The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[I1L2T3]

15 minutes ago, El Cid said:

The population is constantly growing, it's always good to spread developments around the country?

This is nothing to do with population growth, and everything to do with Brexit.

 

Why is everybody too scared to answer the question.

[Lockdoctor]

12 hours ago, Phanerothyme said:

I know this whole Seaborne story seems really juicy, but no-one is denying that they were planning to open Ramsgate to goods traffic again two years ago.

Just because there is "ample" capacity at the moment doesn't mean reopening a cross channel port is a bad idea.

What's obvious in this case is that there are few British cross-channel ferry operators anymore  and if the government devised a No Deal Plan that relied on the cooperation of two foreign firms they would be rightly laughed off the despatch box.

 

Instead of which they handed a miniscule slice of the pie to an unknown shell company that happens to be registered in the UK.

I suppose that is pretty fishy.

 

 

 

Thanet District Council have been is discussions with business people since 2013 when the ferry port was closed to re start operations.  It makes sense not to just rely on Dover in the area for goods traffic regardless of whether the UK leave the EU.  If the UK democratic people had voted to remain in the EU then the whole Seaborne story and Ramsgate ferry  port re-opening  would have struggled to make the national news.

[altus]

12 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

Your logic is flawed. The government was perfectly happy to give a contract to an EU firm to print the blue passports.

An EU firm getting the passports contract was hugely embarrassing for the government - which is why they don't want only EU firms getting the extra ferries contracts.

 

If you need extra ferries, it makes sense to give the contracts to companies who are going to spend all the money on providing extra ferries - not give them to a company that is going to spend a big chunk of that money on recommissioning a port.

 

The reality is we won't need extra ferry capacity because of brexit - (initially at least) the amount of goods being transported shouldn't change. We will need extra ability to perform customs checks and lorry parking facilities - something which Dover doesn't have the facilities for nor the room for expansion to enable it to provide them. Talk of needing alternative routes is just trying to hide the real issue - extra customs checks will be costly and significantly disrupt just-in-time supply chains.

[tinfoilhat]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

The population is constantly growing, it's always good to spread developments around the country?

It's in the south east of England, in fact it's still in Kent. That's hardly spreading it round the country.

 

Looks like Chris Grayling sorted this out so I feel pretty sure everything will be fine. Absolutely fine.

[Magilla]

Anyone spot the obvious flaws in this one:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46735381

"We do not want and do not seek to emulate the social or political model of Singapore"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/02/most-labour-members-believe-corbyn-should-back-second-brexit-vote

72% of Labour members think their leader should fully support a second referendum.

88% would then opt for remain if such a vote was held

 

[L00b]

2 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

This is nothing to do with population growth, and everything to do with Brexit.

 

Why is everybody too scared to answer the question.

That Seabourned/Ramsgate thing is just small beer, really: the more fundamental issue is that this £14m contract is around 10% of the overall 'extra ferry capacity' public contract, which at £104m is itself around 5% of the no deal-Brexit contingency planning budget (£2bn).

There's been little to any actual discussion about why this contingency planning was even needed, and how much it would cost in the end. And certainly none whatsoever at the time of the 2016 referendum and preceding campaigns. Was this an additional £2bn that wouldn't be required if a deal was agreed, and why is it required if the deal is better than no deal?

In general, it would appear that a very significant portion of the UK are still under the belief that No Deal is not really a concern, and it is on this basis that Theresa's deal has come under such an attack. If you believe that No Deal is so easy, then why on earth would you vote for her deal? The governement, and most of Parliament itself, have created this problem with their continuing mantras and unwillingness to make the nation face the real consequences, seemingly in the belief that they would be able to handle it, yet this is the reason that May is struggling to get people on board.  Laughable, really.

IMO, for May to have any hope of getting this deal through and saving herself, she must stop trying to please everyone, and start to lay out the clear facts. Make it clear that JRM is wrong about the £39bn. It is payable and will be paid. Lay out exactly what will happen on 30th March without a deal. Loss of hundreds of agreements, taking months/years to sort out. I'm not even talking about possible effects on the economy, as people will simply label that as nonsense, notwithstanding reams and reams of proven negative effects to date, all attributable to corporate loss of confidence in UK plc.

So, stick to the practicalities. What happens to the Polish teaching assistant, looking after your children? Or the Spanish van driver delivering on behalf of Amazon? Who will pick the fruit? To sort these out will take time and cost. Who is going to pay that cost, for how long, and who is going to lose out? What is the plan to deal with the majority of fish currently sold to the EU. Will it replace the cod and haddock across the UK market? Will HMRC and/or HMBF help businesses deal with the new customs regimes? Who is going to fund that?

Very little of that has been talked about even now. People still seem to think that it won't have much effect on them, as maybe they're retired, don't work for an EU company or don't export.

 

Instead, all we seem to be getting is the usual debate paralysis efforts: sweeping statements posted as fact and backed up by nothing. Any contrary arguments to the contrary ignored but, if pushed, full-on whataboutery engaged, to keep the arguments circular, so they can go round and round and round again, example "Brexit was a democratic vote and must be respected!" when finally backed into a corner with no way out. Then the whole thing starts again at the very beginning...

 

...and I'm only talking about UK politicians here.

Edited January 2, 2019 by L00b

[RJRB]

Well spoken LOOb.

The only thing that I might take issue on is that I am retired,and on a purely personal level would probably be better placed than many whatever form of Brexit we may stumble in to.

However ,I am as passionate as any in supporting the aims of the EU,which may not be perfect ,but provides a democratic basis for the future well being of a major and stable  area of a troubled world.

We encompass countries with their own identities and developed economies and there is no way that this will alter in the future.

Of course each country within the EU will seek to get the best deal for their own population ,but this is no different to the political divides and regional demands in the U.K.

I really feel that there are those who view the world from the wrong end of the telescope.

We are part of a world population,fortunate to live in a developed European community and equally fortunate to live in the U.K.

Our major trading partners are in the EU,and whilst there are undoubtedly other markets to develop,these are equally open to us in partnership with the EU.

Basically I am a realist and find that the logical arguments come from the pro EU camp,and the emotive vacuous rubbish is the chief preserve of the Eurosceptics.

 

[melthebell]

3 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

Thanet District Council have been is discussions with business people since 2013 when the ferry port was closed to re start operations.  It makes sense not to just rely on Dover in the area for goods traffic regardless of whether the UK leave the EU.  If the UK democratic people had voted to remain in the EU then the whole Seaborne story and Ramsgate ferry  port re-opening  would have struggled to make the national news.

Does it make sense to hand 14m to a company that doesnt have any ferries and has never sailed any ferries? 

[L00b]

13 minutes ago, RJRB said:

The only thing that I might take issue on is that I am retired,and on a purely personal level would probably be better placed than many whatever form of Brexit we may stumble in to. (...)

Posted without any facetiousness, that be the reason why you, and everyone else in your position, will (be made to) pay for all these consequential costs  that I mentioned earlier.

 

Both directly through taxes, overt and hidden; and indirectly through forced lifestyle changes, be they as more restricted provision of healthcare services, more restricted consumption choices, more restricted leisure choices, etc.

 

That's how Brexit is going to end up affecting everyone in the UK. Not just City financiers and employees of EU exporters. Bar the 0.1%, of course: they're escaping the EU anti tax avoidance Directive which came into force yesterday, and must be implemented in national law by 1st April. They're properly quids in.

 

But all that said: thank you for your uplifting post  

[tinfoilhat]

19 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Does it make sense to hand 14m to a company that doesnt have any ferries and has never sailed any ferries? 

It makes absolute sense, if what I've read is correct, as one of the directors of this new company is a former director of JCB and donated £1m to the Tories.

 

Kerchinggggg!

 

Corruption? Here? Never.