The ones I know barely leave their back yard. So probably not.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
The ones I know barely leave their back yard. So probably not.
Not really. They're talking about food shortages, long delays at borders, shortages of certain medicines, international business relocating, stuff like that. Now that's not "Zimbabwe overnight" but these are all distinct possibilities (some would say probabilities) in the event of a hard Brexit in March next year.
You seem convinced that civil servants will come to the rescue with some contingency plans to prevent all these dire scenarios but given the gross incompetence that's obvious at the top of the food chain I think it's wildly optimistic to think that the various agencies ruled over by these clowns will somehow save the day. Not when I've yet to hear a single voice from any of these agencies come out and say anything other than the fact that hard Brexit would cause horrendous problems for them.
I have a bit of familiarity with one of these issues (licensing and supply of medicines) and I can assure you that there would be devastating consequences for Britain if they left the EU tomorrow and workarounds for these consequences will take years, rather than months, to implement. People just don't seem to realise how fragile these distribution networks are until something goes wrong (as someone already mentioned, the KFC chicken fiasco was a good recent example)
But it seems they think everything will carry on as before except they won't be paying the EU and there will be no more foreigners.
Problem is that they have absolutely no idea what they have voted for.
Apparently it's not only leavers.
At least the women will all be fit.
You have special list for that?
Yeah but we're not living the EU tomorrow. We don't even know under what condition we're leaving the EU yet, negotiations haven't even started . They should be planning for "no deal" Brexit, if they aren't already, but they can't start to implement anything until the decision of the nature of Brexit has been finalised.
I believe that what will be agreed by next March is a deferred very hard Brexit (without a trade aggrement or customs union) and with an X years implementation horizon. This will suit both sides as they both will need more time to implement the changes required.
I am sorry, but this simply isn't the case. They aren't ignoring this stuff, there are 2 issues:
1) There simply isn't enough time to deal with everything.
2) They can not agree on anything so nothing is getting done.
Why couldn't we just stick with the status quo?
Then, whilst half the people would have something to moan about, at least they'd still have their cheap holidays.
You’d need 8 years to plan for a no deal brexit. We’ve got 8 months and time is ticking rapidly. We are fecked
I imagine it will involve Theresa May standing on a table flapping her arms and screeching ‘Flying means Flying!!’ at an EU negotiator.
You see that's why you have to question the intent behind Brexit. Common sense would have lead to a first agreement to leave after the next EU budget period, so at least 2024. That way you not only give yourself a lot of time to create a UK outside of the EU from a legal standpoint but also in terms human resources.
I am sorry, but this simply isn't the case. They aren't ignoring this stuff, there are 2 issues:
1) There simply isn't enough time to deal with everything.
2) They can not agree on anything so nothing is getting done.
Why couldn't we just stick with the status quo?
Then, whilst half the people would have something to moan about, at least they'd still have their cheap holidays.
I agree with you but it has been a hard Brexit since day one unless they left in name only so they've had two years to get ready, even that's nowhere long enough but they have done absolutely nothing because they don't know what to do.
May was right about one thing, the country is united, everyone is moaning.
Tbh, the BoE will like the inflation to an extent, to inflate away a bit of the debt. Inflation does change the fundamentals though as it reduces consumer spending, which the economy is so reliant on. Unemployment is low, granted. There are other issues like the hideous productivity gap, corporate/personal/sovereign debt levels, housing bubble etc...
If it's a no deal by March, there will be no implementation period, that's the whole point.
Furthermore it's not March when that has to be decided, it's by October.
From the EU's point of view, will they ever accept anything that isn't close to the status quo?
Would they rather we had a hard Brexit than let us go with soft terms?
Would they rather we had a hard Brexit than let us go with soft terms?
What are "soft terms" and what do you consider like "close to status quo"?
No it’s not. October is the planned EU summit to discuss Brexit. Nothing more, nothing less. They can plan as many summits as they feel they need afterwards. There’s already talks of “emergency” summits in November and December.
Brexit day is March 29. Which can be delayed if that’s what is agreed between the UK and the EU in the meantime. Granted timeline is very pressing but they don’t strictly have to agree anything by this October.
If by status quo you mean EEA/Norway type then EU will be happy to accommodate the UK.
There is no real reason to damage the relationship from the EU's perspective, I still don't think any major European politician is going to stand up and say "lets get 'em". I don't think it will lack a good will, but it needs a lot more than good will. They need to find solutions that every country can live with and there are 27 different sets of interests, and not much time to get it sorted. The side that needs to negotiate all of this (UK Government), and get it sorted in their interest, doesn't even have a unified position on it's on approach though, so that is more than worrying. So the obvious inclination is to keep it as close to the current status because everyone found a way to live with that...
Soft terms is keeping it close to status quo though, so I think most would be very happy with that.
The British need to understand that there isn't some magical EU figure in Brussels that decides for all of us though, whatever Brussels does is the result of a long process and political compromises. (I don't mean you here)
Yeah the Uk are so important that all the EU are going to do is talk about Brexit until the end of time, October is not just about Brexit - it might stray into November but it certainly is not going to be March 28 2019 when a decision is made.
Apart from anything else it's taken the UK over 2 years to get absolutely nowhere, nothing is decided, what makes you think anything is going to change in the next few months and until September they'll be on holiday. Sounds like you have confidence in the government to actually do something of substance and which the EU will agree to.
And that's where the fact that the UK are after a deal while giving nothing is problematic. There is nothing that the UK brings that is not already within the EU, this entire exercise is to try to not damage things too much.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ys-white-paper-heightens-no-deal-brexit-fears
EU assault on May's white paper heightens 'no deal' Brexit fears
EU assault on May's white paper heightens 'no deal' Brexit fears
Well knock me down with a feather.
New tax laws come in in 2019 I believe? Leading figures want us out before then.
They are clearly doing it for themselves and the rush is probably linked to your suggestion, obviously others saw it as a way to elevate their political careers.
The UK is definitely going to crash out now.
Looks like the plans is to draft these papers, or whatever, that have no actual depth or logic or solutions behind them and tell the EU "here's what we want", and then go to the EU with it knowing they'll say "nope", and then rinse and repeat up until March, so that when you do crash out the Gove can say "well look, we tried but the pesky EU just won't negotiate with us!"
Looks like the plans is to draft these papers, or whatever, that have no actual depth or logic or solutions behind them and tell the EU "here's what we want", and then go to the EU with it knowing they'll say "nope", and then rinse and repeat up until March, so that when you do crash out the Gove can say "well look, we tried but the pesky EU just won't negotiate with us!"
It's a fix, and has been from the start.
Fixed
- Theresa May has told MPs that dozens of documents spelling out the actions needed to prepare for a no deal Brexit will be published this summer. Giving evidence to the Commons liaison committee, she said:
Would that be dig a hole in your back garden, melt down your saucepans and grow your own.
A bit like that old couple in “When the Wind Blows”.
One of my colleagues used to work for easyjet as a network engineer, he told me they make all their money in the summer months and run at a loss for the rest of the year.
Nothing to do with this thread but cant be arsed with all the doom mongering.
It's one of the great contributions Trump has made to modern discourse where expert opinion and fact is dismissed as doom mongering or 'fake news'. People still believe that there are unicorns waiting and that if there isn't it'll be the fault of people who 'talked down' the unicorns instead of having faith in the unicorns. Experts in industry, finance, economics, trade, health, transportation, science, medicine and agriculture are all pretty much as one on how disastrous Brexit is going to be if we either get no deal or get a deal that differs even slightly from our current arrangement.
Yet people who two years ago probably had never uttered the words customs union or single market in their life still think their faith that they weren't duped by a man whose political ambition knows know moral boundaries and the hardline of the conservative party, trumps all of that. It's quite an extraordinary state of psychosis to the point where you wonder if it's sheer embarrassment that's keeping it going. If I believe Brexit would be a success because: 'let's get on with it', or I thought I could dismiss the opinion of the overwhelming majority of expert opinion in pretty much every relevant field because of something Boris Johnson used a bus to communicate to me, I'd probably feel pretty fecking embarrassed myself.
Yet people who two years ago probably had never uttered the words customs union or single market in their life still think their faith that they weren't duped by a man whose political ambition knows know moral boundaries and the hardline of the conservative party, trumps all of that. It's quite an extraordinary state of psychosis to the point where you wonder if it's sheer embarrassment that's keeping it going. If I believe Brexit would be a success because: 'let's get on with it', or I thought I could dismiss the opinion of the overwhelming majority of expert opinion in pretty much every relevant field because of something Boris Johnson used a bus to communicate to me, I'd probably feel pretty fecking embarrassed myself.
There is austerity and then there is austerity. An economic shock caused by a hard Brexit would be much much worse than any thing Cameron did. I grew up in the 80s, don’t want to see that all again.
It'll be worse than the 80s. But some people will be okay with that as long as it happens and nobody criticises Corbyn. I think the poster you quoted seems to want only that out of life.
If your big sell is austerity will be bad, don't cuddle up to people who gleefully voted for it long before the referendum was dreamt up by the pig fecker. There is a reason nobody bought it at the last referendum.
There is also Austerity when there was no need for it, it hasnt delivered anything.
Are people still going to be begging for no deal once they've had notices through the door telling them to stockpile food and prepare for power cuts?
I’m not sure if you’re serious but that’s an outrageously flawed piece of logic.
Austerity is a (controversial and hopefully short-term) response to an economic downturn, Brexit will (probably) be the cause of an economic downturn.
Even if someone thinks austerity is a reasonable way to balance the books, why on earth can’t they speak out against a decision which they think will prolong the need for austerity?
Austerity is simultaneously an awful thing that must be avoided (in regards to Brexit) and so instantly forgettable that the architects of the last lot of cuts get cheered to the fecking rafters.
If you want to argue Brexit needs to be stopped for the good of the poorest in this country, surely you can find better bosom buddies than the bunch of cnuts that gleefully voted for austerity for years - alongside tax cuts for the wealthiest and have shown not even a solitary atom of remorse. What next, Tony Blair on the importance of people believing politicians? Sir Peter Viggers to lead a campaign against frivolous spending of public money?
Last edited: