Clear evidence that the UK are acting in bad faith. Sadly we are clearly the bad guys in this. I appreciate that making insinuations that the EU are the bad guys (or at least equally guilty of acting in bad faith); Boris is being patriotic and saving us from the nasty foreigners; etc, are nice straws to grab at for the Boris supporters: but it is just not backed up by any facts.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Oct 2, 2020 9:42:28 GMT 1
Where have i said they haven’t? I haven’t said that have I so don’t make things up Merely asked a question twice which has yet to be answered with any evidence, just opinions So no evidence at all that the EU have acted in bad faith. Clear evidence that the UK are acting in bad faith. Sadly we are clearly the bad guys in this. I appreciate that making insinuations that the EU are the bad guys (or at least equally guilty of acting in bad faith); Boris is being patriotic and saving us from the nasty foreigners; etc, are nice straws to grab at for the Boris supporters: but it is just not backed up by any facts. The only person making any insinuations here is yourself and your "Boris supporters" remark
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Oct 2, 2020 16:08:05 GMT 1
With the result as close as it was and with May's negligible working majority it would have been preferable to form a committee of all parties and both opinions to get the best deal we could. The EU have negotiated in good faith (mostly), but our hands were tied when May said that no deal was better than a bad deal. Ever since then no deal has been preferred option of every vociferous Brexit voter, yet most of them were telling everyone that would listen that we were going to get a great deal before then. If we end up with no deal the Tories are going to have to own that decision and any downsides along with it. Out of interest how do you know the EU have negotiated in good faith mostly? Because if they had not been doing everything that they could to get a deal it would have been have been plastered over every front page for the last four years. I accept that that is not actual PROOF, but it's as close as anyone not involved is going to get. Have you seen any of so-called leaders complaining about the EU moving the goalposts?
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Oct 3, 2020 19:17:51 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 3, 2020 23:38:01 GMT 1
Does not seem to have been a murmer to the cpntrary from our team. Nor any secret briefings to the broadsheets to put anything into the public domain. I think we can categorically say that they won't be breaking international law either. How do you know they haven't negotiated in good faith? What is your interpretation of "good faith"? Where have i said they haven’t? I haven’t said that have I so don’t make things up Merely asked a question twice which has yet to be answered with any evidence, just opinions There is no middle ground, so, as you haven't said they have not acted in good faith then you must already believe that they have acted in good faith.
You are asking for evidence that could never be forthcoming because it's taken for granted that parties act in good faith in negotiations. It soon becomes public knowledge if they don't as news gets out and the lawsuits start flying - just like it is with us due to our actions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2020 9:05:26 GMT 1
Out of interest how do you know the EU have negotiated in good faith mostly? Because if they had not been doing everything that they could to get a deal it would have been have been plastered over every front page for the last four years. I accept that that is not actual PROOF, but it's as close as anyone not involved is going to get. Have you seen any of so-called leaders complaining about the EU moving the goalposts?
Whether you believe it is another matter
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Oct 4, 2020 10:32:08 GMT 1
Because if they had not been doing everything that they could to get a deal it would have been have been plastered over every front page for the last four years. I accept that that is not actual PROOF, but it's as close as anyone not involved is going to get. Have you seen any of so-called leaders complaining about the EU moving the goalposts?
Whether you believe it is another matter
Cummings and Boris have shown themselves to be firm believers in the illusory truth effect - it has worked for them very well.
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Oct 4, 2020 10:50:02 GMT 1
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
"Brexit means Brexit". "Oven-ready Brexit Deal". "Take Back Control" "£350m per week for the NHS". "UK Sovereignty is at stake". "EU acting in bad faith".
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 10, 2020 21:24:25 GMT 1
Any farmers amongst us? As an occasional early riser, I heard Farming Today talking about the replacement for the Common Aricultural Policy, payments will be based on environmental aspects and every farmer that wants the money will have to have consultations with a trained advisor. Where these trained adbvisors will come from by January is anyone's guess. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Oct 10, 2020 23:35:12 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 14, 2020 13:50:08 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Oct 14, 2020 14:27:08 GMT 1
There are plans reported locally that a Brexit lorry park is planned for Warrington. A surprise as it’s 300 miles from Dover.
|
|